The North American review

From the collection of the

0

u

Prelinger
v Jjibrary

t P

San Francisco, California
2006

1845

1247

1853

^ MCZ PU3i/c

>

, MASS.

THE

NORTH AMERICAN
REVIEW

EDITED BY GEORGE HARVEY

VOL. CCIX

Tros Tyriusque mihi nutto discrimine agetur

NEW YORK

171 MADISON AVENUE

1919

Copyright, 1919, by
NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW CORPORATION

All Rights Reserved

f \

INDEX

TO THE

TWO HUNDRED AND NINTH VOLUME

OF THE

NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Abiding Questions, The, 521.

Abode of Justice, 522.

Adam, Eve, and the Cosmos, 843.

Advantageous Peace, Germany's Pose

for an, 161.
Adventures of a Poetry-Reader, The,

404.
Aeronautics, The F ure of American,

52.

Alcott, Louisa May, Portrait of, 391.
ALLINSON, ANNE C. E. Apollo Borealis,

107; A Meditation on an Old-Fash-

ioned Woman, 684.
American Aeronautics, The Future of,

52.

Americanism vs. Socialism, 289.
American Language, The, 697.
American Literature in the Colleges,

781.

Anarchy, Coddling, 234.
ANDKEADES, PROF. A. Greece, Bulgaria

and the Principle of Nationality, 763.
Answerer, The : Walt Whitman, 672.
Answer from Italy, The, 380.
Apollo Borealis, 107.
Are We to Have a " Reptile Press"? 9.
AUERBACH, JOSEPH S., The Abiding

Questions, 521 ; Abode of Justice,

522; Our Welcome to the Soldier,

635.

BAKER, HARRY T. Is Great Literature

Intelligible? 96.
BAKER, T. J. American Literature in

the Colleges, 781.
BEVERIDGE, ALBERT J. Pitfalls of a

" League of Nations," 305.
Bigbag's, Special Function: The Curse

of Spain or, Mr., 216.

Book of the Month, The, 117, 267, 555,

697, 843. •
Books Reviewed, 124, 272, 417, 562,

704, 847.
BRADFORD, GAMALIEL. Portrait of

Louisa May Alcott, 391.
Britain Demobilizes, How, 345.
British Labor Outlook, The, 175.
BBOOKS, SYDNEY. The British Labor

Outlook, 175; England and Drink,

600.
BROWN, ELMER ELLSWORTH. Shall the

Long College Vacation Be Abolished?

815.
BROWN, GEORGE ROTHWELL. The

Lynching of Public Opinion, 795.
BRUCE, H. ADDINGTON. The Psychology

of the Red Cross Movement, 59.
BRYHER, WINIFRED. March Adventure,

416.
Bulgaria: Greece, Bulgaria and the

Principle of Nationality, 763.
BURROUGHS, JOHN. Shall We Accept

the Universe? 84; Is Nature With
out Design? 659.

CHAPMAN, JOHN JAY. Lincoln and
Hamlet, 3V.

CHENEY, HOWELL. Compulsory Health
Insurance, 490.

Clemenceau, Prime Minister Georges,
627.

COATES, FLORENCE EARLE. I Too Have
Loved, 94; In Memory of an Ameri
can Soldier, 820.

Coddling Anarchy,, 234.

Community of Language, The, 523.

Compulsory Health Insurance, 490.

CORWIN, EDWARD S. The Freedom of
the Seas, 29.

THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Criticism and Science, 690.
Criticism, The Right and Duty of, 152.
Curse of Spain, or Mr. Bigbag's Special
Function, The, 216.

Debacle of Dogmatism, The, 583.
Demobilization and the State Police,

786.

Demos, 95.
Dissolution of the German Empire, The

6.

DODGE, ANNE ATWOOD. Of Gardens, 683.
Dogmatism, The Debacle of, 583.

Eastern Europe, The Problem of, 482.

EDITORIALS: The Old Year and the
New, 1 ; The Dissolution of the Ger
man Empire, 6; Are We to Have a
" Reptile Press? " 9 ; The Genesis of
the Fourteen Commandments, 145 ;
The Right and Duty of Criticism,
152; A League Condemned by Ad
vocacy, 155 ; James Russell Lowell,
159; The Political Situation— The
Issue: Socialism vs. Americanism,
289; The Independence of America,
433 ; Presumptuous Propaganda, 445 ;
The Spots of the Leopard, 449 ; Peace
with Victory, 577; The Victory
Loan, 579 ; The Treaty of Peace, 721 ;
Personality and Patriotism, 729; An
Empire Closed and Opened, 734.

EMERSON, GERTRUDE. Leaves of Japan
ese Poetry, 540.

Empire Closed and Opened, An, 734.

England and Drink, 600.

England and the Sea, 94.

Entente of Free Nations, The, 13.

Fable for Lovers, A, 117.

FIRKENS, O. W. The Pictures of Jesus

in the Louvre, 656.
Foreign Trade Policy, Wanted A, 755.
Fourteen Commandments, The Genesis

of the, 145.

Freedom of the Seas, The, 29.
Free Nations, The Entente of, 13.
French General, A Tribute to my, 614.
French Peace Commissioners, The, 472,

627.

Fuller Liberty for India, 772.
Future of American Aeronautics, The,

52.

GAINES, CHARLES KELSEY. The Path
to Peace, 821.

GALSWORTHY, JOHN. The Community
of Language, 523.

Gardens, Of, 683.

GATES, WILLIAM. Mexico Today, 68.

Genesis of the Fourteen Command
ments, The, 145.

German Empire, The Dissolution of
the, 6.

Germany Bankrupt, Is? 477.

Germany's Pose for an Advantageous
Peace, 161.

GILLET, L. B. Poets in the War, 822.

GILMAN, LAWRENCE. The Book of the
Month, 117, 267, 555, 697, 843.

Gouraud, General: See Hayward, Col
onel William.

Great Literature Intelligible, Is? 96.

Greece, Bulgaria and the Principle of
Nationality, 763.

HAMMOND, JOHN HAYS, Wanted — A
Foreign Trade Policy, 755.

HARVEY, GEORGE. The Political Situa
tion — The Issue : ^Socialism vs. Amer
icanism, 289 ; The Independence of
America, 433.

HAYWARD, COLONEL WILLIAM. A Trib
ute to my French General, 614.

Health Insurance, Compulsory, 490.

HILL, DAVID JAYNE. The Entente of
Free Nations, 13 ; Germany's Pose
for an Advantageous Peace, 161 ;
International Law and International
Policy, 315; The Obstruction of
Peace, 453; The Debacle of Dog
matism, 583; The President's Chal
lenge to the Senate, 737.

How Britain Demobilized, 344.

HUMPHREY, MARY. The Twelfth of
February, 1918, 237.

IBANEZ, VICENTE BLASCO. The Curse of

Spain, Or Mr. Bigbag's Special

Function, 216.

Immigration in Reconstruction, 199.
Impressions of the Peace Conference,

297.

Independence of America, The, 433.
India, Fuller Liberty for, 772.
Intermediate Millions, The, 225.
International Law and International

Policy, 315.

Italian Poetess, An — Ada Negri, 528.
Italy, The Answer from, 380.
I Too Have Loved, 94.

Japanese Poetry, Leaves of, 540.
JOHNSON, BURGES. Toul, 243.
JOHNSTON, CHARLES. Fuller Liberty
for India, 772.

KELLOR, FRANCES A. Immigration in

Reconstruction, 199.
KNECHT, MARCEL. The French Peace

Commissioners, 472, 627.
,f - ''

Labor and Ships, 352.
LAUZANNE, STEPHANE. Impressions of

the Peace Conference, 297.
League Condemned by Advocacy, A,

155.

INDEX

League of Nations: — The Entente of
Free Nations, 13; The Freedom of
the Seas, 29; The Genesis of the
Fourteen Commandments, 145; A
League Condemned by Advocacy,
155; Germany's Pose for an Ad
vantageous Peace, 161 ; Impressions
of the Peace Conference, 297; Pit
falls of a League of Nations, 305 ; In
ternational Law and International
Policy, 315 ; The Independence of
America, 433 ; The Obstruction of
Peace, 453; The Debacle of Dogma
tism, 583; Peace with Victory, 577;
The Treaty of Peace, 721 ; The Presi
dent's Challenge to the Senate, 737.

Leaves of Japanese Poetry, 540.

Leopard, The Spots of the, 449.

Letters to the Editor, 140, 281, 427, 569,
714, 857.

Lincoln and Hamlet, 371.

Literature : American Literature in the
Colleges, . 781.

Literature, Is Great Literature Intel
ligible? 96.

Literature Unveiled, 555.

LITTLEDALE, HAROLD. How Britain De
mobilizes, 345; The Soldier in the
Classroom, 620.

LOWELL, AMY. To Two Unknown
Ladies, 837.

Lowell as Critic, 246.

Lowell, James Russell, 159.

Lynching of Public Opinion, The, 795.

March Adventure, 416.

MAYO, KATHEBINE. Demobilization and
the State Police, 786.

Meditation on an Old-Fashioned Wo
man, A, 684.

MELTZEB, CHARLES. The Intermediate
Millions, 225.

Memory of an American Soldier, In,
820.

Mexico To-Day, 68.

MORAWETZ, VICTOR. The Railway Prob
lem, 330, 507.

MORTON, DAVID. England and the Sea,
94.

MOULTON, HAROLD G. Is Germany
Bankrupt? 477.

Nature Without Design, Is? 659.
Negri, Ada — An Italian Poetess, 528.

Obstruction of Peace, The, 453.

Of Gardens, 683.

Old-Fashioned Woman, A Meditation

on an, 684.

Old Year and the New, The, 1.
Our War with Germany, 132.
Our Welcome to the Soldiers, 635.

Path to Peace, The, 821.

Peace Conference: The Entente of
Free Nations, 13; The Freedom of
the Seas, 29; The Genesis of the
Fourteen Commandments, 145; A
League Condemned by Advocacy,
155; Germany's Pose for an Advan
tageous Peace, 161 ; Impressions of
the Peace Conference, 297; Interna
tional Law and International Policy,
315 ; The Independence of America,
433; The Obstruction of Peace, 452;
The Debacle of Dogmatism, 583;
Peace with Victory, 577 ; The Treaty
of Peace, 721 ; The President's Chal
lenge to the Senate, 737 ; An Empire
Closed and Opened, 734.

Peace, The Treaty of, 721.

Peace With Victory, 577.

PERCY, WILLIAM ALEXANDER. A Vol
unteer's Grave, 821.

Personality and Patriotism, 729.

PIIELPS, RUTH SHEPARD. An Italian
Poetess — Ada Negri, 528.

Pichon, Foreign Minister Stephen, 633.

Pictures of Jesus in the Louvre, The.
656.

PIEZ, CHARLES. Labor and Ships, 352.

Pitfalls of a " League of Nations," 305.

POEMS: England and the Sea, 94; I
Too Have Loved, 94; Demos, 95;
Toul, 243; March Adventure, 416;
The Abiding Questions, 521; Abode
of Justice, 522; The Pictures of
Jesus in the Louvre, 656 ; Of Gar
dens, 683 ; In Memory of an Ameri
can Soldier, 820; A Volunteer's
Grave, 821 ; The Path To Peace, 821 ;
To Two Unknown Ladies, 837.

Poetry-Reader, The Adventure of a,
404.

Poets in the War, 822.

Poincare, President Raymond, 473.

Political Situation, The — The Issue:
Socialism vs. Americanism, 289.

Portrait of Louisa May Alcott, 391.

PRATT, JAMES BISSETT. The Problem
of Eastern Europe, 482.

President's Challenge to the Senate,
The, 737.

Presumptuous Propaganda, 445.

Problem of Eastern Europe, The, 482.

Psychology of the Red Cross Movement,
The, 59.

Public Opinion, The Lynching of, 795.

Railway Problem, The, 330, 507.
Reconstruction, Immigration in, 199.
Red Cross Movement, The Psychology

of the, 59.
REMINGTON, EARLE. The Future of

American Aeronautics, 52.
" Reptile Press," Are We to Have a? 9.
Right and Duty of Criticism, The. 152.
ROBERTSON, JOHN M., Lowell as Critic,

246 ; Criticism and Science, 690.

THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

ROBINSON, EDWIN AELINGTON.

95.

Roosevelt, Theodore, 551.
Russia Looks to America, 188.

Demos,

SARGENT, LIEUT. COL. H. H. The

Strategy on the Western Front, 209,

362, 499, 648, 803.
SAYLER, OLIVER M. Russia Looks to

America, 188.
Senate, The President's Challenge to

the, 737.
.Shall the Long College Vacation be

Abolished? 815.

Shall We Accept the Universe? 84.
Significance of Victory, The, 43.
SLAUGHTER, GERTRUDE. The Answer

from Italy, 380.
Socialism vs. Americanism, 289.
Soldier in the Classroom; The, 620.
Soldier, Our Welcome to the, 635.
Spots of the Leopard, The, 449.
State Police, Demobilization and the,

786.
Strategy on the Western Front, The,

209, 362, 499, 648, 803.

Thomas, Edward, 263.
TouK 243.

Treaty of Peace, The, 721.
Tribute to My French General, A, 614
Twelfth of February, 1918, The, 237.
Two Unknown Ladies, To, 837.

Universe? Shall We Accept the, 84.
UNTERMEYER, Louis. Edward Thomas,

263.
USHER, ROLAND G. The Significance of

Victory, 43.

Vacation: Shall the Long College Va
cation be Abolished? 815.
Victory Loan, The, 579.
Victory, The Significance of, 43.
Volunteer's Grave, A, 821.

Wanted— A Foreign Trade Policy, 755.

Ward, Mrs. Humphrey, The Mind of,
267.

WARREN, WHITNEY. Theodore Roose
velt, 551.

Whitman, Walt : The Answerer, 672.

WINSLOW, ERVING. Coddling Anarchv
234.

WYATT, EDITH FRANKLIN. The Ad
ventures of a Poetry- Reader, 404 ;
The Answerer; Walt Whitman, 672.

Tros Tynusque mihi nullo discrimine agetur

os Tynusque

. rubl

NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

JANUARY, 1919
THE OLD YEAR AND THE NEW

NEVER before within our recollection have the American
people been so fully warranted as now in confronting a New
Year with the confidence begotten of faith in the great Re
public. Never have they been more firmly knit together in
mind and soul. Never have their feet been placed more
fixedly upon the solid foundations of popular sovereignty.
Never were their heads higher, their vision clearer, their pros
pects brighter. Well, indeed, as with Hezekiah of old, may
their hearts be lifted up in joyful anticipation!

We laugh at the doles of dolts who foresee disaster in em
barrassment of riches. Grant that we have problems, dif
ficult and grave, to solve! Have we not the wherewithal in
men and money? In spirit purified by flame? In wisdom
born of seeing? In courage sprung from gallant deeds per
formed? In unity? In singlemindedness? In mutual under
standing?

Surely no land ever leaped so quickly into comprehension
of itself as this of ours in the year now drawing to a close.
A short twelvemonth ago a Gulliver bound seemingly fast
by official Lilliputians, sluggish, fat, incapable, derided; to
day, the fetters broken, a giant among nations, erect, alert,
efficient, respected, ennobled by its baptism of fire, its sacri
fices, its generosity, its fidelity to truth, its devotion to hu
manity! Assuredly a transformation of humans worthy of
the gods! .... A wonderful, wonderful year!

It has been much more than a four years' war. We may
omit prologue, preface, foreword, introduction; the gen
erations of prenatal poisoning of the twentieth century Hun.

Copyright, 1918, by NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW CORPORATION. All Rights Reserved.
VOL. CCIX. NO. 758 1

2 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Even so, we must date not the origin but the organization
of Germany's design to achieve the conquest of the world
at January 18, 1871, nearly forty-eight years ago. The
place was the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles, in the palace of
the old French kings, conquered and occupied by the invad
ing Germans. The occasion was the proclamation of Wil
liam von Hohenzollern, King of Prussia, as "Deutsches
Kaiser," thus recreating the Germanic empire under the
autocratic headship of the successor of the most ruthless of
those old robber barons who waged war solely for pillage
and for conquest. Forty days later, lacking one, an earnest
of the predatory purpose of the new empire was given in
the demand that France, as a penalty for being beaten, sur
render to the Hunnish conqueror two provinces and one
billion dollars in gold. With that the war was on: The
Hun against humanity.

" Go forth, my son," said Oxenstiern, " and see with
how little wisdom the world is governed." With how little
vision men regard the progress of affairs was shown in that
civilized peoples, our own among them, largely applauded
the rise of the Hohenzollern empire as auspicious of peace
and progress in the world.

The next significant date was that of June 15, 1888.
On that day William the Damned succeeded to the Prussian
and German thrones.

There followed a quarter century of such hypocrisy, in
trigues and insidious aggression as the world never before
had known; so shrewdly camouflaged that down to the very
end it deceived the vast majority of the unvisioned world.
In all sobriety and mature advisement it may be estimated
that if a poll of humanity had been obtainable at any time
before midsummer of 1914, a vast majority of mankind
would have expressed confidence in the German Emperor
and in the German Empire as pacific in purpose and as an
irenic bulwark of the world. A few voices were raised in
warning, here and there ; only to be decried and condemned
like that of Laocoon. It is to be remembered grimly that-
responsible British statesmen threatened to deprive Lord
Roberts of his pension if he did not refrain from urging
the need of preparation for defence against a German at
tack. " Go forth, my son; and see with how little vision
the world is governed."

At Serajevo, in a province which Austria had stolen

THE OLD YEAR AND THE NEW 3

and held subject, an Austrian subject assassinated the Heir
Presumptive to the Austrian throne, on June 29, 1914. The
unvisioned world regarded that as nothing but one of the
not unusual incidents in the business of sovereignty; not
being awakened even by the indications that the tragedy
had been half anticipated at Vienna and Berlin, and was
regarded at those capitals with satisfaction ill concealed be
hind pretensions of official wrath. But nearly a month later,
on July 24, came the awakening shock of an Austrian ulti
matum to Serbia, couched in terms of such insolent arrogance
as the world had not heard before. There were a few days
of agitated diplomacy, the purport of which was not even
yet appreciated by the half -awakened world; ending on
August 1 with Germany's declaration of war against Rus
sia, and her invasion of Luxemburg and ultimatum to Bel
gium preparatory to her attack upon France.

The storm had broken. In what plight did it find the
world? "Never for one moment," writes Professor John
Bach McMaster, " had Germany intended to keep the
peace." There is documentary proof that before the assassi
nation at Serajevo the German Government took steps
toward beginning war that very summer, and that early in
July, more than a fortnight before the Austrian ultimatum
to Serbia, the definite decision for the war was made in Berlin.
In consequence, Germany began the war in the completest
possible state of preparation. All others, France, Russia,
Great Britain, were unprepared and were taken by surprise,
with a single exception. The British fleet was ready; and
it saved the world. Indeed, all still unrealized by the ma
jority of mankind, the world had within a few weeks triple
salvation. The British fleet held the high seas against the
Hun. The little Belgian army at Liege and the little British
army at Mons, by courting self-destruction delayed the on
rush of the Hunnish hordes for the few days needed to enable
some little preparation on the part of France. And then
France, with British aid, achieved the Miracle of the Marne.
Thereafter through weary years the Allies held the line for
freedom and humanity, until America should enter by their
side.

What of America? Our annals bear no more astound
ing chapters than those which tell of our early attitude
toward the war; our persistent unpreparedness ; our pur
posed blindness to the issues and to the menace ; our astound-

4 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

ing tolerance of the enemy within our gates; the puerile
pretence that we should be neutral in thought as well as in
word and deed, and should not so much as concern ourselves
to know what the war was all about; our indifference to the
rape of Belgium, to the scrapping of treaties and interna
tional law; our national echoing of the pseudo-exculpatory
demand of the world's first murderer, " Am I my brother's
keeper? " Even the Lusitania massacre, away back on May
7, 1915, failed to rouse us from the lethargic obsession of
keeping out of war. " Go forth, my son, and see with how
little vision the world is governed."

But the crisis had to come at last. It was on February
3, 1917, that diplomatic relations were severed with Ger
many, and that the treacherous criminal who had made the
German Embassy at Washington the centre of hostile plots
against the United States, was sent home to his master. Two
months later the climax was reached. On April 2 the Presi
dent recommended and on April 6 Congress voted recogni
tion of the state of war which Germany had long before prac
tically instituted against us. But not yet was the nation fully
awake. The unpreparedness of years, the happy-go-lucky
habits of thought and action, the sordidness of many, and
even the potential treason of not a few, hampered and all but
hamstrung the nation as it struggled to arise to its vital needs.
There was an army to be created. There were rifles and can
non and airplanes and what not to be manufactured. There
was the whole industrial and commercial system of the nation
to be reorganized on a war basis. And all had to be done
in the face of pacifism in high places and Bolshevism in low
places.

It was done. But it was done with agonizing slowness,
while those who had for three years been our defenders and
our saviors stood with their backs to the wall in a last desper
ate resolve to do or die. After the formal declaration of war
it was nearly seven months, it was October 27, before the first
shot was fired at the foe by Americans under the American
flag at the war front. It was a week later, on November 3,
that the first American lives, under the American flag were
sacrificed in the great war that democracy and civilization
might live. Enright, Gresham, Hay: Let their names be
held in everlasting remembrance.

Even then our war dragged wearily. The official head of
our military establishment regarded it as three thousand

THE OLD YEAR AND THE NEW 5

miles away and therefore as not demanding any specially
energetic or expeditious efforts. Not until we had been en
gaged in it all but a year did we begin to make our presence
really felt. It was on March 21, 1918, that the Battle of
Picardy, the Beginning of the End, began; and one week
later General Pershing placed under Marshal Foch's com
mand all the American forces then in France. They were
not many, but they counted; and thereafter their numbers
were swiftly swelled, as the " bridge of ships," protected by
the British fleet and by our own, bore an incessant stream
of American soldiers flowing eastward, ever eastward. The
summer saw scenes of glory: Belleau Wood, Chateau-
Thierry, the second Marne, the St. Mihiel salient; until
American guns were thundering at the walls of Metz, and
from the Alps to the Silver Streak the " long battle came
rolling on the foe." At the beginning of November there
were 750,000 American soldiers fighting in the Argonne,
and a million more behind their lines. On the morning of
November 11, 1918, the Day of Days in the world's modern
history, the United States had in France 78,391 officers and
1,881,376 men.

On that day, Germany surrendered.

It had cost us approximately 55,000 men killed and 180,-
000 wounded and missing; lighter losses by far than even
little Belgium or Serbia suffered. Great Britain's casualties
were more than thirty times as great as ours — 3,049,991, of
whom 658,665 were killed outright. French casualties were
2,719,642, of whom 559,612 were killed. The losses of Ger
many are still largely a matter of estimate. Well informed
and conservative reckoning puts the total in killed, wounded
and prisoners at nearly if not quite 7,000,000, of whom at
least 1,800,000 were killed. The money cost of the war to
all the belligerents has thus far been approximately $200,-
000,000,000, or fifty times that of our Civil War. Of this
cost probably one-eighth has fallen upon the United States,
and by the time the treaty of peace is signed and all our
troops are brought back home, our expense account will prob
ably equal thirty billions.

A stupendous cost, that, in life and treasure; from one
point of view to gratify the insane ambition of a criminal
paranoiac, from another to abolish the fiction of " divine
right " and to confirm forever the rights of man. Are they
confirmed forever? We shall see what answer the Peace

6 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Conference essays to make to that question. " Go forth, my
son, and see with what wisdom the world applies its greatest
and its costliest lesson."

THE DISSOLUTION OF THE GERMAN EMPIRE

SCARCELY any phase of the post-bellum situation in Cen
tral Europe is more auspicious than the impending dissolu
tion of the German and Austro-Hungarian empires and the
formation in their stead of a more or less numerous group of
separate states. We refer now not to the creation of inde
pendent states from the non- Teutonic and non-Magyar peo
ples long held in bondage, but to the division of Teutonic
Germany and perhaps of Austria, too, into such common
wealths. Such a consummation is devoutly to be desired, for
generous as well as for retributive and prudential reasons.

Without mere exultation over the internecine quarrels
among our enemies, however, there is this serious and impor
tant cause for gratification, that the dissolution of the Ger
man Empire abates the chief menace to the peace of the
world. We must now recognize the fact, which formerly we
tried so hard not to perceive, that from the very beginning
that empire meant war. It had its origin in war. The war
was provoked and fought for the sake of forming the empire,
and then reciprocally the empire was formed and maintained
for the sake of war. It is aggressive war of conquest and
rapacity, too, with which the empire and before it the Prus
sian kingdom have been intimately and inseparably identified.
We must bear in mind the historic fact that every war waged
by Prussia or by the empire of which Prussia has been the
head, from the time of Frederick miscalled the Great to the
present has been a war deliberately and treacherously begun
by that Power for the sake of seizing a neighbor's territory
or exacting tribute, or both.

It is an interesting historical fact that Prussia, or the
Hohenzollerns, did not seek and indeed would not accept
the headship of the German Empire until that kingdom had
grown so strong as to be able completely to dominate that
organization. We must remember that away back in 1848
the German people through their chosen representatives of
fered the imperial crown to the King of Prussia, and that he
declined it. Why? For two reasons. One was that the offer

DISSOLUTION OF THE GERMAN EMPIRE 7

came from the people and therefore if he had accepted it
he would have been recognizing the right of the people to
select their own rulers. He preferred to wait until he, or his
successor, could take the crown without reference to the peo
ple, and could claim a " divine right." The other reason was,
that Prussia was not yet big enough and strong enough to
dominate the empire. He preferred to wait until in a couple
of wars waged for the purpose Prussia could be aggrandized
by the annexation of the Danish Provinces, Hanover, part of
Saxony, and various other states, so that " German Empire "
would be merely a euphemism for " Greater Prussia." It is
interesting to recall that the then King of Prussia was the
crowned criminal who distinguished himself with the official
dictum: "All written constitutions are only scraps of
paper " ; thus giving to his last successor the cue for applying
to international treaties the same contemptuous epithet.

But we must not blind ourselves to the great achieve
ments of Germans in past generations and the immense con
tributions which they have made to human knowledge, human
progress and human pleasure. But neither must we forget
the fact that these things were done, and the great men who
performed them were born and flourished, during the ages
when there was a German Empire in name only, and when
the Teutonic race was divided into a multitude of small states.
Petty and contemptible as were those Dukedoms and Princi
palities from a military or political point of view, they devel
oped culture, they developed men of spiritual vision, they
achieved those deeds which caused it to be said that while
France (under Napoleon) ruled the empire of the land and
England (under Nelson and his successors) the empire of
the sea, God had given to Germany the empire of the air —
that is, of the mind and spirit. But those days passed with
the coming of the empire.

The last of the true intellectual and spiritual leaders of
Germany disappeared at the middle of the last century; some
dying and leaving no successors, others fleeing from the hard
ening hand of despotism and finding refuge in America,
where many of them contributed an element of sterling worth
to our mixed population. Not in threescore years has
Germany produced one great spirtual leader or indeed one
great and free intellectual leader. Her achievements in
material science, industry and commerce have indeed been
enormous; yet in them she has chiefly appropriated and

8 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

adopted as her own the inventions and discoveries of others,
her own original work and initiative being contemptibly
small. We venture to hope that, freed from the deadly incubus
of the sordid, predatory and despotic Hohenzollern empire,
the German mind and soul will have " a new birth of free
dom " and will measurably regain that former high estate
which once made them no small part of the light of the world.
If so, the dissolution of the Empire will be no less beneficent
to the Germans themselves than to the rest of the world which
it frees from the menace of further attempts at conquest.

But whatever is done will not and cannot alter to the
extent of one iota the relations between Germany and the
rest of the world arising out of the war, nor lessen by so
much as the small dust in the balance the responsibility of
Germany for the crimes against international law arid against
humanity that have been committed. The indictment rests,
and the judgment will stand, against Germany as it existed
at the beginning of and through the war. It will make no
difference whether Germany remains a unit as an empire or
a republic, or is dissolved into a number of separate states.
The penalty of the war must be paid just the same. No state
can escape its share by seceding from the empire, any more
than the Kaiser could escape responsibility by absconding
and abdicating.

Nor can any German state or any part of the German
people by leaving and repudiating the empire establish any
valid claim to moral sympathy or to rehabilitation in the
esteem of mankind. We may recognize a difference between
Bavaria and Prussia in favor of the former; we may agree
that the Bavarian Government in charging the Imperial Gov
ernment with lying at the outbreak of the war; and we may
regard with approval and with hope the withdrawal of Ba
varia and other states from the empire, if they do withdraw.
The damning fact remains, however, that Bavaria and all the
rest stood firmly with Prussia in the empire during the war ;
that the Bavarian Government was privy to and acquiesced
in the Prussian lies which it now denounces; that Bavaria
and all the German states shared willingly in the war and
shared eagerly in its loot; and that not one of them would
have thought of withdrawing from the empire if the empire
had been victorious in. the war. So too Hungary stood with
Austria in the war, and would have stood with her to the end
if Austria had been successful.

ARE WE TO HAVE A " REPTILE PRESS "? 9

We shall welcome the disappearance of the despotic and
militaristic German Empire and the rise of a group of free
and independent German states, and we shall hope that thus
the Germany of the Hohenzollerns and Bernhardis and Tir-
pitzes and Hindenburgs will be transformed into the Ger
many of Goethe and Schiller and Lessing and Richter. But
the former is the Germany with which we have practically
to deal, and we shall deal with it inexorably, regardless of
whether it mends its ways or remains incorrigible and con
tumacious in its sins. Repentance might indeed command
consideration and commutation of sentence if our policy
toward Germany were merely punitive. But it is not. It is
not intended to demand one cent of punitive fine, but merely
reparatory indemnity. The purpose is to restore the victim,
not to punish the criminal, and that purpose cannot be balked
in any degree by any eleventh hour reformation on the part
of Germany or of any of its members. On the contrary, we
must hold it to be essential, in order to make Germany's
repentance real and worthy of recognition, that she " bring
forth fruits meet for repentance " ; and such fruits must com
prise not merely renunciation of the criminal empire but also
payment of the fullest possible indemnity for the empire's
crimes.

ARE WE TO HAVE A " REPTILE PRESS "?

THE question should be uncalled for. It should be so
superfluous as to be offensive. But it has been forced upon
us by recent incidents and utterances in a way which it is
impossible to ignore. Hint after hint has been given, step
after step has been taken, until at last the culmination is
seemingly reached in the direct suggestion — from a source
which we are not prepared to identify but which was cer
tainly not devoid of plausibility — of the organization of an
" official press." Are we, then, to have a " reptile press "
as the consummate flower of a paternal government?

We cannot ignore the significance of the President's
action more than two years ago, when he abandoned the long
established and salutary practice of giving collective inter
views to the representatives of the press in Washington. His
predecessors had been glad to show themselves to the assem
bled correspondents, sometimes as often as every day, and to

10 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

say a few words upon matters of public interest; and even
on some occasions to talk at length personally with individual
correspondents. But in the very midst of the Great War,
at a time when our own relations with Germany were becom
ing so strained that our entry into the war became daily
more probable, and when a single phrase or word from the
President would have been of inestimable interest, he shut
himself absolutely away from all contact with the men upon
whom the nation had to depend for information concerning
the progress of public affairs, and a little later ceased to
receive individual newspaper men. We have it upon the
authority of that writer who is perhaps his most earnest advo
cate and most ardent defender against hostile criticism, that
not once since May, 1916, has the President met correspon
dents collectively, and that not once in the past year has he
received one of them individually.

This attitude of aloofness cannot be attributed to any
reluctance toward publicity, since the President has repeat
edly assured us that a desire for the fullest possible publicity
for all governmental business is one of the dominant passions
of his life. Neither can it be explained on the ground of lack
of time, for he has often been engaged in trivialities at the
very hour when such a meeting with correspondents would
have been most desirable. There remains, then, the explana
tion which has been given by his journalistic eulogist already
quoted, to wit, that he does not think the people are — or,
shall we say, ought to be? — interested in public affairs. For
we are explicitly told that he refuses to consider the activities
of the press as manifestations of the desire of the people
for information on public affairs, but rather of the mere idle
curiosity of individual reporters.

There may be, also, this explanation of an explanation,
that he thinks that the people ought to be satisfied with the
creelings which are officially emitted from the Committee of
Public Information, and ought not to ask more. We remem
ber that at about the time when he adopted the policy of
shutting himself away from newspaper men the President,
deliberately discussing the war which had then been going
on for nearly two years, declared that " With its causes and
objects we are not concerned. The obscure fountains from
which its stupendous flood has burst forth we are not inter
ested to search for or explore." Perhaps he applied that
same rule to the public in its attitude toward his adminis-

ARE WE TO HAVE A " REPTILE PRESS "? 11

tration and its policies; holding that with them it was not
concerned, and that it should not search or explore beyond the
boundaries of the " Official Bulletin " provided by his creel.

The unfortunate impressions which were inevitably pro
duced by this course of the President were recently much
deepened by two almost simultaneous incidents, of official
origin. One of these was the sudden and unexpected taking
over by the Administration of the various transoceanic cables
and wireless telegraph systems. This was done, of course,
as a war measure. It could not have been done otherwise.
Yet it was not done until the President himself had assured
us that the war was ended. There had apparently been no
need of it during many months of strenuous warfare, when
need of most cautious supervision of all means of communi
cation with Europe was plausibly manifest. But as soon as
the enemy surrendered and the armistice was signed, the
President, or his Politicalinaster General, perceived a most
imperative need for it. It may, of course, have been the
purest coincidence, absolutely accidental, that it was just at
that time that the President decided to go to Europe to
impress his policies upon the Peace Conference. It may
be that between the two there was not the slightest relation
ship. But this is an incredulous and skeptical world, con
taining many former residents of Missouri.

The other incident was the sending of Mr. George Creel
find his staff abroad to be in Paris during the President's
visit and during the sessions of the Peace Congress. There
was an instant and natural assumption, which we cannot
regard as either extravagant or unwarranted, that this Com
mittee on Public Information was to exercise some sort of
censorship, control or supervision over the transmission of
news to this country. If not, indeed, why should Mr. Creel
go over there at all? True, it has since been announced that
there will be no censorship and no bar on news. Official
government business will have the first place for transmis
sion; news will stand second; and commercial and miscellane
ous business will come last. That is as it should be. Yet
we assume that messages sent by Mr. Creel, as of the Com
mittee on Public Information, will be classed as official busi
ness and will thus have the preference over mere newspaper
correspondence ; and we can imagine a possibility of his pay
ing so much to send at a given time that press matter would
be badly delayed.

12 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

It is further announced that " the machinery of the Com
mittee on Public Information will be used entirely to facili
tate the work of the American newspaper representatives in
Paris." If, for example, the Congress should decide to hold
its meetings in secret, excluding the correspondents, Mr.
Creel might, as a sort of ex officio member of the Congress,
serve as the medium through which accounts of its doings,
" elaborated " in his well known and justly esteemed style,
might leak out to the otherwise baffled pressmen. For such
service the representatives of what he calls " nasty newspa
pers " would doubtless be most grateful. Even our Congress
would rejoice to get its news of the peace-making delibera
tions by the grace of the courteous gentleman who publicly
likened its heart and mind to slums.

We repeat that this train of incidents, colored throughout
by the attitude of the President himself, irresistibly and quite
warrantably provokes wonderment as to whether the Social
istic and paternal policy of the Administration, in addition to
Government ownership of railroads, ships, telegraphs, tele
phones, coal and iron and copper mines, oil wells, water
power, forest, and Heaven knows what not, comprises also
government control of the newspaper press. If so, more than
ever we demur. The American people demur to any pro
posal for a " reptile press." It was not for nothing that the
founders of the Republic placed the freedom of the press
among the fundamental principles upon which the nation is
based; and we do not believe that the nation to-day is any
more minded to abandon that principle than it is to abandon
trial by jury or the electoral franchise.

THE ENTENTE OF FREE NATIONS

BY DAVID JAYNE HILL

IN every period of warfare since modern nations came
into existence, there have been serious reflections upon the
cost and the horrors of war which have culminated in schemes
for preventing it altogether. Some of these have been merely
abstract theories regarding the manner in which international
conflicts could be obviated or rendered impossible; while
others have been of a more pragmatic character, aiming to
create in the realm of actuality a situation which would safe
guard the interests of peace and possibly of justice.

Among the devices of a purely theoretical order, one of
the most notable, suggested by the struggle between the
House of Hapsburg with the rest of Europe, was the " Great
Design " which the Duke of Sully, in 1634, attributed to
Henry IV of France, but which it is now clearly established
was not conceived by that monarch and appears to have been
invented by the fallen minister himself as a means of procur
ing his own recall to the administration of the affairs of his
country. All Europe, according to this plan, was to be or
ganized into fifteen states, which together should constitute
one Christian Republic in which wars were to be prevented
by a General Council, composed of forty delegates, meeting
annually in the most central cities of the different countries
in rotation. The Thirty Years' War, which was ended by the
Peace of Westphalia in 1648 had already elicited Emeric
Cruce's Nouveau Cyn'ee, written in 1623, in which the
Republic of Venice was proposed as a place where a perma
nent corps of ambassadors should reside and by their votes
settle all international affairs. Hugo Grotius, perceiving
that such settlements could not be made except upon the
basis of previously accepted rules or principles, in 1625 had
given the wdrld his De Jure Belli tic Pads, the first con-

14 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

siderable treatise on the Law of Nations ; and to this he had
added the proposal of " some kind of body in whose assem
blies the quarrels of each one might be terminated by the
judgment of others not interested ", and that " means be
sought to constrain the parties to agree to reasonable condi
tions." In like manner, the Peace of Utrecht, in 1713, was
accompanied by the elaborate Pro jet de la Paix Perpetu-
elle of the Abbe Saint-Pierre, in which he proposed the
formation of a universal alliance of sovereigns to secure them
against the misfortunes of war by abolishing the separate use
of force, perfecting their laws, and submitting their differ
ences to judicial decision; with a provision that a refractory
sovereign who violated a treaty or refused to accept a judg
ment, should be brought to terms by the others arming
against him and charging to his account the expense of the
operation. The Napoleonic Wars also brought their contri
bution of plans for international peace, the most conspicuous
effort being that of Immanuel Kant, in 1796, in his essay on
" Eternal Peace ", in which the solution offered by this Prus
sian philosopher was that all states should become republican
in form ; a condition, as he thought, which would enable them
by some kind of general federation to unite their forces for
the preservation of peace.

It is not surprising, therefore, that, as a result of the de
feat of the aggressors in the Great War now, as we hope,
happily terminated by the united efforts of a group of ad
vanced and liberal nations, these plans, or modifications of
them, should again receive attention, and that a general de
sire should be created for " some kind of body ", as Grotius
expressed the aspiration, which could prevent the repetition
of the experience through which the world has passed.

What was impossible before the Great War, it is believed
by many, could be easily accomplished now; and that, there
fore, even before a peace is finally concluded, and as an es
sential part of it and a condition of its perpetuity, a " League
of Nations " should be formed.

There are, it is true, wide differences of opinion regard
ing the objects, the methods, the organization, and the obliga
tions of such a league, varying from the creation of a World
State by the federation of the existing nations into one vast
political organism including all, both small and great, to a
limited compact confined to a few Powers with no function
beyond the peaceable adjudication of differences by an inter-

THE ENTENTE OF FREE NATIONS 15

national tribunal without power to enforce its judgments.

The occasion is, no doubt, opportune for a thorough dis
cussion of these widely differing plans, and it is timely for
their advocates to express their views and support their con
ceptions by argument; but it is by no means to be taken for
granted that any one of these projects, however honestly and
earnestly its supporters may believe it should be at once
adopted, is either practicable or desirable. The stress of in
sistence should not be placed upon the means of forcing the
acceptance of a particular plan, however meritorious it may
be in itself, but upon the intelligent comparison of different
plans and a patient examination of their probable effects.

It is not the intention here to discuss exhaustively any
special plan, much less to propose one, but to direct attention
to the course of procedure most likely to secure the ends
which are in the minds of all who entertain convictions upon
this subject.

That which needs, first of all, to be emphasized is, that
no one Power can expect, or should desire, to impose upon
others a system which they do not all heartily approve ; and,
in the next place, that* if any plan is to be permanent and ef
fective, it must have the support not only of the leading gov
ernments but of the great masses of the people whom those
governments represent. It is, therefore, greatly to be desired
that the public should be fully informed before any decisive
step is taken, that nothing should be urged until it is well
understood, and that no theorist, however competent and
trusted, should be regarded as a trustee of a whole people in
a matter of such import and consequence. The true principle
that should be invoked for guidance in this matter was well
and forcibly enunciated by the President of the United States
when, in 1912, in his first electoral campaign, he dwelt upon
the value of " common counsel ", and, as one of the people,
seeking leadership, expressed his attitude regarding public
policies in the words : "I am one of those who absolutely
reject the trustee theory, the guardianship theory. I have
never found a man who knew how to take care of me, and,
reasoning from that point out, I conjecture that there isn't
any man who knows how to take care of all the people of the
United States. I suspect that the people of the United
States understand their own interests better than any group
of men in the confines of the country understand them."

It may, of course, be thought that it is not the " interests

16 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

of the people of the United States " that should prevail in
the formation of an organization so general as a " League of
Nations ", but the interests of humanity. This may be true,
but the " trustee theory, the guardianship theory ", is per
haps even less applicable to humanity as a whole than it is
to a single people, who in ordinary circumstances may at least
have an opportunity to choose, and to some extent direct,
their trustee or guardian.

It would, however, be a fatal error to overlook the fact
that the interests of the people of the United States, as well
as the interests of other portions of humanity, are deeply in
volved in any plan to form a " League of Nations ". Great
benefits might accrue, or serious disadvantages might result
from occupying a place in it. It is the duty of the people as
well as the statesmen of the nations that may enter into such
a league, to consider for themselves the alleged benefits and
the possible disadvantages ; and this, speaking generally, they
will, no doubt, do. It will be done in Great Britain, in
France, in Italy, and in Japan, — to mention only a few of
the co-belligerents, — and their interests, which will be differ
ent, will be carefully considered. The signs of this are evi
dent to those who are familiar with the contemporary com
ments of the European press upon this subject, especially the
great British quarterlies, which have already discussed the
" League of Nations " with a candor, a seriousness, and an
understanding that have not been equalled by American peri
odicals of the same class, which have inclined to take the com
plimentary speeches of Lloyd George, Lord Grey, Mr. As-
quith, and Mr. Balfour as a complete and authoritative ex
pression of British opinion, but this is far from being the case.

No discussion of the subject has been published in Amer
ica to compare in amplitude of knowledge and solidity of
judgment with the treatment of it under the title " The
Greatest League of Nations ", by Lord Sydenham of Combe,
in the August number of The Nineteenth Century and
After, which concludes : " We shall not win the war by
planning Leagues of Peace to meet circumstances which we
cannot yet foresee. Like the paper constitutions of Sieyes
they may prove impracticable ; but the Holy Alliance against
the forces of evil remains, and when it is crowned with victory
it can be turned into a powerful agency for maintaining the
peace of the world. Then, in some happier future, the vision
of Isaiah may be fulfilled, and ' Nation shall not lift up sword

THE ENTENTE OF FREE NATIONS 17

against nation; neither shall they learn war any more'/'
Nor has anything appeared in the American periodicals
so searching and so well informed as the article by J. B.
Firth, under the title " The Government and the League of
Nations ", in The Fortnightly Review for September.
Pie points out that the British Government some months ago
appointed " a very well chosen Committee ", — as Mr. Bal-
four described it, — " on which international law and history
were powerfully represented ", to examine and report on a
" League of Nations ". " The report has been drawn up,
but its contents have not been divulged. Neither Lord Cur-
zon nor Mr. Balfour alluded to it; they did not even say that
it had been considered by the War Cabinet. By a curious
coincidence the same official reticence is being observed in
France. There, too, an authoritative Commission, presided
over by M. Bourgeois, was appointed by the Government,
and issued its report last January ; but it has not been pub
lished in France, and, according to Lord Curzon, no copy of
it had reached the British Government on June 26th. Why
this secretiveness, both in London and Paris? If there had
been practical unanimity in favor of the project there could
be no reason for reserve."

There is, no doubt, however, an excellent reason for this
discreet silence. It is the desire of the officials of both En
gland and France not to wound the sensibilities of the Amer
icans, who are credited with being the sponsors of the
"League of Nations ". The British leaders, always without
definition, but in a fine spirit of courtesy, have taken up the
watchword, a " League of Nations ", — for it is so far noth
ing more, — and Lord Curzon has been able to say in the
House of Lords, that opinion in England in favor of the
League was " rather in advance of the opinion of any of our
Allies save the United States "; and he added, that " if the
British Government went ahead too quickly, or too abruptly,
there was danger of a rebuff." As a confirmation of this
danger, Mr. Firth remarks, that, " although the report of the
French Commission has not been published, it is an open
secret that its judgment was adverse to any proposal for es
tablishing an international force which shall be always ready
to enforce the decisions of the League upon a recalcitrant
member."

In an admirable historic summary, Mr. Firth illustrates
with instances the tedious wrangling in the so-called Concert

VOL. ccix. NO. 758 2

18 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

of Europe over the simplest and most necessary forms of co
operative action, and asks: "How can these idealists talk
airily about the establishment of an international army or the
dispatch of an international expedition to deal with an ag
gressor against the * League of Nations ', when they see how
long it has taken Japan and the United States to come to an
understanding on the subject of joint action in Siberia?
Every hour was of priceless value . . . Yet days and
weeks were suffered to slip by for political reasons which are
perfectly well known and thoroughly understood. Will it
be any different when there is a ' League of Nations ' ? "

A passage as instructive to Americans as it is character
istic of English thought is found in the October number of
The English Review, in which its editor, Austin Harri
son, illustrates what he conceives to be a general principle by
what he regards as a conspicuous example. * There is and
can be no such thing ", he says, " as democratic government,
as loosely understood; for every democracy is controlled by
an oligarchy, whether of intellect, of interest, or of mere
popularity, and the purer the democracy the greater would
seem to be the authority of its oligarchy, as we have all seen
in the astonishing singleness, discipline, and elasticity of the
heterogeneous masses of America at war under what is noth
ing less than the sovereign will of the President. It is this
acceptance of oligarchical authority in America that differ
entiates the democracy of the New World from that of the
Old, as particularly exemplified in Britain. Take the case
of conscription, which in America became law overnight,
though three thousand miles of sea divided America from the
theatre of the war, and in no case was any motive put forward
for war but that of principle. Here it took us two years, be
cause our democracy does not accept its oligarchy, does not
recognize acquiescence, is intellectually and traditionally an
tagonized by the very idea of authority, whether of govern
ment or opportunity."

It is true that the people of the United States have been
singularly united and singularly obedient to leadership, but
the comment fails to find a true interpretation of the fact.
This nation has never bowed to " the sovereign will of the
President ". It has respected the voice of individual con
science. It beheld in the conduct of Germany an inexpress
ible wrong of gigantic proportions. It shuddered, but it did
not hesitate to judge or condemn. Millions, tens of mil-

THE ENTENTE OF FREE NATIONS 19

lions, of men in America wanted to fight Germany when the
will of the President was not yet for war, and chafed under
the neutrality of their Government. Thousands of our young
men went to Canada and to France, in order to help in de
feating Germany before any " sovereign will " had expressed
itself in the United States. Here was a peaceful nation that
did not want peace, but victory; a nation that would have ac
cused and cursed itself if it had not been allowed to fight. The
" oligarchy ", if there be one, responded to the " sovereign
will " of an aroused people, not to the leadership of a Presi
dent. It adhered to him in war, not because he commanded
it, but because it had commanded him. There is the explana
tion of conscription. It was, indeed, based on a " principle " ;
but the principle was not a governmental enunciation, it was
a deep-seated and almost universal declaration of the national
mind.

It took England, Mr. Harrison says, " two years to adopt
conscription, because English democracy does not accept its
oligarchy ". In the result the advantage is with England.
It took us much more than two years to prepare for war, be
cause our oligarchy did not appeal to its democracy.

The error of this brilliant writer regarding our "oli
garchy " and its influence has led him more seriously astray
on some other points. Without our intervention, he thinks,
the Great War would have had to be settled on the principle
of " the balance of power ", — a peace without a victory; and
from this he argues that " the message of America is democ
racy, her mission is union ". America is thus held responsible
for proposing a " League of Nations ". We have been fight
ing, he thinks, " not Germany ; not, in the historical sense, the
Germans; but the German idea of mastery, the German
feudal system, the Kultur of imperial and dynastic ambition.
America is thus fighting against the attitude of the balance
of power ".

This is a total misapprehension, which proves how in
adequately British perception has comprehended our real
motives as a people, and how insufficiently we have thus far
expressed them. It assumes that we have been fighting for
" fourteen points " of European and world reconstruction;
and that the success of those, including a " League of Na
tions ", was what we have had in mind. There is probably
not one soldier or even one officer in the American Army,
either in the field or at home, who ever thought for a moment

20 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

that he, or his country, was carrying on this war " against
the attitude of the balance of power ", or to establish a
" League of Nations ". Not one in a hundred thousand ever
dreamed that the war had anything to do with " the balance
of power " ; and few would have known what it meant if it
were suggested to them. They were fighting the Germans,
because the Germans were brutalizing mankind, violating in
ternational law, and destroying people's homes. And there
is not a man of them who would not fight again for the same
reason.

We do not wish to be misunderstood in Europe by the
representation that we went into this war with the purpose, or
for the end, of creating a " League of Nations." We have
not, as a people, studied the project. We do not all even
know what it is. There are many full-fledged and very in
genious schemes for a " League of Nations " which palpably
contradict one another, and no "oligarchy " has yet informed
us which one it prefers. Of one thing some of us are sure,
we do not wish, or intend, to be bound in the dark, or to be
controlled by abstract terms that would make us shrink from
keeping our obligations in a concrete way; and we know that
nothing is more illusive than the requirements of a treaty,
unless it is very precise and treats of matters clearly arid
definitely known. We, as a people, went into this war to
prevent Germany from throttling the world, as she had done
to Belgium, and Serbia, and whoever else opposed or did not
aid her. It was not to secure for her a place of equality in a
society whose laws and whose material interests she had de
liberately planned to destroy, that two million peaceful
American citizens put on their uniforms and went to Europe
over seas in whose waters torpedoes lurked and mines floated.
It was to render this savagery forever impossible.

We have not, however, to read far before we discover that
it is not a league in the sense of a mere legal compact, with
minutely specified obligations, that Mr. Austin Harrison has
in mind. ' The real problem in a League of Nations is, to
my mind ", he says, " not the sanction — that the soldiers will
see to on their return — not the machinery, not the tribunal,
not the immediate dispensation of justice, but the creation
of a regularized co-operation capable of the necessary flexi
bility and progressiveness, which alone can give it the life of
durability." In brief, it is not a treaty signed by diploma
tists, but a union of consciences in a common cause of justice

THE ENTENTE OF FREE NATIONS 21

that is to save the world. Of this no American soldier, I
think, would need to be convinced. It was a consciousness of
this in his own understanding that made him accept gladly
his marching orders.

In another article in the same Review, Austin Harrison,
to illustrate his meaning, cites the words of the President of
the United States uttered on September 27th, 1918: " It
is the peculiarity of this great war that, while statesmen have
seemed to cast about for definitions of their purpose and have
sometimes seemed to shift their ground and point of view, the
thought of the mass of men, whom statesmen are supposed to
instruct and lead, has grown more and more unclouded, more
and more certain of what it is they are fighting for. National
purposes have fallen more and more into the background, and
the common purpose of enlightened mankind has taken their
place. The counsels of plain men have become on all hands
more simple and straightforward and more unified than the
counsels of sophisticated men of affairs, who still retain the
impression that they are playing a game of power and play
ing for high stakes. That is why I have said that this is a
people's war, not a statesman's. Statesmen must follow the
clarified common thought or be broken."

These are words as true as they are nobly spoken. They
have given to the man who uttered them an unprecedented
prestige. In words equally true and noble,; Mr. Harrison ex
presses the expectations which they inspire. " In place of
diplomacy acting in secrecy for purely selfish or national mo
tives, Europe is bidden to regard the opportunity of the
whole, bidden to the law of a commonwealth." This is as
sumed to be the message of America that is to save Europe.

Unfortunately, this message is enveloped in a nebula
shot through with seeming contradictions. " It is not ", Mr.
Harrison continues, " a question of juridical form and form
ula. Its sanction must be inborn, induced — the evolution of
harmony. Peace can never be established on a durable basis
through the organization of international councils of control ;
by police machinery; still less by penal or constrictive impo
sitions. That is the old — the Napoleonic, the German — way.
. . . All must go to the table of peace ready to give and to
give up ; to found a charter of international rights based not
on force, but on the sanction of free peoples."

This might well be the message of America. It sounds
well, and may be true ; though perhaps rather puzzling to the

22 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

members of the League to Enforce Peace. But what is the
authority for it? Who has been charged to deliver America's
message? Who has formulated it? Who has explained it?

In glowing words, Mr. Harrison reiterates the thought
that Europe is to be somehow saved by America. " Either
an attempt to restart Europe on some accepted law or
morality of co-operative utility instead of competitive force
with the object of removing the causes of war, or we shall
achieve nothing permanent ", he declares. And it is America
that is to give the start. And he tells us in what manner.
" I can only repeat," he says, " what I have urged again and
again, that national conferences should be convened, charged
to offer their concerted advice upon the problems of the sub
ject peoples; that these conferences should consider concur
rently a common agenda; that the proceedings of all these
conferences should be made public, and that they should be
in daily telegraphic communication with one another. Some
thing of the kind has been done in France, but here (in En
gland) we have heard of no such assembly of intellect. A
Declaration of Rights can hardly issue from a bureaucracy ;
it must come from the clash of the best minds of democracy,
thinking aloud. . . . For the problems are not only inter
national, they are also national, and the danger to the consti
tution of the new fabric of laws will be found in their appli
cation. That is why the collective wisdom emanating from
these National Conferences would seem the indispensable
condition of the success of any permanent international law.
. . . Now the antecedent condition to such a Law of Na
tions must be a Declaration of Rights."

What progress have we, the American people, made in
this direction? We are assumed to have felt, — we are said
even to have imparted to Europe, — the impulse toward a
better international adjustment; but what channel for its
expression, what mechanism for its effective operation, has
been deliberately even discussed either by or before the
people? * The voice of the people must make itself felt,
directing the voice of the Conference", we are told; " for
only so can there be any ' demonstration ' of the new thought
essential to release, or any manifestation of sacrifice." What
an opportunity then has been missed, to say openly what
sacrifices are expected of us? What obligations are to be in
curred by us? What legal forms are to be accepted by us,
in the great process of creating an international government

THE ENTENTE OF FREE NATIONS 28

which, in important matters, will supersede our own? for that
is what is implied in a " League of Nations ".

I shall not attempt to enter here upon any analysis of the
various ingenious drafts of an international constitution, as
the fundamental law regulating the legislative, judicial, and
executive powers of such an international government, — a
government which, within its sphere, will control the govern
ments of the nations thc*c subscribe to it. One thing, how
ever, is plain, that to possess any efficiency these powers
must detract in important ways and in large degree from the
powers of the National Governments and involve a consider
able sacrifice of their sovereignty. It is true, on the one
hand, that sovereignty in what are called the " democracies "
has been gradually transferred from a personal absolute
monarch to the people, or to some portion of them; and it is
also true, on the other hand, that the conception of sover
eignty in constitutional States has been to some degree modi
fied by the recognized limitation of the irresponsible use of
force and the addition of ethical elements in its exercise. In
brief, no people can rightly claim to possess rights in propor
tion to their power, and sovereignty cannot, in a juristic
sense, be longer regarded as strictly absolute. In every state
founded upon the rights of persons, which is the basis claimed
by democracy, the rights of the whole people cannot exceed
what is necessary to the maintenance of the right of each.

In proportion as they become republican, as Kant con
tends, States may find it easier to combine in federations than
was the case with absolute monarchies; still, even republics
are jealous of their sovereign powers, and they are not dis
posed lightly to surrender them. Every scheme for a League
of Nations requires this surrender in some degree, for every
such league creates in some form a supernational body of
control, to which the members agree to submit. Membership
in such a league, of necessity, implies the renunciation of any
independent foreign policy.

In a world composed of nations varying in culture, char
acter, education, and honor, as well as in numbers, strength,
and military traditions, such a renunciation cannot wisely be
made without unusual assurances, and it cannot be universal.
If made at all, it must be made for the sake of advantages
not otherwise attainable, and for an association that is beyond
suspicion. A league which had for its object to enforce
peace, without specific foreknowledge of the occasions that

24 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

might call for its exercise of the war-making power, could not
be wisely created except between nations of the highest moral
responsibility and mutual confidence, and could never safely
be allowed to include any nation that could not be trusted to
accept and obey the decisions of a tribunal to which it might
consent to submit a difference.

A league professing to be composed only of " free na
tions " would rest upon a basis of an extremely ambiguous
character. What nations are to be classed as " free "? Cer
tainly no nation that holds in subjection any people not per
mitted to enjoy self-government. And the mutability of na
tions must not be overlooked. The expression " free nations "
is especially equivocal in a period of revolution and transi
tion, like the present. Neither Russia, nor Austria-Hun
gary, nor even Germany could claim a place in it, nor could
the fragments into which they may possibly fall before the
movements of revolt or secession are completed. And what
is to be said of the suppressed nationalities which are aspir
ing to independence but have not yet attained it?

Is it not a little singular that the course of events and the
effort to control them by general principles should have led
men to claim that the coming peace should include such
logical antinomies as a partial renunciation of national sov
ereignty and the complete attainment of self-determination?

The origin of the problem is more evident than its solu
tion. On the one hand, some nations are regarded as too
independent, too powerful, and too aspiring, to be consid
ered safe for the rest of the world, unless they are willing to
have imposed upon them certain restraints which equality
seems to require; while, on the other, some nations are too
much oppressed, too feeble, and too submissive, to assert the
national rights which even-handed justice would assign to
them.

We are here confronted with the indisputable fact of
the natural inequality of nations, and this disparity extends
to every circumstance of national life, except one. Juristic-
ally, all independent and responsible States, whether large
or small, have equal abstract rights to existence, self-preser
vation, self-defense, and self-determination; but culturally,
economically, and potentially, they are, and must remain,
unequal. If they enter a " League of Nations ", they must
enter it upon terms which the strong are disposed to grant
to the weak and which the weak are obliged to accept from the

THE ENTENTE OF FREE NATIONS 25

strong. It is evident who will make the laws. But if self-
determination is a right, and its realization is possible only
through the exercise of force, who shall say that a suppressed
nation may not plan and achieve its own development, as the
greater States have done? Shall the great empires impose
upon the world an unchangeable status of their own devis
ing ; or shall the Balkan States, for example, agree upon their
own boundaries and affiliations?

The problem of adjustment is further complicated by the
fact that the modern nation is no longer a merely juristic en
tity, having for its only object the maintenance of order and
justice among its own inhabitants. It has become an eco
nomic entity, a business corporation, looking for markets for
its commodities and for raw material from which to manu
facture them. The State owns mines, railways, steamships,
colonies, and uses them as means of increasing its own power
of control over the products and the markets of the world.
Will it open its house to the passer-by, invite him to its ban
quet-board, and share with him its accumulated treasures?

This is a question which time will answer. And a very
short time has sufficed for a partial response. Every one of
the Powers is now planning how it may increase its trade,
and how it may extend its control over natural resources.

In so far as the object of a " League of Nations " is to
prevent this rivalry from becoming dangerously acute, its
purpose is no doubt commendable ; but the danger it involves
is, that, in striving to enforce a legal compulsion, it may be
felt to be oppressive, — a new type of multiplex imperialism
in place of the old. In one respect, at least, this danger is
imminent. If a " League of Nations " proves to be a device
to compel independent nations to make economic sacrifices
for the benefit of others, and establishes a central control of
resources which becomes a dispenser of benefits which the
beneficiaries have not aided in creating, then the League will
prove a bondage that will be resented, and will not be en
dured. It is very appealing to our better natures to inform
us, that the future is to be " a life of service ", in which we
must perform a generous part. If this is voluntary, the call
may well be a spur to action. But if the " League of Na
tions " aims to obtain these sacrifices, not by such voluntary
action as the associated nations have freely offered to one an
other during the period of war, by supplies of food, loans of
money, free medical service, and gifts of a magnitude which

26 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

the world has never before known, but by the enforced opera
tion of a legal contract, the call is different. In one scheme
at least, the world's supplies, the world's credit, and the
world's military strength, in the name of equal economic op
portunity together with the " freedom of the seas," whatever
that may mean, are to be placed under the control of a central
authority, — an International Ministry or Council of Dele
gates, whose decisions shall be paramount and final in the
great questions of trade and war.

England cannot surrender her defense of the sea, nor
France be forced into economic community with a convicted
burglar, nor America obliged to open her ports on conditions
imposed by a supernational control predominantly composed
of foreign representatives.

If nations had not developed into business corporations,
and had confined their activities to the realm of protecting the
rights of their individual citizens, a " League of Nations "
might have meant something quite different from this. Laws
of a universal character might have been readily assented to
for the uniform protection of individual persons which it is
now difficult for sovereign Powers to accept as applying to
themselves. This is particularly true when international re
straints are directed against perfect freedom in national fiscal
policy. No nation whose citizens are required by their habits
and climate to maintain a high standard of living, or suffer
deterioration by lowering it, can afford to bind itself to grant
equal terms to imports, especially manufactured articles,
from all countries alike. They would soon find their work
ing classes reduced to starvation wages accompanied by the
total paralysis of many lines of industry as a consequence of
an enforced competition with lower races, living in climates
and under conditions where the customary standard of life
can be maintained at a trifling cost, while foreign employers
were reaping rich harvests of profit by exploiting practically
subject peoples.

Under such a regime, the people of the United States
would suffer more than any others, for the reason that their
standard of living is the highest in the world. It is on this
account that by voluntary sacrifice the United States has
been able to rescue from starvation and to supply with needed
commodities the impoverished nations of the world. This has
been one of their chief contributions to the Great Understand
ing, the Entente of Free Nations, in saving from ruin the

THE ENTENTE OF FREE NATIONS 27

countries overridden by centralized economic power. It has
been possible because personal initiative and enterprise, pro
tected and left free to achieve its own development without
absorption by the State, had accumulated forces and agencies
which, being free, were in reality the most efficient in the
world. Without that freedom and without that protection,
the contribution of America in the war would have been im
possible. Our country would have been in a state of colonial
dependence upon the great manufacturing centers of the
European nations.

Our interest and our policy are, therefore, plain: first of
all, to hold fast to our freedom; and, next, to prevent from
falling into desuetude that unwritten charter of union which
constitutes the Entente of Free Nations, cherishing its unity
of purpose as the most precious of human achievements. It
is a moral, not a legal unity, that has given us the victory.
Uncovenanted armies have gathered from every quarter of
the globe to assert the determination of the free nations that
the rule of arbitrary force shall be ended. Our sons and
brothers have been among them. Together they have faced
death and have shed their blood, and men of many nations
sleep in common graves. It is the most splendid assurance
for the peace of the world and the rule of justice that can be
imagined. The sense of comradeship in a holy cause cannot
perish. A new Brotherhood of Men has come into being.
Let us not mar its simplicity by distrust or controversy, or
try to force upon any of our co-belligerents any untried
theory of legal union which might be honestly rejected, or ac
cepted with doubt and reluctance. The battle has been fought
in the name of freedom. Let us remain free in the hour of
victory.

But in our freedom there are certain principles which
must not and will not be forgotten. They will control the
practice of the Entente of Free Nations, which must continue
with its present provisions for conference, discussion, and
united action. A marked step of advancement has been taken
in the recognition of the principle that all international en
gagements and undertakings must be justified by the moral
law and must have publicity. A formal covenant in this
sense may be found possible, and it may take a solemn legal
form ; but, whether this be the case or not, the war has estab
lished a few precepts that will, undoubtedly, be admitted to
a permanent place in the code of international right. No

28 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

treaty between nations should be considered binding unless
it is published when it is made. No negotiations affecting the
destinies of peoples should be conducted without their knowl
edge of the fact and of the obligations to which they are to
be committed. No war should be begun without a public
statement of the reasons for it and an opportunity for public
mediation between the disputants, which should never be
considered an offense. No territory occupied in war should
be claimed by right of conquest without a public hearing of
all who are affected by it.

The attempt to state these, or any, definite principles, il
lustrates how inadequate a strictly documentary form of en
gagement of necessity must be. It is, however, the spirit, not
the form, that must be depended upon for the security which
a formal treaty of alliance or an understanding can afford.
The whole structure of international peace and justice rests
upon the character of the peoples who form the Society of
Nations. The Great War has subjected the combatants to a
fiery test. It cannot well be doubted that the Entente of Free
Nations will stand also the test of peace. A solidarity that
has been only strengthened by the dangers of battle will cer
tainly not be broken in the attempt to revise the Law of
Nations, to make it the basis of clearer understandings, and
to increase the confidence with which the co-partners in vic
tory will bring before the judgment bar of reason the differ
ences that may tend to divide them. But the perfection of
this understanding is a matter of growth and of gradual ad
justment. What cannot be accomplished by a stroke of the
pen at a given moment of time may prove an easy task if the
spirit of the Entente, and especially the sense of freedom
which brought it into being, can be retained and matured.
But this can be done only by a renunciation of the desire to
force any favorite plan to an issue within the Entente. For
a considerable time, unless new dangers are to be incurred,
armies and navies will be necessary to guard the peace that is
to be signed at Versailles. It will be wise to maintain the
supremacy of the forces that will have made it possible. For
this the responsibility rests upon all, according to their
strength. And because they are strong they may, by the
constancy, justice, and unselfishness of their conduct, prove
to all mankind that really free nations alone can preserve the
peace of the world.

DAVID JAYNE HILL.

THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS

BY EDWARD S. COEWIN

Professor of Politics, Princeton University

THE term Freedom of the Seas well illustrates what Pro
fessor James meant by " power-giving words," — it is a phrase
to conjure with. When Dr. Dernburg arrived in this country
in the autumn of 1914 to instruct us in the German version
of the war, he pounced upon this phrase with great avidity.
We were told that the war was at bottom a war for the Free
dom of the Seas and against " British Navalism," which was
as bad as if not worse than militarism. Indeed, if Americans
were alive to their interests they must prefer the success of
Germany, whose army could never assail the United States,
while American overseas commerce must always be subject in
war time to British attack. Thereupon, Dr. Dernburg made
a proposal : the sea was to be neutralized ; navies were not to
be abolished precisely, but they were to be retained only for
purposes of coast defense, and were not to leave their own
territorial waters. If they did, a casus belli was the result.

Coming from the representative of the nation whose
armies had just overrun Belgium the suggestion sounded
somewhat humorous. Nor could the oily doctor's aspersions
on British navalism be taken over-seriously by those who re
called Germany's scornful rejection of Mr. Winston Chur
chill's " Naval Holiday " scheme a few years earlier. The
fact is, of course, that since the late nineties Germany has
done her utmost to treat the world to a double dose of mili
tarism and navalism, while the British Navy has never until
the present war had a considerable army back of it. More
over, many of us felt that if it was really desirable to repeat
the experiment of neutralization — at any rate, until the inva
sion of Belgium was successfully avenged — the air rather
than the sea should be the region thus immunized from the
terrors of warfare. But that was a subject regarding which

30 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Dr. Dernburg had nothing to say. Presumably he was fear
ful of intruding upon Count Zeppelin's department.

Today Freedom of the Seas is up for discussion under
very different auspices. In his " peace without victory " ad
dress to the Senate of January 22, 1917, President Wilson
said:

The paths of the sea must alike in law and in fact be free. The
Freedom of the Seas is the sine qua non of peace, equality, and co
operation. No doubt a somewhat radical reconsideration of many of
the rules of international practice .... may be necessary in order
to make the seas indeed free and common in practically all circum
stances for the use of mankind. . . .

The free, constant, unthreatened intercourse of nations is an
essential part of the process of peace and development .... it is
a problem closely connected with the limitation of naval armaments
and the co-operation of the navies of the world in keeping the seas
at once free and safe.

And the question of limiting naval armaments opens the wider
and perhaps more difficult question of the limitation of armies and of
all programmes of military preparation.

Here, in other words, we find Freedom of the Seas pre
sented as one item of a general scheme of world peace ; and it
is the same in the President's Fourteen Points of last Janu
ary, which we shall have occasion to consider later on in this
paper. Even in this connection the phrase has met with
sharp challenge from an important quarter. In his note to
the German Government of November 5, Secretary Lansing
quotes from " A Memorandum of Observations " of the Al
lied Governments as follows:

They (the Allied Governments) must point out that ....
clause 2, relating to what is usually described as the Freedom of the
Seas, is open to various interpretations, some of which they could
not accept. They must, therefore, reserve to themselves complete
freedom on this subject when they enter the Peace Conference.

In what sense Freedom of the Seas is to appear as a part of
the new order of things growing out of the war is clearly a
question of moment.

Freedom of the Seas in time of peace — which strictly
speaking is the only Freedom of the Seas there is — has a
fairly definite connotation. It means the denial of the right
of any state to assert jurisdiction over the vessels of other
states outside its own territorial waters. This meaning of the
phrase derives from Grotius's celebrated pamphlet on the
Mare Liberum, which appeared in 1609. During the Middle

THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 31

Ages the small portions of the sea which were known and
navigated did, in fact, fall for the most part to the jurisdic
tion of particular states, which were thus charged with the
duty of mapping their coast lines, of charting their shoals, and
keeping them free of pirates. On the whole, therefore, it was
to the advantage of everybody that Freedom of the Seas did
not exist, — indeed, the idea had not yet dawned.

Nor did the discovery of America at first shatter the old
notions. When, accordingly, in 1493, Pope Alexander VI
drew a line through the Atlantic and assigned to Spain the
exclusive right to trade, explore, and colonize to the west
ward of it, and to Portugal a like monopoly to the eastward,
his action was hardly challenged. On the contrary, the other
two principal maritime states of the day, France and Eng
land, set promptly about plotting spheres of influence on the
face of the Atlantic for themselves, and as an incident of this
enterprise John Cabot began in 1497 that age-long search for
a northwest passage to the Indies which was ended only the
other day by the Norwegian Amundsen.

The spell of acquiescence was first clearly broken by the
Dutch, who demanded the right to voyage to the East Indies
in defiance of the Portuguese pretentions, and it was for his
countrymen that Grotius spoke. His argument was twofold :
First, that as a matter of fact no state could effectively appro
priate so vast an area of water as the Ocean — for it was to
the High Seas that he confined his argument — and secondly,
even if a state could appropriate the Ocean no legitimate
good could accrue to it from doing so, the Ocean being sus
ceptible of unlimited use without diminution of value to any
user of it. In short, the sea was like the air, a res communis, '
a res publica, " designed for the use of all."

Grotius's pamphlet was a vast success. His follower
Bynkershoek reiterated his contentions, and fortified them
with the today generally accepted doctrine of the Marine
League, that littoral states may assert jurisdiction over the
sea for one marine league out from shore, provided they ac
cord the peaceful merchant vessels of other states a right of
passage through such waters. Later writers have extended
Grotius's principle to the great arms of the Sea, the so-called
" Narrow Seas," till one by one the exclusive pretentions of
states over these too have disappeared. One of the latest
episodes of this phase of the struggle for Freedom of the Seas
was the abolition by Denmark of the tolls which she had for-

32 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

merly levied upon vessels passing to and from the Baltic.
This was brought about in 1857 largely in consequence of the
vigorous attitude of the United States. And meantime, the
United States had also taken a hand in uprooting two other
venerable institutions which stood in the way of the unham
pered use of the seas for the purposes of peaceable trade,
namely, the pretended right of the Barbary States to prey
upon the vessels of any nation refusing them tribute, and the
right of search which was claimed by various European States
even in peace times. The Barbary Pirates were forced to
yield their pretentions, so far as American vessels were con
cerned, by Commodore Decatur in 1815. The same year wit
nessed the end of the war of 1812, which had been fought
over the impressment question; and while the Treaty of
Ghent was silent on this vital topic, American vessels have
never since then been subjected to search except in time of
war and for the purpose of enforcing well-recognized bel
ligerent rights.

We may say, therefore, that for those States which have
natural access to the sea or one of its principal branches,
Freedom of the Seas today exists in very complete measure in
time of peace. What, however, of those States which are not
so favorably situated? Their disadvantage is of course due
in the first instance to geographical accident, but that does
not signify that it may not be removed by law and treaty,
On this point President Wilson has said:

So far as practicable .... every great people now struggling
toward a full development of its resources and of its powers should
be assured a direct outlet to the great highways of the sea. Where
this cannot be done by the cession of territory it can no doubt be
done by the neutralization of direct rights of ways under the general
guarantee which will assure the peace itself. With a right of comity
of arrangement no nation need be shut away from free access to the
open paths of the world's commerce.

He apparently had Poland especially in mind, but since the
above words were written Czecho- Slovakia has been erected
into a State and Hungary has been reconstituted, and both
these countries are land-locked. The same, moreover, would
be the case with South Germany if it should secede from
the former Empire. The Peace Conference will not improb
ably have its initial tussel with the problem of the Freedom
of the Seas in providing for such communities.

We turn now to the much more complex questions raised

THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 33

by the suggestion that there should be Freedom of the Seas
even in war time. Hitherto war and Freedom of the Seas,
in the strict sense of the term, have been mutually contradic
tory ideas. For under the existing rules of international
practice, the moment war breaks out in any quarter of the
globe, the whole ocean becomes shrouded with belligerent
rights. Thus each belligerent has the right to capture the
merchant vessels of its enemy and the enemy-owned goods
aboard them, and the further right to prevent neutral vessels
from carrying contraband of war to its enemy or from enter
ing the duly blockaded ports of such enemy. Also, in order
that it may exercise these rights effectively, each belligerent
may authorize its public vessels to approach all merchant ves
sels encountered in non-territorial or belligerent waters and
to subject them to visit and search. But if the principle of
Freedom of the Seas is to be applied in war time in the same
sense in which it is applied in times of peace, all such belliger
ent rights must be extinguished. This is clear. However,
the idea of " Freedom of the Seas " has often been invoked
with a less rigorous connotation in mind. It has meant the re
casting of the rules of international law with a view either to
enlarging the privileges of neutral trade or with a view to
adjusting the balance between inferior and superior naval
strength. Let us again turn to the history of the question.
Until the Civil War our interest in the question of Free
dom of the Seas in war times was that of a neutral trading
state ; at least, we thought, if we should ever become involved
with a European State, it would be with our " hereditary
foe," the predominant naval Power of the world. From the
time of the American Revolution, accordingly, our Govern
ment championed the notion of " Free ships, free goods," the
idea that contraband should be limited to munitions of war,
and the further idea that blockades as strictly military opera
tions must be confined to places under investment also from
the land side. Then in 1785, in a treaty with Prussia, our
Government took a farther step. It agreed that if the two
contracting parties should become involved in war with each
other.

All merchant and trading vessels employed in exchanging the
products of different places and thereby rendering the necessaries,
conveniences, and comforts of human life more easy to be obtained
and more general, shall be allowed to pass free and unmolested ; and
neither of the contracting Powers shall grant or issue any commission

VOL. ccix. NO. 758 3

34 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

to any private-armed vessels empowering them to take or destroy
such trading vessels or interrupt such commerce.

This revolutionary proposal seems to have been the sugges
tion of Franklin. Frederick assented to it because, as he
afterward explained, he had thought the likelihood of war
between the two countries so slight that he had felt warranted
in indulging his sentiments on this occasion.

. ..a**f*r ~*

Thus was the American Doctrine of the Freedom of the
Seas first brought to the light of day. It may be well to pause
at this point to consider the arguments that have been offered
in support of it. The most persuasive is that so long as pri
vate property on the high seas is exposed to enemy attack, su
perior naval power enjoys an unfair advantage even in peace
times. But, on the other hand, the weaker naval power may
enjoy some equally artificial advantage, as for instance su
perior military power. Another argument consists in urging
the alleged fact that private property on land is exempt from
confiscation in time of war, and it is asked, why should not
private property on the sea be as well situated. Unfortu
nately the alleged fact is not a fact. Pillage has been abolished
but so has privateering. For the rest, as the present war has
shown, private property on land is subject to destruction,
devastation, and all sorts of uncompensated burdens, when it
occurs within the range of hostile operations or in territory
under enemy occupation. Finally, it is urged that it would
be humane to exempt private property on the sea from cap
ture. This argument is not very convincing either. As war
goes, it is difficult to conceive of a more humane method of
bringing pressure to bear upon an enemy. It is only as the
part of a general plan of world peace, or at least of disarma
ment, that the American contention has much force.

Nevertheless, the view which our Government thus de
veloped for the first time in a treaty with the House of Ho-
henzollern has since remained, with a single though signifi
cant interruption, its characteristic interpretation of Free
dom of the Seas. By the Declaration of Paris in 1856 the
principle of " Free ships, free goods " was written into inter
national law. Indeed, the immunity thus conferred on enemy
goods aboard neutral vessels was also extended to neutral
goods aboard enemy vessels. On the other hand, enemy ves
sels and enemy goods aboard the same still remained subject
to belligerent capture, while as a concession to Great Britain

THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 35

privateering was pronounced abolished, with a tremendous
resultant consolidation of naval force in the hands of that
Power. Our Government accordingly declined to assent to
the Declaration. The United States, it urged, was a weak
naval power with a large overseas commerce carried on in
great part in American bottoms. Until, therefore, the Amer
ican principle of withdrawing all innocent private property
on the high seas from the operations of warfare should be
adopted, our Government must retain the right to assail an
enemy's commerce through recourse to privateering.

Five years later the Civil War broke out, and the attitude
of the United States on the whole question of Freedom of
the Seas in war time was reversed almost over night. Not
only was American commerce swept off the seas in the course
of the war, but throughout its progress our national interest
was that of the stronger naval belligerent. Instantly our
naval commanders, and following in their wake our Prize
Courts, took over the entire baggage of British doctrine with
reference to the rights of a naval belligerent, and what is
more, added several Yankee improvements. Contraband
was extended to " articles of double use." In the case of
absolute contraband, like munitions of war, the doctrine of
Ultimate Destination was devised to trap goods intended for
transshipment from neutral Mexican ports into the interior
of the Confederacy. But the great contribution of this phase
of the war was the commercial or " starvation blockade," in
enforcing which, we adopted the British practise of subject
ing vessels suspected of intending a breach of the blockade
to capture the moment they left their home waters. Then in
the case of the Springbok the Supreme Court upheld the
condemnation of goods consigned to a British West Indian
port whence it had been intended to transship them in an
other vessel to blockaded ports of the South. This was the
American version of the doctrine of Continuous Voyage.

But the Civil War being over, American policy promptly
returned to its earlier groove. Partly this was due to the
inertia of tradition, but partly also it represented a new situa
tion. We still held aloof from European affairs, and de
duced from that fact the conclusion that any considerable
naval war would probably find us neutral. At the same time,
with a rapidly expanding foreign commerce, we found our
selves largely dependent upon a foreign merchant marine
which the first breath of European war might sweep from

36 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

the seas, leaving us commercially stranded. When, therefore,
our Government undertook to formulate the instructions of
our delegates to the first Hague Conference in 1899 it felt
the time ripe for urging the American Doctrine upon the
world once more. At this Conference, at the succeeding con
ference of 1907 and again at the London Naval Conference
some months later, the American delegates urged that private
property on the high seas, unless contraband of war or in
tended for a blockaded port, should be exempt from belliger
ent capture. Nor did the American delegates stand alone in
this matter. Opposed by the representatives of the Entente
and of Japan, they found their stand supported by the dele
gates of the Triple Alliance.

It must be pointed out, however, that even at this moment
Germany's attitude and interest, while coinciding to the ex
tent just indicated with our own, were at base opposed there
to. Our attitude was still, as just stated, that of a nation
planning neutrality; that of Germany was the attitude of a
nation plotting war against superior naval power. The fur-
tber propositions of Germany on these various occasions make
this quite clear. Thus she insisted upon the right to lay mines
in the open sea, though under restrictions meant to curtail
as much as practicable their possibilities for mischief to neu
trals. Again she insisted upon the right to convert peaceable
merchantmen at sea into war vessels, — a new species of pri
vateering. Lastly, she demanded the right, which she was
later to exercise in the case of the Frye> to destroy neutral
vessels carrying contraband without having to bring them
into port for purposes of adjudication. In short, Germany's
effort throughout was directed not toward making neutral
commerce more secure, but toward cutting down the advan
tage which Great Britain derived under the existing rules of
law from her superior fleet and her numerous coaling sta
tions scattered over the globe. And obviously Germany's
conduct of naval operation in the present war has simply pro
ceeded along the line of this endeavor, though as it chanced,
she found in the submarine a weapon singularly adapted to
her purpose. So Freedom of the Seas became at her han
dling anarchy of the seas, its motto ff spurlos verserikt"

And what meantime has been the history of England's
attitude toward the problem of Freedom of the Seas? Till
the outbreak of the present war it has been for a century
past a history of steady, and for the most part uncoerced,

THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 37

concession. In the course of this period England has
abandoned non-belligerent visit and search ; she has sacrificed
the old doctrine of indelible allegiance — " Once an English
man, always an Englishman " — which had supported her
earlier policy of impressment ; she has accepted the principle
of " Free ships, free goods." Also, speaking broadly, the
British Fleet has been during this time one of the great forces
making for liberalism, as the liberation of Greece and of
Italy and the maintenance of the Monroe Doctrine eloquently
testify. Finally it was England who in 1908 issued the invi
tations for the London Naval Conference, the work of which,
the Declaration of London, recorded still further notable con
cessions on the part of sea power.

But this time the policy of concession over-reached* itself ;
the House of Lords refused to assent to the legislation nec
essary to put the Declaration of London into operation.
When, moreover, at the outbreak of the European War
President Wilson proposed to the belligerent parties that,
notwithstanding that the Declaration had not yet been gen
erally ratified, they should treat it as a part of the law of
nations, while Germany assented outright, Great Britain
accompanied her assent with material conditions, and the
proposal fell through. A few months later the British Gov
ernment proclaimed its embargo upon all trade with Ger
many, a proceeding which made a " scrap of paper " of the
Declaration of Paris and overrode even more ancient restric
tions upon naval warfare. The central feature of the Brit
ish " blockade," so-called, was its stoppage of all goods, inno
cent and contraband alike, passing to or from Germany
through neutral ports. The extraordinary character of the
measure was somewhat concealed by the fact that compara
tively few neutral ports were affected by it, but had the war
been confined to Great Britain and Germany and had the
former then sought to stop all goods destined to Germany
through neutral ports, the remarkable character of the at
tempt would have been evident at once.

Why, then, it will be asked, did we finally enter the war
on England's side? In the first place, we had a decided
preference for England's type of law breaking, which though
it touched our pockets, did not wring our hearts as did Ger
many's. But more than that, as Germany's designs became
plainer, we discovered that for the time being at any rate the
question of Freedom of the Seas had become subordinate to

38 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

the question of the freedom of the earth, and not being am
phibians we naturally felt more concerned on the latter score.
Nor had we meantime necessarily any thought of abandoning
permanently our views of a free sea, as President Wilson's
Fourteen Points of January 8 indicated. Accordingly, now
that the battle for free institutions has been won — so far as
it can be won on the battle field, — now that military power
has been broken, and the prospect for a general disarmament
on land is good, our Government again presses for the limita
tion of naval power.

In this connection let us consider some aspects of the
Fourteen Points. Nine of these deal more or less specifically
with certain details of the immediate peace settlement, and
may be dismissed without further mention. The five of
broader import read as follows :

I. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at ; after which there
shall be no private international understandings of any kind, but
diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.

II. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside terri
torial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be
closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement
of international covenants.

III. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and
the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the
nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its
maintenance.

IV. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national arma
ments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic
safety. . . .

XIV. A general association of nations must be formed, under
specific covenants, for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees
of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small
States alike.

So far as this language bears upon the problem of the
Freedom of the Seas, its meaning seems fairly clear. There
is to be a League of Nations vested with a certain control
over the highways of commerce, which it may exert in sup
port of international covenants. But notwithstanding the
League of Nations, there will remain the peril of war, and
when war comes freedom of navigation on the high seas is
to be absolute except so far as it is restricted by action of
the League. Individual belligerents, therefore, will have no
right to assail their enemy's commerce in any way. So far
as they are concerned the right of blockade will be abolished,
the carriage of contraband will go unmolested, private prop-

THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 39

erty on the high seas will be exempt from capture. In
short, the American doctrine of Freedom of the Seas will
be realized and surpassed. Moreover, individual naval forces
will be " reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic
safety." Of course the crucial question is, Will Great Brit
ain subscribe to such a programme?

We have already had something of an index to the British
point of view regarding this question in the caveat of the al
lied Governments which was quoted earlier in this article. It
is also an ominous fact that since that caveat was filed, while
numerous British statesmen have been crying up the League
of Nations idea, not one has uttered a word favorable to
Freedom of the Seas, and few have said anything about it.
This silence, however, has not been maintained by British
pamphleteers, with the result that we need remain in no igno
rance regarding the British position. In a word, it is that sea
power is the backbone of the British Empire and essential to
its defense ; and it is asked with some asperity whether Eng
land should be expected to surrender her historic protection
in reliance upon a plan of world organization which has not
yet been even launched? The query is further pointed by
reference to the great part which the British Fleet has played
in the defeat of Germany.

Any fair man must feel considerable sympathy with this
position. At the same time, it must be remembered that the
most frequently offered apology for British so-called " naval-
ism " throughout the past four years has been that it was
necessary as a defense against German militarism, an apol
ogy which at the moment has lost much of its cogency. Some
measure of concession from her triumphant sea power is
bound therefore to be demanded of England by the rest
of the world, if only in proof of her sincerity respecting
the project of world organization. Also, there are at least
two more material considerations counseling such concession
even from the point of view of England's own security.

The first of these may be stated in words borrowed from
an English statesman, the late Lord Courtney of Pen with :

An open-eyed recognition of the relative development of ourselves
and the United States . . . should at once set aside the dream, if it
were ever entertained, of a naval predominance on our part to endure
from generation to generation. . . . Having regard to population,
accumulated resources and physical power, the notion of challenging
the United States to a running competition in ships of war is seen
to be idle.

40 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

One hundred and forty years ago the Count De Vergennes,
Louis XVTs foreign minister and the author of the French-
American Alliance in the War of Independence, predicted
that the time would come when America would be an " over
match for the whole naval power of Europe." It is perhaps
the purpose of Secretary Daniels' recently announced pro
gramme of construction to convey a hint that the hour fore
seen by the French secretary is at hand.

The second consideration is, however, at the moment per
haps even more persuasive. It is epitomized in the word
" submarine." There was a moment in the present war when
the submarine stirred some very unpleasant feelings in the
hearts of British officials ; there was never a moment from the
autumn of 1916 to within a few weeks of the end of the war
when it ceased to be formidable. Of all the great Powers
Great Britain is by far the weakest in the matter of provi
sion, the most dependent upon the uninterrupted flow of
supplies from the outside world. As Mr. Balfour expressed
it, in opposing certain of the features of the Declaration of
London: " Starvation not invasion is the danger of this coun
try," and the suggestion has certainly not lost point since
then. Nor is this to imply that the submarine will ever again
be used with the outrageous disregard of humane considera
tions with which Germany used it. But it is a comparatively
new weapon, and its possibilities for legitimate warfare may
yet undergo great development.

Prophecy is proverbially a hazardous business. Never
theless, in light of the facts just mentioned and of the
further fact that for some years Great Britain has been en
deavoring to ease the burden imposed by competition in naval
armaments, it ought not to be surprising if her delegates at
the Peace Conference should be willing to accept a compro
mise arrangement which would represent on the whole a very
considerable concession to the principle of Freedom of the
Seas ; for instance, a compromise along the following lines :
First, a great limitation of building programmes. Secondly,
a general curtailment of existing armaments on a scale suffi
cient to leave the British Empire secure, — a matter of which
Great Britain herself would have to be the judge. Thirdly,
a radical remodelling of the rules of practice with reference
to contraband, involving the outright abolition of the right of
destruction and the substitution (worked out by Great
Britain in the present war) of preemption for confiscation.

THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 41

Fourthly, the abolition of the belligerent right of blockade.
Fifthly, the retention of the belligerent right of capture of
enemy's commerce as defined by the Declaration of Paris.

The advantages of such an arrangement are fairly ap
parent. Great Britain would lose her right of blockade, it
is true, but as has been already indicated she could probably
never again hope to distend this right as she has done in the
present war. On the other hand, because she is an island, she
must always remain most vulnerable to the exercise of block
ade by an enemy. Again, the appeal which the suggested
compromise would make to neutral interests would guaran
tee its observance in any ordinary- war, in which a limited
number of belligerents would be bidding for neutral favor.
For while the superior naval Power could speedily expel its
enemy's shipping from the sea, the gap would be soon filled
by neutral shipping ; and by the same sign the control which
superior naval strength exerts today even in peace time over
a rival's commerce would be appreciably diminished. There
is one point at which the arrangement just outlined might be
improved from the point of view both of the British and the
neutral interest, and that would be by adopting the British
suggestion at the Second Hague Conference to throw over
board the whole doctrine of contraband. This, however, is a
suggestion to which our own Government would be most
likely to file a non possumus. Not to give the thing too fine a
point, we have always to remember that to the southward we
have a dangerous and treacherous neighbor. Should we be
come involved in war with Mexico, we should hardly relish
the prospect of having to stand by and see other countries
stock our enemy with munitions.

One point, however, remains, and it is an exceedingly deli
cate one. The wording of the second of President Wilson's
Fourteen Points, particularly when read in the light of his
earlier Address to the Senate, seems to indicate an expecta
tion that the control of such waterways as the Straits of
Gibraltar, the Dardanelles, the Bosporus, the Suez Canal,
and the Panama Canal should be handed over to the League
of Nations, with power to close them against a recalcitrant
State. Would Great Britain agree thus to internationalize
the route to India? We may answer the question with rather
a confident negative. It is true that by the Convention of
Constantinople of 1888 the Suez Canal is "always . . . free and
open, in time of war as in time of peace, to every vessel of

42 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

commerce or of war, without distinction of flag," but as Mr.
Curzon admitted in the House of Commons in 1898, this con
vention has never " been brought into practical operation ",
and throughout the present war the Canal has constituted a
British base of operations unrestrictedly. Nor do we have to
rely upon inference in this matter. Mr. Winston Churchill
has just informed us that " the League of Nations is no sub
stitute for the supremacy of the British fleet ". What clearer
intimation could we demand that England does not propose
to hand over the sources of her control of the seas to an inter
national commission, at any rate in the near future?

The final question raised by President Wilson's proposals
with reference to the Freedom of the Seas comes down ap
parently to this: What kind of a League of Nations are we
to have? President Wilson has evidently pictured to himself
an association of equal states — " a community of power "
to use his own phrase — which should begin to function im
mediately peace is made, on the basis of the utmost good
will and confidence. The British view is quite different.
They proceed upon the assumption that for some years to
come at least international affairs, if they are to have a uni
fied guidance, will be subject to the direction of those na
tions which have just brought their common cause to a suc
cessful issue. From this point of view it follows that the
voluntary cooperation of these nations is a matter, certainly
at present, of far greater importance for peace and good
order in the world, than new and untested constructions can
possibly be. Clearly they are right. But it may still be
hoped that the policy of the Allies will steadily tend toward
the production of a state of affairs not unlike that dreamt of
by the President.

But it must be many years before the suggestion of a real
internationalization of the seas can seem other than chimeri
cal. Meantime, however, there can be a measure of disarma
ment at sea, — provided, of course, there is also an equivalent
disarmament on land ; and further a recasting of the rules of
naval warfare. And these three points sum up what is today
demanded in the name of Freedom of the Seas.

EDWARD S. COR WIN.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF VICTORY

BY ROLAND G. USHER

THE moment victory became a fact, the fact of victory
ceased to be in itself either significant or interesting. Indeed,
once the outburst of thanksgiving and elation had spent itself,
victory as such sank into the background and the public mind
turned instinctively to the astoundingly difficult and danger
ous problems of peace and reconstruction. On both, victory
could not fail to have a direct influence. The immediate re
sults of the war, so far as both were concerned, took their
character from the moment at which victory came and the
precise nature of the situation from which it proceeded. For
the future student, the eventuality itself, once assured, pos
sessed literally no significance compared to the fact that it
came at a definite moment and in precisely such and such a
way.

For the United States, indeed, the moment was the all
important fact, for it defined the character of victory. That
established its immediate significance, which in turn deter
mined our international position for the present and perhaps
for a generation, if not for a century. That the war was
won was the great fact of significance to us who are now
alive; that it was won this year and not next or five years
hence; that it was won on French and not on German soil;
that it was won without a victorious march across Germany
to Berlin; these will be the facts of vital importance to our
children and grandchildren.

The significance of victory was determined in the first
place by the reasons for German collapse, by the facts it
revealed about the attitude of the German people toward
their own Government, and about the internal condition of
Germany. It had been clear from the first that seventy mil
lions of people could not by any sort of military victory be
literally annihilated or crushed, could not by any army of
occupation be coerced and policed, if they remained strong

44 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

and unrepentant. The attitude of the German people toward

their own Government, toward the war, toward victory or

defeat, toward the future, had been hidden by clouds of

propaganda and deceit which only the end of the war could

dispel. From a military victory, the result of the superior

numbers of Germany's enemies, one sort of a peace and one

kind of a settlement became inevitable. Drastic territorial

guarantees would be essential to assure even a moderate

measure of relative security for France and Belgium and the

continuation of armament, fleets and debts for the future.

Such a victory signified a foe beaten but strong, crushed

but united, defiant, arrogant, unrepentant because still

,able to resist. It meant victory with qualifications, victory

vith conditions, safety without security, and peace imper-

nt&nent and unstable. But if the victory should be due not

merely to a military defeat but to a military collapse, itself

produced by an economic collapse, by a political revolution,

or b)V the loss of morale in army or people or both, it would

have \in utterly different significance for the future and

provide for both peace and reconstruction premises of the

utmost \ponsequence.

Victory was in truth the result of a defeat in the field
simultaneous with economic exhaustion, loss of morale, and
the first ttiroes of political revolution. It was victory with
the foe surrendering in regiments and battalions; with the
Reichstag ^clamoring for the Kaiser's abdication ; victory with
a republic proclaimed in Munich, with the fleet mutinous,
with the " glorious allies " ingloriously deserting, with the
Kaiser and' Crown Prince in flight. There were those — in
deed there are still those — who vividly regretted that Marshal
Foch should not have dictated the terms of armistice on Ger
man soil, that the Allied army should have had no chance to
give the Germans a little taste of their own medicine. But
the significance of victory is greater, the outlook for the
future brighter because the end of the war did not witness a
defeated people doggedly selling their lives on the banks of
the Rhine in a vain effort to save the Fatherland. Uncondi
tional surrender in Berlin would have been vastly different
from unconditional surrender with the Allies still" a measur
able distance from the German frontier and far from the
final line of German defense, the Rhine. It stood for a lack
of national cohesion, for a lack of national faith in their own
^ause, in their own strength and resources. It stood for a

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF VICTORY 45

national unwillingness to die for the cause which is all but
the most significant fact possible for the future. It proved
the aggression of the war : when the moment for self-defense
came, they threw up their hands and cried, " Kamerad." If
the war had been begun in literal self-defense, there would
have been at its end no weakening but rather a stiffening of
morale as the enemy approached the frontier. The Govern
ment and not the people cried, " Kamerad." The officers,
snugly ensconsed in luxurious parlors around mahogany
tables, and not ragged men in trenches nor starving peasants
in the fields, cried " Kamerad." There they convicted them
selves of the true meaning of the war and gave real signifi
cance to victory. Yellow will out: the stain of aggression is
uneffaceable.

They did more, they gave us the first unmistakable clue
to the real attitude toward the war of the masses in Ger
many, the first irrefutable evidence that the German people
have been more sinned against than sinning. The leaders
knew the hearts of the nation were not in the war; that the
nation had not willed it; that its confidence had never been
theirs in the highest sense. They counseled no desperate
defense; they made no attempt to rally back to back; they
proclaimed no resistance till death as preferable to slavery
for free men. They did not deem the German people capable
of any such magnificent response as the French made in 1870,
with their army crushed, the emperor imprisoned, the state
itself overthrown, and Paris surrounded. Was there then
talk of surrender with or without conditions? Armies arose
from the soil over night like the crop from the sowing of the
dragon's teeth. A government was extemporized; generals
appeared as if by magic; national leaders were found and
followed. Bismarck grew day by day to wonder whether
victory was possible even after the war had been won.

Nor did the German leaders believe possible any such
stubborn resistance as the Belgian nation had displayed,
silent, contemptuous, unconquerable, even though crushed
beneath the heel of a foreign army and incapable of the
least physical resistance with a breath of hope for success.
But who in Belgium spoke of capitulation, who talked of
defeat, who gave up hope? Even Serbia, crushed by over
whelming odds, decimated by disease, its territory occupied
by the invader, fought on. And Italy! Trembling on the
verge of collapse, its armies in rout from the most dire catas-

46 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

trophe suffered by Allied arms, Italy rose as one man and
held the invaders in a military position which their own mili
tary authorities believed could not be maintained. But the
Germans were different and they knew it. Their leaders
were different and they knew it. Their cause was different
and the leaders knew that their own people knew it. So they
surrendered! There is the crowning significance of victory:
the confession of the German leaders that the nation was not
and never had been behind them; that it had not and never
did have heart for their magnificent schemes of world domin
ion; that the Germany of Luther, of Beethoven, of Goethe,
was not dead but drugged into insensibility. There is another
Germany than that of 1914, and they knew themselves in
capable of winning its confidence.

II

The significance of victory was determined by the price
paid for it. Here lay its importance for the issue of recon
struction: it did not cost the Allies more in men and in re
sources than they could afford to pay. Their limit was dan
gerously near. France, Canada, and England in particular
lost full as many men, dead and crippled, as they could spare
without sacrificing the physical strength of the nation needed
to maintain its economic prosperity in the future. But the
limit was not reached, certainly not passed, and more was
not paid than so sweeping a victory was worth. Victory came
in time. There is another significant fact. From the first it
was clear that its eventual meaning would lie in the relative
price paid by Germany and by the Allies. If the condition
of Germany after defeat was not worse than that of the Allies
after victory, the war would have been fought in vain; the
price would have been too high. But the condition of Ger
many is beyond measure worse than that of any Allied coun
try, worse perhaps than her greatest enemies have wished for
her. The loss of men, the wastage of material has been ex
treme. Financially the war could not have been handled
worse: Germany is bankrupt.

There was, too, a serious danger that the expulsion of the
Germans from France and Belgium might unavoidably result
in laying waste the entire country and destroy throughout
that broad and rich area the permanent gains of civilization
for a thousand years, as it had in the districts over which the
conflict had previously raged. Victory won at such cost

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF VICTORY 47

would clearly have complicated beyond measure the economic
and physical recovery of France and would have imposed
heavier burdens upon the material resources of the Allies.
The war was won before the submarine was able to destroy
Allied shipping beyond the point which could be promptly
replaced. There were many days when it seemed hardly pos
sible that the success which the Germans promised their peo
ple from unrestrained submarine warfare should not reward
their perfidy. The war was won before the resources of raw
materials and of live stock had been depleted beyond the pos
sibility of immediate repair. True, for two years the Allied
countries have been in sorer straits by far than has been re
vealed. France and Italy in particular have known a desti
tution greater than perhaps for a century, and even England,
its soil untouched by war, knew a degree of privation which
intelligent observers had supposed, previous to 1914, would
never be possible again.

The difficulty, however, was superficial rather than fun
damental, the result of an insufficient number of ships to tap
the great supplies in Australia and South America. The
submarine did successfully circumscribe the economic area on
which the Allies could rely, compelled them to fight the war
on the basis of what existed or could be produced in Europe
and in North America. In both, the reserve supplies of food
and raw materials of all sorts were soon entirely exhausted,
and only the intelligent increase of production prevented
calamity. But the world's reserve supplies of wool, wheat,
hides, nitrates, and metals are not depleted. South
America, Australia, and the Orient have accumulated vast
amounts which will be available as soon as the necessary ship
ping can be diverted, and will promptly, with a continuation
of the increased production in Europe and North America
consequent upon the cessation of hostilities, make good the
deficiencies of the Allied nations and still enable us to succor
with caution Eastern Europe. Another year of war would
have meant extreme suffering in Europe, privation here, and
the exploitation of the economic resources of England and
the United States beyond the point of safety for the future.

Ill

Victory emphasized the glorious unselfishness of the part
which America has played in the war and will, unless we our
selves destroy it, make permanent the European impression

48 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

of our disinterested conduct. There could be for the future
relations of the United States with the rest of the world no
more unassailable cornerstone than this. There were from
the first those who maintained that from the selfish point of
view, the United States had everything to gain from the
maintenance of an imperceptibly delicate balance of power in
Europe. So long as Great Britain, France, and Italy had
Germany to fear, so long might the United States hope to
hold the balance herself, with all of those attendant material
gains in non-European sections of the globe which the old
diplomacy had taught would follow from that sort of posi
tion. Per contra, from the clear preponderance in Europe
of any coalition, the United States had everything to lose.
Obviously, it was much to our interest to prevent the victory
of Germany. That would have been indeed fatal. But, ar
gued from the old diplomatic point of view, there was much
to be said for the contention that it was equally our interest
to prevent a sweeping victory for the Allies, certainly to pre
vent too sweeping a victory. For, once Germany was really
crushed, the balance of power in Europe would incline toward
the Allies and the United States would lose the advantageous
position due to the necessity of calling upon her physical
strength to redress the balance disturbed by the physical pre
ponderance of the Central Empires.

Not a few of the old school diplomats in Europe and
America thus interpreted President Wilson's ideas of a
league of nations and his talk of peace without victory. They
put their tongues in their cheeks at the mention of the ideal
istic aims of such diplomacy. It was two for ourselves and
one for Germany and the league of nations. Once Germany
was beaten, they said, the league would be needless to fetter
her, but exceedingly useful to enable the United States to in
terfere in European policies and to control the Allies them
selves. Only by the creation of such a league, indeed, pointed
out the diplomats, could the United States by any possibility
expect to exert an influence upon European issues. Our con
cern for- the restraint of Germany, for internationalism, for
idealism, was thus a neat and effective camouflage for the
advancement of our own self-interest. We proposed to pre
vent the Allies from beating Germany too badly. We pro
posed if possible, once the victory was won, to prevent the
Allies from utilizing it except by our consent and permission.

But the old school diplomats were confounded by the

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF VICTORY 49

consent of the United States to a sweeping victory, by the
heartiness with which we threw into the breach an extended
effort, which not only was certain eventually to achieve a
sweeping victory, but which could have had no other purpose.
The United States entered the war for reasons the most near
ly disinterested and impersonal which any great nation ever
possessed for an act of such magnitude. We have ended the
war upon a similarly high plane. Judged by any standards
except those of idealism and disinterestedness, we have con
tributed to a sort of victory which can only result in detri
ment to our own position. We have won the war and hurt
ourselves. We have lost what some supposed we fought for
— the physical possibility of interference in European poli
tics. Yet unquestionably the moral gain must outweigh a
thousand- fold any conceivable influence the United States
could have exerted as the result of its physical size. Sepa
rated as we are from Europe by three thousand miles of
ocean, we should never be able to exert physical influence
upon European affairs which could not be justly interpreted
as aggressive and offensive. Our true influence must be
moral, and the true greatness of the United States in the
future will come from the fact that our situation enables us
to espouse the idealistic even at the cost of our material in
terest.

We have thus once and for all laid low the suspicions
industriously sowed by the Germans, that America would
join the war in order to become herself ruler of the world,
that the Allies would lose the war thrice over should they
depend upon American assistance. The aegis of empire would
rest then in the hands of a nation whose physical size and
physical position made her unassailable from Europe. The
moral splendor of the position of the United States at the
moment of victory is for the American people the fact of
greatest significance.

IV

It is therefore imperative that we, as a people, should re
member the clearest, most obvious, most salient, most funda
mental fact about the victory: the United States did not
win it. It was won by the French, the British, and the Ital
ians with American assistance. By this cardinal fact inter
national relationships will be conditioned when the new set
tlement is made. Herein lies the significance of the moment
VOL. cax. NO. 758 4

50 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

of victory. Had the war lasted another year the American
army would have itself formed the major part of the vic
torious army. These are well known facts, but just at this
moment they cannot be too often emphasized.

The danger is still great, and grows perhaps greater as
time elapses, that a natural and pardonable pride in the prow
ess of our men will unintentionally exaggerate the part we
played in the war and thus injure the reputation for mag
nanimity and unselfish action which the American nation to
day enjoys abroad to an extent equaled by no nation in his
tory. What we did was so great and so significant that it
is easily overstated, but noblesse oblige forbids. The French,
British, and Italians ransomed their own soil, not we. We
lent economic support without which surely the war could
not have been continued. We brought at the darkest moment
an indispensable moral support without which it is possible
the gallant French and the stubborn British might have fal
tered. But these were indirect factors in victory; and so of
our army. The mere presence of our men in France, even
though not ready to enter the battle, made possible the use
of the trained French and British armies for the great of
fensive which ended the war. We became the Allied reserve
army, and the presence of so many Yanks in France and the
knowledge that more Yanks were coming was a decisive
though indirect factor in victory. Our share was great, in
dispensable, significant, but it was a share only.

V

The fact that victory was won by the Allies and not by
the United States possessed promptly definite significance
for the negotiations of peace. There were an infinitude of
specific and detailed arrangements to be made in Europe
proper regarding internal and territorial questions which
were not and could not be as vitally significant for the United
States as for the European nations. Indirectly we are un
questionably interested in their solution; directly they do
not concern us. Our Allies will now expect that same gen
erosity and disinterest on our part in the negotiation of peace
which we have displayed in the war. They will expect us,
and rightly, to acquiesce in their decisions regarding Euro
pean arrangements which primarily concern them. If the
United States sits mute at the Congress, declines to accede to
the decisions which they agree are expedient, they will feel a

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF VICTORY 51

just cause of umbrage. Primary decisions of essentially Eu
ropean questions the United States will not be expected to
influence. We were not and are not now in a position to
dictate the boundaries of Alsace-Lorraine, of Poland, or of
the Balkans. Our disinterested record, the splendor of our
moral position will lend a peculiar weight to such counsel,
advice, or warning as our accredited representatives may ad
dress to the European statesmen, but the character of victory
is such as to foreclose dictation by the United States at the
peace conference on European or internal issues. Neverthe
less, on all international questions involving nations outside
Europe or issues not directly European, or even European
issues which might indirectly concern nations outside Europe,
the direct and active participation of the United States is
certain, and it may be that we shall hold the casting vote. So
much the degree of our participation would seem to assure.

ROLAND G. USHER.

THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN
AERONAUTICS

BY EARLE REMINGTON

(President of the Aeronautical Society of California)

THE Hughes Aircraft Report is a strictly legal recital of
facts, and does not go into the practical question of the pro
gramme or make any recommendations for improvements.
It is known that more than a billion dollars has been spent
for aircraft ; but as our Government has not taken the people
into its confidence regarding the aircraft programme, the con
dition of the public mind is extremely uneasy. Americans
are fearful that the censorship enforced to protect military
secrets and prevent the breaking down of army morale may
have been extended to cover up a deplorable condition of
affairs.

Government statistics show that appropriations for the
year ending July 1, 1918 were nearly one billion dollars, and
that approximately one half of this amount was for airplanes
and motors. For this we have received something less than
ten thousand planes, mostly of the type used for training
aviators, and about twenty-five thousand motors.

There has been so much talk of the aircraft scandal that
the public is now interested in knowing what salvage can be
obtained from the wreck; or, in other words, what we shall
have to show when the war is over for the expenditure of
a billion and a half of dollars. There is reason to fear that
the cancellation of the contracts given to the aircraft manu
facturers will demoralize this infant industry, and that the
mushroom growth will disappear as quickly as it has ap
peared.

We are now producing in this country large quantities of
training planes which compare favorably with anything in

AMERICAN AERONAUTICS 53

use in Europe. We are able to produce copies of English
and French types of bombing and photographic planes. The
progress that has been made in adapting these planes to
American factory methods has been painfully slow, and we
are today about where we should have been six months ago. -

In aerial warfare the bombing, photographic, and obser
vation planes are protected or convoyed by small fast combat
planes. We have been compelled to depend during the entire
period of the war upon France and England to supply us
with these planes. At this time we are about ready to pro
duce two successful types, namely the S. E. 5, an English
plane adapted to the Liberty motor, and the LePere, which
is a design that Captain LePere, of the French Army,
worked out in this country. This latter plane is probably
the best prospect of our entire aircraft programme. It prob
ably would have been ready and on the firing line in the
spring offensive; but now that the war is over, the contracts
for its manufacture are being cancelled.

We are producing in this country the Curtiss motor,
which is satisfactory for training purposes; the Hispano-
Suiza motor, used for advanced training and photographic
planes ; and the Liberty motor, which is suitable for bomb
ing, photographic work, and certain types of combat planes.
The Buggati motor, which is a European type, is about ready
to be produced in this country.

The layman cannot understand why it should take so
long to copy successfully a European type. It must be re
membered that European and American methods of manu
facture are totally different. In Europe the work is done
by hand, employing highly trained mechanics. In America
it is performed by specially designed machinery, which can
produce in great quantity when once in operation. The dif
ference in materials and in method of operation make an
exact copy impossible. The Wright Brothers in 1910 were
unable to have their motor copied in Europe so that it would
operate successfully. The Hispano-Suiza motor required
two years of experimentation before it operated successfully
as made in America.

The public probably does not realize the vast amount of
money that has been spent by this Government in the pro
duction of raw materials for aircraft. We entered the war
at a time when the raw materials of our Allies had been prac
tically exhausted. In the shortest possible length of time

54 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

we had to supply their needs as well as our own. Over $200,-
000,000 was spent in building railways, sawmills, re-saw
plants, and kiln-drying outfits for the production of spruce
and fir lumber for airplane purposes. Approximately $70,-
000,000 was spent to produce " cellulose-acetate," generally
known as " cloth dope." It is applied to the cloth surfaces
of the wings, etc., and leaves a deposit of celluloid, which
stretches the cloth tightly and also waterproofs it. This ma
terial is a decomposed by-product of gun-cotton. For cer
tain airplane motors castor oil was required, and money was
expended by the Government to import beans and arrange
for plantings with farmers in various sections of the South.
This crop is now available.

A great deal of money was spent in acquiring and equip
ping aviation fields, wherein to train our aviators and me
chanics. Of the original $640,000,000 appropriation, ap
proximately $40,000,000 was used in acquiring and equip
ping flying fields. Practically every large factory operating
for the Government has in its vicinity a Government testing
field, where the airplanes can be given a rigid flying test be
fore they are shipped abroad. In the neighborhood of Los
Angeles the Government now has one of the finest balloon
schools in the world. In the South we have one flying field
specializing in aerial gunnery; in another they instruct in
bombing and in another in aerial observation work. It is
true that some of these fields have been located in places
where, from a military point of view, they should not be.
It is to be hoped that, since the war is over and fewer fields
will be required, the Government will elect to abandon those
that are not properly situated.

The first step in training aviators after they have passed
their physical examination has been to send them to one of
twelve universities for a course in theoretical aviation and
for military instruction. The course given to our fliers is
superior to that afforded by foreign countries, and it is to
be hoped that these universities will be subsidized by the
Government so that they may maintain a department of
aerodynamics, including well-equipped laboratories, wind
tunnels, etc., so that there may be developed in this country
a large group of technically trained engineers having a thor
ough knowledge of the basic principles of flight and aerofoil
design.

This country was in the war for a period of nineteen

AMERICAN AERONAUTICS 55

months. At the outset, well informed military authorities
stated that it would be two years before we would achieve
our maximum power. Remarkable progress has been made
in our air programme, but this country would not have been
in a position for another six months to oppose successfully
the aerial forces of the Central Powers. We have been forced
to depend upon England, France and Italy for the advance
training of many of our aviators and for all of our combat
planes. The first of our aviators, also the first of our mechan
ics sent to England, were incorporated into English air
squadrons. They fought as an integral part of the English
Army. The American Army, even when operating inde
pendently, has been largely dependent upon Allied air squad
rons for protection.

Airplane production, like the construction of a battle
ship or of a heavy piece of artillery, takes time, and can be
done efficiently only by experts who are afforded every op
portunity for keeping up to date in their own special sub
ject. To do this we must have ample appropriations and
the proper governmental machinery for the development of
our air service. This can best be accomplished by the estab
lishment of a Department of Aeronautics, having a secretary
equal in rank to the Secretary of War and the Secretary of
the Navy. The Aerial activities of both the Army and Navy
should be consolidated and placed under this department. It
would then be necessary for the Department of Aeronautics
to co-operate with the Signal Corps on problems of signaling
for the perfection of the wireless telegraph, wireless tele
phone, and other methods of transmitting messages from the
air. They should co-operate with the Ordnance Department
in provision for the arming of our fighting planes. In addi
tion to trained fliers we must have skilled mechanics, inspec
tors, aeronautical engineers, production supervisors and in
telligence officers, so that we may maintain a well rounded
organization, in keeping with the importance of the work.

The gradual development of commercial aviation should
immediately be fostered by the Government. This need not
be a total financial loss to the Government, but there should
undoubtedly be subsidized companies who will establish pas
senger-carrying aerial routes, also routes between important
cities for the carrying of express packages. The Post Office
Department has already commenced the carrying of mail,
and this should be rapidly expanded, particularly in vicini-

56 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

ties where transportation by rail or automobile is a matter
of several days' time at present, and where the use of the air
plane would make it a matter of a few hours.

According to my best advices, military authorities agree
that the day of the " fixed gun " is passed — that is to say,
a piece of artillery, no matter how well protected by fortifi
cations, is certain of destruction if the enemy has once ac
curately determined its position. It is probable that our
coast defences, which are the fixed type, will be so modified
that, by means of special railways running parallel to the
coast, the big guns, which at present defend only the imme
diate vicinity of our harbors, can be made mobile and used
for the purpose that their name indicates, namely, coast de
fence. Our aviators should be trained in coast patrol work.
They should become familiar with the vicinities in which they
would be likely to operate. They should conduct manoeuvres
in connection with our artillery and our submarines. Perma
nent coast patrol stations are required, not only on this Con
tinent and in the Panama Canal Zone, but also in our island
possessions. The co-operation in defense work between our
airplanes and submarines still remains to be worked out. One
of the most advanced problems of coast defence, but one
which is capable of solution, is the control of a submarine
torpedo from an airplane by the use of wireless appliances.

Through the shortsighted policy of our Government, the
officers of our Army and Navy have not been given sufficient
opportunity to secure technical training. In individual cases
this has been possible, but only in an elementary way. At
the beginning of the war the fact was well recognized in this
country that the American aeronautical engineers were not
equal in training and experience to those of our Allies —
principally England, France and Italy — nor those of Ger
many. This is no reflection on the Americans, because in
the past eighteen months they have undoubtedly caught up
and today are little if any behind in matters of practical
design or construction. With but little governmental as
sistance, private individuals and the airplane companies that
have been for some time engaged in the manufacture of air
planes, have developed highly satisfactory types, but these
planes are only now approaching a point where they could
be utilized by our Government. The Government has not
availed itself of the services of these men as it should have
done; but it is not the purpose of this article to discuss

AMERICAN AERONAUTICS 57

the reasons why. It is to be hoped, however, that the men
in question will now be given an opportunity by the Gov
ernment to study at first hand the wonderful progress in
aviation that has been made in European countries during
the past four years. These men should be sent to Europe
at Government expense, and educated fully in the design
and construction of airplanes, including their motors and
accessories. The Army has developed, particularly among
the younger officers, many men who have demonstrated their
ability as aeronautical engineers, and these men have not
had a fair chance to show what they can do. Since we en
tered the war, they have in small numbers been offered op
portunities for study by the Allied Governments, and it
remains only to give them the opportunity to continue their
investigations and experiments to secure for our Army the
nucleus of a wonderful organization.

I have no sympathy with the theory that has been ad
vanced! as the reason for not utilizing the services of these
men to better advantage, namely, that they lacked ability and
experience. This was not their fault, nor is there any reason
to believe that, if placed on an equality with the European
engineers, they would not have produced just as good, if not
better, designs and types of aircraft than our European
friends. A rich nation like ours can afford to expend for
purposes of national defence vast sums of money in research
and experimental work, which no private individual could
hope to equal, and in times past our representatives in Wash
ington who reflected the attitude of their constituents have
been unwilling to grant the necessary appropriations. Only
a national emergency, like that of the great war, was suffi
cient to loosen the purse strings, and this was done too late
to have much effect in the present war.

The Senate and the Hughes investigations of aircraft
production have undoubtedly developed many unsavory ex
amples of mismanagement and abuse of power. In spite of
this, had the war lasted until next March, the United States
would have been equipped with an aerial fleet that would
have been sufficient to crush the Central Powers without
assistance from any of our Allies. We have skilled aviators
by the thousand and the necessary complement of mechanics.
We are in a position to produce such vast quantities of effi
cient airplanes and motors during the coming winter that we
could entirely have overcome the enemy.

58 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Now that the war is over, the Government, naturally,
will cancel many contracts for the production of aircraft and
motors, and it is right that it should do this. There is no
commercial demand for such a vast number of machines.
But if the airplane industry is not supported by Government
expenditures, it will disappear as quickly as it has appeared.
The great majority of factories working on airplane material
have been adapted for airplane purposes by converting plants
producing commercial articles somewhat similar in nature.
These factories will, of course, get back to their own line of
endeavor. On the other hand, there are many factories that
have been especially built, or which, prior to the war, were
designed and equipped exclusively for the manufacture of
aircraft, and are not in any way suitable for others purposes.
In such factories Government contracts should be placed
sufficient to enable them to remain in operation.

The experimental work must be continued if we are to
remain in a position to defend ourselves. The possibility of a
world-wide disarmament is an extremely vague hope. If we
are to have a military establishment it must be of the best,
and those elements of defence that require the greatest ad
vance preparation must receive the first consideration. Aero
nautics certainly falls within this class. The aircraft inves
tigation will undoubtedly be pushed to a definite conclusion
and not left in its present status. The public are not satis
fied. They demand to know more regarding the manner in
which the war was conducted, and doubtless they will have
this wish gratified.

From the beginning of the war, until now, there has not
been a single man on the Aircraft Board who had any previ
ous practical training in aeronautics. The men who have
held the reins of power have been automobile men, bankers,
and army officers selected solely for their executive ability.
Is it possible that during the past ten years of experiment
we have not developed in this country a single man who has
the combined technical knowledge and executive ability at
least to entitle him to a place on an Aircraft Board composed
of seven members?

Let us try to build up; not tear down. Our country
should be what some one in the French Army, in reference
to aircraft, so aptly described as "Under the Protecting
Wings."

EAELE REMINGTON.

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE RED CROSS

MOVEMENT

BY H. ADDINGTON BRUCE

FEW phases of the Great War are more significant from
a psychological or sociological point of view than the sudden
blossoming of the American Red Cross into a national organ
ization of stupendous magnitude. Three years ago the Red
Cross had a membership of only twenty-two thousand. Today
it has twenty-three million members, and, as I write, it is
about to begin a "drive" expected to double, and more than
double, its present enrollment. According to an official esti
mate recently given me, five million people are now working
in Red Cross establishments on both sides of the Atlantic, and
perhaps fifteen million more are assisting at their homes in
Red Cross activities. Besides all of which, the American
people have contributed upwards of three hundred million
dollars to the support of the Red Cross since the United
States became a participant in the war. Here, assuredly, is
a remarkable social phenomenon that raises an interesting
problem — the problem of explaining adequately this mar
vellous response to the Red Cross appeal, and of evaluating
its significance correctly.

One solution, of course, that lies ready at hand is to see
in it an unusually impressive instance of the power of " sug
gestion " and " psychic contagion." On this theory, in order
to understand the amazing spread of the Red Cross move
ment it would only be necessary to postulate the persuasive
ness of an exceptionally well organized propaganda, acting
on the imitative tendency common to mankind. And sugges
tion was undeniably the immediate dynamic factor. But this
leaves untouched the deeper problem of the peculiar effec
tiveness of suggestion in this particular case. Why did the
suggestion to give and to toil for the Red Cross " take," and

60 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

why did it take so hard? Responsivity to a suggested idea
does not depend solely on the skill with which that idea is
suggested, though many people seem to think that it does.

Suggestion, in fact, is popularly regarded as an almost
magic force, of irresistible potency when rightly applied.
Actually there must always be present, on the part of the sug-
gestee, an ardent, however subconscious, desire to respond to
a given suggestion. Otherwise suggestion, no matter how
deft its presentation, will beat forever against a stone wall of
negativism. This, incidentally, explains why suggestion
often fails in the treatment of functional nervous and mental
maladies, a field of action in which as a rule it is notably effi
cacious. When, as frequently happens, nervous or mental
symptoms give their victim certain advantages — such as
being a centre of sympathetic interest and attention — which
would be lost if relief from the symptoms were gained, a
subconscious desire to cling to them may prove altogether too
strong for suggestion to overcome. When, on the other hand,
a favoring desire is present and dominant, no great skill in
the applying of suggestion is required to secure the end in
view. In the present instance, obviously, the suggested idea,
"Give to the Red Cross, work for the Red Cross, sacrifice for
the Red Cross," must have accorded with deepseated and
intense desires. If this had not been the case the systema
tized campaigns of suggestion in behalf of the Red Cross
could never have been so abundantly fruitful.

As the figures cited indicate, all classes of American soci
ety have responded, with money and personal service. Men of
the highest ability in professional and business life have vol
unteered without pay to direct the workings of the Red Cross
organization. Women of wealth and social prestige, hith
erto leading sheltered and perhaps not altogether profitable
lives, have in the service of the Red Cross labored without
thought of self, displaying powers of endurance which none
suspected in them. Many, indeed, have left homes of lux
ury, cheerfully to undergo privation, to risk, and not infre
quently to lay down, life itself. And when undivided service
could not be given to the Red Cross, hundreds of thousands
of people have willingly superimposed Red Cross work on
the routine tasks of their regular occupations. After a day
of strenuous effort, business men, housewives, clerks, shop
girls, factory workers, men and women in every walk of
life, have devoted their precious evening hours to labor for

THE RED CROSS MOVEMENT 61

the Red Cross. Small wonder that I have more than once
heard it said, "To become actively identified with the Red
Cross is almost a religion in America today." Giving empha
sis to this statement is the yearning anxiety shown by some
to have their dead as well as themselves included in Red Cross
membership. Thus a Massachusetts mother writes to the
executive of a Red Cross chapter :

The three living members of my family — my husband, son, and self
— are Red Cross members, and I long to enlist in the memory of my
other lovely son, who, I cannot say that he is dead, but just away, for
in my heart he still lives. I think of him faring on, as dear, in my love
up there, as my love while here. I think of him in the same loving
way. If he was with his dear ones now he would wish to do his " bit,
for he was a loyal boy. Please accept, ." in the memory of my dear
Ralph," the one dollar, for humanity's sake. Then I can put the othei
red cross on my banner, to make the number complete. For the circle
is not broken, although the empty chair is in my home.

" For humanity's sake " is in truth the motive which most
people would advance if asked to state their reason for sup
porting the Red Cross by money or by service, or by both
money and service. But this hardly goes to the heart of
the matter. The Red Cross, remember, is not of recent
origin. It was founded as long ago as 1864, and organized
in the United States in 1881. After various vicissitudes it
was re-organized as a national American institution in 1905,
with the President of the United States at its head. Again
and again it has demonstrated, at home and abroad, in time
of war and in time of peace, its superlative value as an
agency for the saving of life and the relief of suffering. But
as recently as 1915 Miss Mabel T. Boardman could state, in
her history of the Red Cross :

As yet this national association of ours, which belongs to the
country and to the people, is hi its infancy. Lusty and vigorous it is
true, but lacking still the size and development it must attain before
it is a worthy representative of these United States of America. It has
twenty-two thousand members. Eighteen hundred thousand men,
women, and children of Japan constitute the membership of the
Japanese Red Cross. Hundreds of thousands manifest their love of
country in other lands by adhesion to the ranks of their national asso
ciation. Our American Red Cross has less than a million dollar endow
ment fund. The permanent endowment of the Japanese Red Cross is
nearly thirteen million dollars. The Russian society before the present
war had a reserve capital of nineteen million dollars. And the funds
of several other European associations are far more than those of our
own. In a country of such wealth, of such patriotism and humanity

62 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

as this, the American people cannot allow their Red Cross to remain
without a just endowment. They give with the utmost liberality to
local charities, to hospitals, to universities and colleges ; but they have
yet to learn to express the love for their country by their gifts to the
organization which stands as the embodiment of patriotism both in
war and peace.

The lesson would certainly seem to have been learned since
these words were written. And the stimulus to the learning,
needless to say, was America's shift from neutrality to bellig
erency. This alone, however, would not suffice to explain
the astonishing zeal forthwith shown for the formerly neg
lected Red Cross. To explain this, special circumstances
have to be taken into consideration, not the least important
being the educative influence of the events of the first two
years of the Great War — the years of America's neutrality —
in appealing with unprecedented force to the humanitarian
impulses of American men and women, and at the same time
in giving them a lively consciousness of the imminence of the
peril in which the world, their country, and they themselves
were placed by the German onslaught. By the time the
United States got into the war, Americans did not have to
be told that this was no ordinary conflict between nations.
They knew that on its outcome depended not merely the
safety of America, but the safety of civilization itself. That
is to say, the instincts alike of self-preservation and of race
preservation, the egocentric and the gregarious instincts,
were so aroused as to make action of some sort imperative on
every American.

It is a biological and psychological truism that trouble
results when any instinct is thwarted in finding adequate ex
pression. This is peculiarly true of the gregarious instinct, in
which such qualities as altruism, patriotism, conscience, and
the sense of duty are rooted. When, in consequence of any
circumstance that causes an overdevelopment of the egocen
tric at the expense of the gregarious instinct, people lead un
commonly self-centered lives, they are invariably discontent
ed, restless, and unhappy, and may even be harried into condi
tions of serious ill-health. Many, if not all, of the functional
disorders so much in evidence in the modern world, are now
known to be the product of an undue repression of the gre
garious instinct, and the experienced physician makes it a
point to try to guide nervous sufferers into activities that will
give this instinct free play. This is why the so-called " sym-

THE RED CROSS MOVEMENT 63

pathy cure " is so efficacious in numerous cases of nervous
ness. The self-centred neurotic who can be induced to en
gage in charitable or other altruistic activities, finds relief
through altruism from his symptoms simply because he there
by gives expression to the gregarious instinct that has tor
mented him into nervousness as a punishment for his failure
to give it expression at all. Man is so built that he must
have the consciousness of being of service to his fellow-man,
else he will be driven to eccentricities of thought and behavior
injurious to himself and to society. And the necessity for
this consciousness is intensified in time of war or other great
crisis, in proportion as the gravity of the crisis carries with
it a realization that the nation's future is at stake. That is
to say, when the war is a little war, the compulsion of the
gregarious instinct is far less keenly felt than when the war
is a big one. Men can more readily go about their ordinary
affairs, without being troubled by the feeling that they should
be personally striving to insure the winning of the war.

The war that began in the summer of 1914 was not a little
war. It was a big war. In fact, it speedily made itself rec
ognized as the biggest of all wars. The stirring of the gre
garious instinct was correspondingly strong, and conse
quently there was an imperative need for directive action that
would enable all to satisfy this stirring. In England, as
Trotter has recently pointed out, the need in question was at
first not properly appreciated. Large sections of the com
munity, incapable of actual military service, were given
neither guidance nor opportunity to contribute directly to
the national defense, with consequences concerning which
Trotter justly observes:

It must surely be clear that in a nation engaged in an urgent struggle
for existence, the presence of a large class who are as sensitive as any
to the call of the herd, and yet cannot respond in any active way, con
tains very grave possibilities. The only response to that relentless
calling that can give peace is in service ; if that be denied, restlessness,
uneasiness, and anxiety must necessarily follow. To such a mental
state are very easilv added impatience, discontent, exaggerated fears,
pessimism, and irritability. It must be remembered that large numbers
of such individuals were persons of importance in peace time, and
retain a great deal of their prestige under the social system we have
decided to maintain, although in war time they are obviously without
function. This group of idle and flustered parasites has formed a
nucleus from which have proceeded some of the many outbursts of
disunion which have done so much to prevent this country from devel
oping her resources with smoothness and continuity. It is not sug-

64 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

gested that these eruptions of discontent are due to any kind of
disloyalty; they are the result of defective morale, and bear all the
evidences of coming from persons whose instinctive response to the
call of the herd has been frustrated and who, therefore, lack the
strength and composure of those whose souls are uplifted by a satis
factory instinctive activity. Moral instability has been characteristic
of all the phenomena of disunion we are now considering.

In our own country manifestations of a frustrating of the
gregarious instinct have not been entirely absent during the
war. But they have been less in evidence and less detri
mental than in England, for the reason that in our country,
from the day we became involved in the colossal struggle for
world freedom, guidance and opportunity were given en
abling the people as a whole to respond to " the call of the
herd " by becoming active war workers and war helpers. To
this end the signal favor shown the Red Cross by the Gov
ernment, and the official stressing of the value of the Red
Cross as a war time organization, were important steps —
steps so important that they must be regarded as amounting
almost to a stroke of genius. For the Red Cross was an
agency admirably calculated to afford not only universal, but
also thoroughly satisfying, expression of the gregarious in
stinct. More than this, it was an agency with which the
people were thoroughly familiar and which they already held
in high esteem.

If, in the pre-war period, they had shown no burning
ardor to enlist under the banner of the Red Cross, this was
not because they were at that time unaware of its worth.
It was because, to be quite frank, the pre-war period was
one in which the egocentric instinct was somewhat overde
veloped — as indicated, for example, by the prevalence not
alone of functional nervous and mental disorders, but also
of vice, crime, and insanity, all of which in the last analysis
are social evils born of an abnormal egocentricism. But
though the egocentric instinct then was undoubtedly domi
nant, the gregarious still had enough vitality to function
under stress, and any local, national, or extra-national calam
ity brought forth prompt and convincing proof of this.
Again and again, as occasion arose, the gregarious instinct
had thus functioned through the Red Cross, which conse
quently was definitely associated in the popular mind with
the relief of suffering. It was no new, unknown, untried
organization. It had behind it a long and honorable record

THE RED CROSS MOVEMENT . 65

of service. Its very symbol — the cross — was itself linked
with the noblest traditions and sublimest aspirations of man
kind. The happy accident which led to the choosing of this
symbol — a desire to compliment Switzerland, where the first
Red Cross conference was held in 1864 — must be accounted
one of the most providential of accidents, from a psychologi
cal point of view. No symbol could more surely appeal to
the best in the people of Christendom.

With the history of the Red Cross what it was, with the
special endorsement it had received from the war-making
Government, and with the gregarious instinct aroused in
America as it had never been before, we need no longer won
der at the sudden and nationwide enthusiasm shown for the
Red Cross. " Suggestion " and " psychic contagion " had a
truly fertile field in which to work. There were no contrary
ideas to be dislodged, no opposing desires to be overcome.
Excepting in persons of superlative self-absorption, the gre
garious had for the time complete dominance over the ego
centric. "How can I serve? " was the question consciously
or subconsciously foremost in virtually everybody's mind.
" Join the Red Cross," was one almost self-evident answer.
Under the conjoint influence of instinct and of organized
campaigning in behalf of the Red Cross, it became an answer,
as we know, translated into affirmative, joyfully co-operative
action by millions of men and women.

The psychology of the Red Cross movement is thus, after
all, comparatively simple, based as it is in human elementals.
But the fact of its simplicity should not mask from us its tre
mendous importance in relation to what may be called racial
dynamics. If, after peace has been fully restored, the re
cently developed enthusiasm for the Red Cross is allowed to
die down, if the men and women who have so generously
given to, and so devotedly toiled for, the Red Cross, are per
mitted to revert to the self-centred modes prevalent before
the war, then America will have let slip a golden opportunity
to lay surer her foundations for the future. The gregarious
instinct, the instinct which bids all men strive for the common
good, may not need to function so intensely after the war,
but there can be no doubt that it ought to function just as
continuously. It ought to function, too, with much more
intensity than it commonly did in the days that preceded the
spiritual awakening forced on the world by the war. The
class hatreds which have wrought such destruction in Russia
VOL. ccix. NO. 758 5

66 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

and elsewhere are an echo of those materialistic days, and
their extension to still other countries must be expected if
the gregarious instinct atrophy once more. In the Red Cross
we now have an institution whose activities make directly for
mass as contrasted with class solidarity. To keep the Red
Cross in constant and vigorous operation should become an
object of national concern and national planning.

From the viewpoint of individual as well as of national
well-being, maintenance of the Red Cross in energetic activ
ity is also much to be desired. As already mentioned, failure
to give adequate expression to an instinct breeds trouble, and
in particular breeds nervous strain. Life begins to seem
" stale, flat, and unprofitable," and unless the thwarted in
stinct contrives to express itself in some way, disorders of
feeling and of conduct develop. Our Freudian friends have
been at great pains to make clear to us the mischief which
ensues when the sex instinct is perpetually baulked, denied
expression even through what the Freudians term " sublima
tion." The gregarious instinct is as imperious in its demands,
as vengeful when persistently and absolutely repressed.
Urging men to be of service, to lead lives productive of good
to the race, at all times and not in war time only, those who
remain deaf to its urging must pay a penalty of some kind.
When, however, its demands are heeded, a compensatory feel
ing of satisfaction is gained, and more than this, a loosening
of energy which until then had been unavailable.

This accounts for the remarkable " staying powers " un
expectedly displayed by so many Red Cross workers during
the past four years. It accounts also for the improved health
and increased happiness so many have found after taking up
Red Cross work. The anxious restlessness, the feeling of
being " sick of things," the chronic dissatisfaction they have
been experiencing, oppress them no more. And this even
when the Red Cross duties imposed on them have been ardu
ous, unpleasant, perhaps of a character that would ordinarily
have been repellant to them. The secret is that through the
Red Cross they have been enabled to give to the gregarious
instinct the expression it failed to find in their lives before the
war. The mere knowledge that one is actually of use in the
world is itself an energy developer of the first order. When
to this is added knowledge that one is of use in race preserva
tion through the conquest of disease and the alleviation of
pain, energy may be developed in almost incredible degree.

THE RED CROSS MOVEMENT 67

Obviously, ample scope for Red Cross effort will remain
after the last war victim has been succored. Before the war,
for that matter, the Red Cross was doing not a little humani
tarian work day in and day out, notably in the way of nurs
ing, co-operating in the prevention of industrial accidents,
and promoting health education among the people. This
work and kindred effort should now be intensified and ex
tended, for the sake both of those among our millions who
need to be helped and of those who will benefit by sharing in
the helping. It would in truth be a sad mistake — I am
tempted to say, a crime against the nation — if after the war
the Red Cross were permitted to fade to a mere shadow of
its present splendid self.

H. ADDINGTON BRUCE.

MEXICO TO-DAY

BY WILLIAM GATES

WHAT is the position of Mexico to-day as to the all-
dominant questions in the world? The attitude of her gov
ernment to these questions, and to us? What is the actual
status of the Carranza Government in Mexico itself? Is
it solving the economic, social, agrarian and political prob
lems of the Revolution; stimulating industry and develop
ment; and with sound financial methods? Is it a govern
ment surrounded by disorder yet gaining in strength ; is that
disorder substantially " banditry," or a coherent political
movement? Does this Government correspond to those
aspirations of the people for democracy and freedom which
it was expected to fulfill? And is it going to succeed?

What is the actual fact about the German propaganda
of which so much has been said and so little actually told?
Is the government, and President Carranza personally, neu
tral, or pro-German? Are the Mexican people pro-German,
or pro-Ally? And what is their real feeling for us.

In short, what is going on in Mexico?

Every question to be solved for the good or ill of the world
in Europe is also to be found in an acute form here. Racial
and national independence and right to self-determination of
their own politics and affairs; trade and development ques
tions of every kind; militarism; I. W. W. socialism; the reli
gious question between Church and State; a land question to
which Ireland's is a new-born infant, in age, acuteness, and
irreconcilability; a mixture of racial questions only paral
leled in Austria: these are some of the elements of the prob
lem that oppresses the Mexican people in its 400-year effort
to arrive at a solution of its necessities and hopes. And the
problem by the side of which the Carranza Government is

MEXICO TO-DAY 69

trying to maintain itself. The answer to these problems must
be known and comprehended if we are to deal rightly, and
with good for the future, not only with Mexican questions,
but with those of all Latin America.

Eighty-odd per cent of Mexicans have Indian blood; 40
per cent are pure blood, and another 20 per cent live and
feel " Indian "; 85 per cent are illiterate; some 2,000,000 do
not even speak Spanish. Officially Mexico is Latin and
Catholic ; really it is neither, no more than Austria is German.
The aristocracy is still Spanish and Catholic, but all the rest
is not; the Indian part is still pagan in all essentials, with a
thin varnish of new names. The Mexican " patriotism " we
have heard so much of is a political sentiment, born of resist
ance to foreign exploitation in a territory only united in
political administration by the foreign conqueror. It is
lauded and waved by the class known as ff valiente" Take
away that class, a small minority of the population, and
" Mexico " as an entity would cease to exist, just as will Aus
tria. The home-land feeling we know is that of the Zapotec
or Oaxacan, the Maya or Yucatecan, the Bohemian, the
Yugo-Slav, the Pole. And to this day, all the legislation of
Mexico has been founded exclusively on the ideas and needs
of the population of European blood, the natives having been
abandoned even more radically in this respect since Inde
pendence than under Spanish rule.

It is this Mexican " common people " in whose name this
last Revolution has been nominally waged; for whom Presi
dent Wilson has spoken and to whose efforts he has offered
our sympathy. And it is this hypersensitive inheritance of
Mexican consciousness which Carranza phrased in a sentence
uttered by him as he came to power: * These foreigners have
got to quit making money out of Mexico." By all rights the
present Mexican Government and ours should be in the
closest sympathy and cooperation. Why, then, are we hav
ing (if we are) trouble with the Carranza Government?

The two " monsters beyond all pale " in Carrancista
literature are Huerta and Zapata. Huerta would be Presi
dent of Mexico to-day but for Wilson. Zapata is an Indian
whose sole object is to win back illegally dispossessed farms
for his followers in his native State, and at the critical period
would have recognized Carranza had the latter guaranteed
him in that desire; Carranza refused, was driven to Vera
Cruz, after which we recognized his government, sold him

70 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

arms, gave his troops transport' in our territory, and shut
off arms from his opponents. What is the trouble now?

We have seen that there are two phases of the " anti-
foreign exploitation " spirit, the popular and internal, or
agrarian, directed against the Spanish and Creole upper
classes, with the almost universally Spanish-born administra
tors and storekeepers, whose oppression was felt at every
turn and hour; the other political-international, wherein we
now bear the brunt, with the English second. The first is a
phase of the " home-land " patriotism of the great peasant
majority, and the second a phase of the political patriotism
of the " valiente " mestizo class. Of these two phases, Zapata
represents the former, and Carranza the latter.

After the fall of Huerta, the Aguascalientes Convention
called by Carranza proved intractable, and he withdrew,
leaving the capital to Villa and Zapata. The Plan de
Guadalupe, under which Carranza led the revolt against
Huerta, named no other object than that, he being only First
Chief and, on success, Provisional President to call elections
and restore " the interrupted Constitutional order." Zapata's
Plan de Ayala was a thorough-going agrarian revindication
against the internal exploiters. Villa issued no " Plan,"
but fought for the same objects as Zapata. Neither one
sought the Presidency at any time. The year from October,
1914, to October, 1915,. when we recognized Carranza, was
marked by various efforts at union, which all came to naught
for just one reason. Zapata was willing to recognize Car
ranza even as permanent President, provided he would com
mit himself to the agrarian revindication ; Carranza refused,
and demanded unconditional submission to "the Plan de
Guadalupe " — that is, himself as Provisional President to
reorganize the government, policies "to be settled after
wards." Villa and Obregon proposed to recognize Carranza
as Provisional President, with provision that neither gen
erals in command, nor provisional governors nor President
should be eligible in the new elections. Carranza says the
latter question is of " too transcendental importance to be
discussed by three or four persons, but must be reserved
to the sovereign competency of the whole nation " ; that he
must be recognized without further qualifications, all ques
tions of policies to come later. Villa then disavows Carranza.

The Villa-Zapata Conventio Government holds the capital
with two short interruptions until August, reorganizing gov-

MEXICO TO-DAY 71

ernmental administration, restoring effective municipal local
freedom (one of the main issues of the revolt against Diaz) ,
putting agrarian small-proprietorship plans into extended
operation, with an Agricultural Loan Bank on our general
lines to help the farmer ; and also working out in Convention
a thorough legislative proyecto. This proposed legislation
was not extreme in any point but the agrarian ; it gave full
consideration to international rights, and was not anti-
foreign; it was in general a good liberal plan covering the
fundamental social principles of the Revolution. It was very
liberal to Labor, but after a vigorous four days' debate
showing excellent comprehension of the issues, the Conven
tion agreed by 55 to 24 on Government recognition of work-
ingmen's unions, including the right to strike, but refused to
recognize the Syndicates (branches of the Casa de Obrero
Mundial, or the I. W. W.) , or to permit sabotage. Through
the whole Zapata period the dominant topic in the papers is
the agrarian question in theory and practical institution:
building up a self -responsible small farming class. There
is almost no anti-Americanism in the papers; the " enemy "
is the old Cientifico party, the economic Mexican exploiters
of the old regime.

With the entry of Carranza forces August 2 all this
changed. Even prior to that date there had been a signed
pact between the Casa de Obrero Mundial and the Constitu
tionalist Government (signed, I think, by Luis Cabrera for
the latter), making a full offensive and defensive alliance.
Entering the capital the Zapata papers are at once sup
pressed, and their plants used to issue Carranza papers ; these
begin at once to be filled with new kinds of notices. Agra-
rianism almost disappears, to be replaced by the spread of
I. W. W. syndicates, " to become a great aid in combating
the tyrants." We have wild stories of " revolutions " in the
United States. Kenneth Turner arrives, on the invitation
of Dr. Atl, the I. W . W. propagandist. August 22 the pres
ent German Minister, von Eckhardt, arrives at the capital
with letters from Carranza (still at Vera Cruz), stating that
von Eckhardt has come " accredited to the Constitutionalist
Government." ( We did not recognize Carranza until Octo
ber 19.) k

A Dr. Krumm-Heller arrives at the same time, and be
gins at once a course of violent speeches before Casa Obrero
Mundial meetings, praising Germany's economic success and

72 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

kultur, attacking the United States, and also attacking our
Red Cross, which had come during the Zapata period to
relieve the frightful existing distress, and been then welcomed
and aided. Krumm-Heller declares the Red Cross workers
are spreading false and injurious reports of the situation:
that is, that the people were starving, just to give excuse for
our getting into Mexico for our own purposes, the " so-
called distress being entirely exaggerated, and the alleged
needy only cheats." (For the facts, see the full official Red
Cross Reports.) Our Red Cross was impeded in every way,
and finally Carranza asked its recall, on the aforesaid
grounds, and that the Mexican Government was doing all
that was necessary.

With the definitive coming into power, therefore, of the
Carranza regime, we find at his side the German Minister
and the I. W. W., in their official capacities, and in full co
operation and recognition. We find starting up at once an
exaggerated anti- Americanism, of the " political patriotism "
type; the beginning of a military pretorianism of which I
shall have more to note later; a flat disregard for inter
national courtesies, to say the least, which receives later a
very marked development. And finally we have what I think
I may call " agrarian revindication tied to the wheels of poli
tics." There is a frequent blowing of trumpets, with accom
panying " functions," over the re-allotment to this or that
pueblo of ejidos, or commonalty farm lands. Carranza could
not indeed possibly evade the land question, nor do I believe
he desired to. But Zapata had installed a special cabinet
Minister of Agriculture and Colonization, who pushed the
work, it must be acknowledged, both in and out of season, and
thereby made Zapata much trouble, until the latter made him
take a back seat in politics and devote his energies to the
actual administration of the task.

In my recent trip through Mexico to see and judge for
myself the inner ideas of the men at the front in her affairs —
Carranza, Alvarado, Felix Diaz, Zapata — four men who
with Meixueiro of Oaxaca sum up Mexico to-day, except for
those who merely are getting rich out of their opportunities —
my desire to see Zapata especially was stimulated by the
utterly contradictory reports about him. Every form of
abuse possible is heaped upon him; even in Yucatan, in the
Government papers, a criminal or "bad man" is a Zapatista;
yet on all sides acknowledgment that Zapata is the one leader

MEXICO TO-DAY 73

in all these years who has had a consistent principle. Talks
with every class of person in Mexico, long leagues on horse
back through Carrancista and Felicista and Zapatista terri
tory, and exhaustive reading of the past contemporary news
papers back to Madero's time, have left no other possible
conclusion than this : Zapata is fighting to restore the farms
of which the Indians were by legal processes dispossessed in
spite of primordial titles centuries old, and to establish small
agricultural proprietorship, leaving the other economic prob
lems of Mexico, for which modern capital and methods are
essential, free. Zapata, Carranza, Alvarado, all proclaim
agrarian revindication of the Indian. But the Indian, dis
possessed, his race-brother, bulks first in Zapata's thoughts;
in Carranza's and Alvarado's it is the capitalist hated, espe
cially the foreigner, and most especially the American. The
Zapata movement is a social home movement; the other a
political anti-foreign one. Zapata shares the an ti- Spanish
feeling above mentioned, and neither he nor his people are
anti- Yankee in the usual sense; he and his officers are also
specifically anti-German. Alvarado is a convinced I. W. W.,
who expects to succeed Carranza as President, and establish
the first Syndicalistic State; to both him and Carranza, In-
dianism is something to be cultivated and exploited politi
cally. To be brief, it is the carpet-baggism of our Recon
struction. Manuel Gamio, Director of Archaeology in Mex
ico, in his book, Forging a Country, says :

Does the Zapatism of Morelos represent exclusively criminal ban
ditry and pillage, or does it also stand for a tenacious desire for well-
being and freedom? We must first distinguish three kinds of Zapa
tism: first in banditry pure and simple, which, not only in Morelos
but in the whole republic, masks itself behind this and other names.
Next there are the abandoned elements hanging over from other
periods, which take advantage of the eternal mis-orientation of the
native, to go off into criminal adventures. And finally we have the
legitimate Zapatism, which were better called Indianism, for it has
persisted vigorously in all Mexico since Cortes raised his standards on
the shores of Villa Rica.

This was written two years ago; of the condition to-day
I have this personal testimony to make : I have ridden hun
dreds of miles through southern Mexico, where I was told
no other American had been for the last one or two years, at
least, and where I was warned that it was utterly impossible
to go for roving bandits, who would at the least strip me to

74 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

my shoes. I have been in a town as it was attacked by Feli-
cistas, and seen the Carrancista soldiers after repelling the at
tack loot the town they were brought in to defend, the com
manding general of the division, Heriberto Jara of Vera
Cruz, bringing up the rear of the line of loot-burdened men;
while others after shooting a prisoner found wounded in the
leg, dragged him by a rope behind a cart ; and while a colonel
on the general's staff warned a friendly storekeeper to shut
his doors, as they could not promise protection from their own
troops. I never felt safe one hour of the time I was within
Carranza lines; I felt safe every hour I was off among the
country people, in the districts protected by their soldiers,
farmers like themselves, working their fields and taking a
gun when the need came to defend their homes from the
marauding Carrancistas. I have no doubt there are bands
of bandits, but I believe them to be mainly, at least, on the
borderlines between the opposing forces. I have seen the
interior quiet country life of the common people in Morelos,
Vera Cruz, Pueblo and Oaxaca, where Zapata, Meixueiro
and the Felicistas are maintaining a settled, orderly and
peaceful administration.

Beyond doubt there have been brutalities on all sides,
and by nearly all parties, but the stories of " rebel " outrages
all come through Carrancistas sources, and are more than
paralleled by the long list daily in the public press of acts by
Carranza officers, from the shooting by a colonel of the entire
Town Council of a village over a personal quarrel to the
murder, robbery and nameless outrages that make Mexico
City and Vera Cruz themselves unsafe. I was in Mexico
City in the early part of the year ; the misery, starvation and
nakedness of the poor was appalling. Children, almost
naked, slept on doorsteps in the business quarter, and they
lay on the pavements as the sun rose to get warm again.
The mark of tension and fear was characteristic; to see
happy people I had to go outside into Revolutionary lines,
with all their scanty resources, yet safe from " the Army."

With a budget some 100,000,000 pesos short, the Govern
ment dare not shut off either the civilian graft or the heavily
padded army payrolls (paid in lump sums to the officers),
nor check the license. To support the Government gives
immunity, for Carranza has to have support to try to hold
the ReTolution in check, and the price is freedom for any
excess, even to the long list of burglaries with the " gray

MEXICO TO-DAY 75

automobile," finally traced to a certain high general; all
reported openly, with or without names, but left unpunished
unless some political toes got stepped on, or the infractor
had become otherwise politically non grata, so that the crime
was a good chance to make a show of justice, and kill two
birds. As just one case for illustration, while I was in
Oaxaca the newly arrived Governor called the leading mer
chants and the consuls together to say that his troops had
not been paid for months ; that there was trouble up the line,
and passage dangerous; that he had to have 25,000 pesos,
not of course as a forced contribution, but as a necessity, for
otherwise he could not hold his soldiers from looting. The
storekeepers, the first to be likely to suffer, gave; the German
consul gave 2,000 pesos ; the American said he had no author
ity from his Government. It was a fact there was trouble
up the line, and the Governor may not have had the money ;
but in another case where a similar contribution was made
to pay several months' arrears to the teachers, it later ap-
?)eared they never got a peso of the collection.

The Revolutionists of Mexico to-day are a peasant yeo
manry defending their homes; while one may describe the
Government forces as Germans in Belgium, or Bolsheviki in
Russia; either term fits. And if Russian mujik or Zapata
Indian in the heat of overthrow of the old regime were guilty
both of excesses, let us distinguish that from the crimes of
the common political enemy which, in each case with German
alliance, has usurped the power to oppress and steal, and
betrayed the revolution of the people, to sell out the country
both at wholesale and at retail; and just as shamelessly as
the Carranza troops regularly sell ammunition to the
" rebels " when in need of " spending money," the soldiers
selling by the dozen cartridges, the colonels by the case.
The current price is 5 to 10 cents per cartridge, including
commissions.

The ignorance in this country as to the extent of the
German propaganda and influence over the border is little
short of amazing. To tiy to show its working, take the
matter of the public press. In Yucatan a free press is non
existent ; but in Mexico there is a long list of anti-government
papers, rising and falling, besides the main dailies. Nearly
the whole of this press is German subsidized; in some cases
the anti- Americanism is virulent in the extreme, excitatory of
fears of invasion. A good deal of this is hidden behind rabid

76 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

I. W. W. anti-capitalism, where that is the cue, as in the oil
regions and in the north ; and that serves to excite strikes, or
destruction; but the purchase money is traceable, and has
several times been openly proven German. Some of these
rabid anti-foreign papers are also anti-Carranza, to give them
circulation among the Revolutionary districts ; but there, too,
they serve Carranza's aims, for they excite the sentiment
which he hopes to use when " the Day " of vindication comes.
When we learned that food shipments released by us to re
lieve distress were being used for outrageous profiteering,
and ordered the question investigated, it gave rise to violent
editorials on Mexico's sovereign right to regulate her own in
ternal commerce.

Last January the Sonora News Co., a long established
American company, obeying our Trading With the Enemy
Act, cut out the most violent and shamelessly mendacious
German paper from its train list. It had its whole contract
cancelled in consequence, the Government Secretary stating
in the official letter that the special reason was that such
action invaded Mexico's sovereign dignity, and compromised
her " strict neutrality." Other cases followed, with like
action, declaring broadly that " the American Black List has
no validity in Mexico," and supported immediately by spe
cific decrees from Carranza himself. The whole question
went right up to where the very next step indicated would
be a demand that all foreign importing houses sell their
goods to all Mexico's mercantile " guests " (understand,
Germans) regardless of our War Trade Act, on the ground
of Mexico's impartial neutrality and impeccable dignity.
The advantage to Minister von Eckhardt of thus putting
out of business allied trade in Mexico is manifest; and I be
lieve that only expediency — the fact that in spite of our
strictest efforts, Mexicans can still buy where we do not know
their connections, and so the German houses are managing
to keep going, even in hardware and drugs, with the fact that
Mexico is absolutely dependent on us for her imports — pre
vented or prevents such a decree. It was the next logical
step to those that had preceded, and was fully covered in
principle by specific announcements. The official letter to
the Sonora News Co. was flatly discourteous in its wording
(I myself saw the original); and see also some letters to
follow at the end of this article.

The home-land local patriotism we have referred to has

MEXICO TO-DAY 77

had the result in Mexico's constitutions that Sovereignty is
declared to reside in the States. Their right is even to secede.
Carranza, disavowing Huerta as usurper, in his character of
governor of Coahuila, was declared the " only legal person
ality within the Constitutional order." In 1915 Luis Ca
brera, speaking in Merida, told the Yucatecans that it " was
not wrong to think of state independence, if the central Gov
ernment did not give them justice." In the Fall of 1914
the State of Oaxaca recognized the Carranza party; never
theless, in November, one Jimenez Figueroa, arriving to en
list troops for Carranza, appeared at the palace a few days
later with his soldiers, arrested and dispossessed the State
officials, dissolved the Legislature, and proclaimed himself
military governor. One of the officials was Guillermo
Meixueiro, son of a former governor of the State, a nearly
pure blood Zapotec, a lawyer, of high education and some
fortune. Escaping by a balcony, he gathered a force from
the Sierras and drove Figueroa out. Figueroa was later shot,
and was disavowed by Carranza, but the general belief is
that it was only because he had failed. At any rate, the
Oaxacans still remained adherents of the Carranza party.

At the following elections, Meixueiro was elected gov
ernor, but resigned to serve in the field, Jose I. Davila being
elected to succeed him. In June, 1915, disgusted with the
general anarchy, and Carranza's inability to enforce his
orders on his own generals, the Legislature and State Gov
ernment, in exercise of their full constitutional rights, de
creed that: " Until the constitutional order is re-established
in the Republic, the Free and Sovereign State of Oaxaca
reassumes its sovereignty, and will continue governing in
the observation of the Constitution of 1857, with all its stand
ing laws and procedures." This was exactly parallel to
Carranza's action as governor of Coahuila, only much more
formal; it was also duly followed by local issues of postage
stamps, gold, silver and copper money, and also paper.
But, Carranza sent a force under Governor Castro of
Chiapas, the present Secretary of War, and after a campaign
of some length, the State government was driven up into
the mountains to the north and east.

There they still are, despite all efforts of the Carranza
Government to dislodge them, protected by and protecting
the native population in peace. In the city of Oaxaca I was
told it was impossible to go overland to the Isthmus, and

78 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

thence to Guatemala as I wished, for the irresponsible bandits
everywhere. I found the whole State clear down to the
Carranza lines on the Tehuantepec railroad in peace, and
happy. Feeling it unwise to say anything of my wishes to
my American friends, for their sakes, I went to Mitla, spent
a few days at the ruins, and on meeting a couple of Sierra
Zapatec Indians from over the hills, gave them my bags, and
walked out one midday while the soldiers were at dinner on
the other side of the town. In a few hours I was behind the
hills, and that night way up in the mountains, sending my
compliments by telephone over the peaks to General
Meixueiro.

No real information gets across the border and into our
press, but the following summary is absolutely incontrovert
ible by the positive evidence on every side, and is the unani
mous opinion of everyone in Mexico, except those who are
exploiting the Carranza regime. By that I mean not only
the mass of foreigners of every nationality save German,
but the mass of Mexicans themselves, including a very large
number of government attaches, whose bread and butter, or
life, forces their silence.

Carranza's policy has from the first been founded on the
phrase I quoted : These foreigners have got to quit making
money out of Mexico. His international policy has been not
to build up friendship with us, but to divide all Latin
America on the old European idea of the balance of power
between two hostile groups, placing Mexico (with himself
in the chair of Porfirio Diaz) at the head of this Latin re
vindication against the Yankee peril, and availing himself
of Germany as his support. Every high military and civil
officer is pro-German, except General Pablo Gonzalez; it is
said he urged a different policy on the President, only to be
told, " I will not abandon my best friend (Germany) ." The
army is German in sympathy and tendencies; wearing of
buttons with the Kaiser's picture is common; they have all
expected Germany to mn; and then would be Mexico's time,
and theirs. Our friendly Guatemala, where President
Estrada Cabrera, though a dictator, gives as good a govern
ment as can be asked under conditions, and whose policy has
always been " to make friends with and protect the Indians
in their home economic life " has specifically come in for
Carranza's bitter hatred. Carranza soldiers invaded Guate
mala some time ago; but did not get out. And a signed

MEXICO TO-DAY 79

agreement with Salvador to invade Guatemala from both
sides, Mexico to get some of the interior territory Alvarado
needs for exploitation, and Salvador a port on the Caribbean,
is common talk; it is heard everywhere, both in Mexico and
Guatemala, and with a suggestion that some outside in
fluence prevented its consummation. As to other diplomatic
efforts, in which Manuel Ugarte, with his Pan-Latinism, and
our exceedingly able traveler, Luis Cabrera, have had their
part, one cannot here speak. But I can quote from two
letters, the originals of which I was permitted to see. The
first was written by a man in Mexico City, a Mexican, in
position to get first-hand knowledge of events, to a friend
in the south, a Mexican :

Feb. 5, 1918. I to-day confirm my impressions of the terrible
situation in which Mexico finds herself from the outrages and
robberies of the Carrancista soldiers and officers. It is demon
strated clearly that the neutral policy of Carranza is solely a chimera,
a pretext, for having seen for some time that his government must
rely on the support of one or the other belligerent in the present
war, he took decidedly the side of the Central Empires, without our
being able as yet to see all his reasons ; though for my part it seems
because of the suggestions of his chief military officers who admire
the attitude of the Germans, with Ugarte and their other admirers
who never cease saying we must never forget 1847. We know
that the German Minister offered Carranza 60,000,000 dollars, ele
ments to equip an army of 400,000 men, and a seat in the council
of world peace to reclaim the rights of the Mexicans in the United
States. The negotiations of Nieto in Washington were a failure, in
spite of the contrary as asserted by the Carrancista press, for it seems
that they are coming to suspect Carranza's real attitude. Mexico
will have to be a faithful ally of Germany, to the detriment of her
sympathies.

Feb. 27, 1918. All the revolutionary leaders of the north and
south are now united for the restoration of our great Constitution
of 1857; but we must not be asleep, for though the public opinion is
unanimous against Carranza and his circle of bandits and assassins,
we must look out for the final convulsions which will mark the agony
of Carrancismo, for these men are capable of anything so long as they
can continue a little longer in robbing the public posts; and there
is much talk of a secret treaty between Carranza and the Republic
of Salvador to invite the greater number of American nations to
the taking of decisive action against the United States, and in favor
of Germany, which is paying for these steps on Carranza's part. In
all this we see that an international conflict is very easy. The
enemies now have wireless communication direct with the Germans;
and this, with the other acts of Carranza, can place us later at the
mercy of the United States, which will consider us as their enemies
on account of the imprudence of this group.

80 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

The two following letters were written by an old school
mate of General Meixueiro, an Oaxacan, as shown by the
deference to the patria chica, and a personage intimately
close to Carranza; the letters themselves show themselves
written at the latter 's direction. Note also the fact that in
them General Meixueiro is given his full official title as
General of Division (of the Oaxaca State forces) thus treat
ing him as a belligerent; compare what has been said herein
on State sovereignty and the Oaxaca action. The letters
use the " thou " of close personal intimacy, and were written
a short time before I passed through Oaxaca last Spring.
General Meixueiro showed me the letters and permitted me
to take the copies :

Sefior General of Division, Lie. Guillermo Meixueiro: wherever
he may be found.

My dear friend : I begin this letter giving you the general status
of our position, which is complicated by the European war. The
Government inclines to the German side, and the numerous colony
living in the United States, by the law of economic gravitation, will
bring what capital they can save, and in self-preservation will cross
our borders to take refuge in Mexico. Besides, it appears that our
country will be the point of concentration of all the Teutons in Amer
ica, in view of the fact that the other American nations have placed
themselves on the side of the Allies. The Government has 24 towers
for wireless telegraphy, cartridge-making machinery directed by Ger
mans, a school and shop for aviation, also in German charge, so that
we are involved in the greatest contest known to history.

In view of the reinforcements which our Government receives in
capital and men, for every German is a soldier, for the future war in
our territory, I have believed proper to treat with you on the delicate
question of the political problem of Oaxaca. I know your valor
and sincerity, your love for Oaxaca, your disinterested aims, and all
that I have reviewed in my mind before writing you the present letter.
If there be any error of appreciation on my part, pardon it, for no
other thing guides me than love for the patrio chica and my affection
for the friend and brother of my infancy.

The same official person whom I presented to you in Nov., 1915,
intervenes in the present matter. At that time there was considered
an approachment between the element of the Oaxaca Sovereignty
which you represent, and the Government de facto, the same matter
as is now in consideration ; and if an agreement were arrived at, it
would be with the Central Constitutional Government on the eve of
its establishment. This government is well disposed to arrive at an
understanding; but in view of the fact that the former time when
propositions were made, no agreement was reached because you did
not reply, to-day I desire to know what are your desires or conditions
to start an ending of the contest. You will understand that the dis
cussion includes the effective guarantees which shall be enjoyed by

MEXICO TO-DAY 81

you and the other officers who operate under your orders, of the matter
of confiscated interest, liberty of person, of the establishment of
the Constitutional Authorities in Oaxaca by means of new elections;
and it has also been considered that until an agreement is arrived at,
you may continue your revolutionary efforts, without being charged
with perfidy. Finally, the matter was put upon the board that if the
security of your person and family or the education of your children
should require, as precautionary means on your part, your living
outside of Mexico, you will be indemnified for all the damage you
have received in your interests during this long period, as a mark
of the fact that your revolution has pursued no other than a political
end.

General Meixueiro's answer will be gathered from the
following reply:

Senor General, Lie. Guillermo Meixueiro, Ixtlan de Juarez. Very-
dear friend:

I have your valued letter of recent date, by which I see that in
spite of our initiatives you still do not consent to an agreement with
our Government because you do not consider it legitimate, and be
cause you believe that its policy is not the one beneficial to Mexico
in these critical moments. You desire that the Constitution of 1857
be reestablished, and say that everything that is being done is null
because Carranza had no authority to set aside that Constitution and
substitute that of Queretaro. That is a matter of opinion, and you
should consider that the new political code given to the Republic,
rather than a new constitution is only a reform of that of 1857, a
reform of much timeliness, principally in what touches the clergy and
the foreigners, for these are absorbing many of the rights of Mexicans.
Study it calmly.

With respect to the political actuation of our Government, I have
read your arguments, and I do not see how you can forget the
offenses we have suffered from our northern neighbor. You say that
Governments should not act from mere sympathies or antipathies nor
from a spirit of vengeance, and that those who are our enemies
to-day may to-morrow be our best friends. But, do you believe that
the Yankees can ever be our friends? Disenchant yourself, my dear
friend; the Yankees do not love us; what they love is our wealth
and our territory and they will take it whenever they can, and the
present Government does right in taking its precautions — yet with
prudence in order not to precipitate a rupture before the time, for an
immediate rupture with the neighboring Republic would swamp us.
At this moment we need building iron for factories which does not
come because Mexico does not define her attitude, and our neighbors
think the iron is for Germany. We need the paper from the National
Paper and Type Co. that our press may not disappear. Remember,
too, that our drugs and a large part of the food of Mexico comes from
the United States; we must, therefore, move with caution. Ugarte
went away as Private Secretary of the President on a secret mission.
Do not insist on your position and aid us for the unification of all
Mexican parties.

VOL. ccix. NO. 758 6

82 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

If the conflicts between your forces and the Constitutionalists
who are in Oaxaca are suspended, the blood thus spared will serve
for another and proximate occasion.

These letters represent the two sides of Mexico in the
question. In support of this, I talked during the latter
part of 1917 and the first half of 1918 with every class
of Mexican, from Indians to planters of the old regime in
Yucatan, and Cientificos in Mexico, and moderates every
where, as well as constant talks with Alvaradists and Car-
rancista officers and officials; I rode all through southern
Mexico, seeing the ordinary daily life of the people, talking
with all classes of revolutionaries from soldiers and petty
officers to Felix Diaz, Zapata and Meixueiro, and spending
full time discussing with these leaders and their subordinates
the present situation in every respect. Mexico, outside of
Carrancista circles, is our friend; it is also in desperation,
and crying to us ; it is absolutely pro- Ally, and anti-German.
The case is a clear one: the Carranza policy is a political one,
against us, to which he is sacrificing the inner condition of
the country; but the Mexicans outside his ranks see that
alliance with Germany would only mean for Mexico what
it did for Russia, even if Germany had won; and they see
Mexico's future in friendship with us.

If we would permit it, if we would recognize the facts
from the world-standpoint, that assumed diplomatic regular
ity is being used intentionally to hold us off and for no other
purpose, as Germany hoped to do first with England and
then with us, till the better time; if we would recognize the
Mexican people whose welfare we have at heart, instead of
the Carranza Government which has betrayed the Mexican
Revolution as Lenine did the Russian; if we would only go
no further than was done by the Carranza Government itself
in the letters above, and recognize the belligerency of the
legitimate State Government of Oaxaca, the whole matter
would be settled by an immediate declaration of alliance by
that Sovereignty, carrying with it all the rest of the Revolu
tionary movement through the whole Republic. We would
lose Carranza, and with him the danger which he and the
German Minister are fomenting, that we be drawn into
attacking Meacico on the northern border, or in Tampico;
all danger of the rupture between us and the Mexicans
would cease, for the Carranza Government could not last
if the Revolutionists got the ammunition they need.

MEXICO TO-DAY 83

The interior condition is wholly misunderstood in this
country. It is not a case of more or less widespread banditry,
pillage. It is a political movement, it is unified, and all the
parties are in communication and cooperation, slowly
strengthening themselves and pinching in the Carranza Gov
ernment amidst the growing hatred of the whole people, and
its economically critical situation.

The present movement is a unified political revolution to
restore constitutional government, wipe out the socialistic
legislation, and come back to a position of respect interna
tionally. From a military point, the country is controlled
by three main forces, in cooperation : Felix Diaz command
ing in Chiapas, Vera Cruz, the Tehuantepec isthmus, and
part of Puebla; the Oaxaca State forces under Meixueiro;
Zapata commanding in Morelos, part of Puebla and Guer
rero; Guerrero also seceded lately, and State forces there
cooperate; up the west side and through the north various
military leaders ; on the east coast in the oil district, Pelaez.
The southern contingents have definite political programmes
(substantially identical) to the restoration of constitutional
government, with reforms giving effect to the social prin
ciples underlying the late revolution ; these programmes have
been accepted by the military chiefs in the north. And they
include for the first time in Mexico's history the economic
regeneration of the Indian; that is Zapata's one care, for
which he will fight to the end; it is Meixueiro's; and Diaz
has made it his. The Mexican revolution (really started by
Zapata in 1909, before Madero) will never end until the
mountain peasants of Morelos come into their own; you
might as well fight the Swiss; but give them their farms,
buying them from the landlords if necessary, and it ends
to-morrow. And above all give them economic assurance
that it is worth while saving — and their regeneration and that
of Mexico will come.

What is our part? Recognize the facts, and not just the
theories of the case. The Carranza-von Eckhardt Govern
ment of Mexico, and the Alvarado-I. W. W. Government of
Yucatan know that we really understand the situation; but
they hope that we can be kept edging on until they have made
our final action too late.

WILLIAM GATES.

SHALL WE ACCEPT THE UNIVERSE ?

BY JOHN BURROUGHS

IT was reported of Margaret Fuller that she said she ac
cepted the universe. " By Gad, she'd better! " retorted
Carlyle. Carlyle himself seemed to accept the universe with
many misgivings. Looking up at the midnight skies he said,
"A sad spectacle! If they be inhabited, what a scope for
pain and folly, and if they be na' inhabited, what a waste of
space." It should not be a hard thing to accept the universe
since we have no choice in the matter; but I have found
it worth while to look the gift-horse in the mouth, and con
vince myself that it is really worth accepting. It were a pity
to go through life with a suspicion in one's mind that it might
have been a better universe, and that some wrong has been
done us because we have no freedom of choice in the matter.
The thought would add a tinge of bitterness to all our days.
And so, after living more than eighty-one years in the world
and pondering long and intently upon the many problems
which life and nature present, I have come, like Margaret
Fuller, to accept the universe, have come frankly to approve
that first verdict pronounced upon creation, namely, that it is
very good, — good in its sum total up to this astronomic date,
whatever phases it may at times present that lead us to a
contrary conclusion.

Not that cold and hunger, war and pestilence, tornadoes
and earthquakes, are good in a positive sense, but that these
and kindred things are vastly overbalanced by the forces and
agencies that make for our well-being — that " work together
for good " — the sunshine, the cooling breezes, the fertile soil,
the stability of the land and sea, the gentle currents, the equi
poise of the forces of the earth, air, and water, the order and
security of our solar system, and, in the human realm, the

SHALL WE ACCEPT THE UNIVERSE? 85

good-will and fellowship that are finally bound to prevail
among men and nations.

In remote geologic ages, before the advent of man, when
the earth's crust was less stable, when the air was yet loaded
with poisonous gases, when terrible and monstrous animal
forms held high carnival in the sea and upon the land, it was
not in the same sense good, — good for beings constructed as
we are now. In future astronomic time, when the earth's air
and water and warmth shall have disappeared — a time which
science predicts — and all life upon the globe fails, again it
will not be good. But in our geologic, biologic, and astro
nomic age, notwithstanding the fact that cold and suffering,
war and pestilence, cyclones and earthquakes, still occur upon
the relatively tiny ball that carries us through the vast siderial
spaces, the good is greatly in the ascendency. The voyage
is not all calm and sunshine, but it is safe, and the dangers
from collision and shipwreck are very remote. It is a vast
and lonely sea over which we are journeying, no other ships
hail us and bid us god-speed, no messages, wireless or other,
may reach us from other shores, or other seas; forces and
influences do play upon us from all parts of the empyrean,
but, so far as we are aware, no living thing on other spheres
takes note of our going or our coming.

In our practical lives we are compelled to separate good
from evil — the one being that which favors our well-being,
and the other that which antagonizes it — but, viewed as a
whole, the universe is all good; it is an infinite complex of
compensations out of which worlds and systems of worlds,
and all which they hold, have emerged, and are emerging,
and will emerge. This is not the language of the heart or of
the emotions — our anthropomorphism cries out against it —
but it is the language of serene, impartial reason. It is good
for us occasionally to get outside the sphere of our personal
life and view things as they are in and of themselves. A
great demand is made upon our faith — faith in the absolute
trustworthiness of the human reason, and in the final benefi
cence of the forces that rule this universe. Not to solve the
mysteries, but to see that they are insoluble, and to rest con
tent in that conclusion, is the task we set ourselves here.

Evidently the tide of life is still at the flood on this planet;
its checks and counter currents arise inevitably in a universe
whose forces are always, and always must be, in unstable
equilibrium.

86 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

The love of the Eternal for mankind, and for all other
forms of life, is not a parental love — not the love of the
mother for her child, or of the father for his son— it is more
like the love which a general has for his army; he is to lead
that army through hardships, through struggles, through
sufferings, and through death, but he is leading it to victory.
Many will perish that others may live; the battle is being
won daily. Evolution has triumphed. It has been a long
and desperate battle, but here we are and we find life sweet.
The antagonistic forces which have been overcome have be
come sources of power. The vast army of living forms mov
ing down the geologic ages has been made strong through
the trials and obstacles it has surmounted, till now we behold
it in the fulness of its power with man at its head.

II

There is a paragraph in Emerson's Journal on Provi
dence, written when he was twenty-one, which is as broad and
as wise and as heterodox as anything he ever wrote. The
Providence he depicts is the Providence I see in Nature :

" Providence supports but does not spoil its children.
We are called sons, not darlings, of the Deity. There is ever
good in store for those who love it, knowledge for those who
seek it, and if we do evil we suffer the consequences of evil.
Throughout the administration of the world there is the same
aspect of stern kindness; of good against your will; good
against your good; ten thousand channels of active benefi
cence, but all flowing with the same regard to general, not
particular profit.

" And to such an extent is this great statute policy of
God carried that many, nay most, of the great blessings of
humanity require cycles of a thousand years to bring them
to light."

A remarkable statement to be made in 1824, in New
England, and by a fledgling preacher of the orthodox faith,
and the descendant of a long line of orthodox clergymen.
It is as broad and as impartial as science, and yet makes a
strong imaginative appeal. Good at the heart of Nature is
the purport of it, not the patent right good of the creeds,
but good, free to all who love it, a " stern kindness," and no
partial, personal, vacillating Providence whose ear is open
only to the password of some sect or cult, or organization.

SHALL WE ACCEPT THE UNIVERSE? 87

" Good against your good/' your copyrighted good, your
personal, selfish good (unless it is in line with equal good to
others) — the broad, universal beneficence of Nature which
brought us here and keeps us here, and showers its good upon
us as long as we keep in right relations with it; but which
goes its appointed way regardless of the sore needs of warring
nations or the desperate straits of struggling men. That is
the Providence that lasts, that does not change its mind, that
is not indulgent, that does not take sides, that is without
variableness or shadow of turning. Suppose the law of
gravity were changeable, or the law of chemical reactions, or
the nature of fire, or air, or water, or cohesion? Gravity
never sleeps or varies, yet see bodies rise, see others fall,
see the strong master of the weak, see the waters flow and
the ground stay ; the laws of fluids are fixed, but see the
variety of their behavior, the forms in which they crystallize,
their solvent power, their stability or instability, their capac
ity to absorb or conduct heat — flux and change everywhere
amid fixity and law, nature is infinitely variable, which opens
the door to all forms of life; her goings and comings are on
such a large scale, like the rains, the dews, the sunlight, that
all creatures get an equal benefit. She sows her seed with
such a generous hand that the mass of them are bound to fall
upon fertile places. Such as are very limited in range, like
those of the swamp plants, are yet cast forth upon the wind
so liberally that sooner or later some of them fall upon condi
tions suitable to them. Nature will cover a whole township
with her wind-sown seeds in order to be sure that she hits the
small swamp in one corner of it.

A stream of energy, not described by the adjective in
exhaustible, bears the universe along, and all forms of life,
man with the rest, take their chances amid its currents and
its maelstroms. The good providence shows itself in the
power of adaptation all forms of life possess. Some forms
of sea weed or sea grass grow where the waves pound the
shore incessantly. How many frail marine creatures are
wrecked upon the shore, but how many more are not wrecked !
How many ships go down in the sea, but how many more
are wafted safely over it !

The Providence in nature seems intent only on playing
the game, irrespective of the stakes, which to us seem so im
portant. Whatever the issue, Nature is the winner. She
cannot lose. Her beneficence is wholesale. Her myriad

88 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

forms of life are constantly passing through " the curtain of
fire " of her inorganic forces, and the casualties are great,
but the majority get through. The assault goes on and will
ever go on. It is like a stream of water that is whole and
individual at every point, but fixed and stable at no point.
To play the game, to keep the currents going — from the
depths of siderial space to the shallow pool by the road side ;
from the rise and fall of nations, to the brief hour of the
minute summer insects, the one over-arching purpose seems
to be to give free rein to life, to play one form against an
other, to build up and tear down, to gather together and to
scatter — no rest, no end, nothing final — rocks decaying to
build more rocks, worlds destroyed to build more worlds,
nations disintegrating to build more nations, organisms
perishing to feed more organisms, life playing into the hands
of death everywhere, and death playing into the hands of
life, sea and land interchanging, tropic and arctic meeting
and mingling, day and night, winter and summer chasing
each other over the earth — what a spectacle of change, what
a drama never completed ! Vast worlds and systems in fiery
flux, one little corner of the cosmos teeming with life, vast
areas of it, like Saturn and Jupiter, dead and barren through
untold millions of years; collisions and disruptions in the
heavens, tornadoes and earthquake and wars and pestilence
upon the earth — surely it all sounds worse than it is, for we
are all here to see and contemplate the great spectacle —
sounds worse than it is to us because we are a part of the out
come of all these raging and conflicting forces. Whatever
has failed, we have succeeded, and the beneficent forces are
still coming our way.

The greatest of human achievements and the most pre
cious is that of the great creative artist. In words, in color,
in sounds, in forms, man comes nearest to emulating the
Creative Energy itself. Nature is the art of God, as Sir
Thomas Browne said. It seems as if the pleasure and the
purpose of the Creative Energy was endless invention, to
strike out new forms, to vary perpetually the pattern.
Myriads of forms, myriads of types, inexhaustible variety in
air, earth, water, ten thousand ways to achieve the same end,
a prodigality of means that bewilders the mind; to produce
something new and different, an endless variety of forms
that fly, that swim, that creep, in the sea, in the air, on the
earth, in the fields, in the woods, on the shore. How many

SHALL WE ACCEPT THE UNIVERSE? 89

ways Nature has of scattering her seeds, how many types
of wings, of hooks, of springs! In some she offers a wage
to bird or quadruped in the shape of fruit, others she forcibly
attaches to the passer-by. In all times and places there is
a riot of invention.

Ill

Are we not men enough to face things as they are? Must
we be cosseted a little? Can we not be weaned from the old
theological pap? Can we not rest content in the general
beneficence of Nature's Providence? Must you and I have
a special hold upon the Great Mother's apron strings?

I see the Nature Providence going its impartial way. I
see drought and flood, heat and cold, war and pestilence,
defeat and death, besetting man at all times, in all lands. I
see hostile germs in the air he breathes, in the water he drinks,
in the soil he tills. I see the elemental forces as indifferent
toward him as toward ants and fleas. I see pain and disease
and defeat and failure dogging his footsteps. I see the
righteous defeated and the ungodly triumphant — this and
much more I see, and yet I behold through the immense
biological vista behind us the race of man slowly — oh, so
slowly! — emerging from its brute or semi-human ancestry
into the full estate of man, from blind instinct and savage
passion into the light of reason and moral consciousness. I
behold the great scheme of evolution unfolding despite all
the delays and waste and failures, and the higher forms ap
pearing upon the scene. I see on an immense scale, and as
clearly as in a demonstration in an experimental laboratory,
that good comes out of evil, that the impartiality of the
Nature Providence is best, that we are made strong by what
we overcome, that man is man because he is as free to do
evil as to do good, that lif e is as free to develop hostile forms
as to develop friendly, that power waits upon him who earns
it, that disease, wars, the unloosened, devastating elemental
forces, have each and all played their part in developing and
hardening man and giving him the heroic fibre. The good
would have no tang, no edge, no cutting quality without evil
to oppose it. Life would be tasteless or insipid, without pain
and struggle and disappointment. Behold what the fiery
furnace does for the metals — welding or blending or sep
arating or purifying them, and behold the hell of contending
and destructive forces out of which the earth came, and again

90 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

behold the grinding and eroding forces, the storms and earth
quakes and eruptions, and disintegrations that have made it
the green inhabitable world that now sustains us. No, the
universal processes do not need disinfecting, the laws of the
winds, the rains, the sunlight do not need rectifying. " I do
not want the constellations any nearer," says Whitman. I
do not want the natural Providence any more attentive.
The celestial laws are here underfoot and our treading upon
them does not obliterate or vulgarize them. Chemistry is
incorruptible and immortal, it is the handmaid of God; the
yeast works in the elements of our bread of life while we
sleep ; the stars send their influences, the earth renews itself,
the brooding heavens gathers us under its wings, and all is
well with us if we have the heroic hearts to see it.

In the curve of the moon's or of the planets' disks, all
broken or irregular lines of the surface are lost to the eye —
the wholeness of the sphere form subordinates and obliterates
them all — so all the failures and cross purposes and dis
harmonies in nature and life do not suffice to break or mar
the vast general beneficence; the flowing universal good is
obvious above all.

So long as we think of the Eternal in terms of our ex
perience of the knowledge of concrete things and beings
which life discloses to us, we are involved in contradictions.
The ancients visualized their gods and goddesses, Jove,
Apollo, Minerva, Juno, and all the others. Shall we do this
for the Eternal and endow it with personality? Into what
absurdities it leads us ! The unspeakable, the unseeable, the
unthinkable, the inscrutable, and yet the most obvious fact
that life yields to us! Nearer and more vital than our own
bodies, than our own parents, and yet eluding our grasp;
vehemently denied, passionately accepted, scoffed, praised,
feared, worshipped, giving rise to deism, atheism, pantheism,
to idolatry, to persecution, to martyrdom, the great Reality
in which we live and move and have our being, and yet for
that very reason, because it is a part of us, or rather we are
a part of it, are we unable to define it or seize it as a reality
apart from ourselves. Our denial proves it; just as we use
gravity to overcome gravity, so we use God to deny God.
Just as pure light is of no color, but split up makes all the
colors that we see, so God divided and reflected makes all
the half gods we worship in life. Green and blue and red
and orange are not in the objects that reflect them, but are

SHALL WE ACCEPT THE UNIVERSE? 91

an experience of the eye. We might with our tongues deny
the air, but our spoken words prove it. We cannot lift our
selves over the fence by our own waist-bands, no more can
we by searching find God, because He is not an object that
has place and form and limitations; He is the fact of the
fact, the life of the life, the soul of the soul, the incompre
hensible, the sum of all contradictions, the unit of all divers
ity ; he who knows Him, knows Him not, he who is without
Him, is full of Him; turn your back upon Him, then turn
your back upon gravity, upon air, upon light. He cannot
be seen, but by Him all seeing comes, He cannot be heard,
yet by Him all hearing comes ; He is not a being, yet apart
from Him there is no being — there is no apart from Him.
We contradict ourselves when we deny Him; it is ourselves
we deny, and equally do we contradict ourselves when we
accept Him; it is something apart from ourselves which we
accept.

When half -gods go, says Emerson, the gods arrive. But
half -gods never go; we can house and entertain no other.
What can we do with the Infinity, the Eternal? We can
only deal with things in time and space — things that can be
numbered and measured. What can we do with the infinitely
little, the infinitely great? All our gods are half -gods made
in our own image. No surer does the wax take the imprint
of the seal than does the Infinite take the imprint of our
finite minds. We create a Creator, we rule a Ruler, we
invent a heaven and hell; they are laws of our own being,
seen externally.

How, then, shall we adjust our lives to the conception
of a universal, non-human, non-finite algebraic God? They
adjust themselves. Do your work, deal justly, love right-
ness, make the most of yourself, cherish the good, the beau
tiful, the true, practice the Christian and the heathen virtues
of soberness, meekness, reverence, charity, unselfishness,
justice, mercy, singleness of purpose — obey the command
ments, the Golden Rule, imbue your spirit with the wisdom
of all ages, for thus is the moral order of the world upheld.

The moral order and the intellectual order go hand in
hand. Upon one rests our relations to our fellows, upon the
other rests our relation to the Cosmos.

We must know, and we must love, we must do, and we
must enjoy, we must warm judgment with feeling, and
illume conscience with reason.

92 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Admit, if we must, that we are in the grip of a merciless
power — that outside of our own kind there is nothing that
shows us mercy or consideration — that the Nature of which
we form a part goes her own way regardless of us, yet let
us keep in mind that the very fact that we are here and
find life good is proof that the mercilessness of Nature has
not been inconsistent with our permanent well-being. The
fact that flowers bloom and fruit and grains ripen, that the
sun shines, that the rain falls, that food nourishes us, that
love warms us, that evolution has brought us thus far on our
way, that our line of descent has survived all the hazards
of the geologic ages — all point to the fact that we are on
the winning side, that our well-being is secured in the con
stitution of things. For all the cataclysms and disruptions,
the globe has ripened on the great siderial tree, and has
become the fit abode of its myriad forms of life. Though
we may be run down and crushed by the great terrestrial
forces about us, just as we may be run down and crushed
in the street, yet these forces play a part in the activities that
sustain us ; without them we should not be here to suffer at
their hands.

Our life depends from moment to moment upon the air
we breathe, yet its winds and tempests may destroy us; it
depends from day to day upon the water we drink, yet its
floods may sweep us away. We walk and climb and work
and move mountains by gravity, and yet gravity may break
every bone in our bodies. We spread our sails to the wind
and they become our faithful servitors, yet the winds may
drive us into the jaws of the breakers. How are our lives
bound up and identified with the merciless forces that sur
round us ! Out of the heart of fate comes our freedom ; out
of the reign of death comes our life; out of the sea of im
personal energy come our personalities; out of the rocks
comes the soil that sustains us ; out of the fiery nebulae came
the earth with its apple blossoms and its murmuring streams ;
out of the earth came man. If the cosmic forces were not
merciless, if they did not go their own way, if they made ex
ceptions for you and me, if in them there were variableness
and even a shadow of turning, the vast inevitable beneficence
of Nature would vanish, and the caprice and uncertainty of
man take its place. If the sun were to stand still for Joshua
to conquer his enemies, there would be no further need for
it to resume its journey. What I am trying to get rid of

SHALL WE ACCEPT THE UNIVERSE? 93

is the pitying and meddling Providence which our feeble
faith and half -knowledge have enthroned above us. We need
stronger meat than the old theology affords us. We need
to contemplate the ways of a Providence that has not been
subsidized ; we need encouragement in our attitude of heroic
courage and faith toward an impersonal universe; we need
to have our petty anthropomorphic views of things shaken
up and hung out in the wind to air. The universe is not a
school-room on the Montessori system, nor a benevolent in
stitution run on the most modern improved plan. It is a
work-a-day field where we learn from hard knocks, and
where the harvest, not too sure, waits upon our own right
arm.

JOHN BUBROUGHS.

94

ENGLAND AND THE SEA

BY DAVID MORTON

These are great lovers: one a jewelled queen

In whom unalterably the white flame burns ;
And one a moody changeling, gray and green,

Savage and tender, cruel and kind by turns.
With what a gift of tall and stately ships,

With what sweet promise that was rich and good,
Has England wooed those bright and bitter lips,

Counting the cost but as a lover should.

I have known men who loved the craggy peaks

That brothered them with stars and made them wise,

And men who loved a valley and its creeks,

Or plains more fair than woman to their eyes ;

Yet had I never known such love could be
As this, where England gazes on the sea.

I TOO HAVE LOVED

FLORENCE EARLE COATES

I, too, have loved the Greeks, the Hero-sprung,
The glad, spoiled children of Posterity:
Have closed my eyes, more near their shrines to be,

Have hushed my heart, to hear their epics sung.

Upon their golden accents I have hung,
With Thyrsis wooed to vales of Sicily,
And Homer, blind, has given me to see

Olympus, where the deathless Gods were young.

But still, that one remembering with awe
Whose vision deeper than all others saw,

I feel the dearer debt my spirit owes
To him, who towers, peerless and sublime,
The noblest, largest intellect of Time,

Born where the English Avon softly flows.

95

DEMOS

BY EDWIN ARLINGTON ROBINSON
I

All you that are enamored of my name

And least intent on what most I require,
Beware; for my design and your desire,

Deplorably, are not as yet the same.

Beware, I say, the failure and the shame

Of losing that for which you now aspire
So blindly, and of hazarding entire

The gift that I was bringing when I came.

Give as I will, I cannot give you sight

Whereby to see that with you there are some
To lead you, and be led. But they are dumb

Before the wrangling and the shrill delight
Of your deliverance that has not come,

And shall not, if I fail you — as I might.

II

So little have you seen of what awaits

Your fevered glimpse of a democracy
Confused and foiled with an equality

Not equal to the envy it creates,

That you see not how near you are the gates
Of an old king who listens fearfully
To you that are outside and are to be

The noisy lords of imminent estates.

Rather be then your prayer for what you have
Than what your power denies you, having all.
See not the great among you for the small,

But hear their silence ; for the few shall save
The many, or the many are to fall —

Still to be wrangling in a noisy grave.

IS GREAT LITERATURE
INTELLIGIBLE ?

BY HARRY T. BAKER

MOST periodicals are conducted on the principle that all of
their contents shall be intelligible to the average reader. Nat
urally, this excludes a good deal of important matter. In
deed, it excludes some of the greatest literature of any period ;
for great authors, including Kipling in the present genera
tion, expect the reader to possess sufficient imagination, in
telligence, and sympathy to meet them on their own level.
As Ruskin put it, in Sesame and Lilies, we must make our
selves worthy of the kingdom of literature in order to be
free of it. We must not ask ourselves, Does the writer agree
with me? but, How can I make myself fit to understand his
words and to heed them? No vile or vulgar person, added
Ruskin, can enter the kingdom. The object of great writers
is not wholly to please. In fact, in the case of Ruskin him
self, and of Carlyle and Swift, it was to denounce and to
warn. And all three are to some degree and in some passages
or whole works — for example, Swift's social satire, A Modest
Proposal — unintelligible to stupidly conventional people.
The fault lies with the reader, however. He must make him
self worthy to understand. To this end, he needs the guid
ance of a teacher. No doubt, there is plenty of bad teach
ing, where the blind leads the blind. None the less, the best
literature must be taught if it is to be apprehended ; and our
best schools and colleges justify themselves by their fruits.
A literary background, often supplemented by specific in
struction, is necessary to the complete understanding and en
joyment of literature.

Gulliver's Travels, for example, is interesting to children ;
but even the average adult often misses its best and most
penetrating social satire. He may miss the ridicule of
pedantry in the conduct and beliefs of the philosophers of

IS GREAT LITERATURE INTELLIGIBLE? 97

Lagado, in the third book, or the profound satire on the fear
of death in the description of the revolting prolongation of
the natural threescore years and ten in the case of the im
mortals or Struldbrugs, who are detested by all normal peo
ple in their country. Still less may the average reader un
derstand the contrast, by implication, between Swift's ideal
race, the Houyhnhnms, and ordinary human beings. Even
men who were themselves authors of note, like Thackeray,
have failed to perceive that Swift, far from being a monster,
was an unwavering idealist; that his vision of human per
fectibility in the fourth book of Gulliver is one of the most
inspiring as well as one of the wisest ever penned. Swift is
one of the best of authors by whom to gauge the intellectual
limitations of a reader. And, since Gulliver is one of the
half dozen really great works of prose in the English lan
guage, it is important that as many of us as possible should
be brought to a fuller comprehension of the wisdom and lit
erary genius of Swift. Addison and Steele yield themselves
much more readily to the superficial student ; but neither was
so great a thinker or so great a genius as Swift. Their liter
ary riches are more easily accessible — and correspondingly
less valuable. Swift knew how to write plainly — witness his
Drapier's Letters and his other political pamphlets — but his
more profound speculations in Gulliver and the Tale of a
Tub require more of the reader.

No one can understand Ruskin, in The Crown of Wild
Olive or Unto This Last, without ascertaining that he was a
passionate lover of beauty and a hater of materialism and of
all forms of social injustice. He detested railroads in beau
tiful valleys because they destroyed much of the beauty of the
scenery; he hated the factory system and the introduction of
machinery because they made labor mechanical and unen joy-
able. Ruskin, being destitute of a sense of humor, was often
unreasonable in his demands; but he was always eloquent,
and always a master of that wonderful stringed instrument,
English prose. What a stroke of genius, both in thought
and expression, is his enumeration of the qualities, in Unto
This Last, whereby one becomes rich or poor. It has to a
remarkable degree that vital literary characteristic, power of
suggestion:

In a community regulated only by laws of demand and supply,
but protected from open violence, the persons who become rich are,
generally speaking, industrious, resolute, proud, covetous, prompt,

VOL. ccix. NO. 758 7

98 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

methodical, sensible, unimaginative, insensitive, and ignorant. The
persons who remain poor are the entirely foolish, the entirely wise,
the idle, the reckless, the humble, the thoughtful, the dull, the imag
inative, the sensitive, the well-informed, the improvident, the irregu
larly and impulsively wicked, the clumsy knave, the open thief, and
the entirely merciful, just, and godly person.

Superficial and prejudiced observers have set Ruskin
down as a mere fanatic or a hysterical babbler; he was con
sidered also, after Modern Painters, a " fine writer," which
meant, he indignantly declared, " that no one need mind what
I say." In reality, as Mr. J. A. Hobson has shown us in
his wise volume, Ruskin was a singularly acute and profound
social reformer; and one of his chief " faults " was that he
was half a century, and in some views a whole century, ahead
of his period. We are just catching up with Ruskin. He
needs less explanation now than in his own time; but he is
still too rapid and imaginative in the evolution of his thought
for minds occupied with commercial problems or minds nat
urally dull. It is a misfortune, however, to fail to under
stand John Ruskin. It is not remarkable, but pitiable, that
the publication of Unto This Last in the Cornhill Magazine
about 1860 should have resulted in almost universal con
demnation. Thackeray, who was then editing the magazine,
wrote after the appearance of three instalments that the
papers were so widely disliked that he could admit but one
more. Carlyle, who, it will be remembered, thought England
populated mostly by fools, pronounced a wise and favorable
verdict which later criticism has for the most part confirmed:
" Not one doctrine that I can intrinsically dissent from or
count other than salutary in the extreme, and pres singly
needed in England above all." Carlyle against the multitude
is enough.

The most profitable method of studying literature is by
periods: Ruskin, Carlyle, Arnold, Browning, Tennyson to
gether; Swift, Addison, Steele, Defoe, Pope together;
Shakespeare, Marlowe, Jonson, Beaumont, Fletcher togeth
er. This implies study of the social, political, religious
movements of these periods, the ideas in common and the
ideas in contrast which these writers held, the spirit and at
mosphere of each period, its attitude to reason versus emo
tion, to romance, to natural science, to commerce — especially
in America at the present time. Each new author is a new
problem, too. The rules of literary success cannot, except
within narrow limits, be codified. Hence the young Kipling

IS GREAT LITERATURE INTELLIGIBLE? 99

requires fresh eyes for right appraisal; it will not do to look
through the misty spectacles of the past. All this means
exercise of a reader's brain, exercise of his power of sympathy
and adaptation, a test of his openness of mind. Only a mi
nority of magazine readers can meet successfully such a
variety of tests; and therefore the canny editor regretfully
denies them some of the highest flights of literary genius.
It is unfortunate, but it is so. Anything that runs sharply
counter to received opinion is dangerous magazine material.
Even a great name is not always sufficient to calm the ruf
fled sensibilities of commonplace subscribers. The question
of familiarity with a former literary period does not enter
here — though it might induce a proper humility. The advice
of little tinkling Tom Moore, for example, to Byron to " be
ware of Shelley's skeptical opinions " sounds humorous to
day; for in the moral scale Shelley is now rated somewhat
higher than the noble lord. Misunderstood and persecuted
in his own generation, he is at last recognized as at least much
more unselfish and more devoted to the good of humanity
than Byron. Some great literature, some great men, are in
the nature of things partly or temporarily unintelligible.

Culture, then, involves a willingness to learn, not merely
a demand to be pleased. It is a growing and a becoming;
it is, as its great apostle, Arnold, pointed out, a familiarity
with " the best that is known and thought in the world." An
enjoyment of even the most humorous essays of Lamb im
plies a background of culture; and Arnold himself suavely
takes for granted a complete devotion to Homer and the
other chief glories of ancient classical civilization ! In an age
of vocational training and colleges of commerce, this is an
almost insulting assumption to some of our " best people."
Shakespeare, too, though not himself a university man, ab
sorbed much of this classical culture and evidently thought
it valuable. Keats ramped through Lempriere's classical
dictionary, says one of his biographers, like a colt at pasture.
And Browning, Kipling, and others have voyaged through
strange seas of thought in an English dictionary, merely
to discover new riches of their own tongue. With resources
so much greater than those of the commonplace reader, then,
is it at all wonderful that they should at times be " unintel
ligible "? There is no royal road to the understanding and
appreciation of the best literature; one must prepare and
always prepare. " The readiness is all."

100 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Shakespeare, who shows so much, shows several separate
elements of appeal which warrant the optimistic statement
that even the commonplace reader or hearer can get enough
to make him appreciative. There are skilfully elaborated
plot, entirely natural and complete character delineation, a
wise and tolerant philosophy of life, an indescribable deftness
of phrase — " the white wonder of dear Juliet's hand " — and
a perfect adaptation to the stage, to immediate effect on an
average audience. Shakespeare's plays, it cannot be too
often repeated, were written to be acted, not to be read.
Academic critics have been long in assenting to this cardinal
principle; but Shakespeare has little in common with aca
demic persons. No writer was less a pedant.

How much does the casual theater-goer understand of
Hamlet? Certainly not the mystic's attitude to life, nor
more than half the reasons for Hamlet's so often postponed
revenge. Shakespeare is much more obscure here than usual ;
but the obscurity is due to the subject. Hamlet has a pro
found and an unusual intellect, compounded of many sim
ples. He is in a morbid state — he assures us of that himself
—but he is not insane. In fact, as Lowell pointed out, to
make him insane would be unthinkable, for we should then
have a tragedy with an irresponsible hero; and Shakespeare
knew long before this how to construct a tragedy. Hamlet
loves Ophelia, but gives her up because her timid and conven
tional nature can be of no service to him in his great task of
avenging his father. He detests Polonius because Polonius
is a bore, — commonplace, garrulous, full of wise saws but
with no ideas of his own. Not all of these things can be
grasped by the average reader or playgoer, yet he can grasp
enough to fascinate him; and a second or third reading or
attendance at the theater will bring him new riches. Indeed,
the most useful single test of the distinction between mediocre
literature and great literature is that of ascertaining whether
one's appreciation of any piece of writing is enhanced or di
minished upon rereading. Not even the most intelligent
reader can exhaust Shakespeare at a first perusal; but he can
exhaust a modern detective story thus ; for, the mystery once
unraveled, there is little else to ponder over. Shakespeare
leaves that impression of infinity which is possible only to the
greatest artists. In the realm of wit, Falstaff — the Falstaff
of the two parts of Henry IV , not of The Merry Wives of
Windsor — leaves the same impression of the inexhaustible.

IS GREAT LITERATURE INTELLIGIBLE? 101

The casual reader, however, will fail to perceive what Pro
fessor A. C. Bradley has affirmed: that Shakespeare created
in Falstaff so extraordinarily attractive a figure that when
he wished to get rid of him, upon the crowning of Prince Hal,
he could not do so without displeasing the audience. We
do not readily forgive Henry's treatment of his old compan
ion. Falstaff may have had within him an intolerable deal
of sack, but he also had much more of the milk of human
kindness than the cold-hearted and calculating young mon
arch. Professor Bradley's analysis of this problem makes us
realize that in Shakespeare there is frequently much more
than meets the eye. His essay, by the way, reprinted in
Oxford Studies in Poetry, was originally published under the
title, The Rejection of Falstaff, in the Fortnightly Review,
a periodical which has done much to further the cause of
literature.

Poetry is in general more difficult of comprehension and
of full appreciation than is prose. It requires more imag
ination, more idealism, more acquaintance with the subtleties
of melody and movement, and with condensed and heightened
phrase. College girls are more acute than college boys in
fathoming the mysteries of verse ; the boys, especially in our
democratic State universities, are too materialistic; their spir
its are dragged away only with difficulty from the too, too
solid flesh of this world. Poetry moves in a diviner air.
Among the evils which would have come upon a Prussian
ized globe would have been the diminution of great poetry;
for it has nothing in common with triumphant mate
rialism and the worship of the goddess Espionage. Ameri
can commercialism, too, is hostile to the muses. Philistinism,
the devotion of all one's energies to money-making and to the
grossly material things of life, is, like materialistic science,
the very opposite of a poetic attitude. It was Coleridge who
declared that the opposite of poetry is not prose, but science.
Not all modern science, however, is materialistic; and Kip
ling, in M 'Andrew's Hymn, has sung the song of steam. His
exquisite prose poem, the short story They (in Traffics and
Discoveries) even introduces some technical chat about a
motor car. Yet what poetry there is in his phrase anent the
joy of motion in this modern machine: " I let the county
flow under my wheels."

It must not be supposed, however, that poetry is a mere
glorification of form, of apt expression. All great poetry is

102 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

wise; it is what Arnold called a " criticism of life." When
Keats said that beauty is truth, truth beauty, he uttered a
great idea: that what the artist creates (beauty) is as true
as real life. Shakespeare's creations of the imagination —
Hamlet, Lady Macbeth, Imogen, Cordelia, Antony — are as
real as the man who walks down the street. The struggles
of young thinkers over religious problems, in the Victorian
era, are best portrayed and discussed in poetry, the poetry of
Arnold, Tennyson (particularly InMemoriam) and Brown
ing. Rabbi Ben Ezra is the best statement, in condensed
form, of triumphant religious faith that we have in litera
ture. It is alone enough to justify poetry as a criticism of
life. This poem presents, however, difficulties of expression
due to its very effort at condensation. Browning was too
prone to believe that his reader could follow all of his short
cut expressions. As one of his critics says, he climbed a lad
der from one idea to another and then kicked away the ladder.
The reader is therefore put to some trouble to replace it. In
the first of the following stanzas, the difficulty is due chiefly
to the postponement of the verb to the second stanza :

Not that, amassing flowers,

Youth sighed, " Which rose make ours,
" Which lily leave and then as best recall ? "

Not that, admiring stars,
It yearned, " Nor Jove nor Mars ;
" Mine be some figured flame which blends, transcends them all !"

Not for such hopes and fears
Annulling youth's brief years,
Do I remonstrate : folly wide the mark !

In the final line there is the additional difficulty of the omis
sion of a verb: " That would be folly wide of the mark."
This brief, pregnant fashion of phrasing, this crowding of
language, grew upon Shakespeare also in his later plays. An
tony and Cleopatra is full at once of felicities and puzzles,
some of them " as indistinct as water is in water."

Yet who would have it otherwise? Poetic magic escapes,
in any attempt to paraphrase it. It can be stated only in
its own words. As excellent critics have declared with heat, no
school exercise is so futile as that of " explaining " poetry in
a prose paraphrase. There is no equivalence; for no two
specimens of form are equivalent. What began as poetry
ends as mere pedantry. The thought and the form in which

IS GREAT LITERATURE INTELLIGIBLE? 103

it is couched cannot be discussed separately; they fuse in the
heat of composition and, like the Liberty and Union of Web
ster's great speech, become one and inseparable. Some trip
ping meters are obviously adapted, too, to light or humorous
subjects; blank verse, to serious and dignified ones. Shake
speare wrote nearly all of his humorous scenes in prose ; and
sometimes he mixed prose and verse in the same scene. As
Professor C. T. Winchester points out in his Principles of
Literary Criticism* there is a ludicrous failure to adapt meter
to theme in the following stanza of a hymn, where solemn
thought is conveyed in a music-hall jingle:

How tedious and tasteless the hours

When Jesus no longer I see.
Sweet prospects, sweet birds, and sweet flowers

Have all lost their sweetness to me.

It is a movement, says Professor Winchester, " which sug
gests Sir Toby's resolve to * go to church in a galliard and
come home in a corantoV

The sonorous opening of Lincoln's Gettysburg Speech,
" Fourscore and seven years ago," is not equivalent to eighty-
seven years ago! Prose hath her harmonies, no less than
poetry. It is such subtleties that make up the full effect of
literary expression. " Victuals " is not equivalent to " food " ;
" deathlessness " is not the same as " immortality " — as
Lowell showed when he suggested that we try converting
Wordsworth's title, Intimations of Immortality, into Hints
of Deathlessness. Wordsworth, however, does not reveal so
many difficulties as Browning or Shakespeare. His diffi
culty, to a reader of his own time, lay chiefly in the novelty
of his attitude to nature, an attitude now so largely adopted
by other writers as to be intelligible to the multitude. His
doctrine of the Divine Immanence, the presence of God in
His world, is perhaps the most important single contribution
to modern theology. The quotation in which it first occurs,
from Tintern Abbey, is so hackneyed as to need no repetition.
But Wordsworth, like so many other great men, was so far
in advance of his age that until 1830 (and the Lyrical Bal
lads, containing Tintern Abbey, were published in 1798) he
achieved little popularity. Hazlitt, that penetrating and
enthusiastic critic, was one of the first to discover and pro
claim him to a reluctant public. The hyperbole of this state-

1 Page 255.

104 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

ment, from one of Wordsworth's early poems, The Tables
Turned, may well have given pause to a Philistine of 1798:

One impulse from a vernal wood

May teach you more of man,
Of moral evil and of good,

Than all the sages can.

But the simplicity of expression is all that could be desired;
and this simplicity is characteristic of most of Wordsworth's
best work — the work of those short ten years to 1808 beyond
which the flame of his genius seemed quickly to dwindle and
flicker. One of the few consolations of growing old, how
ever, is that forty and sixty always appreciate the poetry
of Wordsworth more than twenty. The obvious brilliancies
of Byron are almost always more engaging to youth than
the grave meditativeness of him who knew the presences of
the hills and the impressive unity of all nature — which he
has recorded in those wonderful lines, full of Miltonic organ
music and Miltonic grandeur of style:

The immeasurable height
Of woods decaying, never to be decayed,
The stationary blasts of waterfalls,
And in the narrow rent, at every turn,
Winds thwarting winds bewildered and forlorn,
The torrents shooting from the clear blue sky,
The rocks that muttered close upon our ears,
Black drizzling crags that spake by the wayside
As if a voice were in them, the sick sight
And giddy prospect of the raving stream
The unfettered clouds and region of the heavens,
Tumult and peace, the darkness and the light —
Were all like workings of one mind, the features
Of the same face, blossoms upon one tree,
Characters of the great Apocalypse,
The types and symbols of Eternity,
Of first, and last, and midst, and without end.

The Simplon Pass, which gives these lines their title, was
never so described before.

Wordsworth is one of the best illustrations of the princi
ple that no great literature is intelligible until the reader
asks himself these two questions: What was this author
trying to do? Has he done it successfully? One can never
substitute with profit the question, What ought he to have
been trying to do? The reader must first give himself up
as a disciple — which does not imply, however, a surrender of

IS GREAT LITERATURE INTELLIGIBLE? 105

all the functions of criticism. Jeffrey was ridiculous because
he thought himself competent to direct Wordsworth's pur
poses as a poet. He failed to comprehend the nature poems
because he constantly substituted his own attitude to nature
for Wordsworth's. The combination of realism and ro
manticism, too, in Wordsworth's best work, such as The
Leech-Gatherer (later entitled Resolution and Indepen
dence) puzzled the Caledonian understanding of this self-
appointed Jove. Yet Shakespeare had already done some
thing similar, on a larger scale, in the Midsummer Night's
Dream. The influence of nature, both through immediate
experience and through memory, upon human character is
another somewhat difficult element in Wordsworth. It is
referred to in Tintern Abbey and repeated in various later
poems. Doubtless this influence was much greater upon the
author himself than upon even the most modern reader;
but there was no reason why it should have been either mis
understood or ridiculed — no reason save the commonplace-
ness of ordinary human nature. The successful editor never
loses sight of this commonplaceness. His chief problem is to
remain conscious of it and still be an optimist.

Perhaps Wordsworth, like most great authors, often
dealt with what we call the supernatural. This is a frequent
and fruitful source of difficulty to the average reader. Poe
dealt with it continually, and chiefly with its horrifying side.
Kipling, in his later period, has shown a fondness for it: in
The Brushwood Boy, They, Wireless, The Dog Hervey,
Swept and Garnished. The last two are in his volume, A
Diversity of Creatures (1917) . But Homer, three thousand
years ago, was dealing with the same material; and after
him Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare and Milton. The things
not dreamed of in the philosophy of the average man have
always been favorite subjects for masterpieces. And, nat
urally, they involve difficulty. It will not do to let one's
imagination become cobwebbed or mossgrown. Shelley was
almost always living in the clouds; his best descriptions are
of some aspect of the sky. How different from Pope, who
was always to be found on the comforting levels of " sense " !
The consistency with which most of the writers of his period
clung to this good sense, or common sense — which is perhaps
better named matter-of-fact-ness — explains much of their
limpidity and their appeal to unimaginative readers. Swift,
however, it must not be forgotten, exhibited a singularly

106 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

powerful and sane imagination. Wordsworth held, in his
Intimations of Immortality, that children live nearest to the
supernatural — that " Heaven lies about us in our infancy "
and that the adult gradually sees this magic light change
into that of common day. The supernatural on its reflective
side, however,. portrayed so profoundly in Hamlet, appeals
rather to the wisdom of maturity. The Tempest is more fan
ciful, less serious; but the vision of the dissolving of the
great globe itself, " like this insubstantial pageant faded,"
is justly one of the most celebrated quotations in literature.
We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and the master will
always, in defiance of possible obscurity, emphasize this mys
tical element in human existence. Great writers do not defer
to stupidity. They will be as clear as their subjects allow
them to be; but even they themselves see sometimes as in a
glass darkly. It is well, says Mr. Chesterton, to half under
stand a poem as we half understand life. This is a wise
justification of the necessary difficulties of literature of the
highest order.

Good writing is a personal vision of life. Knowledge of
one masterpiece helps us, to some extent, to understand
others; yet each is highly individualized. The familiar
maxim, " style is the man," suggests this. On the other hand,
natural science aims at establishing similarities — which it
promptly calls laws or hypotheses. Conformity is the soul
of science; non-conformity, the soul of literature. " 'Sblood,"
says Hamlet, " do you think I am easier to be played on than
a pipe? " The reader of masterpieces must do more than
"govern the ventages" with fingers and thumb; he must
acquire, perhaps painfully, the art of playing on the instru
ment of literature. Popular magazines are a kind of player-
piano which require little skill from the reader; or to speak
more accurately, they are in a majority of their pages litera
ture reduced to its lowest terms, simplified for the multitude.
But life itself is not simple, not wholly intelligible ; and good
literature, which reflects it, must be correspondingly diffi
cult. To ask a great writer to be absolutely plain is to ask
him to be as stupid as we are.

HARRY T. BAKER.

APOLLO BOREALIS

BY ANNE C. E. ALLINSON

" DEADLY night is spread over those hapless men " — so
Homer pictures the condition of the Cimmerians, who were
fabled to live in a cloud-wrapt land on earth's northern
border. In his words we catch the teasing echoes of unknown
meetings of Vikings and Hellenes in unknown ages on un
known seas. The strange length of the Arctic day was also
caught up by Greek legend, for Odysseus reported that in
Laestrygonia a shepherd who was bringing his flock home
at sunset might pass, with a friendly hail, a shepherd who
was taking his sheep to pasture at sunrise. But it was the
long Arctic night which stirred a feeling of horror in the
dwellers on the bright coasts of the Mediterranean. Their
sorriest image of death itself was that of a dark-sailed mis
sion-ship, " upon whose deck Apollo treads not and the
sunlight falls not."

In Alexander's time, while India's coral strand was being
subdued to Hellenic uses, a dauntless Greek navigator and
scientist sailed to the northernmost border of Scotland, and
looked off toward an island which the natives told him was
the sleeping place of the sun. As Pytheas gazed out into
the northern sea, and listened to curious tales of day and
night, there swam into the ken of the ancients that Ultima
Thule which in succeeding centuries symbolized to geogra
phers, poets and philosophers the " farthest north," the un
attainable, the unknowable. Nearly a thousand years later,
the island, ever uncharted and unidentified, was still the home
of darkness. The Byzantine historian, Procopius, shudder-
ingly describes the psychological effect upon the inhabitants:
" When thirty-five days of the long night are passed, certain
people are sent up to the tops of mountains, as is the custom
with them, and when from thence they can see some appear
ance of the sun, they send word to the inhabitants below that

108 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

in five days the sun will shine upon them. And the latter
assemble and celebrate, in the dark, it is true, the feast of
the glad tidings. Among the people of Thule this is the
greatest of their festivals. I believe that these islanders,
although the same thing happens every year with them,
nevertheless are in a state of fear, lest sometime the sun
should be wholly lost to them."

Not only this island of the sea, but tracts of mainland,
were reported to be subject to night and cold. Pliny injects
into his sober book on natural history the Roman terror
of the North. Along the northern boundary of Scythia —
our southern Russia — was supposed to lie a range of moun
tains, and their bleak uplands he describes as a district of
ever-falling snow, a part of the world accursed by nature
and shrouded in thick darkness. " It produces nothing,"
he adds, " but frost, and is the chilly hiding-place of the north
wind."

The North Wind — Boreas — how savagely he blazes his
wild way down through the classical centuries!

Out of the north wind grief came forth,
And the shining of a sword out of the sea.

As sire of the white fillies of the ^Bgean which rear and dash
against the shore, he first appears in Greek mythology. A
" whirlwind-footed bridegroom," he ravished the tender
princess of primeval Athens, and marred her city's charm
with the cruel ways of Thrace. Lending his brutal might,
for once, to the cause of right, when Hellas was at bay, he
drove the Persian ships to disaster, and earned a tempered
gratitude and reluctant shrine from the humane Athenians.
In plainer descriptions of the weather the north wind
brought cold and misery wherever it blew. A Boeotian
farmer, in a northern storm, could hear the very earth howl,
and the woods, up on the slopes of Helicon, roar loud and
long. The wild animals crept low to escape the drifting
snow, and the oxen cowered in their stalls. The farmer
shivered even in his thick underclothes and woollen coat,
heavy socks and oxhide shoes. Pulling his cap down over
his ears, he stamped his way from barn to kitchen. The
Sicilian shepherd groaned, when Boreas chilled his flowers
and killed his birds. The ten thousand Greeks in a foreign
land, marching back from a futile expedition through Asia
Minor to the releasing sea, met the North Wind face to face

APOLLO BOREALIS 109

in the snowy mountains near the upper waters of the Eu
phrates. It " scorched and froze them through," Xenophon
reported, with sad details of suffering and death among men
and beasts. His exact words — whether by memory or by
chance — lately echoed from another brave journey, in a still
deadlier quarter of the globe. Dr. Wilson, before starting
out to die with Captain Scott, described in foreboding verse
the rigors of the Antarctic,

As it scorched and froze us through and through
With the bite of the drifting snow.

The terror of the South Pole had not laid its grasp upon
the imagination of the Mediterranean peoples, who, in the
regions below their own sane and temperate clime, guessed
only at the mysterious tropics. But the Arctic Circle above
haunted them. From it a pall of darkness spread to civiliza
tion, a cruel wind blew upon man's spirit, frost and snow
chilled the palpitating loveliness of life.

The ancient terror of the North can be detected, not only
in troubled echoes of Viking stories, and direct descriptions
of the hateful winter of personal experience, but in Greek
and Roman dreams of happy regions, fit for gods to dwell
in, or for the blessed dead, or for sated and weary toilers
who had earned the right to rest. In these lovely places the
north wind never burns and freezes, the snow never drifts,
the light never fails. As soon as the Greek imagination
lifts itself over the edge of history, we find the gods dwelling
in a home that always is secure — " neither by winds is it
shaken, or ever is it drenched by the showers, nor ever comes
near it the snowstorm. But the aether, cloudless, is out
spread above it, and bright is the gleam that runs o'er it."
Near such an Olympus lay the Elysian fields, even as the
traveller today, in approaching the actual mountain, finds
meadows of asphodel lying, luminous, under the twilight sky.
The matured Greek genius allowed to Pindar a vision of the
abode of the righteous dead, from which is excluded any sug
gestion of darkness and of storm- winds :

For them the night all through

In that broad realm below,

The splendor of the sun spreads endless light;

Mid rosy meadows bright,
Their city of the tombs with incense trees,

And golden chalices

110 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Of flowers, and fruitage fair,
Scenting the breezy air,
Is laden.

But men, worn with battling the elements, forcing food out
of the earth, defeating their enemies, fighting against heavy
odds for each and every gain, have never been willing to
believe that only by divinity or by death could ease and rest
be won. So upon the map of this world have been laid the
Happy Isles,

Cradled and hung in clear tranquility.

The desire for them has been well-nigh universal. Egyp
tians, Greeks, Romans, Irishmen and Welshmen, Icelanders,
all have believed that somewhere in the sea might be found
these islands, touched only by the warmer winds, given over
to an eternal spring, unmarred by blight or chill, by sickness
or old age, by sorrow or sin. Nor has English poetry al
lowed science wholly to wrest from our sobered minds a
beautiful dream of

Lands indiscoverable in the unheard of west,
Round which the strong stream of a sacred sea
Rolls without wind forever, and the snow
There shows not her white wings and windy feet.

To the Greeks and Romans, who knew so little of the
west, it seemed probable that happy isles might lie in that
actual geographical direction. It was in western seas that
Odysseus was forever meeting with those enchantments of
nature and of woman which made him forget his gaunt and
rock-ribbed Ithaca and the rigors of domestic fidelity. Then,
as navigation enlarged its bounds, and travellers' tales in
creased, legendary islands of the old sagas seemed really to
be described in the west beyond the daily thoroughfares. At
last, in the year preceding Julius Caesar, they emerge, with
clear outlines, in a story of the Roman general Sertorius — a
story which is typical of ageless human desire. Sertorius
had served his country well against external foes, only to
be hounded out of Rome by political enemies. Driven again
from his Spanish refuge, in danger of his life, he was told by
sailors of some islands called the Islands of the Blest : " Rains
fall there seldom and in moderate showers, but for the most
part they have gentle breezes, bringing along with them soft
dews, which render the soil not only rich for ploughing and
planting, but so abundantly fruitful that it produces spon-

APOLLO BOREALIS 111

taneously an abundance of delicate fruits, sufficient to feed
the inhabitants, who may here enjoy all things without trou
ble or labor. The seasons of the year are temperate and the
transitions from one to another so moderate that the air is
always serene and pleasant. The rough northerly and south
erly winds which blow from the coasts of Europe and Africa,
dissipated in the vast open space, utterly lose their force
before they reach the islands. The soft western and south
erly winds which breathe upon them sometimes produce gen
tle sprinkling showers, which they carry along with them
from the sea, but more usually bring days of moist bright
weather, cooling and gently fertilizing the soil. When Ser-
torius heard this account, he was seized with a wonderful
passion for these islands, and had an extreme desire to go
and live there in peace and quietness and safe from oppres
sion and unending wars."

The Happy Isles, described by sailors to this unhappy
general, are interpreted by historians to be the Canaries on
the coast of Africa. But dreams move on swift wings and
the imagination has ever carried the home of happiness fur
ther and further on. Horace, in the days of his youthful
revolt, threw it far beyond Rome and the Etruscan sea.
Centuries later Bishop Berkeley applied the famous Hora-
tian description of peace and virtue to the Bermudas, where
he hoped to find, for letters and art, a blessed asylum from
the decadence of Europe.

Westward the course of empire takes its way, exclaimed
this dreamer. And any inhabitant of southern California
will tell you — and persuade most of you — that the Happy
Isles, god-driven over the face of the waters, have at last
come to anchorage in the Pacific, and found their true in
carnation in our Land of the Golden West. Thus, in flight
from Boreas, we have sailed, even as Odysseus sailed, from
sea to western sea, following the chart handed to us by the
first Greek bard.

But in mad denial — welling up from unplumbed depths
of being — my own vessel refuses to make port. Another
course to freedom impels my sails. It is a course charted
by the same Hellenes who sent me westward. It is a harsh,
forbidding route, straight northward into the dread lair of
the North Wind. But the quest will lead out beyond storms
into peace, beyond terrors into happiness, beyond darkness
into day.

112 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

The Greeks started the story of a blessed and contented
race which dwelt beyond Boreas. It is described in a matter-
of-fact way by Pliny, in connection with his wild Rhipagan
mountains: "By these mountains and beyond the North
Wind dwells, if we are willing to believe it, a happy people,
the Hyperboreans, who have long life and are famous for
many marvels which border on the fabulous." Modern phi
lologists would have us believe that a mere false derivation
brought these people into being. But nursed by the myth-
makers and poets, their life has persisted. The Hyperbo
reans have been even more real than the Hesperides. The
vigor of a belief in their existence is proved by the fact that
on the geographical maps of the twelfth century of our era
they occupy, with sturdy realism, the most northern regions
of the eartlT.

By an amazing paradox, the early stories of these north
erners make them ministers, in a special sense, of the God
of Light. Apollo pierced the world's darkness in the Greek
sky, in the Greek intellect, in the Greek charm. And yet
this personified Radiance loved the Hyperboreans. He who
never set foot on Charon's boat often crossed the ferry of
the North. Happy in his favor, this hyperboreal people
bound " golden bay leaves in their hair, and made them merry
cheer."

Is it not possible that, today, the descendants of these
bay-crowned victors are to be found among those who make
themselves at home in harsh and stormy dwelling-places?
At least in one quality these people resemble the Hyperbo
reans of old. For the North they cherish a passion which
places them beyond the North Wind, in a contentment as
sweet, a happiness as beautiful as ever existed in the Happy
Isles. The poetry of our own northern tongue reflects this
passion again and again. One English poet even puts it
into the mouth of Odysseus, as he spurns a western island of
pleasaunce :

This odorous, amorous isle of violets,

That leans all leaves into the glassy deep,

With brooding music over moontide moss,

And low dirge of the lily-swinging bee —

Then stars like opening eyes on closing flowers —

Palls on my heart. Ah, God! that I might see

Gaunt Ithaca stand up out of the surge,

Yon lashed and streaming rock and sobbing crag,

The screaming gull and the wild-flying cloud.

APOLLO BOREALIS 118

For the northern heart there has always been, in some
homesick hour, a farther north. From the gaudy melon-
flowers and the nightingales of Italy the Englishman turns
back to his vernal buttercups and thrushes —

O to be in England
Now that April's there!

The Scot, hearing the April breezes of England, longs for
his ruder winds —

Soughing through the fir-tops up on northern fells.

From Scotland men have sailed to Thule. From Thule they
have been driven on, by an inward urge, into the centre of
those strange regions which Pytheas was told could be
traversed neither by foot nor sail. Legend and poetry and
history have marked their brave and impassioned course,
through many centuries, until, at the North Pole, a son of the
North fulfilled all northern dreams, and planted amid snow
and ice the flag of a nation whose earliest traditions include
a stern and rockbound northern coast.

In this flag the star which is Peary's is also my own. The
bit of cosmic dust that I know as myself was blown into
Maine by the North Wind on a January night. The North,
then, is my querencia. On our great western ranches, it is
found that grazing animals, when spring stirs the blood, will
kick up their heels and make for their querencia, or birth
place. A lame old mule will accomplish in one day of ardent
return a distance which consumes three days, when he is
haled away again with prod and halter. His owner has
known where to seek him, for, against just such occurrences,
each animal's nostalgia is listed in the records of the ranch.
If I ever disappear from my paddock, I must be sought on
the trail of the north star.

When, like Sertorius and yourself, I wish to escape from
life's oppressions and unending wars, I turn to no dream of
western islands, whose flowers and fruits glow with color in
the persistent sunshine. Rather would I see the polar sun
shine on glittering fields of snow, or know the " gray and
shadowless light " of cloudy polar days, and the starlight,
" cold and spectral," of the Arctic night. Indeed, my desire
toward the North is so strong that I have always been more
interested in its night and day than in the same grim phe-

VOL. ccix. NO. 758 8

114 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

nomena of the Antarctic Circle. Of this I was half ashamed,
viewing it as a bit of sentimental unreality, until I read of
the mood in which Amundsen discovered the southern pole.
The quite prosaic words of the Norwegian Hercules, on the
accomplishment of his labor in the South, constitute an ex
traordinary tribute to the hold upon him of the North: " The
goal was reached, the journey ended. I cannot say — though
I know it would sound much more effective — that the object
of my life was attained. That would be romancing rather
too barefacedly. I had better be honest and admit straight
out that I have never known any man to be placed in such
a diametrically opposite position to the goal of his desires
as I was at that moment. The regions around the North
Pole — well, yes, the North Pole itself — had attracted me
from childhood, and here I was at the South Pole. Can
anything more topsy-turvy be imagined? " Thus at the very
height of achievement abroad the northerner's querencia
draws him back.

Now, a lover of the North — a Hyperborean — finds in his
blessed region the Beauty which the Mediterranean imagina
tion denied to Thule and the Rhipsean mountains and the
cloud-wrapt city of the Cimmerians. No poetry is richer
in descriptions of nature's sheer physical loveliness than that
written in our language about those four dramatic seasons
of the year of which three are excluded from the Happy
Isles of the West. How could it be otherwise, when our
spring leaps like a flushed, awakening child from the lap of
winter, our summer blooms with the beauty and the brevity
of the rose, our autumn flames with colors of the Orient, and
our winter strips all disguises from the lovely forms of trees,
lays its red sheen upon the twilight horizons, and covers the
shame of the barren earth with the excuse of the virgin snow?

This beauty for the eye grows only more amazing as we
push northward. Strange and eerie seemed to Pytheas the
tales of the confusion of day and night in the indiscoverable
regions beyond the Scottish coast. But this is the way such
a Laestrygonian land looked last July to a young Hyper
borean, from the deck of an ocean steamer, which, en route
for Scandinavia, had ploughed its way up from Scotland
to the Faroe islands : " It was still light enough to read on
deck at eleven, and then, as we walked up and down the
deck, watching the islands, we suddenly realized that it was
growing lighter instead of darker, and that the sunset glow

APOLLO BOREALIS 115

in the north was turning into dawn. Between eleven and
twelve o'clock it was just twilight enough so that one star
shone overhead, very dimly; in the north was the sunset,
turning to dawn, in the south the full moon, and, just ahead,
the islands. There are cliffs on them, sheer cliffs that drop
seventeen hundred feet into the sea, and blue peaks behind,
rising up two thousand feet, with patches of snow on them.
Then, all day and all night, we had seagulls flying round us,
and, as it began to grow brighter, their white bodies would
catch the light like a flash of sun between their black wings.
The sea was perfectly flat, even the wind died down, till,
finally, just before sunrise, the sea was like a mirror with only
the waves of our own wake and a ripple here and there from a
pull of wind, or broken in spreading triangles, when a family
of ducks would spin along the surface in Indian file, and
then dive one after the other. And all the while it grew
brighter, and we came nearer to the islands, and their great
cliffs and jagged peaks stood out more wonderfully. The
north grew like a rosy furnace, with little curly clouds all
molten gold, and the south was long ribbons of pink above
the islands — and the pale full moon and the flying gulls —
and the Eastern rim of the ocean was like the white lip of a
plate, and you thought of the Water Babies. Suddenly there
was a shout of skoal from the Norwegians, and you saw a
liquid green flame lift itself over the horizon like a great aqua
marine that turned to fiery red as you looked at it. Then
the hills caught the light, and the grass became green, and you
picked out a tiny white town, and the surf breaking at the
foot of the cliffs, and one long white thread that quivered
and became a water-fall."

Northward — ever northward — beauty persists beyond all
the white towns inhabited by men. The darkness of the long
Arctic night seemed horrible to navigators of southern seas.
But Hyperboreans know that Apollo's substitute — the
aurora borealis — may dim the brightest moon that ever inlaid
with fairy silver the golden sunlight of a western isle. Be
yond the reach of any but the most enduring — so we are told
by the intrepid few — exists a night illumined by glowing
fire-masses, by rays sparkling with the red and violet and
green of the rainbow, by a phantasmagoria of living color
surpassing anything that man can dream.

The Hyperborean does not deny the curse of Nature.
Darkness and cold and desolation seem as real to him as to

116 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

any other mortal. He has moments of intense craving to
escape, as when Nansen felt that for a safe return he would
willingly offer up the chance of victory. But in the long run
the Hyperborean is more likely to leave his body a victim of
the North's worst cruelties, than to consummate any such sac
rifice of his soul. The very night, even if unillumined, ap
peals to forces buried deep within his own nature. His eye
may be offended, but his spirit is satisfied. There is a mystery
here, in which only initiates can be partakers. The throng
which seeks the southern sun and western breeze has no un
derstanding of a man who is happy in " wresting from the
realm of darkness," and mapping out on his chart, a land that
is barren and stony, foggy and ice-bound, the long year
through. But the initiates of the North know why Amund
sen, in opening up the wild Northwest Passage, garnered
from the infinite wastes " new conceptions of greatness,
beauty and goodness."

The path to this kind of satisfaction lies straight through
the chilly hiding places of the North Wind. Not by fleeing
westward, but by pushing northward, can be secured the
contentment of the Hyperboreans. Knowing night at its
worst, they attain to veritable faith in the day. Nansen lay
for months in a cave hollowed in the snow, with only one
companion, with no books, no occupations, no sunlight, while
above him a glacier writhed horribly, like a giant in torment,
and sent out groans which alone tore the terrible northern
stillness. And yet his mind, by conquering this monstrous
darkness, remained sane, and ready to greet the light. " Out
side," so his journal runs, " it is growing gradually lighter
day by day; the sky above the glacier in the south grows
redder, until at last one day the sun will rise above the crest."
Here is no fear, such as timorous strangers have imagined
us to feel, that this time the sun is lost to us forever.

Of all his worshippers Apollo took especial joy in the
Hyperboreans. Among them, as in some bright and gallant
Elysium, he promised to place the souls of hard-tried mortals.
Their life he made so fair that " Hyperborean fortune "
became proverbial. According to their faith in his reappear
ance after the night, and their vitality in awaiting him, he
rewarded them with the gifts of his spirit. Hence, in all
ages, beyond darkness has been found the ministry of Light.

ANNE C. E. ALLINSON.

THE BOOK OF THE MONTH

A FABLE FOR LOVERS I

BY LAWRENCE OILMAN

OF course the first thing you will ask when you find your
self once again in the Woodcutter's cottage, with the Blue
Bird singing in his silver cage on the wall, is: "What has
become of Mytyl? " Well, you may as well know it at once:
You are not to see much of Mytyl this time (although she
does appear at the very end), for this is Tyltyl's hour, and
a very crowded hour it is — he has not been long in view
before he is surrounded, and thenceforth constantly en
vironed, by no less than seven sweethearts. Amazingly
constant are these sweethearts of Tyltyl — and amazingly
amicable toward one another, when you consider that they
are all very much attached to Tyltyl, and that each of the
seven is aware of the love-lorn state of the other six. It
seems impossible, until the Fairy Berylune explains it all
quite simply and acceptably: it is because Tyltyl is wearing
the Magic Sapphire in his green hat, and that enables him
to see deep down into their souls, the truth of their hearts
and the well-spring of their lives ; and, of course, Truth be
ing Beauty (as Tyltyl's creator learned from a certain prede
cessor) he sees them with innocence, gladness, and lovely ami
ability radiating from each adoring presence. A marvellous
sapphire, indeed ! — as Tyltyl realized when he lost the miracu
lous green hat and came upon the Sweethearts screaming
and fighting and tearing one another's hair and scratching
one another's faces : for then he saw them, as the Fairy Bery-
lune explained, as they were not : " It's all so wonderfully
simple : anything that's ugly isn't true, never has been true —
and never will be. ... When you see what you do see, you

lThe Betrothal, by Maurice Maeterlinck. New York: Dodd, Mead and
Co., 1918.

118 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

see nothing at all. I've told you before, it's what you do
not see that makes the world go round." From which you
will know that Tyltyl's creator is up to his old tricks again,
and is still trying to persuade us, as he tried long ago, that
" if at this moment you think or say something that is too
beautiful to be true in you ... on the morrow it will be
true."

But, as we were saying, it was to be a crowded hour for
Tyltyl, and we must get back to our recording of it.

Seven years have passed since Tyltyl said to us across
the footlights that if any of us should find the Blue Bird, we
were please to give it back, as they should "need it for their
happiness." Evidently Tyltyl, or the Fairy Berylune,
or some one, did find it, for here it is, as we remarked,
singing in its cage on the wall; and Tyltyl is sixteen; and
sound asleep in his bed.

" And what in the living world can happen to a man that
is asleep on his bed? Work must go on and coach-building
must go on, and they will not go on the time there is too
much attention given to dreams. A dream is a sort of shad
ow, no profit in it to anyone at all." It is the voice of the
eternal materialist, as dramatized by a Celtic blood-brother
of Tyltyl's creator; and the answer might have been spoken
by Light, or the Fairy Berylune, or Tyltyl himself later
on : ;< There are some would answer you that it is to those
who are awake that nothing happens, and it is they who
know nothing. He that is asleep on his bed is gone where
all have gone for supreme truth." Tyltyl, asleep on his
bed, is engaged upon precisely that quest.

When we see him first, he is not the only one who appears
to be asleep : a dog and a cat are asleep near the fireplace —
but that, we regret to say, is all we see of them. As for our
old friends Milk, and Sugar, and Bread, they are nowhere
in evidence. Ah, well, one cannot ask too much of the past,
and it is not difficult to content ourselves with Tyltyl, and
the Fairy Berylune, and Light the benign and lovely and
wise, and Granny Tyl and Gaffer Tyl, and Mummy and
Daddy Tyl — these come to us again out of the remembered
years.

But, more important still, there are new friends, singular
and delectable and exciting. There are, first of all, the Seven
Sweethearts of Tyltyl— Milette the Woodcutter's Daugh
ter, and Belline the Butcher's Daughter, and Roselle the Inn-

THE BOOK OF THE MONTH 119

keeper's Daughter, and Aimette the Miller's Daughter, and
Jalfine the Beggar's Daughter, and Rosarelle the Mayor's
Daughter — the only one, by the way, who is rich and
haughty, though she fared no better in the end for being
that, as you will see; and finally, there is the Veiled Girl,
who never speaks or laughs, and whom Tyltyl is unable
to recognize — she whose features, said the Great Ancestor,
were like those of an unfinished statue. As for the Great
Ancestor himself, he is probably the most rewarding of our
new friends in the Country of the Blue Bird. Although, to
be sure, he was not much of a help to Tyltyl in his momentous
quest.

What was that quest? one may begin to ask. Why, it
was nothing less than the quest for his predestined bride.
It may seem at first blush as if Tyltyl, who is not yet six
teen, is a little young to concern himself about so conse
quential a matter; but what would be the use of living in
the Country of the Blue Bird if one couldn't fall in love
and marry as early as one chose? The Country of the Blue
Bird is not the draconian State of New York, where it is
useless for you to seek a bride until you are twenty-one,
unless you can show your parents' written consent to the
License Clerk. But inasmuch as Tyltyl did not live in the
Empire State, it was quite proper for the Fairy Berylune
to urge him forth upon a quest for his mate. This time, she
tells him impressively, they are not concerned with the souls
of Bread, Sugar, and other simple and unimportant things:
they are to choose the great and only love of Tyltyl's life.
For each man has only one, and if he misses it, he wan
ders miserably over the f actfief the earth ; the search goes on
till he dies, with the great duty unfulfilled which he owes
to all those who are within him. But he seldom has an idea
of this. He walks along, his eyes shut; seizes some woman
whom he chances to meet in the dark, and shows her to
his friends as proudly as though the gates of Paradise were
opening. He fancies himself alone in the world and imag
ines that in his own heart all things begin and end. Which
is absurd, of course. So tonight they must put their heads
together and prepare for the Great Choice, which is to de
cide the happiness of two human beings first and of many
others after that.

It is then that the bewildered Tyltyl discovers that it
is not he who will choose — that it doesn't concern him at

120 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

all — that he can't love whom he wants to. Nobody loves
whom he wants to or does what he wants to in this world
He must first learn what is wanted by those on whom he
depends — his ancestors, to begin with, and then all his chil
dren — the thousands who aren't born yet and who are wait
ing for the mother whom he is going to give them. It is
they who will choose his bride.

So they set forth upon the Great Journey, Tyltyl and the
Fairy Berylune and the enamoured Seven — who have begun
sadly to realize that in Tyltyl's case there is no use, since he
is not a Mohammedan, in hoping to apply the indulgent rule
of the Koran: " Take one wife, or two or three or four, but
never more." They are joined by a strange and awful per
sonage, a colossal granite Shape, twice the height of a man,
shrouded in gray rock-like draperies. " It's nobody, it's
Destiny," says the Fairy Berylune ; " I had forgotten him.
He will have to come with us." So, with Tyltyl's hand
gripped in the huge, bronze-colored, vise-like fist of Des
tiny, they pass out through the wall, which opens accom
modatingly down to the ground, led, of course, by Destiny;
for is he not, as he says, " Insuperable, Invulnerable, Im
mutable, Inexorable, Irresistible, Inflexible, and Irrevoca
ble"?

The expenses of the trip will be heavy ; so Tyltyl secures
gold from the Miser (who, under the compulsion of Tyltyl's
sapphire, is transformed into a figure of gracious benevo
lence) ; they are joined by Light, and, after duly adventur
ing through perils and allurements, in palaces and dens of
terror, they reach the Abode of the Ancestors. Here are
all of Tyltyl's ancestors since £': : world began : one who was
a grocer at Versailles in the reign of Louis the Fifteenth; a
beggar from the twelfth century; men of the Stone Age;
Romans, savages, courtiers, knights, freebooters and knaves
— chiefly, the Great Ancestor, who looks like a Cave-man
with his garb of skins and his big stick. He, with the Great
Peasant and the Great Mendicant, are to choose from among
the devoted Seven the woman whom Tyltyl is to love and
marry.

It is hardly strange that Tyltyl should resent this inter
ference, and should feel a little as the rustic felt when off ered
ox-tail soup — that this was " going pretty far back for soup."
" I and the others," explains the Great Ancestor, "are all
you. You are we, we are you; and it's all the same thing.

THE BOOK OF THE MONTH 121

. . . Those who have lived in you, live in you just as much
as those who are going to." So the love-lorn Seven all file
in front of the ancient court; but alas, though it is very sad,
the hands of the Ancestors are tied: they do not see among
six of the Seven the predestined one for whom they are
waiting. The veiled figure of the Phantom Girl in white,
she of the featureless, enigmatic face, causes them hope and
perturbation. Yet if she be the One, Tyltyl must remember
who she is: if he does not succeed in recognizing her, all
his happiness on earth will be nothing more than a phantom
like herself. But there is one last resource, one last hope,
which is that the children who are to be born of Tyltyl may
discover who she is and that she is to be their mother; for
they see much farther and deeper than even the Ancestors
do.

So, beyond the Milky Way, near to the stars, Tyltyl and
his attendants come to the region in which his unborn children
are waiting to show him the mother whom they have chosen.
It is a little like the Kingdom of the Future in the Country
of the Blue Bird — a place of vast, dim spaces, with infinite

Serspectives, lofty vaults, and towering translucent columns,
renched in a soft azure radiance, while the roof is a vault
of myriad unknown stars. But, as Light explains, the King
dom of the Future was the whole Kingdom, " with every
body's children; here it is only a province, in which are no
children but yours."

So Tyltyl awaits the verdict of his children; and it
scarcely surprises you that when they come trooping in, rav
ishing in their cerulean nighties and their bobbed curls, they
pass by Rosarelle and Jalline and Belline and Milette and Ai-
mette and Roselle, and, led by The Smallest of Them All,
go straight to the voiceless, featureless White Phantom,
whom they greet rapturously with kisses and caresses; where
upon the eyes of the White Phantom open, her lips flutter,
her arms become supple and circle round their necks. " It
is she. ... I found her," The Smallest of Them All an
nounces to Tyltyl. But Tyltyl cannot yet remember her.
They warn him that this is hurting her dreadfully, and her
color pales and her eyes shut, and the hall darkens and dis
solves, and the children and their mother vanish with it,
and Tyltyl is left dreaming of her beauty, and wondering
who the Predestined One may be — you hope that he is not
thinking a little resentfully of M. Maeterlinck's confident

122 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

assurance, once upon a time, to all lovers : " When Fate sends
forth the woman it has chosen for us ... and she awaits us
at the crossing of the road we have to traverse when the hour
comes, we are warned at the first glance." You cannot blame
Tyltyl for wondering why he was not warned.

Later, of course, he does remember. He wakes up to
find himself in his bed (oddly enough, with his clothes on).
The Blue Bird is singing madly in his cage, and Mummy
Tyltyl is lighting a fire, preparing for a visit from Neighbor
Berlingot and his wife and their daughter Joy, to whom Tyl
tyl once gave the Blue Bird. And when they arrive, and Joy
is seen to be tall and beautiful and tender-eyed, it needs no
one to explain to Tyltyl that Joy and the anonymous Veiled
Phantom are one and the same, and that Tyltyl has at last
found the true lady of his heart.

As for Destiny, he has shrunk most pitifully from scene
to scene and is now merely a small complaining baby, whom
Jalline and Milette take turns carrying about in their arms,
and who finally goes whiningly to sleep in Milette's cape.
" Poor little Destiny! " says Light, " he has no luck."

If there be puzzled observers who complain that M. Mae
terlinck, at the same time that he shows us Love and the
heart's elected as foreordained and inevitable, also shows us
the Fate who builds our destinies as a futile, puling creature
of no account, he might, if he chose, comfort himself by re
peating the words of the Arabian sage, Kahlil Gibran:
" Those who understand us enslave something in us." Or, if
he cared to take the trouble, he might remind his critics that,
if they cannot perceive the truth which lies so close to the sur
face of his lovely fable, they can find it soberly set forth in
that earlier sheaf of noble meditations, Wisdom and Destiny,
where he tells us that while "it is true that some kind of
predestination governs every circumstance of life, it appears
to be no less true that such predestination exists in our char
acter only; and to modify character must surely be easy to
the man of unfettered will, for is it not constantly changing
in the lives of the vast bulk of men? ... It is our most
secret desire that governs and dominates all. If your eyes
look for nothing but evil, you will always see evil triumphant;
but if you have learned to let your glance rest on sincerity,
simpleness, truth, you will ever discover, deep down in all

THE BOOK OF THE MONTH 123

things, the silent overpowering victory of that which you
love."

The truth is, of course, that M. Maeterlinck, like all
mystical poets, throws out his creations to be " apprehended,
not dissected," as Mr. Meredith once remarked of a creation
of his own. If he is to be dissected at all, it must be by the
elect; so we shall make no further attempts in that direction.
But it is open to the dullest to find in this exquisite fantasy
treasures of loveliness and humor to be laid by in the memory,
especially as they are pointed and enriched in the well-nigh
perfect projection of the play by Mr. Winthrop Ames at
the Shubert Theatre — wherein, from the acting of the admir
able company of players, to the sensitive and reinforcing in
cidental music of Mr. Eric Delamater and the enchanting
mise-en-scene, one finds a conspiracy of skill and eloquence
directed to the exalting of a great poet and the telling of a
most memorable dream.

LAWRENCE GILMAN.

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED

THE BIOLOGY OF WAR. By G. F. Nicolai, formerly professor of
physiology in the University of Berlin. New York: The Century
Company.

In Germany, it would seem, the pacifist-militarist debate has never
been carried to the point of obviousness and satiety which was soon
reached in most other countries; for in Germany the militarists have
had things all their own way, and the militaristic philosophy has been
official. It is not surprising, then, that a German scientist, opposing
the official and well-nigh universal view, should write somewhat elabo
rately, somewhat lengthily, somewhat wordily, on themes that now
seem to most Americans susceptible of a somewhat concise and clear-
cut treatment. Dr. Nicolai, in writing The Biology of War, had to deal
with fallacies that were taken by most of his countrymen for self-
evident axioms; moreover, he had to penetrate the German mind,
which is not easily to be reached by direct methods and is somewhat
dense to simple truths.

It is to be remembered, too, that Dr. Nicolai is not, like the author
]' Accuse, a sort of Junius, but merely a conscientious man of science,
who would fain have been simply scientific and objective, would the
authorities but have taken his views in that sense ! The authorities would
not. Dr. Nicolai's book was written in the fortress of Graudenz, in
which the author was imprisoned because of his anti-militaristic opin
ions. The manuscript was conveyed to Switzerland, where it was pub
lished by the firm of Orell Fiissli of Zurich.

Dr. Nicolai, however, in his prison wrote less bitterly to the Ger
man people, and of them, than did the author of J 'Accuse or than Wil-
helm Muhlon, formerly of Krupps, both of whom wrote in freedom.
He even shows a desire, almost pathetic in its suppressed patriotism,
to conciliate popular opinion and to discover some partial justification
for the official view. There might conceivably be some justification,
he thinks, for a war— of extermination! Yet in no way does Dr.
Nicolai compromise with his conscience. Ordinary wars — wars of
conquest, wars of nations — he consistently holds have no sound bio
logical reason, and hence no ethical defense.

A slashing satirist, like the author of J' Accuse, would not have
missed the opportunity to point out that if any war of extermination
might justifiably be waged, the German people would be the fittest
object of such a war. But sarcasm of this sort is far from the thoughts
of Dr. Nicolai. He seems quite serious in his contention that Europe
may sometime have to depopulate Asia, though he by no means regards

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED 125

such a contingency with pleasure and is happy to discover, as he thinks,
a more excellent way.

First and last, Dr. Nicplai is a scientist who finds his morals in
his science — not a writer inspired by moral passion, who finds his
weapons in science and in politics.

Dr. Nicolai, then, labors, with the patience and the simplicity of
a scientist — with all the scientist's faith in detailed demonstration — to
correct views which in America no considerable number of persons
have ever professed, except, as it were, accidentally, in the heat of
the Preparedness agitation. His point of view is that of a biologist
in the broader sense.

A biologist in the broader, or for that matter in the narrower, sense
may have the merit of strict impartiality in dealing with questions
of human conduct; but he may also suffer from a certain limitation.
It may be remarked that books about the biology of things which lack
flesh and blood are sometimes difficult to distinguish from books alto
gether unscientific. Like works written by laymen, they may, and too
often do, treat somewhat f ragmentarily and unsatisfactorily of several
different sciences, and also of philosophy. And so Dr. Nicolai, not
being professionally a political economist, or by training a philosopher,
seems somewhat too sure of his biolpgico-economic deductions, and
not quite sure enough of his philosophical thesis.

As to economics, Dr. Nicolai has no hesitation in denying that
national well-being increases with increased power of consumption;
for, to be sure, " national well-being does not become greater because
all manner of superfluous trash, such as oleographs and shell-covered
boxes, is palmed off upon the working classes." Property, the author
continues, has engendered theft and war. Property appears, indeed,
to be almost an unmixed evil, though it may be admitted that it has a
certain virtue as an incentive " for feeble souls who will not exert
themselves save in the hope of becoming possessed of some tangible
object." If Dr. Nicolai is not blind to the fact that the " economic
motive " is the great fly-wheel of society, he surely means that some
other steadying device shall be substituted for it — perhaps government
ownership of the means of production and government direction of
labor. Just here, one has occasion to remember that the only protest —
such as it was! — against autocracy in Germany has come from the
Socialists, and that the domestic policy of the German Empire has accus
tomed all Germans to think of state socialism as a perfectly proper and
reasonable policy.

If a socialist bent is discernible in some of Dr. Nicplai's rather
extreme views on economics, a somewhat uncritical faith in the possi
bilities of science is noticeable in others. Science, the author gives us
to understand, will solve all economic problems, and open the way for
the indefinite expansion of mankind. If men do not learn to live in
some sort of Bird-Cloudland, they will at least make the earth support
vastly increased numbers of men. Synthetic foods But Ger
many, one may imagine, will not warm to the idea of synthetic foods
for the future. Rats, said one German citizen, might not be so bad
— what he dreaded was the introduction of " synthetic rat " !

As to philosophy, Dr. Nicolai reveals a somewhat Positivistic
frame of mind — a disposition to keep philosophy and morals within

126 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

the bounds that biology can mark out. And yet he has outlined a
conception of religion and of morality that is noble and essentially clear.

The road by which the author arrives at this conception is well
trodden. Better observers, more competent topographers, have passed
over it before him.

War, says Dr. Nicolai, is not a primitive instinct. On the contrary
men, like animals, are by nature rather peaceful than warlike. The
source of war is property — or, more specifically, slavery (property in
human beings), and, later, exploitation. "Whether war really does
make exploitation possible is a question. At any rate, this is the object
of war, and therefore, if slavery were really abolished, there would be
no longer any object in war; and as a matter of fact, there is no
object in it in so far as slavery has been abolished. . . . Every one
who defends war under any conditions whatever ought to know that
in doing so he is advocating slavery" There is no possibility, then, of
a war arising out of disinterested differences of opinion — out of relig
ious differences perhaps ? However this may be, war is a passing phase
in the development of civilization. It made its appearance with the
acquisition of property; for a time it had an economic justification;
but it soon became, as it is now, retrograde.

An exclusively war-like culture, if such a thing were possible,
would result in biological deterioration. Men who were adapted
through ages to constant warfare would lose many valuable traits.
For example, they would probably lose their sense of smell — a worse
than useless function to those who have to endure the stench of corpses.
They would not become courageous — quite the contrary. War, as an
ordeal endured for a high motive, does indeed call forth courage,
though it cannot create it. But war as a way of life tends strongly to
emphasize " the better part of valor." Even as things are, we see
that war does not select the bravest for survival ; it kills off selectively
the brave and the physically fit, or destroys fit and unfit indifferently.

Perhaps the shrewdest and most original paragraph that Dr.
Nicolai has written is that wherein he correlates with certain other
human phenomena the narrow and embittered nationalism that has
been at the root of so many useless wars.

That we are all members of one body, that we are all parts of
the same being, that consequently we cannot hurt one another without
hurting ourselves and damaging what is of most value in ourselves —
it is in this faith essentially that the world must unite; it is this faith
that many are now groping for. Whoever will convince of this truth
those who do not already hold it on religious grounds, and so convince
them that they will not become pacifists or sentimentalists or vege
tarians, will do a great thing.

Dr. Nicolai in part accomplishes this great task. In part he suc
ceeds in connecting the aspirations of men to-day with biological truth.
The idea of internationalism is no new thing; the idea of the immor
tality of the germ-plasm is no new thing — Samuel Butler, for one,
worked out its consequences in philosophy long ago, and it is Butler,
not Nicolai, who is the discoverer of a biological God. But the con
junction of these two ideas is novel and opportune, and it may prove
to be the starting point of a new force.

There seems to be, indeed, a kind of Positivist perversity in speak-

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED 127

ing of the human germ-plasm as if it were identical with the soul, and
in confining all religion to purely human phenomena — as if God had
nothing to do with the law of gravitation! But if Dr. Nicolai is too
much of a specialist to be a complete philosopher, he is a man suffi
ciently large-minded and large-hearted to make his learning flow in
broader and deeper channels than those of a special science.

THE CRADLE OF THE WAR. By H. Charles Woods, F.R.G.S.
Boston : Little, Brown and Company.

To Americans, if not to most Europeans, the Balkan question, so
far as it has entered consciousness at all, has seemed a mysterious
muddle — and with reason. How is one to see through a situation
depending upon narrow national aims, romantic national aspirations,
and bitter national jealousies — a question further complicated by doubt
ful racial considerations, and by intrigues, interferences, and hope
lessly false " settlements " on the part of the great Powers. Turkey,
an anachronism ; Albania, a picturesque accident ; Greece, a contradic
tion; Serbia, Roumania, Bulgaria, all nations stirred by that urge to
a wider nationality which created the great states of the world — a
medieval situation bottled up in a corner of modern Europe — what
could be harder to understand — or more dangerous?

The Balkan peninsula was the cradle of the war; for though it
did not produce the cause for the great conflict, it did supply the
occasion. It was, and had been for a century before 1914, a hot-bed of
potential wars. And, so far as one can see, it may easily continue to be
just that.

The Balkan question, then, is of great importance, and now that
America has become, in the true sense of the expression, a world Power
it is for Americans to inform themselves about this problem.

In trying to inform oneself concerning the Balkan situation the
beginning of wisdom lies, however, in realizing that in all probability
no perfect solution of the problem exists. Ready-made formulas
are of no use in dealing with so tangled a web of conditions. Either
a good many of the old conditions must be swept quite away, or
there must be a just and wise adjustment of conflicting interests.

Under these circumstances what one needs is facts rather than
theories — not such facts as one can readily dig put of the encyclo
pedias and the history books, but the really significant facts known
to few and understood by fewer. Facts of this sort, cautiously stated,
carefully reasoned, are just what Mr. H. Charles Woods has given
us in his latest book about the Balkans. In Mr. Woods's book there
is a notable absence of political theorizing. The author speaks from
a point of view at once geographical and political — in short from a
scientific point of view. His, moreover, is the book of a man deter
mined to understand all that can be understood about a complex and
obscure matter. He has gathered his information very largely on
the spot, and he has weighed and sifted his material in such a way
as not so much to display new and attractive political patterns as
to reveal glaringly the real difficulties of the situation as it existed
prior to the world war.

128 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

After the Balkan wars, Serbia had gained enormously in territory
and in prestige; and yet a mysterious gloom pervaded the whole
country. Serbia had not obtained what she really wanted and needed,
a port upon the Adriatic. But on the other hand, Austria-Hungary,
the traditional enemy, quite as much as is Turkey, of Serbian aspira
tions, was almost as thoroughly discontented by the peace settlement.
She had, indeed, prevented Serbia from getting an outlet upon the
Adriatic, and she had "created" Albania, but she had not succeeded
in preventing the establishment of a common frontier between Serbia
and Montenegro— a common frontier sure to improve the relations
between the two latter countries and to enhance Serbian prestige.
Of course, the root of the matter lay in the old anomaly of the dual
empire and in the intense national longings of the Serbs both in
Serbia itself and in Austria-Hungary. No more paradoxical political
situation, it would seem, has ever been brought to pass than that which
placed a large population of Serbs and their kindred under Austrian
control while it permitted the growth of a strong Serb state just to the
south of Austria-Hungary.

For the Bulgarians the great war was not so much a world war
as a third Balkan war. Their point of view was not admirable, yet
in a cool retrospect it seems inevitable. " It is impossible but that of
fences should come!" Certain it was that the Bulgars "would not
throw in their lot with any side or countries which did not promise
to give them a large section of Southern Macedonia and also as a
second consideration to restore to them a section of the Dobrudja
and at least part of Turkish Thrace. In other words, the bitter
antagonism felt by Bulgaria towards Serbia, Greece, and Roumania
outweighed the traditional hostility towards Turkey and weakened
the friendship with Russia." Turkey, moreover, had a strong hold upon
Bulgaria's lines of communication with the sea. Under these circum
stances it is no wonder that Allied diplomacy in the Balkans encoun
tered difficulties. Behind England and France, Bulgaria saw the
menace of Russia. And, besides, the Entente Allies were obliged, instead
of negotiating for concessions, as Germany did, with one party — and
that party, Turkey — to deal with Serbia, Greece, and Roumania —
nations which would have been superlatively wise and self-denying
if they had been willing to grant all that was asked of them.

Roumania hesitated long before plunging into the war on the right
side; but decision of character was for Roumania, as she well knew,
a rather expensive virtue. Because of her position that nation ob
viously could not afford to take sides either with Russia or with
Austria-Hungary unless she were assured of the strongest support.
But there was another aspect of the problem. She was open to attack
from her southern neighbors — an attack all too likely to occur when
occasion offered, in view of the events of 1913.

Greece, least glorious of the Balkan nations in the war, offers
a wonderful study in the irony of political circumstances. It would
be a diverting study to any person of sufficiently Olympic mind to
smile over such things. In sum, one cannot discover that the ma
jority of Greeks desired to enter the war upon either side; and one
must admit that in this they were as reasonable as are the Dutch.
It must be conceded that the King, though perhaps insincerely neutral,

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED 129

had some reason on his side in not wishing to expose his country
to attack from Bulgaria. It is clear that the majority of the Greeks
were supporters of Venizelos, but that they were so because Venizelos
favored the Allies does not appear. It cannot be said that the Allies,
in taking the measures they did in Greece were supported by Greek
popular sentiment or that their action can be justified by any form of
purely nationalistic reasoning. In the larger view it is not apparent
they would have been justified in taking any other course.

In a way, Greece, the would-be neutral, epitomizes the whole
situation in the warlike Balkans. A certain medieval or ancient
temper of mind, a certain narrowness of political view, seems to pre
vail. The larger world-view has been absent — just as it was in Russia
after the revolution. Left to itself, one conjectures, the Balkan peoples
would have worked out their political destinies on much the same
principles as did the ancient Greeks. A succession of supremacies
would have been the result, until some Philip of Macedon intervened.
Bottled up and interfered with, the people of the Balkans were worse
off than they would have been under ancient conditions. This much
is clear: the disposition of great Powers to oppress and to encroach
must be stamped out, and the parochialism of Balkan politics must
be replaced by broader views. No "political" solution exists; the
solution of the Balkan problem must be a moral solution. Let us hope
that there is a spirit abroad capable of altering men's minds in both
these ways.

Ancient Greece confronted the Persian Empire as the Balkan states
confront the Ottoman Empire. In Turkey Tissaphernes and his
fellow satraps still practise their treacheries — though under German
direction. Into the obscure welter of Turkish politics Mr. Woods
takes us as far as it is possible or perhaps profitable to go. The
springs of Turkish intrigue are apparently not altogether discoverable
to Europeans. That the key-note of Turkish policy has always been
a longing to massacre foreigners is an opinion not wholly unjustifi
able. But from a semi-internal point of view one can see the im
portance of Turkey's gradually improving relations with Bulgaria,
and of the augmentation of German influence of Constantinople, and
one can understand the futility of the negotiations between Europe
and the Ottoman Government with reference to reforms for Armenia.
Mr. Woods makes many matters clear in regard to Turkish policy and
the diplomacy that shaped or attempted to shape that policy. What
stands out most clearly is that Turkey has been to the Balkans not
only a menace in the military sense but a moral evil.

Ancient Greece had its "problems" centering about small and seem
ingly unimportant territories or national groups. But ancient Greece
never evolved anything quite so irrational as the Albanian problem.
That a small territory should contain so many contradictions is almost
beyond belief. Upon the miniature but important Albanian question
Mr. Woods throws a much-needed light — a light both geographical
and political.

Besides discussing with great thoroughness the political conditions
of all the Balkan nations and the part played by each in the war,
Mr. Woods discusses in separate chapters and with highly specialized
knowledge the military highways of the Balkans, the Dardanelles

VOL. ccix. NO. 758 9

180 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

campaign, the operations near Salonika, the Bagdad Railroad, and the
whole Mittel-Europa scheme. More than once he succeeds in show
ing the real reasons of things ; many times he warns effectually against
hasty judgments.

Mr. Woods has written a book of prime importance, a book
that repays and rewards study. Its balanced and guarded conclusions
will be found, on reflection, to be more illuminating by far than the
quickly assimilated ideas of political essay-writers. Its facts are first
hand facts, and they are invaluable.

FROM ISOLATION TO LEADERSHIP. By John Holladay Latane, pro
fessor of American History in the Johns Hopkins University. Garden
City : Doubleday, Page & Company.

In regard to the American policy of isolation there has been much
misapprehension among Americans. It was against " permanent," not
" entangling alliances " that Washington warned his countrymen and
he did not discountenance temporary alliances to meet special needs.
The policy of isolation he regarded, moreover, as itself a temporary
expedient. Jefferson, who was the originator of the " entangling alli
ances " phrase, was on two separate occasions ready to make an alliance
with England.

Indeed, it is probable, according to the view of Professor Latane,
that neither Washington nor Jefferson " contemplated the possibility
of the United States' shirking its responsibility as a member of the
family of nations."

Part of the misapprehension regarding this matter has been due to
a not unnatural confusion of the policy of isolation with the Monroe
Doctrine. Since the latter policy implied a promise that we would
keep our fingers out of the European pie, one might readily assume
that we were debarred by it from taking any real part in world affairs ;
but to refrain from interference or aggression, is not the same thing as
declining to do one's duty. As Professor Latane says, " there is
neither logic nor justice in basing our right to uphold law and freedom
in this hemisphere on our promise not to interfere with the violation
of law and humanity in Europe."

Moreover, it is an error to suppose that the Monroe Doctrine has
depended for its actual effect upon our policy of isolation. It has
depended, in fact, upon the European balance of power. It was the
approach of the Schleswig-Holstein war, as much as the traditional
policy of the United States or its then formidable military force, which
induced Louis Napoleon to withdraw Maximilian from Mexico. It
was the foreboding of trouble in the Transvaal, rather than his " sense
of humor," which caused Lord Salisbury to give way on the Vene
zuelan question. And it is only because England has, on the whole,
favored the Monroe Doctrine, as a kind of open-door policy, that we
have been able to maintain that doctrine at all.

Two conclusions, rather surprising to the ordinary reader, emerge
from Professor Latane's discussion. The first is that " we have been
so scrupulous in our efforts to keep out of political entanglements
that we have sometimes failed to uphold principles of law in the validity

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED 131

of which we were as much concerned as any other nation." The sec
ond is that we have taken a larger part in international affairs than
most persons are aware. Sometimes our policy was rendered futile
for want of force to back it, as in the case of our Open Door Policy
in China — an Anglo-American doctrine which remained a theory be
cause we would not unite with England and Japan in an effort to main
tain it, if necessary, by force. Sometimes our part has been larger
than the American people at the time suspected. Has not Andre Tar-
dieu stated that the Kaiser sent several telegrams to President Roose
velt, during the Algeciras conference, urging him to modify his in
structions to Henry White?

On the whole our participation in the world war has not been
in the least contrary to any American principle, nor has it been, except
in the large employment of force, wholly out of accord with our
previous practise.

Little books on great subjects, when written to order, are seldom
of much use. But if scholars generally would form the habit of ex
pressing their views in little books, and would do this as effectively and
as judiciously as Professor Latane has done it, the little books would
put the big books quite out of fashion. As a resume of American
foreign relations, this volume of Professor Latane's is admirable. It
may be regarded, too, as in a sense a " war-aims " book; and if it has
a fault, it is that in it the dismal Mexican business preceding the great
war is perhaps made to seem a more reasonable and fitting part of a
consistent American policy than it really was.

OUR WAR WITH GERMANY

XXI

(November 7 — December 2)

HOSTILITIES with Germany ceased on November llth. At 5 o'clock
on the morning of that day the German armistice commissioners, who
had been received by Marshal Foch in his temporary headquarters in a
railroad car at Senlis, signed the armistice under which hostilities were
to terminate six hours later, and orders were given to the forces along
all the fronts to cease firing at 11 o'clock. Thus Germany, last of the
quadruple alliance to continue the fight against the forces of civiliza
tion and democracy, went out of the war in bitter and complete defeat.

The terms of the armistice were such as to ensure her inability
to resume hostilities, no matter what terms of peace ultimately may
be imposed upon her. Moreover, the internal conditions within the
German Empire were such as practically to preclude the desire on
the part of any substantial element of the German people to renew
active warfare, no matter how heavily the peace conditions may lie
upon them, or how much they may resent the settlement to which ulti
mately they must agree.

Our record for the past month closed on November 7th with the
announcement that a German delegation was on its way to meet Mar
shal Foch to seek an armistice, preparatory to making peace. This
delegation consisted of Mathias Erzberger, Secretary of State, Gen
eral von Winterfeld, Count Oberndorff, General von Grunel and Naval
Captain von Salow. The German high command at Spa in Belgium,
communicated by wireless with Marshal Foch expressing the desire to
send an armistice delegation to meet him. Marshal Foch by wireless
gave directions to the German delegation to approach by the Chimay-
LaCapelle-Guise road. Marshal Foch ordered a cessation of firing
on that front at 3 o'clock on the afternoon of November 7th, in order
to permit the German delegation to approach.

On the afternoon of November 7th news despatches from France
were received in New York erroneously reporting the signing of the
armistice and the cessation of hostilities. All over the United States
the people received the news with spontaneous outbursts of joy, and
the supposed end of the war was deliriously celebrated for several
hours before official denials from Washington checked the popular en
thusiasm.

Early on the morning of November 8th the German delegates were
received by Marshal Foch. They asked for an armistice and the Allied
Commander-in-Chief immediately read to them the terms upon which
the Supreme War Council at Versailles had agreed. He read in a firm,

OUR WAR WITH GERMANY 133

loud voice and the German delegates seemed stunned by the severity of
the terms, as they realized, apparently for the first time, the real char
acter of Germany's defeat. They asked for immediate suspension of
hostilities, which Marshal Foch refused. Evidently he did not intend
to give the Germans, under cover of such a suspension of fighting, an
opportunity to re-form their lines and recover from the effects of the
terrific blows he had been delivering all along the front for many days.

The armistice terms required an answer within 72 hours, the time
limit expiring at 11 o'clock French time on the morning of November
llth. The German delegates immediately despatched a courier with
a copy of the armistice conditions to the German High Command at
Spa, and pending his return the assault of the American and Allied
armies upon the German lines continued with increased vigor all along
the fronts, from the Dutch border to Switzerland.

The signing of the armistice was announced officially at the State
Department in Washington at 2.45 o'clock on the morning of Novem
ber llth. This was about 8 o'clock French time, three hours after
the event had actually occurred. The news spread with extraordinary
rapidity throughout the United States and the joyous celebration, which
had been cut short by the official denial of the premature announcement
four days earlier, was immediately resumed everywhere throughout the
country. Congress met at noon and provision was made at once for a
joint session to receive President Wilson, who, during the morning,
had signified his desire to address Congress and to present the terms
of the armistice.

The President appeared before the joint session just after 1 o'clock.
He was received with a tremendous demonstration of enthusiasm, and
proceeded at once to read the terms of the armistice to which the Ger
man delegation had subscribed and by which Germany was in effect
pledged in advance to accept the ultimate verdict of the peace confer
ence. The document consisted of thirty-five paragraphs comprising
seven sections, dealing with military clauses on the western front ; the
eastern frontiers of Germany; East Africa; general clauses; naval
conditions; duration of armistice and time limit for reply. The
military clauses on the western front numbered eleven, and comprised
cessation of hostilities six hours after signature; immediate evacuation
of invaded countries, to be completed within fourteen days ; repatria
tion of inhabitants of invaded countries; surrender, in good condi
tion, by the German army, of 5,000 guns (2,500 heavy and 2,500 field),
25,000 machine guns, 3,000 minenwerfer, or trench mortars, and 1,700
airplanes, including all the D7's and all the night bombing machines.
The German armies were also required to evacuate the countries on
the left bank of the Rhine, which will be occupied by Allied and United
States troops, holding the chief Rhine crossings, Cologne, Coblenz and
Mayence with thirty kilometer bridge heads at each of these points.
In addition a ten kilometer neutral zone is established on the right
bank of the Rhine from the Dutch border to Switzerland. This oc
cupation of German territories by Allied and American forces is to be at
the expense of the German Government. All evacuation by German
forces to be without removal of inhabitants or damage to property,
and all stores of food, munitions and equipment, as well as military
establishments to be left in place, with no impairment of industrial

134 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

establishment or removal of personnel. All means of communication
to be left unimpaired and personnel not removed. Five thousand loco
motives and 150,000 cars to be surrendered, in good condition, together
with 5,000 motor lorries. The railroads of Alsace-Lorraine, with all
materials and stores for working the railways on the left bank of the
Rhine to be delivered in good order, and all stores of coal and material
for upkeep of railways to be maintained by Germany.

Military clause Number 8 had peculiar significance. It made the
German command responsible for revealing all mines or delayed-action
fuses left by the German forces in evacuated territory. It also provided
that the German command " shall reveal all destructive measures that
may have been taken (such as poisoning or polluting of springs and
wells, etc.)" This provision of the armistice will be a lasting record,
signed by the Germans themselves, of some of their modern methods
of warfare.

The military clauses also secured to the Allied and American
troops of occupation the right of requisition and provided for the im
mediate repatriation, without reciprocity, of all Allied and American
prisoners of war, including persons under trial or convicted; the
repatriation of German prisoners of war to be regulated at the peace
conference. German sick and wounded left in the evacuated territory
are to be cared for by German personnel.

As to the eastern frontiers, the Germans agreed to withdraw all
troops immediately from Austria-Hungary, Roumania and Turkey
within German territory as it existed prior to the war, and to withdraw
all troops from Russia whenever the Allies say so. Germany renounces
the treaties of Bucharest and Brest-Litovsk, and ceases all measures
for obtaining supplies in Russia and Roumania. The Allies secure free
access through Danzig or the Vistula to the territories evacuated by
the Germans, for purposes of supply or the maintenance of order.

East Africa to be evacuated by all German forces within a period
to be fixed by the Allies.

The general clauses provided for civilian repatriation without re
ciprocity and for " reparation for damage done." They included also
measures for securing this reparation, and no limits were set to the
kind, character or amount of reparation, nor was there any specifica
tion of what " damage done " should or should not include. Immediate
restitution of the cash deposit in the national bank of Belgium was
required, with return of the gold taken from Russia and Roumania,
which is to be held in trust by the Allies.

In specifying the invaded territory which the Germans were to
evacuate at once the armistice terms included Alsace-Lorraine, thus
treating it not as territory reconquered from the Germans but as
French territory from which the invaders were driven. There are
Frenchmen who hold that inasmuch as Germany's title to these
provinces rested only on the treaty which Germany ruptured by her
declaration of war against France in 1914, the old French title was
thereby reinstated and now holds, and that no act of cession by Germany
to France is now required or desired.

The fourteen naval clauses deprived Germany of sea power even
more effectively than the eleven military clauses stripped her of ability
to renew the conflict on land. She was not required to demobilize her

OUR WAR WITH GERMANY 185

army, as was Austria-Hungary, although she was compelled to sur
render its artillery, trench mortars, machine guns, airplanes and vast
stores. But her navy she was compelled either to surrender bodily into
the keeping of the Allies and the United States, or to disarm and dis
mantle under the supervision of her enemies. She agreed to the im
mediate termination of all her war zones and that navigation of all ter
ritorial waters should be free to the naval and mercantile fleets of
the Allies and the United States, without question of neutrality ; naval
and mercantile marine prisoners of war to be repatriated immediately,
without reciprocity.

The naval vessels she agreed to surrender comprised all her sub
marines, including cruisers and mine-layers, with their complete arma
ment and equipment. Submarines able to take the sea to be surrendered
within fourteen days in a designated Allied port, others to be disarmed
of personnel and material and remain under Allied supervision. Six
battle cruisers, ten battleships, eight light cruisers (including two mine
layers) and fifty destroyers of the most modern types Germany agreed
to turn over for internment at designated Allied ports, there to be dis
armed and left with only caretakers on board. All other surface war
ships to be concentrated in designated German naval bases completely
disarmed and placed under supervision of the Allies. The Allies to
have the right to sweep up all mine fields and obstructions laid by
Germany outside her territorial waters, Germany to indicate their
positions. The Allies secured freedom of naval and mercantile access
to and from the Baltic, with the right to occupy all German forts, forti
fications, batteries and defense works of all kinds in all the entrances
from the Cattegat into the Baltic, and to sweep up all mines and ob
structions, within and without German territorial waters, Germany to
indicate their positions.

Germany agreed that the existing blockade should continue, and
that German merchant ships found at sea should remain liable to
capture. German naval aircraft are to be concentrated and immobilized
in designated German bases. Germany leaves intact all naval and
mercantile marine material, merchant ships, tugs, lighters and aero
nautical apparatus and supplies of every kind in evacuated ports. She
evacuates all Black Sea ports and surrenders all Russian war vessels,
abandoning all marine materials of every kind. Any Allied or Ameri
can merchant vessels in German hands she must surrender in designated
ports without reciprocity. All German interference, by contract, agree
ment or otherwise, with neutrals and the trading of their vessels, is
immediately cancelled, and no transfers of German merchant vessels
of any description to any neutral flag are to be made.

The armistice runs for thirty days, with option to extend, the
evacuation of occupied territories to conclude within fourteen days
and of the German territories on the left bank of the Rhine within an
additional sixteen days.

The Germans had seventy-two hours in which to accept or refuse
these terms.

After reading the armistice terms the President went on briefly
to address Congress. " The war thus comes to an end," he said, " for,
having accepted these terms of armistice it will be impossible for the
German command to renew it. ... Armed imperialism such as the men

136 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

conceived who were but yesterday the masters of Germany, is at an
end, its illicit ambitions engulfed in black disaster."

Then, referring to the fact that the Supreme War Council at Ver
sailles had unanimously assured the peoples of the Central Powers
that everything possible would be done to supply them with food, the
President suggested that the idle German and Austrian merchant ton
nage might be used " to lift the fear of utter misery from their op
pressed populations."

The armistice terms as here summarized are those actually signed
by the German delegation and by Marshal Foch and Sir Rosslyn
Wemyss, the British naval representative. They differ in a number
of particulars from those read by the President to Congress, changes
having been made after the document had been transmitted to him. It
has not yet appeared whether these changes were made by the Supreme
War Council at Versailles, which seems to have made the original draft,
or in the conference of the German delegates with Marshal Foch.

The execution of the armistice terms began on Tuesday morning,
November 12, when German troops commenced the evacuation of Bel
gium and French territories without the harassing assaults of the Allied
troops that had accompanied their retirement but two days before. Brit
ish and French troops joined with the Belgian forces in following the
retiring Germans through Belgium. The Americans were close after
the Germans retiring from Metz and the Third American Army, under
Gen. Dickman, followed through Luxemburg. Belgian troops occupied
Antwerp on November 15. The French were in Metz, under Marshal
Petain, on the 19th.

The next day, November 20, twenty German submarines sur
rendered to Rear Admiral Tyrwhitt, about thirty miles off Harwich.
They were escorted into Harwich where the German crews were trans
ferred to vessels that took them back to Germany. On the 21st the
German High Seas Fleet surrendered to Admiral Sir David Beatty, in
command of the British Grand Fleet. The vessels surrendered con
sisted of nine battleships, five battle cruisers, seven light cruisers, and
fifty destroyers. On the way across the North Sea one destroyer struck
a mine and sank. The British fleet, accompanied by an American
battle squadron and French cruisers, received the surrender. They
formed a double line of more than 400 war ships, between which the
surrendering Germans steamed. There were 60 dreadnoughts, 50 light
cruisers and about 200 destroyers in the Allied fleet. Nineteen more
U-boats surrendered that same day, and twenty additional the next
day. On the 24th 28 more submarines surrendered, including the
Deutschland, the merchant submarine that made two voyages to the
United States in 1916. She brought into Harwich two officers of the
American transport Ticonderoga which was destroyed by a submarine
in midocean in September when the lifeboats, with the escaping crew,
were shelled and all but about 25 men out of several hundred killed.
The two officers had been picked up by the submarine and taken to Kiel.

The Germans were beginning to cross the Rhine on November
29th, and the French were preparing their formal entry into Stras
bourg.

There had been absolutely no diminution of the fighting until the
time fixed by the armistice for cessation of hostilities. As the end

OUR WAR WITH GERMANY 137

approached the assaults of the Americans and Allies upon the Germans
along the western front grew in vigor and everywhere were increas
ingly successful. Even after the armistice was signed, and the hour
set for terminating hostilities the American Second Army, according
to Paris despatches, " attacked in force at 8 o'clock, regardless of the
situation. The onslaught was preceded by a tremendous barrage which
was returned in kind by the enemy. For three hours the Americans
swept forward, hurling themselves against the wire entanglements.
The German gunfire was devastating. Then, at exactly one minute of
11 the guns on both sides abruptly ceased."

This kept up the fighting after absolutely nothing but casualties
could be accomplished by it. On November 23rd Washington an
nounced that the total of American casualties during the war was 236,-
117, of which 36,154 were killed in action or died of wounds; 14,811
died of disease ; 2,204 unclassified deaths ; 179,625 wounded ; 2,163 pris~-
oners and 1,160 missing. A week later Washington announced that the
total of casualties was 262,723, over 26,000 more than the announce
ment of the previous week. The lists as furnished to the newspapers
will aggregate under 100,000, so that more than three-fifths of our
casualties are yet to be published.

Immediately after the signing of the armistice it was reported in
Washington that President Wilson was planning to attend the peace
conference himself as one of the American delegates. On November
18 formal announcement was made that the President would sail for
France immediately after addressing Congress at the opening of its
regular session on December 2. It was said that he did not intend to
remain long at the conference, but " his presence at the outset is neces
sary in order to obviate the manifest disadvantages of discussion by
cable in determining the greater outlines of the treaty about which he
must necessarily be consulted." This announcement produced a fer
ment of discussion throughout the United States and much opposition
developed. The President was oblivious, apparently, to all opposition,
and it was announced that he would sail on the transport George Wash
ington. Some details of the subsidiary organization of the peace dele
gation were made public, and on November 29 it was announced that
the delegation would consist of the President, Secretary Lansing, Col.
E. M. House, Henry White, formerly Ambassador to France, and
Gen. Tasker H. Bliss, formerly Chief of Staff of the Army, who has
been in Paris as a representative of the United States, since he retired
as Chief of Staff. Joseph C. Grew, formerly counsellor of the Embassy
in Berlin, has been in Paris for some time organizing the expert
economic staff of the peace commission.

Throughout the month there was great confusion in the news re
ports from Germany, leaving decided uncertainty as to the real state
of affairs within the territories of the German Empire. While the
armistice delegates were consulting with Marshal Foch at his head
quarters their country apparently was crumbling to pieces behind them.
A revolt of the German navy was reported on November 8, with the
sailors in control at Kiel. Subsequently it was reported that they had
mutiniedf against orders to take the High Seas Fleet out for a final test
of strength with the British Grand Fleet. Workmen's and Soldiers'
Councils were organized in Hamburg and in several of the Rhine

188 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

cities. Reports from various sources told of revolution in Bavaria and
the overthrow of the Wittlesbach dynasty which had ruled for 800
years. Demands for the abdication of the Kaiser were reported from
many parts of Germany.

Simultaneous despatches from Amsterdam and Basle told of the
sending of an ultimatum to the Kaiser by the German Socialist Party.
It was said that Philipp Scheidemann handed the document to Prince
Max, the Imperial Chancellor. It demanded abdication by the Em
peror and renunciation of the throne by the Crown Prince. Other
demands included the right of public assembly and the transformation
of the Prussian Government in conformity with the views of the
Reichstag majority. That day's reports had the Kaiser refusing to
abdicate, on the ground that he could not take the responsibility of
handing the country over either to the Entente or to anarchy. But the
next day Prince Max published a decree saying : " The Kaiser and King
has decided to renounce the throne." He did not say that the Kaiser
had abdicated, but merely that he had decided to quit. He added that
he would remain in office until the questions connected with the abdica
tion and with the renunciation of the throne by the Crown Prince had
been settled. The decree implied, but did not state, that Prince Max
would serve as regent of the Empire, by saying that " for the regency "
he would appoint Deputy Friedrich Ebert, vice-president of the Social
Democratic Party, to be Imperial Chancellor, and he proposed a law
for general suffrage and a constitutional German National Assembly.

On November 10 came the news that the Kaiser had fled to Holland.
He was said to be on his way to Maarn, near which, in the castle of his
friend, Count von Bentinck, he expected to find refuge. First reports
had the Kaiserin and the Crown Prince with him. Later it was re
ported circumstantially that the Crown Prince had been shot by his
own men. At length the truth became known, that the ex-Empress did
not accompany her husband, and that the ex-Crown Prince was prac
tically exiled by being interned, as a German officer, on the island of
Wieringen, where he occupies the parsonage at Osterland, a very
humble dwelling.

Simultaneously with the flight of Count William Hohenzollern, as he
began to call himself, there was a great scuttling of the kings and
princes who had ruled over the minor German states. The Socialists
demanded that all dynasties in Germany be suppressed and all princes
exiled. King Wilhelm II of Wurtemberg abdicated on November 8.
The next day the garrison troops in Berlin revolted, and in a few hours
the Socialist revolution was in complete control. A Soldiers' and
Workmen's Council was formed which took over the city government.
Nearly every day brought the report of the abdication or flight of some
petty German prince or grand duke.

Immediately after the signing of the armistice Dr. Solf, the German
Foreign Secretary, addressed President Wilson by wireless, protesting
against the armistice conditions, " especially the surrender of means of
transport and the sustenance of the troops of occupation," on the
ground that these conditions " would make it impossible to provide
Germany with food, and would cause the starvation of millions of
men, women and children." Next day the Swiss Minister at Washing
ton presented to Secretary Lansing another German telegram asking

OUR WAR WITH GERMANY 139

whether food would be shipped to Germany provided public order were
maintained there. Mr. Lansing replied by citing the President's ad
dress to Congress and saying that the President was disposed to pre
sent the matter to the Allied Governments. Later a telegram
from the National Council of Women of Germany reached Mrs.
Wilson, wife of the President. It was largely a paraphrase of Dr.
Self's appeals and used the same arguments, especially about the sur
render of railway rolling stock. But in Paris it was pointed out that
the rolling stock demanded from Germany would only replace that
stolen by German troops from occupied territories. The last of the
German daily appeals for food came through on November 15 and
then Secretary Lansing sent a wireless reply to Dr. Solf advising him
to address all further communications to the Allies.

The proposal that this country should supply food for the Ger
mans and Austrians evoked a storm of protest and criticism, especially
from the women whose support of the Food Administration throughout
the war had made its success possible. The result of their protest was
a statement by Mr. Hoover, the Food Administrator, that no one in
the United States would be asked to stint himself in any way in order
to supply food for our enemies.

The month closes with the confusion as to actual conditions in
Germany not cleared up. But our troops are entering the Rhine lands
and the occupation of German territory will soon be completed. Mean
time preparations for the peace conference are going forward, and it
is likely to be in session before another month ends.

(This record is as of December 2 and is to be continued.)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

WHY HE VOTED FOR NORRIS

SIR, — I have just read your comment in the November REVIEW on
the candidacy of George W. Norris of Nebraska for re-election to the
United States Senate. I have read your WAR WEEKLY and the REVIEW
right along and can readily see that the action of Nebraska in sending
Norris back to Washington must look, to you, something like insanity.
So it was, but the insanity must be looked for elsewhere as well as in
Nebraska. Some of us helped send Norris back to Washington, open-
eyed, knowing what outsiders would think, knowing they would have
good cause for thinking ill of us, not knowing fully the causes. None
of us, up to date, has expressed any regret, and I apprehend none of
us will do so in the future. But I think it is due to Nebraska that judg
ment should be based upon knowledge of the whole situation as it was
when Nebraska voters went to the polls.

I, personally, wrote Mr. Norris, after his foolish and disgraceful
disloyal votes and talks in the Senate, that I withdrew every good opinion
I had ever had of him and wished I could withdraw every vote I had
ever given him. I believe he ought to have been kicked out of the Senate
on two counts, imbecility and disloyalty, but I voted for him at the elec
tion just the same, after voting against him at the primaries.

Will you please tell me what was left for a self-respecting Republi
can voter to do? I (when I speak of myself I do so simply because it
is easier than to speak of the thousand others who did the same) was in
favor of preparedness along rational lines before there was any war.
I believed in being reasonably prepared because everybody, except our
so-called idealists, — which simply means persons unable to weigh evi
dence and recognize facts, — knew the danger and knew where it was.
Nobody with even ordinary commonsense had any right to be in doubt
about it. I believed in preparedness when it was denounced as hysteria,
when a War Secretary who believed in it was dismissed and one chosen
who naively admitted that he was amazed to learn that every army officer
was not spoiling for a fight, in the face of our history which ought to be
known to every school boy. I am no hidebound Republican, scarcely
ever voting a straight Republican ticket. I was a Progressive and still
swear by the Progressive platform, was and am loyal to America to the
last gasp, and tried to be loyal to every changing attitude of the Admin
istration because it was the Administration, the only Government we had.
I saved, urged others to save, paid, subscribed, made speeches, wore old
clothes, ate what I could get and tried to be cheerful even when ordered
(not requested) to give more, — more time, more money, more sacrifice in

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 141

every way, and the orders often coming from someone who had been
blind, deaf and dumb to the danger till it was right upon us.

After all that, I thought, being rational and not under tutelage in
any way, I might be permitted to vote as I thought best. When told
that loyalty required that I vote for Democratic dummies, I simply voted
for Republicans, just because they were Republicans, something I had
never done before, and I did it not out of resentment or anger, but coldly,
calmly, calculatedly, because I knew that my duty to self and country
required that I do so. I believed from the very first that America ought
to be in the war on the side of the Allies with all her force, with all her
power, with all her might; and that her power and might ought to be
augmented and increased to the limit, yet I voted for a man who showed
himself not only disloyal but silly, as the least of two evils. Thousands
of others did likewise, and that is part of the explanation for Norris of
Nebraska.

But it is not all the explanation, by any manner of means. There is
a strong German vote in Nebraska, and that vote went to Norris, as we
knew it would. We knew that was partly why Norris voted and acted
as he did in the Senate, and you may know something of the feeling
among the voters when thousands of upstanding Americans voted with
them, as I know they did, Republicans, Progressives, and a great many
Democrats. If you think we enjoyed it and have jollified greatly over
it, come out to Nebraska and talk with almost any Republican or Pro
gressive. We are not through with Mr. Norris, and if he thinks the
vote indicates approval of his course, except by Germans, he would better
do some more thinking. And if the Germans in Nebraska think it means
any approval of their course in the past, there is going to be a great
opening of eyes before long.

Other reasons? Lots of them. Nebraska is progressive, is against
the extreme or^ old-line Republicans with their high tariff, individualistic,
corporation-ridden bosses. Nebraska believes strongly in the square
deal and the strongest Republican leaders are well in the van of pro
gressive thought. You speak highly of Ex-Governor Morehead. I do
not know it to be a fact, but it was very positively and openly asserted
by Democratic politicians, who were for Norris, that Morehead in a
published interview approved of everything Norris did when the filibuster
was on. Morehead is not progressive and Morehead is not able, not in
Norris's class in either respect. When the people of Omaha thought
they wanted to hitch up the power that gives them water, and get elec
tric light much cheaper, Mr. Morehead thought they weren't even entitled
to vote on it, and he vetoed the bill worked through both Houses of the
legislature by a former Republican candidate for Governor. The most
common term applied to Morehead by forward-looking Republicans and
Democrats alike is, "Mossback." When Morehead was Governor, Roose
velt attended a banquet in Lincoln, and Morehead, who presided, had to
have the fifty or so words of welcome to a distinguished ex-President
typed, and held it before him and read it iin the sing-song tones of a
schoolboy. This I saw and heard. He is not a man of ability, not a
man to captivate or attract at all.

Morehead has always trained with the Hitchcock Democrats, and
the Hitchcock Democrats were the pro-German, pro-whiskey Democrats
up to very recently. Thinking people find little choice between a man

142 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

who speaks out as N orris did and one who has simply taken cover. I
am one of those who think Senator Hitchcock did valiant work in jarring
Baker out of his peaceful slumbers, but we cannot so soon forget that
Hitchcock was believed to play the German game and to have been elected
by the German whiskey vote. You see, it isn't all so simple as it looks a
couple of thousand miles away. Leaving the war out of the question,
thinking men would choose Norris ten to one over Morehead, for ability,
for character, for sympathy, for almost anything you wish to name, not
excepting candor and straight dealing.

Also there was another reason. Because Morehead was a Hitchcock
man, the Bryan Democrats were mainly against him and for Norris '.
They were naturally for Norris anyway, because Bryan Democrats are
natural pacifists. They thought Norris was right, they really believed
that when Germany ordered us to stay at home or be shot, <we should
have meekly stayed at home. Of course they voted for Norris. That
didn't make it any easier for , aggressive loyalists to vote for him, but
we had to do it. Easy? Why, I personally couldn't bring myself to
make a cross opposite Norris's name. The only way I could do it was
to make a cross in the Republican circle and quit. There were some
Democrats on the ticket I would have voted for ordinarily, but I did not
feel capable of selecting, because that would have made it necessary to
select Norris. I was voting Republican because I had been ordered not
to do so.

I could go on all day giving excuses. The assininity of the Repub
licans in putting up at the primaries two men to divide the loyal vote,
neither of them acceptable to the great mass of the voters, cut consider
able figure. At that, they got almost twice as many votes as Norris at
the primaries, showing that, with just a little sense, even the President's
letter would not have put Republicans up against such a choice. One
thing at a time, however. This is a democratic republic, a constitutional
republic. The founders thereof intended a Congress of men, not ninnies
or rubber-stamps. When the time came to emphasize that fact, it was
done. If in doing it we had to send to Washington a Norris or two,
that's a mere incident — one Senator is not very dangerous, no matter
how big a fool he may be.

Anyhow, Michigan didn't send Ford. That ought to be sufficient for
gratitude this Thanksgiving day.

OMAHA, NEB. H. W. MORROW.

FROM A RETURNING SOLDIER

SIR, —Your article in the October issue entitled, "A Judas Peace,"
is interesting and truthful, and as I am a returning wounded soldier, I
believe 1 am able to know and speak on it.

The Huns would bomb towns and cities of no military importance,
killing civilians and children for no other reason than devilishness.

When the Allies started making reprisals by bombing German towns
there was a torrent of abuse cast at us threatening punishment to cap
tured prisoners, and to some extent these threats were carried out.

The Huns were bombing London and they asked their English prison
ers what their people thought of the air raids. The prisoners calmly
remarked that they were already planning for the protection of London

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 143

against raids. The Germans were very wrathful and fairly foamed in the
mouth at this unexpected answer. They thought that they would be
frightened into submission by these raids. The Huns do not realize that
there is a limit of endurance to what people will stand, as this fact will
prove.

My chief reason in writing you is that I have brought home with me
a copy of " The American Daily Mail," an English paper sold in France,
and your article, " A Judas Peace," tempts me to write you about it.
It is as follows:

The Kaiser during his recent visit to Essen made a long speech in
which, after expressing his thanks to " his friends of the Krupp works/'
where he had always admired " German science, inventive talent and
creative power," he once more posed as an apostle of peace and tried to
throw the onus of the " frightful hatred " shown in the war on German
enemies. After a speech of some length the editor has in a space by it
self an article by Carol Resemeier, a German in Switzerland, to the Allies.

They will cheat you yet, these Junkers ! Having won half the world
by bloody murder, they are going to win the other half with tears in their
eyes, " crying for mercy."

This is a very shocking admission of what may happen. They all
had their fingers in the pie and now when defeat and punishment face
them they are trying to get out of it as easily as they can, saying that they
are unable to pay.

Trusting this information may be helpful to you,

U. S. GENERAL HOSPITAL, THE BRONX. PVT. WALTER J. SUSAT.

IS THE PRESS WILLING TO BE FREE?

SIR, — I have read with considerable interest the article entitled
"Muzzling the Press" in the NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW for November,
and I fully agree that the Press of the United States is not free, and un
less there is a campaign for the Freedom of the Press it never will be
free. In regard to regulations during the war and to be discontinued, I
have nothing to say in this letter, but when we fully resume pre-war con
ditions, the Press will still not be free.

I am opposed to any and all Government interference with our
editorials or with our business methods. If there is anything wrong and
we are violating laws, an appointive officer should not have the power to
ruin our business as judge, jury and executioner, according to his whim
and notions, whether right or wrong.

Under the general instructions to carry out provisions of the law, I am
opposed to the Post Office Department putting in regulations to beat
publishers out of the benefits of the law.

The Reptile Press of Germany was kept under control by subsidy.
The American Press is kept under control by regulations that interfere
with the minutest details of our business.

We must start a campaign for the Freedom of the Press. We must
see that if advertising is to be taxed, all advertising must be taxed.
The present taxation of advertising is ingeniously arranged so that only
the advertising going into the mails is taxed. The advertising in daily
papers is not taxed because they have city delivery of their own.

144 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Although in St. Louis, from a competitive standpoint, we are bene
ficiaries of the zone system, it is another discriminatory law intentionally
oppressive.

The campaign for a free press must include the same rate for all and
no free service. The special low rates to fraternal and secret societies
must be done away with. All American publications should be equal
before the law. The only concern of the Post Office Department with
publications should be to receive the postage and perform the service
paid for.

Another thing must be considered. The Press is not a unit. In my
experience the daily is against all other classes, and is satisfied with loss
of principle for financial advantage. The weekly paper owners are in
favor of regulating monthly publications out of business. The publishers
of expensive publications are in favor of the cheap publications not being
allowed to use premiums or sample copies that minimize the cost of get
ting subscriptions; in other words, the Press of the Nation is not alto
gether willing to be free.

ST. Louis, Mo. H. H. P.

LET THEM LEARN !

SIR, — What is the status of German emigration, as far as America,
including Latin America, is concerned? Are Germans who have made
their way into Sweden and Norway eligible to enter Latin America at this
time, and will the Germans be allowed to enter this country when peace
is declared?

This should be prevented.

Bar the Germans from America now and forever. Lock them up in
their own land until they pay for their crimes in toil and suffering. Let
them learn by experience what they would have inflicted on us, and in a
small measure, what they inflicted on France and Belgium. Let them
learn what domination means to the dominated. Let them learn the
reverse side of " Deutschland iiber Alles."

NEW YORK CITY. JAY LEWIS..

A DIFFERENCE IN CENSORS

SIR, — I desire to have it understood that my criticisms of the Censor
ship in my article in the December REVIEW, "The News Embargo," are
not intended to include that which Brigadier-General Marlborough
Churchill has ably directed from Washington. As for the workings of the
amusing Creel bureau, they have been vociferous for themselves and their
employers.

COLUMBIA, PA. REGINALD WRIGHT KAUFPMAN.

O DEAR, NO

SIR, — You are an expert maker of Presidents, and, as a judge of
Presidential material, you grade mighty close to one hundred per cent.

After inflicting all that praise upon you, I want to know what you
think of Charles M. Schwab as the next President of the United States.

BOSTON, MAM. THOMAS DREIER.

Tros Tyrivjtyue wtokiwrffcr^^riri^ agetur

NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

FEBRUARY, 1919

THE GENESIS OF THE FOURTEEN
COMMANDMENTS

" WITH its causes and objects," said the President, of the
war, " we are not concerned. The obscure fountains from
which its stupendous flood has burst forth, we are not inter
ested to search for or explore."

We cannot apply these words of the President to his own
" only possible programme of the world's peace ". Indeed,
we should not do so if we could. Since his first promulgation
of them more than a year ago the Fourteen Commandments
have been the theme of all but universal consideration. They
were assumed, rightly or wrongly, to form the basis of the
armistice which suspended the war. They have since been
acclaimed by Germany as containing the conditions of peace
to which she will loyally adhere but from which she will not
be willing to deviate by so much as a hair's breadth. Their
promotion among the people, and incidentally among the
Governments, of Europe appears to have been the chief pur
pose of the President's extraordinary excursion across the
sea; and it is understood that they are to be urged upon the
Peace Congress as its ultimate agenda. Surely it is fitting
that we should concern ourselves with their origin, and should
search for and explore the fountains from which they burst
forth ; though it may be that we shall not find those fountains
particularly obscure.

There has appeared to prevail an impression that they
were all an original conception of the President's, formulated
and put forth on his sole responsibility, and that the accept-

Copyright, 1919, by NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW CORPORATION. All Rights Reserved.

VOL. cox. — NO. 759 10

146 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

ance of them by the other Powers would be a signal personal
triumph for him, tantamount to the imposition of his will and
his leadership upon the Allied nations. We cannot suppose
that in his self-abnegatory devotion to duty he has sought or
desired such distinction for himself, though naturally it would
be gratifying to him as to all the nation to have the United
States thus take the initiative in the re-establishment of peace
upon the only possible basis of justice. We owe it to can
dor, however, — in Monroe's phrase, — to confess that review
of the record seems to deny us that pleasant privilege, and
to compel us, regretfully, to conclude that the President had
merely caught, as he himself said on another occasion, the
voices of humanity which were in the air; or rather, perhaps,
the oracular voices of other Governments which he had him
self solicited ; which he then reproduced in his own deft and
persuasive phrases.

It was on January 8, 1918, that the Fourteen Command
ments were enunciated. But it was long before, it was on
December 18, 1916, that the President suggested to the bel
ligerent Powers, of which we were not yet one, the desir
ability of an early statement of their conceptions of the neces
sary terms of peace. The very next day Mr. Lloyd George
spoke epigrammatically of " restitution, reparation, and
guarantees against repetition," and taking the cue from that
the Allies on January 10, 1917, nearly a year before the
promulgation of the Fourteen Commandments, made a
formal and detailed reply, in which they named as necessary
terms of peace the following:

The restoration of Belgium, Serbia and Montenegro, with the com
pensation due to them; the evacuation of the invaded territories in
France, in Russia, in Roumania, with just reparation ; the reorganization
of Europe, guaranteed by a stable regime and based at once on respect
for nationalities and on the right to full security and liberty of economic
development possessed by all peoples, small and great, and at the same
time upon territorial conventions and international settlements such as
to guarantee land and sea frontiers against unjustified attack ; the resti
tution of provinces formerly torn from the Allies by force, or against
the wish of their inhabitants ; the liberation of the Italians, as also of
the Slavs, Roumanes, and Czecho- Slovaks from foreign domination;
the setting free of the populations subject to the bloody tyranny of the
Turks ; and the turning out of Europe of the Ottoman Empire as de
cidedly foreign to Western civilization.

It is quite obvious that in this statement was included the
essential germs of a majority of the Fourteen Command-

THE FOURTEEN COMMANDMENTS 147

ments; to wit, of the sixth to the thirteenth inclusive; with
strong hints at the gist of some others. Following that, how
ever, and preceding the President's promulgation of his
" only possible programme," were two other still more ex
plicit and comprehensive statements of the necessary terms
of peace as seen by the Allies. One of these was a statement
adopted by the Special National Labor Conference at West
minster, London, on December 28, 1917, and the other was
Mr. Lloyd George's speech at the Trade Union Conference
on Man Power, on January 5, 1918. Both of these were, of
course, fresh in the President's mind when he uttered his
Commandments on January 8, as indeed he himself at that
time declared. It will be interesting to compare the Com
mandments with them, item by item ; omitting only the Sec
ond Commandment, relating to the Freedom of the Seas, the
origin of which has been confidently and positively attrib
uted, by his biographer and eulogist, to Colonel House;
though others, apparently on no less plausible grounds,
ascribe a German source.

The First Commandment directs the making of " open
covenants of peace " and the abolition of secret diplomacy.
Ten days before, the Labor Conference declared that " The
British Labor Movement relies very largely upon . . . the
suppression of secret diplomacy."

The Third Commandment calls for " the removal of
economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of
trade conditions." The Labor Conference had already de
clared " against all projects for an economic war . . .
whether by protective tariffs or capitalist trusts or monopo
lies," and in favor of " the open door, and no hostile dis
crimination against foreign countries."

The Fourth Commandment demands reduction of arma
ments. ' We must seek," said Mr. Lloyd George, three days
before, " to limit the burden of armaments ; " while ten days
before the Labor Conference called for " the common limita
tion of the costly armaments by which all peoples are bur
dened."

The Fifth Commandment requires " impartial adjust
ment of all colonial claims, based upon the principle that in
determining all such questions the interests of the population
concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims
of the Government whose title is to be determined." Mr.
Lloyd George had already declared that the colonies must be

148 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

" held at the disposal of a conference whose decision must
have primary regard to the wishes and interests of the native
inhabitants."

The Sixth Commandment is that Russia shall be evacu
ated and assisted to an unhampered and independent de
termination of her own political development and national
policy. The Allies on January 10, 1917, had demanded the
evacuation of Russia, and Mr. Lloyd George on January
5, 1918, had added " We shall be proud to fight to the end
side by side by the new democracy of Russia. . . . Russia
can be saved only by her own people."

The Seventh Commandment names as the first of all
such acts the evacuation and restoration of Belgium, without
any attempt to limit her sovereignty. Mr. Lloyd George
had already said: "The first requirement always put for
ward by the British Government and their Allies has been
the complete restoration, political, territorial and economic,
of the independence of Belgium, and such reparation as can
be made for the devastation of its towns and provinces." The
Labor Conference also had said: " A foremost condition of
peace must be the reparation by the German Government of
the wrong admittedly done to Belgium; payment by that
Government for all the damage that has resulted from this
wrong, and the restoration of Belgium to complete and un
trammelled independent sovereignty."

Again: " No other single act," said the President, " will
serve to restore confidence among the nations in the laws
which they have themselves set and determind." " Before
there can be any hope for stable peace," Mr. Lloyd George
had said, " this great breach of the public law of Europe must
be repudiated and so far as possible repaired."

The Eighth Commandment runs : " All French territory
should be freed and the wrong done in 1871 in the matter of
Alsace-Lorraine . . . should be righted, in order that
peace may once more be made secure." Mr. Lloyd George
had said : " We mean to stand by the French democracy
in the demand they make for a reconsideration of the great
wrong of 1871. . . . This sore has poisoned the peace of
Europe for half a century, and until it is cured healthy con
ditions will not have been restored." The Labor Confer
ence also reaffirmed " its reprobation of the crime against the
peace of the world ... in 1871," and demanded its un
doing.

THE FOURTEEN COMMANDMENTS 149

The Ninth Commandment calls for " a readjustment of
the frontiers of Italy along clearly recognizable lines of na
tionality." Mr. Lloyd George had regarded " as vital the
satisfaction of the legitimate claims of the Italians for union
with those of their own race and tongue." The Labor Con
ference declared " its warmest sympathy with the people of
Italian blood and speech who have been left outside of the
Boundaries assigned to the Kingdom of Italy," and its sup
port of " their claim to be united with those of their own race
and tongue."

The Tenth Commandment runs : " The peoples of Aus
tria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see
safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest op
portunity of autonomous development." So Mr. Lloyd
George had said: " Though ... a break-up of Austria-
Hungary is no part of our war aims, we feel that unless
genuine self-government is granted to those Austro-Hun-
garian nationalities who have long desired it, it is impossible
to hope for a removal of those causes of unrest in that part
of Europe which have so long threatened the general peace."

The Eleventh Commandment demands the evacuation
and territorial restoration of Roumania, Serbia and Mon
tenegro; the determination by friendly counsel of the rela
tions of the Balkan states to one another, and international
guarantees of their political and economic independence and
territorial integrity. Mr. Lloyd George had demanded " the
restoration of Serbia, Montenegro, and the occupied parts
of Roumania;" adding that "the complete withdrawal of
the alien armies and the reparation for injustice done is a
fundamental condition of permanent peace." The Labor
Conference demanded " the freedom of these peoples to settle
their own destinies."

The Twelfth Commandment directs that while the Turk
ish portions of the Ottoman Empire shall have secure sover
eignty, the non- Turkish nationalities must be set free, and
the Dardanelles must be opened and neutralized. Mr. Lloyd
George had declared that while the Allies did not challenge
the maintenance of the Turkish Empire in the homelands of
the Turkish race, the non-Turkish peoples were entitled to a
recognition of their separate national conditions, and the
Dardanelles should be internationalized and neutralized.
The Labor Conference also had declared that whatever might
be proposed concerning Armenia, Mesopotamia and Arabia,

150 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

they could not be restored to Turkish tyranny, and that the
peace of the world required the neutralizing of the Dar
danelles.

The Thirteenth Commandment calls for " an indepen
dent Polish State " to " include the territories inhabited by
indisputably Polish populations." Mr. Lloyd George,
speaking for Great Britain and her Allies, had said: " We
believe that an independent Poland, comprising all those
genuinely Polish elements who desire to form a part of it, is
an urgent necessity for the stability of Western Europe."

The Fourteenth Commandment, finally, declares that " A
general association of nations must be formed under specific
covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of
political independence and territorial integrity to great and
small states alike." Later commentators interpret this as a
league of nations to replace the old alliances and balances of
power, for the preservation of the world's peace; and there
has been perhaps more controversy over it, and the Presi
dent's peripatetic propaganda has been more directed to the
promotion of it than all the other Commandments put to
gether. Well, Mr. Lloyd George certainly did not deny,
defy and forever exclude the notion of some such league when
he said: " We are confident that a great attempt must be
made to establish, by some international organization, an
alternative to war as a means of settling international dis
putes." The Labor Conference went further. It specifi
cally demanded: " That it should be an essential part of the
treaty of peace itself that there should be forthwith estab
lished a supernational authority, or League of Nations." ( It
will be recalled that the President has, since the original proc
lamation of the Commandments, insisted that the formation
of the League must not precede nor follow the treaty of
peace, but must be exactly coincident with it.)

Here, then, we submit, we have the fons et origo of the
Fourteen Commandments; a disclosure which must on the
whole be regarded as reassuring and gratifying, as well as
highly explanatory. It is explanatory, obviously, of the
President's otherwise strange unwillingness or at least his
failure to elucidate to his own countrymen the more precise
meaning of such of the Commandments as seemed to the Man
in the Street a trifle cryptic. Seeing that they had been so
fully put forth before, he was justified in assuming that all
intelligent men already understood them ; while, since others

THE FOURTEEN COMMANDMENTS 151

were their real authors, any further explication of them
should come from those original authors, and not from him
who was merely repeating the law once delivered.

It is reassuring, because it betokens sweet peace and har
mony in the forthcoming councils of the Powers. In pre
senting the Fourteen Commandments to the Peace Confer
ence, the President will not be introducing the apple of dis
cord, and will not be providing matter for controversy.
Rather will he be reminding his European colleagues of a
fait accomplis, which will require nothing but recognition and
ratification. " May I not," we may well imagine him say
ing, " may I not recall to your attention the only possible
programme of the world's peace, which Mr. Lloyd George
more than a year ago promulgated as the will of the Allied
nations? " To that there can of course be but one answer;
than which nothing could be more gratifying.

Thus do we perceive the Genesis of the Fourteen Com
mandments, which have been so eloquently proclaimed to the
world by our perambulating President. They are not his.
And we hasten to add that he never claimed them. He was
speaking of the indications of the Central Powers of their
desire for parleys of peace, and of their illusory and decep
tive tone. The Allies, on the other hand, he said, had again
and again spoken clearly and made plain their terms of
peace. ' There is no confusion of counsel among the ad
versaries of the Central Powers," he said, " no uncertainty of
principle, no vagueness of detail." So he went on to tell
what was the programme of the world's peace; of course, as
described not by himself but by all the adversaries of the
Central Powers, whose counsel was so unconfused, whose
principles were so certain, whose details so distinct. And the
result was the Fourteen Commandments ; in which, he added,
' We feel ourselves to be the intimate partners of all the gov
ernments and peoples associated together against the im
perialists."

It may be that some who are more Presidential than the
President will regret thus to be compelled to forsake the
flattering unction that the only possible programme of the
world's peace was the original invention of Mr. Wilson, of
which no forecast nor glimmering had ever entered another
mind. The great majority will, however, agree with the
President himself in recognizing the real origin of that pro
gramme, and will feel that it is after all best that it should be

152 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

so; and that it is better to be thus merely the spokesman for
a united world than to be the independent projector of pos
sible controversy and discord into the councils of the nations.

THE RIGHT AND DUTY OF CRITICISM

SENATOR JAMES HAMILTON LEWIS, flamboyant and en
thusiastic in his devotion to his party chief, resents criticism
of the President's public policies, and apparently regards re
fusal to approve all that he does and says as little short of
high treason. Not long ago, it will be remembered, he
wanted the Senate to ratify and confirm in advance what
ever vagaries the President might indulge in in his peripa
tetic propaganda; which of course the Senate very prop
erly declined to do. Now he half passionately, half plain
tively laments that the Senate does not invariably give the
full approval after the deed which it refused to give before it.

With the personal aspects of the case we need not much
concern ourselves. The President is by far too great a man,
too free from those petty self-opinionated vanities which we
ungallantly call feminine, to object to receiving himself that
manly, honest criticism which he is always free to bestow
upon others. The public and what we may describe as the
patriotic aspects are more important. We are told that criti
cism of the President, especially while he is on his circum-
ambulatory mission, will impair the prestige and weaken the
influence of the United States.

If this were so, it would be matter for sincere regret. But
we cannot believe that it is so. We cannot believe — we should
be most sorry to believe — that the President is so autocrati
cally identified with the State, after the fashion of le Grand
Monarque, that legitimate criticism of him militates against
the Republic. Indeed, we should regret to believe that it
necessarily impairs his own individual authority. There is
an ancient and authentic admonition to those whom all men
praise, to take heed to their ways lest they fall. We should
not therefore regard universal approval as the highest of com
mendation for a statesman.

The notion that criticism of him is detrimental to the na
tion we must wholly repudiate. The prestige and influence
of the United States are of no more fragile fabric than those
of other lands. Mr. Lloyd George and M. Clemenceau have

THE RIGHT AND DUTY OF CRITICISM 153

not escaped criticism, even bitter denunciation. They are not
hedged about by so strict a law of Use majeste as is the Presi
dent, and they have accordingly been more often and more
severely attacked than he. But we cannot perceive that there
fore Great Britain and France have declined in prestige and
influence among the Powers.

There is obviously, moreover, much greater justification
for criticism of the President than of either of those states
men. That is because this nation as a whole believes that
there is occasion for it, and therefore approves it, while
France and Great Britain do not approve attacks upon their
Prime Ministers. It is well to make this plain, even though
it be not agreeable to the incense-burners of the Administra
tion. In the midst of an intensely controversial era Mr. Lloyd
George appealed to the nation in a general election, and was
sustained by perhaps the largest majority ever given to any
statesmen on such an occasion. In similar circumstances M.
Clemenceau appealed to Parliament and received an over
whelming vote of confidence. But when the President ap
pealed to the country for a vote of confidence, with pleas of
exaggerated urgency, he did not get it.

Would people who are more Presidential than the
President have the nation stultify and falsify itself? In the
late general elections the American people, thoughtfully and
deliberately, refused to give the President the Congress of
rubber stamps for which he had asked. They elected instead
a Congress which would be quite independent of his will, and
which, while it would of course sustain him loyally in all
patriotic measures, would hold itself free to differ from him
whenever and as much as it pleased on matters of policy and
of politics. Seeing that such was the will of the people, why
should the present Congress unanimously and invariably
show itself subservient to the Presidential will? Through
every available means of expression the nation made it clear
and emphatic that it did not desire the President to go abroad
and did not approve his self-willed going. We know of no
reason why it should now reverse itself and approve the ex
cursion, simply because the President persisted in it against
the public will. The President did not deign to explain in
advance the policies which he purposed to advocate abroad,
to discuss them with his Constitutional advisers, and to secure
their agreement and approval before he went on his tour.
There is no reason why those advisers should now approve

154 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

those policies if they do not really deem them wise and profit
able.

Only the infallible are properly exempt from criticism,
and the President does not claim infallibility. He has been,
indeed, his own severest and most destructive critic. Again
and again he has reversed his own policy, repudiated his own
words, and condemned his own doctrine. For that we would
not condemn him. Other and greater statesmen have done
the same. But it would be manifestly unreasonable and un
just to demand that all others should be similarly variable.
When the President was vehemently insisting that we were
not concerned with the causes and objects of the war, there
were those who thought and said otherwise, and who were
in consequence reviled for disagreeing with the President.
But pretty soon the President himself came around to their
view and insisted that we were vitally concerned in those mat
ters, far beyond the interest which the European Powers
themselves had at first manifested. Should his critics have
been condemned simply for having more vision than he, and
for thus seeing clearly in 1916 what he could not see until
1918?

We must uphold, then, the right to criticise. We do
more. We insist upon the patriotic duty of honest criticism.
It would be an abominable thing for men to attack the Presi
dent disingenuously, for the sake of mere factional advan
tage and at the cost of embarrassing his conduct of foreign
relations ; and we must regret the intemperate and as we be
lieve wholly unfounded aspersions of having done that thing,
which Senator Lewis cast upon some of the most useful and
most patriotic of his colleagues. But it would also be a de
testable thing for any man, and particularly for an important
public servant, to condone that which he thought evil and to
acquiesce in what he regarded as an error, simply because
some political leader, even the President of the United States,
was the author thereof.

The practical value of this exercise of duty has been
demonstrated more than once in recent years. Our conduct
of the war has been marked with a notable series of correc
tions of errors. Perhaps the errors were not all morally
culpable. Perhaps they were largely such as were natural
to an unprepared and inexpert country suddenly confronted
with so vast an emergency. But they were very serious er
rors, some of them even imperilling our success in the war.

A LEAGUE CONDEMNED BY ADVOCACY 155

Happily they were corrected, and in time; but it is quite cer
tain that they were corrected because of the criticism which
was directed against them, and against some of the men who
had made them. The critics were inveighed against and de
nounced as unpatriotic, but their criticisms were heeded and
were of inestimable service to the Republic. In making
those criticisms they performed a patriotic duty of the first
magnitude.

In the making of peace there is obviously far more room
for controversy, and a far greater likelihood of differences
of honest opinion, than there have been in the waging of war,
and the right and duty of criticism are therefore commensur-
ately greater. It would have been far better for the Presi
dent to have discussed his peace plans with those Constitu
tional advisers who must finally pass upon them, before start
ing upon his stump-speaking tour of Europe. If he had done
so, and had come to a substantial agreement, the wisdom and
propriety of his going abroad would still have been most dubi
ous, but at any rate if he had gone abroad he could truly
have said what he cannot now say, that he represented the
will of the American Government and nation. He did not do '
so. He preferred to present his plans to European audi
ences rather than to the American Congress. In that case he
must not complain if criticism follows instead of preceding
such alien presentation. The hand of Congress is not to be
forced simply by slighting it. Approval of policy is not to
be secured by refraining from seeking it. The right and the
duty of patriotic criticism will be exercised, and it will not
be the fault of the critics nor, we are confident, to the detri
ment of the country, if the criticism is made at a time not the
most convenient or acceptable to the object of it.

A LEAGUE CONDEMNED BY ADVOCACY

IT would be folly as well as gross injustice to challenge
the patriotism or the scholarship of President Lowell, of
Harvard University, and we shall certainly not presume to
question the entire sincerity and benevolence of his advocacy
of a League of Nations. But just as certainly as we credit
him with those qualities are we convinced of the existence of
fatal flaws in the arguments with which he eloquently pleads
for the creation of such a League.

156 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

In endeavoring to dispose of some of the objections which
are commonly made to such a scheme he cites first the ex
ample of Washington; or perhaps it would be better to set
the example of the nation in Washington's time, since Wash
ington was not an autocrat who would say " I am the State."
It is true, he concedes, that Washington did not favor any
leaguing of America with European Powers. But Washing
ton — or the people — desired to prevent the possibility of war
among the Thirteen States, and so he — or they — welded
them into a League of States, or a nation.

Now that union, as an expedient for averting war, was
quite successful; with one very conspicuous and important
exception. But what did it imply? Obviously, as every
schoolboy knows, that the States, while retaining a measure
of local " State Rights ", surrendered their highest attributes
of sovereignty to the nation. A new, extra- State govern
ment was created, and was invested with power to compel
the States to do its bidding, even against their own will. For
a time this was disputed and a number of States undertook
to assert their full independent sovereignty; and the result
was the one exception which we have noted to the peace-pre
serving power of the union — and the result of that result was
to establish forever the supremacy of the nation above the
States.

Now if the analogy of this Union of States with the
League of Nations amounts to anything at all — and Presi
dent Lowell seems to think that it does and that it is a con
vincing argument for the League — it implies this : That the
nations entering the League would surrender some of the su
preme attributes of their national sovereignty to some new
international or supernational government. And that, we
confidently apprehend, is precisely what thoughtful and pa
triotic Americans generally object to doing. They are quite
willing to bind the nation voluntarily, by treaty, to do so and
so in dealing with other countries. They are not willing and
they never should be willing to submit their country to the
dictation of aliens against its own will, and to permit any
other nation or combination of nations to determine what
Americans shall or shall not do.

Let us pursue the analogy between the Union and the
League ; with a pertinent illustration now before us. An at
tempt is being made to adopt a prohibition amendment to the
Constitution of the United States. If a certain number of

A LEAGUE CONDEMNED BY ADVOCACY 157

the States vote for it, it will be adopted, and will become bind
ing upon the others, whether they want it or not. The citi
zens of a State might be unanimously opposed to prohibition,
yet they would have it forced upon them by the will of other
States. We submit that this nation ought never to place
itself in a position in which such a thing might happen to it ;
in which, for example, by vote of the other nations in the
League it would be forbidden to impose a tariff upon im
ports. The appeal to Washington's " League of States ",
therefore, creates an impression hostile rather than favorable
to the present proposal.

Strangely, having thus intimated that the League of Na
tions would imply renunciation of sovereignty, President
Lowell proceeds to deny that his scheme would have any such
effect. " It has," he says, " nothing whatever to do with our
sovereignty." That seems pretty flatly contradictory of his
former argument based upon the analogy of the Federal
Union. But that is not the worst of it. In his endeavor to
justify this surprising denial of interference with national
sovereignty he resorts to an argument which we should never
have dreamed of attributing to him were it not expressed in
his own words, and which, thus expressed, we must regard
with amazed regret as quite unworthy of him. Let us quote
his exact words :

Congress's power to declare war or not to is not in any way af
fected. We simply agree that in certain conditions we will declare
war, but Congress is not bound to do it. It does not interfere with
Congress in the least. It does morally bind Congress to declare war;
yes, certainly ; every treaty binds the country to do something.

That is to say, Congress is not bound to do what it is
morally bound to do! Can it be that the President of Har
vard University was in earnest in putting forth that mon
strous proposition? Does he really mean that this country
should enter into a solemn moral obligation of the most mo
mentous character with the cynical reservation that " moral
obligations are not binding unless Congress sees fit to ap
prove them "? Why, that is the morality of the Hun, in re
garding a treaty as a scrap of paper, to be respected only
when it comports with the nation's interests to respect it.
What a spectacle for gods and men it would be for this nation
to enter a League of Nations and agree to a lot of principles
and rules, and then say, with tongue in cheek, " It all de
pends upon Congress whether we keep our word or not! "

158 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

The indisputable fact is that if we entered a League of
Nations and bound ourselves to go to war at command of that
League, we should be doing one of two things : We should
be abrogating the Constitutional function and authority of
Congress, or we should be perpetrating an act of immoral
hypocrisy which would degrade us to the level of the Huns.

From the analogy of the Union of States President Low
ell turns to that of the citizens of a community. He says:

The nations of the world are in just the same situation that you
would have been in in a frontier town of the olden days, when it was
necessary for you to carry a pistol. There is only one way to stop it,
and that is to make the world an orderly one.

But why is it that we do not all carry pistols now? Cer
tainly not because we have formed a League of Men for that
purpose, for we have not. Neither is it because we are in fact
in such a League as citizens of a State or a community which
has laws against brawling and manslaughter; because the
men in the frontier town were also citizens of such a State
with such laws. It is rather because the average individual
standard of citizenship and manhood has been raised. Let
the individual men be civilized and humanely cultivated,
and it will not matter whether they carry pistols or not; there
will be order and respect for life, even though the laws on
the subject be lax. Let the individual men be ruffians, and
there will be disorder and fighting, whether they carry pistols
or not, no matter how severe the laws may be.

We believe that the same principle applies to the nations
of the world. Let them have, as individual and independent
nations, humane and irenic ideals and standards, and the
world will be orderly and peaceful without any league, even
if some of the nations do have big fleets and universal mili
tary training. Let them as nations bound together in a
league have brutal and savage propensities, and the world
will be filled with wars and rumors of wars, in spite of the
league. Great Britain before this war had a tremendous
navy, perhaps as powerful as any two others united. But
nobody in his senses ever imagined that it was a menace to
the peace of the world or to the freedom of the seas or to the
rights of any other nation.

We may be greater idealists than President Lowell or
even than President Wilson — though we know of a very high
authority who said that the latter was not an idealist at all but
purely and simply a doctrinaire, which is a very different

JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL 159

thing — but we confidently believe that the hope of the world
does not lie in leagues of nations or international melting
pots, or attempts at abolition of armaments, or any such arti
ficial but material thing, but rather in the raising and human
izing and ennobling of the standard of individual nations.
All the leagues in the world would not insure order if the
component nations were disorderly. But if all the nations
were orderly, there would be order without any league at all.

JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL

February 22, 1819

We sit in the Promised Land
That flows with Freedom's honey and milk;
But 'twas they won it, sword in hand,
Making the nettle danger soft for us as silk.
We welcome back our bravest and our best ; —
Ah me! not all! some come not with the rest,
Who went forth brave and bright as any here!
I strive to mix some gladness with my strain,
But the sad strings complain,
And will not please the ear:
I sweep them for a paean, but they wane

Again and yet again
Into a dirge, and die away, in pain.
In these brave ranks I only see the gaps,
Thinking of dear ones whom the dumb turf wraps,
Dark to the triumph which they died to gain:
Fitlier may others greet the living,
For me the past is unforgiving;
I with uncovered head
Salute the sacred dead,
Who went, and who return not. — Say not so!
'Tis not the grapes of Canaan that repay,
But the high faith that failed not by the way ;
Virtue treads paths that end not in the grave ;
No bar of endless night exiles the brave;

And to the saner mind

We rather seem the dead that stayed behind.
Blow, trumpets, all your exultations blow!
For never shall their aureoled presence lack :
I see them muster in a gleaming row,

160 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

With ever-youthful brows that nobler show;
We find in our dull road their shining track;

In every nobler mood
We feel the orient of their spirit glow,
Part of our life's unalterable good,
Of all our saintlier aspiration ;

They come transfigured back,
Secure from change in their high-hearted ways,
Beautiful evermore, and with the rays
Of morn on their White Shields of Expectation!

From the Ode Recited at the Harvard Commemoration.

GERMANY'S POSE FOR AN
ADVANTAGEOUS PEACE

BY DAVID JAYNE HILL

THE state of mind and the political situation in Germany
when the conditions of peace have been imposed and must
be executed, will perhaps be entirely different from what
they are today. At present, Germany, virtually reduced to
military impotence, is seeking to procure for herself the most
favorable possible terms of peace.

The peace to which Germany was looking forward at the
time the armistice was requested was expected to be arrived
at by a process of bilateral debate on the meaning of the
fourteen rubrics of peace proposed in January, 1918, by
the President of the United States. Those rubrics, it was
thought, were so broad in their scope and so indefinite in some
of their applications, that it appeared possible to interpret
them in such a manner as to procure for Germany a peace
that would, in effect, be a greater victory than the German
armies could ever hope to secure by war. The policy that was
then adopted and is at this time dominant in the German
mind is an effort to obtain an economic victory at the cost of
a military surrender, — an economic victory which would com
pletely justify an acknowledgment of military defeat if it
could be secured by the acceptance of the German construc
tion of the fourteen rubrics considered as the terms, and the
only terms, of peace.

Little information, it is true, has been given publicity
regarding the plans and policies of Germany for securing
the most favorable peace that may be possible. It is, per
haps, not without a purpose that comparative silence on that
subject has been preserved; still, there has been a very dis
tinct outcropping of what is latent in the minds of German
diplomatists. " All the belligerents," Count von Bernstorff

VOL. ccix. — NO. 759 11

162 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

has recently allowed himself to say, " have accepted the Presi
dent's fourteen points, and the only question to be discussed
is their interpretation." The new German Secretary for
Foreign Affairs, Count von Brockdorff-Rautzau, has made
a similar statement, and the Tageblatt of Berlin supports
this view with the declaration, " No peace must be signed
which differs by the breadth of a hair from the principles of
President Wilson's fourteen points, which Germany has ac
cepted, and the Entente willingly or unwillingly has signed."
It is needless here to repeat the interpretations of which
these rubrics seem to be susceptible. It is sufficient to note
that they are held to provide for the following privileges
which, after peace, Germany, equally with other nations,
might be permitted to enjoy, under the protection of " mu
tual guarantees of political independence and territorial in
tegrity " provided by " a general association of nations " :

1. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, alike
in peace and in war ;

2. The removal of all economic barriers, and the estab
lishment of an equality of trade conditions;

3. Free and open-minded adjustment of all colonial
claims, unprejudiced by the actual results of the war;

4. Entire national self-determination, which would log
ically include perfect freedom in choosing and maintaining
a future form of government ; and

5. Admission on equal terms into a general League of
Nations.

A peace based upon these conditions, and involving only
the surrender of what Germany had no claim to before the
war, would render her not only a victor in all the substantial
elements of victory, but would leave her in population the
largest political unit on the Continent of Europe, with a
clear accession by union with Austria of more than eight
million of the Teutonic race ; and, after extruding some four
million of her present subjects belonging to other races,
would give her a net gain of some four or five million souls
and a considerable amount of new territory. When the peace
was signed, the zone of occupation evacuated, and the occu
pying troops demobilized, Germany, whether a republic or a
monarchy, the choice being freely open to her, with untouched
economic resources and organization, no matter what propor
tionate disarmament might be imposed, would be by far the
strongest Military State in Europe. She would possess

GERMANY'S POSE FOR PEACE 163

racial unity, territorial enlargement, economic preeminence
on the Continent, and military security. Even though she
had not been defeated in the field, such a peace would be
an advantageous one for Germany to make, a more satis
factory one indeed than she could ever hope to win by the
victory of her armies on the field of battle.

How then has Germany hoped to secure such a peace?

The course of procedure was clearly marked out for her.
Such a peace could never be made with the Kaiser as the head
of the Empire. That had been plainly declared. What,
above everything else, was demanded of Germany was that
she should repudiate her Hohenzollern dynasty and take her
place among the nations as a free, self-governing people;
for a " people," it was assumed, when it takes government
into its own hands, is always just, honorable, and trust
worthy ; while rulers alone are untrustworthy. Let the rulers
and the military caste, therefore, be repudiated, and peace
would be easily obtainable.

What nation, weary of a fruitless war, seeing its army,
after a supreme effort to break through the enemy's rein
forced lines, steadily and inevitably retreating, its territory
about to be invaded, its cities bombarded and assaulted from
the air, — what nation, I say, could be expected to miss such
an opportunity to make a profitable peace?

Germany was too prudent to lose such a chance of ad
vantage. The Kaiser's own appointed Imperial Chancellor,
accountable only to him, therefore, asked for an armistice,
in order that such a peace might be negotiated.

' Who are you, who ask for an armistice, with a view
to peace, and whom do you represent? ", was, in effect, de
manded of the Imperial Chancellor. " Do you speak for
the German people? "

The Imperial Chancellor was silent. How could he
speak for the German people, with whom he had nothing to
do, and to whom he was not responsible? The answer must
be better staged.

It is a new officer, therefore, the representative of what
poses as a new government, the Secretary of State for For
eign Affairs, who responds to the question intended for the
Imperial Chancellor and writes for him a certificate of char
acter.

" The present German Government," he declares, as if
speaking by some new popular authority, — "the present Ger-

164 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

man Government, which has undertaken the responsibility
for this step toward peace, has been formed by conferences
and in agreement with the great majority of the Reichstag.
The Chancellor, supported in all his actions by the will of
this majority, speaks in the name of the German Govern
ment and of the German people."

Thus, at last, the long silent " German people," the pre
sumably just, honorable, and trustworthy German people,
who were assumed not to be responsible for the war, but
rather the victims of a false and shameless autocracy too
infamous to be dealt with, have, it is made to appear, really
spoken. They have spoken, however, only through the voice
of a " great majority of the Reichstag," — a body which from
the beginning had with unanimity supported the war and all
its atrocious procedure; a body which only for a moment
found a voice with which to speak the mind of the people,
and having been for that one moment indistinctly vocal, has
since subsided into the silence of the grave! If the German
Reichstag really represents the German people, why is it
not, in this great emergency, at its post of duty now?

Germany, in this fateful hour, seems to prefer to have
no responsible government. Is it because it is more difficult
to hold accountable, and on that ground to condemn and
punish, a nation without a responsible government than a
nation which can be on specific charges indicted and ar
raigned for its past misdeeds?

Say what we will of the Kaiser's personal regime, it was
at least one which, whether trustworthy or not, could be held
accountable for its crimes. But the Kaiser's Government is
alleged to be no longer in existence. In order that it might
disappear, he was urged to abdicate. He professed to have
done so, and went to Holland. Germany appeared satis
fied, but the outside world demanded the evidence of his abdi
cation; and it was not till three weeks after his retreat,
that, in order to satisfy foreign demands, on the 29th of
November, a document was finally signed by the alleged ex-
Kaiser.

The reason for his withdrawal from Germany William II
has himself frankly stated. " I go to Holland," he is re
ported to have declared, " in order to facilitate peace " ; and
no one has contradicted this statement of why he was going.
The German people, it seems, when the Kaiser's armies were
beaten in the field, suddenly wished him gone, sent forth, as

GERMANY'S POSE FOR PEACE 165

it were, like the " scapegoat " of ancient times, into the wild
erness, not because his people hated him or considered him an
arch-criminal, not because they themselves wished to destroy
him — as they had, and still have, an opportunity to do — but
because it appeared that he might be laden with their sins,
and his going with this burden would " facilitate peace " by
consigning responsibility to the wilderness of oblivion.

And why was it supposed that his going would facilitate
peace? Was it not because an irresponsible nation can de
mand easier terms than a responsible ruler?

The just, honorable, and trustworthy " people of Ger
many " seem to be pleading at the judgment bar of history,
and preparing to say at the peace table : " We demand
peace because we are an innocent and a defenseless people.
First of all, we are a * people,' and how can you punish a
whole people? Has it not been said that there is something
sacred and sacrosanct in a * people'? You are trying 'to
make the world safe for democracy.5 We are now a democ
racy. See, we have dismissed the Kaiser! We shall have
no more of him. Have mercy upon us, Kameraden! We
accept all your glorious democratic principles. Now, un
doubtedly, you are ready, since you would make the world
safe for democracy, to make our democracy an asylum of
safety for us ! "

Here is a change of plan, but is there any change of
heart behind these pretensions? Have all Germans, or most
Germans, suddenly become Social Democrats, clamoring for
a Socialist Republic? Where are all those millions of troops?
Where are all those hundreds of thousands of officers, those
Prussian generals who are said to have made the Kaiser
declare war? Have they gone to Holland? Only a few of
them. The vast majority, armed, organized, waiting for
a word of command, are in Germany; and they are silent,
as silent as the Reichstag. Why are they silent? They are
silent because silence is the order of the day, a token of irre
sponsibility and acquiescence in a new order of things. They
are waiting to see if an economic victory can be won. If
it is won, they will have their reward. If it is not
won, they will, perhaps, have something to say in the
future when the peace has been concluded, and is yet to
be executed, when the Allied armies are demobilized, and
when the rest of Europe has gone to sleep.

There was, before the armistice, no serious revolution in

166 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Germany. There has been hunger, there has been weariness,
there has been joy at the cessation of battle, there has been
a vision of peace, of comfort and tranquility. There has
been also an emergence of Bolshevism, the weapon which
Germany skillfully forged and thrust into the vitals of Rus
sia; but Germany expects to receive no serious wound from
this weapon. There is no clear evidence of change in Ger
many, no movement beyond street fights and bread mobs,
such as may occur in any city when the conditions of life
are hard and when the passions of low-browed men are for
a time let loose. The Councils of Workmen and Soldiers
solemnly infest the Herrenhaus under the protection of a
machine-gun; but the generals know that at any moment in
Germany they could make short work of all this assemblage
of the rags and tatters of Bolshevism. But the time is not
opportune. The disease of Bolshevism, in so far as it is a
social malady, may safely be permitted in Germany to run
its course. It illustrates to the middle-class what the dangers
of democracy may be. It shows to the world how wide the
infection may become, if peace is not quickly made. It
presents to the Allies the puzzling problem how to obtain
redress from a people who disavow accountability and are
too broken and disorganized to enforce the duties of a
responsible state.

How real is a revolution when the domestic courts are in
session, when the bureaucracy is administering affairs, and
when life and property are not in great immediate peril?
The Germans are an exceptionally orderly people. Their
demonstrations are customarily innocuous. Their habits of
life are prudent. Their burghers are not stricken with pov
erty, and their proprietors, accustomed to the use of arms,
are able to guard, and are determined to defend, their own
material interests. When a real revolution appears, if it
does appear, they will unite their forces and rally to their
own protection. What they wish at present to exhibit to
their conquerors is a starving population incapable of bear
ing new burdens, an unsettled public order that may prove a
contagion to their neighbors, an effort for democracy that
will be an apology for the past, and above all a situation
which will excite the sympathy of the credulous and the sup
port of class interests of a revolutionary temper in the popu
lation of those countries which they would represent as their
oppressors for capitalistic gain.

GERMANY'S POSE FOR PEACE 167

You wish the evidence of this ? Then listen to the speech
of Hindenburg to his army, on November 13th at the mo
ment when he had decided that it was an economic rather than
a military victory for which Germany was to look. Does he
pretend that he or they had fought under merely autocratic
orders? Does he confess that the course of Germany was
wrong? Does he call for a change of heart, or merely for a
change of policy ? He says :

" Germany up to today has used her arms with honour.
In hard fighting the soldiers have held the enemy away from
the German frontier in order to save the Fatherland from
the horrors of war. In view of our enemies' increasing num
bers and the collapse of our allies and our economic diffi
culties, our Government was resolved to accept the hard
terms of the armistice; but we leave the fight, in which for
more than four years we have resisted a world of enemies,
proudly and with heads erect."

If we turn to what calls itself a government of democ
racy, what do we hear from the alleged Premier, Ebert, when
he welcomes the troops coming home to Berlin? Does he
repudiate the purpose of the war? Does he inform the re
turning soldiers that they have made useless sacrifices, or
have been engaged in an unworthy cause, at the command of
an autocracy in whose downfall they should rejoice? Tens
of thousands of men march by still bearing their arms, filing
between other tens of thousands of people who are supposed
to have made a revolution, who welcome them as joyful spec
tators, the troops laden with garlands, as they tramp on to
the loud blare of bands of music intoning, " Deutschland,
Deutschland uber Attest

" Your deeds and sacrifices," the Premier declares, " are
unexampled. No enemy overcame you. Only when the pre
ponderance of our opponents in men and material grew ever
heavier did we abandon the struggle.

" You endured indescribable sufferings, accomplished in
comparable deeds, and gave, year after year, proofs of your
unmistakable courage. You protected the homeland from
invasions, sheltered your wives, children, and parents from
flames and slaughter and preserved the nation's workshops
and fields from devastation.

" With deepest emotion the homeland thanks you. You
can return with heads erect. Never have men done or suf
fered more than you."

168 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Is this a proclamation of democracy? Is the world to be
" made safe " by this adulation of a career of national crime?
What can be said after this to the heroes who are told that
in serving the Kaiser they were nobly defending the Father
land, if for this glorious service they are asked to toil in the
fields and the workshops to pay for the damage they have
done to Belgium, to France, to Poland, and to other lands
which they have, without just cause, ruthlessly invaded and
cruelly devastated? Can they be urged to make reparation?
Or will they think it unjust that, having suffered so much
in a cause so noble, they must be treated as if they were the
perpetrators of outrages for which they, their children, and
their children's children must be held accountable?

Here is no note of penitence or contrition. It is the same
Germany, speaking with the voice of Hindenburg and Ebert,
which accepted the Kaiser as its glorious War Lord, that
believed, or professed to believe, in the divine right of con
quest, and threatened innocent nations with the extortion of
enormous indemnities, covering not only the total cost of their
exploits but sufficient to enrich the nation and render it the
most opulent in the world.

The attitude of Germany in accepting just conditions of
peace, will be the test of the character of the German people
with whom in the future other nations must live and deal.
The first necessity to a recognition of reformation is the dis
position to repay, in so far as that is possible, at whatever
sacrifice, the damage they have inflicted. If exemption from
this obligation is claimed on the ground of irresponsibility,
it will imply a degradation of character as deep as that
evinced by the predatory enterprise in which all Germany
was to profit by collecting the costs of the war from its in
nocent victims.

Without reparation for the injuries inflicted, there can
be no real peace. The example of such an unpunished exploit
would remain as an encouragement to future crime.

Will the German people, whose sense of justice, honor,
and moral obligation is soon to be put to a crucial test, volun
tarily accept the burdens which a just peace will impose
upon them? If not, what confidence can be placed in the
proposal to make the world safe for democracy, and what
will be the world's judgment upon the ethical standards of
democracy itself? We shall soon learn from the conduct of
Germany, now speaking only through a mask of democracy,

GERMANY'S POSE FOR PEACE 169

whether or not we are to ascribe all the enormities of the
war to the depravity and malevolence of her rulers, against
whom, until the moment of defeat, the people offered no
protest ; and whether or not a people, left free to express its
own character, will accept the burdens of an act of justice.

On account of the Great War, in which their duty ren
dered it necessary that they should participate, the people of
the United States of America have not only freely offered
to the cause of justice the lives of tens of thousands of their
sons, but have paid, or will have paid, probably over thirty
billion dollars, which they have not yet demanded should be
returned to them. The whole expenditure of the war, by the
Allies, considered merely as a matter of monetary sacrifice,
is said to exceed two hundred billion dollars; and yet this
gigantic sum, which it will require generations to make good,
is one of the least and one of the most easily repaired of the
damages inflicted by this assault upon humanity.

The manufacturing plants of Germany are practically
intact, and their escape from devastation affords the Ger
mans every advantage over their neighbors in the resumption
of their normal industries. The loss of man-power through
death and mutilation may amount approximately to three or
four million men, but this loss will probably be made good
to the extent of at least one half by the growth of popula
tion during the period of nearly five years from the beginning
of the war to the conclusion of peace.

The greatest hardship for the Germans will be the defi
ciency of raw materials for manufacture ; such as cotton, wool,
copper, iron, rubber, and many others. They will doubtless
plead for these at the peace table as absolutely essential to
them. If they were wholly withheld, it would, of course,
be impossible for the Germans to pay any indemnities, be
cause they can only pay to the extent to which they are able
to earn the means of payment. This is so obvious that it
will probably be strongly urged upon the Allies, in order
to procure the means to facilitate Germany's economic re
habilitation. " You must either excuse us from all pay
ments of indemnities," it will no doubt be pleaded, " or you
must grant us a full supply of the raw materials to which
we may give value by our skill and workmanship, in order
that we may sell them at prices which will enable us to live
and at the same tune create an increment of value for your
benefit."

170 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

If, however, this argument should prevail, its inevitable
consequence should not be overlooked. If raw materials are
furnished to the extent of Germany's demand, German man
ufactures will at once obtain an immense acceleration, Ger
man goods will flood every market, and the less favored
countries will be driven out of the world's marts by an excess
of German production and German methods of commercial
exploitation. It would not require many years for Germany,
with these advantages, even though promising the payment
of heavy money indemnities, to have so taken possession of
the world's markets as to make the arrangement a profitable
bargain. While the Belgians and the French were slowly
recovering their productive capacity by a restoration of their
ruined industrial plants, Germany would completely forestall
them in securing foreign trade. Such a programme would,
in effect, be the formation of a partnership in which, to
secure a portion of Germany's gains in the form of an indem
nity, they would surrender to her the conduct of foreign
business, while they themselves were engaged in merely re
covering to some extent the productive efficiency of which
Germany's invasion had deprived them.

To appreciate the full significance of such an arrange
ment, it is necessary to consider that, while Germany's manu
facturing plants have not been in any way impaired, and are
ready to begin operation, those of Belgium and Northwest
ern France have been practically destroyed. It is reported
that 26,000 factories in the French districts occupied by the
Germans are either wholly demolished or stripped of their
machinery; which, with the looms and other portable means
of industry of Belgium, has been carried into Germany.
Thousands of square miles of rich agricultural land have
been so deeply plowed with shells as to be utterly unfit for
cultivation. Houses and public edifices have been left in
ruins and can be replaced only by years of labor. Valuable
mines have been rendered useless, and it will require both
time and expense to restore them. It would be unjust, even
though the money value of all these objects were eventually
paid in cash, to impose upon the inhabitants of these devas
tated countries the concentration of all their skill and labor
upon the work of reconstruction while those who had de
stroyed them were profiting by expanding their own world
wide trade. At the end of the period when the restoration
was complete, the money paid would have been spent in the

GERMANY'S POSE FOR PEACE 171

work of reconstruction, and these unfortunate countries,
having in the meantime devoted their energies entirely to
this task of restoration, would be no better off than they were
when the war began, while German industry and trade dom
ination would in the meantime have been definitely and per
haps permanently established.

The remedy which justice would seem to demand is evi
dent. Whatever of value has been carried into Germany
should be immediately brought back and replaced. The re
construction of houses, factories, and other edifices should
then be speedily brought to completion by German workmen
at Germany's expense, aided by those natives who for the
time being have no other employment, all their labor to be
paid for by Germany. In so far as the German shipyards
can replace the tonnage destroyed, they should be at once
employed for the purpose; and only such ships should be
allowed for German trade as may be necessary for the dis
tribution of Germany's just proportion of overseas com
merce. The other forms of indemnity would not be can
celled by this process of restoration; but the liquidation of
these obligations might be ultimately accomplished by the
saving of all expense for military purposes beyond mere
domestic police duty in Germany, by special import licenses
on German goods, and by the appropriation of a percentage
of the profits of Germany's coal and potash mines.

This would be undoubtedly a heavy burden for a con
quered people to bear; but it is less than it was the German
purpose to impose upon the innocent victims of their impe
rial schemes of conquest.

Has the alleged German democracy any intention grace
fully to accept such obligations?

It will be noted that under the fourteen rubrics of peace
proposed by the President of the United States, reparation
and indemnity are not included. " Belgium," the seventh
rubric declares, " the whole world will agree, must be evac
uated and restored; " but the restoration here referred to, as
the following words imply, seems to relate to " the sover
eignty which she enjoys in common with other free nations,"
while no mention is made of the reparation of material dam
ages.

Under the eighth rubric it is proposed that " All French
territory should be freed, and the invaded portions re
stored " ; but the implication here appears to be the same as

172 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

that under the seventh rubric. In both cases it is the restora
tion of territory, not reparation that is specified.

Will the German representatives at the Peace Congress
frankly admit Germany's responsibility for the injuries in
flicted and offer to repair them as justice requires them to
do; or will they plead that the " terms " suggested by these
fourteen rubrics are the only terms that were accepted, and
that the imposition of others is a breach of faith?

The truth is that, in a military sense, Germany was de
feated. Her generals have admitted that it was useless to
continue the fight. Had no basis of settlement been pro
posed, the alternative to the invasion of Germany by the
Allies and an allied victory proclaimed at Berlin would have
been an immediate unconditional surrender. The terms of the
peace would then have been the conditions to be laid down
by the conquerors. They probably will be thus laid down,
even as it is. But who will deny that there would have been
a clearer case for the conditions which the Allies must in
justice impose, and less opportunity for a plea that only the
fourteen rubrics should be discussed and Germany's interpre
tation of their meaning considered, if the surrender were in
no way connected with the alleged " terms " which both bel
ligerents are assumed to have accepted?

As the case stands, Germany will undoubtedly voice her
interpretation of those " terms " at the peace congress, and
will insist that they be regarded in their entirety as a body of
conditions, each involving the others. It will, no doubt, be
claimed that the five advantages to Germany referred to near
the beginning of this article, should be accorded to her ; and
that conditions not mentioned under any of the rubrics be
not applied. It will also be urged that conditions ought not
to be made more burdensome for a new popular regime in
Germany than were contemplated at the time the armistice
was signed and the alleged " terms " accepted, while the
Kaiser's culpable Government was still in command.

All these claims and pleas will prove unavailing, for the
reason that they are not just. What gives them plausibility
is Germany's assertion that she was led to expect an advan
tageous peace on certain conditions, and that those condi
tions have now been fulfilled. The implied condition was,
it is held, that a free people could receive better terms than
a guilty autocracy. The specific conditions were contained
in the fourteen rubrics. On these " terms " a nation that

GERMANY'S POSE FOR PEACE 173

still takes pride in the cause for which its armies fought, that
abandoned the struggle only because its force was exhausted,
and that has made no apology for a crime in which it par
ticipated, now demands to be received as an equal partner
in an international order yet to be established ; if, indeed, any
" general association of nations " can ever be formed which
will " guarantee " the conditions which these rubrics suggest.

All this does not destroy, and it should not obscure, the
demands of justice to the nations that have suffered invasion
and devastation at the hands of Germany. The whole scheme
of the rubrics may have been an error. If it has really
deceived Germany, or if its application should leave the in
jured without redress, it was, indeed, morally and diplomati
cally a mistake. The demands of justice, however, remain
unshaken. There can be no binding agreement to do wrong
or to escape doing what is right. The alleged terms of
peace may have to be interpreted again and again; but,
wholly irrespective of any interpretation, reparation by
Germany should be made in Belgium and France, not to
mention other devastated countries, or the coming peace
will be as wicked as the war.

This reparation, apparently, Germany does not intend to
make, unless forced to do so.

" No State," says Maximilian Harden, who now assumes
the role of interpreter of the Germany of which he has long
dreamed, — " no State that was snatched along into this flood
of the Deluge can expect other indemnity than those which
can be effected by thrift and savings " ; which, he makes
clear, must be the effort of each people for itself. There are
to be, then, no indemnities paid by Germany. " Taxes and
customs duties," he says, " that would yield even the interest
on the tens of billions of debt would necessarily paralyze
trade and industry in competition with America, Australia,
and the Yellow World; would necessarily grind to bits the
idea of private property. . . . What then shall happen?
Something that has never happened before. . . . Let Eu
rope's war debt become a treasure of atonement. Let the
war loan certificates of all the European States that have
participated in this war . . . serve as legal tender, guaran
teed by all debtors ; a form of money which in every land that
is subject to the jurisdiction of the arbitration court must
be accepted in payment in any transaction and by any cred
itor at its full face value ! "

174 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Thus all the national war debts, Germany's included, it
is proposed, should be pooled in one great " peace fund "
and placed under a central control to prevent the outbreak
of future war! ' The court of the nations," so runs the
scheme, — " serves as trustee of the treasure, and sets aside
therefrom in equal parts out of the certificates of indebted
ness of all the States what it needs for itself and its militia.
It may punish disobedience of its judgments in the case of
any individual State by means of a money penalty, declar
ing valueless all the circulating certificates of that State, call
ing them in, or destroying them, in the case of any State that
breaks the peace without previously being itself bodily and
vitally threatened. Here," this writer continues, " is where
a community of European citizenship beckons us. Thus the
Continent would be delivered from its money stringency;
. . . thus it would gently be obliged to bury quickly and
deeply the useless reminders of futile conflict."

It is time for Germany, if she would ever regain the
respect of mankind, to dismiss such fantastic illusions as
these, and to take up the burden of national responsibility
in a serious sense. Let her, first of all, establish a govern
ment that will admit the responsibility of the nation for the
past, and with which it is possible to deal. Then let that
government assume and enforce those obligations which a
just peace will certainly impose upon the German nation;
not forgetting that the greatest possible calamity to man
kind would be to write into the Law of Nations, by absolv
ing the German people from complicity in a national crime,
the ruinous principle that a " people " is not responsible for
the government it supports, and that it may therefore exempt
itself from merited punishment by merely changing its form
of government.

Has Germany the character to stand this test? When
she has proved her ability to do so, then, and only then, can
there be a possibility, when years of fidelity have estab
lished her good faith, of admitting her to a place in a League
of Nations. If those who are gathering to conclude peace
now cannot enforce that judgment, then it is more than futile
to hope to enforce such a judgment in the future; for the
contingencies of a future in which so great a crime was
left unpunished would be simply appalling to contemplate.

DAVID JAYNE HILL.

THE BRITISH LABOR OUTLOOK

BY SYDNEY BROOKS

THE war caught British Industrialism on the very verge
of a crisis that had long been maturing. The previous five
years had seen a formidable and pervasive outburst of labor
unrest. In a sense there was something paradoxical in the
fact that labor should be most dissatisfied precisely at a time
when Parliament was most studious of its supposed interests,
and when the national conscience was most keenly alive to
and most eagerly bent on remedying social and economic
injustices and inequalities. Between 1906 and 1911 more
Acts had been conceived and passed for the benefit of the
working classes than in any previous half-century of British
history. Labor had secured a powerful and presumably
authoritative representation in the House of Commons. The
" social question " had stepped into the forefront of British
politics. There never was a time, I suppose, when the will of
the country was more resolutely set on securing a square deal
all round.

And along with this there had gone on a seemingly pro
gressive development of the idea that strikes and lockouts
were relics of a barbarous and outworn past and that it was
to everybody's interest that industrial disputes should be
settled by give-and-take agreements. Eight or nine years
ago a good many Englishmen might well have persuaded
themselves that industrial warfare of the old type was ap
proaching extinction.

With the railway strike of August, 1911, came a change
that seemed to infect the very atmosphere of industrialism.
New forces, a new spirit, were apparently liberated by
that great convulsion. Since then and up to the out
break of the war Capital and Labor in Great Britain
knew hardly an hour of real peace. The intervening years

176 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

witnessed some sinister developments. They saw not merely
the resurrection of the strike but its vast extension. A strike
formerly, and as a rule, was confined to a single section of a
single industry, and was directed against a single employer.
The other sections in the same industry, or the same sections
working for other employers, were neither dragged into the
struggle nor felt any call to participate in it. It was, in short,
a localized affair.

But between 1911 and 1914 we saw men, admittedly with
no grievances at all, leaving their work and throwing down
their tools in order to show their sympathy with their fellow-
laborers who had struck for some definite cause. We saw
strikes not of sections or groups but of whole industries. We
saw the principle enforced that no one section or group could
return to work until all sections and groups had been satis
fied.

Side by side with this phenomenon was another equally
conspicuous — the rebelliousness of the workingmen against
their own Trade Union officials. We repeatedly saw strikes
initiated against the advice of the men's recognized and
freely-chosen leaders. We saw terms of settlement arranged
by these leaders and then rejected by their followers. We
saw agreements between employers and employed broken
by the latter at the shortest notice and in spite of the protests
of their appointed representatives. We saw employers placed
in the curious — two decades earlier it would have been the
incredible — position of backing up the Trade Unions against
their own members. We saw the rapid supersession of the
older and more cautious and conciliatory type of Trade
Union leader. We saw the principle of collective bargaining
— which was and is the very essence of Trade Unionism — in
peril of perishing amid a wreck of broken agreements and
repudiated officials.

We saw also that the Trade Unions themselves were
being converted more and more into political agencies worked
by an energetic Socialist minority. We saw many signs that
Labor was turning from Parliamentary propaganda to
" direct action," and that its leadership was passing under
the control of hot-headed revolutionaries who were revamp
ing the Marxian idea of social reconstruction by a cataclysm,
and in whose hands Trade Unions were merely useful as the
instruments of a forcible overthrow. Both in the railway
strike in 1911 and the coal strike of the succeeding year

THE BRITISH LABOR OUTLOOK 177

nothing was more marked than the impotence of the Labor
M. P.'s. In neither case did they originate the agitation;
in neither case did they prove able either to guide or restrain
it. In both cases it was the work of men who were against
the whole policy of Labor representation in Parliament and
who believed that for the workingmen there is only one really
effective weapon — the universal strike. Labor, in short, had
broken loose. It was attacking not only Capital and the
community but Trade Unionism itself; and its actions in
general were governed by a bitterness of enmity and sus
picion towards employers as a class that foreboded an ex
plosion hardly to be distinguished from civil war.

The irony of the situation would have struck with mourn
ful force the early leaders of the Trade Union movement.
In the half century preceding the war Trade Unions had
circumvented two powerful obstacles that the first pioneers
must have thought insuperable. They used to be illegal.
They are now, if anything, as much above the law as they
were formerly below it. Certainly, although their position
in the eyes of the Courts is still full of anomalies and no one
can say with precision how far they are, or are not, corpora
tions, or individuals, or partnerships between a number of
individuals, they enjoy some legal privileges such as no other
associations can show. And not only have they forced recog
nition and more than ample safeguards for themselves from
Parliament and public opinion, but they have also, after a
generation and more of fierce struggle, established them
selves in nearly eveiy industry in the country. Just before
the war in all the leading British trades, except the railway
industry, Trade Unions were recognized, and the fight for
the " open shop " was as good as over.

What is more, British employers of late years had been
finding out how much easier it was for them to deal with a
strong and responsible Trade Union than with a multitude
of individual employees. And Trade Unions in Great
Britain, taking them as a whole, are both strong and respon
sible. They are managed by men of experience and caution;
they have amassed very large funds; they are opposed to
unnecessary strikes and to violence of all kinds; they are in
the main pacific and conservative organizations, with a far
stronger inclination towards bargaining with employers than
towards fighting them. The men who started the movement
in the dark days of Victorian industrialism, could they in
VOL. ccix.— NO. 759 12

178 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

1910 have surveyed the power and accumulated wealth and
membership of the organizations and have noted the prac
tical and in general the conciliatory spirit that animated
them, would have felt that their early uphill exertions had
been almost miraculously rewarded.

But had they renewed their observations a year or two
later they would have realized that the prospect was not as
fair as it seemed. The Trade Unions had still one opponent
left to overcome, the most formidable, perhaps, of all, an
opponent in their own household — the very men, in other
words, on whose behalf they had been called into being.
What had given Trade Unionism its vitality was its power
as the representative of the workers of arranging terms with
employers to include masses of men and to cover the condi
tions of an entire industry. But what if the Trade Unions
proved unable to enforce these terms upon their own mem
bers? For that precisely in the four years preceding the war
was what was happening with increasing frequency through
out Great Britain.

The causes of this indiscipline inside the ranks of the
Trade Unions had many and diverse roots. In part they
sprang from the fact that while the men remained individuals
— and exceedingly human ones at that — with their interests
mainly centered in their own immediate industrial conditions,
the effective trade organization of to-day is no longer the
local branch, is no longer even the Trade Union itself, but is
the Federation, composed of all the Trade Unions that are
engaged in the same industry. The heads of these bodies
are exceedingly busy men, as hard to get at as a Cabinet
Minister, and the average working man feels himself almost
as remote from them as from his employer. Moreover when
a Trade Union Federation on the one side and an Employ
ers' Federation on the other meet to negotiate the terms of a
settlement, the process is apt to be as formal and protracted
as though two Government officers or two nations were draw
ing up an agreement ; and when the settlement that is finally
reached applies to a whole industry, it must frequently and
inevitably ignore local and minor grievances, and give rise
to the suspicion that the interests of one section or of one
trade are being sacrificed to other constituents of the Fed
eration.

Again, it is highly doubtful whether the mass of working
men have by any means assimilated the doctrine of industrial

THE BRITISH LABOR OUTLOOK 179

peace preached at them by their leaders; while the leaders
themselves, and especially those of a Socialist turn of mind,
or who are, or hope to be, in Parliament, unquestionably look
upon the Trade Unions less as industrial organizations than
as an effective and wealthy machine for securing and main
taining Labor representation in the House of Commons.
One must always, too, remember that there are few bitter
nesses in the world which equal that of the working man
towards his former mate who has been elected to Parliament
and become a " prominent personage " with £400 a year
and a new environment and interests; and the higher he
rises, and especially if he reaches a Cabinet position, the
bitterness develops into a positive anguish of jealousy and
suspicion. There are no leaders whom the working men
turn so readily against as those of their own class ; and this
undoubtedly is one of the reasons why Trade Union leaders
since they have taken to politics have steadily lost their hold
over those who joined the movement for industrial and social
purposes, to advance wages, to put themselves on a nego
tiating equality with the employers, and to safeguard them
selves against sickness and unemployment.

The middle-aged Trade Union leader of to-day, more
over, while a man of limited vision and with little sense
of complex play of social forces or international politics,
is not a faddist, has developed through actual experi
ence of life and affairs a sturdy practicality, and is as
free from " isms " as any man can be who is forced from
time to time to descend to the insincerities of public life.
But the younger men of the rank and file, with quicker minds
but less balance, more pushing and restless, educated up to
the point where they can rarely think rightly for themselves
and yet resent the advice or guidance of the men who know,
have developed in the last twenty years a very decided
" class-consciousness " and have embraced with remarkable
avidity the theories and formulas of Continental Socialism.
The British working man discovered Marx just when their
German and French " comrades " had begun to outgrow
him ; and his abstractions have been the basis of most of the
half-baked harangues and the perverted view of economics
that have resounded from Labor platforms during the past
decade and a half. The hubbub over Syndicalism and Col
lectivism and the Revolution and the bourgeoises and the
proletariat has been far more widely spread in Great Britain

180 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

than most people are aware; and it has resulted in the
growth of a definite school of working-class opinion which
aims avowedly at the overthrow of the " Capitalist system ",
which regards property as robbery, which openly proclaims
a " class war ", and which denies with passion that employers
and employed ever have had or ever can have any interests
in common.

This obstreperous ferment in the ranks was by no means
the least of the difficulties that beset the Trade Union leaders
before the war. Whenever an industrial dispute broke out
they could always rely on finding an active and vocal minor
ity among their nominal followers who were hotly against
any settlement by compromise and ready at any moment to
denounce the advocates of a peaceful and reasonable arrange
ment as traitors to the cause of Labor, men who had sold out
to the Capitalists, and were using the funds of the Unions
to bolster up a position in politics and society. The hot-heads
were coming more and more to ridicule Parliamentary rep
resentation as mere play-acting. They showed in 1911 and
1912 that they had gone some distance towards perfecting
the sympathetic strike. They were already fingering the
trigger of the universal strike. Their whole point of view
was utterly antagonistic to the authority and principles of
Trade Unionism as Trade Unionism had hitherto been
understood. It was no longer the employers who disputed
those principles or resisted that authority. It was the Trade
Unionists themselves. And when to these elements of in
stability and dissensions were added the wranglings and per
sonal jealousies that afflict Trade Unions, as they afflict all
other associations — the scramble for places, the tumult of
underground intrigue and the rivalries among the leaders —
it was clear that a gathering tension between Capital and
Labor was complicated by an embittering and wholly un
precedented crisis within the fold of Trade Unionism itself.
sThe entire world of British industry was thus in August,
1914, like the entire world of British politics, in a thoroughly
bad temper. Not an element was lacking to a comprehensive
explosion. Many strikes were actually in progress; more
were threatened or being prepared for; and had it not been
for the war the autumn of four years ago would almost cer
tainly have witnessed a civil convulsion of the first magni
tude. That immeasurable catastrophe stilled as with a magic
wand the fretful tumult that was hurrying our industrial

THE BRITISH LABOR OUTLOOK 181

system to a violent crisis. Beneath the compulsion of a
common affliction all classes suddenly realized that they
were Britons and as such bound to stand together and help
one another and the nation through the storm. We were
one people in a sense unknown within the recollection of
any living man. Over four years have gone by since then
and that noble mood of unity and exaltation has suffered
a partial eclipse. But it has never completely passed away.
There have been some breaches of the industrial truce, some
strikes that should never have occurred. But on the whole
the steadfastness, the loyalty, the general willingness of
British workers under the test of war and the unwonted
and irritating discipline of State control have made a proud
record. One can say without hesitation that no class, as a
class, has been called upon to sacrifice so much or has obeyed
the summons with such alacrity and good- will.

Those who were unfamiliar with the conditions of mod
ern industry thought it a small thing that all Trade Union
regulations and customs which prevented the maximum out
put should be swept away. It was on the contrary a very
big thing. For these ordinances and privileges represented
the fruits of a struggle prolonged through two whole gen
erations of working-class effort. In the collective mind of
Labor they stood for a charter of industrial liberty more
precious than any Act of Parliament or than any of the
Constitutional guarantees of freedom. They entered the
daily life of the worker far more intimately than any ex
ternal authority; they defined the conditions under which
he earned his livelihood; there was scarcely one of them that
was not a concession wrested from employers by the determi
nation of Labor. And this vast network of rules and agree
ments, usages and customs, was far more extensive than is
usually realized. To give some idea of it I do not think I
can do better than reproduce Mr. Sidney Webb's descrip
tion of its ramifications.

It embraced, then, not only the standard rates of wages,
and the length of the normal working day, together with the
arrangements for over-time, night- work, Sunday duty, meal
times, and holidays, but also the exact classes of operatives
(apprenticed or skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled, laborers
or women) to be engaged, or not to be engaged, for various
kinds of work, upon particular processes, or with difficult
types of machines ; whether non-unionists should be employed

182 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

at all; what processes should be employed for particular
tasks; what machines should be used for particular jobs; how
the machines should be placed in relation to each other, and
the speed at which they should be worked; whether one op
erative should complete a whole job, or attend only to one
machine, or form part of a team of specialized operatives
each doing a different process; what wages, if any, should
be paid in the intervals between jobs, or whilst waiting for
material, and what notice of termination of engagement
should be given; whether boys or girls or young persons
should be employed at all, or on what processes or with what
machines or in what proportion to the adult workmen;
whether the remuneration should be by time or by the piece,
and under what conditions, at what rates and with what allow
ances; and — perhaps, where it prevailed, most severely criti
cized of all, but by no means universally existing — what
amount of output by each operative should be considered a
fair day's work, not to be considerably exceeded under pen
alty of the serious displeasure of the workshop.

Upon this complicated code — the resultant for the most
part of degrading enmities, suspicions and greeds — there
burst the tornado of the war. It did not take very long to see
that the new national interests, which demanded output be
fore all things, were at odds with an industrial system that
was neither worked nor framed to secure the utmost possible
production. The clamorous needs of the war necessitated
the extension or adaptation of factories, the introduction of
new machinery, many changes of process, nothing less than
a revolution in the relation of the operative to the machine,
a great development of standardized and repetition work, and
the importation of non-unionists, unapprenticed men, semi
skilled men, laborers, boys, even women and girls. To all
these transformations the mass of Trade Union agreements
and customs, regulating the conduct of industry, opposed
a virtually impenetrable front. It was a question whether
this network of rules and usages should be abandoned in
toto or whether the nation should be hampered at every turn,
and in fact crippled, in the prosecution of the war. The
Unions were appealed to by the Government and at its re
quest, and on the definite pledge that pre-war conditions
should be restored on the conclusion of peace, agreed with
splendid patriotism to suspend, while the struggle lasted, all
practices and regulations that stood in the way of output.

THE BRITISH LABOR OUTLOOK 183

Mr. Sidney Webb is unquestionably right in saying that
there has thus been compressed into the past four years a
transformation in the organization of British industry that
equals in scope and depth the revolution wrought in the four
decades between 1780 and 1820. Factories and workshops
have been turned inside out not only as regards buildings
and machinery, but also as regards the hours of labor, meal
times, overtime, holidays, the methods and rates of pay, the
conditions of engagement, suspension and dismissal, the fines
and penalties, the relation of the operatives to the machines
and of the various grades and classes of operatives to each
other, and, above all, as regards the grades, classes, ages,
trade and sex of the operatives employed. Processes of
manufacture have been changed so as to enable work for
merly done by skilled craftsmen to be done by women or la
borers. New machinery has been brought in with the same
object. Boys, women and unapprenticed men, employed in
far greater proportions than ever before, have invaded the
province of the skilled craftsman. Piece-work and the bonus
system have been substituted for time wages, and that with
out any printed and collectively-ratified list of piece-work
rates or any protection against cutting them down in the
future. The hours of labor have been increased ; production
has been speeded up ; all the customary understandings as to
what constituted a fair day's work or as to the amount of
time that should be spent on particular jobs have been abol
ished ; and the rules, written or unwritten, that confined this
and that kind of work to this and that Union, grade, group or
sex have likewise lapsed.

It is, of course, the fact that the suspension of these Trade
Union regulations and practices which stood in the way of
output has frequently been more ample in appearance than
in fact; that while the men's leaders and officials agreed to
their disappearance for the duration of the war, the men
themselves have repeatedly fought the battle over again from
workshop to workshop ; and that nowhere, perhaps, has a per
fect freedom from hampering restrictions or an absolutely
whole-hearted concentration on production been achieved.
Nevertheless the advance in these directions all along the
line has been so immense and has been brought about in so
brief a time as to deserve the adjective revolutionary. A new
industrial order intimately connected with the State at all
points, has been established; its effect both upon employers

184 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

and employed has been profound. Production has immeas
urably increased while the number of skilled operatives has
diminished. Employers have learned that in the past they
always attached far too much importance to the labor-cost
of their products and that high wages and large profits are
not, as they used to think them, irreconcilable. It has been
claimed and justly that experience has taught them the les
sons that economists have long urged and the soundness of
which practical men have long admitted — the lesson of the
advantage of a large output, of production for a continuous
demand, of standardization and long runs, of the use of auto
matic machinery for the separate production of each compo
nent part, of team-work and specialization among the opera
tives, of universalizing piece-work speed and of not grudging
to the workers the higher earnings brought by piece-work
effort. They have learned, too, that welfare work, canteen
work, and shorter hours make for sympathy and that atmos
phere of good-will which, when all is said and done, is the
main factor in output ; while the workers, who since the war
have probably doubled their individual power of production,
have been better paid, housed and cared-for than ever before
and have realized that the highest possible wages in return
for the greatest possible output is no bad foundation for an
industrial system.

Now the whole of this beneficent revolution of Govern
ment, the employers and the Trade Unions are pledged hand
and foot to undo. At the end of the war the nation is explic
itly and unequivocally committed to restore things exactly as
they were, to reinstate the regulations and practices which
have been waived, to revert in all particulars of industrial
procedure to pre-war conditions and usages. The guarantee
to this effect admits of no doubt or quibble. It was given at
the time of the initial negotiations with the Trade Unions;
it was the quid pro quo offered them in return for the abro
gation of the rules and customs that interfered with the out
put; it has been reaffirmed time and again with the utmost
distinctness by Parliament and responsible Cabinet Minis
ters; it is a statutory undertaking, absolute and uncondi
tional, and equally binding on all controlled employers, on
all Trade Unions, and on the Government itself. But neither
will it, nor can it, nor should it, ever be carried out. The
thing is an impossibility. A pledge has been given that can
not under any circumstances be redeemed. That is a fact

THE BRITISH LABOR OUTLOOK 185

which all the interests concerned — they are coextensive with
the nation — must first grasp and then adjust themselves to.
There is no question about it being a fact. The only ques
tion is whether it will be honestly faced, and whether all men
will make it their starting-point in approaching these vast
and vital problems. " The old network of agreements and
rules, customs and usages," a great authority has declared,
"in so far as it has been suspended, would, if it could be
restored, fit neither the new machines nor the new organiza
tion of the establishment, neither the new processes nor the
new classes of operatives, neither the new intensity of pro
duction nor the new methods of remuneration."

One has only to work out some of the more obvious ef
fects of a reversion to pre-war conditions to perceive that,
whatever other solution of the problem may be practicable,
this one at least is hopeless. It would mean driving out of
a great many of the factories most of the women and unap-
prenticed men and non-unionists who have entered them ; the
scrapping of hundreds of millions of pounds of automatic
machines or manning them with skilled engineers when a boy
or a girl could do the work equally well ; the abandonment of
dilution, of any form of " scientific management," of piece
work payments ; and the reinstatement as a rule of industry
of the individual limitation of output. The operatives who
would lose their jobs would never stand it. The employers
would most violently oppose it. The workers who would
quickly find that " the restoration of pre-war conditions "
meant also the restoration of pre-war rates of wages, would
be not less hostile ; and the country as a whole would be ham
strung in its efforts to make good the waste of the war and
hold its own in a world of intensified competition. It seems
to me, therefore, fundamental that Capital and Labor should
at once set about the conclusion of a new treaty of peace on
the basis of an open and mutual acknowledgment that the
pledge of 1915 cannot and ought not to be fulfilled. To make
a pretence of fulfilling it or to leave the matter an open issue
would be almost equally pernicious. What has to be sought
for is an entirely new adjustment of the industrial relation
ship.

Many suggestions have been thrown out as to the lines
on which this adjustment should proceed. What is it that
the workers want and should have? Security against unem
ployment; protection against the reduction of the standard

186 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

rate of wages ; the right to determine through their appointed
officials the terms and conditions of their service; the right
to strike; an improvement in their wages proportionate to
the prosperity of the industry in which they are engaged; and
the sense and spirit of co-partnership. What is it that the
employers want and should have? Protection against all re
strictions that limit or hinder output and the right to lock
out. These on either side are the fundamentals and it will
be the anxious task of industrial statesmanship to discover
whether some common ground cannot be manufactured be
tween them by launching such a programme of municipal
and Governmental work as will reduce unemployment dur
ing the next decade to a minimum, by fixing a standard rate
of wages in each industry and its equivalent in piece-work
through the machinery of joint boards of employers and em
ployed, by enforcing the universal recognition of Trade
Unions, by establishing national councils in each industry
that will draft a constitution for the internal economy of
workshops, by forbidding the practice of limiting output and
by vesting the employer with a complete freedom to employ
such operatives on such processes and to instal such machin
ery as he thinks best.

These are herculean labors, only to be accomplished in
an atmosphere of reason and good- will. And how far such
an atmosphere exists it is very difficult to say. I believe that
the average man to whatever class he belongs devoutly in
tends that the end of the military struggle shall not be fol
lowed by an outbreak of industrial war. The sentiment of
the country, on that point, is, indeed, unmistakable. The
better sort of employers, the better sort of Trade Union
leaders, committees and Government Departments, econo
mists without number, are all seeking the way to peace.
Schemes of profit-sharing and of co-partnership, plans such
as those embodied in the Whetley report for industrial gov
ernment and reorganization, are being cogitated and dis
cussed as never before. On the other hand the employer
during the war has tasted freedom and the worker has tasted
comparative affluence. The former is determined to remain
if ne can the master in his own works; the latter has had his
appetite for the material things of life immensely strength
ened. Both need to go to school to learn the essence of a
rational relationship. The impetus that has been given to
business on a big scale, the extreme probability that the

THE BRITISH LABOR OUTLOOK 187

Government will retain most of its control over such vital
utilities as the mines and the railways, the certainty that huge
industrial combinations are more and more to become the rule
— all these are factors in the general situation. Politics, too,
will have their say. With 8,000,000 new electors on the reg
ister, and the Labor Party throwing open its ranks to prac
tically all wage-earners, whether manual or otherwise, and a
deepening consciousness among working men that, if they
choose, they can rule the State, the ground is prepared for
many surprises.

But among these surprises I do not include a revolution,
in spite of the fact that there is an undoubtedly revolutionary
agitation at work in most of the centres of British industry
and that the combination of vague yearnings, bad economics,
and the stunning upheavals of these tremendous times, is one
that feeds the spirit of destruction. The war has unques
tionably stimulated all those factors of indiscipline and un
rest within the ranks of Trade Unionism which, as I showed
earlier in this article, had declared themselves before its out
break. There are today several more or less organized move
ments that openly advocate revolution and the overthrow of
the capitalist system and that war not less openly on the
tenets and policies of official Unionism. The " Rank and
File " movement is the most outspoken and formidable of
these agitations and to its activities must be ascribed the great
strike in the engineering trade of May, 1917. But on the
whole the common-sense and the patriotism of the British
working man — two very real qualities in his composition —
may pretty safely be left to deal with the British counterparts
of Russian Bolshevism. And there is this also to be remem
bered, that the exigencies of war have turned Great Britain
into a nation of rentiers, that practically everybody has either
invested or is dependent upon the sums which others have in
vested in Government securities, and that in this way there
has been constructed against anarchy and the propaganda of
violence a bulwark which will stand any strain. Many and
grave are the perils and difficulties that will beset the process
of reconstruction but they are not likely, in my judgment, to
be complicated by anything even approaching a social or in
dustrial cataclysm.

SYDNEY BROOKS.

RUSSIA LOOKS TO AMERICA

BY OLIVER M. SAYLER

THE American has been the safest of all the conglomerate
population of Russia since the Revolution. Everywhere I
went in Russia I found things opening up for me and diffi
culties vanishing and favors springing in my path just
because I was an American. I was not off the ship at Vladi
vostok before I encountered the good will my nationality
was destined to call forth for me on every occasion. More
as a language exercise than for any other reason, I had
tabulated every article in my baggage in parallel columns of
English and Russian. When the customs official came
aboard, I showed him this list and my American passport.
Astonishment at my frankness was followed by a keen appre
ciation of the humor of the situation and then by a genial
recognition of my origin, and finally, although probably
not good tactics in war time, he put his pasters on my bags
without even unlocking them!

Russia has looked to America ever since she threw away
her Tsar. Just why she has looked instinctively to us on her
emergence from autocracy is not so easy for us to understand
as it is for us to analyze our own reasons for sympathizing
with Russia. For years we had watched with interest and deep
feeling the struggle of the Russian people for freedom. For
years we had looked upon the autocracy of the Tsar as a more
cruel if not a more dangerous power than the autocracy of
the Raiser. The first Russian Revolution, therefore, was the
most brilliant of those additions to the ranks of democracy
which we as a nation have always hailed.

Russia has no single motive in looking to America — no
motive so widespread and so generally held as our hatred of
autocracy and our sympathy for the people who have thrown
it off. Various factions look to us for various kinds of aid
and understanding. Conservative Russians look to the

RUSSIA LOOKS TO AMERICA 189

United States as the model for their own republic. Others,
a vast unlettered throng, have heard of America as a refuge
for political exiles. Others, near the soil, think of us as the
nation which started to send them their precious farming
machinery but has not sent nearly enough. And still others,
who have never heard of America at all, open a wide and
hospitable heart to us because they have heard nothing
against us.

Beyond these voluntary and spontaneous points of con
tact, however, we have made slight progress. For almost two
years we have permitted benevolence to take the place of
understanding, and there seems to be little disposition to
change that course. Unless we do change it, unless we look
long and frankly at the mistakes we have made, we shall con
tinue to fail Russia in her need and in our opportunity.
Fortunately, our mistakes have not been irreparable. We
have not, for instance, been too hard with Russia. We have
not cursed her and blamed her for her downfall. Neither
have we been too sympathetic with her errors, for we have not
recognized her new dictators and pardoned their faults. Our
failure lies in our mental indolence, our unwillingness to
gather patiently the facts in a situation such as the world
has never known and then to draw our conclusions courage
ously and with discrimination. We have tried to apply obso
lete political formula* to the first full-fledged social revolu
tion. The formula? are not relevant, but we continue to
apply them. We seize upon the advice or the credentials of
some group that bears earmarks familiar to us without asking
whether it is representative of Russia. We condemn every
thing which we do not understand, without trying patiently
and with open mind to see whether it may have its value under
the circumstances or whether it may be even more dangerous
than our hasty conclusions have indicated.

We sent the Root mission to Russia to tell us that all
was well when it was not. We sent a railroad commission to
give orders to employees who were not in a mood to take
orders. Russia was free now. Why should they take orders
from anybody? We sent a Red Cross mission to Russia and
dozens of Y. M. C. A. secretaries — all with the avowed inten
tion of inducing Russia, to fight whether she would or could
or no.

On their return, Mr. Root and Mr. Russell and Major
General Scott and others expressed themselves before Con-

190 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

gress as hopeful and confident and satisfied with the course
of events in Russia. And yet less than a week after the
mission left for home, there had been the bloody rioting of
July in Petrograd. Less than a month after their return,
the Moscow conference revealed the hopelessness of com
promise between the extreme classs, a hopelessness which had
long disillusioned many in Russia. Less than three months
after their return, the Bolsheviki had seized the power and
had begun negotiations for peace.

I was unable to understand what had been the trouble
and so I took particular pains to retrace the paths the mis
sion had travelled. Had these men actually seen the real con
ditions, the ominously evident cleavage of the class warfare
and its dark significance for the future, and had they chosen
to put another face on the picture for fear of discouraging
America, scarcely under way at that time in her participation
in the war? Or had they submitted themselves to be led
around among the exhibits in the museum of Revolutionary
Russia, seeing just what their guides wished them to see, con
sorting with their kind in the cities and ignoring the vast mass
of the Russian people? I tried to believe the former, for
although it was a mistaken course, it was a mistake that men
might easily make. But gradually I was forced to the latter
explanation. A few of the educated classes had heard Mr.
Root speak and had read his cordial addresses in the news
papers. Aside from this gentlemanly interest in the mission,
though, its members might as well have saved themselves a
long trip, for they and the forces toward which power was
inevitably gravitating in Russia never came to grips with
each other. They did not see all those who represented the
various classes in the Russian struggle. An Associated Press
correspondent in Petrograd from the beginning of the war
until recently told me how Baron Rosen, former ambassador
from Russia to the United States and an unselfish worker in
the Revolution, had tried again and again without success to
warn the mission of impending disaster if the Allies did not
adopt a more substantially sympathetic policy toward the
new Russia.

Whatever opportunity might have existed to forestall the
triumph of the proletarian tyranny, that opportunity was
lost in the failure to recognize the Russian Revolution as
essentially a class conflict. The Revolution began under
Miliukoff as a political revolution, merely the substitution of

RUSSIA LOOKS TO AMERICA 191

one form of government for another. But within a month
after the Tsar had abdicated, the upheaval had become a
social revolution, the struggle of class against class, of Labor
against Capital, preached by the Radicals and the Syndi
calists and the Anarchists all over the world for the last
seventy-five years. Through the days of Kerensky it was
nothing but that under a thin disguise. Today it is still
that, and the Bolsheviki are interested first of all and
last of all in the class conflict, the supremacy of the prole
tariat of all lands. If their course has seemed to be pro-
German, it has been because a German advantage resulted
from their determination to continue the class struggle in the
face of a world at war. If the peace of Brest-Litovsk seemed
like a German peace and a betrayal of Russia by her repre
sentatives, it must be remembered that the Bolsheviki know
that their proletarian republic can not live unless the class
struggle spreads. Their willingness to dicker with Ger
many was part of their scheme to spread the social revolution.

Failure to recognize these facts has been the undoing of
most of the American attempts to reach an understanding
with Russia. Our Ambassador, David R. Francis, is shrewd
and determined and gifted with common sense, but he looks
on the Russian controversy in political instead of in social
terms.

I went out from Petrograd to Vologda to see Mr. Fran
cis early in March 1918, ten days after all the embassies
had fled from the panic-stricken capital. The story of how
a new diplomatic citadel had been founded is one of the few
pieces of vital and constructive action in our relationship
with the new Russia and so I shall let Mr. Francis tell it in
his own words.

" When the approach of the Germans made it unwise for the em
bassies to remain longer in Petrograd [said the Ambassador as he sat
by the table in the library of the Vologda Club], I realized my respon
sibility as dean of the diplomatic corps, and so I called together all the
representatives of the Allied Nations and I said to them:

" ' Gentlemen, I for one don't propose to stay here and get caught
like a rat in a trap, and I don't suppose you do, either. Now, here is
what I plan to do, and I invite you all to stay with me and cooperate
with me. I am going first to Vologda, four hundred miles east on the
main line of the Trans-Siberian railroad. There I shall stay until the
Germans advance and threaten my safety again. From there, if I have
to move, I shall go to Viatka and from Viatka to Perm and from Perm
to Yekaterinburg and so on across Siberia, step by step until I am
forced to board an American ship at Vladivostok.'

192 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

" The charge d'affaires of the British Embassy was greatly dis
turbed, and the French and Italian ambassadors were equally horrified.

" ' What !' they exclaimed, almost in one voice, ' you suggest that
we go out of Russia by way of Siberia ! Why, we'd be getting farther
and farther away from home all the time ! '

" 'Well, gentlemen/ I said, ' I don't wish to dictate to you. Do
whatever you think best. If you wish to come with me, you are wel
come. I have no intention of letting anyone chase me out of this coun
try except the Germans, and I shall remain on Russian soil if I have
to move the American Embassy around on cart wheels ! ' '

The British and the French and the Italian Embassies
and their staffs started off toward home across Finland. No
one heard what had happened to them for weeks. They had
simply vanished among the lakes in the No Man's Land be
tween the Red and the White Guards of Finland's own social
revolution. A month or two later, some of them managed to
escape into Sweden, while others drifted back like belated
prodigals to the court of the American Ambassador.

Meanwhile, the Chinese and Japanese Ambassadors, once
well started eastward on the same train with the American
Embassy, never stopped off at Vologda but cut for home
by the straightest route. Two diplomats alone elected to
remain in Russia with Mr. Francis. Two countries among
all the Allied Nations were represented in addition to the
United States. They were Brazil and Siam! The charge
d'affaires of the South American republic did not have
enough money to go farther, and the minister from the
strange kingdom in the South Seas did not know how to get
home if he had wished to!

The day I arrived in Vologda, the Ambassador gave
out to the Russian press the following statement, which was
copied throughout Russia:

I shall not leave Russia until compelled by force. The American
Government and people are too deeply interested in the prosperity of
the Russian people for them to abandon Russia to the Germans. Amer
ica is sincerely interested in the liberty of the Russian people and will
do everything possible to safeguard the real interests of the country.

If the brave and patriotic Russian people will forget political dif
ferences for the time being and act resolutely and vigorously, they will
be able to drive the enemy from their territory and by the end of
1918 bring a lasting peace for themselves and the whole world. Amer
ica still counts itself an ally of the Russian people and we shall be
ready to help, no matter what Government organizes a vigorous re
sistance to the German invasion.

Here again, with all its genuine sympathy, was the same
misunderstanding of the social revolution as a mere political

RUSSIA LOOKS TO AMERICA 193

quarrel. Here again was the delusion in which most people
outside Russia persisted — the delusion that Russia could
fight once more if she wished to.

Russia could not fight. Her army of twenty millions had
been scattered, her transportation system wrecked, her food
supply depleted far below the civilian necessity. No man
trusted any other man. Organization and morale were for
gotten conceptions. The Russian had no illusions concern
ing the invader. He used the bomb and all the other weap
ons of terrorism on the Hohenzollern just as he did on the
Romanoff. But he did not gather together again his scat
tered hosts to reconstitute a great Eastern front, simply
because he could not.

The Russians made peace at Brest-Litovsk partly because
they had a gun at their head and none in their hands and they
had to, and partly because the Russian people had been clam
oring for peace for over a year. The first Revolution was
depicted for us in America as the result of a determination to
wage the war more vigorously. That may have been the
motive of Professor Miliukoff and his friends. But it was
not the motive of the leaders of the social revolution which
absorbed and swept aside the political revolution inside a
month. The motive of these men, even the most moderate,
was to bring peace to Russia just as soon as it could be
brought honorably. In three years of war Russia had lost
out of her effective manhood nearly three million killed and
five million more hopelessly wounded or taken prisoner. The
soldiers knew that the court back in the capital was disloyal.
At the front they were withdrawn by their commanders from
impregnable positions without a shot. The only reason they
had ever gone to war was because the Tsar said they had to.
For three years they knew nothing about the struggle for de
mocracy, nothing about the rights of small nations, nothing
about the purposes of their Allies. They simply felt that
they had been sent out to do a dirty job, and they had sick
ened and tired of it. When they got rid of their Tsar, they
saw no reason why they should not get rid of their Tsar's
war, too, and they proceeded to do so without waiting for
the order to demobilize.

One opportunity and only one lay open to the Allies in
their project of keeping Russia effectively in the war. That
was to retain the armies in the field, less rather than more
active but holding an equal number of German divisions on

VOL. ccix. — NO. 759 13

194 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

the Eastern Front. The opinion of most Russians agrees
that this might have been accomplished if prompt aid had
come in the way of woefully needed supplies, if the Pro
visional Government and the Soviets had been vigorously
supported, if the Constitutional Assembly and the land re
forms had been hurried up instead of postponed, if Russia's
pleas for a democratic statement of war aims had been heeded
and if a personal propaganda explaining Allied war motives
had been sent out over the country to meet the insidious pro
paganda from Germany. But instead of taking what lay
within their reach and enlarging its scope as Russia found
her feet again, the Allies demanded that Russia fight when
there was no longer the will or the understanding or the
ability to fight, and in making that demand they lost their
opportunity to receive any service at all from Russia.

By November, 1917, even this single opportunity had
passed. And yet as late as last March, on the advice of un
official investigators from the Red Cross, President Wilson
risked the dangerous appearance of recognizing the Bolshe
vik Government in the remote hope of inducing Russia to
reject the peace terms. This is the message which he sent to
the All Russia Congress of Soviets in session in Moscow to
ratify the Brest-Litovsk treaty :

May I not take advantage of the meeting of the Congress of the
Soviets to express the sincere sympathy which the people of the United
States feel for the Russian people at this moment when the German
Power has been thrust in to interrupt and turn back the whole struggle
for freedom and substitute the wishes of Germany for the purpose of
the people of Russia. Although the Government of the United States
is, unhappily, not now in a position to render the direct and effective
aid it would wish to render, I beg to assure the people of Russia through
the Congress that it will avail itself of every opportunity to secure for
Russia once more complete sovereignty and independence in her own
affairs and full restoration of her great role in the life of Europe and
the modern world. The whole heart of the people of the United States
is with the people of Russia in the attempt to free themselves forever
from autocratic government and become the masters of their own life.

(Signed) WOODROW WILSON.

I shall never forget the wave of bitter disappointment
that swept over Moscow the morning after the President's
message was read to the Peace Congress. The message was
not a recognition of the Bolsheviki, but it was the nearest
approach to recognition which any nation except Germany
had yet given. The depression extended through every class

RUSSIA LOOKS TO AMERICA 195

except the Bolsheviki themselves. Their leaders, however,
pounced on the opening which the President's message had
given them to thumb their nose once more at us and the entire
world. Trotzky was at outs with the others just then, but
someone else took his place and drafted this insolent reply
to President Wilson's message in the form of a resolution
which the Congress cheered and adopted:

The All Russian Congress of Soviets expresses its appreciation to
the American people and first of all to the laboring and exploited classes
in the United States for the message sent by President Wilson to the
Congress of the Soviets, in this time when the Russian Socialist Soviet
Republic is living through most difficult trials.

The Russian Republic uses the occasion of the message from Presi
dent Wilson to express to all peoples who are dying and suffering from
the horrors of this imperialistic war its warm sympathy and firm con
viction that the happy time is near when the laboring masses in all
Bourgeois countries will throw off the capitalist yoke and establish a
Socialist state of society, which is the only one capable of assuring a
permanent and just peace as well as the culture and well being of all
who toil.

An able reply, a dignified reply, a reply even breathing
certain social ideals. But fundamentally it was an appeal
to the laboring men of America and the world to rise up and
overthrow their Governments. In effect, the Russian prole
tariat said to Mr. Wilson: " We thank your working classes
for the message you sent us. Please tell them we hope they
will put you out of office and start a revolution against your
Government."

From the very beginning, the Bolshevik Government has
neither sought nor expected recognition from any other Gov
ernment. It has kept aloof from all because it has foreseen
that contact with any so-called " capitalist " Government
would endanger its own syndicalist basis. Its idea of internal
economics and of international relationships is utterly incom
patible with the idea prevailing in the world today. Bolshe
vik Russia did not ask the assistance of the Allies against
Germany, because it knew that its own regime would be the
first to fall before any appreciable expeditionary force. It
came to terms with Germany simply because it had to. The
Peace Congress that ratified the Brest-Litovsk treaty pro
ceeded to a consideration of the best means of violating it.

As long as tKe war lasted, the Russian Bolsheviki could
hope to be ignored by the rest of the world. With the open
ing of the Baltic and the Black Sea, however, it will be

196 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

possible to restore the broken contact with Russia. The
test of our ability to deal with the Russian Revolution in a
practical, intelligent, and far-seeing manner is at hand. What
we choose to do with Russia, more than any of our other
international engagements, will be the test of our vision.

It is hardly likely that we shall make the same mistakes
with Russia that we have made already. But unless we
analyze relentlessly the mistakes we have made, unless we
seek patiently for the underlying misconceptions from which
those mistakes proceeded, we shall be in danger of blunder
ing on in much the same way as we have in the past. Most
of all, we shall have to guard against the temptation of trying
to make' Russia conform to our ideas of governmental and
industrial polity. Already, we are beseiged by refugees
from the old privileged classes who are carrying on an open
propaganda for the restoration of their former privileges.
For many months we have been shut off from a rehearsal
of the motives and the ideals of those who are opposed to
reaction. Our ports have been closed to any Russian sus
pected of dissatisfaction with society as we have chosen to
order it. Under the Espionage Act, our press and our public
forum and our courts have dealt relentlessly with any such
expression of dissatisfaction. We have heard one side only,
and we are in danger of a natural inclination to continue to
listen to that side to the exclusion of other salient convictions.

Even if we were in possession of all the conflicting view
points, however, the exact procedure in answering Russia's
unspoken appeal to us would be very difficult to determine.
The Bolsheviki and the other extreme elements who have
subordinated the Russian Revolution to the social revolution
prefer to have us keep our hands off completely, for they
know that contact with us, as with anyone else, will seal their
fate. The business men, the propertied class, the bourgeoise,
would have America and the Allies send sufficient military
forces into Russia to clear out the whole pack and parcel of
Bolsheviki and socialists of every stripe and stamp, unmind
ful that the vast majority of the Russian population holds
socialist beliefs of one kind or another. In between these two
extremes is the long-suffering and patient educated class of
Russia, the intelligentsia, with representatives in almost all
of the so-called " parties." Giving freely of their best blood
to further the cause of the Revolution in the old days, they
now look with chagrin and heavy hearts upon the wreck that

RUSSIA LOOKS TO AMERICA 197

is Russia. They understand our protestations of sympathy,
but somehow they can not understand why there is not some
thing to do. And beyond them all is the silent Russian
peasant, waiting, as he would wait for the judgment day, for
the time when we can send him more of the ploughs and the
harrows and the reapers that will make his acres yield.

In following the difficult path of discrimination we shall
have to remember that Bolshevism is a strange mixture of
class revenge and class tyranny together with fanatical reme
dies for a desperate state of society. Many of these remedies
may in themselves be constructive if applied under favorable
conditions, for they partake of the intuitive vision of the
dreamer. There was a plan on paper in Petrograd shortly
before the final demobilization of the army last winter which
would have remade Russia in a year if it could have been
carried out. Russia needs railroads. Russia needs railroads
more than any country except the heart of Africa. Many of
the lines run out like spokes from Moscow and Petrograd
and lose themselves in the fields and forests. There are
almost no connecting links. In order to correct this situa
tion, the Bolshevik plan called for the transfer of the soldiers
from the trenches to construction gangs. A military army
was to be converted into an industrial army to build railroads
for Russia. The fatal fault in these calculations lay in the
determination of the soldier to go home the moment the army
was demobilized. And so it has fared with almost all the
other idealistic and constructive plans of the Bolsheviki. The
good they have attempted has been impossible to accomplish
under the conditions which brought them to power. Many of
the evils of their regime have resulted from their will to retain
that power. They are a symptom, not a cause, a symptom
of disintegration and demoralization of all the forces in the
Russian commonwealth.

Nevertheless, the Bolsheviki are still in a sense repre
sentative of Russia. By their prompt enactment of the land
reforms which the peasants demanded, they have not only
silenced that source of unrest but they have made these nine-
tenths of the population their tacit supporters. No headway
can be made by any Russian party or by any outsider against
the Bolsheviki which does not assure the peasant of a solu
tion of the land problem satisfactoiy to him. With equal
jealousy the peasants and the workmen will guard their
Soviet, for it is the only form of government with which the

198 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Russian has had any acquaintance and experience since the
Tsar and the bureaucracy were discarded. It is the single con
structive political contribution thus far of the Russian Revo
lution. Wherever it is possible, therefore, to restore order
and remove the underlying cause of Bolshevism without dis
turbing the functions of the Soviet, it will be wise to respect
that institution and see that it is made truly representative
of all the elements of the population, not simply of the in
dustrial proletariat or of those who happen to have arms in
a given community and can thereby retain a fictitious ma
jority in the councils of the district.

Whatever we do for Russia, we must not expect imme
diate payment. Russia has paid already in blood and treas
ure and sorrow for the new world we are making. For the
sake of those sacrifices, for the sake of a freedom toward
which she has richly contributed, for the restoration of order
and safety in the fabric of civilization, we must give freely
of our food and of our resources. More than that, we must
give of our patience and our most unselfish thought. Not
at the expense of concessions and privileges. We must give
for the restoration of Russia as we have given for the restora
tion of France and of Belgium and of Serbia. And our
reward will come richly in the gratitude and the confidence
of a people closely akin to us in their passion for democracy
and freedom.

OLIVER M. SAYLER.

IMMIGRATION IN RECONSTRUCTION

BY FRANCES A. KELLOR

IT is a long way from immigration to Americanization —
a journey the native-born has found quite as hard to make
as the foreign-born. The chief regret as one looks back over
the rough road is that there should have been so little phi
losophy to guide us, and that the sense of racial relationships
has in the face of a great world war, remained so blurred at
home. Some Americans are beginning to suspect that we
deal far too much in investigations and surveys, the knowl
edge of which we never use; that we reject far more than
we have learned to use of fine and subtle contributions to
American life; that we tend to impose Americanism rather
than to leave people to discover its excellencies ; and that our
methods are machine made rather than hand or heart made.

On any other ground it is difficult to understand how
America has come through this war with no clearer a national
policy ; and with no sounder an international programme for
the races resident here than is now apparent. No recon
struction programme thus far announced includes either im
migration or Americanization; no international discussion
more than suggests the world-wide migration of people which
will soon begin from every quarter of the earth and which
will cross and recross each other's lines for many years to
come.

America today faces a situation unparalleled in its his
tory. Hundreds of thousands of immigrants are clamoring
to leave its shores, held back only by passport restrictions
and food scarcity abroad. Whether these men will be re
placed by others is unknown. The land that once held the
imagination of all wanderers is now distanced by prospective
republics and by South America and Canada. America also
has become the base of many embryo republics engaged in
manipulating and influencing affairs in their native country.

200 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

The after the war problems of immigration are four: —
To unite races in America, involving many varied racial rela
tionships ; to interest immigrants already here to remain, in
volving distribution, protection and education; to determine
if America desires additional immigrants and upon what
basis of selection, involving the manner of their rejection and
of their reception and care; and to make inter-migration
express America — involving equipping those who leave with
the real spirit, achievement, courage and hope of America.

Is there any recognized authority in America that can
state what America's attitude is on these problems? Is there
a governmental, an industrial, an economic or an educational
programme that can be said to cover them? Is there a united
front on them so that any country interested in its own sub
jects hei£ can intelligently and sincerely cooperate with
America and if so, how and through what agencies ? Is there
any one central authority to which the cities and States can
turn for guidance and inspiration so there may be some
uniformity of principle as well as of procedure?

No subject is in greater need of having a definite policy
and specific measures for expressing and putting into opera
tion such a policy. In normal times the Federal responsibil
ity, such as there is, is divided among eighteen separate bu
reaus in eight different departments. To this were added
fourteen war emergency bodies operating through thirty-
seven separate bureaus and committees — all without a central
guiding principle and uncoordinated. The war has witnessed
in no field a greater confusion of basic principles. The rights
of free speech, of opportunity to be heard, of representation,
of justice, have all been imperilled in the campaigns and
action taken in the name of a one-language country, in the
attitude toward a press in foreign languages, and in dealing
with the property and other guaranteed rights of aliens. We
shall doubtless need a restatement of the rights of men with
especial reference to our immigrant fellow men before the
guarantees of the Constitution are fully restored.

Taking these four fundamentals essential to a sound
republic — that men shall be united; that they shall love and
desire to stay in the country of their adoption and defend it ;
that they shall come to it attracted by its best traditions and
opportunities and be guaranteed their realization ; and that
they shall go forth its champions and missionaries, — is there a
policy or a procedure in America today that provides for

IMMIGRATION IN RECONSTRUCTION 201

these in unmistakable terms and that challenges any infringe
ment of its terms?

The fact remains that never have the racial and nation
alistic lines in America been so tightly drawn. It has been
deemed necessary in order to win this war that every possible
recognition be given to the racial groups in America. There
are no less than 300 national racial societies with a known
registration of 42,000 local branches. There are 85 nation
alistic organizations, one alone including ten nationalities —
working primarily for a united and independent native coun
try. These organizations have 1146 foreign language papers
not including 483 German papers, to express their point of
view and urge their programmes. Twelve thousand steam
ship ticket agents, of which 80% are foreign-born act
as private bankers and as notaries and perform other services
which intensify solidarity. The Liberty Loan Committee,
to sell bonds, had to recognize these groups and create for
eign language committees. Foreign language battalions
were created in training camps to facilitate the training of
these groups under their own leaders. The Committee on
Public Information created Bureaus of Information manned
by foreign language leaders, and Councils of Defense in
many places created special foreign language committees. It
is inevitable that deeply interested as these racial groups are
in conditions in their native country that there is a tendency
to split America into embryo republics based on racial lines ;
to reflect here as it occurs there, the mighty battle now going
on between the conservative and social revolutionary forces.
There is seen everywhere the counterpart here of political
differences and feuds there. Old world policies promise to
be very much entangled with our own political differences.
Remnants of nationalities here are attempting to dictate what
the countrymen shall do at home and how those governments
shall be run, through the foreign language press of America
and through their powerful organizations.

America has but fragmentary knowledge of what is going
on or of how this will affect its economic and industrial life.
It consequently has no policy for dealing with the situation.
It is a war legacy that may loom large as a problem affecting
many countries in its final disposition. For the moment
America is content with parades and meetings and selling
Liberty bonds and war savings stamps and enlisting in the
Red Cross and other agencies. These contribute little to the

202 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

discovery of a unifying principle or point the way by which
these races may live together in America. The entrance of
America into internationalism is by no means only across
the Atlantic. It is in every city in America that has a for
eign-born population and of such there are 2800 communi
ties.

We have not yet determined even the cardinal principle :
Shall national action be repression or expression? The
beginning of the new year will see many State legislatures
attempting to deal with this situation so big in its interna
tional aspects that only confusion and racial irritation can
possibly result.

I do not say that this situation creates a menace; the
future racial relationships of the world are too blurred for
any man to know. I do say, however, that the extent and the
way in which America is to be used as a base for the manipu
lation of European politics in the newly-to-be-created re
publics as well as in the older monarchies; the relation of
these embryo republics seething with influences from their
native land and beset with appeals for help ; and the degree
to which racial solidarities develop here — are questions upon
which America should have a clearly written policy and pro
cedure. With 13,000,000 foreign-born people and one-third
of its population having its roots in other lands and widely
scattered over an immense territory loosely governed in many
ways, America cannot afford to drift. Every nationalistic
society knows where its colonies are in America, even when
its headquarters are in Paris or Berne; America alone is
unable to find them when it needs them. Demobilization will
rescatter them and to America alone will they be temporarily
lost.

There is no better proof of the racial divisions in America
than the preparations being made by immigrants for leaving
the country as soon as the passport regulations are lifted, the
peace terms are known and food conditions abroad will per
mit. The estimates vary between one and three million.
Whatever the number, today throughout the country men are
saving money to return, ticket agents are doing a landslide
business in reserving space, and steamship offices are
thronged with men clamoring to go back. Strong appeals
are being made to immigrants to go back and help rebuild
the home land, and recognition in position and leadership
are being held out. The half naked Slav in the steel mill

IMMIGRATION IN RECONSTRUCTION 203

dreams of the day when he will help direct the affairs of his
nation, when with his savings, there reckoned as wealth, he
will become a leader. And he dreams not in vain. To lose a
million workers upon whom America depends to fulfill her
obligations to countries abroad and to hold the lines in her
basic industries is no small task. To exchange them for bat
tle scarred and tired workers requires careful adjustment.
To return the man with license replaced by liberty, with the
sense of destruction replaced by the sense of construction,
with revolution stilled by evolution in exchange for the law
less hordes now arising in Europe is no small responsibility.
To handle this vast migration of peoples with the least pos
sible loss of manpower, of waste of savings and resources,
and of stability and purpose is worthy of America's best
thought and effort and it has received but a passing thought
from the numerous reconstruction bodies now in session.

America has no policy as to whether it will attempt to
retain them and if so what the methods will be or whether
it will bid them Godspeed, adding as much as possible to
their equipment to help them in the new task. Every immi
grant who goes back could have been made a missionary of
the American spirit, an advocate of American business, a
salesman of American goods, as well as a champion of democ
racy. Instead, the indifference and neglect with which they
have been treated has given many no real love for the Ameri
can brand of Democracy. Today, allies though they are,
they are being exploited by steamship ticket agents who are
selling them tickets on vessels whose sailings are unknown,
and no provision is being made for their care at the seaports,
where they may wait days if not weeks. They will arrive on
the coast with their savings, with their faces turned eastward
with the hope of seeing those from whom they have not heard
during the war, and America will permit them to be exploited
as they leave her just as she did when they first came to her.
Every such tale told on the other side dims the glory of the
Americans who fought in France.

These men and women will go back because of loyalty to
the suffering home country, to see what has happened, to
settle up family matters, to help the home country and to
work out democratic ideals of government in a country free
at last. They will be men of position and leadership in their
home land. It is of vital and of great significance what
America gives them to take back with them ; and what their

204 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

last impressions are. These depend primarily upon what
their experience and life and treatment in this country have
been.

This nation has no single policy which reaches all of its
immigrants and which surely equips them to interpret Amer
ica to their native homes; it has no official programme or
organization for safeguarding them while here or of insuring
a safe or sympathetic departure. It has none of the courtesy
of a host; it has not the powers of a despot. If America
were to decide tomorrow that she would make efforts to keep
her immigrants and interest them in America, along what
lines would she proceed? Americanization is the readiest
answer, summed up in most people's minds by the teaching
of English and the acquirement of citizenship papers. Valu
able as these are as channels, they will not be enough to hold
the immigrant nor to attract new ones. With the disbanding
of war agencies and the taking off of war pressure, the coun
try has still to find a unifying principle of race amalgama
tion and to find what it is that creates a voluntary allegiance
to a new country. When the basic principles of Americani
zation are reached, they will not be the various campaigns
for this or that thing that seems good for the moment. They
will be identity of interest in the economic and social and
political fields and we shall deal with questions like these: —

Can race superiority and prejudice be eliminated and
all races be given recognition and an equal opportunity in
America?

How can immigrants be given a land interest and a home
stake to compete with the call of the soil of their native land ?

How can the worker be given recognition and his talents
be utilized and the discriminations in working and living con
ditions and handicaps be eliminated?

How can the distance between the guarantees of the Con
stitution and its practical application in the daily lives of
men be shortened, and political ideals be fully realized?

Shall the immigrant who tries to buy a home continue to
find himself the victim of a colonization scheme to sell sand
flats or in the meshes of the installment plan? But one State
in America now safeguards his savings in private banks.

Industrial demobilization as well as military demobiliza
tion present interesting immigration questions : Does Amer
ica intend that the immigrant shall return to his colony and
section and ghetto? Is the bunk-house on construction work

IMMIGRATION IN RECONSTRUCTION 205

and the overturned box car his future home? Does he con
tinue a dago and a wop? Is he to be discriminated against
in future employment ? Will the foreign-born soldier return
to the same footing in his family and in his town when he
lays aside his uniform?

To these and a hundred other demobilization questions
which affect particularly the foreign-born in America, there
is no ready answer. These, too, are questions to which the
world will await an answer. America must realize that in
becoming a world Power and in deciding situations abroad,
she opens the door to far greater interest, accountability and
influence upon her affairs at home, especially when these
involve many hundreds of thousands of subjects of foreign
countries. How they shall be treated may no longer be her
own affair. It concerns Europe vitally and may one say
as consistently as America is concerned in how Europe treats
its various nationalities.

Have we emerged from this war with a real international
sense which we are willing to put to the following test: Shall
immigration be considered only as a labor matter as in the
past or does America recognize her dependence upon other
races for elements of fusion and contributions of body, mind
and spirit, essential to the future development of a great
people and a great country?

America will not attract immigrants upon the old terms
of ideals, jobs and wages. America will have the competi
tion of countries eager for manpower and having as much
to offer. Making democracy safe for the world relieves
America of its monopoly and men will be able to realize in
their own lands that which they once crossed the seas to
find in America. Foreign countries by anti-emigration laws
and other measures will endeavor to keep their manpower,
they will direct it when they can to their colonies. Canada
and South America have more to offer in adventure and lands
and opportunities than America. This country also faces
competition with the most frugalized and disciplined people
of Europe and must teach thrift and lower cost production —
a course not popular with a people used to lavish expendi
ture. Conditions today raise new questions as to how
immigration may be best selected and how much of the
revolutionary Bolsheviki element can be absorbed here. It is
becoming clear that the old haphazard way of interesting
immigrants to come here by leaving it to the enterprise of

206 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

steamship companies, and of labor agencies, and to individ
uals to send for their countrymen will not suffice, if America
believes that her future prosperity and power depend on not
only immigration but immigration selected for her needs and
satisfying her standards.

I am far from saying there has been no improvement in
these conditions. Everywhere there is evidence of changing
relationships. I am saying, however, that nowhere can men
who are struggling with these questions find a guiding prin
ciple clearly enunciated in law and backed by authority. In
Washington, Government bureaus nullify the work of each
other ; States contradict each other by statute, and organiza
tions multiply, all bent upon some specific phase of work.
Education lags while imposition grows; standards yield to
expedients ; and incentives are killed by repression. Amer
ica's voice is not raised clearly against it; and few laws are
enacted powerfully to counteract it. Men feeling these in
equalities seek the great adventure in other lands.

America enters the international councils today with this
equipment for dealing with its races in America :

An immigration law providing for the restriction or ad
mission of aliens, based upon self-defense, governed by an
economic point of view, and containing none of the broader
principles of selection which the war has revealed. Will it
be amended as becomes a world Power and possible member
of a League of Nations, or will it remain the provincial ex
pression of a people afraid of labor competition?

A naturalization law, whose citizenship does not protect
the naturalized citizen in his native land; which imposes
hardships in the name of standards, based on local geograph
ical lines; and which is an antiquated instrument in its ex
pression of the dignity and requirements of citizenship, as
well as in its cumbersome and unstandardized methods of
operation. Many injustices, like withholding the oppor
tunity to earn a living, are committed in its name, and many
a privilege is entrenched along with its democracy. Shall it
be amended to give international citizenship which shall be
good the world over and having but one meaning and stand
ard at home?

State laws dealing with the most intricate questions of
nationality exhibit contradictions and inequalities. In one
State men were forbidden to pray in a foreign language ; in
another aliens may not be employed as barbers; in another

IMMIGRATION IN RECONSTRUCTION 207

aliens may not own a dog ; in nine States men with first papers
can vote. There are indications that the legislatures of 1919
will attempt to settle questions of loyalty and of freedom in
their own way. Shall there be a uniform policy for States in
accord with national and international agreements, with Fed-
era aid to the States having great problems of education and
assimilation, or shall we continue to confuse the world and do
injustice to the alien as he passes from State to State?

We are not agreed upon whether this shall be a com
pulsory English language nation; and if so under what
conditions other languages may be spoken and under what
conditions the foreign press shall continue, and within what
terms nationalistic societies may flourish. Shall we have
a compulsory English language law and a clear enunciation
of where we stand on these matters or shall we drift, increas
ing bitterness and misunderstanding in our own country
and leading eventually to complication abroad?

America unconsciously permits exploitation which neces
sitates that foreign governments shall protect their own peo
ple here. Shall there be a law regulating the activities of
private employment agencies doing an interstate business;
of private bankers covering both deposits and transmission
of money abroad, of colonization and land schemes involving
as they do interstate transactions ; of steamship ticket agents
performing a variety of international services as well as sell
ing tickets?

We now deal with immigration with little knowledge of
conditions abroad. Our own official knowledge of peoples
in America is based on a decennial census. The results are
not ordinarily available until they are two or three years old.
Is not the world moving too fast and our own country chang
ing too rapidly to consider people as statistics? Shall we
continue to do this or shall we base our selection upon the
reports of experts abroad who will advise accurately and
impartially of foreign conditions including movements of
population, conditions of unrest, etc.? Is it not just as im
portant to know manpower conditions and tendencies as to
know trade conditions and not through self-interested and
political but through scientific and non-partisan channels?
Shall we find no better way of keeping in touch with the
strangers in our gates than in aggregate masses of statistics
several years old?

Basic Americanization, dealing with the Americaniza-

208 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

tion of environment as well as of peoples, with the native
Americans as well as with the foreign-born, is in peril of
being lost in the confusion of adjustments. War agencies
are disbanding and there is as yet no Federal department
charged with the responsibility of taking up this work, and
no appropriation has been made for carrying it on. Shall
the Department of the Interior, under the leadership of
Secretary Lane who has shown the most profound and sym
pathetic understanding of the many elements involved in our
racial relations, be empowered to develop and carry on this
work? It would seem that if any work belongs to the De
partment of the Interior this is it, and that definite action
should be taken to head up the work authoritatively there in
a broad way.

These are but some of the questions that face America.
There are others far more delicate and undefined which have
hardly yet seen the light. No one person can or ought to
attempt to formulate the policies and programme but some
where in America these matters should be dealt with in a
comprehensive and authoritative way, clearly, courageously
and without prejudice. Otherwise we are likely to fail at
home in the very things which we have set out to show Europe
how to do. America will be strong abroad just in proportion
as it is strong at home; its ideals will win just in the measure
that they are realized at home; its ideas will prevail just in
the ratio in which they reach practical results here; and its
good faith will be trusted in just the measure in which each
man keeps his word and sees that liberty is realized in his shop
and in his home and in his neighborhood and in his courts.
To depart from this belief is to fail eventually and we are
likely to lose sight of the danger at home in our triumphal
march abroad.

FRANCES A. KELLOR,

THE STRATEGY ON THE

WESTERN FRONT

I

BY LIEUT. COLONEL H. H. SARGENT, TJ. S. AEMY

PRELIMINARY to any discussion of the strategy of the
war, it will not be out of place to remark that in this war the
enormous numbers of the opposing armies, the wonderful im
provements in artillery and in small arms, the use of noxious
and poisonous gases, and of steam engines, gas engines, rail
roads, tanks, motor trucks, motorcycles, automobiles, electric
telegraphy, wireless telegraphy, telephones, searchlights,
submarines, aeroplanes, and other inventions and discoveries
have had a far-reaching effect in modifying and changing
the application of strategical principles. In some cases they
have made their application much easier, and in others much
more difficult, but in no case have they had any effect what
ever in changing the principles themselves. Those are im
mutable. They are the same today as in the days of Alex
ander, of Hannibal, of Caesar, and of Napoleon.

To operate offensively, when practicable to do so; to
bring superior forces against the enemy at the point of at
tack ; to manoeuver upon interior lines when possible ; to sur
prise and deceive the enemy as to the plans of operation and
place of attack; to divide the forces of the enemy and beat
them in detail; to operate or attack in such a direction as
to threaten or destroy the communications of the enemy with
out exposing your own: these are the main unchangeable
principles of strategy. It is by their observance that the
main object of all battles, the defeat and annihilation or
capture of the enemy, can best be obtained. They are the
foundation rocks upon which all great military successes are
built. Their observance shows good generalship ; their viola
tion poor. No commander can long disregard or transgress
them without bringing disaster and ruin upon his army.

VOL. ccix — NO. 759 14

210 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

During the war Germany took, or tried to take, the
offensive three times on the Western front. She began the
war with a great offensive there and continued it until she
was forced to take up a defensive role as a result of the battle
of the Marne. In February, 1916, at Verdun, she began
her second great effort to break through the Allied lines, but
this also was a complete failure. And on March 21, 1918,
she tried for the third time to smash through the lines and
to resume a war of movement, but utterly failed in her
efforts. In each of these offensives, according to our view,
Germany made a great strategical mistake; and it is the
purpose here to show why this is so ; and to analyze somewhat
in detail the operations on the Western front from a strate
gical point of view.

GERMANY'S FIRST GREAT MISTAKE

Although it may not have been Germany's intention at
the outset to take the offensive on both her East and West
fronts at the same time, nevertheless this is exactly what she
did. At the very time that the German armies were over
running Belgium and invading France, Hindenburg was en
gaged in East Prussia in a great offensive which culminated
in the battle of Tannenberg.

When Napoleon made war in a single theatre of opera
tions it was his invariable rule to take the offensive,1 but to
take it along but one line at a time ; and had Germany fol
lowed this rule and held defensively the French front from
Luxemburg to Switzerland, and then united the remainder
of her forces with those of Austria offensively, first against
Russia, then against Serbia, she could have defeated and
crushed the armies of both in a short while, and then have re
turned to the Western front and with overwhelming forces
flushed with victory have speedily invaded France via Bel
gium, as she had originally planned, or overrun both Bel
gium and Holland and conquered France. And in the mean-

*It is a well established maxim or principle of war that THE OFFENSIVE
ALONE PROMISES DECISIVE RESULTS; but there is another principle just as well
established, which limits the application of this principle when war is made within
a single theatre of operations, and that is, TO OPERATE OFFENSIVELY AND IN FORCE
ALONG BUT ONE LINE AT A TIME. These two principles, which were almost univer
sally followed by Napoleon in his remarkable military career, were several times
enunciated by him during his life. In fact, it has been largely through a study of
his campaigns and of the methods followed by him in gaining his victories,
that these two principles have come to be almost universally accepted by military
men as true guides for conducting campaigns.

STRATEGY ON THE WESTERN FRONT 211

time, while she was disposing of her enemies outside of
France, had Great Britain and Belgium declared war against
her, she could easily have held her Western front against
them, since neither, at that time, had any army of conse
quence ; and then, upon her return, could have gone through
Belgium without bringing upon herself the odium of violat
ing a neutral country.

Since the front between Germany and France was only
one hundred and fifty miles in length, and was protected on
the German side by the river Moselle and the fortifications
of Metz and just back of them by the river Rhine and the
fortress of Strassburg; and since the front could not have
been turned by France without her violating the neutrality
of either Belgium or Switzerland, or both, which it is certain
she would not have done, it could have been held by Germany
with a small part of her combatant forces, while she was de
stroying her enemies in other parts of Europe. Had she
followed this plan, the war at most would have lasted but
two years, and probably not that long. Had she followed
this plan, Great Britain would not have declared war against
her at the beginning; for it was the violation of Belgium's
neutrality which brought Great Britain immediately into the
war. Had Germany followed this plan, she would not have
turned the good opinion of the world against her at the start.
And it was all so easy, had Germany had any strategical fore
sight; but being obsessed with the idea that she must take
the offensive, whether or no, at the very start against France,
and having worked out plans along these lines for years,
believing that she could conquer France this way as she
had done in 1870; and failing to see that Russia's entrance
into the war in 1914 made the strategical situation vastly
different from what it was in 1870, she swept forward to
her ultimate defeat. This mistake, this lack of strategical
foresight, this stupendous blunder by the German General
Staff was appalling, calamitous, for the Central Powers. It
turned what should have been a short war into a long one. It
cost the Central Powers billions of dollars and millions of
men. It brought the young giant, America, into the war
against them, and arrayed against them a world in arms.
And what is most catastrophic of all, it has, along with sev
eral subsequent strategical blunders, resulted in Germany's
practical annihilation as a great military power.

It is interesting to note that notwithstanding the fact that

212 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Germany took the offensive on both her Western and East
ern fronts at the outset of the war, she came very close to
being victorious on both fronts. In East Prussia she won
against the Russians the great battle of Tannenberg, and on
the Western front, had she not been forced to detach two
corps from her army just before the battle of the Marne,
she would probably have won that battle, captured Paris,
and perhaps conquered France before the end of the year.
Which goes to show that however strong, well trained, well
disciplined, and well prepared an army may be, its com
mander cannot violate a strategical principle, even uninten
tionally, without running great risk of serious consequences.
It is true that victory will not infrequently be obtained in
spite of a violation of some strategical principle; but it is
also true that failure must result solely because of its viola
tion.1 ;

1Since writing this article I have learned that no less a person than Field
Marshal von Moltke himself approved of the defensive strategy on the Western
front in case Germany was involved in war with Russia and France at the same
time. These views, reported by Bismarck in the Hamburger Nachrichten and
quoted by Munroe Smith (Militarism and Statecraft, pp. 125-127), are as follows:

In view of our fortifications in Strassburg, Metz, Mayence, and Coblenz,
Field Marshal Moltke was so convinced of the strength of our military posi
tion on the western front that he regarded it as possible, in case war should
break out on two fronts, that we should limit ourselves to the defensive on
the western frontier until the Russian war was conducted to an end. He was
of the opinion that, with our railroad communications and fortifications on
the western frontier, the French could not so conduct the war as to break
through our lines ; and he accordingly believed that we could carry the Rus
sian war to a conclusion and then first, as against France, pass over from
the defensive to the attack.

This revelation of Bismarck, published on January 9, 1893, aroused consider
able controversy in Germany; whereupon one week later he replied and at the
same time set forth his own opinion :

It is an indisputable fact that Count Moltke expressed himself in this
sense, and that he was of the opinion that Germany, in possession of Metz
and Strassburg, with Mayence, Cologne, and Coblenz behind, could, in case
of a double war, maintain the defensive against France for an indefinite time
and meanwhile employ its chief force in the East. . . . We should regard
it as presumptuous to attempt to support the views of the great strategist
with our own opinion; but in face of the skeptical articles published in the
Nationalzeitung and other similar utterances in the press, we should like
to add that, so long as we are in possession of Metz and Strassburg and
so long as we remain covered by the neutral Belgian and Luxemburg ter
ritory, a defensive conduct by Germany of the war against France would not
deprive the left bank of the Rhine, but only a part of Alsace, of protection
by German troops.

Commenting on these statements, Professor Munroe Smith says: "In 1914
the German General Staff, with another Moltke at its head, put into execution an
opposite plan. ^ It was stated to be self-evident that France must be crushed before
the 'slow-moving Russian masses' could make any effective attack upon the Cen
tral Empires. To achieve this object, the cover of Belgian neutrality was sacri
ficed. The attack on France was launched across that neutral territory, as offer
ing the line of least resistance."

STRATEGY ON THE WESTERN FRONT 213

As to the German defeat at the Marne, Lieutenant Gen
eral Baron von Freytag Loringhaven, Deputy Chief of the
German Imperial Staff, in his book entitled Deductions from
the World War, page 94, says:

Thus the German offensive at the beginning of September, 1914,
was not powerful enough to effect the overthrow of the enemy. The
intention was to effect an envelopment from two sides. The envelop
ment by the left wing of the army was, however, brought to a standstill
before the fortifications of the French eastern frontier, which, in view
of the prompt success achieved against the Belgian fortifications, it had
been hoped to overcome. The envelopment of the French left wing was
successful up to in front of Paris and across the Marne, but here the
German troops found their frontal advance arrested, while they in
their turn were threatened with an envelopment.

And again, page 91, he says:

When the German Western army engaged in the Battle of the
Marne, its original first line troops had been reduced not only by two
army corps which had been sent to the East, but also by two further
army corps which it had been necessary to leave behind at Antwerp
and Maubeuge.

Thus we see that the German plan was to envelop both
flanks of the French army and that it failed because of the
" fortifications of the French eastern frontier." That is to
say, it failed because of the natural fortification of the Vosges
Mountains and the fortresses of Verdun, Toul, and Belfort.
But particularly because of Belfort, which commands the
narrow pass into France between the Vosges and Jura range
of mountains. Had the Germans been able to capture this
fortress, the way would have been opened for turning the
Vosges Mountains and the fortresses of Toul and Verdun,
and the envelopment of the French right wing, which, with
the left wing and the little British and Belgian armies
already enveloped, would no doubt have resulted in the final
surrender of the French army and the capture of Paris.

This accomplished, their next step would have been to
cross the English Channel; and with their submarines, aero
planes, and Zeppelins, to protect their transports from attack
in crossing. With no army of any consequence in Great
Britain at that time to repel the invaders, it seems not improb
able that they would have been successful, although their
losses might have been considerable. With Great Britain's
poor state of preparedness at that time, and the flower of her
regular troops already destroyed in France, probably less
than half a million veteran German troops would have been

214 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

able to overrun the island, capture London, and conquer
Great Britain.

Then, of course, they would have taken over the British
Navy; and with the French Navy already taken over, and
their own navy and submarines, they would probably have
provoked war with the United States and made short work
of the American Navy. With it out of the way there would
have been nothing to prevent their transports, loaded with
their best troops, from crossing the Atlantic; and with prac
tically no army in the United States to meet them they could
easily have taken possession of a good part of the North At
lantic seaboard States, captured New York, Boston, Phila
delphia, and Washington, and compelled these cities to in
demnify Germany for the entire cost of the war.

It is easy to see now that at the battle of the Marne Ger
many was within a hair's breadth of conquering France ; and
that this would most probably have speedily led to her con
quering Great Britain and the United States and her domina
tion of the world. But Belfort stood in the way.

So important was this fact, so fraught was it with mo
mentous consequences, that it may be interesting to inquire
how it happened that Germany did not insist on taking over
the French fortress of Belfort at the end of the Franco-
Prussian war of 1870-71 ; for had she held it in 1914, victory
would certainly have crowned her efforts in the first great
battle of the Marne.

The circumstances were these : Paris capitulated on Janu
ary 28, 1871, and an armistice of twenty-one days was signed,
to date from January 31; it was later extended to mid
night of February 26. During the armistice, the German
army was not to enter Paris. Heroically, Belfort was still
holding out.

On February 21, Thiers, representing France, went to
Versailles to get the best terms he could from Bismarck.
Bismarck's terms were, that France was to pay an indemnity
of six thousand million francs ; to give up the whole of Alsace
and a considerable part of Lorraine, including the fortresses
of Strassburg, Metz, and Belfort; and that the German army
was to enter Paris and to remain there until the ratification
of peace.1 To these terms Thiers strongly protested, claim
ing that the indemnity was exorbitant and that the cession
of Metz would make the two nations enemies forever. He
particularly objected to the German troops entering Paris

1 Simon, the Government of M. Thiers, vol. 1, p. 133

STRATEGY ON THE WESTERN FRONT 215

and insisted on France keeping Belfort if Strassburg had
to be given up. The discussion lasted several days. Bis
marck was obdurate ; but finally Thiers' eloquence, emotion,
zeal, patriotism, and fire moved him to consult the Emperor
and von Moltke as to a slight modification of the terms. The
Emperor consented to a reduction of the indemnity from six
to five thousand million francs,1 but von Moltke insisted that
Germany must have Metz, as it would be worth one hundred
thousand men to her in case of a war with France.2 As to
the entrance of the troops into Paris, Bismarck offered to
yield this, if Thiers would consent to give up Belfort without
further objection. But Thiers persisted in retaining Belfort.
Feeling that to yield it would leave the Eastern frontier of
France open to invasion, he fought for it most strenuously,
offering even to consent to the German troops entering Paris
provided Belfort could be retained by France. " Nothing,"
said Thiers, in the course of his long and eloquent plea, " can
equal the grief which Paris must feel in opening the gates of
its unconquered walls to the enemy who has been unable to
force them. Therefore we have besought you, and do still
beseech you, not to inflict this unmerited humiliation upon the
city. Nevertheless it is ready to drink the cup to the dregs,
so that one bit of its soil and an heroic city may be preserved
to the country. We thank you, Count, for having afforded
Paris the opportunity of ennobling its sacrifice. The mourn
ing of Paris shall be the ransom of Belfort."3 On this point
Bismarck finally yielded and Belfort was retained by France.
Theirs' pleadings saved the day. With the fire of a great
patriot in his soul, his eloquence, nearly fifty years ago, saved
his beloved France from destruction in 1914. It did more —
it changed the destinies of many peoples and many nations,
crushed out autocracy, and crumbled into dust most of the
thrones of Europe.

(To be continued)

1 Simon, The Government of M. Thiers, vol. 1, p. 137.

2 Memoirs of M. de Bloivitz, New York, 1903, p. 144.

8 Favre, Gouvernement de la Defense Nationale, vol. 3, p. 106.

THE CURSE OF SPAIN, OR MR. BIGBAG'S
SPECIAL FUNCTION

BY VINCENTE BLASCO IBANEZ

THE great Don Jose, Member of Spain's House of Rep
resentatives, or the Cortes as they call it over there, had
turned up somewhat unexpectedly at the chief town of the
district he was so kind as to represent. No mere ordinary
commonplace Member was Don Jose, who ran the show on
a big scale both in the Cortes at Madrid and at home in his
constituency; where indeed he counted for very much
more than does the average American Member of Congress,
in view of the fact that at each recurring election he regu
larly counted himself in. But just now there was no election
on, and this was a surprise visit from him: so what could
be more natural than that his highly flattered supporters
should hasten to arrange for a grand function in his honour?
The privilege of a visit from the great man was a thing they
did not very often enjoy, for Don Jose never dreamed of
living in his constituency ; he was a magnificent grandee from
Spain's far off capital, who simply condescended to sit in
the Spanish Cortes for some out of the way district or other
in the Province of Valencia; seldom indeed did he trouble,
or rejoice, by his presence the humble folk down there whom
he was supposed to represent, except of necessity at election
times. The worthy rural voters spoke of him with awe as
if he were Omnipotence personified, knowing him to be such
an exalted figure, if you like, such an almighty boss away
up in the political heaven of Madrid.

" Bossism " is our American name for the corrupt rule
of the political thimbleriggers who manipulate the votes of
the electorate, but the thing itself is not unknown in some
countries on the other side of the Atlantic, and it is the par
ticular curse of unhappy Spain. Nominally Spain enjoys

THE CURSE OF SPAIN 217

an admirable system of representative government: really
the political bosses run it. All Spaniards know this per
fectly well, and the sardonic humour with which they relieve
their feelings about an evil they are impotent to cure has
found a name for the curse. In the days when Spain was
great she conquered Mexico; and there she found a perfectly
organized system at work, whereby every Mexican village
had its own particular boss, who was entitled the cacique;
and every village cacique had his district cacique to boss him ;
and so on up to the head cacique of them all, the Emperor
Montezuma himself. To-day the expressive Spanish name
for the rule of the bosses is el cadquismo, cacique-ism.

The grand function or fete in honour of Don Jose was
held in the lovely gardens of the chief magistrate of the
town, and a truly gorgeous feast it was; the local band dis
coursed merry music, and all the women and children of the
place peeped curiously over the wall to watch their betters
eat. The rank and fashion of the district were there, along
with the priests from half a dozen small towns around, come
to do honour to their Member, whom priests and all looked
up to as the staunch defender of moral order and sound re
ligious principles; there, too, were the magistrates responsi
ble for moral order in those same towns, accompanied by a
host of humbler officials. These smaller fry were gentry
the Member had to be especially careful to keep in good
humour, for it was they who on every election day might be
seen trotting along every highroad, making a bee-line for Don
Jose, in order to hand in to him the election returns in proper
order: proper order meant that the returns were all duly
filled up, and duly signed with the official signatures, and
sealed with the official stamps. The only parts left blank
were the columns for the figures, which with brazen impu
dence purported to record the actual number of votes cast.
The humble officials left these columns empty in order that
Omnipotence as personified in their Member might fill them
up for himself, corrupting their virgin purity with his mon
strous majorities. Indubitably Don Jose was a member
who counted.

A few years ago there was a celebrated boss who ruled
New York, where his name and fame still survive on account
of the cynical frankness of a certain remark of his: "I don't
care who votes so long as I count." That was the dictum
of the great Boss Tweed, who later on fled to Spain, where

218 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

he died; the great Don Jose was shrewd enough to take a
leaf out of his book; and yet people say that Spaniards learn
nothing.

The gold spectacles and fashionable frock-coat of the
Member shone conspicuous amid the best Sunday cassocks
of the priests and the holiday clothes of the populace, creased
from the press and redolent of camphor: yet gorgeous as he
was to behold, His Omnipotence was not by any means the
centre of attraction; in fact nobody looked or thought of
looking at him. All eyes were centred on a short man in
cord breeches, who wore a black handkerchief tied round his
head, showing off his lean, bronzed face and bull-dog jaw;
a short, heavy, big bored gun was in his hand, and it seemed
as if this blunderbuss was a part of himself, for he never
moved a step without it. The man was the famous Quico
* Bigbag ', the hero of the district, an outlaw with thirty
years' exploits to his credit ; he was affectionately known
as Quico * for short, and Bigbag for the number of his
victims; the younger folk regarded him with a superstitious
awe, remembering their childhood and how often their
mothers had terrified them into silence with the threat of
" Bigbag's coming for you!"

He had begun early; for as a boy in his teens he fell
in love with a girl, found that two other youngsters were
after her also, and shot the pair of them dead; after which
he took to the mountains with his gun and led the life of a
gentleman outlaw, a true knight-errant of the hills. To-day,
there were more than forty indictments for murder hanging
over him; but the indictments would have to wait till he
should be so kind as to allow the police, those well armed
and mounted riflemen who form rural police of Spain, to
catch him. Catch him indeed ! He knew the mountains like
a book and could skip like a goat from crag to crag; also
he could hit a penny tossed up in the air with his bullet, so
that at last the police had grown tired of interminable hunts,
and finally declined now to see him at all.

A robber he had never been ! That was against his scruples
as a man of honour! Up in the mountains he lived on the
fare that the people of the hill-farms freely offered him,
whether from admiration or fear, and if a real robber did
happen to turn up in the district Bigbag shot him with no

*Pctname for Francisco.

Public Library,

•*

THE CURSE OF SPAIN

more ado; as a man of honour he must decline to be made
responsible for other men's robberies. Shed blood? Why,
yes, certainly, and wade in it knee-deep if necessary. He
made no more account of killing a man than of kicking a
stone out of his road. In short he was a wild beast and a
very dangerous one. He was equally handy with bullet
or knife, and he was always ready for a scrap, anywhere and
in any style: he would fight face to face if his enemies had
the pluck to meet him in the open, or if they tried his own
game of bushwhacking he could outstalk the stalkers and
they found themselves filled full of lead before they knew
where they were. He had cleared the mountains of other
outlaws simply because he didn't want competitors; he had
shot down his personal enemies on the highway, this par
ticular foe to-day and t'other to-morrow, just exactly as he
found it convenient; and more than one fine Sunday morning
had found him in the streets of a town, waiting patiently
till high mass was over; the priests were far too much his
good friends for him ever to think of interrupting them at
a religious service; but when they had finished their job he
would calmly put a brace of bullets into some local bigwig
who had offended him (or his protector the Madrid grandee)
and leave his victim lying. Nobody dreamed of interfering
with him now, nor did the police ever think of bothering him,
for here came in the curse of Spain. Mr. Bigbag had taken
to politics, and had proved himself an absolutely invaluable
aid to the politician. There he was, always ready to kill
somebody or other, even if he hardly had the pleasure of
knowing them by sight, in order to assure the return of
Don Jose as perpetual Member for the district. It never
entered the brute's dull brain that he had now become a mere
tentacle of Spain's great electoral octopus, whose central
ganglion lay far away in the office of a certain great cacique
at Madrid. Bigbag lived in a little rural village not far
from the country town, and he had his home there like any
respectable man; he had been married by his parish priest,
with all due forms and ceremonies of Holy Church, to the
beautiful girl he had first fallen in love with, and for whose
sake he had shot that unlucky pair of rivals who became his
first victims. He was the affectionate father of a fine fam
ily of children, and a good neighbour. As for the police,
they had their orders, and he was on the best of terms with
them; he always offered them a cigarette out of his case

220 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

when they met, and if it did ever happen that some exploit
of his obliged them to make a pretence of looking for him,
he merely went off for a few days' hunting in the mountains
and took a nice little sporting excursion.

It was well worth while to watch all the leading men of
the neighbourhood while the function was in progress mak
ing up to the outlaw and paying him attention. Nothing
was too good for the real hero of the day. " Come now, Mr.
Bigbag, may I not help you to this excellent liver wing? "
" Bigbag, won't you try a glass of this good wine? It's been
years in my cellar." Why, the very priests themselves, with
a jovial " Ha, ha," slapped him on the shoulder and laughed
paternally. "Oho, Mr. Bigbag! Well, to be surel 'Tis
you that are the great man here to-day! " And it was quite
true that the function was given specially for him. For him,
and him alone, had the omnipotent Don Jose put off his
journey to Valencia and waited at the county town. The
Member had found it desirable to allay his supporter's fears
and to put an end to his rather ominous growls.

As a reward for his electioneering exploits, Bigbag had
been promised a full and free pardon by Don Jose; and the
outlaw, who felt himself growing old and wished for a quiet
life as a respectable farmer, had placed himself at the dis
posal of the all-powerful Member of the Cortes, believing
in his ignorance that every fresh barbarity he perpetrated
was only accelerating his pardon.

But the years went by, the promises remained promises,
and the outlaw, firmly believing in the Member's omnipo
tence, inclined to attribute the delay to contempt or neglect.
His patience at last exhausted, he began to threaten; and
Don Jose got a shock which made him feel like a lion-tamer
when his wild beast turns on him. Every week now the out
law wrote to him, to Madrid, and every letter was a threat.
These letters, scrawled by that blood-spattered fist, got on
the member's nerves, and he felt it necessary to visit his con
stituency.

The pair of them were a sight to see, talking after din
ner in a corner of the gardens; the Member fawning and
obsequious, Bigbag frowning and ill-humoured.

" My dear Quico, this is your special function, and' it is
solely and entirely to see you that I am here," insisted Don
Jose, emphasizing the honour of his visit. " But what's your
hurry? Aren't you all right, my dear Quico? You are per-

THE CURSE OF SPAIN 221

f ectly safe ; I have recommended you to the Governor of the
province; the police let you alone; what more do you want? "

Nothing, and everything. It was true that they let him
alone, but there was no certainty about it. Times might
change, and then he'd have to take to the hills again. He
wanted what he had been promised, the pardon, by heavens !
He enumerated his claims in his own Valencian dialect,
more intelligible than his shaky Castilian.

" You shall have it, man. You shall have it. It's just
ready ; you may expect it in a day or two."

Bigbag smiled bitterly. He wasn't such a fool as they
thought him. He had been to see a lawyer in Valencia, and
the lawyer had laughed at him and his pardon. He must let
himself be caught, patiently accept the two hundred or three
hundred years' imprisonment that his innumerable sentences
would tot up, and when he had done a fair share of his time
in prison, say, a hundred years or so, then perhaps the pardon
might come along. By heavens, he wasn't the sort of man
to get off jokes on! And some people had better remember
it, too!

The Member turned pale ; he saw that the outlaw's con
fidence in him was shaken, was all but lost.

" My dear Quico, your lawyer friend is a perfect ass.
Do you imagine that there is any mortal thing the Govern
ment can't do in this country? You may count on being
clear from all penalties, absolutely clear. I take my oath
on it."

And knowing of old the power of his most crafty tongue
over that dull brain, he swept the outlaw off his feet by a
flow of words that hypnotized him with their plausibility.

Little by little the outlaw's confidence in the Member
returned. Well, then, he would wait, but it should be only
for one month and not a day longer. If by that date the
pardon had not arrived he would write no more letters nor
trouble to speak to him again. Don Jose might be a Member
of the Cortes and a very grand gentleman, but when it came
to bullets one man was as good as another.

With that threat he took his leave, picked up his beloved
blunderbuss, and bowed his farewell to the whole party as
sembled. He was going home, and he wanted to get there
before dark, for truly great men like Bigbag only turn night-
birds when actually compelled.

As a companion he had the butcher of his village, a youth-

222 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

ful and enthusiastic worshiper who adored the outlaw's su-

Serb courage and skill, and followed him everywhere like a
evotee.

The Member saw them off with feline affability.

" Good-bye, my dear Quico," he said, with a confidential
squeeze of the outlaw's hand. " Don't you worry; you are
going to be quite all right in no time. I hope all your beau
tiful children are very well, and tell your good lady that I
have never forgotten how thoroughly comfortable she made
me when I was your guest."

The outlaw and his acolyte took their places in their vil
lage carrier's cart, where three old women made room for
them, saluting " Mr. Quico " warmly, while the children
passed their little hands over that terrible blunderbuss of
his as if it was a sacred image.

The carrier's cart proceeded on its way, bumping along
the road through the orange gardens, where the trees were
now in full flower. The irrigating channels flashed back the
soft light of the evening sun, and the air breathed of Spring
and was filled with the murmur of innumerable flies that
buzzed everywhere.

Bigbag was in a good temper at last. A hundred times
he had had his pardon promised to him, but this time there
was going to be no mistake about it. His admiring squire
listened respectfully, but said nothing. They saw two police
men in the road, and Bigbag, who knew them quite well,
turned round in his seat to give them a friendly greeting.

Round the next corner there were two more policemen,
and the young butcher jumped on his seat as if a pin had
been stuck in him. He was nervous. Two couples of police
men in one short bit of road were a good many. The out
law set his mind at rest. That was nothing to get scared
over. The police had been brought in from all the country
round for Don Jose's visit.

But a little further on they found a third pair of police
men, who like the other couples followed slowly in the rear
of the cart, and the butcher could stand it no longer. He
smelt the biggest kind of a rat. " Bigbag, it's not too late!
Jump off instantly; make a bolt across country; and get into
the mountains. If it turns out that it is not you they want,
you can come down home after nightfall."

" Yes, Mr. Quico, yes," cried the alarmed dames. " Oh,
do go." \

THE CURSE OF SPAIN 223

But Mr. Quico laughed at the fears of these folk.

" Get on, carrier, get on," was all he said.

And the cart moved on, till suddenly there sprang out
on the road fifteen or twenty armed police, a whole troop
of them with their rifles in their hands and a lieutenant at
their head. Through the openings of the cart they stuck the
muzzles of those rifles and covered the outlaw, who calmly
sat still, while the women and children flung themselves
squealing on the floor of the cart.

" Bigbag, come out of that or you're a dead man," said
the lieutenant.

The outlaw calmly got down along with his satellite, and
the police had grabbed his blunderbuss away from him before
ever his feet touched the ground. He was still under the
strong fascination of his omnipotent protector's reassuring
language, and he decided not to attempt resistance lest a
new crime should impede the progress of the famous pardon.

He called the butcher to him, and bade him run back to
the town and tell Don Jose. This must be all a mistake, an
order misunderstood.

The young man saw the police forcibly shoving the pris
oner along towards the nearest orange grove, and he ran
straight down the road, on past the three couples of police
men who had followed the cart in the rear. He did not get
much further, for almost immediately he found himself face
to face with a gentleman on horseback; it was one of the
county magnates who had been at the function. " Don Jose !
Where's Don Jose? " he asked eagerly.

The county magnate smiled as if he had a shrewd guess
as to what was up. He explained that Don Jose wasn't
there; the very moment Bigbag left the place the Member
for the district had started off as quick as he could go for
Valencia.

Then the butcher understood everything, the flight of the
Member, the smile of the county magnate, the amused look
he had noted on the face of the lieutenant when the outlaw
called so loudly for his protector, declaring that he was the
victim of a mistake.

The butcher wheeled sharp round and sped back to the
orange grove ; but before he got there a little puff of smoke,
soft and white as cotton wool, rose over the tree-tops, and
he heard the bang-bang-bang of a crashing volley, long and
ragged, as if the very earth were being rent asunder.

224 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

He found him lying on his back on the reddening ground,
the body half in and half out of the shade of the tree against
which they had shot him, the earth wet with the blood bub
bling from the shattered head. The flies, drunk with the
perfume of the oranges, shone in the sun like golden sparks
as they danced wildly round the bloody lips of the corpse.

The disciple tore his hair. " Sangre de cristo! Was that
how they killed men who were men? "

The lieutenant slapped him on the shoulder. " That's
just exactly how, my sucking outlaw; that's the way you
rogues finish! "

The sucking outlaw swung himself round fiercely, but
he did not turn his face towards the police officer; his gaze
was turned far away across the hills toward the Valencia
road, and his tear-dimmed eyes seemed to say: " Rogues,
oh yes, rogues if you like! but the biggest is not poor Big-
bag here but him yonder running away, the grand Madrid
gentleman who has skipped."

VINCENTE BLASCO IBA^EZ.

THE INTERMEDIATE1MILLIONS

BY CHARLES HENftY MELTZEE

THE war is over. The great guns are hushed. And now
grave social issues call for settlement. Our reconstruction
must be wrought out on new lines. It should be inspired by
the idea of human brotherhood.

The problems which that thought involves are numerous.
They defy solution by one human mind. But some decisions
must be reached ere long. Even now an ear attuned to
certain tones can hear warnings of strange possibilities. We
talk of freedom, justice, law. We prate of charity. We
boast of our democracy — and, in dishonest moods, of — our
equality. We gabble about government for the people. Yet
all the time we feel, deep in our hearts, that we are living
upon words, words, words. Equality, we know, is still a
dream. And the same gulf still keeps apart our poor and
rich.

Nor have those who are neither rich nor very poor had
justice done them. Directly or indirectly, as things stand,
this country is controlled by three great forces. Those forces
are all organized and active. Above we see the masters of
organized capital. Below are the grim hosts of organized
labor. While, lurking in the dark or unconcealed, are count
less profiteering middlemen and retailers, less organized.

Numerically, those who have accumulated capital are,
comparatively speaking, negligible. But, being banded and
allied in groups and trusts, they have grown too powerful.
Their influence extends to all the essentials of our daily life
and comfort, our food and clothing, our transportation facil
ities, our lighting and warming and even our means of hous
ing ourselves. The power of capital would be much more
oppressive, but for the restraining power of labor unionism.
Those petty profiteers, the greedy retailers, prey quite im
partially on one and all.
VOL. ccix— NO. 759 15

226 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

But in addition to the three great and powerful forces
above mentioned is another element, including a vast multi
tude of citizens, unorganized and without power. They in
clude salaried clerks; professionals of various categories,
among them artists, doctors, teachers, ministers, and writers
for newspapers ; owners of small incomes ; men earning their
livelihood, more or less precariously, in minor commerce;
some millions of detached and decent storekeepers; some
millions of non-unionized farmers, landowners and farm
hands; and more millions of as yet non-unionized hand
workers employed in industries; besides armies of male and
female shop-people, stenographers and secretaries.

Of these we may foresee that many of the non-unionized
handworkers and possibly the farm laborers will before very
long have joined the labor unions. Therein lies one great
hope of escaping what is known as Bolshevism. There will
remain still many uncounted millions of units, virtually un
organized, who, being units, are scorned and dictated to in
turn by organized capital, organized labor and those retailers
who are profiteers. In England they would probably be
ranked with the higher and lower strata of the " middle
classes." Here, though we baulk and shy at certain terms,
we might describe them as the " intermediates." In England
even our multi-millionaires would be called " middle-class."
For there they have a well-recognized upper class. And, to
their shame, they also have a pauper class.

Our hordes of still unorganized intermediates have few
defences, few ideas, few or no leaders in the public press or
Congress. Most of our newspapers are owned by aggressive
interests, which, whether political, financial or industrial, do
not concern themselves to a great extent with the burdens of
citizens too feeble or too unmindful of their own welfare to
protect themselves. Labor has its mouthpieces and leaders,
more especially outside the walls of Congress. The great
railroads, the express companies, the packers and brewers, the
bankers and steel corporations, the mine owners and milk
trusts, have agents and lobbyists (more or less concealed)
and many newspapers. What have our futile, shiftless,
feeble intermediates to assert their rights or to redress their
wrongs ?

Just now, in the swirl preceding reconstruction, the
three organized or half -organized contingents of American
society seem to be jockeying for positions, struggling for

THE INTERMEDIATE MILLIONS 227

vantage points, from which, at some time they may find it
most convenient to coerce their fellows. The poor interme
diates look on in bewilderment. They feel — more than they
see — that, in the manoeuvring of surrounding heartless
forces, they stand to lose, no matter who may win.

Of those who read this, a majority maybe belong to these
intermediates. They know that they are entirely at the
mercy of their organized fellow-citizens. They are the butts
of " gentlemen's " combinations, unfeeling unions, and super
fluous middlemen. Each one of these plays a lone, selfish
game. The intermediates serve them all as counters. When
grafting landlords, with the high cost of labor and war
taxation on their lips, see fit to raise their rents, not just
enough to cover their expenses, but to a point at which they
add bloated percentages to their right incomes, they groan
and pay. When the coal dealers, after agreeing to supply
coal at a fixed price, refuse to deliver it in the bins of their
customers, and allow their employees to charge extra fees
for shovelling work — they groan and pay. When insolent
gas companies defy their customers by reducing the lighting
power of their gas, despite their charters, who opposes them?
Plumbers and carpenters make their own ruthless prices.
Milk trusts increase the cost of milk and lower its quality;
in many cases adding adulteration and chemical conservation
to other crimes. The poor, feckless units moan — but still
they pay. Life, once endurable, is now a nightmare. Un
scrupulous storekeepers put up the price of meat, of
bread, of fruits, of drugs, of fish, not in accordance with
the facts of trade, but at their own sweet will. They lay
the blame upon the rascally middlemen, who ascribe it to
the wholesalers, who impute it to the trusts, who fasten it
upon the grasping farmers and unscrupulous feedmen. In
the last resort, these send one back to the "cost of labor."
So we go round in an eternally vicious circle. But, though
the unorganized units — the unfortunate intermediates —
groan, they pay, and go on paying. It does not occur to
them that, by protesting actively — at the same time enduring
patiently some self -privation, and above all by organizing —
they could protect themselves and perhaps compel their op
pressors, the trusts, middlemen, storekeepers and hand
workers, to accept a re-adjustment fair to everyone, — to
producers, trusts, agents, wholesalers, retailers, and, above
all, consumers, who include them all.

228 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Within the last four years the profits of the rich have
become egregious; so egregious, indeed, as to awake alarm.
For it is not in human nature that those who are in want will
look on unmoved forever at the processions of automobiles,
the long streams of luxuriously gowned and unfeeling
women, the riot of extravagance, that mock the poor in our
broad and stately streets. The unthinking may admire the
signs of wealth which confront them on Fifth Ave
nue. But the more sensible must often ask themselves
if what they see is not a warning and a menace. The
late Bishop Potter, who could scarcely be suspected of sen
sationalism, was more than anxious as to the future of this
country. What he is said to have foreseen was an upheaval
of the poor against the rich. But, since his death, things
have grown complex. The intermediates are now becoming
restless. And, unless they organize, we may have tragic trou
bles. The handworkers are learning how to protect them
selves, to win their share, if not more than their share, of
material happiness. The very rich have always known how
to defend their gains. Unhappily for themselves, the inter
mediates have learned nothing. From year to year they are
dwindling in importance. They cannot cast their lot in with
the rich. They have no places in the armies of the unions.
A re-adjustment of some kind must come — and soon. The
rich grow richer and the handworkers are able, thanks to the
labor unions, to command good wages. The intermediates
steadily grow poorer. They are forced to pinch and scrape,
to spend their savings. Society has somehow passed them by.
They are helpless. Why? Because they are unorganized.

It may be difficult for many to conceive of a rebellious
bank clerk. And most professionals have borne their wrongs
so long that they have almost had the will to fight crushed
out of them. As for the writers for the reviews and news
papers, they are so wrapped up in their special hopes and
dreams that they do not protest. The artists are essentially
unpractical. The preachers, teachers, authors, wait for lead
ers. The dread of losing the small pittances they earn keeps
the stenographers, the shop girls (or, if you will, the sales
ladies) from incautious action, however justified. But, if
the worm will turn, so may the mildest bank clerk, the most
patient teacher, the most orderly saleslady. The man who
has spent his life in accumulating a small income, as an anchor
in advancing age, may wake some day to ask himself why

THE INTERMEDIATE MILLIONS 229

he is defrauded of his savings. The unorganized farmers
and improvident farm hands may become envious of the or
ganized artisans. And those storekeepers who have pre
ferred honest independence to equivocal combinations may
grow dissatisfied as they consult their passbooks. As they
look around them, vaguely conscious of injustices to which
they are subjected, they may come to wonder why the dol
lars which they have earned by their month's effort mean so
much less to them than they did years ago; and why the
handworkers should be truculent in their prosperity, when
they themselves are straining so painfully and fruitlessly to
make ends meet.

If there existed the least prospect of relief for them within
the near future, the poor intermediates might make shift
to bear their woes. But is there such a prospect? Ac
cording to a table compiled by the Bureau of Labor and
published in Washington a few months ago, the purchasing
power of the United States dollar had shrunk, between
July 1913 and July 1918, to 54 cents in Washington and
Baltimore, 57 cents in Philadelphia, 59 cents in New York
and Chicago, and 63 cents in San Francisco. In the same
five years the price of food had increased 85 per cent in
Washington, 84 per cent in Baltimore, 77 per cent in Phila
delphia, 69 per cent in Chicago, 68 per cent in New York,
and 58 per cent in San Francisco, which is apparently the
least grasping of our great cities. The cost of shoes and suits
and gloves and hats and underwear has gone up by leaps and
bounds, while rents have soared to suit the landlords' whims.

All this has meant little to the rich. Nor has it harmed
the organized handworkers, whose increased wages have en
abled them to pay their way — and more, much more. But
to the helpless and unorganized intermediates it may be ca
lamitous. For, unlike labor men and women, they have not
dared to clamor for fair pay; or, in the case of the long suf
fering journalists, to demand higher " space rates." There
has from time to time been talk of raising the low salaries
paid to school teachers. But it has led to nothing. As for
the artists (except the musicians, who are unionized) and the
actors, of whom thousands are to some extent protected by
their defence societies, they have been more or less deprived
of even the most modest and uncertain sources of revenue.

The chief need of this great nation is better and more
rigid organization. The old laissez faire, laissez aller

230 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

theories of Mid- Victorian days are being abandoned. All but
the improvident millions of intermediates are getting to
gether — whether for a clash, which may be tragical and vio
lent, or, as we hope, for a re-adjustment upon legal lines, no
man can tell. One thing seems sure. Those who omit to
organize will soon find it hard, and perhaps impossible, to
retain their self-respect and enjoy what are supposed to be
the rights of every citizen — life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness.

Labor organizations may bring comfort to the handwork
ers. But to the brainworkers and to those luckless nonde
scripts who can be strictly classified neither as brainworkers
nor as handworkers it means little good. What then? The
bank clerk, the merchant's clerk, the stenographer, the small
independent storekeeper, the journalist, the doctor, the artist,
the preacher, the saleslady and the school teacher, are theo
retically entitled to the same justice as the labor unionist.
Need they be fleeced, ground down, and bullied by contemp
tuous handworkers, or victimized by conscienceless trade
barons? Can they do nothing, really nothing, to protect
themselves? The clerk is an essential of our system, no less
than the plumber. A writer for a daily or weekly newspaper
may be (to put it modestly) at least as important to the State
as the most upright truckman. The fact that he does not
consort with truckmen is in a way condoned by the other fact
that most truckmen do not care for his companionship.

It would be prudent for the intermediate millions
to take the initiative, to devise means of self-defence, to trust
more in themselves and their own unsuspected and untested
strength than in anything that other folk may do for them.
"But how," you ask, " can the intermediates do anything
to protect themselves ? Are they to beg admission to the labor
unions, with whom, apart from a desire for material happi
ness, they have little sympathy? Must they affiliate them
selves with alien interests, and go on strike, when ordered by
the walking delegate or head of some labor brotherhood, to
redress the grievances, possibly not justified, of strangers? "

It is hard to answer questions such as these with convic
tion or authority. Offhand, however, it might be suggested
that societies of a protective character could usefully be or
ganized quite independently of the labor unions. Why, for
example, should not every clerk employed in a bank or in a
merchant's office be a member of a Clerk's Defensive Soci-

THE INTERMEDIATE MILLIONS 231

ety? Why should there not be an equivalent here of the
French and Italian Authors' Societies? Why should not all
the newspaper men and newspaper women, with the assent
and good-will of their editors, publishers and proprietors,
have — not a union in the rigid labor sense, but a Society for
the redress of wrongs, the protection of members against
unjust dismissal, and the determination of a minimum living
wage? There is nothing either unreasonable or subversive
in the suggestion.

As a model, or at least a useful hint, the unorganized
professionals might turn to the Actors' Equity Association.
It is not rigidly affiliated with the Labor Federation. Nor
should it be. And none the less it has been able to act quietly
but efficiently. On the letterheads of the Actors' Equity
Association is printed the following quotation from Marcus
Aurelius : " Love the art, poor as it may be, which thou
hast learned, and be content with it, making thyself neither
the tyrant nor the slave of any man." The purpose of the
suggested Societies should be, not the promotion of strife or
of ill-feeling between members and employers, but the re
adjustment of conditions in a way fair to all. Their founda
tion would be every bit as useful as the backfires with which
greater fires are combated. Doubtless efforts would be made,
once they were founded, to have the proposed intermediary
Societies linked up with the labor unions. These efforts
should be resisted, tooth and nail. Not in a spirit of hostility
to the labor unions, which may be desirable and are surely
now inevitable, but because handworkers have interests which
differ widely from those of clerks and salespeople and pro
fessionals.

As a corollary and complement of such associations, there
should be duly authorized Arbitration Boards, with power to
enforce their rulings. In the long run it would pay employ
ers to encourage the formation of societies by their employees,
especially if, as some do already, they associated their em
ployees with them in the division of profits. Chiefly, there
should be humanity and good will in the inter-relationships
of all our citizens. For, although named by different names,
in this democracy all men and women but a very few, do
work, with brains or hands. They are all laborers.

Aside from sociological generalities, what can be done to
make life easier, safer, saner, for the intermediates? And,
not for them alone, but for consumers of all kinds?

232 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

The Federal Food Board, the Federal Trade Commis
sion, the Public Service Commission and other agencies have,
in the past, been more or less looked up to by the interme
diate millions for the redress of wrongs. What have they
accomplished? The Public Service Commission has been con
spicuously unable to act resolutely and effectually. The
results have been seen in inexcusable railroad accidents ; and
still more, in the persistence of the outrageous mockery of
justice which has permitted light and power companies to
give grossly inadequate service.

The cost of food and clothing must be lowered. Or
salaries, and rewards for work in general, must be greatly
raised. In some fields, salaries have been raised — a little.
But the increase has not been nearly on all fours with the
changed conditions.

What follows? Can there be really no relief for all the
millions upon millions of intermediates who are now wrestling
with the problems of existence? How can they find a way to
eat and drink, to warm and clothe and light and house them
selves, without being ruined? Petitions to the powers that be
might help. Public meetings and discussions might do more.
But there are other ways. Aide-toi, dieu t'aidera. Boy
cotts in England have worked wonders. A much better and
more thorough means of settling things than boycotting, how
ever, would be the foundation, on a great scale, of cooperative
stores.

Cooperation is of various kinds. Sometimes it deals with
the coordination of the producers' rights — at other times
with the organization of plans for the benefit of the con
sumers. For the moment let us think of the consumers' in
terests. The most practical and useful expression of this
special form of sociological work is the cooperative store.

Cooperative stores are not unknown here. In Great Brit
ain and in other lands they have long been truisms. The
principle on which they have been managed, with immense
success, is simple. So many citizens subscribe so much apiece.
They form a society of shareholders. The society then
chooses salaried officers, who engage agents and employees
to buy commodities of various kinds, at wholesale, and retail
them in the stores of the society, either to holders of mem
bership tickets only, or to outsiders also. As the first pur
pose of the plan is to economize, the prices at which things
are sold are based on their real wholesale cost, plus running

THE INTERMEDIATE MILLIONS 233

expenses, interest on invested capital, and other considera
tions. One can buy almost anything, from a spool of cotton
to a motor car, at honest prices. The members own the
stores ; and on the judgment they may show in selecting their
own salaried representatives, depend the quality and cost of
what they purchase. To make this clearer. The cooperative
stores are roughly equivalents of our department stores — but
with this difference. Our department stores are run for pri
vate profit, whereas the cooperative stores are installed and
managed for the advantage of the cooperators.

It should be proclaimed a crime to exact more than fair
profits on such wares as fish, milk, bread, meat and vegeta
bles. There should not be a fish or meat or milk trust.

If the poor intermediates stood together they could alter
things. Their want of will, and their reluctance to endure
some slight discomfort for a time, explain their impotence.
Rather than go without fresh eggs, or fish, or meat for a few
days, they allow those trusts and storekeepers to rob them.
They lack vision, public spirit and initiative, and they are
unorganized.

If statistics can be trusted, the organized handworkers
are today a small minority of this nation. With the addition
of all the now non-unionized farm folk, mechanics and others
to whom they are related, they would still be a minority,
though a strong minority. Side by side with them, and not
opposed to them, the intermediates should form unions or
associations of their own, possibly federated, which might
hold the balance, minimize injustice, and save society from
shipwreck. The producers, whether employees or employers,
are no more essential to the welfare of the world than the
consumers and distributors of their products. It is the fash
ion of the hour to say that we must choose, now and forever,
between Capital and Labor — meaning, by one, the oppressive
moneyed magnates, and, by the other, the industrial working
folk. But there is something besides both to be remembered
— the oppressed millions of unorganized intermediates, who
are neither handworkers, nor " I -Won't- Workers," nor
' Bourbons."

CHARLES HENRY MELTZER.

CODDLING ANARCHY

BY ERVING WINSLOW

THE Celtic orator who smelt a rat and heard him brewing
in the storm, but declared his determination to crush him in
the bud, was mixed in metaphor, but clear and single in pur
pose and possessed obviously by common sense, a quality
which seems to have fled the modern world. Philosophical
inferences have often been proved by later investigations of
the new science of biology to be in fact sound and sane. One
of these which seems now in the way of demonstration is the
old speculative assumption that madness may befall a nation
or group of nations, as genuinely as it seizes upon the indi
vidual, and that waves of confusion and passion sometimes
deprive them of reason. During the last century such lapses
occurred after the French Revolution and to some degree in
1848. We are in the midst of another one, produced by a
similar cause, the upsetting of established order and author
ity. There is no mystery about it. Like the afreet of the
Arabian Nights, long confined in the sealed jar, when sud
denly let out, the expansion of the spirit fills the air with
smoke and darkens the sun.

Common sense, guided by the analogy of experience,
might see in the great upheaval of the world today an inevita
ble reaction, like those of similar previous episodes, only on a
vaster scale than ever before, which have followed despotisms
grown unbearable and overthrown, license succeeding bond
age, and rampant individualism the broken machine; cogs
and levers whirring wildly, freed from belts and bearings.
After a time the chaos crystallizes somehow, and its uncondi
tioned accidents fall into order, the " divinity " which shapes
our " rough-hewn " work into good ends taking a hand. In
our mad world there seems no recognition of all this, but only
random hypotheses, the one certainty about which is that they
are certain not to be permanent. " Self-determination " is

CODDLING ANARCHY 235

the panacea propounded for the regenerated life of mankind,
but self-determination carried out strictly to extremes in
every little would-be autonomy is deplored by those who seek
international thinking, and, if logically fulfilled, is simple
anarchy.

We hailed the arrival of a " bloodless," democratic revo
lution in Russia after ages of oppression and cruelty, relieved
by assassination and insurrection, as the triumphant success
of an enslaved people, forgetting all history. After two
years' experience of its results, shaping themselves to an
archy, we seem ready to believe with the same mad credulity
that Central Europe is immune from the infection, and, while
the flames still range higher in S la via, ignore their awful
work, and are blind to their actual spreading into the fields
where the Kaisers have made ready the fuel ; and self-deter
mination again means anarchy.

As for the Russian situation it is not needful to follow
in detail the various sporadic movements with various local
and special objectives, under Generals " One-ski " or
" T'other-off," growing up as iridescent bubbles swell from a
mephitic marsh to a bursting point, and a collapse. He who
runs can read the diagnosis of the great epidemic.

Our " intrusion " at first might have been directed large
ly to aid the " cooperative " societies, eagerly accepting loans
and perhaps partnerships from friendly foreigners. How
soon and how widely the news of such sympathy would have
spread and fructified! No official recognition was possible
to a " government " based on confiscation and repudiation,
and it was necessarily spurned by it, unless coming from an
anarchist state, but it would not have been challenged any
more than the British Government was challenged when car
goes of food were sent to famine-suffering Ireland.

How great was the error which failed to apply the remedy
in the early stages of it, instead of helplessly watching and by
inaction coddling the infant disease in Russia and allowing it
to come to the defiant stage of maturity when it has to be chal
lenged, as it had become a formidable adversary and may
possess revolutionary Germany, so that the soldiers of Amer
ica may have to fight a RussorGerman-Bolshevik army!
Think of it ! When, lest offence should be taken by the Le-
nine-Trotsky group, and through urgency perhaps of those
" red radicals " among ourselves who wanted it " recog
nized " and made so much of the panic terror of Japan hav-

236 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

ing part therein, a little force of Americans and our Allies
was not allowed to accompany for " police protection " a
proposed Mission of Mercy with supplies and food and en
gineering help for the Russian people !

There is no desire to offer any particular suggestion from
" the ranks/' but only to exercise the right to see, and to say
what he sees, which must be exercised by the citizen if democ
racy is to be made safe for the world. As Americans it is
our right and duty to see and to say how our country is to
"function" in the conditions before us, facing them fairly and
courageously.

Anarchy is the menace of this great moment in the world's
history. There are many claiming to be leaders of opinion,
it must be recognized with shame, who believe it is the neces
sary vestibule to the new freedom and that class-war is in
evitable and desirable!

The function of America with her experience, her history
and traditions and the place she holds today in the minds of
men as true democracy's representative, is to hold them to
via media, to an orderly democracy, containing as we believe
full generative power.

Against king-craft defiance seems needless, and eager eyes
are watching and hot tongues denouncing everywhere the
grasping plans of capital and privilege, but anarchy now, en
franchised from special war-time restraint, unafraid is ruling
in one quarter of the world, is coming to grips in Europe and
perhaps even at home, where it has its most wicked and dan
gerous advocates who have even their organs of publicity
among ourselves. These witnesses inspired to coddle anarchy
yet can not be brought to do so without misgivings. One of
these publications, which in one place demands withdrawal of
all military force protecting property and checking, upon its
fringes, some of the Russian Terror, because " war has not
been declared," in another column suggests that the hor
rors of it may serve the good turn of warning, which the
exposure of the drunken Helot did to Plato's " aristocratic "
youth of Athens. Those who edit and support these organs
are to be reminded that while Danton, Marat and Robes
pierre have their apologists, none has been found for " Phil
ippe Egalite."

EKVING WINSLOW.

THE TWELFTH OF FEBRUARY, 1918

BY MARY HUMPHREY

LINCOLN'S birthday was all that a holiday ought to be,
even in a strange land that knows it not. After weeks of
rain, the Lorraine sky was so blue the little white clouds
seemed swimming in a summer sea. There was that snap
in the air that makes it like wine. I thought of the school
children at home, of the days that are so unreal now when
I used to dread the hour that I must stand up gulping to say
' Fourscore and seven years ago " — what a relief when
' These dead shall not have died in vain " was safely reached!
As I went early to my work in the prefecture I was think
ing, a trick of fancy, of the dead who have proved anew the
glory of the battlefield. Here in the war zone with the dull
distant booming that becomes the heavy background for all
earthly sounds, the meaning of death has been transfigured.
This war of today is only the world phase of the war our
Lincoln waged to its victorious end, the greatness of the cause
transfiguring all the steps up to the hallowed place he shares
with the martyrs.

I worked in the dusty old room, among the archives that
tell many a story of Nancy, its days of beauty and pride,
its stormy course through the dark struggle of 1870, its great
part in this cataclysm. Never has the place echoed to such
excited voices. For the official decree has gone forth, citizens
are to leave as quietly as possible. The people are coming
to hear the news and to receive their cards of permission.
There is no argument, only the soft tears of despair and
grief. I feel the deep current of human misery, but through
it runs the electric flash of heroism, of the ultimate sacrifice.
I cannot see to fill out my record cards for tears shed
with Madame G. who comes with her old man-servant and
maid. They refuse to leave her. Will Monsieur order them
to go? Her own possible doom — she shakes her head — what

238 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

has the world, safe though it be, for her, with her two sons
fallen on the field before her beloved city? But this stupid
peasant pair that have served her so long must be forced
into a place of safety.

A young factory worker, her wee baby in her arms, stands
pleading for the two children she has housed and cared for
since their parents were killed in the air raid of October
last. She will stay on in the munitions factory if only they
can leave by tomorrow's train.

An army officer comes in for papers for his family and
servants. His face is anxious and his fingers twitch as he
talks. The trains are so crowded, the wife is nervous — the
day is too bright for excited nerves. I glance out — can any
day be too bright for love and joy? It is Lincoln's birthday
a day for celebration far away at home.

A long line is waiting as we leave the building at noon-
peasants in sabots and little knitted shoulder shawls staring
straight ahead. They know, for they sought refuge here
months ago when Pont-a-Mousson, when Gerbeviller were
bombed. They have tasted exile and it is not sweet and now
they must go forth again, a long journey where the accent
of Lorraine is not familiar.

The Red Cross camions have been busy all day, trans
porting the possessions of this home-loving people. Strong
arms from across the sea have lifted ancestral marriage
chests, they have stored carved wooden beds and marble-
topped French tables. The boys have cheered and comforted
tear-stained housewives who clung to the great bundles of
linen and the precious family quilts. They have whistled
Yankee Doodle and Over There to the envy of the small
Renes and Pierres to whom all this mighty excursion is a
dream adventure come true. It's hard work, but definite
and concrete. They see what service they are doing. They
hear the words of gratitude and feel how great is the tragedy.

" I never supposed any one could care so much about
things," said a khaki-clad truck driver to me, as he stopped
to wipe his forehead; " with us folks at home, we move so
often, up in one flat and down in another, you know. If a
piece of furniture don't fit, we sell it to the next fellow mov
ing in and swap with the one moving out — that's the way
we do this house-moving stunt out in Chicago where I hail
from. But these poor folks — they tell me it's their great-
great-grandmother's wedding-bed, or that's the table some

THE TWELFTH OF FEBRUARY, 1918 239

great-uncle made, or this is the esquitoire — is that what you
call it? of some duke or other — and the linen! They just
cry over their linen — it all looks like rags to me, but if they
feel so bad about it, I try to be as careful as they are — and
anyway the poor devils are getting the worst of this Fritz
game."

He glanced up apprehensively. I looked up too. The
sky was so blue, so blue. Far overhead a tiny bird was wing
ing its way. A soft hum, like the memory of sound, came
through the ether. The bird seemed to swoop, the wings
spread, became suddenly pointed golden shafts, then turned
to gleaming silver. The whispered hum became an insistent
and sharp whir.

" Aviators on the job, all right, all right. Fritz will have
his hands full tonight."

" Why do you keep harping on Fritz? " I said impa
tiently. " You take all the wine out of spring on a glorious
day like this. If you're from Chicago, you must remember
— it's Lincoln's birthday! Don't spoil the holiday!"

" So it is." He laughed a bit wistfully. " I reckon the
kids are fourscoring all over the State! "

We Americans live in what was a humble French board
ing-house. Now the turn of war has made it a popular centre
and it is full to overflowing, with two or three tucked into
tiny single rooms, making for mine host a harvest that helps
to compensate for our overweening ways. The French offi
cers are an exclusive group, sitting at their own table and
eyeing with disfavor the vulgar display of wealth shown in
our own sugar and butter. There are provincials, heavy-
bearded merchants, and quick-eyed, dapper little Frenchmen.
Among the Americans are two ladies who have been serving
the wounded in small hospitals, day by day going the rounds,
supplying through a great committee in the States the little
needs that mean so much in the regaining of health and
strength. There is a fine, athletic girl, young and enthusias
tic, who drives their car. There are several nurses of a
unit doing dispensary work in near-by towns in the line of
fire and falling bombs.

And last there are the truck drivers, three tables full of
fine young American boys, rejected by Uncle Sam, enlisted
in the Red Cross camion service, — a good-natured, ready-
witted bunch, struggling with a new language, trying to

240 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

understand a race that does things in the most unexpected
and roundabout way. They lead the pert little maid a merry
chase, confusing her count, addressing her in English and
French, teasing and helping her, and looking out for all of
us in the friendly openhearted American way.

They troop in late to dinner. Some have washed and
brushed up a bit, others dirty and tired come direct from a
fractious motor.

" Anybody's a fool that tries to drive without understand
ing these new gears," grumbles Bob, the big fellow from
Pittsburgh.

" I never had no trouble with mine," says the one they
call Ham, " you had too big a load and you jammed her
home too quick."

' Well, she's laid up now and Lloyd '11 give it to me when
he knows it," is the reply. " There's the whole blooming
hospital of wounded to move in the morning "

Lloyd, their chief, comes in and takes his place — short,
well built, with sharp black eyes, cited more than once while
he was with the Ambulance. He begins to outline the work
for the morning. There is much laughter over the day's
experiences. Suddenly one of them lifts his head.

4 What's the matter?"

" Nothin' — thought I heard a gun "

"You've got 'em "

" Pass the panne, Henriette."

Leisurely we were folding our napkins after an hour at
table. The next thing I knew I was standing against the
wall, looking at a truck driver pushing the others ahead of
him. Something was carrying us all out through the door.
The windows were rattling as though giant hands were shak
ing them. There had been a quick explosion, it seemed in
the garden just outside, followed by crashing, breaking,
crushing, tearing of timbers and iron, of plaster and glass
and stone. Simultaneously the heavy roll of the big guns,
the sharp snapping yap of the rapid firers, the bursting of
shrapnel, the din and chaos of savage cannon.

The stairs to the cave were full of rushing people.
Frenchmen struggled, old women whimpered with fear, a
little girl wept aloud for her mother, frantically calling her
from the cellar below. The truck drivers were shoving people
ahead, calling to the maids to go down first.

Once in the cellar the din sounded a bit further away.

THE TWELFTH OF FEBRUARY, 1918 241

There was no air. White faces began to move before my
eyes. Why did every one have such trembling lips, why
did their eyes look so big and hollow? The French drew
off by themselves and settled down for the night. An old
lady quavered piteously and asked questions. The boys
joked and laughed, counting the crashes that seemed to be
exploding bombs. The two American women stood quietly,
strengthening us all by their composure.

Finally there came a lull and Lloyd motioned that we
might venture out for air. Through the dark halls we felt
our way to the street door. Quiet voices were discussing
the amount of danger. Suddenly there was a blinding flash
in the sky, shrapnel pattered on the pavement, the anti-air
craft barked again. Through the garden came a little girl,
her face ghastly, her eyes round with horror.

" Some one called, they want help," she gasped to Lloyd,
who went to meet her. " The cafe on the corner is de
stroyed."

On the corner — just a few doors away, all the houses in a
row touching each other. A cosy little room was that cafe,
where all day French soldiers could be seen over their wine
and newspapers, and where our American boys were in the
habit of dropping in for a smoke in the evening. Kept by a
woman whose young daughter waited on the customers, it
was a place of quiet, friendly cheer.

In an unknowing way I looked about me. Lloyd was
gone, one of the trained nurses, a number of the Red Cross
boys and the girl chauffeur. One wonders what he will do
in such an hour, under the shot and shell of attack in the
war zone. I felt a great sense of being face to face with
realities. Another savage crashing and banging, the sting
ing ping of the busy Archies.

:< Let's see if we can help."

We hurried out to the street and into another world. The
stars were shining gloriously, golden lamps swinging in the
sky throughout the ages. Like a tired lady the halfmoon
rode down her course. The wind lapped at our faces. Dark
forms ran past us, muttering and gasping. The street was
filled with debris. Fine powdered dust was settling down.
Soldiers with dim lanterns motioned us to the side. I saw
the Red Cross boys carrying something, some one. People
were pushed back and sharp words of command from the
gendarmes maintained a certain order.

VOL. ccix. — NO. 759 16

242 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

On the corner a great hole and jagged walls from which
had been wrenched a living home. The very timber and stone
that remain seem like bleeding flesh. A bed hangs out over
empty space and the blankets flap in the wind. There is an
expectant hush, the solemnity of death is in the air.

" Ah," says a voice and one of the officials supervising
the rescue work stops to greet us, " you Americans are won
derful — when the Prefet arrives, your woman doctor and
nurse are the first ones he finds here."

From the darkness into the dim light comes the doctor,
her bag on her arm.

" Nothing to do but give a little morphine," she says
shortly. " They are past help."

My eyes fall on a man's face, gashed and bleeding, dis
torted with the horror that has swept him out into the deep
current — a soldier he had been, visiting his mother before he
returned to the trenches.

" The little boy is dead," the doctor went on, " and the
little waitress — the girl was caught on her way to the cave.
We could staunch the hemorrhage, but she died — in agony."

That poilu on leave — and the children

Something I never knew before rises up within me.
Through a long line my people are speaking within my soul,
those grandfathers who fought in the Revolution, who bled
at Shiloh. I feel my resolve, born in this hour, go rushing
forth with all the hosts of those who witness and endure to
night.

It is rather for us, the living, to be here dedicated . . .
The great task remaining before us ...
These dead shall not have died in vain . . .

It is Lincoln's birthday, in France.

MARY HUMPHREY.

243

TOUL

BY BUKGES JOHNSON

STEADFAST the hills of Toul,

Ever to northward gazing,
Stand with a warrior's pride,
Unsleeping, steady eyed,

Over the broken plain their serried heads upraising.

Ancient, unwavering, armored from greave to helm,

Mighty as Right, and uncompromising as Truth;
Sternly you challenge each foe that would overwhelm, —

Yet gather about your armor the warm green togas of youth.
Drawn to the friendly shadow where the hems of your garments are

reaching,

Assemble the children of men, your wardenship shyly beseeching.
Timorous in their mortality they have thronged to the feet of the hills,
And your quiet immutable courage has nurtured their puny wills.

Towering twin spires pointing God-ward,
They alone, mighty hills, scarcely heed you, —

They seem in their faith not to need you,
But have 'stablished their gentle rule

Over the age- tinted roofs of the city of Toul.

Breached are the circling walls, crumbled and broken down,
Where the errorless guns of Time have battered the ancient town ;
Bridging deep moats with the dust of eroding centuries past,
With fetters of root and vine binding each drawbridge fast.
And the hoary watch-towers stand facing across the keep,
Their eyelids filmed with moss and closed in a dreamless sleep.
Time bears no withered grudge, but is proven a kindly foe
Who smiles on the broken toys of the f oemen of long ago.

244

He has seen them playing their games of war and harked to their
battle calls,

And marked them scooping their moats of sand and rearing their

pebble walls.
And he decks them now with his living wreaths, and leaves them

beautified
As monuments whereon men may gaze with a cleansed and worthy

pride.

Beyond the ancient city walls green undulating farm lands reach,

Fields that have cherished all who toiled, and granted simple gain to
each.

Here peaceful folk, who yet have formed stern ranks in war have

steeled their wills ;

A gentle folk, who yet have proved a kinship to their steadfast hills.
And here amid their shattered homes the ready-handed women toil,
And delve or reap, all undismayed, to keep the faith with their own

soil;

Though it be plowed as hell is plowed, nor ever granted any rest,
Though day by day sees deeper wounds disfiguring its generous breast ;
And suns shine kindly on a foe who spares not fane nor ancient rune,
And Death flies over in the night, directed by the traitorous moon.
Stern sentries ribbed and girt with rock; though old as Time, still

standing fast,

Are these fresh scars in roof and field a proof you fail your trust
at last?

Moon mistress, here your lover-city lies,
Weary of war, and seeks an hour for dreams ;
Sleeping he smiles 'neath your caressing beams —
Is there another lovelier in your eyes ?
Oh calm Delilah in your white nun's garb,

What wanton's bribe has bought your soul away ?
You lead the mad assassin to his prey

And guide the flight of that death-dealing barb.
You could betray him — he who couched his lance

As champion of beauty all his days.
You seem alight with faith. Yet as I gaze

Your light reveals the gaping wounds of France.

Twin spires of Toul, fretted against the sky —
A spirit-city's upward pointing fingers —

You tell of faith unwavering, still held high
Despite that Judas one whose pale light lingers

Upon your pinnacles. Not even Time

Has touched your forms in aught save love and awe.

245

And from your courtyard throbs a steady rime —

From feet of those that come to learn your law.
I hear them singing there within your door, —

Men from the gun-pit, women from the plow.
I hear your bells ring clearly as of yore

With tongues that never sang so sweet as now.
Fled is the foeman, faded every danger,

Gone is the blighting threat of foul misrule.
" We are Truth ", the hills shout;
" We are Faith ", the bells sing,

Clanging their song above the clustered roofs of Toul.

BURGES JOHNSON.

LOWELL AS CRITIC

BY JOHN M. ROBERTSON, M.P.

DR. JOSEPH J. REILLY'S verdict, in his James Russell
Lowell as a Critic, that Lowell is " not a critic," raises the
question, Who is? For surely our final estimate of Lowell
turns on that. Dr. Reilly's verdict implies that there are
critics who set the standard, who succeed where Lowell fails,
who accomplished what he missed. He fell short in philo
sophic depth, in consistency, in breadth of sympathy, in the
power even to unify his separate literary estimates by co
herent principles of judgment. I admit, in general, Dr.
Reilly's indictment, and would at points even carry it fur
ther.

Lowell's philosophy, on the side of psychology (or, as the
experts might put it, on the side of epistemology) is a quite
empirical assimilation of the transcendentalism in which he
was, so to speak, brought up ; and which he later had the air
of dismissing, when it had become popular. It is just a form
of Emerson's dogma of the secret augury, the supremacy of
intuition — a mode of thinking which stultifies itself at the
first step by ignoring all the contrary intuitions which its very
statement implies. Again and again does Lowell dispose of
a critical problem by asserting that intuition (" the illumi
nating property of intuition ") is above reason, thus always
evoking from any one who has taken three steps in the argu
ment the question, Is it reason or intuition that is speaking?
If the latter, there is, in the terms of the proposition, no
appeal to reason, to reflection, to judgment. There is for
mally such an appeal, but with the logical implication, " You
must assent without reflection." What then is such an as
sent? If on the other hand the appeal is really to reason, what
becomes of the alleged "supremacy" of intuition? It is
reason that is to give the decision.

LOWELL AS CRITIC 247

The solution is simple enough. The dispute, like so
many more, is set up by mere slovenly handling of words.-
To Emerson's maxim, " Revere your intuitions " the answer
is the modification: " Revere the intuitions which you have
tested, which satisfy your deliberate reason: otherwise you
are merely deifying caprice, or emotion, or self-will." And
to Lowell the answer is, that inasmuch as in these deliver
ances he is merely putting the poetry of feeling above the
poetry of ratiocination, he is not touching the philosophic
issue at all. Not only is the formula false, but its obtrusion
is a confusing irrelevance.

Lowell's inadequacy on this side is further made fatally
clear by Dr. Reilly's analysis of his hopeless self-contradic
tion on the theme of " character " as not only the basis but
the mark of literary greatness. One wonders how a man
of letters could so pronounce. He must have met a hundred
men of admirable character who had no literary gift; in his
reading he must have found twenty famous and gifted
writers whose characters left much to be desired. To put
the condition of character as primary is to raise the ques
tion, What of Catullus? What of Aristophanes? What
of Villon? What, on different planes, of Rousseau, of Cole
ridge, of Burns, of Byron, of Heine, of Poe? Are we, in
the name of morals, to deny ourselves the comfort of know
ing that flawed and ill-balanced men have produced beautiful
things? As well affirm that all the good ones have done so.
Lowell's dogma collapsed in his own hands when he came
to apply it to Rousseau, and he affected to salve it by the
pseudo-corollary that the genius is greater than the man —
its explicit negation. Yet he never realized his collapse;
and the two terms of a contradiction stand as the pillars of
his aesthetic creed.

A mind which thinks thus incoherently will do its work
of simple generalization badly; and Lowell often commits
the primary intellectual sin of making a generalization on
the strength of an instance. At one point, for him, Milton's
" place is fixed as the most classic of our poets " ; at another,
Goldsmith's Village and Traveller are " perhaps the most
truly classical poems in the language " — which sets us asking
where we are to place Gray. It is singular that a mind so
little given to the exactness of definition which is required
for classification should be constantly given to classifying.
One of the results is a perpetually shifting heirarchy of

248 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

English poets. Of Dryden we are told that " In the second
class of English poets perhaps no one stands, on the whole,
so high as he," but what the second class is we can never
make out. Chaucer, Spenser, Milton, Wordsworth, singly
considered, are all hailed as " great " poets ; but of the ff very
greatest " it is asked, " is there, after all, more than one of
them? "; and when we come expressly to Shakespeare, " it
may be doubted whether any language be rich enough to
maintain more than one truly great poet." Here the cir
cumscribing condition is the language, apparently; in the
essay on Spenser it had been national deficiency of " secreted
choice material " that left the void between him and Chaucer.
Yet the abundant material of the nineteenth century yields
almost nothing great after Wordsworth, to Lowell's vision.

The laxity of generalization correlates with the lapses
from catholicity. Many readers must have wondered how
Lowell, so ineffectual as a serious poet (though a humorous
one of great power and merit) could write as he did of " the
dainty trick of Tennyson," and dwell on the failure of Ar
nold. Could it be that he put his own work higher? Surely
not: the blindness was part of his general failure to " open
new windows " to new stars, the conservatism which left him
quite unappreciative of the bulk of the great modern prod
uct of prose fiction, whether English or Continental, after
Thackeray and Balzac and Hawthorne. It is part of the
penalty of unchastened impressionism that it thus ceases to
be impressionable, for lack of mental gymnastic. It is in
deed not safely to be inferred that because Lowell wrote
no essay on fiction after Fielding he could not have done
so with power and zest; twice he speaks of Hawthorne in
terms of the highest admiration ; and had he written at length
on Thackeray he would probably have elaborated finely his
just praise of that master. But for the great French and
Russian masters he had apparently no recognition; and Ibsen
did not interest him.

With great justice does Dr. Reilly condemn Lowell's dis
missal of Greene as a wholly worthless dramatist — an in
equity to be explained only by Lowell's resentment of
Greene's deathbed insolence to Shakespeare. A true critic
must not do these things: here we have Lowell's own backing:

I have often thought [he writes in the Shakespeare essay] that
unless we can so far free ourselves from our own prepossessions as
to be capable of bringing to a work of art some freshness of sensation,

LOWELL AS CRITIC 249

and receiving from it in turn some new surprise of sympathy and
admiration — some shock even, it may be, of instinctive distaste and
repulsion — though we may praise or blame, weighing our pros and
cons in the nicest balances, sealed by proper authority, yet we do not
criticise in the highest sense.

And again we have his weighty and memorable avowal in
the " Apology for a Preface " to the English Camelot collec
tion of his essays (disentitled The English Poets) :

As my own excursions widened, as I opened new vistas through
the crowding growth of my own prejudices and predilections, I was
fain to encourage in others that intellectual hospitality which in myself
I had found strengthening from an impulse till it became a convic
tion that the wiser mind should have as many entrances for unbidden
guests as was fabled of the Arabian Prince's tent.

Shall we take this as a confession, and assume that Lowell
would have pleaded guilty to many charges of heedlessness
and unjudicial intolerance? The next sentence, it is true, is
complacent, and shows no sense of sin; and after avowing
lack of fitness for the place of a professor he confesses merely
to being " quite too impatient of detail in communicating
what I have acquired." But there is a clear sign of grace in
the letter in which he expresses the hope that some grand
child of his may attain to the method which he never devel
oped; and we may infer much from the contradictory judg
ments scattered through his essays. In one place Shelley is
carelessly and indiscriminately disparaged ; in several others
he is highly praised; though the critic yet again names
Wordsworth, Keats, and Byron as regenerating English
poetry, without saying a word of Shelley or of Coleridge.
In the essay on Pope we have this crude and repellent esti
mate of so powerful and important a book as The Leviathan:

Hobbe's unwieldly Leviathan, left stranded there on the shore of
the last age 'and nauseous with the stench of its selfishness — from this
Pope distilled a fragrant oil with which to fill the brilliant lamps of
his philosophy, —

which Pope certainly did not do, by Lowell's own showing.
One wonders that the Muse of English prose should not
have defended one of her sons from such an assault by such
a hand. But in the essay on Milton we read that

Hooker before him and Hobbes after him had a far firmer grasp of
fundamental principles than he;

250 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

which is something of an amends. But why those veerings
of judgment? Was it a matter of moods, or of writing at
one time with knowledge after writing without? I suspect
it was the latter, as I suspect him rather of not having read
Spenser or even Chaucer through and through than of wil
fully shutting his eyes when he ascribed to the former a
Quixotic purity and to the latter only an unqualified " health
iness," while he asperses Dunbar for coarseness. He seems
to have put together his essays from material written at
different times. Plainly, as Dr. Reilly shows, he forgot some
things about Dryden which in another page of the same
essay he indicates; and his two flatly contradictory pro
nouncements about Pope's malice raise the questions whether
his mood actually swayed his memory, or whether he never
bethought him of revising his essays. In the essay on
Chaucer, which is early, he writes of

the difference between Aeschylus and Euripides, between Shakespeare
and Fletcher, between Goethe and Heine, between literature and
rhetoric.

That almost escapes the minimum limit so quaintly claimed
for Carlyle's criticism by Lord Morley, that it is " never in
decently absurd." In the latter essay on the said Carlyle,
Lowell recognises that Heine could " combine the most airy
humor with a sense of form as delicate as Goethe's own";
and, having now read Heine, would doubtless have retracted
what he wrote in critical ignorance. But in the essay on
Pope, again, he rhapsodizes over the erst despised Fletcher:
' What instinctive felicity of versification I What sobbing
breaks and passionate repetitions are here ! " And this time
we still dissent, for in the cited speech of thirteen lines there
are six of Fletcher's double-endings, two of them being
" about me " — a repetition neither felicitous nor passionate.
Thus did the balance vary with mood and season; and we
can but trust that in some mood he saw the iniquity of sum
ming up all Euripides as rhetoric.

But generalizations in Lowell's hands are too often in
struments framed for a momentary purpose, and forgotten
as soon as used. In the essay on Dante, his most careful
performance on the side of learning, and therefore probably
composed over a long period, the question of Milton's and
Dante's different management of the gigantic in imagery is
thus decisively disposed of:

LOWELL AS CRITIC 251

We read the Paradise Lost as a poem, the Commedia as a record
of fact. It is false aesthetics to confound the grandiose with the
imaginative.

A few pages further on we read :

To consider his [Dante's] hell a place of physical torture is to
take Circe's herd for real swine. . . . His hell is a condition of the
soul.

Two diametrically opposite generalizations, two flatly con
tradictory rescriptions, are applied to the same data for dif
ferent dialectic purposes, and both are left standing, the im
mediate purpose being served. It would be difficult to be
more lawless in a fair cause. We are compelled to conclude
that it was either a radical defect in logical faculty, a con
genital lack of conceptual coherence, or an overplus of per
ceptual impressionism, or both, that so often yields in Lowell
these wills-o'-the-wisp of generalization. He is always sadly
at the mercy of a false thought. In the essay on Pope (in
which he notes of that poet how " an epigrammatic expres
sion will tempt him into saying something without basis in
truth ") he writes:

Pope had one of the prime qualities of a great poet in exactly
answering the intellectual needs of the age in which he lived —

a monstrosity of mistake. Obviously that cannot be the
prime quality of a great poet which is possessed by a multi
tude of merely popular poets, and is avowedly lacked by
some great ones. His own notation of the fact that Milton
died without foretaste of fame from his chief work might
alone have withheld the critic from marking contemporary
vogue a prime quality of a great poet — in one to whom he
expressly and rightly denied poetic greatness.

That his mental machinery was unstable is further sug
gested by his contradictions in terms and his contradictions in
taste. He is indeed to be credited with a generally fine pal
ate; but he startles us by pronouncing that to make
" Heaven " a person is in Pope an inelegancy, after — or be
fore — defending that very usage against Dryden as good old
English, used by Dryden himself; * and again when, con-

1 Lowell at this point cites Jonson for the usage : he does not mention that it
occurs twice in one scene of Richard II.

252 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

demning Pope's " ethereal plain," he cites as a delightful
sample of " lack of simplicity " Quarles's

In Abram's bosom, on the sacred down of soft eternity,

He himself declares that " To look at all sides, and to dis
trust the verdict of a single mood, is doubtless the duty of a
critic." To that precept he did not conform. It was itself,
for him, the verdict of a too rare mood — the right mood ; and
the other moods often prevailed.

In fine, we are moved to agree with Mr. Greenslet1 that
Lowell had a " complex and wilful intellect," and again that
in the case of a man so many-sided in his studies " some of
his dislikes and indifferences are specially surprising." So
that when Mr. Greenslet goes on to avow his conviction that

nowhere in American literature is there so remarkable an instance of
how the very great gifts of talent, nay, genius itself, may fail of their
full fruition through the slightest inattention to the counsels of per
fection

it is with a mixture of relief and surprise that an old admirer
of Lowell comes to the next sentence : " Of Lowell's extraor
dinary critical virtues there is less need to speak at length."
It seems to me that there is pressing need, especially after Dr.
Reilly has followed up Mr. Greenslet with such systematic
and telling consorship. But it is clear that the tribute must
be circumspectly paid; and above all, our estimate must be
comparative. It must have regard to the other critical work
of the age, putting again the question, Who is " the " or " a "
critic if Lowell is not one?

One of Dr. Reilly's searching criticisms of Lowell as critic
is to the effect that he generally failed to reduce or refer a
critical estimate to " some radical principle either in the mind
or in the art of the author." The criticism is weighty in so
far as it is true ; and the implied test is of great critical impor
tance. But are we entitled to say quite confidently that there
always is " some radical principle " that will unify a critical
case? And does Lowell always fail to establish any?

If there be a radical and unifying principle in Dr. Reilly's
own able criticism of Lowell, it is that Lowell lacked philo
sophic depth, power of " penetration," of scientific analysis.
But that is only a negative principle, a statement of defect;
and even at that it is supplemented by others, one being that
Lowell suffered from not living (in Arnold's early phrase)

^Biography of James Russell Lowell, by Ferris Greenslet.

LOWELL AS CRITIC 253

" at the centre," a judgment in which Dr. Reilly coincides
with Mr. Greenslet. Both critics are here very kind to us of
London; but I hesitate to acquiesce, even for London, in so
large a compliment. Arnold, living more or less " at the
centre," was so dissatisfied with English criticism and culture
in general that he called for an Academy to rectify the critical
disorder which he detected alike in metropolis and province.
Macaulay lived at the centre, and Arnold held him " intol
erable " for his Philistinism. Carlyle came to the centre,
but did not visibly purify his fires, or refine his criticism, in
middle and later life. And is it really probable that Lowell,
with his lack of philosophic thoroughness, would have become
quite a tower of strength if he had lived in London as many
years as he did seasons?

Dr. Reilly, indeed, does not suggest this; he is pointing
to flaws of manner and taste and moral tone. But flaws of
manner as serious as any of Lowell's are charged against the
centripetal Macaulay and Swinburne, to name no others. Dr.
Reilly thinks London life temporarily cured Lowell of his
propensity to the superlative; but it assuredly never cured
Swinburne. And some of us will undertake to make out
against Arnold the critic — certainly with many differences—
about as long an indictment as Dr. Reilly draws up against
Lowell.

Lowell's criticism of Hamlet, and his merely panegyric
handling of Shakespeare's work as a whole, are two of the
counts against him as a critic; but here, at least, he is pretty
much on a par with Coleridge. The latter, indeed, though
he found a false solution of the enigma of the play in an
untenable thesis of Hamlet's character, adopted by Lowell,
did lay his finger confidently on some of the non- Shakespear
ean matter in the Shakespeare plays, whereas Lowell never
did and never sought to, a singular abstention on the part of
such a believer in intuition, who maintained that Shakes
peare's style defied imitation — only, indeed, to contradict
himself on the point later, as Dr. Reilly notes. But both
Coleridge and Lowell wholly failed to relate their criticism of
Hamlet to the fact that the play is a recast of an old one,
although Lowell refers to the old story on which the whole
is founded. Only by a structural comparison of play and
story, and a deduction of Kyd's part in shaping the play-
plot, can a true critical comprehension of the work be reached ;
and such an analysis, I am prepared to maintain, will vindi-

254 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

cate Voltaire's objection, which strikes against Kyd's pri
mary dislocation of the sham-madness motive by the intro
duction of the Ghost. But in failing to make that analysis
Lowell is at one with all the Shakespearean critics of his and
our day.

That he is to be lowered in critical status by comparing
him, as Dr. Reilly does, with Hazlitt and De Quincey, I
confess I cannot see. Hazlitt, surely, is an impressionist, if
ever there was one, and albeit generally trustworthy, is no
deep searcher of critical problems. Lamb, indeed, in his two
great critical essays, markedly excels Lowell in a kind of
critical thinking at which Lowell aimed, as he excelled every
other Shakespearean — perhaps not without stimulus from
Coleridge's talk. But De Quincey does not become a great
critic by his essay On the knocking at the Gate in Mac
beth — to which, by the way, Lowell offers no bad parallel
in his defence of the gravediggers' scene in Hamlet, the ironic
interlude before the catastrophe; and De Quincey's dicho
tomy of the literature of knowledge and the literature of
power, though strikingly put, is only another way of distin
guishing between the scientific or ratiocinative and the oracu
lar modes of teaching. There is more depth, surely, in the
Coleridge- Wordsworth dictum that the true antithesis is not
between poetry and prose but between poetry and science —
or in Wordsworth's further-leading though only partially
right thesis that poetry is " the impassioned expression that
is in the countenance of all science." And all this leaves
Lowell uneclipsed.

Will even the great performance of Sainte-Beuve serve to
put Lowell out of court as a critic? Sainte-Beuve was assur
edly a much more diligent and productive student of men and
life than Lowell, saner as a humanist, more catholic as a con
noisseur of personality, more capable of seeing individuals as
wholes; even as, doubtless, Arnold in several ways excelled
him as a surveyor of life and its problems. But always we
come back to the inevitable per contra. Sainte-Beuve is un
answerably accused, by Frenchmen who highly appreciate his
great mass of work, of giving way, even ignobly, to personal
rancours ; even of downright cancdlleries, as when, after flat
tering excessively the living, he aspersed the dead Chateau
briand on points of character as to which Chateaubriand's
record was more easily defensible than his own. But, yet
again, Sainte-Beuve's work, which runs so much to the pre-

LOWELL AS CRITIC 255

sentment of character in its environment, is so largely differ
ent in aim from Lowell's, so essentially biographic, that its
great merits really cannot serve as a foil or touchstone by
which to bar Lowell from critical status. Sainte-Beuve never
attempted such things as Lowell's appreciations of Dante,
Spenser, Dryden, Wordsworth, and Lessing; and I incline
to think that had Lowell devoted an essay to Virgil he would
have given us a more luminous and stimulating, though
doubtless a far less orderly account of the^Eneid than Sainte-
Beuve's course of lectures, which begins by declining to pass
an opinion as to the genuineness or spuriousness of the four
rejected introductory lines. Sainte-Beuve, in turn, with all
his lucidity, was no rigorous thinker on deep problems.
" Like Solomon and like Epicurus," the wrote of himself,
" I have penetrated into philosophy by pleasure. That avails
better (vaut mieuoc) than to arrive there painfully by logic,
like Hegel and like Spinoza." l But he thought more search-
ingly than did Lowell on his own procedure ; and he has given
us another Pensee which may serve to guide us finally to the
right point of view for our estimate of Lowell:

Concerning criticism I think two things, which seem contradic
tory but are not so:

1. The critic is a man who kno^vs how to read, and who teaches
others to read.

2. Criticism, as I understand it and as I seek to practise it, is an
invention, a perpetual creation. (Id. xiii)

This is the philosophic and psychological truth that gen
eralizes the product alike of scientist and poet, of impression
ist and analytic reasoner. Each conceives, constructs, and
expresses his own world in his own way. Sainte-Beuve " cre
ates " his great gallery of personages out of his closely
studied material, " inventing," as he says, the figure he pro
duces for us. Lowell " creates " with a difference, getting his
impressions less judicially, more spontaneously, trusting his
" intuitions " until further knowledge moves him tacitly to
discard them, and then giving us the second thoughts as he
gave us the first. But the fact remains that each in his own
way is an artist in judgment, a constructor of ideal figures
out of impressions, as was Carlyle the historian, and no less
Macaulay or Michelet ; as was Taine the historian-critic, and
as was Hennequin the scientific critic.

1 Pensees, vii, at end of Dernier -s Portraits Litteraires, ed. 1855.

256 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Trying to see Lowell as a whole, as an organism, as
Sainte-Beuve might conceivably have seen him, we find a
man primarily endowed with a great gift of copious literary
expatiation, highly " impressionistic," and only under pres
sure of challenge analytic. Clearly typical, as Mr. Greenslet
notes, are such essays as My Garden Acquaintance, and the
Fireside Travels, where expatiation is seen at natural play
without the stimulus of books. Psychically, he is not well
balanced; and the heredity is even menacing. The father
seems to have been amiably Quixotic, the mother, credited
with "second sight," becomes insane; the sister shows a
similar tendency. The young Lowell is hyper-sensitive, en
thusiastic, unstable, changing his youthful opinions almost
as readily as did Coleridge, and become much of a zealot for
new convictions.

Impressionist on all sides to begin with, he becomes fixed
through his emotions and affections: there is no scientific
bias to carry him further. In philosophy, he runs through the
environing Transcendentalism without reaching any philo
sophic conclusions beyond an Emersonian form of Theism.
His psychic anchorage proves rather to be literature, in the
habitual study of which he seems to find a medicinal and
formative ministry.

An uneducated Lowell, a peasant, would have been an
exceptional talker on the things around him; but might have
tended to social failure on the side of his sensitiveness and
spells of melancholy. Literature in the end braced and bal
anced him. Alternating between boisterously high animal
spirits (of which the artist Charles Akers gave a notable ac
count in the New England Magazine of December, 1897)
and melancholy, he found in his faculty for hard reading,
though mainly in belles lettres, his best security against him
self. Few men reputed healthy have shown a greater physi
cal fluctuation in mood than he records of himself; and a
stay was needed. Lacking any turn for hard systematic
thinking, for science of any kind, natural or human, he found
what mental discipline he had by way of attention to imag
inative literature, mainly that of the European post-classic
past.

Such a study gave him no training in logic, in evidence,
in inductive analysis. True, he worked hard at Italian and
Old French; but in English, where he was most at home, he
is hardly a trustworthy expert. Discussing the scansions of

LOWELL AS CRITIC 257

Chaucer, he confidently reads " the more he " and " the more
he " in two successive lines of the Legend of Lucretia:

And ay the more he was in despair,
The more he coveted and thought her fair —

where Skeat supplies in the first line the missing " that,"
from three MSS., and the Globe editors give it without caring
to mention the false reading. Mr. Greenslet has noted,
again, his double false scent from the phrase " lapped in
lead/' which was a standing Tudor tag; and his notion that
Shakespeare's use of a sequence of words beginning in " un "
came of a knowledge of Greek shows a strange inattention to
Spenser. But it is not for authoritative scholarly guidance
that we now read Lowell's essay on Chaucer or on Spenser,
any more than for the facile historical and ethnological gen
eralizations sprinkled through them. Their charm and their
merit lie in the stirring zest; the virtuoso's enthusiasm for
his beloved themes; the masterly writing, a rare literary ser
vice in itself; the untiring play of wit and judgment and feel
ing, captivating as the springing eloquence of a great orator.
" Will it do to say anything more about Chaucer? " he
begins ; and straightway he proceeds to talk of the Old Mas
ter more vividly and arousingly than any one had done
before. To many of us, in youth, it was a call to the quest of
El Dorado.

Impressionist and " expressionist," his function was to
expatiate, not to compare notes, or to reason reciprocally.

And the same qualification holds of his intercourse with
contemporary literature. Once his tastes were formed, he
learned little from the ever-enlarging mass of good nine
teenth century criticism. The one great new-guiding and
remoulding factor in his outlook on life was his relation to
slavery and the Civil War, a result of the marked influence
of his first wife. That newly-determinant factor once spent, he
recognised himself as temperamentally a conservative. Such
he would doubtless have been all along had he been born in
England; such in fact he was in tendency while there; and
such he was on the side of his very passion for literature.
" What was there to hinder? ", as the farmer said of Niag
ara. He was a man of aesthetic and moral feeling; only
under pressure of contradiction, an analyst in aesthetics or
morals; positively averse to science, which, he humorously
confessed, he feared as does a savage. What philosophy he
VOL. ccix.— NO. 759 17

258 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

had, moral, political, or cosmologieal, was thus a direct reflex
or distillation of feeling, passing through no scientific me
dium. Transcendentalism, grown common, became for him
a form of verbiage; and orthodoxy equally repelled him, but
neither in philosophy nor in politics did he rebuild his inner
world.

As against the view that he would have gained much by
living all along " at the centre," I venture to put this other,
that he was partly saved from the full sway of his tempera
mental conservatism by being born and brought up an Amer
ican, to that extent detached from English tradition, even to
the point of flaunting the detachment, and encouraged to
work out for himself his special impressions and tastes.
Scotchmen perhaps have a similar advantage — as in the case
of Carlyle. John Mill had it, if not directly from his Scotch
father, then from his isolated education; Arnold had it in
youth through his French culture. As an Englishman,
Lowell, I fear, would have been more commonplace.

Finding truth always and mainly on the line of his af
fections, his impressions, he had, however, always the benefit
of their special vividness. First and foremost, he strongly
liked or disliked in literature; and his own free taste early
declared itself, as against the reigning Popean tradition, for
the free and living way of poetry and prose — for Spenser,
for Sir Thomas Browne and Jeremy Taylor, for Shakes
peare, for Chaucer, and against Pope and Dryden and their
successors. But on the one hand his conservatism, soon in
vincible as against most new work, made him ultimately
concerned to find what there was to be said for any " classic " ;
while on the other hand — and this is one of the main counts
in his favor as a critic — he really developed, as he himself
said (albeit only within the limits of that conservatism) a
power of reconsidering his impressions. In the case of Pope,
the effort is so great (Dr. Reilly recognises it) as surely
to entitle him there to credit for a really judicial performance
— barring the incidental lapses and laxities.

But his chief successes of this kind, naturally, arise where
he could at vital points strongly sympathise, as so true a
Spenserian and Shakespearean (let us say, so good a judge
of the older poetry) never could sympathise with Pope. To
admire and praise Dryden was much easier; and Garnett
reckoned the Dryden essay Lowell's masterpiece. Full of
verve and observation it certainly is. But the really happy

LOWELL AS CRITIC 259

test was put when, in his maturity, he came to pass serious
criticism on Wordsworth. To that two-natured poet his
early attitude seems to have been predominantly one of
derision, of revolt from the lakes of aqueous thought and
dilute diction in which float the " glorious islets " of chronic
inspiration.

So late as the essay on Carlyle, Wordsworth was
for Lowell "wholly devoid of that shaping imagination
which is the highest criterion of a poet " — truly an astonish
ing judgment. But while we must say with Mr. Green-
slet that the well-read critic's dislikes and indifferences are
surprising, we can proceed to find them all intelligible.
Wordsworth's didacticism and prevailing prosaism must
have been to the young Lowell intolerable. His likes and
dislikes are spontaneously in keeping with his primary or
acquired bias. His early admiration for Carlyle is checked
and chastened by the sage's notorious contempt for Aboli
tionism. His great cult of old and Elizabethan English,
ungoverned by any intellectual receptivity which should put
him in sympathy with new thought and intellectually revolu
tionary tempers, deepened his recoil from the neo-Hellenism
and pseudo-archaism of Swinburne into a general distaste for
modern poetry and modern novels later than Hawthorne
and Thackeray. Browning, in whom he had seen " the rich
est nature of the time," at length drove him off by his grow
ing grittiness — unless Browning's resentment at the strange
fling at Mrs. Browning's Aurora Leigh had something to
do with Lowell's later " indifference." It needed a mod-
ernly thinking and experimenting mind to take in the new
Russian, French, and Scandinavian humanists. Lessing
could readily win him by loyalty to Shakespeare. Even
Rousseau was a classic, concerned in bringing about the
American Revolution. On reflection, it would have been
really surprising if an elderly Conservative, steeped in Dante
and intensely alive alike to the verse of Spenser and Shakes
peare and Milton, should have taken to Ibsen.

To Wordsworth he at length turned, as every one must
who can forget and forgive the presence of the prose partner
in the Wordsworth combination. In the Shakespeare essay :

Wordsworth had in some respects a deeper insight, and a more
adequate utterance of it, than any man of his generation. But it was
a piecemeal insight and utterance : his imagination was feminine, not
masculine, receptive, and not creative. His longer poems are Egyptian

260 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

sand-wastes, with here and there an oasis of exquisite greenery. . . .
Ere this century is out, he will be nine parts dead, and immortal only
in that tenth part of him which is included in a thin volume of
" beauties."

In the Keats essay, we pass from the verbalism about
masculine and feminine genius to the pregnant thought:
" As if Wordsworth the poet were a half mad land-surveyor,
accompanied by Mr. Wordsworth the distributor of stamps
as a kind of keeper." That is the conception developed in
the Wordsworth essay, up to the point of bringing us in
sight of the physiological problem of a brain only chronically
operative in its special capacity, and, for the rest, pedestrian,
prosaic, uninspired. And it is the vivid and various expatia-
tion around that view of the case that moves one to pronounce
the Wordsworth essay Lowell's masterpiece, though we still
get amateur allocutions on imagination, Wordsworth being
now definitely credited with it, as against Wellington, in
whose case " entire absence of imagination . . . perhaps
helped as much as anything to make him a great general."

The Wordsworth essay has all the verve of that on Dry-
den, without the idolatry which makes the Shakespeare essay
" dim with excess of bright," miscarrying by overplus of
eloquence and concentration on panegyric, and that on Dante
weigh heavy by excess of circumstance.

It is on the whole the most nearly orderly of his essays
on the English poets. Rightly does Dr. Reilly pronounce
Lowell's arrangement of his essays in general bad. They
tend indeed to be quite formless — another of the penalties
of impressionism ungoverned by method. Any poet, broadly
speaking, is discussed in an essay on any other: free expatia-
tion, the master faculty, is the sole directing power. And
this is no small blemish. But again we must note that there
is no such common attainment of good order in literary
criticism as can put Lowell out of court on that score. Cole
ridge, Carlyle, Arnold, do not attain it. Dr. Reilly, indeed,
will perhaps grant that it is hard of attainment, and that
the problem rather baffled him in his own book, where the
division into " The Man and the Writer," " Range of Knowl
edge," " Sympathy, its Ereadth and Limitations," " Judicial
Attitude," " Penetration," " Lowell's Type of Mind," " The
Critic and his Criticism," are prima facie interferent, and
result not only in large schematic overlappings but in many
duplications of points, problems, judgments.

LOWELL AS CRITIC 261

And so, having ourselves in turn made returns upon our
tracks, we are fain to sum up that Lowell is indeed to be
pronounced an unwary critic, abounding unduly in self-con
tradictions and oblivious judgments, much given to very em
pirical psychology and philosophy, excessively ruled by
moods, and finally unresponsive to new impressions through
excess of prior impressionism ; but still not to be denied, on
these grounds, the status of an eminent critic. Despite his
deficiencies, the range of his appreciations, their vividness,
their general aesthetic Tightness, their constant preoccupation
with the problems of comparative literary merit, all forbid
the exclusion. If he be expelled, and the same tests be
applied all round, it will be hard to save a representative of
the genus.

A great deal of truth — perhaps, indeed, the main part
of it — is put in Dr. Reilly's verdict that " if Lowell is to
survive, it must be frankly as an impressionist " ; though I
should prefer to put " an unscientific impressionist " even at
that point. Lowell is indeed not the critics' critic — whoever
else may be: he is too erratic to be put in command, so to
speak. But neither is he negligible by the critics. It is not
merely that his untiring literary energy and his rarely failing
felicity of phrase are a needed reminder that all literary work
should preserve the literary spirit; but that his criticism,
where he has really steeped himself in his theme, is the re
sponse of a very fine receptive faculty to a great many forms
of literary appeal. Rightness in these matters, once more, is
a question of degree; and impressions, when all is said, are
the stuff of criticism, whether it be of men or of books. Few
critics put so much material, so to say, in their readers' way ;
and surely no English critic has explored quite so much
ground with such vivacity and variety of craftsmanlike ob
servation as are shown by Lowell. So wide is the range,
indeed, that the charge of defect of sympathy with modern
work suggests the question whether any brain, doing Lowell's
official work, could have carried a larger literary cargo.

I would say, then, that Lowell is a critic, and a memor
able critic, as critics go. His criticism has to be rectified,
even as science is constantly being rectified ; and his antipathy
to science is likely to rouse a reciprocal antipathy in the scien
tific student. But the latter will surely admit that he in turn
has no business with antipathies, and is in a manner bound
to acknowledge Lowell as one of the path-breakers for a

262 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

more scientific criticism than his own. But there is no generic
gap between his product and that of his successors. They
too will come in for criticism and for rectification.

Let them see to it that they not merely transcend him in
circumspection and method, but retain his living hold of in
terest. Lowell will continue to be read by multitudes of
book-loving people whom he " teaches to read," as Sainte-
Beuve would say, and who do not know all the risks they run
of being incidentally misled. Warned or unwarned, they
find Lowell as critic excellent reading, whatever they may
think of the paradoxical problem of Lowell as poet. And
there seems to be much vitality in the Biglow Papers. Even
for such readers, the facile theism which crackles in phrases
like " Nothing pays but God," and " reading God in a prose
translation," may ere long grow stale. But it is not quite
inconceivable that, even as we still go back past the " science "
of Kames and Hume to Dryden's impressionism, our chil
dren may go back past our science to Lowell.

JOHN M. ROBERTSON.

EDWARD THOMAS

BY LOUIS UNTERMEYER

Two years ago, Edward Thomas was unknown outside
of England, and known there only by a small group who
understood his sharp and unflinching honesty. Upon his
death, his work suddenly took on a heroic significance. Those
who for years had neglected everything he wrote but his
pungent criticism, began to appraise and praise Thomas as
a national poet. No one would have scorned most of the
exaggerations more than Thomas himself; he would doubt
less have resented even so mild and misleading a characteri
zation by Edward Garnett, who spoke of his " Celtic vision "
as " an abiding example of the richness of our poet's inher
itance."

How specious such a summary is, may be seen after the
perusal of even a few pages of the edition of his recently pub
lished Poems. For Thomas' verse (as well as his " Celtic
vision ") owes less to his inheritance than it does to that of
another poet — and, by a rather ironic twist, to an American
poet. The genius, the influence, the inflection, even the
idiom, of Robert Frost can be found in almost all of these
English pages. The book itself, with its logical dedication,
is a tribute to Frost the person as much as Frost the poet.
And this debt is acknowledged in a dozen places ; it is even
revealed in the fly-leaf with its brief legend, Other Books by
Edward Thomas. There is a list of over twenty careful vol
umes, including such titles as Beautiful Wales, The Wood
land Life, Oxford, Norse Tales, A. C. Swinburne, Marlbor-
ough, The Icknield Way — travel-books, holiday books, illus
trated gift-books, biographies, pot-boilers.

Hating his hack-work, yet unable to get free of it, putting
most of his creative energy into uncreative labor, he had so
repressed his ability that he had grown doubtful concerning
his own power; it needed something altogether foreign to

264 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

bring out what was native in him. So when Frost visited
England in 1912 and for the greater part of a year became
Thomas' intimate, Thomas, drinking the same poetic brew
as his transatlantic associate, became intoxicated with what
he had too long denied himself. Like Frost, he loved the
minutiae of existence, the quaint and casual turns of ordinary
life, the wealth of poetry in things too common to be com
monly regarded as " poetic/' But, unlike Frost, he was only
beginning to express these things. It was a late maturing
at an early middle age. What his verse lacked in vivacity
it more than made up in an intense and even solemn regard
for earth. The poems are full of a slow, sad contemplation
of beauty and a reflection of its ultimate futility. It is not
disillusion exactly; it is rather an absence of illusion. He
has caught not merely " the magic of the English country
side," but the great charm of scenes so potent in their actual
colors that they need no magic to give them glamor. In this
he is again like his American model, and it would be pleasant
to record that he has spoken for Old England what Frost has
said for New England. But the voice lacks a full-throated
utterance; it has the sound of something far off and yet
familiar, something that might be mistaken for an echo.
Turn, for instance, to the closely-observed Fifty Faggots:

There they stand, on their ends, the fifty faggots

That once were underwood of hazel and ash

In Jenny Pinks's Copse. Now, by the hedge

Close packed, they make a thicket fancy alone

Can creep through with the mouse and wren. Next Spring

A blackbird or a robin will nest there,

Accustomed to them, thinking they will remain

Whatever is for ever to a bird :

This Spring it is too late ; the swift has come.

'Twas a hot day for carrying them up :

Better they will never warm me, though they must

Light several Winters' fires. Before they are done

The war will have ended, many other things

Have ended, maybe, that I can no more

Foresee or more control than robin and wren.

It is not only in this sort of musing that one is reminded
of Frost; the turns of speech no less than the turns of thought
seem like fragments from Moiwtain Interval. Even the
accent is Frost's. It does not need the memory of the first
lyric in The Hill Wife to recall the idiom. Or examine that
exquisite and quiet painting, half -landscape, half -lyric, As

EDWARD THOMAS 265

the Team's Head-Brass, with its characteristically Frostian
dialogue:

" When will they take it away? " :;

" When the war's over." So the talk began—

One minute and an interval of ten,

A minute more and the same interval.

" Have you been out ? " " No." " And don't want to, perhaps ? "

" If I could only come back again, I should.

I could spare an arm. I shouldn't want to lose

A leg. If I should lose my head, why, so,

I should want nothing more. . . . Have many gone

From here?" "Yes." "Many lost?" "Yes: a good few.

Only two teams work on the farm this year.

One of my mates is dead. The second day

In France they killed him. It was back in March,

The very night of the blizzard, too. Now if

He had stayed here we should have moved the tree."

Elsewhere the influence is more fugitive and fragmentary.
In such fine poems as The Sign Post, Tears, Lob, The Glory,
Tall Nettles, The Long Small Boom, it is noticeable only in
occasional phrases and a certain roundabout soliloquizing in
an aftermath of emotions. But always the love of earth
shines quietly through his lines. It is an unwavering affec
tion, even though it is joy without buoyancy; a fantasy that
cannot keep from being wistful. Witness, for instance, Tall
Nettles:

Tall nettles cover up, as they have done

These many springs, the rusty harrow, the plough

Long worn out, and the roller made of stone :
Only the elm butt tops the nettles now.

This corner of the farmyard I like most :

As well as any bloom upon a flower.
I like the dust on the nettles, never lost

Except to prove the sweetness of a shower.

This natural and almost abject reverence for the soil is
his authentic gift. In Haymaking it reaches the perfection
of pictorial art; a picture of three squat oaks, a few farm
laborers, a white house at the foot of a great tree:

Under the heavens that know not what years be
The men, the beasts, the trees, the implements
Uttered even what they will in times far hence —
All of us gone out of the reach of change —
Immortal in a picture of an old grange.

266 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Thomas was killed at Arras two years ago, fighting not
merely for England, but for the English country-side which
he loved in that queer blend of brusqueness and passion. He
loved it with a fidelity that was exceeded only by its gravity
and truth; an affection that dwelt upon things as unglorified
as the unfreezing of " the rock-like mud," the opening of a
long swede pile, a child's path, a list of tiny villages, birds'
nests uncovered by the autumn wind, dusty nettles. It is not
strange that the martial notes in this volume are few ; no man
cared less to make capital of his patriotism, or even of his
emotions, than Thomas. For instance, the opening poem,
The Trumpet, has none of the bluster or braggadocio that
takes the place of patriotism in so much war-verse. It has,
instead of glib battle-cries and loud heroics, a calm accept
ance, an almost glad acknowledgment of the inevitability of
conflict. Thomas was not intrigued by the slogans and " new
causes " that came so easily to the lips of the verse-writers.
He sang half -mournfully, half-ecstatically :

Forget men, everything

On this earth newborn,

Except that it is lovelier

Than any mysteries.

Open your eyes to the air

That has washed the eyes of the stars

Through all the dewy night :

Up with the light,

To the old wars ;

Arise, arise !

" To the old wars " — that phrase explains Thomas' atti
tude not only as a soldier but as a poet. Even the last poem
in the volume is, for all its national pride, a celebration of
nothing more chauvinistic than English words.

These random quotations illustrate what is most typical
in Thomas' work. They do not, however, show the blend of
quiet fantasy and quieter fact that is his rarer but no less
authentic talent.

Never a great poet, he will undoubtedly go down as one
of England's lesser singers, but also as one of her greatest
though possibly quietest and most reticent lovers.

Louis UNTEBMEYEB.

THE BOOK OF THE MONTH

THE MIND OF MRS. HUMPHRY WARD l

BY LAWRENCE OILMAN

LAFCADIO HEARN, his wife tells us, disliked liars, abuse
of the weak, " Prince Albert coats," white shirts, the City
of New York, " and many other things." A sufficiently
comprehensive view of the objects of a man's hostilities will
infallibly paint for us that man's psychic portrait. Certain
ly a little of Hearn emerges out of even the brief list of his
irritants so tantalizingly disclosed by his widow. A literary
artist of quite another type whom we have just been reading
is more considerate of her own and of future generations:
Mrs. Humphry Ward, whose career is now spread before us
in two volumes, has not left this vital matter of antipathies to
the possibly inadequate records of a surviving consort, but
has most thoughtfully and satisfyingly disclosed them to us
herself. We shall not say that, in the survey of her literary
contemporaries which constitutes the bulk of her " Epi
logue," Mrs. Ward has painted a completely revealing por
trait of her mind and soul; but if one goes to her Recollec
tions for an insight into the intellectuals which produced
Robert Elsmere, one might skip the first 472 pages and still
find a perhaps sufficient revelation of the essential Mrs.
Ward in her last chapter.

Three main interests have held sway over Mrs. Ward's
thoughts during the half-century upon which she can look
back. The first of these, she says, is " contemporary litera
ture " (the other two, " outside of my home life," are religious
development and social experiment). Observing Mrs.
Ward's appraisal of those among her literary contempo
raries who, like herself, have used the medium of fiction, one
is impressed by the triumphant manner in which her Vic-

1A Writer's Recollections, by Mrs. Humphry Ward. New York: Harper
and Brothers.

268 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

torianism has resisted and survived. Mrs. Ward " wishes
Mr. Hardy had not written Jude the Obscure" (she does
not say why; but life speeds on, and we shall not waste time
in guessing) . Joseph Conrad, for Mrs. Ward, is " richly
representative of what goes to make the English mind " — a
mind " shaped . . . by all the customs and traditions, writ
ten and unwritten, which are the fruits of our special history
and our long-descended life. It is this which gives value
often to Mr. Conrad's slightest tales" (the italics are not
Mrs. Ward's). In this, it seems, he is " at one with Mr.
Kipling," though " the tone and accent are wholly different."
But let us draw a friendly veil over this vision of Mr. Con
rad as the embodiment of the English mind and English cus
toms, and pass on to the alluring spectacle of Mrs. Ward
giving Mr. H. G. Wells " what for " (as the lower classes
say in Mrs. Ward's native island).

It will be recalled that Mr. Wells, in his impious Boon,
presented excerpts from a series of tentative notes for a re
markable study to be devoted to " Poiometry," or the scien
tific measurement of literary greatness. It was there re
corded that Mrs. Humphry Ward is the last of the British
Victorian Great. And these further notes on Mrs. Ward,
intended for subsequent development, were appended :

Admiration of Mr. Gladstone for her work.

Support of the Spectator.

Profound respect of the American people.

Rumor that she is represented as a sea goddess at the base of the
Queen Victoria Memorial unfounded. Nobody is represented on the
Queen Victoria Memorial except Queen Victoria.

Necessity after the epoch of Mrs. Ward for more and more flagrant
advertisement to reach the enlarged public.

It would seem that Mrs. Ward has failed to regard in a
spirit of sweetness and light the handsome tribute implicit in
Mr. Wells' perhaps excessively vivacious references. It may
be true, after all, that Mr. Wells is no gentleman (he has
admitted it himself) . But Mrs. Ward is, of course, a lady.
Testimony to the effect that King Edward VII called her
" Mary " is inconclusive; but there is no doubt that she once
had a pleasant chat with the Empress Frederick at Windsor,
in the course of which Her Germanic Majesty described to
Mrs. Ward " how she read Sir George Tressady [a novel
of Mrs. Ward's] aloud to her invalid daughter till the
daughter begged her to stop, lest she should cry over it all

THE BOOK OF THE MONTH 269

night." Furthermore, " the Empress began by asking
after Uncle Matt, and nothing could have been kinder and
more sympathetic than her whole manner . . . ' But we
wander. We were about to reflect Mrs. Ward's view of
the exuberant Mr. Wells.

Mr. Wells, as seen through the critical lorgnon of Mrs.
Ward, is " a journalist of very great powers, of unequal
education, and much crudity of mind, who has inadvertently
strayed into the literature of imagination." The " heroes "
in Mr. Wells' novels — " whose names one can never recol
lect " — are merely Mr. Wells himself. " Who, after a few
years more, will ever want to turn the restless, ill- written, un
digested pages of The New Machiavelli again — or of half a
dozen other volumes, marked often by a curious monotony
both of plot and character, and a fatal fluency of clever
talk? " Mr. Wells has no " charm." Why? The answer
is obvious: because he writes " for a world of enemies or fools,
whom he wishes to instruct or show up . . ." And Swift, who,
like Wells, wrote " for a world of enemies or fools " — he,
too, had no charm. Perhaps, though, Swift had " magic,"
which is also denied to Wells by Mrs. Ward. But would
even Uncle Matt, the celebrated discoverer of literary
" magic," insist that it was necessary to the equipment of
a satirist?

But enough of Wells. What does Mrs. Ward think of
another eminent contemporary, Arnold Bennett? Well,
Bennett has " detachment " and " coolness," but, alas, he also
has " ugliness " — " the ugliness of Balzac;" and his " detail,"
though it may be " true," is not " exquisite." Turning to yet
another contemporary, Mr. Galsworthy, we find that he has
not, since The Country House, found " a subject that really
suits him " — and, as Mrs. Ward observes, " subject is every
thing."

It is one of Mrs. Ward's most arresting conclusions that
" with the young lies the future." Yet to the young among
her contemporaries she is even less kind than she is to com
parative oldsters like Wells and Bennett, for she does not
even mention them. Frank Swinnerton, W. L. George,
J. D. Beresford, Hugh Walpole, Gilbert Cannan, D. H.
Lawrence, Compton Mackenzie, Rebecca West — these will
never know what Mrs. Ward thinks of them, unless she in
vites them to tea with her and, daring the melancholy result
described by the Empress Frederick, reads aloud to them

270 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

from Sir George Tressady until their hearts are sufficiently
softened to hear her verdict without taking offense.

But Mrs. Ward's most memorable comment on her liter
ary contemporaries is inspired by the writings of George
Meredith, which, she implies, can be fully enjoyed only by
those who know little of French books and French ideals. It
appears that Uncle Matt is to blame in this matter, because
he so completely Gallicized Mrs. Ward's sense of literary
style that Meredith, " to this day," fails to satisfy her. But
one might have known that she who achieved the prose of
Marcetta and David Grieve would look askance at the in
eptitudes of Mr. Meredith.

As for " beloved Henry James," who wrote to Mrs.
Ward charming letters full of generous praise of his fel
low-artist's creations, he is presented to us in the sunny light
of Mrs. Ward's critical approbation — though she does con
fess that Mr. James, in his own fiction, thought too much
about technique. The Wings of a Dove,1 for example, " is
almost spoiled by an artificial technique." If Mrs. Ward
could only have collaborated with Henry James in the
fashioning of his later novels!

You have now, perhaps, by means of these assembled re
actions of Mrs. Ward to her contemporaneous literary envi
ronment, a rather vivid picture of Mrs. Ward's mind. We
shall not attempt to characterize that mind, for it reveals
itself with crystal clarity in all its manifestations. To call
it a bourbon mind would seem, to some, what a Meredithian
character called " a rough truth " — too rough, indeed, for
the scrupulous ; for it is the pathetic aspect of Mrs. Ward's
case that she has wanted to understand. She has leaned
forward eagerly out of her milieu upon more than one
provocation. One must not forget her obviously sincere en
thusiasm for the London Play Centers, her connection with
the founding of the Passmore Edwards Settlement, her inter
est in what she herself has called " the liberalizing of reli
gion." Whatever one may think of Robert Elsmere to-day,
it is needful to remember that the book could not have been
as easy to put forth thirty years ago as it would be to-day.
Moreover, Mrs. Ward's serene stupidity as an observer of
intellectual phenomena should not blind one to the fact that

< * The title of this faulty novel of Mr. James', according to its author, is " The
Wings of the Dove " ; but we have quoted literally the doubtless superior version
of Mrs. Ward.— L. G.

THE BOOK OF THE MONTH 271

one is witnessing a triumph of conventionality over intelli
gence. The lady really has a mind. The Romance scholar,
the indefatigable student of Christian origins, the examiner
for the Spanish Taylorian scholarship at Oxford, the faith
ful daily reader of Greek and Latin, causes you to turn won-
deringly to pages so and so of the Recollections for assurance
that " Uncle Matt's " niece did really \ think it worth while to
embalm in the cold permanence of print the ineffable plati
tudes, the obtuse aesthetic cliches, the dull traditionalisms,
that sprinkle these two solemnly playful volumes.

It is, one often thinks, a mind without sensibility. Could
a mind not thus deficient have exhibited so comfortably the
collection of testimonials to the worth of Robert Elsmere,
Marcella, Eleanor, and the rest, that Mrs. Ward flaunts
with the smug satisfaction of a patent-medicine manu
facturer? — what the late Richard Watson Gilder thought of
Eleanor, what Frederic Harrison wrote about the same chef
d'oeuvre ("I am quite sure that it is one of the most subtle
and graceful things in all our modern fiction "), what Lord
Bryce said about what Mr. Gladstone said about Robert
Elsmere — " a refined criticism," he called it. Concerning
Robert Elsmere, indeed, we hear so much — of its history, its
sales, its profoundly unsettling effect upon the spiritual
tranquility of cab-drivers, duchesses, and Pillars of the
Church — that one is tempted at times to dismiss the auto
biography as Robertelsmerely.

Yet the Recollections are rewarding — chiefly so by
reason of their sketches of the great ones of the Victorian
Age. Mrs. Ward has been fortunate in her acquaintance
ship, and you will find in her pages numerous mementoes
of Matthew Arnold and Pater, Jowett and Dean Stanley,
Mark Pattison, George Eliot, Swinburne (a particularly
happy glimpse), Newman, Canon Liddon, Lord Acton,
Browning, Gladstone, Huxley and his cat, Sir Alfred Lyall,
Lord Dufferin, Harriet and James Martineau, Tennyson,
Morley, and (most memorable of all) a portrait of Henry
James that one will long cherish for its true felicity and feel
ing. Here Mrs. Ward is at her most ingratiating — when she
forgets to exhibit Robert Elsmere and Eleanor and Helbeck
of Eannisdale as literary Perunas, and is willing to let her
epoch speak in the rich timbre of her meditations.

LAWRENCE GILMAN.

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED

FAIR PLAY FOR THE WORKERS. By Percy Stickney Grant. New
York : Moffat, Yard & Company.

Religion — or rather the faith that underlies all true religion —
should lead and control in all things. That this is believed, in the
broadest sense and in the last resort, by the vast majority of civilized
human beings, the war would seem to show.

There is, however, connected with this view of religion, a difficulty,
in the form of a subtle paradox, which has been responsible for more
misunderstanding than it would be easy to trace.

Briefly, the paradox is that you cannot successfully regard religion
as either the whole or a part. The attempt to do either breaks down
invariably in practice, and religion suffers by the failure.

If you regard religion as the whole, then you have theocracy in
government, and servitude of the sciences to theology — or, at lowest,
such an importation of theological methods and preconceptions into
the sciences as deprives scientific thought of its independence and its
worth.

But if you choose the other alternative — if you regard religion as
only a part of life — then promptly religion ceases to be spiritual. It
either becomes altogether a side-issue or loses itself in welfare work,
in clubs, in forums, in politics, in culture.

The true view, if one may venture to formulate it, would seem to
be that religious faith works through knowledge, just as the soul works
through reason. The two are almost inseparable, but they are distinct.
Without faith, no sanity, no good use of knowledge, perhaps ultimately
no knowledge at all. Without knowledge, no faith that is easily dis
tinguishable from placid ignorance — except, perhaps, in the moral
geniuses, the saints and the mystics. Normally, intuition works through
reason, guides it, informs it, but is felt as something higher than reason
— something almost identified with reason, which cannot safely be either
divorced from reason or substituted for it.

Thus much, in definition of his own attitude, the reviewer may per
haps be justified in writing, because there appears no other way of ex
pressing adequately his thorough approval of Dr. Grant's interpretation
of the ministerial function as indicated in this book.

Dr. Grant — rector for many years of the Church of the Ascension
in New York, and author of several books, among which is Christianity
and Socialism — perceives that religion must affect industrial life, and
affect it in more than a consolatory or compensatory way. He declares

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED 273

with as much truth as force that " the Great War nas exploded for our
generation the idea that religion can be something apart from the whole
organization of life." He intends, it would appear, to make his re
ligious convictions effectual through knowledge and through acts. He
is, thus, no mere theological dabbler in sociology bringing ready-made
formulas to solve trying problems, or soothing phrases to reconcile
men's minds to them. Nor is he merely a student of social questions
who happens to be also a clergyman. He is a man of religion who
studies sociology in order to know what is right. This is eminently
one of the things that religion should lead men to do.

What Dr. Grant gives us is a critical and challenging presentation
of the real industrial problems.

The cause of industrial unrest, Dr. Grant perceives, is simply that
the workingmen have been " deprived of industrial franchise." Labor
has lost the status — the security — that it had under feudal conditions.
The modern theory of contract " has not restored the workingman to
an integral place in our social economy." Nor can the resultant ills be
cured by philanthropy. " Philanthropy/' Dr. Grant says bluntly, " is
practically played out " — and he proves his assertion.

Industrial dissatisfaction so deeply based is not permanently com
patible with patriotism. The average well-to-do citizen in this country
has little conception of the number of workers who are frankly un
patriotic because they feel that the country has given them no cause to
love it, and that its boasted democracy is, so far as they are concerned,
a humbug. True, all classes of labor loyally supported the Government
during our war with Germany. But it is not to be forgotten, as Dr.
Grant acutely points out, that the patriotism of the working classes is
founded not so much upon actual conditions as upon an ideal which they
believe their country specially qualified to realize. The lesson is plain.

The problem of securing justice and contentment for the American
laborer broadens to include the question of immigration. It must be
said just here that Dr. Grant dismisses Malthus rather too curtly as a
mere " Jonah ", and that he disregards a rather large and authoritative
body of opinion when he declares that " we cannot shut out * foreign
ers ' and still be true to our ideals and to our practical requirements."
To Dr. Grant, indeed, immigration appears to be less a matter of com
peting standards of living than a question of education and of moral
assimilation. He is certainly right, however, in contending that the
blending of races not too diverse is advantageous, and that practically
all the races that come to us furnish sound and adaptable human ma
terial. He points out, moreover, a phase of the matter that has been
too little emphasized when he suggests the wisdom of making America
a country that will attract immigrants of the most desirable type.

Dr. Grant formulates the needs of the workers clearly and elo
quently. As a believer in physical culture he places bodily training for
health where it belongs — among the major goods of life. He advocates
greater opportunity for free speech as a means of " mental adjustment."
He does not hesitate to call some of our laws unjust as bearing upon
labor, and to say that laws are unjustly administered. He calls for a
greater sense of responsibility upon the part of the rich. He makes us
ashamed of the enormous waste of material and of brains and of man
hood which he proves to be going on constantly.
VOL. ccix. — NO. 759 18

274 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

In many ways Dr. Grant gives his readers a real insight into the
industrial unrest of the time. He shows the depth of the feeling and
its reasonableness; he makes plain that trades-unionism is not really
an adequate means to relieve it. He demonstrates that much of what
we are accustomed to call socialism is merely " democracy getting its
second wind." And finally he affirms with truth that " the cure for
democracy is more democracy."

What form is this enlargement of democracy to take? Not that
of radical socialism certainly. " Current legislation indicates the lines
of future advances — what might be called the liquidation of privilege.
Public Service Commissions, Rates Commissions, Corporation Tax
Laws, Income Taxes, and not socialistic platforms, will, for a long
time to come be responsible for our economic reforms. Notice the list
of Federal Commissions that a few years ago would have been thought
socialistic :

" Civil Service Commission, Eight-Hour Day Commission, Federal
Reserve Board, Federal Trade Commission, Interstate Commerce Com
mission, National Forest Reservation Commission, United States Board
of Mediation and Conciliation, Federal Farm Loan Board."

But is there not a more specific " way out " ? There is. It is
called industrial self-government. And so logically does this mode of
securing social justice fit in with Dr. Grant's whole analysis — with his
prescription of " more democracy ", with his melioristic rather than
revolutionary temper — that what the book needs for final effectiveness
seems to be just a full and detailed exposition of this plan. Lacking
this, the treatise seems somewhat inconclusive, and it appears to place
what is, so far as industry is concerned, a new principle, too nearly on
a level with governmental concession and governmental attempts to
regulate.

Dr. Grant's book has, indeed, the fault of being somewhat frag
mentary in its treatment of social problems. Its chapters are rather too
much like public addresses, practical, bullet-like, but not fashioned and
joined with sufficient care. And although the author brings to bear
upon his theme a store of knowledge both varied and thorough, it can
not be said that he selects and orders his facts with quite the skill of a
trained economist.

Nevertheless, Dr. Grant shows a large grasp of the whole industrial
situation, a sympathetic understanding of the point of view of the
workers, a rare knowledge of the facts which they know and feel.

He has, moreover, an unusual power of arresting attention, of con
densing much truth into a phrase, of rousing public opinion and point
ing out the general direction of reform.

Quite as significant as anything in the book — though nearly all its
contentions are timely and right — is the spirit in which the whole is
written — a spirit of moral enthusiasm and of rigorous inquiry. Moral
courage, strict impartiality, sympathy, and broad but thorough knowl
edge — who can use all these gifts to better advantage than can the man
in the pulpit, and how except through their vigorous and practical em
ployment is religion to accomplish its full usefulness ?

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED 275

IMPRESSIONS OF THE KAISER. By David Jayne Hill, former am
bassador to Germany. New York : Harper and Brothers.

There are several ways in which one may attempt to account for
the greatest crime in history. There is the economic way, which,
rightly pursued, serves only to show the need of further explanation.
There is the personal way, which, though it rightly emphasizes un-
escapable personal guilt, fails to account for the character of the
individual. There is the view that throws all the burden of responsi
bility upon a movement, a tendency, or a group, thereby seeming to
prove that no personal responsibility exists — as fallaciously as scholas
tic philosophers proved that Achilles could not overtake the tortoise;
the obvious facts being that Achilles would overtake the tortoise, and
that there exists in our lives no more real and constant element than per
sonal responsibility. There is — most cynical of all — the racial view
which, logically carried out, relieves Germans as individuals of a large
part of their guilt, while it condemns the whole nation to everlasting
hatred and contempt.

The historic view unifies all other views, setting the truths they
embody in true proportion and relation. This is precisely what David
Jayne Hill has done in his work, somewhat misleadingly named, Im
pressions of the Kaiser. Dr. Hill gives us a unified view of the whole
German phenomenon, with the Kaiser as at once its cause and its
result, its center, its bond, its active agent.

The effect of this is to increase rather than to diminish the per
sonal responsibility of William II.

If the Kaiser had acted otherwise the great catastrophe would not
have occurred. " A different kind of Emperor would have produced
a different kind of Germany " — the historic facts, the Emperor's own
public acts and utterances, prove this beyond cavil. The violation of
Belgium was "the morally inevitable culmination of the ambitions,
the fantasies, and the impetuosity of Kaiser William II, unrestrained
by a responsible government representing the interests of the German
people."

The Kaiser, to be sure, is not solely responsible — is there any
such thing as sole responsibility? Can any one initiate anything ab
origine? The Kaiser is not Satan. He did not invent sin! He is
merely as responsible for the war as one man can make himself for
any great event by identifying himself with the forces of evil rather
than with those of good — by giving the forces of wrong willing passage
through his mind.

The Kaiser had historic antecedents and worked amid favoring
conditions. We have to remember that " to the German, who even
when he is in bondage can believe he is free, ' freedom ' means being
free from want and misery ; he demands no other liberty." We have
to remember that constitutionalism has never been a tradition in Ger
many as it has in England. " The Reichstag in 1914 had no idea that
the question of peace or war was within its jurisdiction." We have
to remember the whole medievalism of German life and thought — a
condition of things so dimly recognized by other nations before the
war. But these things cannot serve to attenuate the Kaiser's responsi
bility or to elevate his character. He partakes of the evil of that with

276 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

which he identified himself, and in no small degree that evil is due
to him.

A man irresistibly swept into a net of wickedness, to which he
yields under protest, may enlist our sympathy ; but not the Kaiser.

" Having in hand the formula of peace, needing only Russia's
acceptance — which, as a fact, was in substance already assured — would
the Reichstag have failed, as William II failed, to communicate it to
the Russian Government while Nicholas II was solemnly protesting
that mobilization did not mean war? . . .

" Analyze the situation as we may, we are always brought back to
the ' necessities ' created by Kaiser William Second's desire for pres
tige and the pressure of a military camarilla of which he was the head."

In short, what we have to do with in the case of Germany is the
perversion of a whole people — in which one man played a prominent,
a decisive, a whole-souled part. Economic motives, German ethics,
junkerism — all these had for pretext and historic cause dynastic ambi
tion and medieval ideals — of which ambition and ideals William II
was the active exponent and in part the creator.

Yet the historic view does not justify childish animosity. The
actual guilt of the Kaiser is plain ; let us leave his metaphysical guilt
to God. It must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man
by whom the offence cometh. The thing for the rest of the world to do
is to get permanently rid of dynastic ambition: we are justified in
doing with the Kaiser whatever it is necessary to do in order to achieve
this end.

In any case, the study of his career is morally and historically
illuminating.

Dr. Hill sums up the result of his comprehensive and penetrating
study in words notable for breadth and justice:

" That which creates our interest in Kaiser William II is not
any merely personal qualities that mark him as a man. It is that in
playing the part of German Emperor he has exposed to mankind the
danger that inheres in the Prussian doctrine of the state. His personal
faith and teaching have only brought to maturity its deadly fruitage ;
for, believing himself endowed by special divine appointment with the
immunities of the irresponsible state, in lighting the torch of a World
War he has held himself without accountability to the standards and
judgments of civilized men."

THE STORY OF THE SUN : 1833-1918. By Frank J. O'Brien, New
York: George H. Doran Company.

The Story of the Sun, by Mr. Frank P. O'Brien, is so much
more than the biography of one of the most interesting newspapers
in the country that the title seems too restrictive. And yet it is the
right title, for Mr. O'Brien, with all the wealth of collateral matter
of such varied interest with which he has covered the 455 pages of
his book, never once gets far afield from a straightforward, flowing
narrative of the Sun's brilliant career from the day of its birth to its
present effulgence under the comparatively recent ownership of Mr.
Frank A. Munsey.

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED 277

But, in reality, Mr. O'Brien's book may fairly be described as an
outline history of Journalism in New York during the past eighty-five
years. It even goes a little beyond that. It gives one a satisfying
glimpse of an entire journalistic world of the then not very important
little city into which the Sun was born at 222 William Street on
Tuesday, September 3, 1833. At this point Mr. O'Brien stops to
note that of all morning newspapers then existing in New York
on that day, only one other, the Journal of Commerce, is now extant
save the Sun itself. How Benjamin H. Day, while working as a
printer in the office of that same Journal of Commerce, as far
back as 1830, became inoculated with a newspaper microbe then infest
ing the intellectuals of another Journal of Commerce printer, named
Dave Ramsey; how this germ fastened itself upon Ben Day, until at
last it resulted in the inception of the Sun on the date above named —
all this Mr. O'Brien tells in the few spirited pages with which his Sun
biography opens.

It was Ramsey's great idea, elaborated and practically applied
by Day, that what the public wanted was a cheap newspaper, a penny
newspaper that told in a quick, concise, live way the daily story of
those near-at-hand actualities of the world in which they lived. The
other newspapers were top-heavy — top-heavy in price and top-heavy
in topics. They had created a long- felt want, Day believed, and he set
about filling that want.

He was a graduate of that great academy of journalism — the
Springfield Republican. He was only twenty-three years old at the
time of his venture and he had learned to set type in the Republican
office when he was a mere boy. Samuel Bowles was then the editor
of the Republican and it was two years before another and a greater
Samuel Bowles was born.

Naturally there was the usual derision of the Ramsey-Day cheap
newspaper idea and the usual benevolent prophecies of failure when
young Day, Ramsey having vanished from the scene, so far as the
history of the Sun is concerned, set a pair of very firm, square jaws and
reduced the idea from theory to practice. About 1,000 copies of the
first Sun were printed, and of these only five are now known to be
in existence — one in the private library of the present editor of the Sun,
Edward Page Mitchell; one in the Public Library at Fifth Avenue
and Forty-second Street; two in the library of the American Type
Founders Company, Jersey City, and one very carefully locked up in
the Sun's safe.

There were seven morning and four evening newspapers in New
York when the Sun was born. The Evening Post, with William Cullen
Bryant and Fitz-Greene Halleck, its editors, was flourishing with a cir
culation of 3,000. The Morning Courier and New York Enquirer
(morning), had a larger circulation than any of its esteemed con
temporaries — 4,500. New York was even then the nation's metropolis
and was about as large as is the present Indianapolis. Irving, Cooper,
Bryant, Halleck, Nathaniel P. Willis and George P. Moonis were the
largest figures of intellectual New York then, and four of them, at
least — Irving and Cooper, Bryant and Halleck — still loom large on
the intellectual horizon of their country with its hundred-odd millions
of population.

278 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

It is in the delightfully intimate glimpses Mr. O'Brien continu
ally gives us of these and other names, now developed in a
rather awe-inspiring reverence, which is one of the great charms of
his book. A little startling, to be sure, are some of these glimpses.
For instance, it comes as something of a shock to read of the author of
Thanatopsis and The Death of the Flowers, having a spirited
fist fight in front of the City Hall one sunny afternoon with William
L. Stone, one of the editors of the Commercial Advertiser. But jour
nalism in those days wallowed in billingsgate and hair-raising person
alities, and coffee and pistols, as well as bare knuckles and horsewhips,
were some of its equipments.

J. Watson Webb was the leading New York newspaper man of
the day. He was not a pacifist, although his father had held the
Bible upon which George Washington took the oath as first President
of the United States. J. Watson had been in the army and his militant
spirit was still with him when he was editor of the Morning Courier
and united it with the Enquirer. He was a progressive in journalism.
He established a horse express between New York and Washington
at a cost of $7,500 a month to get news from Congress and the White
House twenty-four hours ahead of his rivals. Incidentally he was a
fighter. He had a row with Duff Green in Washington in 1830, and
in 1830 he thrashed James Gordon Bennett, of the Herald, in Wall
Street. He challenged Representative Cilley, of Maine, to a duel.
Cilley, who was a classmate at Bowdoin of Longfellow and Hawthorne,
refused the challenge but had no objections to a gentlemanly exchange
of rifle shots with Graves, of Kentucky, Webb's second, and was shot
dead at the first fire. In 1842 Webb fought a duel with Representative
Marshall, of Kentucky, and was not only wounded but sentenced to
two years in prison for leaving the State with the intention of fighting
a duel. He was pardoned in two weeks.

It was upon this stormy sea of New York journalism that the Sun
was launched, a pretty frail bark, as many believed, but destined quickly
to show proof of staunch sea-going qualities. It prospered ; but
its great event, the event which confirmed it as a financial success
of the first order, was its publication of the Great Moon Hoax. This
curiosity of American newspaper literature is but a dim memory of
tradition even among the older New Yorkers and little more than a
meaningless phrase with most people. Mr. O'Brien tells the whole
curious genesis of this remarkable bit of fiction with a minuteness of
detail and a vividness of narrative which is fascinating to a degree.
He also reproduces extracts from the story itself as well as the fanci
ful pictures of moon life and landscapes which the Sun printed. In all
the earlier reminiscent part of his Story of the Sun there is no chapter
that more agreeably engages the attention than the one devoted to
Richard Adams Locke's exploit in " faking " — the Great Moon
Hoax.

With the exception of an interlude of about a year when the Sun
was purchased and conducted as a rather oppressively dull publication
on a religious basis, the paper was ever the sprightly, very worldly
publication it became during the best years of the Dana control. Ben
Day sold it to the Beaches for $40,000. They sold it for $250,000.
Then it passed, on Charles A. Dana's death, to the ownership of the

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED 279

Laffan interests; then to Mr. William C. Reick, and, finally, to its
present owner, Mr. Frank A. Munsey. The two epochs in the paper's
history are the Day-Beach and the Dana, and it is hard to say which
of the two, in his admirable work, Mr. O'Brien has made the more
interesting. The Day-Beach times are undoubtedly the more pic
turesque, for life in that first half of the nineteenth century seems to
have had a tang and zest which gradually faded into more colorless
days with the growing communication and tendency towards stand
ardization in newspaper production. The story of the Sun with the
brilliant group of writers, headed by Edward Page Mitchell, which
Mr. Dana gathered about him, is so close to the days in which we
live that many of the old, the no longer young, and those treading
on the heels of the no longer young will find Mr. O'Brien's book
a most refreshing and entertaining reminder of men and events that
may be growing somewhat dim. It is quite within the mark to say
that there is not a dull line, much less a dull page, in all Mr. O'Brien's
record. It is not only a history of journalism in New York for nearly
a hundred years back, but it is a rich store of biographical data of men
who made up New York's intellectual life during that period. The
Sun was ever called " the newspaper man's paper," and with quite as
much warrant Mr. O'Brien's Story of the Sun may be called the news
paper man's newspaper book.

THE RECKONING. By James M. Beck. New York: G. P. Put
nam's Sons.

In his eminently sane, vigorous, and democratic book, The Reck
oning — logical successor of The Evidence in the Case and The War
and Humanity — Mr. Beck presents, explains, and solidly builds up
three definitive ideas, three principles that every one needs to grasp
and apply with reference to the present state of the world.

If we cannot at this juncture take hold with firmer conviction and
with broader comprehension upon the elemental truths of civilization
and of democracy — if a majority of us cannot do this — then the ulti
mate benefit of the war will be lost.

No other post-war discourse flies so straight to the mark as does
Mr. Beck's.

The first of the fundamental ideas of which the author treats is
the Higher Law.

The grasp of this large conception as something no less real than
the Constitution of the United States, no less familiar than the Ten
Commandments, no less mighty than the force of national patriotism,
is the thing most needed to insure sane, confident, resolute thinking
about problems big and little.

The existence of the higher law has been recognized more or less
clearly in all religions, all mythologies, all literatures. It has found a
place in ancient Roman and in modern English jurisprudence. Before
the comparatively recent doctrine of the omnipotence of Parliament
arose, " the great masters of common law all supported the doctrine,
as laid down by Lord Coke, that the judiciary had the power to nullify
a law if it were against common right and reason." Again the Pil-

280 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

grims who signed the famous compact in the cabin of the Mayflower,
" did not covenant to obey all laws that the majority might dictate, but
only such as were ' just and equal/ " The founders of this Republic
wrote the higher law into the Constitution. Of this same higher law,
international law is the largest, albeit an imperfect, expression. But
the higher law is not confined to the regulation of great affairs ; it runs
from the top to the bottom of life. The passengers on the Titanic
obeyed it without question when they gave to women and children the
first chance to be saved.

From the conception of the higher law flows the best definition
of Germany's guilt. In the words of Mr. Beck : " It is Germany's
greatest crime that for the time being she has impaired and nullified
this divine ideal, which in this time of blood and iron constitutes the
best hope of the human race. Her consistent conduct, from the begin
ning of the world war, has been not only a ruthless challenge to the
paramount authority of the higher law, but a flat denial of its very
existence."

Inseparably connected with this same conception, is the idea of
just and righteous punishment. The punishment adequate to the crime,
in Germany's case, is not merely the pulling down of the Hohenzollern
dynasty, but the destruction of the German Empire. And to attain
this end economic pressure may properly be employed. " I cannot see,"
argues Mr. Beck, " that an economic boycott to bring Germany to
its senses is less justifiable than the destruction of its cities and towns
by heavy artillery." And has it not become increasingly manifest of
late that Germany still needs something to bring it to its senses ? " Why
should not the Allied nations at the peace table," pursues the author,
" use this potent weapon in order to democratize Germany and to
separate the German States from Prussia ? " Reparation, then, in
demnities, restoration, by all means; but besides this the break-up
of an empire that has been only " strong to hurt," and that must not
be perpetuated under new forms!

The second definitive idea that Mr. Beck sets forth is, briefly, that
the Germans, bad as they have shown themselves to be, are human —
and being human are not beyond the bounds of reasonable hope. San
ity requires that we should take into consideration facts such as those
presented by the author — facts tending to show the existence in Ger
many of a remnant of real morality, of real reason, of real demo
cratic opinion — the total absence of which would mark a condition
below " the dignity of human nature." For there is always the danger
that moral indignation, thinking only of the law and losing sight of
that spiritual solidarity which alone makes the law binding, may pass
into moral madness — that is into cynicism.

The third fundamental idea that the author lucidly states and
practically develops is the need in a democracy of free and intelligent
criticism of those greater policies which the Government adopts in
world affairs. Taking up, one by one, President Wilson's " Fourteen
Points," Mr. Beck subjects each of them to a fair and searching criti
cism, pointing out ambiguities and possible dangers, warning against
undue idealism, marking out, in a manner which can arouse no par-
tizanship and excuse no prejudice, the lines of reason and of enlight
ened expediency.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

THE ARMY NAMES ITS CHOICE

SIR, — "Your American Army is the most wonderful army that the
world has ever seen. In its outstanding mental quality, in its clean
intellectual vigor, this whole A. E. F. is the most extraordinary revela
tion and portent of the Great War.'*

Strong language? Not to those who know at first hand the facts
on which it rests. And the speaker, moreover, was not an enthusiastic
compatriot exalted by national pride, but a European military officer,
cool, critical, trained, sophisticated, and a close observer of the war
in France.

He was thinking, as he spoke, of the broad general outlines of that
virile intelligence characterizing the stream of picked men that America
has poured into the Old World, — an intelligence evidenced in almost as
many ways as there are aspects to human life. And he could have illus
trated his thought through countless phases — could have illustrated it
very partially and superficially, had he chosen, by citing merely the
types of books that most strongly appeal to the Army overseas.

On the 19th of September the American Library Association, finely
installed in the late residence of the papal legate, on the rue de 1'Elysee,
Paris, inserted in the Paris edition of the New York Herald a little
anouncement to the effect that it was now prepared to loan to any mem
ber of the American Expeditionary Force any book in its stacks, free
of charge. Books must be faithfully returned to the Library but might
be retained a month, and could be franked back and forth through the
mails.

The response was instant, and, to the too-small library staff, almost
as overwhelming as it was gratifying. At first from near-by points,
then from more and more removed or isolated stations, letters poured in
by multiplying hundreds, acclaiming the dawn of a great day and beg
ging for books. And the titles given told in small an eloquent story
of the army's mind.

Men familiar with the French and English Forces in part differen
tiate the psychology of these two bodies from that of our own troops by
saying, in effect: "The older armies are tired, while the Americans
fairly snap and crackle with initiative, with creative ambition, with
energy that, in season and out of season, must have outlet and a free
road ahead." Concretely, a big camp of Tommies that make bread
for the British Army in France sits in its Y. M. C. A. hut contented and
happy, night after night, reading and discussing Shakespearean plays,
under the gentle guidance of a young Irish lady, daughter of a notable

282 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Quaker house, and widow of an officer killed at the front. Having
served the men behind the counter all day long, selling them tobacco and
chocolate, making them tea, attending to their material wants, she finds
it still an easy task to hold and amuse them during a long evening with
joint speculations on the mellow wisdom of three hundred years ago.
But this same young prophetess who has unerringly found her way to
the Tommies' hearts, quite freely confessed herself nonplussed by a
company of American boys suddenly added to her flock.

" I don't reach them. They are very polite and good to me, but I
don't get at them — I don't understand them — and I must ! " she lamented.

A Major of Engineers, trustee of Columbia University, fresh from
the actual front and experienced on all sides, explained the enigma.

" You can't thoroughly interest our American boys, here and now,
in dead or dormant or abstract issues," he said. "Whether they con
sciously know it or not, they are here, every one of them, as fighting
champions of a great, fighting crusade. The impetus lies deep in their
hearts. They have crossed the seas to drive home a living principle
by which the world of tomorrow must move. And the spirit, the de
mand, of active progression, is on them every one. You can interest some
of them, lightly, passingly, in matters of another cast, but their mental
impulse, their craving, their necessity, is to bend their minds to things
creative — to things that tend to increased production or force — to in
creased driving power in one form or other, either now or in their future
lives at home/'

Approximately ninety percent of the letters received from soldiers
of the A. E. F. ask for " class-books " — books concerned either with a
better handling of the day's work or with preparation for active work
at home, when civil life shall have been resumed.

Before there was any talk of peace — while the army as a whole
accepted with certainty the prospect of another two years' fighting, and
when the boys' indomitable ambition and intellectual thirst were still
their only incentives, scores of such letters as the following reached
the American Library Association by every post.

From Corporal R. P. C., of the Searchlight School:

" In yesterday's New York Herald I noticed the article about your
present system of sending books through the A. E. F. mail. It answers a
longing for text-books, the lack of which I have felt keenly since I
struck France. Have you Bell's Transmission of Power, or the later
numbers of Hawkins's Electrical books? If you have none of these, any
good advanced book on almost any branch of modern applied electricity
will be appreciated."

Private C. H. L., Aero Squadron, writes to ask for a first

course in algebra. " I passed up that study in school," he adds, " and
have been sorry ever since."

Sergeant J. G. S., of the Medical Department, says, " When I en
listed, I was about to take up a course in economics and banking, and
any book you could send me to enable me to start over here would be
greatly appreciated. I desire also to learn my present work well, and
have been trying to get Mason's Hand-book to study."

" I want a book of American Civics and Government," writes Private
L. D. C. of Hospital Unit A., " a book of elementary law, and a book
or books dealing with transportation and commerce, mainly in relation

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 283

to merchant marine affairs, if possible. I somehow feel myself growing
rusty. ... In the evenings and now and then during respite in the
day's work I can find time for a little reading. . . . Can you help me?"
First Sergeant F. M. S., Base Hospital Number One, wants Henry
L. Grant's Industrial Leadership, The Awakening of Business, by E. A.
Hurley, Hartness's The Human Factor in Works Management, or, fail
ing these, " a good book on cement manufacture as applied to our Army
requirements will be appreciated/'

Corporal F. B. M., Company K, 23d Engineers, was quick to plead:
" I should like to procure text books on physics, mechanics or calculus,
in order to do some studying in spare time. I am not only speaking for
myself, but for other fellows in the detachment, as we are in an isolated
camp in the woods, some miles from the nearest town. Over 60% of
the detachment are college men, so we expect to form classes."

Taking a file of letters at random, and listing the requested titles and
subjects as they come, without selection, this is the result:

Auditing, or Advanced Accounting, Anatomy and Diagnosis,
The Rubaiyat, Les Miserables, Electrical Engineers' Handbook,
Science and Health, Aviation, Ancient History of France, Auto
mobile Repairing, O. Henry, Tennyson, History of the 19th
Century, Practical Wireless Telegraphy, Strength and Elasticity
of Metals, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, Telegraphy & Tele
phone Work, General Geology of South Central France, Bank
ing, Advanced Trigonometry, Stenography, Civil Engineering,
Concrete Construction, Carlyle's French Revolution, Barrett
Wendell's France of Today, Re-enforced Concrete, all books
of Ralph Waldo Trine, Agriculture as to Gardening, Dairying,
Stock-raising, Rupert Hughes's stories, Industrial Economics,
Business Methods, Bret Harte, Lighting and Starting System
of Automobiles, Bee-Culture, Salesmanship, Architecture, Build
ing & Contracting, Textiles.

It is worthy of note that the very great majority of these letters
come from enlisted men or from non-commissioned officers, while the
relatively few officers' requests are mainly for books to be consulted in
preparing lectures for their men, for collections to be placed in company
barracks, or for primary readers and children's story-books — actually
for the Elsie Books, in a few instances, and for Horatio Alger, to be
used in teaching the illiterate to read.

Such wants must be speedily supplied. Meantime books from the
Paris stacks, in twos, in fives, in twenty-fives and in multiples of seventy,
are daily streaming over France into the outstretched hands of the
A. E. F. And with them goes a little printed notice, to tack over the shelf:

These books are loaned on the honor system. If you fail, it fails. America
is far away, tonnage scarce, and books precious. Play square with the other
fellow; he has played square with you.

The boys play square. They handle the books as carefully as they
can, and return them just as promptly as conditions permit. The per
centage of loss is small, and the harvest of appreciation beyond all
reckoning. And it is only just to add that Mr. Burton Stevenson, at
the head of the work, puts a spirit, intelligence, sympathy and enthusiasm
into the whole operation that guarantees the handsomest success.

284 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

The purpose of the A. L. A. is " the placing of books everywhere
that American Soldiers or Sailors may be found." To accomplish that
purpose it uses whatever vehicles can best serve its end. Fifty percent
of its out-go, it has estimated, has been distributed through the agency
of the Y. M. C. A., whether in the " Y's " big centres, or in its widely
scattered huts, whether by its travelling camionettes or by its riders
doing errands on the wing. Of the remaining fifty percent about half
has been handled by the Red Cross, the Knights of Columbus, the Sal
vation Army and other organizations, each assisting according to its
reach, while the remaining twenty-five percent has been sent direct from
the A. L. A. stacks to military units of every description, and to the
individual applicant.

So the Y. M. C. A. buys standard literature in small pocket volumes
— the English Nelson Edition, light and little and clear of print, affords
one fruitful source — packs it up in cases of twenty volumes each, and
sends it into the fighting trenches strapped on " Y " secretaries' backs.
Books so despatched the Library Bureau writes off its accounts as
gone.

It is the business of the Y. M. C. A. to get the daily papers to
the A. E. F., wherever that may lie beyond the reach of ordinary civilian
supplies. In the combat areas it delivers all papers free of charge. And,
whenever possible, it sends newspapers from home along with the rest.

The English-speaking European dailies are as manna in the wilder
ness, but a home paper — any good home paper — means a pearl beyond
all price. A " Y " Secretary recently rode his rickety, shell-shocked
motorcycle into an isolated camp, sure of a welcome because his side
car was full of cigarettes, and because tobacco had been " fini " in those
parts these many days. His tobacco flew as on angels' wings, but good
news flew faster still. Someone had seen a New York Times sticking out
of his overcoat pocket.

Presently came the Colonel's Adjutant, with the Colonel's compli
ments, and might he borrow that Times, briefly? Then came the Major,
in person, keen on the same scent. Then came a little first lieutenant, very
deprecatory, very anxious, who knew he was " asking a great deal — too
much, probably " — but he was just going into the front trenches — and
if he could only take that paper along to the boys, he — words failed
him. His pleading look finished the phrase.

I sat down to write about books — about the books our boys want,
and what that want shows of their splendid brains — their alertness, their
ambition, their grip and design upon the future, each in his own way.
But I end as we all must end who see them over here — in the overwhelm
ing impression of their clean-minded loyalty — of their intense belief in
and love for the people, the ideals, the faith of their own homes across
the sea.

PARIS, FRANCE. KATHERINE MAYO.

"THE REAL COLONEL HOUSE"

SIR, — The December number of THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW has
an attack on Colonel Edward M. House, that, as a friend and biographer
(in a small way), I feel that I cannot let pass unchallenged. The author
of the attack attempts to veil his philippic under the guise of a review of a

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 285

volume recently offered to the public, entitled, The Real Colonel House,
by Arthur D. Howden Smith. The name of the author of the attack is
Frederick W. Henshaw, accredited to the Supreme Court of California,
and whose name has recently been mentioned in the Mooney case, calling
for a newspaper explanation from Judge Henshaw, that may or may not
have satisfied the reading public. I cheerfully waive all criticism of him,
since he has received his billet of approval from Judge W. M. Morrow,
former member of Congress from California and now on the circuit bench
of the United States, who says Judge Henshaw is a brilliant lawyer.

The limits of my letter will not furnish an opportunity for answering
completely and conclusively the several counts in Judge Henshaw's indict
ment of President Wilson's friend, companion and trusted messenger ex
traordinary to foreign lands, Colonel Edward Mandell House, but I
offer first for the unprejudiced judgment of the readers of the REVIEW
the opening paragraph as follows:

It was undoubtedly due to the growing restiveness of the American people
against a man who, without official position, is sent on secret missions of vast
consequence to their welfare, — who has never done one act or uttered one word
by which the people might guage his capacity, — that the world is indebted for
this unique volume.

[The italics are mine].

Sent to Europe on five separate international diplomatic missions by the
President of the United States, and yet this representative of the Golden
State with its Golden Gate and its Pacific Ocean that is never pacific,
bawls like hoarse (not coarse) Fitzgerald that he, Colonel House, of
Texas and not Missouri, " has never done one act by which the people
might gauge his capacity." This same nobody is the man of whom Colonel
George Harvey said (to me) he would like to see succeed W. J. Bryan
as Secretary of State. And the same who, through me, passed the com
pliment back to the brilliant editor that he, Colonel House, would like to
see Colonel Harvey appointed in Bryan's place.

Soon after it became known that Colonel House was enjoying the
confidence and esteem of President Wilson, Charles Willis Thompson said
of him in an article in the New York Times:

Colonel House is a man whose words are few, and when he does consent
to drop one it is worth its weight in gold ; not only because he tells the truth,
but because his judgment and insight are great. It was the perception of this
fact that bound the President to him. The President relies more on his judg
ment than on any one else's, because he has found it always right; and with
this keen judgment and insight goes a wonderfully clarifying power of state
ment and an impersonal and an objective way of looking at a situation which
make his views on any question things of golden value.

Peter Clarke Macfarlane, in Collier's Weekly, said of Colonel House:

In matters of policy his judgment seems to be colored by no passion and
clouded by no prejudice. His manner is ingratiating. He does not bluster;
he thinks. In argument he does not overbear with a full tide of his own steam,
but instead sets up the cards carelessly almost, a reason here, an inference
there, a situation yonder, and so allows his opponent to convince himself. He
turns no thumbscrews; he wields no clubs: his weapons are of the mind.
Nor does there appear to be anything ulterior in his motives, or occult in his
method. I see no foreboding in his relationship to the President. The closeness
of that relation is creditable to both men and fortunate for the country. It

286 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

has no sinister connotation. Edward M. House is no Oliver le Diablc. He is
at once a friend of the President and of the people. Because he is the last
so completely, he is the first so intimately.

Mr. Lloyd George, speaking of the American Mission to the Allied
war conferences held in London and Versailles, said :

The mission which has thus successfully terminated its labors, was, so far
as we are concerned, an unqualified success. To that conference President
Wilson could not have sent more sagacious and useful representatives than
Colonel House and the other members of the mission who accompanied him.
Colonel House, indeed, has proved himself not only a worthy representative of
the United States but has won the friendship and respect of all the European
Allies.

Andre Tardieu, French High Commissioner to the United States,
speaking on the same subject said:

The presence in Europe of the American mission is an event upon the
importance of which it is superfluous to comment. Colonel House, by his
eminent qualities, has merited the confidence of President Wilson. I have
had many opportunities to observe him, and no finer representative of American
idealism could have been selected. He will represent among us completely the
thought and will of the President of the United States.

I submit the following newspaper dispatch printed in a well-known
New York daily:

London, June 25, 1915. An interesting development of the recent stay in
London of Colonel E. M. House, intimate of President Wilson, came to light
this week, when it became known that Colonel House visited King George
twice at Buckingham Palace. In both instances the invitation to see the king
came to Colonel House from Buckingham Palace unsolicited, etc., etc.

Now, perhaps, some Aldiborontiphoscophorino, from the home of Abe
Reuf, or some blatant partisan politician or some American Bolshevik or
disguised Boche, will prate about Anglophiles, Regiphiles and autocrats !
Lord Byron, a blarsted Englishman, said :

A man must serve his time to every trade
Save censure — critics all are ready made.

The California jurist complains that Colonel House has never " uttered
one word by which the people might gauge his capacity." Ralph Waldo
Emerson says:

I have read that those who listened to Lord Chatham felt that there was
something finer in the man than anything which he said [and]

We cannot find the smallest part of the personal weight of Washington
in the narrative of his exploits.

Judge Henshaw, speaking of Mr. Smith's book, The Real Colonel
House , makes this delphic observation: " It is unique in that, while in form
biographical, in its essence it is autobiographical." He seems unwilling
to accept the word of the author, who says by way of preface:

This is an intimate biography only in the sense that it reflects my own in
terpretation of Colonel House based upon an acquaintance and friendship of
several years. It is in no sense official for I have not sought access to confi
dential papers nor have I asked for undue confidences from Colonel House.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 287

Colonel House's reputation among all fair-minded men for modesty
and reticence is so well established that it will take a heavier gun than the
writer of this diatribe on The Real Colonel House to harm or hurt or
even arouse any other interest than disgust, and I refer all guilty persons
to the lines of Byron:

Believe a woman or an epitaph,

Or any other thing that's false, before

You trust in critics, who themselves are sore.

The attachment between President Wilson and Colonel House and
the use of the services of the latter in some of the stupendous problems
of American life and politics make an epoch in American history. A great
mind once said that there is nothing which life has to offer so satisfying as
the profound good understanding which can subsist, after much exchange
of good offices, between two virtuous men, each of whom is sure of himself
and sure of his friend.

I have noticed only Judge Henshaw's opening shot at his victim. The
balance of the screed is little more than vaporings, balderdash, and twad
dle, and I dare say, even in the honest opinion of the author, reflect only
on himself.

HENRY HERBERT CHILDERS.
Washington, D. C.

SUFFRAGE QUALIFICATIONS

SIR, — In a recent number of the REVIEW, Arthur T. Gait, of Chicago,
in a letter to the editor, expresses what is a frequent criticism of " the
present propaganda for woman suffrage/' namely, " that it should be uni
versal without qualification of any kind." He asks the REVIEW to " bring
the point favorably and forcefully to public notice before it is too late."

It is already too late, as the proposed Federal Suffrage Amendment
has passed the House of Representatives and is very close to adoption by
the Senate, and if the slighest change were made it would have to go
through the Lower House again and to be presented to the Senate with
entirely new arguments. This amendment reads simply : " The right of
suffrage shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any
State on account of sex." It leaves every State with liberty to impose any
qualifications for voting that it chooses except the unsurmountable one of
sex. Mr. Gait argues that " there should be some mental and a slight
property qualification." Nothing in the proposed amendment would pre
vent any State from making these requirements, but the fact that most
of those States where they once existed have removed them, and the others
never have had them, shows that they are not considered desirable. A few
of the Northern States have a very slight educational test, and the South
ern States have both educational and property requirements, chiefly to
keep out the negro vote. This is shown by the fact that they are worded
in such a way as not to disfranchise white men. Most of those States and
a few in the North have a poll tax.

A Federal Amendment imposing even slight educational and property
qualifications would have great difficulty in getting through Congress, as
most of the members have in their districts and States a considerable con
stituency of illiterate and non-taxpaying men, who would bitterly resent

288 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

requirements which would bar out the women of their family. This rea
son would also make it impossible to carry a State Amendment, which
would have to be acted upon by the individual voters. Since we have uni
versal suffrage for men, nothing less is possible for women. No educa
tional test could be imposed more severe than the ability to read a few
sentences from the Constitution, and a taxpaying requirement would have
to be very slight indeed.

Would a man or a woman necessarily be a more intelligent and
responsible voter if able to meet these tests? There are people in the
professions who do not pay taxes, and there are others without any educa
tion who know under what kind of conditions they wish to work and to rear
their families. " The crimes against the ballot box " are not committed
by the ignorant and the poor, but very often they are instigated by the
rich and carried out by shrewd, intelligent political " bosses," nor is it
by any means only the poor and the ignorant whose votes are for sale.
What we need to secure a more desirable electorate than we have at pres
ent is a higher standard of civic virtue and a better appreciation of the
value of a vote, and this is needed quite as much by the rich and the edu
cated as by the poor and illiterate.

IDA HUSTED HARPER,
Editorial Chairman National Leslie Suffrage Bureau.

NEW YORK CITY.

WE ARE INDICTED

SIR, — A copy of the December number of THE NORTH AMERICAN
REVIEW and one of the WAR WEEKLY came to hand according to your en
closed letter, and I write of my unwillingness to add these journals to my
reading list and venture to offer one or two reasons.

I do not share in the REVIEW'S evident bitterness toward President
Wilson and Colonel House, though I am willing to accept all it says in
criticism of Secretary Baker.

In particular, I am opposed to its advocacy of militarism, its endorse
ment of Secretary Daniel's plan for a great navy, when we ought to be
planning for a lesser force than we have. It seems to favor universal
military service and general preparation for war.

I have a son, a university man and a minister, who resigned his con
gregation to enter the ranks as a private in the infantry. He was killed
in battle and we shall never see him in this world. I am sure he did not
leave all and give up all that we should adopt the system against which
he fought. If we should adopt the ideas of the REVIEW, Germany would
win in principle, even though she lost in the actual conflict. . . . Our
son thought that he was giving his life for humanity, for the rights of
the common man and the freedom of all men. What a tragedy it would
be if our victory should result in a triumph of the Tories of the Allied
nations, the exploiting of the common people by Big Business, and the
Prussianizing of America!

W. J. COLEMAN.
Pittsburgh, Pa.

J

• y

\s

Republican
Democratic

THE POLITICAL DIVISION OF THE COU>

AS MARKED BY THE LATEST ELECTION

Vjj#

WILL H. HAYS

CHAIRMAN OF THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, TO WHOM
MR. ROOSEVELT ADDRESSED His LAST MEMORANDUM

Tros Tyriusque mihl'iiullo discrimine agetur

;

NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

MARCH, 1919

THE POLITICAL SITUATION

THE ISSUE:
SOCIALISM VS. AMERICANISM

BY THE EDITOR

THE Republican party will resume control of both
Houses of Congress for the first time in eight years on
March 4th. Its majority in the Senate will be scant, but
sufficient, and in the House of Representatives substantial.
In point of fact, the size of the Republican victory at the
polls last November was much larger than is commonly
realized.

In 1916, the Democratic majority for President was
nearly 600,000; in 1918 the Republican majorities for Rep
resentatives aggregated more than 1,200,000, — a Republi
can gain in the popular vote of approximately 1,800,000
out of a grand total averaging for the two years 12,800,000.

In 1916, for President, the Democrats carried 30
States and the Republicans, 18;*in 1918, for Congress, the
Democrats carried 19 States and the Republicans, 29 — a
Republican gain of 11.

The electoral vote in 1916 was: For Wilson, 277; for
Hughes, 254,— -Democratic majority, 23.

Upon the basis of the popular vote cast for Represen
tatives in 1918, the electoral vote would have been: Repub
lican, 342; Democratic, 189; Republican majority, 153, —
a Republican gain of 176.

Assuredly a sweeping victory, rendered even more note
worthy by the fact that it was achieved over the party in

Copyright, 1919, by NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW CORPORATION. All Rights Reserved.
VOL. ccix.— NO. 760 19

290 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

power upon the eve of the successful conclusion of a great
war. Attempts made now to analyze the causes of the
turn-over which, in the light of all attendant circum
stances, must be regarded as without precedent, would be
at the least stale and perhaps unprofitable. It suffices the
present purpose to recall that the chief impelling impulse
which actuated the people was dissatisfaction with the Ad
ministration's conduct of the war. So strong had this feel
ing become that appeals to consider the probable ill effect
upon our Allies were futile, and even the obvious im
minence of triumph over the common enemy stirred no
sense of appreciation of the Government's endeavors.
America was not doing herself justice; the men in control
were incompetent and untrustworthy; that was the long
and short of it; excuses were of no avail; and the inevitable
happened.

President Wilson, we are credibly informed, subse
quently lamented the issuance of his extraordinary pro
nouncement practically defying the country to repudiate
his Administration as " the one great political mistake "
of his career and took his two foremost advisers sharply to
task for having persuaded him to commit a fatal error. If
so, he did them grievous injustice. The voices which, con
formably to his custom, the President caught from the air
may have been those of Burleson and Tumulty, but the
hand that tapped the typewriter was the hand of Wilson,
and the document that, after much travail, finally emerged
was no whit less Wilsonvelian than the daringly artful
mind from which it sprang.

The famous letter did not lose the election; indeed, in
States like Kentucky, it helped to stem the tide; the elec
tion itself was already lost. Mr. Wilson's impolitic peremp-
toriness served only to augment the immediate disaster
and, with far more serious subsequent consequences, to unite
the opposition. Not only had the campaign of 1916 failed
to weld together the Republicans and the Progressives,
but the mutual recriminations which ensued were tending
to widen the breach in spirit between the two factions when
Mr. Wilson leaped into the gap, which Mr. Hays, acting
with rare alertness, was thereupon enabled to close ef
fectually.

Mr. Roosevelt died the acknowledged leader of the
great party into which he was born. His last written

THE POLITICAL SITUATION 291

words, pencilled by his own hand a few hours before his
death and addressed in the form of a memorandum for the
brilliant young man, for whose selection as Chairman of
the National organization he was largely responsible, were
these, as reproduced elsewhere in fac simile:

"Hays

see him; he must go to Washington for IO days; see
Senate and House; prevent split on domestic policies"

Here is evidenced as clearly as if the few words filled
a volume Mr. Roosevelt's realization of both his re
sponsibility and his obligation. The simple 'memorandum
marked the inauguration of a definite party policy, to be
carried through to a no less definite conclusion. It was
more than a passing thought or a mere suggestion. It was
a Message, signifying the need of immediate and unremit
ting vigilance in achieving complete unity of action in re
solving domestic problems before attacking those of wider
range soon to be thrust upon the country, — a true soldier's
call first to close the ranks.

Nothing could be more characteristic or more clearly
illustrative of the breadth of vision, the foresight, the di
rectness in method and the painstaking attention of the
man. Nothing, too, probably could have served his pur
pose better than that these words should have been his
last. Difficult as it is to reconcile one's self to the decree
of divine Providence that the removal of that great patriot
at this crucial moment was not untimely, we cannot but
realize, as he would have been the first to acknowledge,
that the last vestige of animosities which might have con
tinued to impair his highest aspirations was buried with
him, and thereby the perfect union which he so ardently
desired against all things un-American was attained. ,

Thus we find the Republican party resuming full leg
islative authority thoroughly united and invigorated by
the peculiar confidence which so often carried it to victory
in former years. Its leadership in the Senate, moreover,
is of the best. The role is new to Mr. Lodge, but his long
experience, his high intelligence and his amazing industry,
backed by the splendid traditions of his State and the uni
versal respect of both his colleagues and the country, ren
der his task comparatively easy. As we write, the Speaker-

292 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

5

ship «f the House of Representatives is in question. We
assume, however, that the discredit and danger inherent
in the selection of Mr. Mann will be averted. The per
nicious seniority rule also seems likely to be greatly mod
ified, if not abolished entirely, thus affording wider range
of action upon the floor for those younger members, like
Mr. Longworth, Mr. Fess, Mr. Frank L. Greene, and Mr.
Rogers, who have developed unusual capabilities.

Of yet greater value to the party as an organization
perhaps is the evolution of Mr. Will H. Hays. We are
not of those many who hold that the late Senator Hanna
was " the greatest Chairman the Republican party ever
had." To our mind, despite his successes, he was the
worst, incapable of detecting the birth and growth of new
ideas, wedded completely to the old order and knowing
only the power of money, whose open recognition gave
rise to a common resentment which only a Roosevelt could
have withstood. Mr. Hays is the antithesis of Mr. Hanna.
Before money he puts brains; before party, principle; be
fore expediency, courage; and before all, sincerity. With
the prestige acquired from the result of the first severe test
of his capacity, the zeal and indefatigability of Mr. Hays
constitute an asset such as the Democratic party simply
does not possess.

As contrasted with the promising Republican outlook,
the plight of the Democratic party is pitiable. Early in
1912 Mr. William Jennings Bryan predicted to the writer
that, if Mr. Wilson should be elected President, there
might be a Wilson party, but there would be no Demo
cratic party at the end of his period of service. This in
teresting prophecy is already, in effect, fulfilled. Mr. Wil
son lost no time in demonstrating that his conception of
leadership was complete mastery and, in this instance at any
rate, his acts have squared with his words. He has not only
restricted his appointments sharply to his own faction, but
he has initiated practically all legislation and has inter
fered without hesitation in primaries charged with the
selection of Democratic candidates for Congress. The
consequence is a personal control hardly ever before
equalled and likely to prove irresistible except in one par
ticular.

There is n« question whatever that Mr. Wilson eould,
if he would, obtain a second renomination without a

THE POLITICAL SITUATION 293

dissenting vote, even in the face of the Democratic
party's solemn pronouncement declaring it to be " the un
written law of this Republic, established by custom and
usage of one hundred years, and sanctioned by the ex>
amples of the greatest and wisest of those who founded
and have maintained our government that no man should
be eligible for a third term of the Presidential office."
Nor is there much doubt that he could prevent the nomi
nation of anyone whose candidacy should be displeasing
to him. Of his power to dictate the nomination of another
than himself we feel far less certain. Indeed, we are dis
posed to think that at this point the party leaders whom
he has trampled upon would draw the line and would be
able to wield sufficient influence to overcome or disinte
grate the body of officeholding delegates upon whom the
Administration would be compelled to rely. As against
Mr. McAdoo, for example, or Mr. Baker who, as the
most efficient public official the President has ever known,
is his " logical " candidate, the combined forces of
Speaker Clark, Mr. Bryan and the leading Southern Sen
ators would be arrayed almost surely and would prevail.

Assuming, then, that Mr. Wilson will not accept a re-
nomination, either in consequence of having realized his
ambition to become the first President of a Society of Na
tions or from apprehension of defeat at the polls, we may
expect him to retain as much of his power as possible to
the last moment by the simple method of concealing his
real intention, and then meet the situation as it may ex
ist with characteristic determination. If our previous
hypotheses should prove to be correct, the outcome would
be the nomination of one neither personally offensive to
Mr. Wilson nor objectionable to the opposing leaders,=-
not improbably Mr. Thomas Riley Marshall.

No Republican candidacies have yet been announced
and none is likely to be advanced seriously during the cal
endar year. Here a Fabian policy is unquestionably the
part of wisdom. Just as with the Wilson party, the man
will make the issue, so with the Republicans the issue will
produce the man. As matters now stand, the conflict
would range widely around the conduct of the war, the
unpreparedness for peace, government ownership, uni
versal training, extravagance, taxation, finance, woman
suffrage, enforcement of prohibition, executive autocracy,

294 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

inefficiency and the like, upon all of which the Democrats
would be put upon the defensive in a most embarrassing
manner. The tariff will hardly play its accustomed part
because of common assent that high rates are absolutely
essential at the moment for both revenue and protection.

But whether Mr. Wilson achieves his lofty interna
tional ambition or, failing that, again ^ audaciously defies
the people to repudiate his Administration, he will hardly
care to go to the country upon the record comprising the
subjects mentioned. In any circumstances, he would reach
out for a new and overwhelming issue, whose discussion
would allow full play for his exceptional rhetorical and
persuasive powers. But even though he should feel su
premely confident of his ability to justify his domestic
policies and performances, he would be unable in this in
stance to restrict the test. Gradually but irresistibly the
overpowering issue of the coming campaign is forming it
self in perfect conformity with the President's activities
abroad and his partially formulated programme at home.

The issue will be Socialism against Americanism.

Mr. Wilson no longer represents or speaks for the
United States, as differentiated from other nations, except
in so far as doing so enables him technically to translate
the voices which burn his ears from the air into the service
of Humanity. He has forsaken Nationalism and espoused
Internationalism. His proposed League or Association of
Nations is wide as the world itself and, so far from con
ferring benefits upon this country, it not only violates all
of the traditions of the Fathers of the Republic but, under
any one of the plans yet suggested, could not fail to add
greatly to our own burdens, to the enormous advantage of
Germany and, in lesser degree, of England, France and
Italy, as well as of the smaller states.

That so complete a reversal of the established policy,
under which thus far our own country has achieved its
marvelous success, would involve tremendous sacrifice and
constant danger, no advocate of the proposal has, to our
knowledge, attempted to deny. Whether it would bear to
all mankind greater benefits than have been conferred
through the free offering of a safe refuge from oppres
sion, of personal liberty, of equal opportunities and equal
citizenship in a well-ordered land may be a question.

But there is no doubt that Mr. Wilson is committed

THE POLITICAL SITUATION 295

irrevocably to his theory. Already the Socialists of Eu
rope, in eager response to his fervent appeals, have pro
claimed him their leader as opposed to their constituted au
thorities, and soon the Bolshevists of Russia will meet in a
spirit of comradeship the most notable Bolshevist sympa
thizer of America, once driven out of the country as a
teacher of false doctrines and a practicer of flagrant im
morality, and now, officially delegated by President Wilson
to act as his personal representative at the Marmora Con
ference.

Only Mr. Samuel Gompers, who flatly refused to at
tend the Socialist conference at Berne, at Mr. Wilson's re
quest, and his more conservative lieutenants now stand in
the way of the radical elements of our great labor organi
zations falling into line with the herds of Europe behind
their accepted leader so graphically depicted by Mr. Wil
liam Allen White, the colleague of the ex-Reverend
George D. Herron, as the Pied Piper of the ignorant and
impressionable masses.

The extent to which Mr. Wilson will attract our own
people to his standard of socialistic government, hidden
within the Society of Nations, has yet to be measured.
That the obsession has obtained no slight hold and is being
nurtured zealously at great expense is only too apparent.
Thus far the non-partisanship, of the movement is evi
denced by the appearance upon the stump of our former
and only living former President, Mr. Taft, as the leader
and chief spokesman of the aggressive propaganda now
being waged unceasingly throughout the country.

But such a condition cannot long maintain. THe time
is rapidly approaching when the two great political or
ganizations will be compelled to take their stands un
equivocally. That the Democratic party will bow sub
missively, though sullenly in thousands of instances, to the
mandate of its ruler is a virtual certainty. But we have
abiding faith that as soon as the people come to understand
the real import of the challenge to their independence,
their reason and their future, the Republican party, under
its present leadership, will pick up the gage of battle and
step forward quite ready and fully prepared again to save
the Union, upon the inevitable issue of —

Socialism against Americanism

For ourselves, we welcome the test. It must come some

296 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

time ; it may as well come now. And we have no question
of the result. Neither next year nor ever will the Ameri
can people vote to denationalize their great Republic.
Neither next year nor ever will they heed the sinister and
insidious implorations of false prophets to toss their be
loved country into a melting pot to be mashed into a pulp
of international communism. Neither next year nor ever
will they yield one jot of their independence or of their
sovereignty.

America is no Bolshevist. Patriotism is not dead. Let
the fight begin 1

" Trumpeter, sound for the splendor of God!
Sound for the heights that our fathers trod
When truth was truth and love was love,
With a hell beneath but a heaven above.
Trumpeter, rally us, rally us, rally us,
On to the City of God! "

IMPRESSIONS OF THE PEACE
CONFERENCE

BY STEPHANE LAUZANNE

"I leave you to your weighty deliberations. The Peace
Conference Is declared open"

M. RAYMOND POINCARE uttered these words at three
o'clock on January 18th, 1919, with extraordinary earnest
ness, and a touch of emotion in his voice which his hearers
are not accustomed to find there. And at once a wave of
joy seemed to surge through the entire assembly who had
listened standing to the opening speech of the President of
the Republic, in the great " Salon de 1'Horloge " of the
Quai d'Orsay.

It was an extraordinary assembly, unlike any other
known to history. The sixty-five men present belonged to
every race, to every country. Some came from the utter
most ends of the earth, delegates sent by China and Japan.
Others from parts little-known, vaguely shown on geog
raphy maps — for instance, the two representatives of the
King of Hedjaz, who arrived at the eleventh hour and
were admitted at the last minute. Some were very old —
Mr. Patchitch, for one — with his enormous white beard;
others, such as the envoys of certain South American Re
publics, quite young.

From the corner of the hall where I was, my attention
never wandered from them all during the half-hour the
speech of the President of the Republic lasted, as I tried to
read on their faces something of the feelings that were cer
tainly stirring below. But every countenance, whether pale
or dark-hued, reflected only pride and joy. And prouder,
more joyous perhaps than any of the others, was Presi
dent Wilson. His smile seemed to dominate and lighten
up the entire assembly. When M. Poincare spoke his

298 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

closing words: "I leave you to your weighty deliberations.
The Peace Conference is declared open" he was the first
to spontaneously clap his hands and give the others the
signal of applause.

And now the Peace Conference is open and the Allies
are trying to rebuild the world.

One question predominates in the vast work to be ac
complished: Will the Allies agree, and will they agree to
the end? The question has been asked in America more
than elsewhere perhaps. Cablegrams, some sensational,
others pessimistic, have been sent to the American press on
this subject. These cables came from newspapermen
whose information was not always as reliable as it was
prompt.

Paris is a strange and difficult city for the reporter
who does not know it. A city of rumors, of gossip, of
talkers and faultfinders. Everyone knows all there is to
be known without ever having heard anything. The
newspaper man who has not understood its psychology is
in an unfortunate position! He is at the mercy of any lob
byist of the Palace Bourbon who whispers in his ear an
account of the most secret meeting of the Cabinet, and he
will take it for history in the making. He is at the mercy
of any restaurant waiter who speaks disparagingly of every
man in the Government — and he will take it as a true in
dex of the feeling of the Parisian crowd. He sees the mov
ing surface, the lights, women passing in the streets — and
he will imagine all of France is before his eyes! Truly,
a misguided person the newspaper man who listens too
much and does not think enough!

Let us take as an example the question of the League
of Nations, which certain American correspondents have
striven to describe as one of the main points of divergence
among the Allies. It is characteristic of the errors of in
terpretation which can be made by a newspaper man in
sufficiently acquainted with France, when he tries to give
an account of French opinion. What has been cabled to
New York, Chicago, Boston and elsewhere? Nine times
out of ten, this : " M. Clemenceau is opposed to the pro
posed League of Nations of President Wilson, and France
will have none of it.'* And nine Americans out of ten are
convinced to-day that opposition to the League of Nations

THE PEACE CONFERENCE 299

comes entirely from France. What is the truth of the
matter?

The truth is that French public opinion — that of the
nation, of the people, of the army — has never been op
posed to a League of Nations; it is merely sceptical re
garding the results of such a League — an entirely different
matter. Scepticism is one thing, opposition is another.
There is not a Frenchman living who would delay by one
hour the dawning of that radiant day when nations will
have the understanding of sisters, and when universal
peace will reign permanently on our earth. But there are
many Frenchmen who believe that day will never dawn
as long as men are men, and cupidity, stupidity, and ill-
nature are still to be found here. So Frenchmen are not
antagonistic to the League; they are simply incredulous
about it.

Again, the truth is that M. Clemenceau, who incar
nates every feeling, every fear, every hope of France,
shares on this point, as on many others, the opinion of four-
fifths of the French people. But if, deep down in his
heart, M. Clemenceau does not believe in a League of
Nations, he is so little opposed to one that less than a fort
night after he became Premier of France, in 1917, he ap
pointed a commission for the purpose of preparing the
draft of a League of Nations, and as members of this com
mission he selected not only some of the most eminent
jurists of France, but also men who were most in favor of
the idea of arbitration among nations, of peace among
peoples, of conciliation among governments. M. Leon
Bourgeois, who is the oldest and most prominent pacifist
of France, in the highest and noblest sense of the word
" pacifist," was appointed chairman of the commission.

Further, the truth is that the commission appointed
by M. Clemenceau worked so hard and to such good pur
pose for two years, that it has ready an entire series of
drafts showing to the last detail the working of such a
league, the constitution of international courts of arbitra
tion, the penalties to be resorted to in case of conflict, etc.
One part of the work, done by that great authority on in
ternational law, Professor Andre Weiss, even goes so far
as to give a list of the financial, marine, economic and
monetary penalties which could be enforced, if a war were
to threaten, against the nation that should be indicated as

300 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

the author of the trouble. To quote M. Leon Bourgeois:
" It is the most marvelous and formidable arsenal that can
be imagined : the League will only have to stop to pick up
arms against war."

Finally, the truth is that M. Clemenceau has decided
to adopt the draft prepared by the commission appointed
by him. It will be the French draft of the League of Na
tions, a complete draft in which nothing is missing, which
goes to the very end of logic and truth, and a practical
piece of work — not merely a string of words. . . .

Is there an American draft for a League of Nations?
What and where is it? What men have worked at it and
for how long? Has it been approved by the President of
the United States and will it be upheld by him at the Con
ference? How far does it go? Does it recognize that
when the League shall come to any decision, such decision
will have to be enforced by every member of the League?
When will it be submitted to the public opinion of the
world?

It may be slightly impertinent to ask these questions.
But in the name of the inalienable rights of truth, it is per
missible to state that the day the Peace Conference
opened, France was the first country to propose that the
League of Nations should be one of the subjects of discus
sion, and that she was the one and only nation to place on
the Conference table a concrete and practical draft for
such a League.

Other divergences occurred, at the very outset of the
Conference, which since have been smoothed away. They
deserve to be mentioned here only because they raised
questions of principles, and questions of principles are
often most difficult.

Among others, there was the question of language and
the question of representation of the smaller nations.

The question of language is one that France feels deeply
about. The question is in what language the final instru
ment of the Conference — the peace treaty — shall be drawn
up. From time immemorial, international treaties of
peace have been drawn up in the French language, and
that is what is meant when French is described as the lan-

fiaage of diplomacy. Even in 1815, after Waterloo, when
ranee was invaded and crushed by Europe, the peace
treaty of Vienna was drawn up in French. Even in 1871,

THE PEACE CONFERENCE 301

after Sedan, when France was invaded and crushed by
Prussia, the Frankfort treaty of peace was drawn up in
French. France cannot admit, therefore, that after the
Marne and Verdun, the treaty of peace that will be signed
in Paris should be in any other tongue than French.
Translations may and should be made in every other idiom,
but in accordance with a tradition that goes back centuries,
the original must be a French original.

The representation of certain smaller nations, whose
conduct was so heroic during the war, was a question about
which France felt at least as deeply as about the question
of language.

In the course of a preliminary meeting, it had first been
decided that Belgium and Serbia would have only two
delegates at the Conference, whereas at the request of the
United States it was decided. Brazil should have three.
No one in France contests the importance of the services
rendered by the noble Brazilian people in the cause of the
Allies, but for us who are French, among many precious
memories, one will always stand out: the memory of
blood shed in common on the battlefield. What has made
the friendship of the United States sacred to France is not
so much the money lent, the munitions sent, the hospitals
built, the ports enlarged, as the two million men who came
to her and the fifty thousand boys who sleep their last sleep
in our French cemeteries. . . . Belgium and Serbia,
too, gave their blood for the cause of civilization. They
gave it from the very first day — and they gave it until the
very last hour. This makes them in our eyes the equals of
the great nations of the earth. This was enough to earn for
them five delegates each to the Conference, like France, or
England, or America. In no case should it have earned for
them fewer delegates than a nation not one of whose soldiers
ever suffered in our trenches. At the urgent and pressing
request of France, the Conference altered its first decision
and assigned three delegates each to Serbia and Belgium.
Three is not much, but it is better than two. iWould it not
have been preferable to have done at once what common
fairness made us do later?

All this is slight enough, and simply shows the necessity
of examining, and thinking, and taking into consideration
the traditions and feelings of the various peoples. Other
divergences will occur. They will be disposed of as easily

302 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

as tKose of yesterday if each brings to the task his heart, in
telligence and faith in the work to be accomplished.

For the greater difficulties that will have to be solved,
a great criterium will have to predominate at every discus
sion : the criterium of future peace. Let each one, instead
of consulting his principles or sympathies, his interests or
friendship, simply consult his conscience, and ask himself :
Will such or such a solution prevent, or on the contrary
bring about, a conflict in the future? The answer will not
be long in coming, and it will nearly always be that of com
mon sense.

It is the criterium that must be applied to the territorial
claims of France. It is the criterium that must be applied
to the contradictory claims of the Italians and Jugo-Slavs
in the Adriatic. It is the criterium that should be applied
as regards how Germany is to be treated.

What has not been said, telegraphed.or written on the
subject of France's territorial claims ! The editor in chief
of a great New York paper even went so far as to state that
France and her Government had been carried away " by
a spirit of conquest and imperialism which would be the
misfortune of France and of the world"! Now, the so-
called imperialism and spirit of conquest of France are
limited to asking for Alsace-Lorraine, with the frontiers
of that province in 1815, that is, with the Sarre basin. The
Sarre basin, in geographical area, only slightly exceeds
that of the Borough of Manhattan. It was a part of France
for nearly two centuries. It was wrested from France in
1815, at the Congress of Vienna, for one reason: because it
is rich in coal, and as early as the beginning of the nine
teenth century Prussia was busy appropriating everything
that had any value, such as iron or coal. France to-day
claims that district, first by virtue of right, because it for
merly belonged to her, next because it will be compensa
tion for the loss of her Northern coal fields, destroyed or
damaged for years and years to come by the Germans, and
lastly because it will be a guarantee against any German
attack on that side: Germany will be deprived of one of
the sinews of war.

^And that is the whole story of France's territorial
claims. At no hour, at no minute of the war, did France
ever dream — I can formally affirm this — of annexing all
the left bank of the Rhine. When in secret treaties with

THE PEACE CONFERENCE 303

Russia, France asked that her hands should not be tied in
connection with the left bank of the Rhine, this meant that
she wanted — and still wants — to receive proper guarantees
in that quarter. France does not want, in the more or less
distant future, the Prussian or Bavarian Palatinate to serve
as a jump-off from which to attack her or to attack Bel
gium. So she will ask that there should be no fortifica
tions on the left bank of the Rhine, either temporary or
permanent, and no arsenals, no depots of artillery, no gar
risons, nothing, in a word, that could be used to repeat the
operation of 1914. But the people of that country, pro
vided they do not arm themselves, are free to administer
their territory as they see fit, and to annex themselves to
Prussia, or Bavaria, or Austria, or to no country at all.
Their independence remains absolute. And that is the
spirit of conquest of France! It simply consists in taking
the proper measures to prevent a renewal of the attempt to
conquer her. . . .

As to how Germany should be treated at the Confer
ence, from now on two views may be discerned: one that
the punishment inflicted be moderate; one that the pun
ishment be extremely rigorous. But it should be pointed
out that underneath each of these two currents there
is no ulterior design, no unworthy calculation. Re
garding the principle, every one is agreed: Germany is a
great criminal and should be punished. But those on the
side of moderation invoke humanity, and those on the side
of severity invoke justice. Justice, humanity^-two great
words which have always made the heart of the crowd beat,
and which sometimes lead to the most deplorable mistakes !
Where does humanity begin with Germany? Where does
justice end? In the treatment to be inflicted, it is neither
the principle of justice nor the principle of humanty that
should be called into play, for Germany has shown herself
incapable of understanding either. The question to be
asked is the following: What constitutes the surest guar
antee to prevent Germany from beginning all over again?
The answer is inevitable: Germany understands only force;
she must be subjected to the regime of force. The sole
limit to the punishment must be the preservation of peace
in the future, that is, we must stop at the point where pun
ishment might risk bringing about a new conflagration at
some future day. If this principle be applied firmly, light

304 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

is thrown on the problem, and the solution becomes easy.

The French are often accused of hatred and of a desire
for revenge where Germany is concerned, because their
territory has been ravaged, invaded, set fire to, destroyed
by the Germans. . . . But it is not only the French
who are to-day pronouncing anathemas against Germany,
but also the English, who are not hereditary enemies of
Germany; the Belgians, who never had the slightest quar
rel with Germany, and the Roumanians, who had a treaty
of alliance with Germany.

On the very day of the opening of the Conference, I
heard from M. Jean Bratiano, Prime Minister of Rou-
mania, and first delegate of Roumania to the Conference,
an account of the sufferings endured by his country under
the Teuton heel, and I found that this Wallachian from
the far banks of the Danube said the same things as the
Walloons of Belgium or the Picards of France.

" In Roumania," he told me, " there are entire districts
with which there is no communication possible : not even a
cart to go there. . . . We have been despoiled of every
thing and we are hungry. There is not a day's reserve of
flour in Bucharest. . . . The awful thing about Ger
many, you see, is not only that her mentality is that of a
savage, but that she has such a mentality without realizing
it. She is cruel instinctively and without effort. She is
cruel with a scientific refinement that almost amounts to
genius. . . ."

<f Germany has the mentality of a savage without realiz
ing it. . . . She is cruel instinctively and without
effort. . . " I would like these words, which were not
those of a Celt but of a Latin from Central Europe, to be
engraved on a marble slab, and each member of the Con
ference to have this slab constantly before his eyes. When
the punishment to be meted out to Germany is to be deter
mined upon, the delegates would then decide. . . .

Peace is not made with words any more than War is: it
calls for action.

STEPHANE LAUZANNE.
Paris, January, 1919.

PITFALLS OF A " LEAGUE OF
NATIONS"

BY ALBERT J. BEVERIDGE

SOME excellent and able men now urge that just as the
States of the Union have been interlaced into a nation, with
concord throughout its dominions, so the nations of the
earth shall be similarly united to end strife among all man
kind. Why, it is asked, if the States could unite into a na
tion, surrendering most of their sovereignty to the national
Government, should not the various Governments of the
world form a superstate to which each of these federated
nations w^ould yield a part of its sovereignty and obey the
decrees of an international authority supreme over all of
them?

This plan, passionately insisted upon under two or three
titles, the favorite of which is, for the moment, The League
of Nations, raises the greatest question which the American
people have ever been called upon to answer.

If the analogy of the States agreeing among themselves
to form a harmonious nation is to be strictly followed, cer
tain results would be inevitable. For example, just as the
States, in order to form a nation, gave up the right to pass
tariff laws or immigration laws, so the nations comprising
the international superstate would have to do the same
thing. Indeed, certain foreign champions of this interna
tional arrangement urge this very fact as one of the prin
cipal reasons why a League of Nations should be estab
lished.

If this is not so, the analogy fails. The argument based
upon a comparison of the union of the States into a nation,
with the proposed union of the nations into a world gov
ernment, would require us to imagine that the States agreed
only that they would not fight one another, but still kept

VOL. ccix.— NO. 760 20

306 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

the right to make tariffs against one another, to regulate or
prohibit migration from one to another, to do the same
thing with reference to commerce ; and, in short, to act in
every way as though each State was a sovereign nation.
The States would have agreed not to make war among
themselves, and yet would left open every subject that might
cause hostilities. Is it not plain, then, that this analogy is
false — even absurd?

The League can be established only by treaty. This
treaty would bind each member-nation to make wrar any
where and at any time the League decrees. If America
becomes a member, we must, of course, repeal that pro
vision of our Constitution which gives to Congress the ex
clusive power to declare war. This is admitted. Indeed,
such an amendment was actually introduced in the Senate.
Do we want to abolish that vital provision of our funda
mental law? Do we wish to bind ourselves and our children
forever to make war whether we or they want to or not?
Even if we did not formally repeal that section of our Con
stitution, would not the result be the same as if we did re
peal it? — since our honor would be pledged in the treaty
to make war, and Congress would be morally compelled to
declare it, as a matter of good faith to our allies, whenever
and wherever a majority of them required it.

Of course, if the League treaty is not to bind each mem
ber to enforce the judgments of the League, then the treaty
would amount merely to an agreement that the contracting
nations would undertake to be good. And it may come to
that in the end. Already the dispatches from Europe ad
vise us that the League is to require no change in our Con
stitution, no limitation on our freedom of action — nothing,
in short, to which stubbornly patriotic Americans can
object. All we will be bound to do, apparently, will be to
enter into a sort of general " understanding " to maintain
the new governmental and territorial arrangements fixed
by the international peace conference now sitting at Ver
sailles.

So, although not exacting of us an agreement, in specific
terms, to go to war whether we want to or not, yet is not
the effect the same as if we did sign such a contract? For,
having committed ourselves to act in concert with certain
other nations, to uphold in the future the world adjust
ments established by the peace treaty, would we not be ac~

PITFALLS OF A "LEAGUE OF NATIONS" 307

cused of " bad faith " and " cowardice " if we declined to
pour out American blood and money for that purpose,
should those adjustments ever be in danger of being upset?

Yet not one of these territorial and governmental
changes affects us in any way. They are in Africa, in Asia,
in Europe. Still, we are expected to go into a partnership
of " good faith," a sort of " gentlemen's agreement," if
nothing stronger can be secured from us, to see that the re-
divisions of the earth are maintained. Can any American
who cares for his own nation contemplate such a scheme
without emotion?

As to the original project of an unlimited international
superstate, so fervently proclaimed during the last three
years, the only reason given for it is, that it may prevent
wars by the amicable settlement of disputes. But, on the
contrary, does not the plan contain the very seeds of strife?
Assume the League in existence with big and little nations
members of it. Suppose two of the larger nations differ
radically on some subject which each honestly thinks vital
to its well-being. The matter must be settled by a vote off
the nations who are members of the League. If human
nature has not been repealed,^ would not each of the con
tending Governments try to get as many votes as possible?
Would not this result in — would it not compel — such inter
national intrigue and corruption as the world has never
seen? And if one of the disputants should prevail by a
single vote or fraction of a vote, would the defeated nation
and its associates submit? Or would there be a world-wide
cry of fraud followed by resistance? Even if war did not
result, would not the League dissolve, leaving behind it bit
terness and suspicion more intense and long-lived than even
some wars have produced?

As to the actual structure of the superstate, on what
basis would it be erected? Would little nations have the
same suffrage as big nations? Would Costa Rica have the
same voting power as France? Serbia the same as Great
Britain? Uruguay the same as the United States? Tibet
the same as Japan? If not, what becomes of the principle
that the rights and interests of little nations are as sacred
as those of big nations? Since the protection of small na
tions is one of the main purposes of the proposed League,
who are so well qualified to pass on their own safety and
wellbeing as the little nations themselves?

308 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

But in case the lesser nations are to have only fractional
votes, who shall decide what those fractions shall be? And
would the small nations come into the League on fractional
representation? If the little nations refuse to enter the
League as inferiors, what is to become of their rights, inter
ests, and honor, which it is one of the principal purposes
of the League to protect? Or is the League to tell the little
nations what is best for them, and, by force, make them
submit to the League's opinion?

If this trifling problem should be solved to the full satis
faction and happiness of all nations, another small question
arises : What proportion of the international army and navy
which is to execute the decrees of the League shall each
nation furnish? Shall this be determined upon the basis of
population? If so, China would supply more men and
ships than all of Europe, the United States, and Japan com
bined. Shall contributions to the " international police
force" be determined by comparative wealth? If so, the
American Nation must furnish the largest contingent. Or
shall the rule of allotment be the degree of comparative in
telligence? Or shall it be measured by the clearly defined
and accurately established standard call "civilization?"
In either case, who is to decide the relative intelligence and
civilization of the nations? Would any nation agree that
its people are less intelligent and civilized than others?
Also, how shall the command of this international army
and navy be settled?

But let us assume all these questions to be disposed of—
as doubtless they readily can be — and the League to be in
full and effective operation. What would be the province
of the superstate, and what our duty in the matter of revo
lutions in any country? Governments are sometimes
changed by revolutions; and revolution in one country
sometimes causes war between other countries. For in
stance, the French Revolution caused the war between
Great Britain and France that, in turn, resulted in the Na
poleonic wars. Must the League, therefore, interfere with
revolutions? If so, on which side?

The late Czar was the first authority in modern times
to call an international council for the suppression of war.
Suppose that gathering had resolved upon a League of Na
tions of which the United States, Great Britain and other
nations, including Russia itself, were members. It would

PITFALLS OF A "LEAGUE OF NATIONS" 309

have been the Government of the Czar that signed that
treaty. When that Government was threatened with de
struction by revolution, would it not have called, and have
had the right to call, on its international partners to help
preserve it?

Suppose a League of Nations had existed at the time
of our Civil War. If it had intervened in that struggle
does anybody doubt what the result would have been? Do
we not know that we would today be two nations instead
of one? Whoever doubts this should read European his
tory as related to the struggle of the American Nation for
existence.

But let us say that the supposed world-superstate agrees
to have nothing to do with revolutions — although by so
agreeing the very Governments forming the superstate may
themselves be destroyed. Let us say that the League pro
poses to intervene, not when different parts of a nation are
about to fight one another, but only when different nations
are about to fight one another. If the combat cannot be
prevented and hostilities begin, on which side will the
League array itself?

If it is said that the superstate will act against the ag
gressor, how shall it determine which of the belligerents
really is the aggressor, since every nation always claims
that the other belligerent is the aggressor; and the decision
must be made instantly if war is to be prevented. But some
times it takes many years to settle the real cause of a war.
Which nation was the aggressor in the Russo-Japanese
War, or in the conflict between China and Japan? Each
claimed at the time and still claims that the other was the
aggressor.

Moreover, occasionally the real cause of conflict is not
admitted by either belligerent, and could not and would
not be submitted to any international court or league. For
example, the fundamental cause of the Russo-Japanese War
probably was the increase of population in Japan and the
necessity for more territory where its people could live;
while Russia's motive was her historic, natural — and per
haps justifiable — desire for ice-free ports. Yet this pro
found reason for the Russo-Japanese collision would not
have been conceded by either of the two disputing nations,
and could not have been settled by any international power.
Suppose, then, that, since the League could not have dealt

310 THE NORTH ^AMERICAN REVIEW

with the problem, war came notwithstanding the League's
existence. On which side would American soldiers and
sailors have had to fight?

Since one of the objects of the superstate is to protect
the territorial integrity, rights, and interests of small na
tions, what would we, as a member of the League, have
been compelled to do in the war between Great Britain
and the Allied Dutch Republics of South Africa? Or
what would have been the League's action when Korea was
absorbed by Japan? In our own history, would we have
been permitted to wage war with Mexico? If not, what
would today have been the situation of that enormous ter
ritory which now composes the States of California, Ne
vada, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona, and is
peopled by the freest, happiest, most prosperous men and
women on the globe?

Would we have been allowed to fight Spain? If not,
what today would be the condition of Cuba, Porto Rico,
and the Philippines? No such progress is recorded in his
tory as has been made by the people of those islands since
they came under American control. And all of them are
under American control. Porto Rico and the Philippines
are American possessions; and the American suzerainty
over Cuba is the most perfect ever committed to paper.

Is not the proposed world-superstate an agreement to
maintain perpetually, by arms if need be, the status of the
world as it shall be at the time the League is formed? Do
we not, as a member of that League, underwrite for all time
to come the international status quo and guarantee to main
tain it with American life and treasure? And is this wise
or right either for ourselves or the world?

It is not impossible that the whole thing will taper down
to a proposal for a league consisting of a permanent al
liance of the United States and the three other leading na
tions. Already such a suggestion has been made. It is a
variation of the " gentlemen's agreement " already men
tioned. The world is to be " policed " and " kept in order "
by the " Big Four." How Holland, Spain, Belgium, and
the Scandinavian countries will welcome that scheme! Is
it reasonable to expect enthusiastic submission from South
America? And the attitude of Japan toward the project
may be of interest. And none of the nations outside the
combine is to be permitted to say a word about the matter —

PITFALLS OF A "LEAGUE OF NATIONS" 311

they can come in on the terms prescribed by the " Big
Four," or stay out.

But, in either case, the " Big Four " will attend to their
affairs for them. Does not such a project as this suggested
" League of Nations, Limited," appear somewhat fanciful,
not to say unjust? Would it not create universal antag
onism, jealousies, hatreds? And what possible advantage
would America derive from it? Is it not plain that the
" League of Nations, Limited " has most of the evils of an
unlimited league and some that are even worse. Would
it not involve us in expense impossible to estimate, and
enmesh us in snares and troubles beyond human ability to
forecast with certainty?

Another point may not be unworthy of mention in this
period of " the self-determination of peoples." Whether
the League takes in all nations, or only a few selected Gov
ernments, are the American people to be allowed to vote
on this question which concerns them so profoundly? Are
any people to be permitted to vote on it? Apparently not.
The arrangement is to be made by the gentlemen in Paris,
presented to our Senate in the form of a treaty, and put
through without any expression of the people or their will
in the premises. If it is said that this is the usual method
of dealing with treaties, is not the answer that this is an un
precedented treaty? It resembles no other treaty we ever
made except in one point: When it is made, we must stand
by it.

If iv e get into the League we cannot get out. No mat
ter how badly it works for us, no matter how much we may
come to dislike it, we are bound, in honor, to remain in it.
If, in desperation, we should break the treaty and release
ourselves, would we not thereby invite war upon us by the
other members of the League? Even if they generously
refrained from attacking us, could they be expected ever to
trust us again?

But whether we are to be bound to an alliance with
many or few nations, what advantages in any direction
would America derive from membership in a League of
any kind? At the risk of " damnable iteration," that ques
tion should be asked ceaselessly. Or are American rights
and interests unworthy of our consideration? If our own
well-being is not to be eliminated from our thought, ought
we not to ask and answer a few other obvious questions?

312 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Take, for instance, our Mexican relations. That coun
try adjoins us. There have been, are, and always will be
more American citizens legitimately engaged in business
in Mexico and a greater quantity of American capital le
gitimately invested there, than the citizens and capital of
all other nations combined. For years we have endured
peculiar, shocking, and indefensible — almost indescribable
—outrages upon American citizens and property in Mex
ico; and this is likely to occur again.

As a member of an international League, could we do
anything whatever to protect American lives, safeguard
American property or maintain American rights in Mex
ico, without the consent of the other nations who are our
fellow-members in the League? If it became necessary
for us to establish the same relations with Mexico that we
have with Cuba, could this be done without the sanction
of the international superstate?

Or take the Monroe Doctrine, which concerns the
Western Hemisphere and is vital to the development of it.
Would not Japan, Great Britain, or Germany have as much
to say as ourselves about what that doctrine means and what
may and may not be done under it? If we undertake to
help settle the disputes among the nations of Europe and
Asia, do we not bind ourselves to allow them to have the
same voice in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere?

If we, with other nations, underwrite the status of canals
in the old world, do we not obligate ourselves that other
nations shall, equally with us, control the Panama Canal?

Once more let us make the inquiry as to what beneficial
result can come to us from membership in any interna
tional combination whatever? Would not the inevitable
consequence be that we involve ourselves in racial and. his
toric antagonisms and complications from which thus far
we have kept ourselves free? Would we not surrender
every advantage which our situation on the globe, our his
tory, our one unbroken traditional policy, and our resources
afford us? Would we not place ourselves in the position
of an integral, physical part of the continents of Europe
and Asia?

It is said that steam and electricity have eliminated the
oceans and that nations no longer are separated by water
barriers. Is this true? The English Channel is now as ef
fective a bulwark to the United Kingdom as it ever was.

PITFALLS OF A "LEAGUE OF NATIONS" 313

9

That narrow strip of water and a strong fleet have saved
England from invasion for nearly a thousand years. From
the military point of view, it would appear, then, that after
all the Atlantic has not been abolished.

We are told that we must no longer be " isolated." How
are we " isolated "? How have we ever been " isolated "?
Not commercially. Not financially. Not socially. We
have been " isolated " only in the political sense — only in
the sense that we have not bound ourselves by alliance to
mix up in the quarrels of others — only in the sense that we
have attended to our own business. Is not that kind of
" isolation " the very thing that is best for us and for the
world? If so, why abandon it? Does anybody imagine
that, if any European Nation were situated as we are, it
would surrender its peculiar advantages?

The points that I have suggested are only a few of those
involved in the present day recrudescence of the ancient
scheme for a League of Nations. But do not the ones
enumerated show that the international journey which we
are asked to take is through an unexplored and perilous
jungle?

Is it not better for the American people to advance
along the highway of America's traditional foreign policy?
That policy was formulated after years of thought, expe
rience and consultation by all the wonderful company of
constructive statesmen who laid the foundations of the
American Nation. No such group of far-visioned men
ever blessed with their wisdom any country at a given
time. Call the roll of them — Washington, Hamilton, Jef
ferson, Adams, Madison, Marshall, and the others of that
galaxy of immortals.

The foreign policy announced by Washington was the
product of the combined and profoundly considered judg
ment of all these men. It was the only policy, foreign or
domestic, on which all of them were united. On every
other they disagreed. For that alone they stood as a single
man. Several years after Washington formally declared
this American policy, Jefferson restated it still more
broadly and emphatically. Also that policy has been
maintained from that day to this by every American states
man and every American political party.

For more than a hundred and thirty years the Ameri-

314 THEfiNORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

can Nation has progressed along the plain, safe course
these men marked out. It has kept us from disastrous for
eign entanglements and ruinous foreign complications. It
has saved us hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds
of billions of dollars. Why leave it now to wander through
a pathless wilderness of alien interests, racial hatreds, his
toric animosities?

Do not the wellbeing of a great people and the develop
ment of a mighty continent present problems hard enough
to tax all the strength of the ablest men in the whole Re
public? If the concerns of a few million people occupy
ing a strip of seaboard engrossed all the energy, thought
and time of men like " the fathers " whom I have just
named, have any intellects now appeared capable of car
ing not only for the affairs of one hundred and ten million
human beings covering an area that stretches from ocean
to ocean, but also capable of adjusting all the differences
of all the variegated peoples of the entire globe?

The situation of the American Nation is unique. Geo
graphically it sits on the throne of the world. Its history
is that of the evolution of a distinct, separate, and inde
pendent people. Its mission is no less than to create a new
race on the earth and to present to mankind the example of
that happiness and well-being which comes from progres
sive, self-disciplined liberty.

This was the faith of our fathers. By that faith ought
we not still to abide? — the American Nation the supreme
love of our hearts, the highest object of our effort and our
thought — the American Nation free of hand and un-
manacled of foot, marching steadily onward toward the
destiny to which it is entitled by reason of its place on the
globe, the genius of its people, and its orderly institutions
of freedom.

ALBERT J. BEVERIDGE.

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND INTER
NATIONAL POLICY1

BY DAVID JAYNE HILL

AT no time, perhaps, since history began to be recorded,
has there existed so profound and so universal a conviction
of the value and necessity of law; and particularly of the
restraint of law in controlling the activities of independent
sovereign States.

Everywhere the necessities, even more than the voli
tions, of men have in some form, established the authority
of the State; whose laws, even though occasionally vio
lated, are regarded as paramount over the populations
within their jurisdiction. A comparative study of law dis
closes the fact, that, with slight and almost negligible di
vergences, the great principles of jurisprudence accepted
in all the most highly developed communities are not only
similar but virtually identical. As a result, that body of
customary law common to different nations, to which the
Roman jurisconsults gave the name Jus Gentium, and
which became the basis of what we now call International
Law, was believed until the events of the Great War dis
turbed the conviction, to have attained a consistency of
content and a degree of general acceptance by responsible
States which placed beyond all serious question its au
thority as law.

There is, as we all know, some diversity of view as to
what constitutes the law in general. If it were otherwise
it would be a very stale and unprofitable profession.

As regards the Law of Nations, which has temporarily
fallen into disrepute as even more vague and uncertain
than other branches of the law, whoever is able to discover
what it is may have the satisfaction of declaring that, not-

1 A portion of an address delivered before the New York State Bar Associafion.

316 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

withstanding the aspersions cast upon it, there is the
highest authority, based on judicial decisions, for asserting
with Sir William Blackstone that, " whenever any ques
tion arises which is properly the object of its jurisdiction,"
it is in England " adopted in its full extent by the Common
Law, and is held to be a part of the law of the land " ; and
he may also cite the opinion of Alexander Hamilton, that
it is not only a part of the Common Law, but " has become
by adoption that of the United States."

If these vindications of the respectabilty of the Law of
Nations seem somewhat antiquated, I may, perhaps, be
permitted to recall the fact that, in his address before the
New York State Bar Association, last year, the eminent
Attorney-General of Great Britain, Sir Frederick Smith,
informed his hearers that when, during the war, it became
his official duty to urge upon the Privy Council the idea
that no prize court in Great Britain had the right to chal
lenge or call in question the Orders in Council of His Ma
jesty the King, the Appellate Prize Court decided against
the contention of the Attorney-General and declared:
" We sit here as a Court of International Law, and in spite
of what our enemies have done we still believe there are
binding doctrines of International Law, and sitting here
as we do sit as a Court, whose duty it is to construe those
doctrines, we utterly refuse to be bound by Orders in Coun
cil issued by the Executive."

It is a grateful and refreshing assurance to all those
who believe in and love the reign of law, to know that there
is, in at least one country in the world, a Court that, even
in the midst of war, has the purity and the sense of respon
sibility to assert, against the Law Officers of the Crown,
that it will take no orders from those whose authority is
merely the national interests of the moment; but it is still
more reassuring to know that, in the judgment of such a
Court, International Law, despised, rejected, and reviled
by those who should be its champions, not only lives and
speaks with a voice of authority, but that its voice com
mands silence on the part of the interests even of the State.

Happily, this is no new doctrine. For us, as Mr. Jus
tice Gray, speaking for the Supreme Court of the United
States, has said, in the case of The Paquete Habana, in
1899, " International Law is part of our law, and must be
ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY 317

appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right de
pending upon it are duly presented for determination";
and it is no reflection upon the loyal adherence of the
United States to this principle that, in appealing to Inter
national Law as binding in questions of prize, the British
Prize Courts have themselves applied the decisions of
American judges to which objection was once raised in the
period of the Civil War.

Even a moment's reflection will show that, in determin
ing to decide cases of prize by the Law of Nations, and not
under the Orders in Council of the King, the British Court
was following a rule of action that was less warped by pri
vate interest and more influenced by the spirit of equity.
It was, in fact, deciding according to International Law,
because it is better law.

And why is it better law? It is better law, because it
is in no sense ex parte. It is law fit to be made universal.
Even in the more liberal-minded States, the development
of law is under the restraint of the class of interests that
have acquired power, whatever they may be, and proceeds
with little control by interests that are just as real but less
influential.

When it comes to the absolute governments, there, Law
is merely a decree; and is in no sense based upon its true
foundation, which is mutual obligation, recognized and
rendered effectual by reciprocal agreement to adopt a
controlling principle. It is of the very essence of absolutism
that it is against every principle that will bind itself, and
for every advantage that will increase the power of the
ruler over the ruled.

Now the underlying conception of the Law of Nations
is this: that there are, in this realm of legal relations, no
rulers who alone can make the law, and no subjects who
are compelled to submit to it. It is a realm in which the
jurist seeks to discover what is just; and the nations, after
considering whether or not it is so, agree to accept and
abide by the results.

It did not take long for independent minds seeking new
foundations for the State, to perceive that, underlying this
conception of law, there is the basis of a new system of po
litical philosophy, the idea of natural rights ; which, from
the time of Grotius, had been given wide publicity as a
revival of doctrines fundamental to the Roman Law.

318 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

It had not been very distinctly recalled, until a for
eigner, Professor De Lapradelle, reminded us, that, from
1758 to 1776, when American political conceptions were
in process of formation, the great jurists who wrote of
Natural Law as the basis of the Law of Nations, such as
Grotius, Pufendorf, and Burlamaqui, " were read, studied,
and commented upon in the English colonies of Amer
ica." As early as 1773, the Law of Nations was taught in
King's College (now Columbia University), and " in 1774
Adams, and in 1775 Hamilton, quote or praise Grotius and
Pufendorf."

A very considerable influence appears to have been ex
ercised upon our revolutionary fathers by the Swiss jurist.
Vattel, whose work on " The Law of Nations or the Prin
ciples of Natural Law " was inspired by a spirit of po
litical liberalism, that was without precedent. No
previous writer had ventured to class a sovereign as a crim
inal, but Vattel had the courage to write :

" If then there should be found a restless and unprin
cipled Nation, ever ready to do harm to others, to thwart
their purposes, to stir up civil strife among their citizens,
there is no doubt but that all the others would have the
right to unite together to discipline it, and even to disable
it from doing further harm."

Not hesitating to place such nations in the criminal
class, he does not shrink from applying to them the rigors
of the criminal law. " They should be regarded," he says,
" as enemies of the human race, just as in civil society per
sons who follow murder and arson as a profession commit
a crime not only against the individuals who are victims
of their lawlessness, but against the State, of which they
are the declared enemies." And, in closing his paragraph
with the recommendation of punishment, he adds, " Of
that character are the various German tribes of whom
Tacitus speaks."

Three copies of Vattel's book, brought out in a new
edition specially adapted for America, in 1775, by Dumas,
a Swiss republican resident in Holland, were sent to Frank
lin; who, in acknowledging it, says: " It came to us in good
season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it
necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations." One
copy was sent to Harvard College, another was deposited
with the Library Company of Philadelphia, and of Frank-

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY 319

lin's own copy he says, " it has been continually in the
hands of the members of our Congress now sitting."

States, according to this teaching, are subject to the
principles of " right reason," supplemented by compacts
freely made between them. Thus, in the minds of the co
lonial statesmen of America, in connection with the Com
mon Law they had brought from England, law, in its
political sense, came to be identified with covenants of peo
ples or covenants of States, freely entered into, in a manner
explicit or implicit. Constitutions, statutes, and treaties
had, in their view, the same ultimate authority, the rights
of man : Constitutions as concessions to the necessity of
government, which they limited and defined; statutes as
concessions to the necessity of civil order, within the limits
of ordained government; and treaties as concessions to the
necessity of coexistence, harmony, and safety, between in
dependent States.

Quite logically, for the first time in history, they wrote
into the Federal Constitution the remarkable words:
" This Constitution and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all Treaties
made or which shall be made, under the Authority of the
United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and
the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything
in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary
notwithstanding." (Article VI).

I have referred to these as " remarkable words," be
cause they not only recognize in treaties the quality of legal
perfection, but actually incorporate the covenants entered
into by the United States as constituting equally with the
Constitution itself, " the Supreme Law of the Land."

In this the action of the United States stands alone, the
highest tribute ever paid to the authority of law.

In this country there has never been any doubt that in
ternational morality is binding upon sovereign States; but
not in a strictly legal sense. Nor is it possible to consider
as law, in its proper meaning, those usages which are not
in harmony with the social standards and necessities of the
present age . In so far as these elements in the Law of Na
tions are antiquated or without the authority created by
consent, the fields of activity they cover need to be provided
for in a new fashion, namely, by duly considered special
agreements.

320 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

It is, therefore, necessary to place emphasis upon the
other element in the Law of Nations, which is incon-
testibly not only perfect law, according to the most severe
criteria of legality, but the most perfect example of law-
making in the whole broad field of legislation. I refer, of
course, to treaties and conventions, freely and deliberately
negotiated, and ratified by a constitutionally authorized
legislative body.

It is impossible, in view of the modern methods of law-
making, any longer to accept the idea of law expressed in
the classic definition of the distinguished English jurist,
John Austin, who defines law, as " The commands issued
by a sovereign authority to persons in general subjection
to it " ; which is a description of law in an order of things
that has, for the most part, passed away.

Under such a definition, there could, of course, be no
place for International Law, — a law created between sov
ereign States for their mutual governance; nor could there
be law of any kind, in the modern legislative sense, for any
self-governing people. Where may we look for a " sov
ereign authority " that can issue " commands " to sovereign
States?

Such an authority would be a superstate, a new entity,
holding formerly sovereign States " in general subjec
tion to it."

And yet, sovereign States, which do not, and cannot,
subordinate themselves without self-extinction, to a super-
national authority, do and must create law for the regula
tion of their own conduct toward one another, — a law not
imposed from above, but created by themselves, valid and
binding between them; — in strict and literal expression, a
law international.

It would, I think, not be an error to say, that Interna
tional Law, when made by general treaties, illustrates the
perfection of the law-making process; because it is the re
sult of a mode of procedure in which there is a complete
substitution of agreement for command. If it is true, that
government by the consent of the governed is the highest
political ideal; then the agreements of parliaments, con
gresses, councils, and legislatures representing the people
are the highest type of law; and, indisputably, interna
tional treaties and conventions, ratified reciprocally by leg
islative bodies, are the most perfect examples of this type.

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY 321

They possess an ideal authority which no other form of
law can surpass.

Under this system, a great body of positive law, freely
and deliberately agreed upon, and to a great extent with
the added quality of unanimity, has been written into trea
ties and conventions solemnly and duly ratified, ac
cording to the laws of each signatory Power.

In the development of this procedure, the United States
has been a leader, because it has introduced the participa
tion of a representative legislative body in the treaty-mak
ing process. The law-making treaties of the United States
are of their very essence examples of positive law, not only
because treaties are declared by the Constitution to be " the
Supreme Law of the Land," but because they require the
specific approval of the highest legislative branch of the
Government.

Originally, before the adoption of the Constitution,
under the Articles of Confederation, the making of treaties
was the duty of the Congress; but, being feeble as an ex
ecutive, Congress found itself confronted with the more
difficult task of making them respected. In 1786, Wash
ington, in a private letter, wrote to Jay, the accusation that
the legislatures of the States were violating the treaty of
peace with Great Britain " was greeted by them with
laughter." The States had not all developed the sense of
national responsibility; but national responsibility was the
imperative need, if the Union was to endure, and that is
what was created by the provisions of the Constitution in
the Convention of 1787.

In a letter written by Jay to the States of the Confed
eration, on April 13, 1787, and approved by the Congress,
it was declared: " Contracts between nations, like contracts
between individuals, should be faithfully executed, even
though the sword in the one case and the law in the other,
did not compel it. Honest nations, like honest men, re
quire no restraint to do justice; and though impunity and
the necessity of affairs may sometimes afford temptations
to pare down contracts to the measure of convenience, yet
it is never done but at the expense of that esteem, and con
fidence, and credit which are of infinitely more worth than
all the momentary advantages which such expedients can
extort."

In this spirit was the constitutional provision made,

VOL. ccix. — NO. 760 21

322 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

that the engagements of treaties and the rules of action to
which they pledged the signatories, should, in the United
States, at least, themselves possess the quality of being the
supreme law of the land.

As Mr. Chief Justice Marshall afterward stated, speak
ing for the Supreme Court of the United States: " A treaty
is to be regarded in Courts of Justice as equivalent to an
act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, with
out the aid of any legislative provision." And, indeed, the
making of treaties very narrowly escaped remaining, under
the Constitution, what it had been under the Confedera
tion, an act entrusted to the legislative branch alone. It
was only toward the end of the sessions that the previous
method was modified.

" It was evident," says Farrand, in his " Framing of
the Constitution," " that the convention was growing tired.
The committee had recommended that the power of ap
pointment and the making of treaties be taken from the
Senate and vested in the President, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate. With surprising unanimity and
surprisingly little debate," he adds, " these important
changes were agreed to."

By this division of the process of treaty-making, the
Executive was, in effect, charged with the duty of recom
mending legislation which he might find desirable and
practicable, but upon which a truly legislative seal was to
be placed only with the advice and consent of a law-mak
ing body.

Regarding the motives for this decision, Alexander
Hamilton wrote, in " The Federalist " : " However proper
and safe it may be in governments where the executive
magistrate is an hereditary monarch, to commit to him the
entire power of making treaties, it would be utterly unsafe
and improper to entrust that power to an elective magis
trate of four years' duration. . . . The history of
human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of
human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to com
mit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those
which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to
the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced
as would be the President of the United States.

' To have entrusted the power of making treaties to the
Senate alone," he continues, " would have been to relin-

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY 323

quish the benefits of the constitutional agency of the Presi
dent in the conduct of foreign negotiations. . . . Though
it would be imprudent to confide in him solely so im
portant a trust, yet it cannot be doubted that his participa
tion would materially add to the safety of the society. It
must indeed be clear to a demonstration that the joint pos
session of the power in question, by the President and Sen
ate, would afford a greater prospect of security than the
separate possession of it by either of them."

The judgment of American statesmen and the results
of experience have confirmed the view expressed by Ham
ilton. It has been the custom of the Executive, in mat
ters of large import, to avail itself of " the advice and con
sent of the Senate," at all stages of negotiation ; and, in fact,
the need of negotiations on particular subjects has some
times been first brought to the attention of the Executive
by the legislative branch of the government. Much of
this exchange of views is not, however, a matter of record;
for it has been in great part oral, and the nature of the
questions under discussion often rendered these private
conversations too delicate to be given publicity when
opinion on all sides was still merely in a state of formation
by the competent participants.

It is, however, a notable fact, that the traditions of the
Senate have always been tenacious regarding the respon
sibility which the Constitution places upon it, and justly
so; for, if treaties are not merely executive engagements,
and in reality are both supreme law binding upon the na
tion and destined to affect and to modify, to its benefit or
to its injury, the whole fabric of International Law, such
engagements become the most solemn transactions which
it is the duty of a government to perform. As it is the
function of the Congress to judge of the causes for which,
and the occasions when, it may be necessary to declare war,
it is not unreasonable that one branch of it, at least, should
interest itself in the conditions which may determine the
vital questions of future peace; and nothing is so closely
connected with the possibilities of war and peace as the en
gagements into which nations mutually enter by formal
treaties. Involving, as they do, pledges of action as well
as pledges of abstention, they may easily contain, under
the smoothest and most peaceful forms of expression, the
most pestilent seeds of future discord.

324 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

In the year 1899, and again in 1907, an opportunity
was afforded, at the two Hague Conferences, to perform a
large task in improving International Law by law-making
treaties.

The results were less than had been hoped for, but they
marked an advance upon anything that had before been
attempted. Notwithstanding the efforts made by Germany
and her allies to prevent any general understanding based
on the authority of law, an important corpus juris of an
international character had been brought into existence,
which even the obstructive Powers had, under the pressure
of public opinion, found it expedient to accept, and had
solemnly given their pledges to observe.

It was no outworn and obsolete rules of conduct, but
laws as authoritative as human ingenuity can devise that
have been openly, shamelessly and brutally violated by na
tions claiming to rank among the most highly cultivated
of modern peoples. By our constitutional provision, these
laws, embodied in a series of treaties duly ratified and pro
claimed, were not only laws to which we had subscribed,
they were an integral part of the supreme law of the United
States.

I bring no accusation of negligence; but I do not hesi
tate to say, that an immediate and earnest protest against
the first violation of these laws was not only justified, but
a duty which this nation owed to the dignity of the law
itself.

I submit, that there is no question before the delegates
of the Powers victorious in the Great War, now assembled
in Paris to conclude a world peace, that compares in im
port and consequence to mankind with the issue: What,
in the future, is to be the authority of International Law?
To what end are new geographic boundaries to be drawn
on the map of Europe and of the world, oppressed nations
to be endowed with a right of self-determination which
needs to be guaranteed by others, territories restored to
their rightful national connection by a treaty of peace, and
partial reparation made for reparable damages inflicted, if
International Law is to be left without permanent defense?

This then is the fundamental issue of the hour. The
whole edifice of law is menaced, not merely in its super
structure, but at its foundations ; for, in the modern con
ception of it, it is not a system of regulations imposed from

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY 325

above, and always and everywhere enforced by the physical
power of the stronger against the will of the weaker; but a
system arrived at by the voluntary consent, and maintained
by the voluntary support of those who believe in the essen
tial dignity and authority of law.

What then is to be done to maintain that authority?

Up to this point, I believe, I have said only that upon
which we can all substantially agree. But when we come
to methods of sustaining the law we leave the domain of
law in its proper sense and pass into the realm of policy;
which is, to a certain degree, a field of theory.

Here I shall not presume to enter, either to construct
or to destroy the fabrics of the mind. My firm conviction
is that we shall do well to avoid the magical charm of
phrases and catchwords, and to fix our attention upon reali
ties.

The authority of International Law rests on national
character. We cannot change that by forming new part
nerships, and particularly not by receiving into them a
doubtful member, in the hope of rendering the defaulter
and the embezzler an honest man by giving him an interest
in a business for which we are to furnish the most of the
capital.

I profoundly distrust the professions and the plausibil
ities of death-bed repentances, even among nations; and
also the improvements of society which result from merely
emotional impulses. If we are to build wisely, we shall
build on the foundations of tested knowledge and experi
ence. We shall put no trust in any " scrap of paper," no
matter with what pious phraseology it may be inscribed,
except in so far as we know that there are both strength
and character behind it. We went into this war a free
people. Let us come out of it a free people. Men
talk glibly of world federation. What does it mean.
It means, if it signifies anything, that this nation,
with other nations, is to place itself under some kind of a
central authority, with power to raise and expend taxes, to
organize and command armies, to regulate the trade and
commerce of the world, and upon occasion to declare war —
powers which, under our National Constitution — the most
far-seeing document of government ever written by the
hand of man — are placed solely in the control of the re
sponsible representatives of the people of the United States.

326 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Those powers will, I believe, never be transferred to a new
nation, of which the United States would be only a paro
chial part; nor will they ever be subject to being overruled
by the decisions of any association whatever, without the
free consent of our own law-making bodies.

We have, during the war, put to the test the strength
of our free institutions, and we have found them adequate
for war as well as for peace. They have been adequate, be
cause we have never for a moment lost the conviction that
we are a free people, and that we were acting in perfect
freedom. Had the matter of our food been under the con
trol of a supernational body, had our young men been or
dered by an authority not American to leave their business
and report for conscription to cross the sea and fight at the
dictation and in the interest of a foreign people, had the
occasion called for action that was in any degree doubtful
to the American conscience, this people would not have
made the sacrifices of life and treasure which they have
gladly made with unreluctant consecration of mind and
body.

There is a limit to national, as there is to personal re
sponsibility. Nationally, that limit is defined by the main
tenance and vindication of law. I fear the imperial sodal
ity of Great Powers associated for any other purpose. No
condominium has ever been free from jealousies and fric
tion. Even so trifling a partnership as the control of the
Samoan Islands was a thorn in the side of three nations
until it was dissolved. Every such condominium has ended
either in quarrel or partition, or in both; and the net result
is always merely deferred annexation. A partnership for
equal economic opportunities among unequal nations offers
the prospect of unexpected demands ; which, if not granted,
will lead to the accusation of bad faith.

How then can we find a modus vivendi for sovereign
States? How, indeed, if not in a united support of law,
the recognition of their equal freedom and their mutual
obligations? Law does not require a renunciation of
rights; it affirms, guarantees and protects them. That is
its very purpose and its whole significance.

Let there be then a union for the maintenance of the
law. Such a union now happily exists. It consists of the
nations that have had the force and the courage to enter
the war, in order to bring the law-breakers to justice, and

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY 327

of no others. I say of no others, because a nation is of
value in providing a real sanction to the authority of law
only when it is ready to defend the law. A neutral nation
at best only renders a passive respect to the authority of the
Law of Nations. In the cause of equity it is not an asset,
it is only a liability.

I, of course, do not overlook the fact that the prevention
of war is of great interest to neutrals, for they are necessar
ily involved in its hardships by the restriction of their trade.
In a speech delivered by the late Lord Parker, a short, time
before his death, he predicted that, if in future it were
made clear that there could be no neutrality, the danger of
war would be minimized, because its risks would be in
creased. Then all nations would be more anxious to pre
vent it, in so far as it is in their power to do so. Mediation
would be a necessary act of self-preservation; and for this
there is full justification. There is an old English form of
indictment, I am told, that bases arrest on the violation of
" the peace and dignity of the King." There may well be
a form of international indictment against those who would
disturb the peace and dignity of mankind.

For my own part, speaking now as a realist, I look for
the prevention of war chiefly to the command of the sea.
I do not rest my faith on " the freedom of the sea " —we
have seen what that may mean — but on the law of the sea ;
and that law should be simply the principle set up in opposi
tion to the unlimited right of war, for which the Entente
Allies have been fighting, namely, the inviolability of the
innocent.

On the 20th of November, 1918, the culprit fleet of Ger
many — in the presence of British, American and French
warships — coming forth from its lair, marshalled by the
British light cruiser Cardiff, swept across the North Sea
through the morning mist in gloomy procession, to be shep
herded into captivity. " Ignominious and yet magnifi
cent," as a writer describes them, the Seydlitz, the Moltke,
the Derfflinger, the Hindenburg, and the Von der Tann,
boastful battle cruisers, the pride of the German Emperor,
that had long celebrated " The Day " when commanding
the empire of the sea they could bring the world into sub
jection, swept through the mist, followed by the nine bat
tleships, then the fifty destroyers and the great flotilla of
guilty submarines. " It's a fine sight," a sailor exclaimed,

328 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

" but I wouldn't be on one of those ships for all the world."

Unconsciously, this lad felt in his heart what every true
sailor hopes will be the future law of the sea. It was on
the sea that International Law had its birth in the old sea
codes, the " Table of Amalfi," the " Consolato," the " Juge-
mens d'Oleron," and the " Laws of Wisby," which made
the sea, because it is the highway of the world, a place
where above all others the rights of man should be re
spected and maintained. Brave to battle with wind, and
wave, and storm, the true sailor scorns a Power that would
add to the struggle with nature the inhumanity of man.
The sea is the realm of humanity's defense. Closed by the
will of all civilized peoples to the greed of the pirate, the
united navies of the Entente must make its law the inviola
bility of the innocent. And this can be done.

If the Entente Allies, who have fought together in this
war to vindicate the rights of nations, are not to be trusted,
and there is in them no soul of honor, then the outlook for
mankind is, indeed, a hopeless one. But if they can be
trusted in so great a matter, the formula for the defense of
right is very simple.

I take a leaf from the diplomatic correspondence of the
British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, then Sir
Edward, now Viscount Grey.

Writing to M. Paul Cambon, French Ambassador in
London, on November 22nd, 1912, he said: " You have
pointed out that, if either Government had grave reason to
expect an unprovoked attack by a third Power, or some
thing that threatened the general peace, it might become
essential to know whether it could in that event depend
upon the armed assistance of the other. I agree that, if
either Government had grave reason to expect an unpro
voked attack by a third Power, or something that threat
ened the general peace, it should immediately discuss with
the other whether both Governments should act together
to prevent aggression and to preserve peace, and, if so, what
measures they would be prepared to take in common."

This understanding was a menace to no honorable na
tion. It was, in fact, one in which all honorable govern
ments might join. It suppressed no one's freedom; it
looked toward peace, and not toward war; and it has saved
Europe I

A more inclusive formula might possess the same qual-

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY 329

ities and serve the same purpose. It might read: ' We,
the signatories, agree that, if peace should be anywhere
threatened, we will together inquire into the cause of ag
gression ; and if we find that the Law of Nations has been
anywhere violated, we will by mediation together use our
best endeavors to avoid strife. If war is begun, we will
together consider what measures we should take in com
mon. And we mutually agree to submit any difference we
may have with one another or with other nations to a like
mediation. To this end we continue our close association
of intimate counsel, and will receive into our understand
ing other governments when circumstances may render it
proper to do so."

I am here making no proposal. I claim no title to do
that. I am merely suggesting a possibility, but a more
definite one than some others that have been strongly urged.
To many minds it may seem too attenuated, too much de
pendent upon good will and a common purpose. To that
I have only to say this. Without good will and without a
community of purpose there is no agreement and there is
no sure keeping of engagements among men. Underlying
all human endeavor and cooperation, the strongest motive
is a love of freedom. Unless they are forced to yield to
some type of imperialism — personal, national, or multi
form — which they will never cease to resent, men who be
lieve that there is no true government that is not founded
upon the consent of the governed, will not consider them
selves bound, even by the authority of the law, if they dis
cover that by its mandates they are no longer free.

DAVID JAYNE HILL.

THE RAILWAY PROBLEM- 1

BY VICTOR MORAWETZ

THE inability of railroad men and legislators to agree
upon a workable plan for the solution of the railway prob
lem has been due principally to their failure, or their un
willingness, to recognize and face certain fundamental and
unalterable facts. Instead of recognizing and removing the
underlying causes of the problem that confronts us today
they have proposed mere palliatives against the evil effects
of these underlying causes. They have merely tinkered
with a machine which has radical defects in its design and
therefore never can be made to work well.

Congress has practically unlimited power to regulate the
railways and to fix their rates, and this power of Congress
cannot be taken away or abridged. That is one of the
fundamental facts to be recognized. Another fact to be
recognized and faced is that the credit of railway invest
ments cannot be restored and the capital necessary to the de
velopment of the railways cannot be obtained from investors
while the Government has the power to regulate the rail
ways and to fix their rates practically at will, unless in some
way the Government furnishes adequate assurances that it
will not exercise this power in such a way as to deprive those
who put their capital into the railways of a satisfactory re
turn on their investments.

We live under a democratic form of government and
the will of the people rules. That is a fact which no one
would change even if it were possible ; but investors are not
blind to the lessons of history and to the signs of the times.
They have learned that, in the long run, legislatures and
commissions, all of whom, directly or indirectly, are chosen
by the people and are accountable to the people, cannot be
depended upon to regulate the railways and to fix their rates

THE RAILWAY PROBLEM 331

in such manner as to make railway stocks safe investments.

The Constitution prohibits Congress from depriving
persons (including corporations) of their property without
due process of law and from taking private property for
public use without just compensation. The Constitution
likewise prohibits the State legislatures from depriving per
sons of their property without due process of law. The
courts have held that a law or order of a commission fixing
the rates of a public service corporation so low as to prevent
it from earning a fair return on its property would in effect
deprive it of its property without due process of law and,
therefore, would be unconstitutional. But it is an undeni
able fact that these constitutional provisions do not furnish
adequate protection to the owners of railway securities. A
lawsuit with the Government involving the reasonableness
of railway rates is not adequate security. These constitu
tional provisions furnish no standard for determining the
value of the property upon which the railway companies
are entitled to earn a fair return or for determining the rate
of return that is to be deemed - fair. Nor do they furnish
any practicable standard for fixing rates. Even if Con
gress should enact a law prescribing a just and workable
method of determining the value of the property of the rail
way companies and the rate of return thereon that is to be
deemed fair and also a workable formula for fixing rates that
will produce this fair return, the Act of Congress itself
could at any time be altered, amended, or repealed.

In the past, State legislatures or commissions sometimes
undertook to prescribe complete rate schedules that were
plainly confiscatory, and these rate schedules were set aside
by the courts because in violation of the Constitution. But
legislatures and commissions soon discovered that they
could attain practically the same results by adopting the pro
cess of whittling down rates piecemeal. It was an applica
tion to the railway companies of the ancient Chinese pun
ishment of " slicing." That punishment consisted of cut
ting from the victim at stated intervals a very small piece
of flesh. No doctor could say that any one of these cuts
was fatal or even dangerous to life, yet sooner or, later the
victim always died. Similarly, the courts could not, ex
cept in rare cases, determine that any single rate reduction
deprived a railway company of its property without due
process of law, though the effect of the combined rate re-

332 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

ductions was to bleed away the credit which was the com
pany's life blood.

To provide by Act of Congress that the validity of rate
regulation shall depend upon the " reasonableness " or
" adequacy " of the rates, or upon the application of some
more specific formula would furnish no real protection to
the owners of railway securities, even if such an Act of Con
gress were irrepealable. No court, no commission and no
railway man has ever been able to furnish any definite or
practicable standard for determining what particular rates
are reasonable, or adequate, or just. Long experience has
shown that all tests of the reasonableness, or adequacy, or
justice of particular railway rates are impractical and il
lusory. The question whether in a given case a rate was
in violation of the prescribed test or formula would have to
be decided by the courts. Yet it is a fact that the courts are
not fitted to pass on such questions. Even if judges were
more competent than commissions to regulate the railways
and to fix their rates, the delays of court procedure would
prevent the courts from furnishing adequate protection to
the owners of railway securities.

To turn back the railways to their owners now or at the
end of twenty-one months without first enacting adequate
remedial legislation would be a crime. It would result in
a suspension of dividends by most of the companies, in the
bankruptcy of many of them and in a general destruction
of security values. The railway problem can no longer be
dodged, or postponed, or dealt with by palliative measures.
Unless Congress meets the problem fearlessly and solves it
by the adoption of a fair and workable plan, a nation-wide
financial catastrophe will result.

To establish Government ownership and operation of
the railways would not solve the railway problem but would
be a refusal to face it. It would be a jump from the frying
pan into the fire. Only a few of the many objections to
Government operation need be referred to :

(1) Universal experience in Europe and in Canada,
where Government operation of the railways has been tried,
and unbroken experience in the United Stats in the man
agement of Governmental enterprises, show conclusively
that Government operation of our railways would prove un-
progressive, costly and inefficient and would result in poor
service to the public with high rates.

THE RAILWAY PROBLEM 333

(2) To make several millions of our voters Govern
ment employees and to increase to that extent the patronage
list of each administration would prove a menace to the sta
bility of our political institutions.

(3) If the Government condemned the railways it
would have to pay for them in cash ; but the Government
is in no position at the present time to raise the vast amount
of money that would be required. An attempt to do so
would greatly depress the value of Government securities,
would cause an enormous expansion of bank loans and would
result in a dangerous disturbance of financial conditions.

(4) The proceedings to establish the value of the rail
ways for purposes of condemnation would upset security
values and might result in a financial catastrophe.

Almost any plan would be better for the country at large
than Government ownership and operation.

What, then, should be done? As pointed out above, the
fundamental difficulty to be overcome is that, because of
the governmental power to regulate the railways and to fix
their rates, railway securities are not safe investments and
the companies are unable to raise the vast sums which are
necessary to meet their financial requirements and the needs
of a growing country. That difficulty can be overcome by
making definite and certain at least part of the constitutional
obligation which now binds the Government in law and in
honor to allow the railway companies to earn a fair return
on their property. With such a guaranty it would not be
difficult to reach a solution of the railway problem bene
ficial alike to shippers, to the millions of citizens who own
railway securities or have interests in them, and to the public
at large.

It has been urged that there would be popular objection
to a guaranty by the Government of any part of the earnings
of the railway companies or of any returns to their security
holders; but this objection surely can be overcome by frank
discussion and argument. In guaranteeing part of the in
come to which the railway companies and their security
holders are justly entitled the Government would not really
assume any new or additional obligation. It would only
make definite and certain a portion of an existing obligation
binding in law and in honor. On what grounds can an hon
est man refuse to put into definite and enforceable form an
obligation which already binds him legally and morally?

334 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

The plan proposed by me provides that the Government
shall guarantee 65 per cent, of the estimated operating in
come obtainable under a fair and constitutional exercise of
the Governmental power of regulation. In return for its
guaranty the Government would receive (1) plenary power
to regulate the railways and to fix their rates; (2) ample
control over the management of the companies, including
power to remove their officers; (3) a share of the profits of
the railways in excess of four per cent, on the stock issued
by the Federal corporations in which the railways would be
vested, and (4) an option to acquire the railways at a fair
price without condemnation proceedings. The latter pro
vision is a detail of the plan, inserted to provide a means of
establishing direct Governmental ownership and operation
if at any future time this should be found to be both prac
ticable and desirable; but it is believed that if the plan were
adopted the demand for Government ownership and oper
ation would cease and the option never would be exercised.

The figures in the plan are merely tentative and for illus
tration ; but a careful analysis will show that if the proposed
terms were adopted the stockholders and bondholders of the
existing companies would receive new securities that would
be safe and that would be worth more than the securities
which they now hold. The benefit thus accruing to the
stockholders and bondholders would not be obtained at the
expense of the Government or of shippers. The Govern
ment and shippers as well as the stockholders would be bene
fited, through the saving in interest and dividends and the
lower rates made possible by utilizing the high credit that
would be given to a definite and certain governmental guar
anty.

Some eminent railway executives and bankers have ap
proved the plan, but others have urged that it amounts in
effect to Government operation and is subject to the same
objections as Government operation. This is not correct.
The stockholders of the Federal corporations formed under
the plan would retain an interest in their earnings in excess
of the guaranteed dividends of $2.50 per share on their
stock. The management of these corporations would be
shared by the stockholders and by the Government, as in
case of the Federal reserve banks, and the supervision and
regulation of the railways would be vested in a Federal
Railway Board similar in its constitution to the Federal Re-

THE RAILWAY PROBLEM 335

serve Board which has supervised and controlled our new
banking system in a most satisfactory manner. The officers
and employees of the Federal corporations would not be
Government officials, but they would all be appointed and
controlled by boards of directors in part elected by the stock
holders and in part appointed by the Federal Railway
Board.

Even prior to the seizure of the railways by the Gov
ernment for war purposes the Government exercised a very
large degree of control over their management — a control
which many railway executives and bankers condemned on
the ground that it amounted in great measure to Govern
ment operation. It is certain that no plan for the solution
of the railway problem will be adopted by Congress with
out extending largely the Governmental control exercised
before the war. The question to be considered by raihvay
executives and bankers is not what measure of control they
would like to see the Government exercise, but what plan
having a fair chance of approval by Congress would be most
beneficial to their security holders.

It is true that the successful operation of the plan would
ultimately depend upon the character of the men appointed
by the President, with the advice and approval of the Sen
ate, to the proposed Federal Railway Board. Similarly,
the safety of our banking system and the stability of finan
cial conditions throughout the country depend upon the
character of the men appointed to the Federal Reserve
Board. But the success of any plan that may be adopted
would depend upon the character of the public officials hav
ing control of its operations. All our property rights and
our liberties ultimately depend upon the men elected or
appointed to Government office. It is certain that no satis
factory plan for the solution of the railway problem ever
can be formulated if we assume that the President and
Senate of the United States would place the supreme control
of the railways in the hands of incompetent or untrustworthy
men.

The plan proposed by the railway executives would not
provide any real protection for their security holders. It
would not correct the radical defects of the existing relations
between the Government and the companies, but it would
complicate these relations and provide new kinds of gov
ernmental control. It would furnish new formulas for

336 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

making rates and new grounds for litigation and for court
reviews, but it would not furnish the companies with a
sound basis for obtaining the credit which they need. It
would fail to put an end to the recurring cycles of railroad
bankruptcies and reorganizations.

Other plans that have been proposed provide for the
enactment by Congress of a law directing the Interstate
Commerce Commission to fix rates so that they will yield
a definite prescribed minimum return on the property of
the railway companies. In these plans the use of the word
" guaranty " is studiously avoided; but unless their effect is
to provide a virtual guarantee of the prescribed minimum
return, these plans would not restore railway credit or solve
the railway problem. The principal defects of these plans
are:

(1) The Act of Congress prescribing the new rules for
fixing rates could be altered, amended, or repealed at any
time.

(2) The rates necessary to produce the prescribed
minimum return could not be determined in advance, and
if the commission in its discretion should prescribe rates that
fail to produce the prescribed return the railway companies
would have no remedy, unless the Act virtually guaranteed
that the deficiency of earnings would be made up subse
quently by an increase of rates or out of the public treasury.

(3) The Interstate Commerce Commission could not
effectually fix rates that would produce the prescribed re
turn unless vested with power to fix intrastate as well as
interstate rates, but it is not proposed to confer that power;
and

(4) These plans would result in unnecessarily high
railway rates. Their purpose is not to keep rates down by
means of the lowering of interest and dividends which could
be effected through a definite and direct governmental guar
anty, but to restore the credit of the railway companies by
means of a mandatory increase of rates.

No plan will be approved by Congress unless it accords
with the prevailing views and wishes of the people. The
owners of the railways, therefore, must be prepared to make
many concessions and compromises. They must realize
that they cannot obtain all that they want, or even all that
they think is due to them. No plan can be framed to meet
the views of everybody, and probably no plan that can be

THE RAILWAY PROBLEM 337

passed through Congress will be wholly satisfactory to any
body. The owners of railway securities and their repre
sentatives, therefore, should recognize the practical and
political difficulties to be dealt with and should endeavor
through constructive criticism to cooperate in framing the
best plan that Congress will accept.

On the other hand, Congress must recognize that the
American people will not be satisfied with anything short
of a permanent solution of the problem. Congress must
recognize also that no plan which is unjust to the owners
of railway securities can restore railway credit or solve the
railway problem, or guard against a financial crash when
the railways are restored to their owners.

The American people will decide justly a question that
they can understand, but to enable them to deal justly and
wisely with a problem as complicated and technical as the
railway problem they must have the benefit of courageous
and able leadership. Without such leadership there is dan
ger that the people may wander in the wilderness and wor
ship false gods ; but they will follow and will honor a leader
whom they believe to be just and to have the courage of his
convictions. A wise and courageous leader can soon bring
about a just and permanent solution of the railway problem.

VICTOR MORAWETZ.

\W e append in full the noteworthy plan proposed by
Mr. Morawetz. — EDITOR.]

THE MORAWETZ PLAN

A SUGGESTED SOLUTION OF THE RAILWAY PROBLEM

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS

1. Permanent Government operation of the railways
would be contrary to the best interests of the country and
should be rejected. It would result in unprogressive,
costly and inefficient operation with poor service to the pub
lic and high rates.

2. Security of railway investments and the capital nec
essary to the development of the railways cannot be ob
tained under any practicable system of governmental rate

VOL. ccix.— NO. 760 22

338 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

fixing or regulation, unless coupled with some guaranty by
the Government of fair returns on the investments. Secur
ity of railway investments cannot be obtained by making
the power of the Government to fix rates or to regulate
the railways depend upon the " reasonableness " or " ade
quacy " of the rates or regulations, or upon the application
of any formula that can be devised. Experience shows
that all such tests are impractical and illusory. Review
by the courts of rates or regulations prescribed by the Gov
ernment furnishes no remedy against unwise or unfair
regulation. The courts are not fitted to supervise the regu
lation of the railways or to determine the reasonableness of
their rates. Even if judges were more competent than
commissions to regulate the railways and to fix their rates,
the delays of court procedure would make a resort to the
courts ineffectual.

3. No satisfactory result can be attained without put
ting an end to regulation of the railways and rate fixing by
the several States. To obtain effective and wise regulation
it is necessary to vest supreme authority in some board ap
pointed by the National Government Of course, the
members of this board must be competent men; but com
petent men are essential to the successful operation of any
plan.

4. The Government cannot safely give the necessary
guaranty of a fair return on investments in the railways
unless vested with plenary control over their management,
including the power to remove the officers of the compan
ies. Such plenary power of regulation would not be unfair
to security holders if coupled with a guaranty of a fair re
turn on their investments.

5. Efficient and economical operation of the railways
and the best service to the country require that track facili
ties, equipment and terminals be pooled whenever desir
able and that wasteful competition be stopped.

6. To secure efficient and economical operation of the
railways it is necessary to preserve the interest of stockhold
ers and officers in the management of their properties.

7. The benefit of the high credit of the Government
should accrue to it and should not be given gratuitously to
the existing security holders of the railway companies.
Accordingly, a proposal that the Government shall guar
antee to the railway companies perpetually or for a long

THE RAILWAY PROBLEM 339

term of years their average operating income of past years,
as under the present Federal Control Act, should be re
jected. Such a guarantee would in effect be a gift of enor
mous value to the stockholders and the junior bondholders
of the railway companies. Operating income guaranteed
by the United States obviously is worth vastly more than
operating income subject to the risks and uncertainties of
the conditions affecting the railways.

8. A proposal that the Government shall leave exist
ing bonds and stocks undisturbed but shall place its guar
antee upon bonds and stocks hereafter issued with the ap
proval of the Government for betterments and additions
should be rejected for similar reasons. The practical ef
fect of such a guarantee would be to make the Government
responsible for all bonds and stocks equal or prior in claim
to those guaranteed by the Government.

9. Under the power of eminent domain the United
States can condemn those railroads which serve as instru
ments of interstate commerce and as military and post
roads. Upon such condemnation the United States would
have to pay just compensation to the owners of the prop
erties condemned and this just compensation would have
to be paid in cash, unless the owners should be willing to
accept something else in lieu of cash.

10. The Government, through a condemnation pro
ceeding, can take a railway subject to its existing mortgages
and indebtedness, i. e., it can condemn the equity of the
stockholders. But, even if the Government can condemn
a railway free and clear of existing mortgages and indebt
edness, it cannot impair the rights of mortgagees and cred
itors to be paid in full out of the proceeds of the property
before anything is given to the stockholders. The Govern
ment cannot condemn the bonds of a railway company apart
from the property of the company, and when the property
of a company is condemned by the Government it cannot
prescribe the distribution of the proceeds among stockhold
ers, mortgagees and creditors.

11. Simply to condemn the equity of the stockholders
of a railway company, leaving its outstanding bonds and
other indebtedness undisturbed, would not be satisfactory
to the Government because the result would be to give to
the holders of the outstanding bonds and other indebted
ness gratuitously a practical guaranty of their claims, the

340 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Government failing to secure the benefit of the saving of
interest which might be effected through the use of its high
credit.

To condemn the property of a company free and clear
of its existing mortgages and indebtedness leaving the dis
tribution of the compensation for the property to be made
according to the legal rights of mortgagees, creditors and
stockholders would in many cases result in great injustice
to junior security holders and stockholders.

12. The plan herein proposed is designed to attain the
following ultimate results:

(1) To vest the railways (taken in suitable groups)
in ten to fifteen corporations formed pursuant to an Act
passed by Congress under its power to regulate commerce
and establish military and post roads; these Federal cor
porations to be free from State regulation, but to be subject
to the fullest regulation and control by suitable boards es
tablished by the Federal Government.

(2) To refund the bonds and stocks of the present
companies by the issue of debentures and stocks of the new
Federal corporations, these debentures to be guaranteed by
the United States and the stocks to be guaranteed minimum
dividends.

(3) To provide the capital needed for the future de
velopment and extension of the railways.

(4) To establish a Federal railway board and suitable
subsidiary boards for the effective regulation of the rail
ways, with due regard for local interests.

(5) To provide for the future efficient management
and operation of the new Federal corporations under the
supervision and control of the Federal railway board.

The main difficulties of carrying out this plan are:

(a) To establish the fair value or just compensation
to be paid for each railway in guaranteed debentures and
stock of the new Federal corporation in which the railway
is to be vested; and

(b) To distribute this just compensation equitably
among the existing bondholders and stockholders.

13. The original cost or the reproduction cost of the
property of a company furnishes no just measure for fixing
its rates and no just measure of what would constitute fair
compensation for its property. To fix rates or compensa
tion on the basis of original cost would in many cases de-

THE RAILWAY PROBLEM 341

prive the owners of a large accretion of value to which they
are legally and morally entitled. The construction of rail
ways has been the principal cause of the large increase of
the value of lands and other property throughout the coun
try and the railroads were built in the just expectation that
their owners would share in this increase of values. To
fix the rates of a railway on the basis of a fair return on
original cost or to condemn it at its original cost would be
as wrong, legally and morally, as to condemn the property
of farmers and owners of city lots at the prices originally
paid therefor to the Government.

The cost of reproduction furnishes no just test because
the true value of a railroad, as of any other piece of prop
erty, depends largely upon its location and surrounding
conditions. A railroad serving a territory producing only
a small amount of traffic or a railroad whose operating con
ditions are unfavorable by reason of grades or other causes
cannot earn as much and is not worth as much as another
railroad serving a territory producing a large amount of
traffic and having favorable operating conditions, though
the reproduction cost of the two railroads be equal. Rates
upon competitive business must be the same as to all com
panies and it is quite impracticable to fix rates in such man
ner as to enable each company to earn a fixed return and
no more upon the reproduction cost of its property. To
condemn the property of a prosperous railway company at
a price fixed on the basis of its operating income at the low
est rates which the Government could constitutionally im
pose upon that company would be as unjustifiable as it
would be to condemn other property at a nominal price on
the ground that the Government could constitutionally de
stroy its entire value by taxation.

By reason of their magnitude, the railroads of the
United States have no market value. Few, if any, instances
exist of a competitive sale of a railroad or of a true sale for
cash or its equivalent. Moreover, any wholesale condem
nation of the railways and payment to the owners in cash
would upset all security values and might produce chaotic
financial conditions. As it would become necessary to
issue vast amounts of Government bonds, their value would
be greatly depressed and a large expansion of bank loans
would be unavoidable. By reason of the magnitude of
such a transaction, it could be carried out only through a

342 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

concurrent shifting of investments, the owners of the rail
way securities using the cash received by them from the
Government to purchase the new Government bonds or to
purchase other securities and property in the market and
the sellers of the existing securities and property investing
the proceeds in the new Government bonds. The probable
result would be a considerable increase of the prices of in
dustrial securities now yielding large returns to the holders
and a fall of the prices of Government bonds.

The quoted market prices of the stocks and bonds of
the railway companies furnish no just measure of the value
of their properties. These quoted prices of stocks and
bonds indicate only the approximate prices at which a very
small amount of the stocks and bonds can be bought or sold,
As a rule, no considerable amount of stocks or bonds can be
bought or sold at anything near their quoted prices. The
quoted market prices of railroad stocks and bonds often are
largely due to factors having little relation to the earnings
of the companies or to the true value of their properties.
In some cases bonds of railroad companies at their quoted
market prices yield no larger returns than United States
Government bonds, while in other cases equally well se
cured railroad bonds at their quoted market prices yield
a return half again as large. Some railroad stocks have
quoted market prices very much higher than those of other
railroad stocks upon which an equally high return is
earned.

14. It is submitted that the only fair and practicable
way of measuring the value of a railroad and the just com
pensation to which its owners are entitled is

(a) To estimate as nearly as may be its present and
prospective true operating income under a fair as well as
constitutional exercise of the powers of regulation vested in
the Federal and State governments, and

(b) To capitalize this true operating income at a fair
rate, based on the rate of interest or profit payable to ob
tain capital and on any risks or uncertainties affecting the
railroad and its future operating income.

The true operating income of a railroad for the purpose
of ascertaining its value is not the operating income shown
under the rules of accounting prescribed by the Interstate
Commerce Commission. Under these rules no deduction
is made on account of certain expenditures which every

THE RAILWAY PROBLEM 343

railway company is obliged to make but which do not add
to its earnings. Every prudent business man would charge
such expenditures to operating expenses or to income.
Therefore, in ascertaining the true operating income of the
railways there should be deducted in each case from the
operating income shown under the rules of the Interstate
Commerce Commission a fixed percentage based on the ap
proved practice of conservatively managed railroad com
panies.

The operating income of the railways depends largely
upon the rates which the Federal and State governments
permit them to charge. Unfortunately the courts have not
yet furnished any definite or practical standard for deter
mining the limits of the constitutional powers of the Fed-
eral and State governments to fix rates, and neither Con
gress nor the Interstate Commerce Commission nor any
State Commission has yet furnished any definite or practi
cal standard for determining what rates are reasonable and
fair. The resulting uncertainty has been the principal
cause of the failure of the credit of the railway companies
and it is the principal source of difficulty in estimating their
prospective operating income and the value of their
properties.

However, under the plan now proposed it will not be
necessary to estimate with accuracy the value of the rail
ways, or their prospective true operating incomes, or the
rates at which this estimated operating income should be
capitalized. It is not proposed to pay for the railways in
cash or its equivalent. The plan is to vest the railways in
new corporations which will issue their bonds and stocks
in exchange, and the bonds and stocks thus issued will sim
ply represent these railways, whatever their value and their
prospective operating incomes may be. Under the plan
now proposed an estimate of the prospective operating in
come and of the value of each railway is material only in
so far as this may be necessary (a) to limit the proposed
guaranty to be furnished by the Government and (b) to
establish the relative value of the several railways to be
vested in each Federal corporation, so that some of the ex
isting companies may not obtain an advantage at the ex
pense of the others.

It is suggested that in ordinary cases the average oper
ating income of the test years prescribed by the Federal

344 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Control Act (subject to a deduction as above proposed) be
made prima facie evidence of the operating income which
is to be the basis of capitalization. However, this basis
could not justly be applied to a case in which owing to a
receivership or other abnormal conditions the average
operating income of the three test years did not fairly re
flect the earning capacity of the property. Each case
should be dealt with in the light of all pertinent facts.
(To be concluded)

HOW BRITAIN DEMOBILIZES

BY HAROLD A. LITTLEDALE

(Gunner, Fifth Tank Battalion, British Expeditionary Force)

WE have always wanted to go home. Let there be no
mistake about that. From the very beginning, from the
first day we landed in France, through all the changing
fortunes of war, in defeat as well as in victory, we have
longed for home. Of course we have known there was a
job to be done. Yes, we have always known that. But
we have done that job — at least our part of it, in France,
in Belgium, in Italy, in the Balkans, on Gallipoli, in Rus
sia, in Palestine, in Mesopotamia, in East and West Africa
and on all the seas — and having done the job we are in no
submissive mood for the least delay in demobilization.
This is not because we are rebellious, for we are of no mu
tinous mind, but because we are impatient. And this im
patience is nothing more than a reflex of outraged human
nature.

Now it is a strange thing that while the civilian world
has learned much of the invention and mechanics of mod
ern warfare it has learned nothing of the spirit of the sol
dier. Perhaps this is because invention is on the surface,
whereas the soul of the Crusader is deeply hidden in the
heart within and is as mystic a thing as the soul of a child
in the first splendid moment of its birth.

Whatever the reason, this great lack of spiritual under
standing is the first thing that strikes the soldier when he
returns on leave. He sees it in the questions that are asked:
" When do you go back? " " Have you been wounded? r
" How many Germans have you killed?" Always the
material, never the spiritual.

Would you care to know the things of which a soldier

346 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

thinks? Very well, go to some desolate spot, dig a square
hole six feet deep and the width of your spade, silently in
the night crawl out and make a barbed wire defence, snatch
a few moments of sleep, for an hour before dawn stand-to
with a bayonet fixed to your rifle and tortured by an im
agination that causes you to see ghosts, wash and shave in
the little tea you leave at the bottom of your mug, try to
sleep again for an hour or two, stand now for two hours
waist deep in water and then rush into the yard of a muni
tions factory when it is blowing up ; feed mostly on cold
tinned meat, stand in the bottom of the pit you dig with
only the sky to look at for days, sometimes for weeks, let
the wind blow to you not only odors that are an offense to the
nostrils but poison gas as well, and keep this up for four
years. Then you will know the things whereof the soldier
thinks and you will want to go home. Indeed, you will
want to go home with a burning for home such as you
never dreamed could exist. You will want to feel the
clinging arms of your child around your neck and the beat
of her heart against your breast.

Consider, now, the circumstances under which we went
away.

Belgium was in flames, her altars cast down, her women
violated. All this was shown in the recruiting posters on
the boardings of our towns. " Do you want this?" they
asked. Well, we did not. Inside something was saying
" the game's afoot," and so we put aside our peaceful occu
pations and learned to shoot with rifle and to stab with steel.
We went to fight for our homes.

It was in that manner, then, that we set out upon the
Great Crusade. At heart we were not soldiers. To this
day we do not think or speak of ourselves as soldiers. We
say we are civilians in khaki.

And during the Great Crusade how did we bear our
selves? As soldiers? Yes, but not so much as professional
soldiers who enter upon a career of killing, but as men
upon whom the need to kill has been thrust. In a sense
we were quite as much conscientious objectors as those who
proclaimed it from the housetops, only we saw farther than
they.

Now, perhaps by our songs you can see that we thought
always of home. For our songs were songs of home, not
songs of battle. We enlisted to the strains of " Tipperary "

HOW BRITAIN DEMOBILIZES 347

— a song of home. Later we sang a trench ditty, " I want
to go home." Then came " Blighty " :

Take me back to dear old Blighty,
Put me on the tram for London town.

But the word " Blighty " puzzled many, and so we made
up another song which ended:

Say, don't you know what Blighty is ?

Why, bless your heart,

It's the soldier's Home, Sweet Home.

And when we had sang these threadbare, and the poets of
the fire-step were too actively engaged to compose, we raked
up all the American songs about home we could think of,
and from our line there went up in Cockney cadences,
" My 'ome in Tenner-see," or " Dixie " or " There's a long,
long trail a-winding."

Bear in mind that so far as we are concerned the war
dates back to August 4, 1914. The battle-line swung like
a pendulum. In the spring of 1918 we were fighting with
" our backs to the wall," but our faces were to the enemy,
and perhaps the fact that our faces were that way had a
little to do with the collapse of the enemy in November.

With the surrender by Germany of a great fleet of bat
tleships, cruisers, destroyers, submarines, thousands of
aeroplanes, guns, transports and invaded territory, the ar
mistice came to us as the end of the war. And as the end
of the war meant home we looked forward to the speedy
demobilization that had been promised, realizing, of
course, that technically the war was on, and that some
would have to stay under arms until peace was signed.

Now, with us demobilization was worked out on an in
dustrial basis. Unquestionably that was wise ; the country
could not at once revert to pre-war occupations. But to
our amazement, so far as those of us who by wound or for
other reasons had been returned to England were con
cerned, among the first to be demobilized were the men
who had just been called to the colors. In the camp where
I now am there were a number of men who were called up
just prior to Armistice Day, and even on Armistice Day
they had done no training, they had done no fighting, they
had suffered no great hardships, but they were the first
to go.

How was this possible? Let us consider a little further

348 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

the plan for demobilization. Under the general scheme,
pivotal and slip men were to be the first to go. A pivotal
man is a man whose release will assist in the employment
of discharged soldiers. A foreman is a pivotal man. A
slip man is a man who has a job waiting for him. In the
case of either a pivotal or a slip man the employer's request
for the man's discharge has to be endorsed by a local ad
visory committee. The papers then are sent to the soldier
to submit to his commanding officer. His discharge theo
retically follows and he is supposed to be sent to a dis
persal camp near his home for final demobilization. Now
it stands to reason that if the dispersal camps are too few
in number, men whose papers have been filled up will be
kept waiting their turn indefinitely, and demobilization
will be slow. And that is the basis of the existing com
plaints ; the dispersal camps are too few for speedy demobi
lization.

When the armistice was signed, those men who had
only just been called up wrote to their employers. Their
employers, from whom one by one men had been taken, at
once made written application for their release. Local ad
visory committees endorsed these applications and these
men of little army service returned home!

What was the result of this? Men who had more than
four years service to their credit and men of three years,
or two years, or one year service saw those others go back
home. The soldier had risked much, had been poorly
paid, and his family had had a hard struggle, whereas the
recruit had been drawing his usual income, had run no risk,
incurred no loss, and in many cases, especially those who
had worked on munitions, had gained financially. Under
these circumstances the release of the recruit was palpably
unfair. A wave of indignation swept through the army
and this expressed itself in the parades of soldiers to the
War Office.

Besides the fact that the number of dispersal camps are
too few, there is another fault. One dispersal camp may
not be nearly so busy as another, so that your papers may
have come through weeks ago, but you are being held until
the dispersal camp in your locality shall have place to re
ceive you, whereas another man may be called immediately
to his dispersal center. So you see men go before you
whose papers came through long after yours.

HOW BRITAIN DEMOBILIZES 349

You can imagine with what feelings a soldier receives
by post his employer's letter asking for his release. He
notes the approval of the Local Advisory Committee. He
is elated. It means his " ticket." For years he has been
fighting; for years human nature has been outraged; for
years he has longed for home. Well, home is in sight
now.

He takes his papers to the officer in charge of demobili
zation and is told to stand by until there is room at his dis
persal center. He writes home. He packs his things.
Then he waits. If he waits for weeks — there are men in
my camp who have been waiting since shortly after the
signing of the armistice — he will grow daily more im
patient and more unreasonable. And that is exactly what
is happening in every camp in England and in every regi
ment in France.

The days drag. Each seems longer than the preceding
one; to an extent this is actual, for the hours of daylight are
lengthening. We walk into the town only to learn that a
conscientious objector has been released from prison 1 We
talk of wrecking his shop, but it is only talk.

Recently there was released from the camp where I am, a
man who went to the United States as a boy. He was en
listed in Chicago last October by the British Recruiting
Mission and landed in England a few days before the sign
ing of the armistice. He wrote to his father late in Novem
ber. His father, a resident of England, applied for his son's
release as a " pivotal man " on the ground that he would take
him into his employ and that thus he would be in a position
to engage discharged soldiers. The Local Advisory Com
mittee endorsed the request, and not long afterwards, there
being room at the nearest dispersal center, that man was
told to go the next day.

That night, as we were putting down our beds, we
heard of it.

" Say, boys," said one, " what are we going to do
about it?"

" Let's create," replied a voice angrily.

" Right," came from half a dozen more angrily.

" How can he be a pivotal man if he was abroad when
the war broke out? "

The murmuring rose to a confused babel.

' Who'll go for the sergeant-major? "

A lad who was in bed volunteered.

350 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

" Don't bother about dressing," said some one.

The boy pulled on his trousers and slipped into his
boots. He ran into the company office where the sergeant-
major would be found and where it so happened the ap
plicant for discharge worked as a clerk. Opening the door
he shouted:

" Sergeant-major! Sergeant-major! Come quick into
our 'ut. There's bloody 'ell going on there. And (seeing
the cause of the indignation) its all about 'im." He raised
an accusing finger.

The sergeant-major wasted no time but followed the
messenger into the hut. " Bloody 'ell " was going on there,
but the warrant officer, cool, suave, diplomatic, brought
calm to troubled waters.

" It's too late to do anything in this case, boys," he said,
" but I will speak up for you."

Perhaps he did. We do not know. And anyhow the
fault does not lie in this or any other camp, but in the fact
that the demobilization scheme was completed without
any consideration of the human problem, without any con
sideration of the fact that men who had fought would want
to get home and would have a feeling that if any demobili
zation was begun they should be the first to go, leaving
some of their number to be supported by recruits so that the
army of occupation might not numerically fall below the
requirements.

And so, downhearted in peace, although we never were
in war, we go about our tasks moodily. And at such times
as we are free we climb to the cliffs and look out across
the pale blue channel.

Over there is the coast of France. France ! Our thoughts
go inland to the rude graves of those we buried there, the
resting places of those who were never to come home. We
recall the moments when they fell, this battle or that. . . .

The sea seems to have caught eternally the thunder of the
guns and flings it against the rocks beneath. A plaintive
cry from a sea gull catches at the heart. It sounds like the
cry of a child. And so the thoughts come back, as they have
always come, to home.

We wander into camp and sit in silence around the
stoves in our huts. Now is no song of home. You do not
hear " Blighty " ; no longer rise the merry accents of

HOW BRITAIN DEMOBLIZES 351

Say, don't you know what Blighty is ?

Why, bless your heart,

It's the soldier's Home, Sweet Home.

No, the thought of home now is bitter sweet. And we can
not sing of it. For the first time in the army we cannot
give expression to it in song.

HAROLD A. LITTLEDALE.

LABOR AND SHIPS

BY CHARLES PIEZ

Director General, Emergency Fleet Corporation

GERMAN submarines sank more tonnage in a single
month of 1917 than all the American shipyards then in ex
istence could produce in a year, and the vessels sunk in a
single quarter of that year exceeded the largest possible an
nual output of all the English yards.

In spite of the impetus given it by the great demand for
shipping during the year 1916, the American shipbuilding
industry was but a relatively small affair when we entered
the war. It employed less than fifty thousand men and was
producing ships at a rate of seven hundred thousand dead
weight tons per year. The output per man was less than fif
teen deadweight tons per year.

It required but a simple calculation to determine that in
order to reach the goal of six million deadweight tons for
1918 set by Mr. Hurley, it would be necessary to secure a
working force of at least four hundred thousand men just
as fast as the additional shipbuilding facilities could be pro
vided. And it was necessary to secure this great army as
volunteers, because all talk of conscripting labor to man the
yards was idle.

After a review of all the circumstances, the Emergency
Fleet Corporation laid down the following guiding prin
ciples:

First. That the rate of wages set for shipyard workers
must be sufficient to attract capable and experienced men
from other industries and to compensate them for the dis
comforts of outside work throughout the year, and for the
crowded and expensive living conditions in the shipyard
districts.

Second. That in order to make shipyard work attrac-

LABOR AND SHIPS 353

tive not only to the floater and the adventurous workman, but
also to the man with a family, adequate transportation facili
ties and adequate housing had to be provided.

Third. That in order to prevent excessive drifting of
labor from one yard to another and from one district to an
other, a uniform wage rate had to be set and enforced by the
Emergency Fleet Corporation.

Fourth. That owing to the large number of new yards
it was necessary to instruct the managements in proper
methods of employing and handling men, and owing to the
large increase in the number of men in the yards it was nec
essary to instruct the new men in the rudiments of the ship
yard crafts.

Fifth. That in order to instill into the minds of the
workmen in the yards a proper sense of their duty and an
appreciation of the overshadowing importance of their
work, an educational campaign through posters, bulletins,
moving pictures and speeches had to be inaugurated.

Sixth. That in order to prevent any interruptions to
the continuous operations of the yards, some machinery
had to be set up for the purpose of regulating hours, wages
and conditions, adjusting differences and settling disputes.
Seventh. That in order properly to distribute the avail
able labor supply among the several government depart
ments in accordance with their relative importance and
needs, central employment agencies for all government
activities had to be inaugurated.

The formulation of these principles was, however, but
the beginning of the task of securing an adequate supply
of experienced men to man our yards. It was relatively
easy to attract men to the yards by such propaganda as the
" Shipyard Volunteers " and by exempting workers in the
shipyards from service in the army. But the quick expan
sion of a force of fifty thousand skilled men by the addi
tion of three hundred and fifty thousand more, drawn from
every walk of life and from every line of activity or per
haps inactivity, presented problems of assimilation that
time and persistent educational effort alone could meet.

Experienced shipbuilders and shop managers claim
that labor cannot be diluted by the addition of more than
ten per cent, per month without a very marked reduction
in efficiency. Yet the dilution that, under the stress of cir
cumstances, had to be made by the Fleet Corporation,

VOL. ccix.— NO. 760 23

354 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

averaged for some months more than fifty per cent, of the
force employed in the yards. It is to be borne in mind that
all of the trained and experienced managers, superinten
dents and foremen were already engaged, and that this sud
den and huge expansion of the industry involved the addi
tion of inexperienced management and supervision as well
as the addition of inexperienced men.

There were in operation in June, 1917, thirty-five yards
capable of building vessels of over three thousand tons,
and this number was increased to one hundred and forty-
seven yards within twelve months. It can be truly said
that the Fleet Corporation was unwise in creating so many
new facilities until after it had expanded existing yards to
the limit of their possibilities. If that policy had been fol
lowed from the beginning as it was later on, both labor and
management problems would have been vastly simpler and
ship-output correspondingly greater. But the wisdom that
comes from a careful survey and deliberate consideration
could hardly have been expected while the submarine was
sinking one million tons a month and while there was an
insistent public demand for immediate and wholesale ac
tion. Yards were begun in great number in the very early
days of the Fleet Corporation's existence, and these yards
had to be manned and managed.

Every employer who has had experience in largely ex
panding his force during a tight labor market will realize
the difficulties that the situation presented, and will realize
that no miracle of overnight transformation could be ex
pected. The job was one of welding this huge mass of
men, hastily gathered together, into a fairly effective pro-
ducing-organization in a remarkably short space of time.
The old and well-organized yards were amply able to
handle this problem of. assimilation, and some of the newer
yards showed great skill in building up an effective organi
zation, but in most cases the Fleet Corporation had to un
dertake the task. Training centers for developing in
structors were established in various sections of the coun
try, and at the signing of the armistice thirty-seven of these
centers had turned out over eleven hundred instructors for
the seventy-one training schools established at the various
yards, under the auspices of the Fleet Corporation.

The National Service Section and the Publication Sec
tion of the Fleet Corporation both rendered conspicuous

LABOR AND SHIPS 355

service in bringing the men to a proper realization of the
importance of their work and imbuing them with a con
ception of their duty and responsibility. This was accom
plished through a country-wide educational campaign with
speeches, posters and literature as the instruments.

Mr. Schwab, former Director General of the Fleet
Corporation, visited, together with the writer, substantially
every large and active shipyard in the country, and came
into first-hand contact with the men. Our impression in
every case was, that the men appreciated their responsi
bility and were doing their best to discharge it.

There were charges that the shipyards were the haven
of slackers and shirkers and that the Fleet Corporation
had ordered a relaxation of discipline to attract men.
While the exemptions from military service granted to
men in the yards undoubtedly brought men there to escape
the draft, yet only 26,000 men out of a total of 390,000
were Class 1 men on the Fleet Corporation's exemption list
in August, 1918, and of this number a very large percentage
would have been entitled to exemption on industrial
grounds.

If discipline in certain yards during this process of
rapid upbuilding grew lax, it was not to be wondered at
considering the inexperience of the management and the
fact that for a time, at least, it seemed more essential to get
men into the yards to turn out ships than to get them
into the army. But the Fleet Corporation never relaxed
its efforts to maintain discipline at a high level, and sum
mary dismissals of large numbers of incompetents and
slackers in some of the newer yards bear testimony to that
fact. Improved methods of employment, however, rather
than summary dismissals, were looked to for raising effi
ciency and improving discipline.

Output during this enormous dilution of labor, of
course, dropped, and labor costs increased, both by reason
of the drop in output and the considerable increase in wage
rates. But, eliminating yards in which high labor costs
are largely a question of inexperienced or incompetent
management, the drop in output per man was not nearly
as large as was generally supposed, although the combina
tion of reduced output and increased wage presents a rather
startling increase in labor costs.

In the case of a well-managed yard on the Pacific Coast

356 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

in which the number of men increased threefold in a little
over a year, a comparison of wages and output with cor
responding items of two years before revealed the fact that
before the signing of the armistice, wages had advanced
seventy per cent, and the output per man had been re
duced to seventy per cent, of the former output. The re
sult was a labor cost two and four-tenths times that of two
years ago. In the case of two well-managed yards on the
Atlantic Coast the results in the one were : Labor advance,
120 per cent. ; output, 80 per cent. ; resulting labor cost, two
and three-quarter times that of the former period. In the
other, labor advance, 100 per cent; output, 66V3; resulting
labor cost, three times that of two years ago.

With the signing of the armistice and the consequent
reduced pressure under which the shipyards will be asked
to work, it is very probable that a prompt and considerable
increase in efficiency can be attained and that labor costs
will go down to a level that will permit the yards to com
pete for foreign business.

The high wages now prevailing in the shipyards ought
to secure a class of workmen whose experience, skill and
energy will demonstrate that high wages are not incon
sistent with low costs. The existing scale of wages was
amply justified by the emergency; hereafter it will have
to justify itself through increased output if the industry
is to survive.

The Emergency Fleet Corporation has been so repeat
edly charged with advancing wages unduly that a brief
statement on this subject may be of interest. Recognizing
the fact that an industrial undertaking of the magnitude
of that of the Emergency Fleet Corporation could not be
assured of continuous operation unless adequate means for
composing disputes was provided, an agreement was en
tered into on August 20, 1917, between the American Fed
eration of Labor, on the one hand, and the Emergency
Fleet Corporation and the Navy on the other, by virtue
of which all disputes concerning the hours, wages or con
ditions of employment were referred to a board of three
which was to be known as the Shipbuilding Labor Adjust
ment Board. Immediately after its organization, the Board
was called to the Pacific Coast to fix the wages of the ship
yard workers, and after extended hearings handed down a
decision that by reason of an increase in the cost of living up

LABOR AND SHIPS 357

to August 1, 1917, amounting to 31 per cent., the wages
of the skilled crafts were to be raised from $4.00 per day
of eight hours to $5.25, the increase to become retroactive
to August 1st. This decision met with intense dissatisfac
tion because the unions in the Seattle district had already
entered into an agreement with the largest yard in that
district, by virtue of which the skilled crafts were to re
ceive $5.50 per day up to January 1st, and $6.00 per day
after that As this agreement affected substantially 35 per
cent, of the men in the district, it can be imagined that they
did not welcome a decision involving a reduction in pay
of 12% per cent.

An appeal was, therefore, taken from the Board's de
cision directly to the executive officers of the Navy and
the Fleet Corporation during the first week of December,
1917, and inasmuch as the cost of living had shown a
further increase of almost 10 per cent, since August 1st,
an advance of 10 per cent, of the Board rate was granted,
becoming effective December 15th.

The agreement creating the Board provided for a re
consideration of its decisions at the end of each six-months
period upon the request of the majority of the crafts af
fected. Reconsideration was asked by the west coast crafts
on February 1, 1918, but the Board reaffirmed the rate of
$5.77% and the Board of Appeals confirmed this decision.
In the meantime, the Board gave consideration to the de
mand of the men in the Atlantic, Gulf and Great Lakes
yards, and fixed a wage of $5.60 for eight hours for the
skilled crafts. These rates, it will be seen, were by no
means excessive, and became so only because, through the
efforts and insistence of the organized crafts, these rates
had to be paid to every man assigned to the work of the
craft, whether he had the skill and experience or not.

The decision handed down for the Atlantic district in
cluded, in addition to a wage scale for a fairly well-de
veloped classification of shipyard workers, a piece-rate
schedule covering the operations of reaming, bolting, riv
eting and caulking. It was the first time, to my knowledge,
that the Government based compensation on output rather
than on the number of hours spent at work. The schedule
was developed under the auspices of the Shipbuilding
Labor Adjustment Board by a joint conference of the men
and the employers, and while it was arrived at in a man-

358 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

ner far from scientific, and while it is studded here and there
with inconsistencies, it has, nevertheless, proved a satisfac
tory method of wage payment, and should establish a pre
cedent for setting piece rates in the metal trades industries
through joint determination and bargaining.

On August 1, 1918, all of the skilled crafts in all of the
districts presented claims for $8.00 per day of eight hours,
and while the claims for this further increase of 40 per
cent, were supposed to be based on the increased cost of liv
ing, it was evident that the leaders of the men made the
demand purely because their economic strength and the
perfection of their organization seemed to assure success.
The Wage Adjustment agreement gave no specific instruc
tion to the Board on the subject of wage increases, but it
was the spirit and implication of the agreement that ad
justments should be made only when material changes in
the cost of living had taken place. The Board, after care
ful investigation, handed down a decision in October, plac
ing the wages for the skilled crafts in all districts at $6.40
per day of eight hours, and making corresponding adjust
ments in the piece rates. The men immediately took their
case to the Appeal Board provided for in the agreement,
and failing to prevail there, more than thirty thousand
shipyard workers in the Puget Sound District walked out
on January 21st.

It is highly improbable that such a step would have
been taken had the war continued; for the shipyards were
remarkably free from strife and interruptions during the
conduct of the war, and the men stood nobly by their obli
gations. It is to be regretted that in the face of the agree
ment existing with the Government, in the face of a full
and impartial hearing, and in the face of a falling demand
for ships, local labor leaders should have been so short
sighted as to take this step.

Had the war continued, it is questionable whether the
Board could have continued to award increases in wages
solely on the ground of increases in the cost of living. It
takes but a moment's reflection to indicate the absolute
futility of such a practise. If the shipyard workers and
the munitions workers were entitled to such consideration,
why was not every wage and salaried worker earning less
than $2,000 per year entitled to similar consideration, and
why would it not have been absolute justice to all if wages

LABOR AND SHIPS 359

and salaries had been advanced periodically to keep step
with the rising cost of living? This would at least have
had the advantage that no one group would have profited
at the expense of the other; and the failure of such a step
to overtake or even stay so elusive an affair as the cost of
living in war times might have forcibly brought home to
all of us that increased production of the individual and
increased self-denial in consumption were, after all, the
only effective remedies to apply to the situation.

It must be admitted that much of the labor unrest that
manifested itself in these wage demands grew out of the
unwise and unregulated competition for the available
labor by the employers. Wise and proper use of the avail
able labor supply was just as essential as wise allocation of
the supply of raw materials, yet, while we had a large
body of experts in the War Industries Board controlling
the supply and distribution of materials, the directive con
trol of the supply of labor was left to a few detached indi
viduals or boards that were supposed to enlist in a scheme
of voluntary co-operation and co-ordination under the none
too powerful and none too effective direction of the War
Labor Policies Board.

It is true that this particular Board had no authority
to direct, and that it was supposed to insure harmony of
action among the various labor bodies by developing uni
form policies for all. But while the War Labor Policies
Board was discussing questions of policy in Washington,
shops working for one department of the Government were
taking men from the shipyards where they were getting
seventy cents per hour by offering them eighty and ninety
cents per hour. And shops, furnishing machinery to ship
yards as subcontractors over which the Fleet Corporation
had no control, were beating the shipyard scale ten and
twenty cents per hour without let or hindrance, until it be
came possible through the War Industries Board to cut
off their supply of raw materials if their breaches of the
scale became too flagrant.

What was needed, therefore, was not so much the ma
chinery to control the distribution of labor as the ma
chinery to control the inconsiderate, grasping employer
who was bound to get out his work no matter how it af
fected others.

With many Government contracts on a cost plus a fee

360 THE NORTH AMERICAN ^REVIEW

basis, and with department heads driving the contractors
for delivery, small regard was paid by the latter to wage
rates, particularly as no national wage policy had been an
nounced.

Even the Federal Employment agencies, established by
the Department of Labor, while effective in securing and
distributing common and some skilled labor, were wholly
ineffectual in providing for a proper distribution of the
available supply of labor among Government departments
and among the various essential industries.

We may as well admit that, in spite of the War Labor
Board, the War Labor Policies Board, and the several Ad
justment Boards, we had no national labor policy during
the war; and we failed to have it because we thought of
the problem as a Labor Problem rather than as a Produc
tion Problem.

If we had had in the War Industries Board a Director
of Production, charged with the responsibility of seeing
that all industries producing war materials for the Gov
ernment were producing in proper quantities and at equal
speed to suit the needs of the General Staff, and that not
only material, but labor, was properly distributed among
them, some real results would have been achieved.

As it was, the several departments of the Government
finally arrived at some form of casual co-operation that most
imperfectly met the needs of the situation.

There was never any harmony in either the actions of
the departments or the decisions of the various adjustment
boards, although a few conferences with that end in view
were held a month or two before the signing of the armis
tice.

The Fleet Corporation set up for itself, however, a
fairly effective machine to handle its labor problems, for
not only did its Labor Adjustment Board lay down uni
form and nationwide rules on the subject of hours, wages,
and conditions, but its district organizations were so ex
panded and developed as to insist on a more exact adher
ence to the rules and decisions of the Adjustment Board.

The existing agreement with the men expires on March
31st, and it is the purpose of the Emergency Fleet Corpo
ration to pass the determination of labor policies back to
the yard owners and their men.

LABOR AND SHIPS 361

The value and success of the Fleet Corporation's work
is attested by the fact that both the shipbuilders and the
representatives of the workers have requested that the
Emergency Fleet Corporation continue its direction of these
matters, but it has been wisely decided that it is best for the
future of the industry that the Government should cease its
direction of matters that are properly within the scope of
the yard management.

CHARLES PIEZ.

THE STRATEGY ON THE
WESTERN FRONT

IT.

BY LIEUT. COLONEL H. H. SARGENT, U. S. ARMY

OF course, at this time, no figures as to the strength of
the armies on the Western front at various periods can be
obtained with accuracy; nevertheless, an approximation,
which will answer the purpose for an analysis and a discus
sion of the strategy on the Western front, may be obtained
by a comparison of different estimates and statements.

It is generally admitted by both sides that at the battle of
the Marne the Allies considerably outnumbered the Ger
mans. The Times History of the War, Vol. II, page 51,
estimates the Allies at rather more than 2,000,000 and the
Germans at rather less than 2,000,000, and states that of
combatants actually engaged in the battle there were prob
ably 3,000,000 in all.

Lieutenant General Baron von Freytag-Loringhaven in
his book, " Deductions from the World War'1 pages 90 and
91, says:

At the beginning of the war of 1914 the armed force of France
alone was slightly in excess of the whole mobilized strength of Ger
many, while if we deduct the German forces employed in the East and
those which were in the first instance kept at home for coast defence,
the French, English and Belgians possessed a numerical superiority of
something like three-quarters of a million men.

After the Battle of the Marne the strength of the field
forces of the Allies on the Western front was increased and
of Germany decreased up to September 1, 1915, when the
numbers, according to the estimate of Frank H. Simonds in

THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW 363

the American Review of Reviews for October, were as fol
lows:

Allies Germans

French 2,000,000

British 750,000 1,500,000

Belgian 100,000

2,850,000

But if such a great inequality in numbers between the
Allies and the Germans did exist at that time, it was not
continued long; for some time afterwards, but prior to the
attack on Verdun in the following February, a number of
German divisions were transferred from the Eastern to the
Western front. Just how many is not accurately known, but
probably about a quarter million of men. But, at any rate,
it seems to be generally admitted that there was not a suffi
cient number transferred at this time to make Germany's
strength on the Western front anywhere near equal to that
of the Allies at the time of the attack on Verdun.

For a year and a half following the attack at Verdun, the
Allies seem to have outnumbered the Germans by several
hundred thousand ; but the total collapse of Russia in No
vember, 1917, permitted Germany to strengthen greatly her
forces on the Western front early in the year 1918. On
March 16, 1918, just five days prior to the great attack begun
by the Germans towards Amiens, Colonel Slocum, Military
Attache at London, reported the number of combatant
forces on the Western front to be :

Divisions Battalions Rifle Strength

British 58 555 600,000

French 971 915 764,000

American 42 48 49,000

Belgian 6 108 64,000

Portuguese 2 24 26,000

Total Allies . . . 167 1,650 1,503,000 16,680

Total Enemy . . 186 1,700 1,370,000 15,734

But evidently a number of German divisions that had
recently arrived or were en route were not included in this

lTwo French dismounted cavalry divisions not included.
'There are Sy2 American divisions in France; 3 or 4 referred to above
are still under instruction.

364 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

report; for on May 25, Colonel Slocum reported the num
bers as follows :

Divisions Battalions Rifle Strength Artillery

British Omitted 495 520,000 6,247

French 103 964 674,000 10,103

American 5 60 65,000 458

Belgian 6 108 56,000 699

Italian 2 24 16,000 100

Total Allies ... 166 1,651 1,331,000 17,607

Total Enemy .. 208 1,914 1,654,926 17,168

This would indicate that the Germans had a preponder
ance of trained fighting men on the line of about 300,000 on
May 25; but this only takes into account 65,000 Americans
out of more than 700,000 then in France. Of the 1,019,115
which Secretary Baker reported as having been sent to
France prior to July, 1918, fully half were ready to take
their places on the firing line by the end of August. In
August, September and October nearly a million more men
were sent to France; so that by November 1 there were
nearly two million American soldiers in France, of whom
probably one-half or thereabouts were ready to take their
places on the firing line. All of which clearly indicates that
the Allies have had a considerable preponderance of fight
ing men and guns on the Western front since July 1, 1918.

GERMANY'S SECOND GREAT MISTAKE

As a result of the battle of the Marne the German Army
was halted, turned back, forced to dig in, and take up a de
fensive role which brought Germany's offensive on the
Western front to an end for the time being. For about a
year and a half she continued to act defensively there; and
although she was considerably outnumbered by the Allies
during this period, she held the front easily.

In the meantime she took the offensive in force against
her enemies in other parts of the theatre of war. And hav
ing in these operations made a gigantic and successful cam
paign against the Russians and a marvelously successful one
against the Serbians, she determined to make another power
ful effort to break through the Western front and resume a
war of movement.

Just why she changed her plan from the defensive to the
offensive on the Western front before she had entirely dis
posed of her enemies in Russia, Serbia and Italy is not fully

STRATEGY ON THE WESTERN FRONT 365

understood. But the probable reason is that she felt the
necessity of making another great effort there before Great
Britain could complete the organization and training of her
great army and make it ready for operations in France,
which she was then engaged in doing. And since Ger
many's victories in the East and in the Balkans had greatly
encouraged her and would enable her to transport a number
of the veteran and victorious divisions of her Eastern armies
to the Western front ; and since the fall of the fortresses of
Liege, Antwerp, and Maubeuge, resulting from the fire of
the big Austrian and German guns, had demonstrated that
fortresses in this war were of little account in the reckon
ing; and not knowing that the French had already ab
sorbed this lesson and moved their great guns from their
forts to concealed positions, she hoped to meet with better
success this time in breaking through on the Western front.
At any rate, she purposed trying it, and in February, 1916,
began her great attack against Verdun.

This attack was one of the most sustained and formid
able in history. For five months the German Crown Prince
tried to break through the line at this point. In repeated
and most desperate assaults, at the expense of enormous
losses in life, he hurled his divisions against the French;
but all his efforts were in vain. The line held. Verdun
remained in possession of the French, and all the blood spilt
by the German soldiers in that mighty effort went for
naught.

And it was all a mistake, another great blunder; for
with the same effort here spent, and probably a far less loss
of life, Germany could in turn have completed her vic
tories on the Eastern front, destroyed the army at Salonika,
and captured that important sea port; then with greatly
superior forces struck and crushed the Italian army; and
then, with all her enemies disposed of outside of France
and Belgium, have returned to the Western front with an
enormous preponderance of forces, elated by great vic
tories, for a campaign against her enemies there. And even
had she not been able to do all this, she would have been
able to do a great part of it; which would have brought her
just that much nearer to a final victory, instead of having
been brought, as she actually was, by her great failure and
sacrifices at Verdun, just that much nearer to final defeat.

The two fundamental facts upon which all strategy is

366 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

based are, first, that an army in order to live and fight must
have food, clothing, equipments, ammunition, weapons and
reinforcements; and secondly, that these supplies and men
must be brought to it over its lines of communication.
These lines of communication running from its front to
its bases of operation and supply are its nerves and its ar
teries and veins; sever them, and you destroy the army;
even threaten them, and serious consequences are apt to
follow. Hence it follows that the commander-in-chief of
an army must ever keep a watchful eye upon them and be
ever ready to protect them against any attack or threatened
attack. But simply the protection of his own communica
tions is not enough. If he expects to accomplish anything
great in war, he must do much more than this: he must, if
possible, so plan his operations, so direct his attacks, as to
threaten or destroy his adversary's communications. It is
then that a victory on the battlefield will bring with it mo
mentous results.

But on the Western front it was impossible for either
army to turn or outflank the other and strike its communi
cations, since the fronts of each rested on the neutral coun
try of Switzerland at one end and on the English Channel
at the other. Hence it was by frontal attack only that either
army could hope to break through and resume a war of
movement; and since each was determined to prevent the
other from breaking through, each constructed strong lines
of intrenchments, with machine gun emplacements, wire
entanglements, and other accessories.

The difficulty of breaking through these strongly en
trenched lines was made more difficult by the employment
on each side of the new war weapon, the aeroplane, which
enabled the air scouts to sail over and beyond the enemy's
line and to see and report any concentration of his forces.
This knowledge enabled the commanding general of the
opposing army to assemble his reserves opposite the threat
ened sector of his line in order to repulse the attack. In
other words, the element of surprise, which in so many of
the great battles of history has been such an important
factor in determining results could not, as formerly, be
made use of in the face of these new war weapons. Of
course, the aeroplane has not entirely eliminated the chance
of surprise, but it has made it, even in a small way, very dif
ficult of attainment.

STRATEGY ON THE WESTERN FRONT 367

A glance at the map of the railways of Germany,
France, and Belgium indicates that the most numerous and
most important lines are those that traverse the country
from east to west. Fourteen lines of track cross the Rhine
between Switzerland and Holland. In addition to these
main lines, two parallel lines on either bank of the Rhine
follow its course north and south and many other cross lines
connect the towns of the east and west lines with each other.
In Germany the double track lines are much more numerous
than in France and Belgium; some lines, indeed, having
four parallel tracks. The chief difference between the
countries is especially noticeable in the extraordinary de
velopment that the Germans had given to their connecting
and crossing railways between stations and to platforms for
loading and to the number of strategic railways near the
frontier that they had built largely for purely military pur
poses.

The most important lines of communication of the com
batant armies as they stood on the Western front from Bel-
fort on the border of Switzerland, through Verdun, Reims,
and St. Quentin to Nieuport on the English Channel were
those several east and west railways which run from Paris
in turn to Vienna, to Prague, to Berlin, and to Hamburg.
They lie in a direction generally perpendicular to the
Western front and cross the Rhine at Nuenberg, Breisach,
Strassburg, Germensheim, Speyers (Speir), Manheim,
Mayence (Mainz), Coblentz, Bonn, Cologne, Dusseldorf,
Rheinhausen, Ruhrort, Wesel, and other places.

Numbered from the south, the main railways are :

First: The line from Paris to Vienna via Belfort, Mul-
hausen, Augsburg, and Munich.

Second: The line from Paris to Vienna via Chalons,
Nancy, Strassburg, Carlsruhe, Stuttgart and Munich.

Third: The line from Paris to Prague via Chalons, Ver
dun, Metz, Saarbruck, Germensheim, Heilbron, and Nu
remberg.

Fourth: The line from Paris to Dresden via Chateau-
Thierry, Verdun, Metz, Mayence, Frankfurt, and Leipzic.

Fifth: The line from Paris to Berlin via Laon, Me-
zieres, Thionville (Diedenhofen), Treves, Coblentz, Gies-
sen, Cassel, and Magdeburg. That part of this line which
passes through the winding valley of the Moselle from
Trionville to Coblentz is a strategic railway constructed

368 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

since the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. It joins the net
work of lines that the German military staff has built about
Metz in the last few years and is the last in the series of
communications by which Germany was able to penetrate
France without traversing Luxemberg or Belgium.

Sixth: The line from Paris to Berlin via Laon, Me-
zieres, Maubeuge, Namur, Liege, Aix-la-Chapelle, Co
logne, Barmen, Wehrden, and Magdeburg.

Seventh: The line from Paris to Berlin via Laon, Hir-
son, Maubeuge, Namur, Liege, Aix-la-Chapelle, Dussel-
dorf, Hamm, Magdeburg.

Eighth: The line from Paris to Berlin via Compiegne,
St. Quentin, Maubeuge, Namur, Liege, Aix-la-Chapelle,
Duisburg, Essen, Hamm, and Hanover.

Ninth: The line from Paris to Hamburg via Mont-
didier, Cambria, Mons, Charleroi, Namur, Liege, Aix-la-
Chapelle, Wesel, and Bremen.

As to these last four lines it will be noted that all merge
into one line in passing through Namur, Liege, and Aix-
la-Chapelle; and that there is no other east and west line
to the southward until the Mezieres-Sedan-Thionville rail
way south of the Ardennes mountains is reached.

Various important railway lines also connect the prin
cipal towns of France and Belgium with Calais, Boulogne,
and other channel ports.

The Germans obtained their supplies, munitions and
reinforcements over the railways extending eastward from
the Western front into Germany; the French theirs over
those extending westward and south-westward from the
Western front to Paris, which was their great manufactur
ing and distributing center; and the English, theirs over
those leading back from their lines on the Western front
to Calais and Boulogne and other Channel ports. Supplies
landed at Le Havre and Brest and a number of other
French ports, for the use of the Allied armies, were mostly
sent to Paris for distribution.

After America came into the war in April, 1917, other
new lines of communication and supply were established
for the American forces. They extended from behind the
Western front in the vicinity of St. Mihiel, just south of
Verdun, westward, southwestward, and southward across

STRATEGY* ON THE WESTERN FRONT 369

France to the principal American points of debarkation at
St. Nazaire, La Rochelle, Bordeaux, and Marseilles.

For three years and a half after the tattle of the
Marne, the line of the Western front separating the oppos
ing armies in France and Belgium was, with the exception
of a slight change made in it as a result of the battle of the
Somme, practically stationary; and was in shape like that
of an elongated letter S, the upper part northwest of Ver
dun, bulging towards Paris, the lower part southeast of
Verdun, towards Strassburg. And such was the shape of
the Western front when the great attack was made at Ver
dun.

Inasmuch as Verdun was one of the strongest points of
the entire front, and well known to be such by the Ger
mans, the question naturally arises why did the German
General Staff select that point for attack, and why did they
sacrifice so many men in repeated and fruitless efforts to
break through the French front there?

The answer is, that the map shows that Verdun, and
that portion of the French front just west of Verdun to
Reims, was the only sector of the whole line where the Ger
mans could by breaking through it cut off the communica
tions of a large part of the French army with Paris.
Strategically then this sector of the line was the place to
strike.

It might appear that had the attempt been made to
break through westward of Verdun, near Reims, it would
have met with better success ; but even so, in that case, so
long as Verdun itself held out, it is evident that the break
could not have been sufficiently widened to make it safe
for a German army to pass through. In order, therefore,
to carry out this plan successfully, it was absolutely neces
sary that Verdun itself be taken ; and had it been taken, the
gap towards Reims could have easily been widened.

It is evident that had this plan been successfully carried
out, it would have produced momentous results ; for a break
through this sector of the line and an advance through Cha
lons and Troyon towards Troyes and Chaumont, would
have severed the communications with Paris of the entire
right wing of the French Army, which was occupying the
line from Verdun to Belfort. Having broken through it,
the Germans might have taken either of two courses: They

VOL. ccix. — NO. 760 24

370 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

might have left a containing force1 to hold the right wing
of the French Army, while they moved westward with their
remaining forces to envelop Paris; or they might have left
a containing force to hold the French forces towards Paris,
while they closed in with their remaining forces on the
French right wing and captured it. They would probably
have followed the latter plan, since the whole right wing
of the French Army, with its communications severed and
a powerful German force pressing it in front, could not
have escaped capture. This accomplished, practically all
the German forces in front of, as well as in rear of, the
French right wing would then have been released to assist
in enveloping and capturing the French forces about Paris.

The consequences of a German victory at Verdun would
have been immense, for it would have meant the destruc
tion of France, perhaps the conquering of the world. Thus
it was that the Germans made such mighty efforts to break
through the French front there. At first their formidable
blows proved irresistible and led to the capture of a large
part of the fortified area about Verdun and of the im
portant outlying forts of Douamont and Vaux. And they
were most persistent; again and again for a period of five
months they brought their troops to the attack, until the
very ravines ran red with blood. And it seemed as if they
might succeed in spite of their immense losses; for they ap
peared ready and willing to sacrifice any number of men in
order to gain a few yards of ground.

It was a critical period in the world's history; the out
look was portentous ; free government was trembling in the
balance. And to those who understood the strategy of the
situation, the mighty assaults on Verdun filled their hearts
with dread akin to despair, lest the Germans would break
through and all would be lost. But the French soldiers,
the indomitable French soldiers, inspired by their great
fighter, Petain, barred the way and hurled them back; and
France was saved; and the friends of freedom once more
took courage.

'"Containing Force": A body of troops charged with the duty of holding
in check a body (generally numerically superior) of the enemy, while the main
efforts of the army are directed against another portion of the hostile body. —
Wagner.

(To be continued)

LINCOLN AND HAMLET

BY JOHN JAY CHAPMAN

AFTER reading all one day about Abraham Lincoln, and
going to see Hamlet on the next, I was struck by certain
resemblances between the two characters, and I began to
ponder over the universal popularity of each of them. The
world seems to adore problem characters, men in whom
there are several natures and who pass from one mood into
the next through a point that crackles with electrical fire,
a point where grief and smiles meet — sometimes in a torrent
or blast of feeling and more often in a mere silent flash of
transition. It is this crackling point that puzzles the world
and delights it too. The incongruous has in it something oi
the divine. You meet this in Byron's letters, but not in his
poetry. If Byron's humor could have run into his verses
quite spontaneously, Don Juan would have been a classic.
In Hamlet and in Lincoln there is a constant fizz and
sparkle, a mingling of streams and some new surprise of
nature at every moment. We always understand, and yet
we can never explain. This motley seems to be what
humanity requires in a truly popular human character.

It should be noted as often as possible that the one thing
in the world which is always spontaneous is humor. There
is no substitute for humor, no imitation that deceives us. It
is the one thing that pierces the iron sides of hypocrisy;
black coats and long faces cannot resist it. Nay, they evoke
and create it; they draw the lightning. Humor is a mys
tery, and the ubiquity of humor in Shakespeare's plays is
what makes them great and — from the point of view of
pure reason — incomprehensible. They are the mirage of
literature; you cannot sail up to them.

One resemblance between Hamlet and Lincoln is due to
the chasm that separates each of them from the rest of the
characters in the play, and this chasm is what gives rise to

372 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

the jets of wit and pathos that leap across it. The im
mense friendliness and affectionateness of both these char
acters and their yearning towards everyone — as shown, for
instance, in Hamlet's greeting of the players and in Lin
coln's dealings with all mankind — unites them in our mind ;
though it must be admitted that Hamlet was often irritable,
and Lincoln always as kind as summer. But both men arc
helplessly moody, and moods are what fascinate the world.
Men wish to unravel the mystery. Now the truth is that
neither did Shakespeare understand Hamlet, nor did Lin
coln comprehend himself. But we — we are the jury— we
positively must understand. Hence the two great litera
tures of these two great subjects.

A morbid, slightly hysterical, poetic temperament, a
mind intensely analytical yet gifted with an intrusive light
ning humor that made it see the fallacy before it had time
to state the proposition, a mind burdened with a practical
responsibility and over-charged with feeling — such was
Hamlet, and Lincoln differs from him chiefly in this, that
he lacked Hamlet's philosophic power, and that he had in
its stead a religious faith which pulled him through in the
end and made a practical man of him. In the meantime,
however, Lincoln was always weaving his little thread,
striving to find some fiber that would hold. He was a doc
trinaire and maintained a thesis, which he sleeplessly re
vised for years, like a man making an aeroplane. It was a
thing built for the special winds of the epoch, and he kept
adding wheels and gauges to it from time to time. It was
a political, not a philosophic machine; but it was driven
by the popular passions of an important epoch, and was able
to take up their power and utilize them. For this reason it
is forever interesting. It is the old republican dynamo — of
the model of 1850-60.

Lincoln's mind could see a political idea only when it
was above the political horizon — or was just nearly about
to rise. He was caged and controlled by the conviction
that there must be a United States — a thought which would
never have given Hamlet a moment's pause or concern.
Lincoln starts out with his conclusion and labors hand
somely, honestly, painfully at the structure of his argument.
He always reminds me of a very knowing mountain mule,
who is picking his way up a rocky road amid the loose stones,
and carrying a heavy and precious load upon his back, while

LINCOLN AND HAMLET 373

precipices yawn below at every turn. But he is mountain-
bred. Have no fear for him. He is domestic here and
has trod these hills as a colt. He knows every peak and
cranny of the land. The landscape is bleak and rugged, the
habitations humble, scattered and uniform. It is a sad
land, without our cathedrals, theatres, or the charms of a
domestic civilization. I have always wondered why Lin
coln stopped short in his education; for surely the Bible,
Shakespeare and Weems' Life of Washington were enough
to introduce him to the whole of literature. He could have
obtained books. Scott and Byron and Boswell's Johnson
were in some vogue in the Eastern States. He was a hard
student in his single line of slavery and the Constitution.
He was used all his life to go to libraries and read biogra
phies and memoirs about his one subject. But he seems to
have lacked any large intellectual curiosity, and the tradi
tional explanation of this lack — the meagreness of his sur
roundings — is not convincing. In Lincoln's situation,
Franklin would have imported books — from Europe if nec
essary. It is needful to point out this quality of Lincoln's
mind, because the whole subject has been reduced to a series
of legends or traditional views. Lord Charnwood's charm
ing book is individual, picturesque and fresh. It is written
in a hand-made, self-taught, colloquial spirit that makes us
love the author. He brings to bear the light of long study
and of patient thought upon Lincoln's temperament and per
sonal characteristics; and in this Lord Charnwood is orig
inal. The novel touches and happiness of the book concern
details. But in matters of politics the author's mind is sub
dued to what it works in, it is saturated with American feel
ing, and speaks from the conventional point of view. It is
deficient in big ideas. When Lord Charnwood comes face
to face with the Sybil of History he turns away with some
euphemism of the sentimental English school of thought —
a thing that is moral and polite, but says nothing. Such an
occasion arises, of course, with regard to John Brown.

The American Abolition question in the United States
began in 1829 and rumbled along for thirty years, and was
vaguely understood in Europe, somewhat as a Russian
revolution is followed in America. But when in 18.59 John
Brown's Raid fell like a bolt from the sky, men in Europe
were startled. A great bell had tolled. An elemental
shock had rolled out of America, an appeal to humanity.

374 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

As was to be expected, those who were near the instru
ment were bad judges of the size and carrying power of its
tone. Lincoln himself, being caged in his problems of
tangible politics, was obtuse to the meaning of John Brown's
Raid; and Lord Charnwood, in commenting on this obtuse-
ness, says: " With a very clear conscience we refuse to take
example from these men (like John Brown), whose very
defects have operated in them as a special call ; but undoubt
edly most of us regard them with a warmth of sympathy
which we are slow to accord to safer guides." This is an
empty compliment. Except where great dramatic, spiritual
ideas are in issue Lord Charnwood is a good commenta
tor. His notes on Hamlet's madness, on his relations to
Ophelia, to the grave-diggers, to Rosencrantz and Gulden-
stern are apt and excellent. But when Lord Charnwood
touches upon the great argument that stalks behind the
whole drama, the bloody crime — a brother's murder — that
ghost of Hamlet's father, that spectre of impending retribu
tion — the Slavery Question — Lord Charnwood is feeble.
The subject is disturbing, ungentle and vast. Lord Charn
wood came not here to discuss that. And yet that ghost is
at the bottom of .every incident in the play. The ghost is
always on the stage; and the drama of Lincoln's life con
sisted in this, that he could never frame a philosophy that
would include the ghost. He did not understand the gist
of his own life's role till the curtain had fallen on the war,
and everyone understood the plot of the whole great play.

Lincoln never understood the Slavery Question. He
was always bent on preserving the Union with or without
slavery. Slavery had been accorded certain rights under
the original Constitution, and Lincoln's panacea was thai
all parties should go back to those conditions and live as
happily as they could. This was a logical, legal-minded
notion;. but it failed to take facts into account. The whole
world had changed since the oak of the United States had
been planted in a pot with an iron band of slavery about the
brim. Slavery was at war with democratic institutions,
slavery was at war with the mind of the world, slavery must
go. The Southern Autocracy, which loomed so large in the
thoughts of our half-educated ancestors, was a little group
of benighted pirates left, as it were, on an island. That
group had no future; no place in the sun awaited it. The
notion of preserving slavery because it was provided for in

LINCOLN AND HAMLET 375

the Constitution of the United States was the thought of
illiterate men; and illiteracy qualifies the whole political
history of the United States between 1830 and 1860.

Had Lincoln in his youth seen the problem in the larger
light, had he seen that slavery was doomed, he might never
have been President; but his enormous mental powers would
have been exercised freely instead of being employed in
bolstering up a thesis which was essentially false. He had,
in fact, such gigantic natural powers that I believe his utter
ances would have brought the brains of Europe to our res
cue, and that the whole subject of slavery in America would
have been dragged to the light and settled — by war, of
course — sooner than it was. But Lincoln's brain was
cramped by the poison of the very institution that he op
posed. He could not see that the Constitution of the United
States was a fetish, and that he himself was like a super
stitious woman who was clinging to a rag doll during a
tempest at sea.

Lincoln had moments of illumination which the his
torians have made the most of, but his habits of self-suppres
sion and his belief in his doctrine besieged him and the light
would flicker and go out. For some reason, it is always
regarded as an extraordinary manifestation of virtue if a
politician ever takes a course which is contrary to his appar
ent political interest, even if it accords with a larger am
bition. And thus the occasions on which Lincoln allowed
the views of the Abolitionists to trickle into his speeches
are pointed to as examples of wonderful heroism. In par
ticular, Lincoln's speech about " the house divided against
itself," and his prophecy that the Union was destined to
become all slave or all free, is always cited as an instance
of wonderful courage and wonderful insight. But this
speech was made at the time that the Republican party was
being formed ; and the Abolitionists had been shouting simi
lar prophecies from the housetops for twenty-five years.
It was due to their vociferation that the idea at last leaked
into Lincoln; and due to their influence on the voters in
1858 that he found courage to utter it. The Abolitionists
are forgotten, because they were monotonous, like the mur
mur of the sea, a continuous, distributive, pounding in
fluence. They were dreadfully unpleasant at the time, and
what they created with their pounding was atmospheric,
it was a substance which only very imaginative historians

376 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

can perceive. Thus it has been lost, and Lincoln is repre
sented as acting in vacuo.

Lincoln's inability to see the deeper issue behind the
politics of his times could be illustrated from any one of his
speeches, but is best seen in its nakedness at the time when
he took office as President. At this time the long threatened
eruption of the volcano was in full blast. Half a dozen
States had seceded, Sumter was besieged, the Constitution
was in tatters.

Yet Lincoln was among those who offered to <woo the
seceding States back again by a special amendment to the
Constitution which should give them additional guaran
tees, and copper-fasten their sacred rights in some particular
way. This was like offering a nosegay to a mad bull, but
it was logical and legal-minded. All that can be said for
Lincoln in a philosophic point of view is that he reflected
the most advanced views possible to the political mind in
his country.

Lincoln threw into political life as much as that life
could carry of the liberal thought of a most benighted age.
He did this with the genius of perhaps the greatest popular
speaker and demonstrator in history. Our people are in the
habit of saying that if Lincoln had been more profound he
wouldn't have been understood. I do not believe this; I
believe merely that if he had been more profound he could
not have held office.

The insoluble question in history is the question how far
any ruler is the victim of public opinion and how far public
opinion is the victim of him. Let any one read at leisure
Lincoln's First Inaugural, and try to determine just how
courageous Lincoln was or how discreet, just how much
promise of a strong Government there was in this speech,
and how much concession to the insolence of the South and
to the timidity of the North. One would have to read all
the newspapers of the United States during the previous
thirty years in order to make a good guess at such a matter,
and even that would not suffice. One must have been alive
at the time of the speech. And even if all this could be
done, each one of us would decide the point according to
his temperament. Such is the study of history.

In the Great War which has just closed, we have all
lived through an epoch of action and reaction between a
democratic executive and his people, which has left the

LINCOLN^AND HAMLET 377

matter a mystery. One cannot help wondering what the
historians will make of it The present generation will re
member the hammering that Mr. Wilson got, the speeches,
the meetings, the memorials, the rage, the outcry — the voice
of the people as it dinned the popular will into Mr. Wil
son. All this clamor is as much a part of history as the
conduct of the Executive. The speeches of Mr. Wilson
will be accessible, of course; but to later generations the
other side of the dialogue — what the people said — will be
lost in the murmur of the sea.

There is one great difference between the procession
of Lincoln's speeches and the procession of Mr. Wilson's
speeches. All of Lincoln's speeches are parts of a
single argument, even the earliest ones show traces of his
latest thoughts. In the course of the Civil War Lincoln's
philosophy developed very little. When the time came, it
simply busted, like the one hoss shay; and he did what was
necessary in regard to the great abuse, slavery. As
to Mr. Wilson's speeches on the Great War, I doubt
if the human mind can piece them together into any coher
ence. Each is a prophetic deliverance, and if you should
put them in a pile one on top of the other, they would destroy
one another and give you zero as a result. Nevertheless,
Mr. Wilson's final attitude was the decisive one, so far as
politics went, and the earlier speeches are expunged. The
process by which this was done will be invisible to posterity,
like the actinic rays which stain the photographic plate but
which the eye cannot see.

Of the two men, Mr. Wilson's mind is far more normal
and far less interesting than Lincoln's. Mr. Wilson is no
Samson Agonistes brooding over Israel, but a ready electri
cal machine that obeys major currents. In Lincoln's place
Wilson would have responded to the winning current
(namely, to the Northern determination to win the war)
sooner than Lincoln did; for Lincoln's dread of moving
faster than public opinion was turbid, morbid and more
elephantine than Wilson's similar fear. The hesitation Lin
coln showed in relieving Fort Sumter is to my mind as ex
asperating as Mr. Wilson's treatment of the Invasion of
Belgium during the first year of the war.

Lincoln's political timidity has had an evil influence
upon American character from his day to our own. I have
never been in an American reform movement in which Lin-

378 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

coin's example was not quoted daily as a reason for doing
nothing at all ; and it is quite certain that the precedent of

1860 had a powerful influence in preventing our Adminis
tration from preparing for war in 1914. If Lincoln had in

1861 adopted the tone of Andrew Jackson in calling on the
North to put down the rebellion, the Civil War would have
been shorter. This is no more than saying that if Hamlet
had been a sensible young man he would have had his uncle,
the bad King, indicted for murder, would have married
Ophelia and lived happily ever after. But we should have
had no play of Hamlet. And if Lincoln had been a good
executive, we should have had no Lincoln.

To illustrate his inefficiency I will quote the much-
admired closing lines of the First Inaugural. At the time
that Lincoln spoke them the South was in arms and organ
ized. The authority of the United States had been openly
defied for more than two months :

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine,
is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail
you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the ag
gressors. I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We
must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not
break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretch
ing from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and
hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the
Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels
of our nature.

These lines have a certain lyrical beauty, they are a fine
soliloquy. Lincoln seems to be debating inwardly "whether
'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of out
rageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles
and by opposing end them." But as a call to the patriotism
of the North to help put down a criminal rebellion, the lines
are flat; and if regarded as a threat to a province actually in
revolt, they are ludicrous. They would tend to incite any
manly revolutionist to unusual activity.

Mr. Wilson's early pacifism, his advice to us not to think
about Belgium, his " too proud to fight," " America first,"
" peace without victory," etc., had a sting in them. They
were a tonic. But Lincoln's words are the drowsy syrups
of the east; John-a-Dreams (as Hamlet calls himself) is in
them. And yet Lincoln was longing to arouse the war-
spirit in the North, and Wilson feared to arouse that spirit
in his countrymen. The moral of both cases is the same.

LINCOLN AND HAMLET 379

The American people is slow, but sensible: war was in each
case necessary, and the people would have fought and won
the war, no matter who had been President.

But a deeper truth hovers over the outcome. There is
a rationale in this apparent inefficiency of democracy; there
is a spiritual law at the bottom of this exasperating slow
ness of America. You might express the matter thus:
Poetry is more important than prose. Poetry endures, prose
fades and vanishes. As for Mr. Wilson's utterances, it is
too soon yet to hazard a guess as to which class — prose or
verse — they belong to. Upon whatever wind it was that
he rose, he soars today in such a heaven of contemporary
fame as no modern man has ever reached before. At what
point he will alight is as yet unimaginable.

Lincoln has passed into the domestic lore and love of
mankind. He was a saint, a prophetic nature, a humorist, a
sage, and a peasant. He spent much time upon his knees,
and much time in personal chat with thousands of people.
In his conversations, in his speeches, in his letters, his per
sonality was ever greater than the occasion, and greater than
his dogma. He spoke in fables and parables. His state
documents contain passages of grotesque, spontaneous,
powerful humor which split a subject open — sudden human
appeals that are like certain lines in Robert Burns' songs,
they smite. He seems to have lived in that detachment of
spirit which expresses itself in homely figures, and shows
that the profoundest truths are ever the nearest truths.

Lincoln survives in personal anecdotes, like one of the
great figures of antiquity, and later generations seem to crawl
in and out of his pockets. The history of the Civil War
is chiefly read in order that Lincoln may be understood and
enjoyed. His mind lights up the epoch, and when the
illumination of that mind was quenched, the times become
sad, complex and uninteresting. The Muse of History has
closed her book.

JOHN JAY CHAPMAN.

THE ANSWER FROM ITALY1

BY GERTRUDE SLAUGHTER

CARISSIMA:

Returning from Trieste on a torpedo boat this morn
ing I fell to thinking about a letter of yours that came to
me in Rome last spring, the one written — do you remem
ber? — in your friend's Italian garden beside the pool with
the low parapet and the marble image of Pan. I have
thought of that letter often in these last months and to-day
certain parts of it came back to me with a new meaning
as I sat there on the high bridge amidships, my arm resting
on the base of a machine gun and my eyes looking across
the tossing sea to the shore of Istria on the one side and on
the other to the long side of the Carnian Alps, swept clear
by the north wind and glowing in the sun. I had been
meditating — between scraps of conversation with a young
Italian officer beside me — upon the strange extremes of
superlative achievement and desperate defeat the folds of
those hills had concealed; of how Cadorna's army had
made its way over them and through them with unsurpass
able skill and fortitude, paying for every metre of ad
vance with blood, and had then retreated disastrously,
inexplicably, after the betrayal of Caporetto. To-day the
massive peaks, touched with every shade of glorious color,
were radiant with victory. Even Hermada, the single
height that had stood between that army and Trieste, lifted
its purple shoulder as if absolved from same. Yet the
triumph, so swiftly won as to be even now almost in
credible, was won, I reflected, not in the few days of brave
advance, but in the long year of patient, sternly disciplined
resistance. Trieste was not won without Caporetto.

I thought of that while my mind was still teeming with

1 Suggested by " A Letter to a Friend in Rome," by Anne C. E. Allinson, in THH
NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW for October, 1918.

THE ANSWER FROM ITALY 3S1

the sights I had just seen, while the emotions of thousands
of human beings into whose faces I had looked, with many
of whom I had talked, seemed to be throbbing in my own
pulse. And then it was that I remembered what you had
said about our parts as " atoms in the cosmic misery in
flicted by Germany," of the different forms our own resist
ance, yours and mine, had been forced to take by circum
stance, and of your attitude of waiting — of waiting with
faith.

To me it would be the denial of all faith to acknowl
edge any " gulf " between you in America and Stefano and
me in the war zone, or between us working here on the
edge of the conflict and Christopher upon whom the iron
hand has rested. Even the inexorable gulf that Jerry has
crossed is narrow I believe in comparison with the chasm
that opened up between me and a certain woman with
whom I talked recently — an American in Italy — one who
has suffered and endured within the sound of guns yet
whose eyes have not seen nor her ears heard the things that
have been revealed to this generation. You and I " tied
up to the biggest thing in history," on the same windward
side, on that summer day when the German army was in
vading Belgium and we sat among the scented pines in our
remote corner of New England and spurned neutrality
and pronounced our personal judgment upon Germany.
The same faith has sustained us through the storm.

Believing in a faith enlightened by truth and supported
by justice, we then declared that the only fitting punish
ment for Germany was that she should be left with only a
" scrap of paper " for her defense. Yet how difficult is
justice! For a scrap of paper in the hands of honest men
is more than a scrap of paper; and it was written in the
books that Germany should not suffer to the measure of
her sins. In a civilized world she could never be made to
endure the penalties retributive justice would demand.

And now — the war is won! Christopher has returned
to you. General Foch and his armies have done their per
fect work. Autocracy is overthrown. Germany is a
prisoner of war and Austria is dismembered. The forces
of Thor are conquered. De we behold a new earth and a
new heaven? Was our faith justified?

It was a hard question for me to put to myself just then,
for I had been watching one of the saddest spectacles of

382 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

the war in Italy, the multitudes of prisoners out of Aus
tria. They came pouring down into Trieste, half-clothed,
foot-sore, starving. Trieste had no food for them, and
they were herded together in the vast open spaces of the
quays, waiting until the new government should be organ
ized and means of transportation re-established, pouring
in by thousands when they could be taken out only by hun
dreds, huddled together in the icy wind which was keep
ing back the ships that might have saved them, exchanging
their blankets for pieces of bread through the iron railing,
standing in the mud, sitting about pale camp-fires, bind
ing up their bleeding feet in rags, many of them falling
faint with illness and dying where they fell. Was it a new
heaven and a new earth?

In the Trieste hotel, the Savoia — until November third
the Palace Excelsior — life began to be very gay. One met
all of the officers there, military commanders and naval
commanders, the hero of this and the hero of that; the com
mander of the port who had just come in on the last aero
plane from Pola; the well-known aviator, escaped from
Austria, who was off to Venice in a submarine; the broad-
shouldered general who was military governor; the Col
onel of the Arditi, who had been summoned to keep order
among returning prisoners; the Colonel of sanitation who
was organizing hospitals with great rapidity; the famous
Rizzo with a rainbow of decorations on his breast. There
were officers of the Italian army who were citizens of
Trieste; there were loyal Italians from Trent who had
been forced to lead regiments of the enemy (one of them
wore a leather coat buttoned tight over his Austrian uni
form) ; there were officers of the artillery who had come
up through the promised land, and officers of the marine
who had turned their ships to the need of the hour and
were going backward and forward, over loosened mines,
in the teeth of the Bora, bringing up supplies.

It was not long before women began to appear in the
hotel and one afternoon there was a dance. I came upon
the scene out of the cold, dark street, made colder by the
sound of water beating against the quays. I had fought
my way against the wind from the soup kitchen of the
American Red Cross where all day long we had been giv
ing out clothing to the prisoners. The bright gowns, the
music, laughter, the uncorking of bottles, smoke in the air,

THE ANSWER FROM ITALY 383

a confusion of voices — I was half-dazed for a moment
until a smiling lieutenant whom I had known earlier on
the Piave front offered me a seat with his group of com
panions and I found myself among fellow-workers in the
prisoners' camp. The climax of the ball was a speech by
a tall commander with grey about his temples, who paid
graceful tribute to the sex and toasted the ladies of
f' Trieste italiana." A moment later, as the chatter rose
again, two trim, good-looking youths came toward me, in
troduced themselves politely, explained that they knew I
had clothing for prisoners — they, too, had been prisoners
and had lost everything — could I give them a cape or an
overcoat? A mist swam before my eyes. Were we cele
brating a joyful victory?

I should like to tell you of all my encounters in that
hotel. You, with your perennial interest in every human
combination, would listen eagerly, I know, to every inci
dent. After all, it is just such particles, bright and dark,
that make up the kaleidoscope which is what one sees in
the war zone.

One soon began to meet one's friends, only Italians at
first, then English and Americans. The two boys who
came up from Cavazuccherina with our rolling canteen,
shipped from Venice in a Red Cross launch, gave us an
evening of high adventure. They had followed close be
hind the advancing army and served hot coffee to the fight
ing men. Ah! yes, they had seen fighting! Let no one
pretend that there had been slight resistance. They had
fed starving babies whose mothers wept at the sight of
milk, they had passed through the Austrian lines with a
Red Cross flag on their camion, and that afternoon they
had set up the canteen in the prisoners' camp. They were
young heroes bursting with their tales of prowess.

Some forty young English officers appeared one day,
most of them aviators. They had walked out of their
prison camp at the first news of revolution in Vienna and
come down through scenes of mad disorder. They had
fared well in prison and their stories were more often gro
tesque than tragic.

I had a long talk in the Savoia with our friend, X ,

the English historian. His eyes were deeper than ever
with the joy of our triumph. When I had seen him last
in the Middle West, he was crushed as we all were by the

384 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

news of Russia's first great defeat. " And how much bet
ter for the world," he said, " that we should win now with
the help of America than that we should have won two
years ago with the help of Russia!" "It seems like a
dream," he murmured, "like a dream!"

A very different experience was my conversation with
an Austrian sympathizer, a woman who was letting her
mother starve in Venice and die of grief while she stayed
by a rich Austrian aunt. I was almost sorry she was not
there later in the evening when two women and several
men were driven out of the hotel with cries of " Fuori
Tedeschi!" Still another participant was a reformer from
Fiume, a tall, lank man who was forever haranging a
group of listeners, declaring " It was for this, and for that,
and for nothing else that the Italian soldier offered up his
life. " Sometimes he drew fire and there were discussions,
and once a pink-cheeked lieutenant answered: " Nonsense!
Italy was at war and the Italian soldier only did his duty.
The rest is nonsense." And there was the soft-voiced lady
of Trieste who had concealed twenty escaped prisoners in
her house and defended a hospital at the point of her
bayonet.

Images of all these people floated before my eyes this
morning as I thought of your hopeful letter, and with
them images of how many kinds and qualities of men
among the prisoners! — men of every type of manhood,
from the dull earthen creature who clutched the shoes we
gave him like some dumb animal to strong, nimble youths
with the light and fire of genius in their faces ; from prig
gish little officers who cuffed their men about and wanted
everything for themselves to the one who, above all others,
I shall remember as of the kinship of Saint Francis of As-
sizi, one who took every burden upon himself to save his
men, one to whom the most menial task held no indignity.
He had the eyes of a dreamer and the virtues of a saint.
But for the most part it was a dreary morass of unkempt,
suffering humanity into which every hope of a new era
seemed to sink far out of reach.

My young friend, the Capitano, who stood beside me
on the torpedo boat, drew me up sharply by one of his
comments. I call him my friend advisedly, though I had
never seen him before and did not know his name until
we landed. However, I knew the basic principle of his

THE ANSWER FROM ITALY 385

life, his religious and political theories, his valuation of
science, his judgment of the nations, and his reverence for
Italy. I knew that he was a physicist in the University of
Bologna, that he had a magnificent appetite and a whole
some fear of alcohol. He had clear, straight eyes, a firm
mouth, and a face that rippled all over when some idea
pleased him. I knew much of his experience of life and
his hopes for the future. The crossing lasted four hours
and I spent much of that time in meditation. One makes
friends with great rapidity in the war zone.

I was giving the Capitano an account of the King's en
trance into Trieste, involving a contrast which had left a
rather unpleasant impression upon my mind, as I had seen
it from the high deck of an old Austrian-Lloyd steamer
— the very one, perhaps, on which you and I sailed to
Greece from this same harbor in that youthful wander-
year of which you wrote. She was lying by the dock ready
to put out for Venice when the destroyer, LSAudace, bear
ing the King, drew up on the other side of the narrow
pier. I saw the King and his officers in their long grey-
green capes; I saw the bridge decked in tricolour placed
for the King's feet; I saw him descend and enter an auto
mobile and pass through the lines of bersaglieri to the cen
tral square. I heard the salutes of the waiting crowd, the
music of the bands, the cheers that greeted the speech of
welcome and the King's reply. All this I saw and heard
with the emotions of a life-long lover of Italy, of one in
whom no event of modern history had aroused so pas
sionate an interest as the Italian struggle for independence
and who rejoiced that now in this twentieth century the
Risorgimento is accomplished. I remember how Cavour
had said that the complete liberation of Italy, as far as her
natural boundaries, would be the work of the generation
that should come after him, and I thought of Carducci's
cry:

Rendi la patria, O Dio! Rendi 1'Italia
agli italiana.

And yet as I looked at the visible realization of the dream,
I could see just beyond, across on the neighboring dock,
behind the King and his escort, a grey sea of starving men,
those same pitiable prisoners. " I shall never forget," I
said to the Capitano, " the background of that picture of
triumph."

VOL. ccix. — NO. 760 25

386 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

" I can understand," he answered. " But did you think
how happy those men were at that sight? When they
thought how good it is that their hardships have not been
in vain? Be assured, Signora, those men were happy."

"But no!" I exclaimed, " they were hungry. You
did not see them, as I did, dipping their hands into the
boiling soup in their frantic haste."

" No, but even so, — remember the Italian is an idealist
Why, on that first day when the news came of the victory
the people of Trieste forgot their meals all day long. No
body thought of eating. The Italian is like that. I am
quite sure those prisoners forgot all about their hunger,
even if they were starving."

When I entered the harbour of Trieste a few days after
the occupation, the city was hidden by a mist and the long
line of lights along the shore glowed like stars. I looked
from them to the silver stars — symbols of Italy at war —
on the coats of the officers about me. I was in the midst
of a group of Triestini serving in the Italian army who
were going home, after the long silence, to their families.
I wondered if to them, too, those lights seemed like the
stars of Italy and symbols of redemption. Or were they
thinking of their families. They were gathered in the
bow straining their eyes to see. At least I knew that when
they murmured, " Finalmente! Finalmente!" At last!
At last!) they were not thinking of that rainy day on the
most wretched craft that ever put to sea, of the eleven hours
we took for a crossing I have since made in three, nor of
their escape from the front. These north Italians are very
quiet and self-contained in their emotions. They are like
their king, of whom someone has said: " He is one with
his soldiers, a pure Latin, simple, serene, intrepid." I am
sure that if they were to behold (as I think they did) the
new earth and the new heaven they would only smile, with
a soft light in their eyes, and whisper, "Finalmente"

I am glad to believe with the Capitano that the Italian
is an idealist. And the war has taught Italy something
about the idealism of America. " The enthusiasm of Italy

for America," said our English friend, X , " is one of

the best results of the war. It gives me great hope for the
future." Perhaps all men are idealists in their way. What
one keeps on wondering is whether the war has brought
us nearer to the realization of our ideals.

THE ANSWER FROM ITALY 387

For this Victory, who, after halting for such a long,
weary while came so suddenly at last, had brought diverse
gifts on her swift wings. A Paris friend writes, in the
midst of public rejoicings, " When I see the splendid regi
ments, horizon-blue, passing under my window, marching
to music with the King of England at their head, I watch
for the silhouette of some brave young officer who is like
my little Frangois, and I never fail to find him." He was
her only child and he fell in the first engagement. Every
mother sees her own son, living or dead, in every regi
ment. Perhaps they only did their duty. But we, for
whom the sacrifice was made, what do we think of it?
Now that the respite has come and we are no longer nerved
to the event we must ask ourselves whether the one great
gift of all is ours, the assurance that the Cause is won.

Here in Venice I watch the transformation of a city at
war into a city at peace with feelings often at variance with
the proper glow of triumphant pride. Venice is re-awak
ening. Instead of silent streets and darkened palaces, op
pressed by a dull weight of sandbags, there are sounds of
the hammer and the chisel in the air, lights shine from the
windows, facades and porticoes lift themselves free, Saint
Marks is bursting its wooden frame, coming forth to the
light like some enchanted image created by magic from
a block of stone. Instead of complete darkness, with no
light but the sun and moon, the waters gleam and blaze
with lights. Instead of torpedo boats lining the broader
canals, going in and out with military precision, there is a
varied movement of many ships, of whistling steamers, of
tugs, sailboats, launches and barges. Two American
cruisers are anchored in front of the Piazzetta (one stripe
of their war paint would efface the palace of the Doges)
and an English and a Japanese battleship are in the same
Great Basin. When the Birmingham blows her siren
people start for a moment, then sigh with relief, for it is
not an air raid, and the night-watch on the housetops is a
thing of the past. The shops are opening, the people are
coming back, one sees well-groomed children on the way to
school (not merely the little waifs of our Red Cross Asili).
A dressmaking shop of pretensions has just opened on the
corner opposite the Cinema where we used to crowd about
the daily bulletin. When I go up the Grand Canal in the
open launch piled high with children's clothes and boxes of

388 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

condensed milk, ladies peep at me out of the windows of
their black-hooded gondolas. The angel on the peak of the
Campanile no longer hides her wings in a covering of cloth.
She shines in the sun like a golden Victory. But in Venice
the symbol of victory is the Winged Lion who has stood on
his column uncovered and undaunted throughout the war.

Venice is re-awakening, to the joy of everyone. Yet
with all the gain there is, I feel, a certain loss; and those of
us who have seen Venice girt for war have a possession
which few imaginations — certainly no feeble ones — will
ever win. I will not regret the loss of beauty; I will not
dwell upon the Venice without electric lights and crowds
and business, when the Piazza of Saint Mark was more than
ever picturesque by day and mysterious by night, and the
smaller squares were empty, and the canals were left to their
winding ways and their colour and their shadows. I will
not regret these things because in the general life, in a world
safe for democracy, they may count for little — although
surely the Venice of history teaches us the unerring power
of beauty in the fashioning of nations. But something,
since the armistice was declared, has gone out of the air of
Venice. The tension has relaxed, since the first frenzy of
rejoicing, and things seem somehow to have fallen apart.
The sense of a high purpose, compelling to unity of action,
has dropped upon a lower plane or is hidden beneath
routine pursuits. Venice at war was the ancient city of
gold refined of its dross. She was the Queen of the Adriatic
armed and disciplined. Her sword was sharpened, her
mind was alert, her temper was resolute, her will was un
swerving. Only for a short time did she show anxiety, and
that was not when the Austrian army was within eight miles
of her and the incessant guns were growing louder. It was
when, upon the first news that Germany was breaking, she
feared that peace might be declared before Italy had freed
her territory of the invader. Then faces were dark and
spirits almost faltered. " To have our country given back
to us by the Allies, across the peace table! " they exclaimed.
" It would be worse than Caporetto. Far worse! Capo-
retto was our martyrdom. This would be our disgrace.
Let us have no peace that we have not won." Then did
waiting become difficult because then faith gave way to fear.
But the first guns of the offensive restored the universal faith
and now Venice is re-awakening with her conscience clear.

THE ANSWER FROM ITALY 389

But the temper of the place, since the incursions of popu
lation have set in, is at once less serious and less gay.

Below the surface the same body of workers, civil and
military, who have carried the burden through all the
changes, are working on as before with no other awaken
ing than to a sense of graver problems, of added responsi
bilities, of more complex duties. And if in Venice, which
has suffered little from devastation and robbery, I feel that
the wings that would soar are weighted, how austere must
be the joy of victory in the towns liberated from the invader!
A soldier from the trenches whose wife and family were in
the region of Udine, planted his feet firmly on our office
floor and exclaimed: " They must be freed! I don't know
when — perhaps next spring — but when the moment comes,
we shall advance and set them free. Whether I die — that
is nothing. They must be set free! " Now they are free,
and they are robbed of all they possessed, stripped of their
clothes, sick with memories and half-maddened with hun
ger. The more fortunate, who could fly before the invader,
go back to find their ancestral trees cut down in wantonness
and left where they lay, their ancestral furniture burned in
the market place, their dining-halls turned into stables and
their family portraits smashed into pieces. The dead
waste of war, as inevitable as the ravages of the epidemic!
The prospect darkens the vision.

When I confessed my misgivings to the Capitano, he re
fused to be depressed. He was thankful with his whole
heart that the war was over and he believed it had advanced
the world a great stride forward. Yet he nursed no illu
sions about the future. Universal peace, he thought, must
depend upon uniform education and ideals and a fair ad
justment of interests. He pointed to the menace of the
Jugo-Slavs and to certain differences — I think he called
them jealousies — among the larger nations. " But is there
any nobler thing," he asked suddenly, with that rippling
smile on his face, " is there any nobler thing than to defend
one's country and drive back the aggressor and liberate one's
brothers?"

It was the old-fashioned, time-worn doctrine, so scorned
of intellectuals. Yet it rang true. And then by some
happy chance the Capitano remembered what Mazzini
once said about the right and wrong of war, and in the
words of that great prophet of the League of Nations, cited

390 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

by this patriot of a younger generation, I found the cause
of my discouragement and the justification of my faith.

" War," said Mazzini, " is a crime unless undertaken for
the triumph of a great truth or for the ruin of a great lie."

Among all the complex reasons for the war, as one after
another the nations have entered in, it has been more and
more clear that we were engaged in the ruin of a great lie.
But a lie in ruins is no very imposing or inspiring sight.
A ruthless giant driven back leaves a double train of car
nage. Autocracy overthrown spreads devastation and car
ries down the innocent with the guilty. The power of
Christ does not conquer the forces of Thor without the
crucifixion of the flesh.

The cold wind struck our faces as we turned in toward
Venice, between San Niccolo of the Lido and Sant' Andrea.
We passed some units of the submarine fleet sunning them
selves in the lagoon and some weird old flat-boats, bearing
large calibre guns, which I recognized as those I had seen
on the Piave. An aeroplane flew overhead, perhaps carry
ing the mail to Trieste or Pola, perhaps only exercising its
wings. We shall not again see whole squadrons of them
flying away across the Adriatic and the line of balloons that
marked the battle-front has disappeared. But there was
Venice, beautiful as before the world's disaster. Her
towers were of the color of flame and the quality of light.
Snow-covered mountains stretched away into the blue be
yond her, and the pale Euganean Hills dropped down from
behind her Campaniles into the sea.

As we drew up at the Arsenal (that same Arsenal which
Dante praised) I saw the American flag floating high on our
battleship between the campaniles of San Giorgio and San
Marco. The Red Cross launches have carried that flag in
and out through the canals of Venice for many months, but
it was as if I had not seen it for many years. My heart
leaped to claim its promise. Every hope seemed about to
be fulfilled. The League of Nations seemed an easy thing
compared with what I saw there before my eyes under the
sky. Perpetual peace seemed less than the things already
accomplished. There was the palpable glory of Venice —
and there was the new world come to the rescue of all that
we value in the old.

GERTRUDE SLAUGHTER.
Venice, November, 191&

PORTRAIT OF LOUISA MAY ALCOTT

BY GAMALIEL BRADFORD

HER father thought himself a philosopher. His fam
ily agreed with him. So did his friend and contemporary,
Emerson, and a few others. He was at any rate a philoso
pher in his complete inability to earn or to keep money.
Her mother was by nature a noble and charming woman,
by profession a household drudge. Louisa and her three
sisters were born in odd corners between 1830 and 1840
and grew up in Concord and elsewhere. They knew a lit
tle, quite enough, about philosophy and a great deal about
drudgery. Louisa determined in early youth to eschew
philosophy and drudgery both, to be independent, and to
earn an honest livelihood for herself and her family. She
did it, wrote books that charmed and paid, and died worn
out before she was old, but with a comfortable lapful of
glory.

I do not mean to imply that the Alcott's poverty was
sordid or pitiable. Innate dignity of character, sweetness
and natural cheerfulness, kept it from being anything of the
kind. If they had not money, they had high ideals, and
high ideals afford a certain substitute for comfort, after they
have thrust it out of doors. No doubt, also, the rugged
discipline of privation fits souls better for the ups and downs
of life, which, for most men and women, mean more hard
ship than comfort. At the same time, to understand Louisa
Alcott, what she did and what she was, we must keep the
bitterness of youthful poverty before us, the perpetual strug
gle to get clothes and food and other necessaries, the burden
of debts and charity, the fret and strain of nerves worn with
anxiety and endeavor, the endless uncertainty about the
future. " It was characteristic of this family that they
never were conquered by their surroundings," says the
biographer. This is true; yet such experiences fray the

392 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

edges of the soul, when they do not impair its substance.
Louisa's soul was frayed. Poverty bit her like a north
wind, spurred to effort, yet chilled and tortured just the
same. " Little Lu began early to feel the family cares and
peculiar trials," she says of her childhood. In her young-
womanhood, when just beginning to see her way, she is ham
pered in the walks she likes because of " stockings with a
profusion of toe, but no heel, and shoes with plenty of heel,
but a paucity of toe." Later still, when the world ought to
have been going well with her, her cry is: " If I think of
my woes, I fall into a vortex of debts, dishpans, and despond
ency awful to see."

The nature of these troubles and the depth of them were
especially evident to her, because she was born with a
shrewd native wit and keen intelligence. Her education
was somewhat erratic, furnished mainly by her father from
his wide but heterogeneous store and with eccentric
methods. Above all, she employed her brain for practical
objects, loved mental system and tidiness. " I used to
imagine my mind a room in confusion, and I was to put it
in order; so I swept out useless thoughts and dusted foolish
fancies away, and furnished it with good resolutions and
began again. But cobwebs get in. I'm not a good house
keeper, and never get my room in nice order." And with
the same practical tendency she analyzed all things about
her and all men and women. Her father's various contacts
brought many people to his door, and Louisa learned early
to distinguish. " A curious jumble of fools and philoso
phers," she says calmly of one of his beloved clubs. Nor
was she less ready to analyze herself, as portrayed in one
of her stories. " Much describing of other people's pas
sions and feelings set her to studying and speculating about
her own — a morbid amusement, in which healthy young
minds do not indulge."

What marked her character in all this was honesty, sin
cerity, straight-forward simplicity. Like Jo, in " Little
Women," who follows her creatress so closely, Louisa, as a
child, had more of the boy than of the girl about her, did
not care for frills or flounces, did not care for dances or
teas, liked fresh air and fresh thoughts and hearty quarrels
and forgetful reconciliations. She would shake your hand
and look in your eye and make you trust her. Jo's wild
words were always getting her into scrapes. " Oh, my

PORTRAIT OF LOUISA MAY ALCOTT 393

tongue, my abominable tongue! Why can't I learn to keep
it quiet? " So she sighed, and so Louisa had often sighed
before her. But with the outspokenness went a splendid
veracity and a loathing for what was false or mean or cow
ardly. " With all her imagination and romance, Miss
Alcott was a tremendous destroyer of illusions," says Mrs.
Cheney; " Oh, wicked L. M. A., who hates sham and loves
a joke," says Miss Alcott herself.

The disposition to excessive analysis and great frankness
in expressing the results of the same are not especially favor
able to social popularity or success, and it does not appear
that Louisa had these things or wished to have them. Here
again Jo renders her creatress very faithfully. She was
perfectly capable of having a jolly time in company; in
fact, when she was in the mood and with those she liked,
she could be full of fun and frolic, could lead everybody in
wild laughter and joyous pranks and merriment. She
could run into a party of strangers at the seashore and be
gay with them. But usually she was shy with strangers,
perhaps shyer with people she knew or half knew, had no
patience with starched fashions or fine manners, liked quiet,
old garments, old habits, and especially the society of her
own soul. She complains that her sister " doesn't enjoy
quiet corners as I do," and she complains further, through
the mouth of Jo, that " it's easier to me to risk my life for
»a person than to be pleasant to him when I don't feel like it."

With this disposition we might expect her to have a
small list of friends, but those very near and dear. I do
not find it so. " She did not encourage many intimacies,"
says Mrs. Cheney. Though reasonably indifferent to the
conventions, she would not have inclined to keep up any
especially confidential relations with men. As for women,
she wrote of her younger days, " Never liked girls, or knew
many, except my sisters." If she did not make women
friends in her youth, she was not likely to in age.

All her affection, all her personal devotion, seem to have
been concentrated upon her family, and from childhood
till death her relations with them were close and unbroken.
How dearly she loved her sisters shines everywhere through
the faithful family picture preserved in " Little Women " ;
and the peculiar tenderness Jo gave to Beth is but an exact
reflection of what the real Elizabeth received from the real
Louisa.

394 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

For her father, as for her sisters, she cherished a devoted
attachment. No doubt in this, as in the other, there were
human flaws. At times she implies a gentle wish that he
might have done a little more for the comfort of his family,
even if a little less for their eternal salvation. But this was
momentary. Her usual attitude was one of tender and
affectionate devotion, of entire and reverent appreciation of
that pure and unworldly spirit. How admirable in its
blending of elements is her picture of his return from one
of his unprofitable wanderings: " His dress was neat and
poor. He looked cold and thin as an icicle, but serene as
God." To her he was God in a manner, and with reason
able discounts.

But with her mother there seem to have been no dis
counts whatever. The affection between them was perfect
and holy and enduring. Her mother understood her, all
her wild ways and lawless desires and weaknesses and un-
trimmed strength. It was to her mother that she turned in
joy and trouble and in both she never failed to find the re
sponse she looked for. After her mother's death she writes :
" I never wish her back, but a great warmth seems gone out
of life, and there is no motive to go on now."

So we see that when Jo cried, in her enthusiastic fashion,
" I do think that families are the most beautiful things in
all the world!" it was a simple transcript from nature.
Also, it is most decidedly to be observed that Louisa's regard
for her family was by no means mere sentiment, but a mat
ter of strenuous practical effort. Indeed, it is not certain
that the conscientious sense of duty is not even more promi
nent in her domestic relations than affection itself. " Duty's
faithful child," her father called her, and the faithfulness
of her duty meant more to him and his than anything else
in the world. I have dwelt already upon her poignant ap
preciation of the hardships and privations of her childhood.
Though she bore these with reasonable patience, she early
and constantly manifested a distinct determination to escape
from them. " I wish I was rich, I was good, and we were
all a happy family this day." Note even here that the wish
is general and that she wants to save them all from trials as
well as herself. Her own comfort and ease she was ready
to sacrifice and did sacrifice.

Yet she did not relish sacrifice, or ugly things, or petty
dependence. She was bound to get out'of the rut she was

PORTRAIT OF LOUISA MAY ALCOTT 395

born in; how, she did not care, so long as she did nothing
dishonest or unworthy. Debts, she certainly would not
have debts, but comfort she would have and would pay for
it. She would prove that " though an Alcott I can support
myself." When she was but a child, she went out alone into
the fields, and vowed with bitter energy: " I will do some
thing by-and-by. Don't care what, teach, sew, act, write,
anything to help the family; and I'll be rich and famous and
happy before I die, see if I won't."

It would be of course quite false to imply that Miss
Alcott was a wholly practical, even mercenary, person, who
lived and wrote for money only, or that the rugged experi
ences of her youth had crushed out of her sensibility and
grace and imagination and all the varied responses which
are supposed to constitute the artistic temperament. She
had abundance of wayward emotion, and, if she subdued it
in one form, it escaped in another. " Experiences go deep
with me," she said, and it was true. It does not appear that
she had any especial taste for the arts. Painting she
refers to occasionally with mild enthusiasm; music with
little more. Nature appealed to her, of course, as it
must have done to the child of Concord and the wor
shiper of Emerson. Still, the rendering of it in her
writings, " Flower Stories," etc., and even in the best
of her poems, " Thoreau's Flute," cannot be said to be pro
found. Her nature feeling is much more attractive in the
brief touches of her Journal: " I had an early run in the
woods before the dew was off the grass. The moss was like
velvet, and as I ran under the arches of yellow and red
leaves I sang for joy, my heart was so bright and the world
so beautiful."

Her sensibility and quick emotion showed, however, far
less in esthetic enjoyment than in the inner play and shift
ing movements of her own spirit. The sudden variety of
nature she sees reflected in herself. " It was a mild, windy
day, very like me in its fitful changes of sunshine and shade."
She was a creature of moods and fancies, smiles and tears,
hopes and discouragements, as we all are, but more than
most of us. From her childhood she liked to wander, had
roaming limbs and a roaming soul. She " wanted to see
everything, do everything, and go everywhere." She loved
movement, activity, boys' sports and boys' exercise: "I
always thought I must have been a deer or a horse in some

396 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

former state, because it was such a joy to run." Then she
got tired and got cross, and when she was young, said bitter
things and repented them, and when she grew older, would
have liked to say them, and repented that also. And the ill-
temper shifted suddenly and madly to laughter, merry
drollery, wild sallies, quips and teasing frolics, full well
remembered by lovers of Jo. " The jocosity of my nature
will gush out when it gets a chance," she says.

Sometimes the same wild spirit would rise higher into
a state of eager exhilaration and excitement. She longed
for change, adventure, even suffering. She put melodrama
into her stories, she would have liked to put it into her life.
When the future seems peculiarly uncertain, she writes:
" It's a queer way to live, but dramatic, and I rather like it;
for we never know what is to come next." And again fol
lows the reaction and depression, as deep as the excitement
was high and exhilarating, depression far more serious than
mere superficial temper, seizing and shaking the root-fibers
of the soul. Tears she does not often yield to, but when
she weeps, she does it thoroughly: " As I seldom indulge in
this moist misery, I like to enjoy it with all my might, when
I do."

Her active conscience prompts her to resist, to bear up
against real trial and the still worse monotony of every-daily
care. There is an education for her in grief, she says, she
must make the best of it and profit by it. There is a pleas
ure in drudgery, she says, if one can only find it. " A dull,
heavy month, grubbing in the kitchen, sewing, cleaning
house, and trying to like my duty." But she doesn't like
it and it wears and the immortal spirit loses its lightness and
its freshness and is almost ready to give up the fight: " So
every day is a battle, and I'm so tired I don't want to live;
only it's cowardly to die till you have done something."
Even, on one dark day, all further struggle came to seem
impossible and as she passed the running tide on her way
to Boston, she almost made up her mind not to pass it. But
she did, and her " fit of despair was soon over . . . and
I went home resolved to take Fate by the throat and shake
a living out of her." Afterwards the little experience
served to make a story, as it has done for other writers and
sufferers.

It will be asked how far matters of the heart entered
into these depressions and despairs in Miss Alcott's case.

PORTRAIT OF LOUISA MAY ALCOTT 397

Directly, not very much. It is true that in the story just
referred to she suggests love, or the lack of it, as the exciting
cause for suicide. But there is no indication that, in her
own case, any disappointed love, any ungratified longing,
was added to the otherwise sufficient cares that weighed
down her mercurial spirit. Though the story of Jo is so
largely autobiographical, the marriage to Professor Bhaer,
in itself not exceptionally romantic, is pure invention, and
there is nothing else to show that Louisa's heart was ever
seriously touched. She had at least one offer of marriage
and considered accepting itf as another form of self-sacrifice
for the benefit of her suffering family. From this she was
happily dissuaded; and if other similar opportunities oc
curred, they are not mentioned.

She would even have us believe — and so would her
biographer — that she took little interest in love matters and
introduced them in her books for purposes of sale and popu
lar success. " She always said that she got tired of every
body," says Mrs. Cheney, " and felt sure that she should of
her husband, if she married." Miss Alcott herself expresses
some interest in children of her own and a certain admira
tion for babies, but she has observed that few marriages are
happy ones and she thinks that " liberty is a better husband
than love to many of us."

This may be all very true. Nevertheless, it will hardly
be denied that many of her stories reek with amorousness.
Perhaps this was precisely because the subject did not natur
ally interest her, and, being anxious to deal with it enough
to please the public and make money, she dealt with it too
much. But the explanation seems rather far-fetched, and
I am inclined to believe that she had all a woman's interest
in lovers, whatever may have been her opinion of husbands.
Indeed, in her vicarious love-making there is a curious,
teasing insistence that suggests far more than a mere mer
cenary preoccupation ; and in the serious novels, into which
she put her best artistic effort, the almost feverish eroticism
would seem to indicate, as with other unmarried writers, a
constant presence of the woman in her extreme femininity,
however obscure and unacknowledged.

As Miss Alcott had all the sensibility, the whims and
shifts of mood, the eccentric possibilities, of the born artist,
so she was by no means without the artist's instinct of am
bition and desire for fame. From childhood she wanted to

398 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

do something that would make her great, distinguished, and
a figure in the mouths and hearts of men. She envies the
successes of great authors. When she reads " Jane Eyre,"
she writes: " I can't be a C. B., but I may do something
yet." Her young friends tease her about being an authoress.
She assures them that she will be, though she adds modestly
to herself : " Will if I can, but something else may be better
for me." Not only has she the theory of authorship, but all
her emotions and desires and fancies naturally seek literary
expression. When she was a child, she wrote verses for the
pure delight of it, not great verses certainly, but they pleased
and relieved her. When she stood at the other extreme of
life, she wrote verses still. " Father and I cannot sleep, but
he and I make verses as we did when Marmee died."

She viewed life from the artist's angle also, took it im
personally in its larger relations as well as in its immediate
appeal to her. She notes early in her Journal that she be
gan to see the strong contrasts and the fun and follies in
every-day life. She always saw them and always had the
strong impulse to turn them into literature. And her
methods were not mechanical, did not savor of the shop or
the workbench. In the interesting account of them which
she jotted down in later years the marked flavor of inspira
tion and artistic instinct is apparent. She never had a study,
she says, writes with any pen or paper that comes to hand,
always has a head full of plots and a heart full of passions,
works them over at odd moments and writes them down
from memory, as fancy and convenience dictate. Quiet,
she wants, and solitude, if possible, and a stimulating en
vironment, or at least not a deadening one. " Very few
stories written in Concord; no inspiration in that dull place.
Go to Boston, hire a quiet room and shut myself in it."

If the creative impulse possesses her, it possesses her
wholly. When she can work, she can't wait, she says.
Sleep is of no consequence, food is of no consequence. She
can't work slowly. The ideas boil and bubble and must
find their vent. When she was writing her favorite,
" Moods," there was no rest for her. She was tied to her
desk day after day. Her family alternately praised and
worried. Her mother administered tea and her father red
apples. " All sorts of fun was going on ; but I didn't care
if the world returned to chaos, if I and my inkstand only
' lit ' in the same place." Then, after the excitement of

PORTRAIT OF LOtflSA MAY ALCOTT 399

labor, came the excitement of glory. Men and women, well
known, in her world at any rate, crowded to praise and com
pliment. " I liked it, but think a small dose quite as much
as is good for me; for after sitting in a corner and grubbing
a la Cinderella, it rather turns one's head to be taken out and
be treated like a princess all of a sudden."

Nor did she lack the discouragement and depression in
separable from all artistic effort. There were the endless
external difficulties which every artist knows and none but
artists much sympathize with : the frets, the Jiome cares,
always so much accentuated in the case of a woman, even
when she is unmarried, the perpetual, the trivial, and more
harassing because trivial, interruptions. Idle neighbors
chat of idle doings; hours slip away; when at last the free
hour and the quiet spot are found, weary nerves have no
longer any inspiration left in them. Of one of her books
that she loved she says, pathetically: " Not what it should
be — too many interruptions. Should like to do one book in
peace, and see if it wouldn't be good." On another occasion
she gets ready for a fit of work. Then John Brown's daugh
ters come to board, arrangements have to be made for them
and their comfort provided for. Louisa cries out her sor
row on the fat rag-bag in the garret and sets to work at
housekeeping. " I think disappointment must be good for
me, I get so much of it; and the constant thumping Fate
gives me may be a mellowing process; so I shall be a ripe
and sweet old pippin before I die."

Yet the books get done somehow. Only, when they are
done, the troubles seem just begun rather than ended. Pub
lishers are refractory, such being their nature, like that of
other human beings. Stories are accepted and all seems
triumphant. But they do not come out; instead, are held
back by long and quite needless delays, till it is evident that
the world is criminally indifferent to works that are bound
to be immortal. " All very aggravating to a young woman
with one dollar, no bonnet, half a gown, and a discontented
mind."

Perhaps worst of all, when you do achieve success and
are read and admired, there comes the deadly doubt about
the value of your own work; for, however much they may
resent the fault-finding of others, authors who really count
are their own severest critics; and of all the sorrows of the
literary life none is keener than the feeling that what you

400 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

have done is far enough from what you would have liked to
do. In this point, also, Miss Alcott was an author and she
often indicates what she expressed freely in regard to some
of her minor works. " They were not good, and though
they sold the paper, I was heartily ashamed of them.
. . . I'm glad of the lesson, and hope it will do me
good."

So we may safely conclude that it was not only hard
necessity that drove her to write, but that, if she had grown
up in all comfort and with abundant means always at her
command, she would still have felt the teasing impulses of
the literary instinct, still bound herself to the staid drudgery
of ink and paper and been slave to the high hopes and deep
despairs which mean life — and death — to those who are
born with the curious longing to create things beautiful.

As it was, however, there can be no doubt that the solid
need of earning money was the chief and enduring spur of
her literary effort. She was not essentially and first of all
a preacher, as was Mrs. Stowe. Some may disagree about
this, considering the extreme moralizing of many, not to say
all, of her stones. The moralizing is evident and undeni
able. She not only took pains to avoid what might be, in
her opinion, distinctly injurious, though there are critics
who hold that in this she was far from successful, but she
rarely misses an opportunity for direct preaching. Indeed,
in some of her inferior writings the preaching is so overdone
that it surfeits even her most ardent admirers. She is de
termined to preach, will not be hindered from preaching,
boys and girls must learn something good, if they are to
linger with her. Ye^t the fury of the effort implies a touch
of the artificial about it. Her preaching is an acquired
habit and discipline, not an inherited, divine impulse, like
Mrs. Stowe's. When you look carefully into Louisa's re
ligion, you appreciate at once what I mean. It was a
sturdy, working religion, solid, substantial, full of good
deeds and kindness. Her own hard experience had made
her eminently ready to help others. When she gets money,
she gives it, and she gives sympathy always. " I like to
help the class of * silent poor ' to which we belonged for so
many years." But her own hard experience had been too
closely connected with abstract religion and concrete
philosophers for her to cherish much personal affection for
abstract religion and philosophy. In her thoughtful child-

PORTRAIT OF LOUISA MAY ALCOT1 401

hood she did indeed touch God under the whisper of the
great pines : " It seemed as if I felt God as I never did
before, and I prayed in my heart that I might keep that
happy sense of nearness all my life." But she was too hon
est to pay herself with words, and to her, as to so many of
her contemporaries, religious hope remained simply a glim
mering star to distract thought from dark gulfs that had no
hope in them at all. " Life was always a puzzle to me, and
gets more mysterious as I go on. I shall find it out by and
by and see that it's all right, if I can only keep brave and
patient to the end."

Meantime she must earn money. She set out with that
motive in her youth and it abode with her till her death.
Do not take this in any sordid sense. She was as far as pos
sible from being a miser or a squanderer. She found no
pleasure in the long accumulation of a fortune, none in the
mad spending of it. But the terrible lack of dollars in her
childhood had taught her their value. All her life she was
in need of moderate ease herself and those she loved needed
it far more. Therefore she must and she would and she did
earn money. How she earned it was of less importance,
and she was perfectly ready to try any of the few forms of
earning then accessible to women. " Tried for teaching,
sewing, or any honest work. Won't go home to sit idle
while I have a head and pair of hands." She takes a place
as governess and goes into ecstasy over her small wages:
" Every one of those dollars cried aloud, ' What ho! Come
hither, and be happy! ' She even goes out as a simple ser
vant, with disastrous results as fully related by herself.
Teaching comes into the list of course. But she was never
successful at it, and when Fields, with all a publisher's
hearty kindness, says to her: " Stick to your teaching; you
can't write," she murmurs, under her breath : " I won't
teach; and I can write, and I'll prove it."

For, of all the forms of drudgery for money, she found
literature the most acceptable and agreeable. " I can't do
much with my hands ; so I will make a battering-ram of my
head and make a way through this rough-and-tumble
world." She did it, but do not imagine that the way was
easy, that the dollars rolled into her lap, or that she could
escape many hard knocks and staggering buffets. Late in
her life a young man asked her if she would advise him to
devote himself to authorship. " Not if you can do any-

VOL. ccix.— NO. 760 26

402 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

thing else, even dig ditches," was the bitter answer. For
years she found the upward road a piece of long and tedious
traveling. Hours had to be snatched where possible, or im
possible, necessary tasks had to be slighted, health had to be
risked and wasted, all to write stories which she knew to
be worthless but which she hoped would sell. They did
sell after a fashion, brought her five dollars here, ten dollars
there, enough to buy a pair of shoes or stop a gaping cred
itor's mouth for a moment. But what vast labor was ex
pended for petty results or none, what vaster hopes were
daily thrown down only to be built up again with inex
haustible endurance and energy.

Even when success came and the five dollars were trans
formed into fifty and five hundred, there was struggle still,
perhaps more wearing than at first. Engagements had to
be met and publishers satisfied, no matter how irksome the
effort. " I wrote it with left hand in a sling, one foot up,
head aching, and no voice," she says of one story. Though
money was abundant, it was never abundant enough : " The
family seem so panic-stricken and helpless when I break
down, that I try to keep the mill going." To be sure, there
was glory. When it began to come, she appreciated it
keenly enough. " Success has gone to my head, and I wan
der a little. Twenty-seven years old, and very happy." It
was pleasant to be widely praised and admired, pleasant to
have compliments from great men and brilliant women,
pleasantest of all, perhaps, to feel that children loved your
books and cried over them and loved you. Yet she seems
to have felt the annoyances of glory more than most authors
and to have savored its sweets less. Perhaps this was be
cause she was early worn out with over-work and over-
anxiety. "When I had the youth, I had no money; now
I have the money I have no time ; and when I get the time,
if I ever do, I shall have no health to enjoy life." Fame
bothered her. She resented the intrusions of reporters, even
the kindly curiosity of adoring readers. What right had
they to pester a quiet woman earning her living with desper
ate effort in her own way? For the earning, after all, was
the side that appealed to her, the earning with all it
meant. " The cream of the joke is, that we made our own
money ourselves, and no one gave us a blessed penny. That
does soothe my rumpled soul so much that the glory is not
worth thinking of."

PORTRAIT OF LOUISA MAY ALCOTT 403

Also, to be sure, she had always the feeling that she was
not doing the best she could and that the money came most
freely for the things she was not most proud of. In her
early days she wrote and sold sensational stories of a rather
cheap order. Certain features of these pleased her. She
confesses quite frankly that she had " a taste for ghastliness "
and that she was " fond of the night side of nature." But
she longed to do something else, and she tried to — in
" Moods " and " A Modern Mephistopheles " — perhaps
not very well, at any rate not very successfully. Few get
the glory they want, but there is probably a peculiar bitter
ness in getting the glory you don't want.

Then she hit on a line of work which, if not great or
original, was sane and genuine. She put her own life, her
own heart, into her books, and they were read with delight
because her heart was like the hearts of all of us. As a
child, she wanted to sell her hair to support her family.
When she was older, she supported them by selling her
flesh and blood, and theirs, but always with a fine and digni
fied reserve as well as a charming frankness. Every creative
author builds his books out of his own experience. They
would be worthless otherwise. But few have drawn upon
the fund more extensively and constantly than Miss Alcott.
And she was wise to do it, and when she ceased to do it, she
failed. She could allege the great authority of Goethe for
her practise: "Goethe puts his joys and sorrows into
poems; I turn my adventures into bread and butter."

So she coined her soul to pad her purse and, inciden
tally, to give solace to many. The worshipers of art for
art's sake may sneer at her, but she remains in excellent
company. Scott, Dumas, Trollope, to name no others, col
lected cash, as well as glory, with broad and easy negligence.
And the point is that, while doing so, they established them
selves securely among the benefactors of mankind. The
great thinkers, the great poets, the great statesmen, the great
religious teachers sway us upward for our good. But they
often lead us astray and they always harass us in the process.
I do not know that they deserve much more of our gratitude
than those who make our souls forget by telling charming
stories.

GAMALIEL BRADFORD.

THE ADVENTURES OF A POETRY

READER

BY EDITH FRANKLIN WYATT

At the age of sixteen I used to attend daily with two ad
mired and beloved friends of my own age a class in Greek
poetry, a class surrounded for me with the golden light of
an especial charm. Our studies were pursued in the rather
dim, high-ceilinged back parlor of the Higher School for
Girls in a brick house in a row, a house like a thousand
other houses on an elm-lined street in Chicago.

From the carpet of the back parlor we used to step into
a country never known before, never to be seen again by us
in quite the same splendor. Misted as the ways were by
our ignorance, it seemed all a wide lighted glory of Greek
figures, of plunging hosts, of the sweep of the poluphlois-
boio thalasses, of the twanging silver arrows of Apollo, the
fall of the pestilence upon the camp — a world of superb
beauty on shores undreamed.

It is this that one asks of a poet I think — at least it is this
that I ask — that he take me to a world of his own. It makes
no difference whether the world is little or large. It may
be high-vaulted as Homer's, or as comfortably insular as
that land in which it is so pleasant to know Mr. Lear who
has written such volumes of stuff, or that confined, bizarre
region inhabited by the gifted linguist who sings the inimit
able lyrics about

I don't know anything more sweet
As sit him in some gay parterre
And snuff one up the perfume sweet
Of every roses buttoning there.

The character of the poet's imaginary country may be
whatever anyone will. But one likes to have him follow

ADVENTURES OF A POETRY-READER 405

the Spanish proverb and after supper take a walk that is on
his own ground. No one, or not many people, will care,
either, about the poet's medium, or whether it is Debussy,
or Manet, or Poe, or Maeterlinck who takes us to his own
world. Qr perhaps his world will have a clear correspond
ence to some actual portion of the globe, and yet be entirely
his own, like the world of Burns, or James Whitcomb Riley,
or Mistral, or Whitman.

II

It was not until many years after the Greek epic, the
panorama of the Trojan war swam into our ken in Miss
R.'s back-parlor that I read our own epic, the panorama of
Drum-Taps, Ashes of Soldiers, Marches Now the War
Is Over. Controversy over Whitman's metrical method
and his right to express his ideas concerning sex have
distracted comment unduly from one of his largest merits —
his skill in an enormous free-hand drawing of the spirit of
a people during a great social and military crisis. In this
power Homer and Tolstoi are I think his only peers ; and
you need only compare on one side the handling of the
Iliad, War and Peace and Marches Now the War Is
Over, with the general outline of the romantic grace of
the Aeneid on the other to see the difference between the
poet whose interests are all personal, and so-to-speak, pri
vate, and the poet who can limn the portrait of a nation, and
speak " the silent spirit of unconscious masses."

This interest — the mere excitement of Whitman's tale
of our own fate as a democracy was when I first read him
so strong as to obliterate everything else. It was like see
ing something you had always known in a wonderful mov
ing picture, something idealized in this case, but amazingly
real and recognizable, something walking, swimming, flying,
breathing, living, with a thousand movements, " so far and
so far and on towards the end."

What he has to say is not only prophetic, enlightening,
and above all for any citizen of the United States greatly
to the point in the last four years, but it has another signal
merit. The person privileged to engage in any service,
however humble, for the country of Democratic Vistas and
Captain, My Captain, can hardly find a page of either the
poetry or the prose of Whitman which will not be as a mys
tic trumpet calling him on in his endeavors, consecrating

406 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

and dignifying his days as they rise from their fathomless
deeps.

The treasure Whitman bestows upon us in this way is
like some solid gift of three dimensions, utterly outside the
customary argosies of letters. His tribute to his readers is
comparable to the discoveries of scientists, of explorers or
prophets or economists of genius. He might more fittingly
be ranked with Bunyan or with Henry George than with
his brother poets, with Coleridge or Keats. It is not that
these brother poets fail to bring us argosies of very precious
materials, but that they are of a totally different character,
not possessed of any such social solidity, nor intended to
supply us with the plain fare and daily moral sustenance of
Whitman's freightage. The frankness, the delightful mix
ture of heroics and common-sense that Whitman provides
are enough to carry you through anything. Even when the
invisible future seems to be shadowed forth in the form of
endless lengthy committee meetings, he enables you to greet
the unseen with a cheer. Can you say this of any other
poet?

On the wild shores of the jungle of democracy in which
we all must travel, other poets as compared with Whitman
seem to arrive bearing articles curious and delightful
enough, but when seen beside the offerings of Marches
Now the War Is Over, almost useless. It is as though they
brought us hooded falcons and wreathed silver, and gowns
of silk we should not lack nor gold to bind our hair — all
splendid, but cumbersome for a journey through a jungle;
and as though Whitman alone proffered rubber boots and
mosquito netting serviceable through the trials of many a
damp, clogging path and exasperating hour.

Thus in spite of the fact that the Mystic Trumpeter is
far, far too inspiriting, and the Answerer far too eloquent
in reassurances that do not really answer the questions of
democracy, yet his pragmatic value as a poet has always been
enormous. In my view it would have been simply impos
sible for us to get on without him.

Whitman had a wonderful idea of becoming the leader
of future poets, or perhaps rather of having his poetry be
come the quarry of future poetry — all with the thought
beautifully inevitable for him that these poets would be
ardent disciples in the religion of democracy. Yet, it is
perhaps superfluous to say that after walking on Whitman's

ADVENTURES OF A POETRY-READER 407

land with him, and after he has bestowed on you so much
of the greatest value to you, you never see after you have
journeyed out of his pages, a glimpse of country of the same
character in any other book.

There is this immortal and mysterious beauty in the fate
of genius. What the poet has desired to give most widely
will still remain most remarkably his own. The thing he
shared most deeply with everybody will be his own posses
sion imperishably. Loved, cherished, delighted in along
the ways of life, the beauty he has left us is now I think not
simply to be echoed on another's pages, but to be lived — a
finer and more natural fortune for a creator's heritage.

Ill

Everyone to his own adventures as a poetry reader — or
shall I say as an American poetry reader? Yet, partly on
account of the considerations I have mentioned, partly for
other reasons, I was bewildered when a few years ago I
heard Miss Amy Lowell voicing on a lecture platform the
belief that the Imagists are the direct descendants of Poe
and of Whitman.

As I have read the poetry and criticisms of the Imagists
these have not only moved on paths remote from Whitman's
dream of acting as splendid providers for the future of de
mocracy: but the attribution of any such simple bourgeois
usefulness and plain, advisory morality to their efforts as
authors would be exceedingly antipathetic and annoying to
them ; as though their methods had been confused with those
of Chatauqua lecturers.

Then, my own interest in reading Poe is so exceedingly
different from my interest in reading Whitman, that I was
as confused by hearing Miss Lowell invoke them inclusive
ly, as I might have been if she had said the Imagists were
the direct descendants of Emerson and George Ade.

For me the terms of Whitman's and of Poe's communi
cations are as far apart as the poles, Whitman expressing
his conceptions by a flood of light and of explication, and
Poe evoking his ideas almost by concealment, by reticence.
Whitman was an open air artist; and all his poetry that I
have ever read is wind-blown and drenched with sunlight.
But the least verse of Poe's holds one by the magic of a
beauty almost antithetic to the power that makes " any ob-

408 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

ject beautiful that is completely irradiated with light."
Whitman himself has well suggested that magic —

At its best, poetic lore is like what may be heard of conversation
in the dusk, from speakers far or hid, of which we get only a few broken
murmurs. What is not gathered is far more — perhaps the main thing.

There is an extremely kind, old-fashioned letter by a
teacher of Foe's often included in prefaces of his poems, in
which the writer says that " He had a sensitive and tender
heart." Out of a great gentleness and sensitiveness one may
readily believe all the wild growths of the land of Poe's ex
quisite lyrics arise.

When one comes back from that world of purple towers
and lost islands, of ethereal dances and marble plinths and
columns, of sorrow and pain, of horror and glory and death
less love, one is immersed in a sense of the noble lines, the
delicate modelling of the mortal soul mysteriously hallowed
by its unknown fate. The earth is filled with the music of
an endless, unasking patience, still and spiritualized, that
accepts grief as an inevitable destiny and breathes that ac
ceptance as the natural breath of existence. Poe speaks of
" Unthought-like thoughts that are the soul of thought " :
and it is these that seem to sing from the echoing depths of
his harmonies, his melodies, to tell a thousand wild, unfin
ished tales of lonely places, the sea, and space, the spirit's
cloudy home. The truth that wisdom knew that said the
half of music is remembered grief confides in you in a hope
less consolation through all the most beautiful of Poe's
lyrics.

Perhaps he is not for very young people; and I can re
member the time when For Annie seemed to me ridiculous.
But the over-tones of what may be heard of conversation in
the dusk from speakers far or hid, are unheard melodies in
many years too care-free perhaps, too cheerful to understand
the reality of either pain or joy, of grief or happiness. Even
after one has realized, too, how much of Poe's grief, how
much of his nostalgia was a contemporary literary fashion,
its power of gentleness, its dignity of inner romance in mak
ing you listen for the song of the secret bird in mortal for
tune, remains original and unequalled.

IV

Some of my most interesting adventures as a poetry
reader have been in reading criticism written by poets.

ADVENTURES OF A POETRY-READER 409

Whitman and Poe have each given us some of the most pro
found and stirring work of this kind that we possess. Each
of these artists has left us, concerning his hopes and fears for
poetry in the jungle of a democracy, a commentary abun
dantly suggestive, sincere and searching. The American
writer who can read unmoved either Whitman's Poetry To-
Day in America or Poe's preface to his collected poems, or
The Poetic' Principle must be made of some material
strangely phlegmatic, curiously unconcerned with the whole
human value of American letters.

But not only the American writer — not only the writer
who has known what it means to try to say something of the
poetry of his own truth, — but the reader of poetry who has
never shared the hopes and fears of this attempt, will find
in these prose passages of Whitman's and of Poe's about the
aim of their work on earth, the quality I have mentioned, the
power that transports you in their most beautiful verse also,
to a new and engulfing sense of existence.

Who will say what that nameless quality may be? You
cannot I believe define poetry nor predict it with enough
truthfulness to count. Your best truthfulness on the sub
ject will arise simply from a chronicle of your enjoyment in
it: and the reason why out of many years' pleasure in read
ing poetry of many kinds I have chosen to describe my jour
neys in realms as far apart as those of Homer, of Poe and
of Whitman, is because these poets different as they are each
possess in a high degree one of the elements I have always
found most transporting. This element is musical imagina
tion.

Needless to say that in the Iliad it is not only the pro
found turbulency and delicately ebbing silver bubbles of the
poluphloisboio thalasses, the tones of different words, that
are untranslatable, but the intricate yet clearly-marked bal
ance of the Greek particles and connectives, the peculiar
harmonies of Greek sentence structure, the impassable gulfs
of differing inflection with all their infinitely shimmering
modulations.

All translation of poetry somewhat traduces. It elim
inates a dimension which belongs to poetry in my
view rather than to prose. So that " a good prose transla
tion " — not by any means to be undervalued — bears some
what the relation to the original poem in its own tongue that
a black and white reproduction bears to an original paint-

410 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

ing, or the relation that a photograph of a statue bears to
the original marble or bronze.

The dimension I have mentioned that belongs to verse
rather than to prose is the power of motion measured and re
current. A faculty of course in which the art of letters
whether prose or verse and the art of music of all manners
differ from the more static representation of painting and of
sculpture is surely in their capacity for revealing to us the
element of continuation, of development, of change in life.
A picture, a statue has its own power of expressing an im
mortal moment, one clear-focussed aspect of creation, the
presentation of a given point in time. This point may be
indeed a moment of passage. But the art of letters, the art
of music, have a freer power of narrating one aspect of a
subject after another, the great power of expressing contin
uous creation, death and infinite change by a sequence of
motions, by symphonic variation, and passing from point to
point.

The terms in which prose and verse relate changing as
pects and moods of life have of course very different advan
tages: and for me, verse, recognizably ordered sound, the
unconscious expectation of recurrent rhythm carries the
reader along by a sense of existence which prose cannot re
create in the same degree. Verse was surely the best way of
telling us about the river-god's pursuit when Arethusa arose
from her couch of snows in the Acroceraunian mountains.
This is an obvious instance. But verse is the best way, too,
of telling us the terrible, exquisite and gaudy tale of the
gradual, gradual disappearance of the City in the Sea : and
only verse I think could rouse higher and higher in the
reader the whirl and sweep and thrilling crescendo of The
Song of the Banner at Daybreak.

The musical imagination of Poe, his extraordinary un
derstanding of the peculiar melodic capacities, the over
tones of our English speech, his sense of the larger harmon
ies and architectonics of a poem — these are widely recog
nized, from the intimate, the deep-known heart of song in
our simplest English words —

But our love it was stronger by far than the love
Of those who were older than we —
Of many far wiser than

to the exquisite over-tones, the far-heard, mysterious bells of
the narrative of —

ADVENTURES OF A POETRY-READER 411

And all my days are trances,

And all my nightly dreams
Are where thy dark eye glances,

And where thy f ooststep gleams —
In what ethereal dances,

By what eternal streams.

Less widely appreciated is Whitman's musical gift as a
splendid improviser of tone-poems, a leader of arias, chor
uses, alternating voices — the gray-brown bird, and the poet,
in When Lilacs Last in the Door-Yard Bloomed. The bird
bereft, the boy's soul and the surge of the sea in A Word
Out of the Sea. A master of the changing motions, the long
ocean-breaker rhythms of hendecasyllabics, and decasyl
labics, the buoyancy of assonance, Whitman had a basic sym
pathy with the tonal resources of English that gives him an
extraordinary sustained power in poetic composition.

The reason why I protest against having the Imagists re
garded as the inheritors of Whitman and Poe is not only
because these artists are not themselves exactly in a direct
line of descent, not only because Whitman's view of the
value of the poet's career and Foe's view of the value of the
poet's art are diametrically opposed to the Imagists' appar
ent view, but because a leading distinction of Imagistic
poetry seems to me to consist in its elimination of these very
qualities in which Whitman and Poe are masters — in the
power of evoking the sense of continuous motion by the
melodic and tonal capacities of English, in musical imag
ination.

V

The excellence of Imagistic art on the other hand ap
pears to me to lie largely in its faculty of static presentment,
showing the subject in a fixed pose at a given instant of time.
Not of course rhymed, the Latin and Greek verse which so
often serves as the Imagists' model — and to whose world,
rather than to any world of their own their poetry so often
takes us — has yet its own musical atmosphere, forever dif
ferent from the atmosphere in which English verse breathes,
but clearly perceptible. But a leading distinction, a charm
of the Imagist Anthologies for me is that their compositions
all exist in some still, toneless aether, and without any musi
cal atmosphere whatever.

I know a great claim has been made that Imagistic poetry
is not unmusical, but simply written in a new verbal music,

412 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

which jangles out of tune and harsh for the ear accustomed
to a different convention, as once Wagner sounded and
Debussy.

But with all due respect to the claimants this parallel
seems to me unjustified. The expression the Imagist col
lections have for the inner ear is not that of melodic uncon-
vention, nor musical discovery whether sympathetic or dis
sonant, but the air and appeal of prose convention. The
total effect, for me, the most novel and interesting effect of
the style of the Imagist Antologies is that of a way of writ
ing that asks you to consider it, not by listening at all to
what it says, but only by looking at it.

In Imagist criticism the attempt to dispense with musi
cal imagination in poetry is manifested in a stronger but
rather different manner. Thus Mr. Ezra Pound says with
disapproval in a critique on Swinburne that " he neglected
the value of words as words, and was intent on their value as
sound," as though the imagined sound of a word were no
part of its actual value, nor a legitimate pre-occupation for
a poet.

Indeed an idea is afloat somewhere in nearly all Imagist
criticism that the perception of verbal music is a rather un
worthy human manifestation, and that the poetry genuinely
associated with thought, with culture and refinement is that
conceived as though by and for the tone-deaf, or at least the
hard of hearing.

This is a familiar American attitude typified for me by
a lady who once observed in a conversational description of
a person I had never met — " My dear, she can transpose to
any key, they say. She can arrange music for any instru
ment in the symphony orchestra, and understands counter
point, and all that. She is a musical girl. Not intellectual,
of course. Though I will say she seems quite refined."

Mr. Pound's concessive liberalities to the art of Swin
burne are much in this lady's manner. Thus he says that
" We are grateful for his spirit of revolt, whatever our ver
bal fastidiousness," obviously using the last phrase to mean
" however we may deprecate the unfortunate acuteness of
his musical knowledge." He continues, too : " There is a
lack of intellect in his work." I was puzzled by this re
mark at first. A lack of intellect in the work of the poet
who could firmly comprehend and interpret by a hundred
intricate and delicate modulations of English verse the

ADVENTURES OF A POETRY-READER 413

minds of Marlowe and Webster, the super-subtlety of Mary
Queen of Scots, the satire of Aristophanes, the complicated,
modern conception of the forward thought of the world that
chords in the variations of the Prelude. But then I per
ceived that Mr. Pound used the word intellect almost ex
actly as my acquaintance had — not so much to denote men
tal activity of superior quality as to connote a commendable
ignorance of music.

The term " Imagist " virtually includes in an unad
mitted manner not only the verse written by Imagists but a
great deal else — all their propaganda about poetry, may we
not say all the politics of poetry indicated in such character
istic criticism as this. It is not against the craft of Imag
ists as verse-writers that one protests, neither against their
praise, but against a way of poetry-reading inculcated by
these politics, a way that precludes the adventure of novel
understanding for the poetry-reader. For one cannot avoid
the suspicion that though the authors' views are so different
the cause of Miss Lowell's conception of the Imagists as
direct descendants of Poe and Whitman and the cause of
Mr. Pound's distress about Swinburne's poetry — its lack of
intellect and its annoyance of his verbal fastidiousness — are
at bottom the same.

All these remarks about the life-work of Swinburne, of
Whitman and Poe seem to have nothing whatever to do with
the aim of any of these masters, nor with the originality, the
truth and beauty of their poetry. But they have a great
deal to do with the acclaim of Imagists. Mr. Pound un
consciously seeks to exalt Imagism by refusing to admit ex
pressive capacities of poetry outside that field of art. Miss
Lowell, though more liberal to extraneous artists, seeks to
exalt Imagists by claiming for them all the valuable terri
tory in sight on the American poetical horizon and estates
whose richest ore-veins of substance and style one cannot
discover in the endowment of the alleged heirs.

To agree only to look, and not to listen, while you are
reading Imagistic poetry is a courtesy you are glad to show
to its peculiar art. But out of loyalty to Imagists, to read
all poetry as though you were deaf, cannot seem an act either
of scholarly, critical intelligence or of happy irresponsible
adventure. Indeed nothing will deprive you of both these
freedoms so completely as the custom of constantly referring
the poetry of the race to the standards of some small group.

414 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

The habit of not listening to poetry while you are reading
it, the habit of glancing back and forth from an artist's
truth, to some standard of local measurement in your own
mind, the habit of humming a tune of your own while some
one else is telling you some new and delicate harmony of
existence from a silent page — all these are excellent ways
of extending one's ignorance, but certainly not one's know
ledge of the poetry of the world : and we need it seems more
than ever before the most candid, the clearest and most sym
pathetic knowledge we can obtain of the poetry of every
country.

Now that the world is being re-made, now that the world
is being so rapidly internationalized, we are asking ourselves
with an especial interest about the communicative power of
poetry. It would not I think be hard to show that however
universal the emotion it arouses the most expressive poetry
we possess springs from a profound consciousness of the liv
ing genius, the actual sound of the language in which it is
written. None but those who desire a dull globe of the
gleichsinnig can desire a uniform vehicle for poetry. All
those who believe in the essential rights of small nations, all
those who believe in preserving in its wide-ranging, demo
cratic variety, the truth and beauty the human race has
learned on by-ways as well as on highways must feel I think
the wish of treasuring as far as may be the free grace of na
tional speech, the sense of the living word, in the art of
poetry.

Since poets are the builders and makers of the world
forever what will Internationalism then do for poetry?
Will it make the Japanese try to write as Shakespeare wrote,
or to compose in the manner of Manhattan's Streets I Wan
dered, Pondering? Will it make us try to emulate the litera
ture of the Japanese? The better we understand them, the
better they understand us, the more unlikely will it be I
believe that Internationalism will do anything of this kind
to poetry. A part of international imagination will surely
consist just as in our intercourse with people whom we can
live with and love in private life, not simply in an under
standing of our points of likeness, but an appreciation of
our points of difference. The globe would be a poorer place
without mutual acknowledgements of qualities peerless and

ADVENTURES OF A POETRY-READER 415

unique in persons and in nations. If there is a fascination
in knowing how much other people are like you, there is
also an equally magnetic charm in knowing how different
people are from yourself.

When one thinks in this light, of what American poetry
has to offer, when one asks oneself what American poetry is,
as seen against the background of the world, one believes
that Internationalism will perhaps bring very little change
in the best spirit of its production.

The most alluring, the most deeply-thought poetry, sung
to intrigue, to relieve, to clarify to itself the life of its creator
will be sung still for the same cause. That song of the secret
bird will be heard above the tides of the ocean, and her notes
be listened to by hearts that will hark for comfort, yes and
pain, too, and the last truth they both may give to other
seekers far-off and unknown ; and it will sing its knowledge
still when all our ways are dust and nothing left of them
except that living word of the human soul immortally sound
ing from the page's silver silence.

This is as it has been and will always be. The song is
to the singer and comes back most to him. In a mysterious
universe we alone of all created things can speak and an
swer. We can speak and answer and the truth shall make
us free.

In that free truth, greater and deeper, more intimate and
close at home, too, more charged with satisfying fire, and
more forcibly touched with the hard knowledge of cruelty
and tears and the imminence of death, in that freer and
juster truth that the newer life of the nations together may
bring for us, each soul must be heard more attentively than
ever before I think, for his own story: and in an understand
ing of that story we shall still find one of the most endeared
and largest adventures of reading poetry.

EDITH FRANKLIN WYATT.

MARCH ADVENTURE

BY WINIFRED BRYHER

Light,

Very welcoming,

The trees bend forward

To meet Adventure,

Its mulberry blossoms lifted

To a March-blue sky.

A sharp rustle of wind

Slips the ivy

From its stem of wrinkled silver,

Slaps the ivy-veins

(Flat as a summer field

Of parched green-yellow)

Softly against the moss,

Harshly against the boughs.

Handfuls of green blossoms

Blow into mulberry,

Almost touch

The scilla-blue clouds.

The tree strains

In an air full of eagerness

Struggles, and is held.

Adventure

Presses the strong curves hollowed with cloud.

But the green and mulberry blossoms,

And the silver stem,

Dare not answer.

WINIFRED BRYHER.

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED

THE HIGHER LEARNING IN AMERICA. By Thorstein Veblen. New
York: 13. W. Huebsch.

Veteran politicians, experienced men of affairs, to say nothing
of other profound students of human nature (by no means to be placed
in the same ethical class), such as tramps and charlatans, are wont
to boast at odd moments that they " Know things that are not in any
book " ; and the complacency with which such pronouncements are
for the most part received points to a somewhat general skepticism
as to the competency of the book-taught mind to reveal essential truths.

The popular notion that books are not as a rule Saturated with
the kind of truth that is most immediately wanted is perhaps not
altogether an error. Doubtless the condition complained of is not
due in any degree to timidity on the part of those authoritative per
sons who know best, nor to any discreditable motive on the part of
anyone. The fact remains, however, that one may become exceed
ingly well read in the authoritative and polite literature of the times
without learning much about life, unless, to be sure, one has acquired
somehow an ability to read between the lines. And it is, moreover,
true, as the common sense of the majority of men attests, that little
relief is to be had by turning to those books which are ostensibly most
ingenuous and outspoken, since these books are too often the work of
extremists, doctrinaires, or otherwise indifferently responsible writers.

The result is that persons — especially young persons — are prone
to have recourse to fiction, and particularly to the newer fiction, as a
means of satisfying a quite natural craving for that alleged "knowl
edge of life " which appears so difficult to get elsewhere, except indeed
through a heart-to-heart talk with the " man who knows."

But so far as it touches upon institutions rather than upon the
common frailties of mankind, the satire embodied in the newer fiction
is but an unsatisfactory substitute for scientific analysis. It is a safe
conjecture that the somewhat burlesque representations of college life
contained, for example, in Earnest Poole's The Harbor and in Sin
clair Lewis's Trail of the Hawk, have added not a little to the interest
and popularity of the tales in question. The like is true of the ex
quisite and (from a literary point of view) far more legitimate char
acterization of a would-be college president in Henry Sydney Harri
son's Queed, These things amuse us chiefly because of a suspicion
that they represent, though in a one-sided manner, real conditions.
We would not care to read this kind of criticism if we did not secretly

VOL. CCIX.—NO. 760 27

418 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

feel that our most cherished institutions, like Launcelot Gobbo's father,
do, after all, " something smack, something grow to, have a kind of
taste " of the qualities more or less playfully ascribed to them. And
yet this kind of institutional satire is little more than a rather aimless
telling of tales out of school. The thing is perhaps worth doing; but
it seems reasonable to hope that, if there is anything in it, it may
be done in some better way.

To compare in point of interest such fictional criticism of college
life with a perfectly serious passage from Thorstein Veblen's recently
published book upon the higher learning in America, may be worth
while. " It is toward the outside, in the face of the laity out of doors,"
writes Mr. Veblen, " that the high fence — ' the eight- fold fence' — of
scholarly pretension is to be kept up. Hence the indicated means of
its tip-keep are such as will presumably hold the (transient) respect
and affection of this laity — quasi-scholarly homiletical discourse, fre
quent, voluminous, edifying and optimistic; ritualistic solemnities,
diverting and vacant; spectacular affectations of (counterfeit)
scholastic usage in the way of droll vestments, bizarre and archaic;
parade of (make-believe) gentility; encouragement and (surrepti
tious) subvention of athletic contests; promulgation of (presumably)
ingenuous statistics touching the volume and character of the work
done." Elsewhere Mr. Veblen, after scrupulously careful delibera
tion, describes the typical university executive as " in some sort an
itinerant dispensary of salutary verbiage."

These quotations, though necessarily somewhat misleading when
removed from their context, may serve to show that in raciness and
vigor of expression, as in apparent candor, Mr. Veblen is far superior
to the run of fictional satirists. As a matter of fact, his dry and
precise style makes all ordinary irony seem by comparison clumsy
and ineffectual, while his magnificent phlegm reduces most criti
cism of the kind called " bold " or " indiscreet " to the relative con
dition of tentative or peevish fault-finding. Unintentionally, no doubt,
Mr. Veblen approaches more nearly the manner of Jonathan Swift
than does any other contemporary writer. He might, indeed, be not
inaccurately described as a modern, scientific Swift, dispassionate in
stead of bitter.

So much for the manner, but what of the substance ? " Com-
munia maledicta" as Bacon says, " is nothing much " ; and the say
ing holds true no less for simple vituperation aimed at institutions or
types than for that which is directed at individuals.

Of the justice of Mr. Veblen's arraignment of the universities,
every reader must, of course, judge for himself. The reviewer feels
warranted in saying this : that The Higher Learning in America bears
all the marks of being one of those rare books which contain
such truth as seldom finds its way into print — truth such as results
from genuine experience intrepidly thought out, truth such as in the
nature of the case cannot by the generality of writers be expressed
with sufficient candor and at the same time with sufficient philosophy
to make it either safe or acceptable. Here is the whole case against
the universities, including some of the colloquial expressions (verging,
it must be confessed, upon scurillity) of a suppressed body of opinion;
the whole case set forth with so comprehensive a grasp, with so im-

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED 419

partial an eye to the working of cause and effect, that in the end no
one is judged, no one need feel offended, no one has anything to quar
rel with except facts (said to be capable of documentary proof when
not notoriously true) and a perfectly impersonal, logically constructed
conception of the relation of the universities to modern civilization in
America.

Other books of Mr. Veblen's have been from time to time noticed
in these pages. The fault found with these treatises (when any fault
could be found) was simply that the author presented the " drift of
events " as a fatally determined chain of causation, without any
acknowledgment of purpose on his own part or any admission that
the fatal chain might be in any way modified by a grasp of the ideas
he was himself engaged in setting forth; the truth being that though
events be fatally determined, our conscious thoughts are links in the
chain, and, being such links, are at the same time our purposes; so
that to deny purpose is to give up the possibility of thinking intel
ligibly (in the last analysis), and to encourage that false fatalism
which resolves not to think.

Whether this criticism be just or not, it has no special application
to the work under consideration. In this book, Mr. Veblen simply
points out the obvious fact that the higher learning is the very core
of our civiliation. " For good or ill, civilized men have come to hold
that this matter-of-fact knowledge of things is the only end in life that
indubitably justifies itself. So that nothing more irretrievably shame
ful would overtake modern civilization than the miscarriage of this
modern learning, which is the most valued spiritual asset of civilized
mankind." He then proceeds to show what the fate of the higher
learning in the hands of the universities is likely to be. The reader
may draw his own conclusions, purposeful or not.

As an illustration of the lucidity of thought to which so impersonal
a view may lead, one may cite the author's conclusion in regard to the
long continued and fruitless controversy that has been carried on,
under pressure of business influences, about the practical value of
higher — i.e., of university, not college — education. " Pushed by this
popular prejudice, and themselves drifting under compulsion of the
same prevalent bias, even the seasoned scholars and scientists —
Matthew Arnold's ' Remnant ' — have taken to heart this question of
the use of the higher learning in the pursuit of gain. Of course, it has
no such use, and the many shrewdly designed solutions of the conun
drum have necessarily 'run out in a string of sophistical dialectics.
The place of disinterested knowledge in modern civilization is neither
that of means to private gain, nor that of an intermediate step in ' the
roundabout process of the production of goods/ '

The case is really as simple as that of the Emperor's Clothes. To
be sure, a child could see that the emperor had no clothes, though older
people remained under the illusion of habitual pretense. To see that
the higher education has really no " practical " value requires some
thing more than a child's intuition. It requires, nowadays, a superior
talent for straight thinking.

Others have pointed out the preposterous mixture of idealism
and worship of business success which is characteristic of modern
civilization everywhere and especially in America. No one has

420 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

brought the essential idea so effectively to bear upon any concrete
problem as has Mr. Veblen upon the problem of the higher education.
It is the intrusion of business ideals and business methods upon the
true and professed interests of the university everywhere — in the gov
erning boards, in the academic administration, in the work of the
executive and of the teachers — that is doing the mischief. And this
intrusion is so natural a result of the whole social system under which
we live that it seems unavoidable.

Mr. Veblen is dispassionate, but his thought has a heat much more
powerful to melt away obstacles than those more or less factitious
bursts of indignation that are often supposed to accomplish this re
sult. His book, unhopeful as it is in tone and intent, will certainly not
be without an ultimate effect in bringing about a different state of
affairs — which may or may not, according to Mr. Veblen's philosophy,
be an improvement.

ARCHITECTURE AND DEMOCRACY. By Claude Bragdon. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf.

The ancient faith that the " book of power " is ultimately of more
value than any precise, provisional formulation of certified knowledge,
or any formally correct application of accepted logic to generally ap
proved ends, holds its ground in spite of the deserved disrepute into
which mere emotional appeals, edifying discourses, or random sug
gestions of mystery have nowadays generally fallen. Modern literary
opinion strives (somewhat half-heartedly, it is true) to eliminate the
psychopath and the charlatan, while it clings with a certain integrity
of mind to the doctrine that a book of genius is in all cases of more
value than it can immediately be proved to possess.

Men used to say that books of power were inspired; we now
prefer to say, with much the same intent, that they are sincere and
original. Just what we mean by " originality " is rather less easy for us
to say than it was for our forefathers to tell what they meant by " in
spiration." A rough working definition of original thought would per
haps be: Original thought is thought in which all the forces of a
man's nature work in a harmonious and unimpeded manner toward the
accomplishment of an end not clearly foreseen. This is in general ac
cord with Professor Ladd's illuminating dictum, " Thinking is a matter
of the whole man ; " while at the same time it may serve to distinguish
the prized quality of originality from the humdrum labor of research
and from the mere enthusiasm of camouflaged propagandism.

It naturally follows that the book of power is sometimes a
curiously uneven fusion of various elements, among which gold and
clay may frequently be distinguished in strange juxtaposition. And
so there is no inherent contradiction in saying that while Claude Brag-
don's book, Architecture and Democracy, is one of the best, one of the
most potent, books, on architecture or anything else, that have recently
come to light, it is also a somewhat puzzling mixture of intuitive truth,
doubtful speculation, and obvious sentiment. The like is true of Rous
seau's Emile!

The distinction between " arranged " and " organic " architecture
is not, indeed, by any means new, nor is the idea that architecture is a

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED 421

true reflection of national life a discovery. Mr. Bragdon, however,
perceives these things not as mere abstract canons of art — and what
art is worse than that which deliberately and in cold blood seeks to be
national or racial? — but as vital, active principles. What is better, he
is able to give us more than a glimpse of the way in which these prin
ciples work and are even now working. The spirit of democracy and
of brotherhood are certainly capable of bringing to pass a transforma
tion, in art as well as in life, from ugliness to forms of beauty strangely
new and yet thoroughly congenial. " The architecture of the United
States, from the period of the Civil War up to the beginning of the
present crisis, everywhere reflects a struggle to be free of a vicious
and depraved form of feudalism, grown strong under the very aegis
of democracy. The qualities that made feudalism endeared and endur
ing; qualities written in beauty on the cathedral cities of medieval
Europe — faith, worship, loyalty, magnanimity — were either vanished
or banished from this pseudo-democratic, aridly scientific feudalism,
leaving an inheritance of strife and tyranny — a strife grown mean, a
tyranny grown prudent, but full of sinister power the weight of which
we have by no means ceased to feel/' Yet so simple a structure as the
Red Cross Community Club House, built during the war at Camp
Sherman, Ohio, seems, as Mr. Bragdon describes it, to reflect no little
of " the light that never was on sea or land." Similarly, " the most
modern note yet sounded in business, in diplomacy, in social life, is ex
pressed in the phrase, ' Live openly.' " And by the operation of a
spiritual law, the new spirit is gradually working toward expression
in a new architectural comeliness.

All this strain of thought in Mr. Bragdon's book is eminently
sane and vitalizing. The basic thought, as true as it is commonplace,
is that no noble constructive work in any field can be carried on with
out faith. The completed work will reflect the nature of the faith.
Unless it possesses, however, the element of insight or intuition or
Tightness, or approximate accordance with the will of God, the work
will have no beauty whatever, but at most a kind of strange fascina
tion — which is one of the things that men habitually confuse with
beauty.

This faith or intuition may be fairly called mystic ; it has relation
to a mystery — for when all is said, scientific ethics cannot tell me why
I ought not to cheat my neighbor in a business transaction, or why I
ought not to erect a building that speaks architectural deceit and theft
in every line — if I so desire.

The mystery has to be reckoned with ; it is best to realize it con
sciously; a joyous submission to its workings is no doubt the best con
dition for successful endeavor. But when men have attempted to de
scribe the mystery thus joyously relied upon, they have not infre
quently gone astray. To try to draw inferences from the supposed
nature of the cosmic spirit is seldom quite safe. And so it happens
that the second part of Mr. Bragdon's book is rather more curious
than inspiring.

Mr. Bragdon is quite properly interested in the fourth dimen
sion — a fascinating subject. But just here his artist's nature appears
to come in with the demand that everything, including the fourth di
mension, shall be harmonized with his artistic aims and theories. The

422 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

desire for such harmony is doubtless the work of intuition ; and so far
forth it is genuine and to be respected — it has nothing whatever in
common, needless to say, with any kind of f addism. But while a man's
intuition, if he consciously heeds it, may tell him to build a house
expressive of brotherhood (if he have brotherhood in him) rather than
a monument of greed — just as it tells the bee to build his cells — one
of the things that intuition absolutely cannot assure him of is that
number — that is, mathematics — is not only the symbol of order in the
universe, " but the very thing itself." One cannot learn this through
intuition, nor, apparently, can one learn it by any other means. In fact,
the drift of philosophic thinking on this point would seem to be that if
there is any form of thought that is used simply and purely for the
purpose of controlling bits of experience in a possibly pluralistic
and inchoate universe, that form of thought is mathematics. Than
number, then, there is nothing that will bear with a worse grace to be
hypostatized.

This suggests some doubt as to the philosophic basis of a system
of decoration based upon projections of fourth dimensional solids.
One is willing, however, to abide by the pragmatic test. The patterns
that Mr. Bragdon develops by his fourth-dimensional method are un
questionably fascinating; yet to the perception of the layman there is
in them something unconscionably weird. They do, indeed, power
fully suggest the complexity of the modern mind. There is in them,
one would say, something subtly congenial to the mental state of a
man who, let us say, follows a prosaic business, believes in spirits,
thinks that there is perhaps something in socialism, would like to live
on a farm, does not know what to do about his son who is not making
good in college, and at the age of sixty dances the one-step. But do
we want symbols of perplexity ? To the men of the past — and perhaps
they were wise — the simplest symbols of the Great Mystery have
seemed, on the whole, to be the best. And the question arises whether
we had better not make a little more sure of what the fourth dimension
humanly means before we begin to use projections from hyperspace
as symbols for our communal, not to speak of our cosmic, life. All of
which should not, of course, prevent us from using anything that
proves humanly good, whether it comes from hyperspace or from any
where else.

From speculation Mr. Bragdon descends to rather facile sentiment
and to somewhat obvious symbolism. Must the artist, one asks after
reading the chapter on "symbols and sacraments," really give himself
up to the " pathetic fallacy " ? Must he revel in the easy parable of
the brook running to the sea and other like " parables from nature " ?
Must he think about gold and silver like a medieval alchemist? All
these and similar sentiments and fancies suggest something very dif
ferent from the robust and practical mysticism of Mr. Bragdon's first
essay.

Despite weakness, however, Mr. Bragdon's collection of essays is
a book of power, not in parts only, but from cover to cover. Its very
artistic unity makes it so; and perhaps a certain artistic unity in our
works and beliefs is the very best we can, any of us, achieve. What
we all secretly desire, at any rate, is the most perfect possible adjust
ment of our whole personalities to the laws of the universe at large

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED 423

and to the circumstances of our mundane life. Any collection of sane,
acute, and suggestive ideas tending to show the feasibility of this
quest, and to prove the joy of even partial success in it, adds to the
fulness of life.

INDUSTRY AND HUMANITY. By W. L. Mackensie King. New
York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

What is first of all needed for the determination of industrial policy
is a clear, controlling idea of the whole problem. We must have an
essentially correct concept stated in simple, general terms such as will
conform to and suggest both the practical and the moral factors.

Such a concept is supplied by Dr. King. Following Pasteur, the
author distinguishes in human affairs, as within the human body, two
conflicting laws or tendencies — the Law of Peace and Work and
Health, and the Law of Blood and Death. According to this view,
" all that begets strife and hatred in human relations " is of the nature
of " disorder and ferment, akin to that evidenced by disease."

This idea is as profound as it is simple, as hopeful as it is sane and
evolutionary. Remove the obstacles to right action, and you will ob
tain inevitably right action. True, you cannot remove the obstacles all
at once. Some of them are natural : they are merely limitations inci
dent to an early stage of growth. But many of them are unnatural;
they are curable diseases — the symptom of which is not simply that
crudity of life which we see among savages and animals, but misery,
with its accompaniments of bitterness, humiliation, weariness of life,
which we rightly associate with civilization rather than with a " state
of nature." Conceive of humanity as an organism, and try to insure
its healthy growth, with full faith in the reality of the organism and in
its tendency to health.

All the more significance should be attached to this way of thinking
because it is set forth on the authority of one who is not only a deep
thinker but a practical statesman. For ten years, Dr. King was asso
ciated with the Department of Labor of the Government of Canada,
first as Deputy Minister of the Department, and subsequently as Min
ister. During that time he was called upon to act as mediator in over
forty strikes important enough to warrant intervention. The industries
concerned embraced agencies of transportation and communication such
as railroads, ocean transport, street railways, the telegraph and tele
phone; coal and metalliferous mining; and manufacturing establish
ments of various kinds. Dr. King was brought into close touch with
a much larger number of controversies, and since the severance of his
official connection with the Government he has continued to see much
of important industrial disputes from the inside.

Considering these facts, too much emphasis cannot be given to the
following deliberate and measured statement by Dr. King of his mature
opinion :

..." 7 believe I can say that, without exception, every dispute and con
troversy of which I have had any intimate knowledge has owed its
origin, and the difficulties pertaining to its settlement, not so much to
the economic questions involvced as to [a] ' certain blindness in human
beings' to matters of real significance to other lives, and an unwilling

424 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

ness to approach an issue with an attempt at appreciation of the funda
mental sameness of feelings and aspirations in all human beings.''

What are the causes of this " certain blindness," which William
James so lucidly analyzed? Fundamentally, as all thought is prompted
by more or less hidden motives and goes on subject to more or less ob
scure limitations, one cannot reach logically every deep-seated cause
of mistaken hostility. But there are certain external causes — certain
wrong ideas — that can be thus reached and disproved.

One of these is the idea that workers, like the materials they work
with and the tools they use, are simply means to an end. Means to an
end they certainly are, as are all of us, but they are also, because human
beings, ends in themselves. It is somehow difficult to keep in mind the
conviction that they are both, and so to avoid the opposite extremes of
sentimental socialism and selfish laissez faire. But modern life re
quires us to master knowledge of at least two dimensions.

Another wrong conception — which in one field, at least, has ex
ploded in blood and smoke — is the false interpretation of the so-called
law of " the survival of the fittest." Natural selection, of itself, is not
sufficient to explain evolution — so the most advanced evolutionists
agree. Still less can this law be recognized as excluding human intelli
gence from selection in human affairs, since our problem as conscious
beings is just to select what is fittest and to make it survive. And in
nothing is the choice more momentous than in the case of conflicting
standards of living. The lower standard, through a kind of Gresham's
Law, does tend to oust the higher ; yet " through co-operative effort
based on choice, higher standards may be made to prevail over inferior
ones."

The real difficulty, however, is not so much to remove general mis
conceptions as to adjust industrial relations in such a manner as to
minimize both the mental blindness which gives birth to fear and dis
trust and the fear and distrust which tend, in turn, to increase mental
blindness.

In order to see how this may be done, we must have a clear
analysis of the relations themselves.

Dr. King distinguishes four parties to industry — Labor, Capital,
Management, and the Community. He designates the agencies of prog
ress as Discovery and Invention, Government, Education, and Opinion.
He defines the aim of his investigation as the discovery of right prin
ciples respecting Peace, Work, and Health.

Unfortunately, just at this point the exposition becomes, owing to
cross-classification, a trifle tangled. What is referred to under Health
would seem to belong quite as much to Peace, and what is said concern
ing Education and Opinion is so comprehensive that it might almost
serve as an epitome of all. The whole treatise is, indeed, somewhat
labored, somewhat disproportioned, somewhat heavily abstract. But
these defects should blind no one to the profundity and fundamental
clearness of Dr. King's ideas. The author is simply encumbered by
the weight and the copiousness of his own thoughts — and, indeed, per
fect ease and shapeliness are too often merely the virtues of those
writers who handle with great facility the thoughts of others !

One of the leading principles underlying Work is this : " With a
larger product, there is the possibility of increased returns, not to one

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED 425

factor at the expense of others, but to all at the expense of none." Once
this is thoroughly comprehended, a further misconception is cleared
away, and the road seems logically open to adjustment with the aim of
securing the utmost efficiency with the greatest prosperity for all.

Of very great interest is the author's discussion of the various
means of adjustment that have been tried; for in this, one perceives
the working of a principle. Compulsory Arbitration, though logical,
does not work well in practice. Voluntary arbitration is but slightly
better. Mediation and conciliation are decidedly better, but not always
workable. Compulsory investigation has worked on the whole better
than any other expedient. '' The number of disputes which have been
amicably adjusted under the Canadian Industrial Disputes Investigation
Act, without loss of a dollar to Capital, a day's wake to Labor, or a
moment's inconvenience to the public, is so considerable as to constitute
the vast majority of the cases which have been referred under its
provisions."

Profit-sharing, on the other hand — and here the author agrees with
those who have studied the matter carefully from the point of view of
management — is of very limited use ; the reason being that it is in prac
tise not so much an application of principle as a mere palliative or de
vice. Labor's suspicion of profit-sharing, the author acknowledges, is
more or less well founded.

That method is best, in short, which goes farthest in destroying
suspicion, in invoking public opinion, and in conserving independence.

And so the best method of all would seem to be Industrial Repre
sentation — democracy in industry.

This is the practical idea which looms largest in Dr. King's book,
and which is indeed the logical outcome of his discussion.

Already a beginning has been made toward securing industrial
democracy. The Rockefeller Industrial Plan, the recommendations of
the Whitley Committee in England, are both based upon this principle.
If Dr. King had done no more than to explain adequately these two
plans, and to set them in their true light, drawing out the profoundly
interesting parallel between the progress they mark and the develop
ment of political freedom in English history, his book would still be
of immense value.

He has done all this and more. He has written what is perhaps
the most truly philosophical, and hence the most practical, of books
concerning the industrial problem.

THE LETTERS OF ANNE GILCHRIST AND WALT WHITMAN. Edited
by Thomas B. Harned. Garden City.: Doubleday, Page & Company.

Only a sentimental schoolgirl could fall in love with Keats, with
Shelley, with Tennyson, merely through reading his poems. The per
sonality of the poet is in his works, but in an etherealized form: he
makes us think of beauty, not of his personality.

Whitman's personality is in his work in a different sense. The
whole man is there — virile personality, warm affection, democratic
bluster, along with the great thought. And so Anne Gilchrist did not
need to meet Whitman face to face in order to fall in love with him.

426 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

There are those of us who prefer a more etherealized form of
expression, who are troubled by Whitman's insistent humanity, his
personal intrusions, his emphasis upon his own faults, which make
criticism of his poetry, for all its elemental quality, so much a matter
of liking or disliking him.

But it is an extraordinary testimony to the strength of this same
personal quality in Whitman, and to its intimate union with what is
most uplifting in his thought, that a highly cultivated and sensible
woman, far removed by maturity and by character from the follies of
youth, fell passionately and devotedly in love with him just through
reading Leaves of Grass.

From Annie Gilchrist's letters one will gather no new appreciation
of Whitman — though Anne was a brilliant critic. The letters are sheer
love letters. All that they show of Whitman is his personal power.
The letters are simply a reflection of him; even the conception of
love in them is thoroughly Whitmanesque.

Nevertheless, Walt Whitman was to Anne Gilchrist something
more than an object of deep affection, as he was also something more
than a moral and intellectual liberator. The relation between these
two, though on Whitman's side one of simple friendship, was more
beautiful and more vital than are many of the loves that are con
summated in this world. Whitman drew out from the woman who
loved him all that was most wholesome, natural, generous, and joined
it to an exalted view of life. Certainly, he gave her much.

She gave to him a warmly human, spiritual love, and to the world
a rare example of that utter faithfulness, that pure unselfishness,
that happiness in renunciation, which proves the strength, the vitality,
the glowing joy, the deep satisfaction, that may be in the mental part
of love, and the continuity of this with the instinctive part. Anne
Gilchrist was no ascetic, denying her woman's nature, no sentimentalist
worshipping an idealized image of a man ; and yet love of the ideal was
the very life-blood of her passion.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

FROM A SOLDIER'S FATHER

SIR, — Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.

You may be interested in hearing of how some of our young men
were treated who believed the above sentiment and freely offered their
lives for their country on the battlefields of France in 1918. My young
est son was a student at Yale College when the war broke out in 1914.
In 1915, with 700 other fellow-students, he enlisted in the Yale Bat
talion. In 1916 they were sworn into the U. S. Army as privates and
sent to camp at Tobyhanna, Pa., where they made four batteries of
the loth Field Artillery, under command of Colonel Danford. In
September, 1916, they were mustered out and returned to Yale, where
their artillery instruction was continued during the winter of 1916-17,
under Colonel Danford, Captain Moretti and Captain Potter. Captain
Potter was detailed to teach them to ride. They were put through the
same riding drill as the West Point cadets. In the spring of 1917 they
were ready to go to the School of Fire at Fort Sill, Okla., and Colonel
Danford strongly urged and expected that they be sent there for three
months' training, when they would be ready for their commissions as
artillery officers, which we so sorely needed at this time. Instead of
doing this they were ordered by the Secretary of War to apply for ad
mission to the training camp nearest to their homes. Even then
each man had to get three letters of recommendation before he was al
lowed to enter these camps.

When I heard of this I telegraphed to the Secretary of War ask
ing whether it was still too late to change this order, as three months
at the Fort Sill School of Fire would fit these 700 men for artillery
commissions. In ten days I had a telegram from the Adjutant Gen
eral of the army, saying the Secretary of War had turned my telegram
over to him for answer — that while the Yale Battalion was a fine body
of men and would no doubt make fine soldiers, it would not do to have
a corps d'elite in the army. Of course, this was an evasive answer, as
they would not have been a corps after getting their commissions any
more than a class of West Point is a corps after graduation. However,
my son was sent to the Officers' Training Camp at Fort Niagara in
May, 1917; received his commission as 2d Lieutenant, Field Artillery,
U. S. R., on August 14, 1917, and was one of ten out of his battery
sent directly to France, where he was ordered to Battery F, 7th U. S.
Field Artillery, ist Division of the A. E. F.

This division was on the Lorraine front until April, 1918, when

428 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

they were ordered to the front between Cantigny and Amiens. In May
they took Cantigny and held it against numerous counter-attacks by
the Boche. They made many raids in this sector and saw real fighting.
In one of these raids my son carried a wounded man out of No Man's
Land under fire and was recommended for a citation. In July they
were ordered to rest billets, having been under intensive fire for three
months, but before reaching them were turned to the line south of
Soissons to take part in the big drive which started on July 17 and was
the beginning of the defeat of the Germans. My boy had many hair
breadth escapes in these battles, was gassed, but not wounded. He
filled every battery position. When the division was relieved he had
not had his uniform nor his boots off for a month, and weighed only
130 pounds. His weight is 170 now. When his division was ordered
to St. Mihiel he and other Yale Reserve officers were ordered back,
some to teach at the artillery school at Saumur. He was ordered to
the classification camp at St. Aignan, where he was when the armistice
was signed. He was then sent to Blois and put on waiting orders, with
no duties. He lost all his baggage in April and had to buy a new outfit.
On December i he learned of its location, at a town about forty miles
from Blois. The Colonel in command at Blois refused to let him have
a day off in which to get it. His reason was that orders might arrive
for him. He refused to let him go to St. Aignan for his Christmas
packages. His baggage in still in France. He refused him twenty-four
hours' leave to go to a Yale dinner in Paris. He refused him twenty-
four hours' leave to say good-bye to his French friends at Nice and
St. Georges. In fact, this Colonel, who was a Major when Pershing
was a Captain, was a real old-style martinet, such as we read about in
Maryatt.

On Christmas morning my son was discharged from the army and
ordered to leave that night for Brest, to take transport for the United
States. Although discharged in France he was not paid off in France.
At Brest he had to wait ten days for a transport, paying his own ex
penses. He had to borrow money from the Red Cross. On the trans
port he had to pay for his meals — $14. The Colonel in charge of the
ship refused to sign his subsistence checks, saying, " you are no longer
in the army and therefore are not entitled to subsistence." He received
his pay after reaching New York.

His case is only one of hundreds. To say that these men are sore
over their treatment is putting it mildly. One officer who had enlisted
in Paris, and had received the Croix de Guerre and three citation stars,
was sent to New York, although he demanded to be returned to the
place of his enlistment. These men are all returned as " casuals." They
have no division, no regiment, no company. My son, after sixteen
months on the front and a year on the firing line, after having been rec
ommended for a citation and promotion, is discharged in a foreign coun
try without pay and has to borrow money to get home. He feels he
has been kicked out of the army, as though he had never done any
thing creditable. He wanted to remain in France, but it was not
allowed. Although discharged there, and as far as I can see, at once
becoming a private citizen, he and others were sent to Brest in charge
of an officer !

Leaving here in August, 1917, full of enthusiasm and eagerness to

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 429

serve their country in the army in France, they return disheartened
and with anything but love of country in their hearts. Something is
radically wrong in the treatment of these men. We could not raise a
volunteer army of any size today. I doubt whether an army could be
raised today by conscription without serious opposition. As for our
present Administration, it is teaching that the Government will support
the people. The idea that the people must support the Government
does not seem to have any place in the minds of the Socialists, labor
unions and I. W. W.

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.

Pardon my encroaching on your time, but I know you will hear
much about the complaints of returning soldiers, and I thought you
might be interested in the experience of one of them.

Easton, Pa. S- H- CHAUVENET.

ROOSEVELT AND JOHN BURROUGHS

SIR. — What a lovable and wonderful figure is John Burroughs!
With an aged body crowned by time-bleached hair, he faces the world
with a smile and a calm young soul as fresh as the snow upon bowed
chrysanthemums in late November. In the flower of his years he urges
us, who have not achieved the outlook his comprehension has attained,
to accept the Universe, telling us that life is sweet despite the bitter
seed we often bite into in our enjoyment of the mellow fruit. " The
good would have no tang, no edge, no cutting quality, without evil to
oppose it."

He has said : " The voyage is not all calm and sunshine, but it
is safe * * * ; " that " power waits upon him who earns it * * *."
And I recall the word of another naturalist whose strong voice of
resonant courage was ever raised to point the way of true happiness:
" The joy of living is his who has the heart to demand it." And it
seems that the source of this last quotation, Theodore Roosevelt, has
been overlooked in one essential aspect — that is, literary ability. In the
tremendousness of his political career the books into which he put him
self, where you find the real man, have not been noted with the degree
of prominence that their eloquence and scholarship deserve.

The spirit of adventure was wonderfully developed in Theodore
Roosevelt. It seemed to be a part of his innermost being, this desire
for new plains to roam on, new men and stars and forests and beasts
to see. He loved to go over untrodden ground, revelling in the unfold
ing of virgin landscapes, experiencing the thrill of an explorer mount
ing the crest of a hill to gaze into a fresh land his pioneer spirit had
brought out of the unknown, the joy without the disappointment which
Moses must have felt when he saw deep into the heart of Caanan. The
long days in the saddle; the dangerous trailing of fierce animals; the
deep forests spreading welcome shade over wide floors of fern, inviting
one to tent and rest — these were clear joys to him. And this wish for
the uninhabited, uncivilized reaches, for great plains and extended vistas
of hills was not an impression upon his mind of a mere wanderlust ten
dency; it was the logical need of his being for undefiled Nature, the
irrepressible longing of his mind for an environment in which his

430 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

visions could take wing and beat above exalted scenery and descend in
virgin fields.

It is these qualities that his books manifest, as this slight and insuf
ficient quotation from A Boo Mover's Holidays in the Open will show :

The man must have youth and strength who seeks adventure in the wide,
waste spaces of the earth, in the marshes, among the vast mountain masses, in
the northern forests, amid the steaming jungles of the tropics, or on the deserts
of sand or of snow. He must long greatly for the lonely winds that blow across
the wilderness, for the sunrise and sunset over the rim of the empty world.
. . . The beauty and charm of the wilderness are his for the asking.
. . . He can see the red splendor of desert sunsets, and the unearthly glory
of the afterglow on the battlements of desolate mountains. In sapphire gulfs of
ocean he can visit islets, above which the wings of myriads of sea-fowl make a
kind of cunieform script in the air. . . .

The joy of living is his who has the heart to demand it.

Through that classic, African Game Trails, as through his other
works, runs the poetic understanding and felicity of imagery which
will serve to make Roosevelt's genuine contributions live. His gift for
description may be exampled thus:

Two or three days later I left the woods. The weather had grown colder.
The loons had begun to gather on the larger lakes in preparation for their
southward flight. The nights were frosty. Fall was in the air. Once there
was a flurry of snow. Birch and maple were donning the bravery with which
they greet the oncoming north; crimson and gold their banners flaunted in the
eyes of the dying year.

The hearts of these two men, Burroughs and Roosevelt, beat in
the direction of Nature. There they discovered that lasting glamour
and beauty which only he who has heard the soughing of the pines, the
hymn of the larks, and felt the perfect concinnity of her comradeship,
can appreciate.

Will you let me thank Mr. Burroughs through you for the satis
fying essay in the January REVIEW.

WILLIAM GAMALIEL SHEPARD.
Guinea Mills, Va.

WE REAFFIRM IT

SIR. — In your article on the dissolution of the Empire of Ger
many it is asserted that in the course of the last sixty years Germany
has failed to produce "one great spiritual leader, or, indeed, one great
free intellectual leader." The inference is that this condition is the
result of the coalition, and the dominating influence of Prussia in the
policies of the Empire.

As I have heretofore understood it, the troubles incident to the
act of federation were dynastic in their origin ; and that the union pro
duced no essential change in the social and intellectual life of its peo
ples. In other words, the federation was purely political in its char
acter. If the sovereignty of our States should be absorbed in com
plete centralization of the Government, a Pennsylvanian would think,
worship and attend to his business as before that event took place ; his
children would have the same privileges and opportunities as before.
Has the Empire denied the German any such, or has it abridged his

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 431

liberty? In the sense that we are a federated republic, Germany is a
federated Monarchy. Am I incorrect in this assumption?

If not, your statements are not susceptible of proof, and involve a
contradiction. In modern Germany, as in other civilized nations, ad
vancement in " material sciences, industry and commerce " goes hand
in hand with advancement in the " things of the mind and spirit."
This subject has been treated in Guizot's History of Civilization in
Modern Europe in the first chapter. It is absurd to assert that Ger
many's progress in the last sixty years has been one-sided.

The comparison is not entirely fair; it should be made to include
other civilized peoples. If it can be shown that Germany alone can
show no great names to set against those of a period antedating 1848,
there would be some justification for your conclusions; but even so, I
am still unconvinced that the cause could be found in the political
status of its peoples. But can this be done ? Who are such in England,
France, Italy, Switzerland, Japan; where are ours? The Graces are
not prodigal with their gifts ; Nature does not produce giants every so
many years.

I believe your statements to be inaccurate, and I will be glad to
have you enlarge on this subject in a later issue. There must be a
number of your subscribers, besides myself, to whom a paper would
be of interest.

Orwigsburg, Pa. LIN B. ZULICK.

HIGH THINKING AT HIRAM HILL

SIR. — Mr. Harrison Rhodes' impressions of the high thinking and
very plain living practiced in Civil War times at the academy on Hiram
Hill, to which you give a place in a recent issue, are very timely. It
seems not less so to enlarge upon Mr. Rhodes' good word for the results
of the study of Latin at that humble institution. The following letter
was written by the room-mate who shared the corn-meal mush with the
senior Rhodes, to a friend who afterwards died, " in the service," of
camp fever:

Wadsworth, Feb. 26, 1861.

My dear GUST:

... I am studying some, reading Tacitus. I shall finish twenty-four
pages today. His treatise upon the Germans, which I am reading, is very inter
esting indeed. We study history, after all, as men make geographical discoveries.
We begin with the nation, and go back to the tribe in the forest ; the geographer
begins at the mouth of the river, and traces it till he finds the spring from which
it flows in the mountains. Two years ago I read Motley, now I am working my
way through Tacitus. Do you not find an especial delight in tracing thoughts to
their source — to go back till you can say, " There that idea originated " ? At such
a moment you have a feeling akin to that which Bruce felt at the sources of the
Nile. Here arises, I think, a larger share of the pleasure we experience in read
ing the classics. I read Motley. — Motley had studied Tacitus. History and its
attendant studies afford me my greatest pleasure; and I take the most pleasure
in standing just upon the border land — between light and darkness — just as the
sun is coming up; where I can see the night fleeing and the day advancing. I
think I am safe in saying that in all departments of human inquiry the questions
of greatest interest always arise just where the known shades into the unknown.
I think it is true in history. I find Tacitus graphic; and can easily understand
what Rufus Choate meant when he called him the ° Macaulay of the Ancients."
When I have read the four pages remaining, I shall not study any more here.

432 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

The writer of this letter, — B. A. Hinsdale, late of the University
of Michigan, — has left a name in political science and in education.
When he wrote the letter, he was a young man twenty-three years old,
and was spending a vacation helping his farmer father tap the maples
for sugar making.

MARY L. HINSDALE.

Grand Rapids, Mich.

IMMORTAL YOUTH

SIR. — To many of the patriotic and loving yet bereaved fathers
and mothers whose sons have fallen in the Great War, I have found
that one of the most comforting thoughts has been that their " boys "
have been thereby endowed with " immortal youth."

No matter how long the parents live, their boy never will grow old
to them. Had he and they lived together for ten, twenty or forty
years, the boy of twenty-odd would have become the man of even
sixty-odd with gray hairs and the pes anserinus furrowing his temples.
Once he has given life itself for Liberty and Civilization, he has passed
from the Realm of Time, with its changes and its vicissitudes, its age
ing and its decrepitude, into the Realm of Immortality. There he
never will lose the bloom of youth with his well-remembered inspiring
buoyancy, his affection, his ardent, hopeful, cheerful life. Immortality
for him and them knows neither Decay nor Decline. Its voice is ever
that of vigorous, hopeful, radiant Eternal Youth.

I believe as firmly in Immortality and the Future Life as I do in
my present existence. Hence I believe that Immortal Youth is the
future of our young heroes who have made what is well called the
" Supreme Sacrifice."

W. W. KEEN, M. D.

Philadelphia, Pa.

Tros Tyriusque mihi nullo discrimine agetur

/*£-

C1' ]

<

NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

APRIL, 1919

THE INDEPENDENCE OF AMERICA*

MUST IT BE SACRIFICED TO HUMANITY ?

BY THE EDITOR

WHEN Abraham Lincoln arrived in Washington from
Springfield, in 1861, the nation was confronting the most
vital crisis that had arisen in its history. With deep and
solemn appreciation of that dreadful fact Mr. Lincoln ut
tered these words in his first inaugural :

" My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well
upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by
taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in
hot haste to a step which you would never take deliber
ately, that object will be frustrated by taking time, but no
good object can be frustrated by it."

That was the counsel of tolerance, of prudence and of
wisdom. Our country is now facing another paramount
exigency. Opinions may differ as to its importance com
pared with that which arose in 1861. I feel myself —
and I am trying to speak without exaggeration but from
a sense of profound conviction — that it is even more vital.
What would have happened if our Union had been divided
into two separate commonwealths no man can predicate

* An address to the Bankers' Association of Chicago.

Copyright, 1919, by North American Review Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
VOL. ccix.— NO. 761. 28

434 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

with any semblance of authority. By the mercy of
God, the necessity of engaging in such speculation did
not arise. We are, however, assured of this fact that, even
though disunion had eventuated, the fundamental prin
ciples and traditions of the Republic would have been re
tained by each of the two nations thus created. How long
to their mutual disadvantage they would have remained
separate entities no one can tell, nor for the present purpose
is it essential or profitable to attempt to formulate an
opinion.

The point I wish to emphasize by way of contrast is
that the danger which now confronts America is vastly
greater than even that of those black days immediately pre
ceding the Civil War, for the reason that we are now asked
to change our form of government, to divest our nation of
its full independence and its most cherished tradition, and
to sacrifice in part at least our sovereignty. That is what
the proposed mingling of the United States with the Powers
of Europe and of Asia means. The fact is undeniable;
indeed it is admitted reluctantly but definitely by the pro
ponents of the new order of the government of the world.

If it were necessary to produce evidences in substantia
tion of this statement there would be no difficulty in doing
so. Both the President and the ex-President, the leaders
of the movement, have made the acknowledgment over and
over again. They insist merely that such a waiver is one
only of degree ; that it is in no essential sense a novelty be
cause every treaty ever made bears a concession, however
slight, of like import. This rejoinder is neither conclu
sive nor convincing, for the reason that every treaty entered
into by the United States contains a distinct provision that
it may be legally abrogated or denounced at any time upon
compliance with certain prescribed conditions. That is to
say, a treaty is temporary in its nature and not binding
upon the contracting parties beyond the time when either
may deem its continuance in force disadvantageous or un-
advisable.

The present proposal, on the other hand, is perpetual,
a covenant from which none of the parties thereto can with
draw with honor or without in effect declaring war upon
the rest of the world. Upon this point also there is no dis
agreement. Even though there were a difference of
opinion as to the inherent right of withdrawal, regardless

THE INDEPENDENCE OF AMERICA 435

of the absence from the written document of such a privi
lege, the very existence of the doubt might easily produce
confusion, misunderstandings and disasters surpassing even
those likely to spring from the implied denial of the right
itself.

I shall not attempt to analyze the concrete proposal
submitted to the country by the President. That has
already been done so thoroughly and so effectively that
nothing that I could say would add materially to the store
of knowledge which you already possess. There is more
over another wholly practical reason. It is now clearly
evident that the covenant in its present form is doomed to
failure. We may safely assume that the pledge signed by
more than one-third of the Senators and supported by an
actual majority makes this a certainty, wholly aside from
recent information from Paris that several of the other
Powers regarded the published draft as purely tentative,
have had at no time any real intention of accepting it un-
amended, and acquiesced in its promulgation for the sole
purpose of serving the President's convenience.

Even the President himself, while not modifying his
insistence that no material change whatever would be ad
missible, inferentially conceded upon the eve of sailing, the
necessity of adopting another method, at least, of achiev
ing his ultimate aim. Tacitly recognizing the impossi
bility of imposing his will upon the coordinate branch of
the treaty-making power, he announced his purpose to cir
cumvent the Senate by so weaving into the treaty of peace
the threads of the covenant that separation would be im
possible, and that thereby he would put the Senate in such
a position that it would be compelled to ratify his propos
als or to assume responsibility for continuance of the war,
thus following the course of Congress when it puts a
" rider," wholly extraneous in nature, upon an appropria
tion bill, which the Executive must approve perforce, to
provide means for conducting the affairs of the Government.

The ethics, or even perhaps the morality, of such a pro
ceeding I shall not discuss. To do so would involve almost
necessarily consideration of, and perhaps reflection upon,
the President's motives. Into that realm I shall not and
you would not wish me to enter. Nevertheless, while I
would not under any circumstances, in the common phrase,
attack the President, I hold it to be not only the right but

436 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

the positive obligation, especially of a publicist, not only
to criticise but to denounce anything and everything that
a President may do or attempt to do that seems to be wrong.
We are altogether too prone to make a fetich of our Chief
Magistrate and to regard his every act as of origin so
nearly approaching divine as to be practically immune
even to discussion. After all, every President, from Wash
ington to Wilson, has been the same fallible being after
he entered the White House as he was before; and, after
all, he continues to be in fact, as one occasionally disin
genuously declares himself to be in theory, a mere public
servant, whose official performances are properly subject
to the approval or disapproval of his masters.

But, however we may regard the propriety under our
laws and customs of the procedure which the President an
nounces he shall follow in the accomplishment of his pur
pose, none can deny the merit or the value of his frankness.
Forewarned is forearmed. For the first time since he
sailed away to France early in December and substituted
intensive secrecy for the " open covenants openly arrived
at " which had been guaranteed by the first of the fourteen
commandments, we now know precisely what to expect.
Nor is there occasion for surprise in the programme
adopted. Long ago, before Mr. Wilson had any anticipa
tion of becoming President of the United States, he formu
lated his theory of the practical relationship of the two
treaty-making branches of the Government. Writing in
1907 on Constitutional Government in the United States,
Dr. Wilson said:

" Of one of the greatest of the President's powers I have
not yet spoken at all: his control, which is very absolute,
of the foreign relations of the nation. The initiative in for
eign affairs, which the President possesses without any re
striction whatever is virtually the power to control them
absolutely. The President cannot conclude a treaty with a
foreign Power without the consent of the Senate, but he
may guide every step of diplomacy, and to guide diplo
macy is to determine what treaties must be made, if the
faith and prestige of the government are to be maintained.
He need disclose no step of negotiation until it is complete,
and 'when in any critical matter it is completed the Gov
ernment is virtually committed. Whatever its disinclina
tion the Senate may feel itself committed also."

THE INDEPENDENCE OF AMERICA 437

It will be seen, therefore, that the course which the
President has avowedly marked out for himself conforms
precisely to the theory then enunciated. Other Presidents
have held other views. President Lincoln, for example,
addressing the Senate under date of June 23, 1862, on the
project of a treaty between the United States and Mexico,
which had been proposed to him by our minister to Mex
ico, said:

" The action of the Senate is of course conclusive
against the acceptance of the treaties on my part. I have,
nevertheless, thought it just to our excellent minister in
Mexico and respectful to the Government of that Republic
to lay the treaties before the Senate together with the cor
respondence which has occurred in relation to them. In
performing this duty I have only to add that the import
ance of the subject thus submitted to the Senate cannot be
overestimated, and I shall cheerfully receive and consider
with the highest respect any further advices the Senate
may think proper to give upon the subject."

A more striking illustration of the antithesis in judg
ment of President Lincoln and President Wilson with re
spect to the prerogatives of the Senate could not be desired.
It is, moreover, a reasonable assumption that, if Mr. Wil
son had treated the coordinate branch with the respect and
consideration accorded by Mr. Lincoln, much of the con
fusion and acrimony which has risen, greatly to the disad
vantage of our country before the eyes of the world, might
have been averted.

Instead, however, as we all know, following his own
lead, which differs sharply from that not only of President
Lincoln, but of every predecessor beginning with Wash
ington, he ignored the Senate completely, denied it any
participation in the negotiations and designated as his as
sociates personal retainers of slight, though respectable,
repute.

There was, moreover, a particular reason why one so
solemnly and so frequently pledged to heed the voice of
the people might well have taken a broader view. Only a
month before he had submitted somewhat defiantly his
policies to the country, and the country, rightly or wrong
fully, had rejected those policies by a majority exceeding
1,300,000, and had substituted the Republican Party for

438 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

the Democratic Party in control of the Senate itself. De
spite, however, this clear indication of the attitude of the
people and of his own pledge to accept their judgment
without cavil, he disregarded the verdict and pursued his
course, even to the point of disregarding an age-long tradi
tion by forsaking his post of duty and assuming personal
control of the negotiations in foreign lands.

The pity of this is now only too apparent in the pro
longation of the conference called primarily to determine
the terms of peace, until now at the end of three months,
practically nothing has been accomplished, to the great di
stress and danger of all of the peoples of Europe and to the
continuing discomfort and anxiety of our own countrymen,
the reconstruction of whose industrial affairs is so sadly
needed. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to excul
pate President Wilson from responsibility for this most dis
tressing condition. Both at home and abroad the probability
is now recognized that but for the President's insistence upon
the injection at the outset of his favorite project, peace
would have been attained in January and the whole world
would have been released from its fetters, to begin at least
the mighty tasks essential to renewal of the ordinary activi
ties of existence which alone can make for the restoration
of human happiness.

But, except for the lessons which may be derived, the
mistakes of the past, if they be mistakes, may be ignored.
Our concern is with the present and the immediate future.
Even though, as we have assumed, the tentative pro
gramme cannot win essential acceptance, the substance of
the plan has not been and will not be abandoned. The
President is so fully committed to the project and so firmly
convinced of the support of the people that a test of the
sentiment of the country is inevitable. Whether he will
succeed in convincing the delegates of the other Powers
of his ability to so entwine the League notion with the
peace treaty proper as to enable him to coerce the Senate
seems doubtful ; but, failing that, there is hardly a question
of his fetching home some kind of proposition upon which
to raise a definite issue before the country. Let us, then, go
to the root of the matter.

In the first place, no League to Enforce Peace can be
devised which is not in effect a League to Enforce War —
war to be waged by its members upon any country which

THE INDEPENDENCE OF AMERICA 439

refuses to submit to their decrees. The President, uncon
sciously perhaps, admitted that when, at Great Britain's
insistence, he withdrew his demand for freedom of the seas
because, forsooth, upon reflection he perceived that there
could be no neutrals with a League in operation. Precisely
why, he did not say, but in any case he regarded it as a
joke on himself that he had never thought of that before.
Incidentally the support of Great Britain was essential to
the success of his project and Great Britain would not
budge from her great tradition of sea control. Hence the
unsuspected jest.

Secondly, no conceivable advantage shall accrue to the
United States. Upon that point the President was rigidly
insistent from the start and finally, through the exercise of
his remarkable persuasive talents, he won the acquiescence
of the other Powers. Indeed, if the truth must be told,
from the very beginning their one concern has been, not
whether they could get something out of us, but how much.
Great Britain, of course, will yield nothing. She is in the
position of the rich man whose sole need is to find some
body to guarantee his perpetual possession of what he al
ready has. We are to be that somebody — maybe. France
and Italy will readily cancel manufactured claims to terri
tories which they have no use for and never really wanted.
In return for these extraordinary concessions we are to give
them control of the United States. Not immediately, of
course; that might seem too obvious. We are only to
finance them for a while and send our soldiers to police their
outlying provinces. You may think that an exaggeration.
It is not. That is precisely what the President has agreed
to once and will agree to, in substance, again if he can find
some way to turn the corner of the Capitol.

A perfect parallel is this: You have built up a great,
successful bank. Some other like institutions not so very
near are attacked successfully by burglars. You go to
their assistance, not in a dream or because you have visions
of an approaching millennium, but because you fear that
if those burglars are not stopped they may rob you, too.
You arrive in the nick of time to help the others beat off
the burglars.

When it is all over you find that you have incurred
heavy liabilities, but that your capital and surplus are still
intact, your deposits show signs of increasing and your

440 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

bank is the soundest, richest and most promising in the
land. Meanwhile, those other banks have suffered sadly.
Two or three are on the verge of bankruptcy. You meet
to consider the situation. You have done your full part
but you are willing to do more. You will extend loans,
you will make fresh loans, you will reduce interest, you
will do anything in reason that can be asked. Then some
body makes a proposal. It is that all the banks combine
and pool assets and liabilities, the assets being yours, of
course, and the liabilities theirs, and there will be nine di
rectors of whom you shall be one and President. They
are to have the control, but you are to have the honor.
Think of that!

And who do you suppose makes this remarkable propo
sition? Why, you, the head of the great solvent bank, and
the others hem and haw about it for a while and after per
suading you to concede this, that and the other to bind the
bargain, finally consent. Then you go back to your stock
holders and report what you have done in the name of
humanity, for the common good, and demand ratification
of your superb performance. Suppose all that should hap
pen! Where do you think you would get off? Well, that
is the precise proposition which now confronts the stock
holders of the United States. It is a homely illustration,
but a true one. I defy anybody to find a flaw in the an
alogy.

The similarity, in fact, in a broad sense, stretches further
than I have indicated. Whatever in the case imagined
might be the attitude of your stockholders and whatever,
when the time comes, may be the attitude of the stockhold
ers of the United States, there can be no question whatever
of the eagerness with which the insolvent banks in the one
instance or the impoverished Powers in the other would
welcome the proposal. Surprise has been manifested at
the readiness of England to join the combination, and many
compliments have been paid to the President for his suc
cess in " converting " Lloyd George. But why should not
England gladly and thankfully enter into such an arrange
ment? In the first place, it is her own scheme from top to
bottom. There is a common supposition that it is an
American plan conceived by an American President. That
is not the fact. America is only a cat's paw in the busi
ness. The origin of every one of the thirteen famous Points

THE INDEPENDENCE OF AMERICA 441

remaining out of the fourteen uttered by the President on
January 8 is absolutely and wholly British.

The only Commandment missing is the one abandoned
by the President as a joke on himself at the behest of Great
Britain. You will perceive, therefore, that instead of orig
inating the bases of peace, as is generally supposed, the
President merely adapted the propositions already avowed
by the British Government. We are concerned for the
moment in but one, namely, that creating a League of Na
tions, with respect to which the President replied to Senator
Brandegee that four drafts of a proposed Constitution had
been submitted, one each by the United States, Great Brit
ain, France and Italy. The British plan, the President
added in further response to Senator Brandegee's question
ing, was the one adopted. The other plans had been " put
aside." Nevertheless, if the Senator should insist, he
thought it " possible " that the American plan might be
produced for comparison. If it has been, the fact has not
been made public. That is to say, the American people
have not yet been permitted to see the plan prepared by
their own Commission and probably never would have
known that one had been submitted at all if Mr. Brandegee
had not almost inadvertently elicited the information. In
stead, we are not only asked but ordered to swallow a
purely British concoction, hook, line and sinker.

Now I make no special point of that. If we must be
come a minority partner in world government instead of
continuing to do business as an independent at the same old
stand, and if the British scheme is the best suggested, well
and good ; but as the parties chiefly in interest, are not the
American people fairly entitled at least to look at their
own proposal and try to discern why another is preferable,
especially when, as is universally admitted, they are doing
all the giving and the others all the taking?

But perhaps we ought not to haggle about such things.
Perhaps we ought to go it blind. That this is what we are
expected to do there is no shadow of doubt. Senator
McCormick spoke the exact truth when he said that " dur
ing his week's visit to the United States, President Wilson
gave voice to two rhetorical rhapsodies, but he adduced no
argument in support of any of the disputed articles and
made no specific answer to any specific objection."

What he did say was that " the people are in the sad-

442 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

die," and that "statesmen must follow the clarified com
mon thought or be broken," and that any Americans who
failed to heed his admonition would be derelict in " their
duty to mankind " if they did not assume whatever obliga
tions might be put upon them by himself and his associates
from other countries, " without counting the cost." And
to this amazing assertion to a hundred millions of people
who are not supposed to be devoid of common sense he
added, "We" — meaning we Americans— " are ready to
make the supreme sacrifice and throw in our fortunes with
the fortunes of men everywhere."

Now that is going far. The Declaration of Indepen
dence contains no such pronouncement as that. It asserted
merely that " these colonies are, and of right ought to be,
free and independent states," free to enjoy life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness, and as independent of the
rest of the world as they freely conceded the rest of the
world to be of them. And when the President took his oath
of office he did not pledge himself to serve " men every
where " throughout the world. He restricted himself, in
the words of the Constitution, to a solemn promise that he
would " faithfully execute the office of the President of
the United States " and nothing more than that. " Men
everywhere " did not elect him. " Men everywhere " do
not pay him. His sole obligation is to this country.

But has anybody heard so much as a whisper from Paris
of the slightest consideration of the future welfare of
America? There is no concealment or denial of the ob
vious fact that the English delegates are concerned only
with the British Empire; that the Frenchmen think only
of France ; and the Italians only of Italy. That is in no sense
to their discredit. It is more than their privilege, more
than their right, it is their duty. But if America has a
single advocate among our commissioners to the great con
ference, no sign to that effect has appeared in the published
reports. They represent humanity, even though they were
not selected by humanity, and if the League of Nations
shall be formed it is an irresistible conclusion that its first
President will represent humanity, and that this great Re
public will not have even one representative devoted
exclusively to its interests out of the nine who will comprise
the rulers of the world.

Now why are we asked to make this mighty sacrifice?

THE INDEPENDENCE OF AMERICA 443

Why has it suddenly become our duty to toss our cherished
Republic into the melting pot to be crushed into a pulp of
international socialism? To prevent a recurrence of war,
we are told, and simultaneously we are warned by the
President, that if his project is not realized, all Europe will
soon be aflame and again weltering in a sea of blood. How
can he know that? For fifty long years militant Prussia
transparently threatened the peace of Europe. Today not
only Prussia, but all Germany, all Austria, and all Turkey
lie prostrate and helpless awaiting the stern judgment of
those whom they so cruelly wronged.

Never in all its history has the prospect of enduring
peace in Europe been so fair as it is today. The Allies are
absolute masters of the situation. They can, and pray God,
they may affix a penalty which will bar the outlaw from
ever again threatening civilization. Do you not think they
realize this? Do you doubt for a moment that they will do
it? Already we read that, in the temporary absence of the
American commission from Paris, they have decided to
reduce the German army to a police force of one hundred
thousand men and to keep it there. That is for the salva
tion of France. Do you suspect for a moment that England
will permit the building of another German navy? Is it
conceivable that those great and intelligent peoples who
have suffered untold agonies, will agree to a settlement that
will make it even remotely possible for either the autocracy
or the people of Germany ever again to threaten their very
existence?

Upon what conceivable ground can the President base
his prediction, uttered with all of his accustomed assurance,
of another immediate holocaust but for our or his inter
ventions? May it not be possible that, shrewd and capable
as he is, he may be as mistaken, as when he warned the
American people that he could not hope to win the war
for them unless immediately they granted the electoral
franchise to women. You may accept it as a certainty,
that our Allies neither seek nor desire assistance from us in
dictating the terms of peace. All they want from us is the
present use and the future control of our vast resources in
money and, if need should arise, in men.

But we are informed, upon what authority I do not
know, but certainly not of the Bible, that our first obliga
tion is to those of distant climes rather than to our neighbors

444 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

and ourselves. I deny that. I deny further that our primary
duty is to " men everywhere." But even if it were, what
reason is there to believe that by entering a combination,
which as Senator Knox clearly demonstrated, is a breeder
of wars and not a maker of peace, we could serve humanity
better than we have served it since the fathers established
this free Republic upon the sure foundation of liberty
under law.

America has not failed in her duty to the world. From
the moment that she signalled to oppressed beings through
out the world that here was safe refuge and equal
opportunities for all, she has kept that beacon-light burn
ing, and drawn within her borders millions who might
otherwise have perished and who today are as proud of
their citizenship and in the recent war have proved their
fidelity equally with the descendants of the three millions
who first constituted the nation.

By her example far more than by her precepts and far
more than any other agency America has shattered the
idols of monarchy and brought thrones crashing to the
ground. Shall the continuing and ever increasing effects
of that example be now dispensed with? Can better than
the glorious results already attained be reasonably antici
pated from a mingling of her undefiled spirit with the
diverse and incongruous elements of the Old World?

All teaching, all tradition, all experience, points the
contrary. We not only assume but demand virtual guard
ianship of the western hemisphere. Is not that enough? Is
it not all that we can safely or ought to be asked to under
take? Would we not better still the ferment in Mexico
and Peru and Chile and San Domingo and Costa Rica
before attempting to foist everlasting peace upon the
Balkans? And have we no vital problems within our own
boundaries crying for solution? "To thine own self be
true," applies with force no less as to a nation than to an
individual.

To those who sneeringly remark to us of pigmy minds,
" Produce something better than our League or forever
after hold your peace," I reply: " That is not for us to do.
It is for you to show wherein our country has failed and
how it may hope more gloriously to fulfill its mission."
Yours, not ours, is the burden of suggestion and proof. And
we are free men. We will take no dictation and we will not

PRESUMPTUOUS PROPAGANDA 445

follow blindly. Long have the American people safely
pursued the course marked out for them by the Fathers of
the Republic, and in the words of Abraham Lincoln only
" the people themselves, and not their servants, can safely
reverse their own deliberate decisions. . . . What
ever may be the wishes or dispositions of foreign States,
the integrity of our country and the stability of our Govern
ment depend not upon them, but on the loyalty, the virtue,
the patriotism and the intelligence of the American people.
. . . Let them beware of surrendering a political
power which they already possess."

I can do no better than to leave you with those words
of your martyred President ringing in your ears. I
wish only to add, in conclusion, as from New Eng
land, of our great patriot that, while according unstinted
admiration to those whose largeness of view enable them
to say, with Garrison, " My country is the world, my
countrymen are mankind," I am content to walk humbly,
reverently, in the footsteps of Daniel Webster in the service
of " my country, and nothing but my country," and I have
only to regret that we cannot hear that great voice ring out
as it did ring out of yore:

" Thank God, I — I also — am an American."

PRESUMPTUOUS PROPAGANDA

THE Hunnish propagandists are incorrigible. We had
supposed that with exposure of their deviltries they would
at least have the negative graces of shame and silence. So
most detected malefactors do. But these are an exception
to all rules. The more their falsehoods are exposed, the
more they revel in them and rail and snarl at those who
tell the truth. It is in vain that we address to them the
demand that was made upon Falstaff: " What trick, what
device, what starting-hole, canst thou now find to hide thee
from this open and apparent shame? " The fat knight
made a most ingenious excuse, for the cleverness of which
we may forgive its falsity. But the Huns and their apol
ogists disdain excuses, glory in their shame, and heap op
probrium upon those who expose them with the truth.

446 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Conspicuously is this the case among those who we may
term the intellectuals, in relation to that most insidious and
most iniquitous of all forms of propaganda, the falsifying
and corrupting of instruction. There was perhaps no more
discreditable revelation made in all the drama of the war
than that of the prostitution of literature, of pedagogy and
of science to the vilest purposes of the would-be conquerors
and ravishers. We now know that the German professors
in American universities, who were sent hither under the
exchange system were in fact chiefly unscrupulous agents
of the Wilhelmstrasse, receiving large salaries from the
German Foreign Office for their services as spies, in
triguers and propagandists. We know that school and col
lege text books, to say nothing of other literature, were
deliberately falsified, in order to promote regard and ad
miration for Germany and to arouse unfounded prejudices
against lands with which Germany was likely to clash.
We know that a numerous company of the foremost scien
tists and educators of Germany early in the war signed their
names to an elaborate public document which every one of
them must have known to be a monstrous concoction of
wanton lies.

Captain Ohlinger, of the United States, has recently
reminded us most forcibly and indisputably of the German
campaign which was carried on for years before the war
in our public school system, with a view, as was frankly
avowed by some, of Germanizing America. Thus in the
State of Wisconsin, thirty years ago, it was found that 14
per cent of children of school age were not attending school
at all, and that in 129 German Lutheran parochial schools
no instruction whatever was given in the English language.
Thereupon a law was made requiring all children from
seven to fourteen years old to attend some school in which
the " Three R's " and history were taught in English.
Against this law the German population of the State arose
in wrath, carried an election, and compelled its repeal. In
Nebraska the German Alliance secured the enactment of
a law compelling the teaching of a foreign language —
which was certain to be German — in the primary schools
whenever a certain number of parents demanded it.

So, too, German propaganda was surreptitiously intro
duced into text-books in our public schools. Works were
used which taught that the United States was indebted to

PRESUMPTUOUS PROPAGANDA 447

Germany for a large share in its foundation and for the
major part of its civilization and culture; that the spirit
of the German people was far superior to that of Ameri
cans; that William II was a "Christian and hero" who
" always followed the right path " ; that Germany was a
peace-loving nation surrounded by aggressive and militar
istic foes ; and that Germany though in name an empire was
in fact a republic with a constitution much like that of the
United States.

We should have thought, we repeat, that the simple
exposure of these infamies would be sufficient to cover their
authors with confusion and to silence them for criticism
or even comment upon whatever reform and purification
of our educational system might in consequence of these
disclosures be effected. But it was not so. The contumacy
of the propagandist, and of his knowing or unknowing as
sistant, is seemingly irrepressible and unconquerable. No
effort is made, it is true, to defend or to palliate those Hun-
nish falsehoods and intrigues. But vigorous protests are
made against the counteracting of that educational poison
with application of wholesome truths.

Thus in Mr. Oswald Garrison Villard's Nation we find
an impassioned diatribe, now sneering and sarcastic, now
austere as a Hebrew prophet, against what it calls " Poison
ing the Wells " and what it further describes as " subtly
pernicious Government propaganda developed by the war"
for the "prostitution of educational systems to the selfish
purposes of rulers." It gives examples of this iniquity,
culled from a manual of instruction concerning the war
which has been adopted by officials of the New York De
partment of Education ; thus : Responsibility for the war is
placed, by this manual, "upon the shoulders of the German
Emperor, his political and military leaders, and the Ger
man people;" such German authorities as Dr. Muelhon,
Mr. Fernau, Prince Lichnowsky and Mr. Harden being
authority for the charge. This is cited by the Nation as a
hideous example of "systematic abuse, to say nothing of
downright misrepresentation, of Germany and the German
people" and "a view of the great war which is no less than
a monstrous falsehood."

Again the manual is quoted as saying that "in Russia a
revolt broke out against the pro-German court and the Czar
* * * Kerensky tried to establish a stable government

448 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

but failed on account of the opposition of the extremists,
Lenine and Trotzky. When these men attained power,
they betrayed their country into the hands of Germany."
Now that statement, in general and detail, according to
the overwhelming weight of evidence, from both Russian
and American sources, including that presented recently by
the American Ambassador at Petrograd, is a notably pre
cise and judicious statement of the truth. Yet the Nation
seeks to pillory it as a monstrous falsehood intended for
"searing the souls of little children with the blasting flame
of hatred" and for "the poisoning of their spirit with false
hoods."

Another prescription which seems especially to infuri
ate the Hunnish propagandist or apologist is the syllabus
of a conference of a department of the National Educa
tional Association, which includes the following: How to
teach pupils that democracy involves duties as well as
rights ; how to teach pupils respect for properly constituted
authority; how to teach pupils to respect the rights of
others ; and how to teach pupils faithfulness in the discharge
of responsibility. The average intelligent and thoughtful
American will, we are sure, regard those four topics with
sincere gratification, as indicating four eminently desirable
courses of instruction. But the Nation dismisses it with the
characteristic Villardian sneer: "A subservient citizenry,
well drilled in falsehoods and hatreds, and trained to the
duty of universal military service — what could be finer or
more fitting fruit of a war fought for democracy?" We
must assume, then, that the Nation would have the youth
of America taught that democracy involves no duties, that
no respect is to be given to constituted authority or to the
rights of others, and that it is folly to be faithful in the dis
charge of responsibility.

After that we are not surprised to find the gentle Bol
shevist rancidly ranting about "the incalculable injury that
is being done to millions of innocent and impressionable
children" and "sins against the Holy Spirit" for which
"those who are to blame shall find no forgiveness though
they seek with strong crying and tears." Of course we
might say that even such carrion is innocuous, since in the
very rankness of its reek it conveys its own antidote; but it
would, as we know by only too painful experience, be un-
judicious too confidently to depend upon such salvation.

THE SPOTS OF THE LEOPARD 449

There is nobody more inclined to such arguments than the
offenders themselves. The thief is always an advocate of
giving him all the rope he wants ; and though he may ulti
mately hang himself, he contrives to do a vast deal of pil
fering first.

When the definitive and deliberate history of these times
comes to be written the philosophic historian will dwell
with amazement, not unmixed with detestation on the one
hand and reprobation on the other, upon the all but incred
ible impudicity of the Hunnish propaganda before, during
and following the war, and upon the similarly all but in
credible forbearance shown toward it by the American
people.

THE SPOTS OF THE LEOPARD

THE proverbial saying about the paramount importance
of the month of April in American history, for which there
is indeed much basis in fact, may easily receive additional
confirmation this year. Indeed, it can scarcely avoid it, un
less some extraordinary influences cause the Peace Congress
to content itself with marking time and listening to voices in
the air for another four weeks. If, as we have every right to
expect and to demand, at least the preliminary treaty of
peace is agreed upon by the Allies and is dictated to Ger
many this month, another transcendent event will be added
to the already unrivalled record of April; whether for good
or for ill is yet in the lap of the gods.

For the settlement will have to do with both parties. We
have said, and it cannot be said too emphatically, that the
terms of the peace treaty should be determined by the Allies
alone, and should be imparted to the Germans simply for
their information and acceptance without demur or privi
lege of discussion. Any other course would, we believe, be
a grave mistake, fraught with immeasurable potentiality
of disaster. Nevertheless we must remember that the per
manent value of the treaty will be not only in the reparatory
and protective effect which it has or seems to have upon the
Allies, but also, and perhaps equally, we shall not say in the

VOL. ccix. — NO. 761. 29

450 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

punitive but at least in the admonitory and chastening effect
which it shall have upon the German people.

We emphasize this the more because it is quite obvious
that the German spirit has not yet been brought to a realiza
tion of the grossness of Germany's offence against humanity
and civilization, or even of Germany's defeat in the
war.

The fear that this was the case arose at the very time of
the making of the armistice, nearly five months ago, and it
has never been dispelled nor even abated since that time, but
on the contrary has been steadily and to a marked degree
intensified and strengthened. It must be remembered that
neither in communications with outside Powers nor in
domestic deliberations has German guilt or German defeat
been authoritatively admitted. The entire and consistent
attitude of the German Goveriment, press and people has
been that of a nation that was forced into war against its
will by malignant enemies, that defended itself with valor
and with success, and that finally brought the war to a close
with at least as much honor on its side as on that of its op
ponents.

That Germany outlawed itself by atrocious violations
of international law and the principles of humanity,
and that it is now an object of general distrust and
detestation, never enters the German mind. Nor is there
the slightest thought of renouncing the savageries of "Kul-
tur" for the human culture of the civilized world. What
the German spirit was under the Hohenzollerns, that it is
to-day, unchanged and defiant.

That, we say, is ominous; and one of the most essential
things to be done — without which all else will be vain — in
the treaty of peace is to bring Germany to a realization of
the truth as the world knows it and sees it, and thus to at
least the beginning and the possibility of a change for the
better in the German attitude toward the world. We do not
mean that the spirit of the German people should be broken
and humiliated, much as they may deserve even such a fate.
We do mean that for Germany to continue in her old spirit
would be to perpetuate her menace to the peace of the
world ; that for her to get rid of that spirit and to get a better
one in its place, what we may term political conversion is
necessary; and, to continue the figure, to become converted
it is necessary first to be convicted of sin.

THE SPOTS OFTTHErLEOPARD 451

i-v.. -&-

Recall the course and the attitude of Germany in all re
spects since the armistice. The troops returning from the
front were acclaimed as victors, as conquering heroes.
There is scarcely an item in the armistice that has not been
protested and denounced as not only ungenerous but also
unjust, and the Allies have actually been warned not to
presume too far upon German patience and forbear
ance.

Along the Rhine the Germans at first sought most unctu
ously to ingratiate themselves with the American troops,
in order to sow dissension and distrust between them and
the French ; failing in which amiable design they turned
against them viciously. With most flagrant propaganda
and intrigues and even with open military operations Ger
many has been striving to thwart the recreation of the Polish
state, and to assure the Germanization of the seceded Rus
sian provinces along the Baltic and at the south. There
have been appointed to the foremost places in the German
Government those men who because of their crimes are
most offensive to America and to the civilized world. The
President long ago intimated that peace negotiations could
be had only when Germany had at the head of affairs men
whom we could trust and believe, and Germany replies by
putting into her high places such creatures as Mathias Erz-
berger and Dr. Albert!

If the treaty which is expected to be made this month
should confirm Germany in this spirit and attitude, or
should permit her to remain in it, the prospect for the peace
of the world would indeed be gloomy. Convinced that they
were the foremost nation of the world, that though greatly
maligned and wronged by the other Powers they were still
unbeaten in the great war, and that they had a direct com
mission from their Old German Gott to conquer the world
for "Kultur," they would never cease planning and prepar
ing for another war until they had brought it about. No
League of Nations, no treaty of peace — which they would
of course regard as a scrap of paper — would avail to re
strain them.

It is therefore supremely necessary that, whatever else it
may or may not contain, the peace treaty shall contain
something which will if possible bring home to the German
mind the truth as others see it and incline the German

452 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

people to abandon the Hunnish ambitions of the Hohen-
zollerns and to align themselves with the civilized world
in pursuing the paths of peace. We do not wish them evil,
but we wish the world well, and the welfare of the world
requires that if possible the German spirit be exchanged for
the spirit of humanity.

We, say, if possible. We hope that it is possible, and
that hope is so strong as to warrant the most earnest and
persistent effort to be made for its realization. Of course,
if the thing is done at all, if it ever can be done, it must
be done in the making of the treaty of peace. After that
it would be impossible. And it may, anyway, be impos
sible for the leopard to change his spots. But one of the
prime duties of the Peace Congress is to essay the task.

THE OBSTRUCTION OF PEACE

BY DAVID JAYNE HILL

IT has become increasingly difficult to comment freely
upon the conduct of the President of the United States
without exceeding the limits of expression which a patriotic
citizen desires to observe when speaking of the Chief
Magistrate of the Nation. It was with surprise and regret
that the country received the President's announcement of
his desire for a "challenge" and the reference to his "fighting
blood," accompanied with a wish for an opportunity to "let
it have scope," in his speech at Boston on the occasion of his
brief visit to the United States. The people were expecting
a clear and dispassionate exposition of the purport and the
relation to the interests of the Nation of the document that
had been sent from Paris as a project of a "League of
Nations," and were prepared to receive the President's
message regarding it with respectful attention in order to
form a judgment of its merits. There seems to have been
no occasion for a belligerent mood on the part of anyone,
and this unexpected display of personal feeling appeared to
those who desired to receive enlightenment on a subject of
such great consequence as a rather grotesque method of ap
proaching the discussion of universal peace.

That some new international undertaking should result
from the experience of the Great War is evident to all
thoughtful men, but the problem of the nature and extent
of new and perpetual obligations to be assumed by the
United States regarding other countries, is too serious to be
treated in a light manner, and the solution of it too heavily
charged with consequences to be accepted without careful
consideration by all whom the consequences will affect.

The circumstances in which this country has been placed
by the President's decision to carry into execution a policy
in contradiction to all the traditions of the Republic find no

454 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

parallel in the history of any free people in the enjoyment
of constitutional liberty. They recall the occasion when
the former German Emperor, without consulting the con
stitutionally authorized officers of the German Empire,
undertook, in his private capacity, to carry on negotiations
with a foreign Power by procuring an alliance with the
Czar of Russia; and the other occasion when the same sov
ereign attempted to influence the sentiment of the British
people by an expression of his personal views in a published
interview, and was called to account by the Reichstag. In
these instances of purely personal diplomacy, which have
been severely criticized both in Germany and elsewhere,
the sovereign merely assumed that he had a perfect right to
propose and carry into effect what he believed would be
for the good of his country. The ground of objection to his
conduct was not that as sovereign he did not have charge of
the foreign relations of the Empire, a duty which the Im
perial Constitution imposed upon him, but that he had ex
ceeded the constitutional limits in his method of procedure;
in brief, that his authority was not personal but official, and
that officially he could speak and act only in conjunction
with other officers also speaking and acting in their joint
capacity.

It is, of course, not disputed that the President of the
United States is charged by the Constitution with the duty,
"by and with the advice and consent of the Senate," of ne
gotiating treaties with foreign governments. It has,
however, been customary, and it is the evident intent of
the Constitution of the United States, that in the process
of treaty-making, even in the most ordinary matters, —
much more in the case of the settlement of the most im
portant issue regarding the peace and safety of the world
that has arisen in the present generation, or is likely to arise,
— the President should not proceed alone. As Hamilton
wrote in the Federalist, when urging the adoption of the
Constitution, "The history of human conduct does not war
rant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would
make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate
and momentous a kind, as those which concern its inter
course with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a
magistrate created and circumstanced as would be the
President of the United States."

If this caution was deemed necessary regarding decisions

THE OBSTRUCTION OF PEACE 455

affecting merely those matters relating in a general way to
"intercourse with the rest of the world," what is to be said
of a scheme to revolutionize the whole plan of international
relationship, involving permanent and unalterable bonds of
obligation between many nations as yet unnamed in the
covenant, and thus far non-existent as established and gen
erally recognized States?

Certainly, it could never have been contemplated by the
founders of this Republic that one man, however great, and
wise, and noble, should be empowered to pool the interests
of this nation with those of other nations unless "by and
with the advice and consent" of at least one branch of the
representatives of the people, and thus to commit both of
the legislative branches of the Government and the property
and persons of the people to undertakings incapable of pre
vious precise definition and in terms so broad that they
might easily give rise to controversy and even to ultimate
dissent and refusal.

Could it have been imagined that any person honored
with the prerogatives and responsibilities of the presidency
of the United States would even presume, in defiance of
public opinion, to disregard the precedents of more than a
century, and insist upon leaving his country repeatedly, and
for long periods, in the midst of important public business,
and appoint himself, accompanied by a retinue of persons
chosen only by himself and wholly subservient to his dic
tates, as the personal negotiator, not of an immediate peace,
— which alone might justify an unusual procedure, in order
that the victors in a frightful war might promptly guard
themselves against future aggression in the manner desired
by those most exposed to danger, — but to impose upon other
nations, as the price of future American aid and friendship,
a plan of world reconstruction evolved from his own inner
consciousness, which had not only never been publicly dis
cussed by his fellow-citizens, but had never been disclosed
even to the co-ordinate branch of the Government in the
exercise of the treaty-making power?

Such a course could certainly never be taken "by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate." And it should
not be overlooked that in the making of treaties it is
"advice," as well as consent, which is authorized as essen
tial to the proper performance of that duty.

Who of our American presidents has ever placed such

456 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

confidence in himself, or so presumed upon the confidence
of others, as to demand the privilege of acting without such
advice, or would exercise it without diffidence and every
fortification of wise counsel, even if urged by his fellow-
citizens to assume this responsibility?

In Europe, where the head of a State has great authority,
no sovereign would undertake so large an enterprise. Once,
by accident, the late King of England, Edward VII,
whose discretion was unusual, met and held conversation
with another sovereign, without the presence of a minister.
There were no negotiations, and probably there was no
utterance on either side beyond what the courtesies of casual
intercourse demanded; but immediately there was public
criticism in the London newspapers of this disregard of the
British Constitution, and it was demanded as a matter of
public right that the sovereign should not hold such conver
sation without the presence of a minister. There was prob
ably only one sovereign in Europe who would resent such
criticism, and he is no longer a sovereign.

An American President, it may be thought, is himself his
own prime minister. This is an error. He is a definitely
delegated representative of a sovereign people, possessing
no powers which are not included in the constitutional
designation of his functions, by which also they are strictly
limited. By etiquette he ranks with royalty in a foreign
country because he is the head of a State; but in point of
influence he is for that reason more potent than any min
ister. An American President is never embarrassed by the
presence of his ministers. A prime minister is the creature
of a Parliament, and subject to its will. He can be over
thrown at any moment, and a successor takes his place. A
President can.be impeached — a difficult process — but he is
as secure in the exercise of power, within constitutional lim
its, during his term of office, as a treasure is secure in a steel
safe-deposit vault behind the trusty bolts that will be
withdrawn only when the time-lock releases them.

From a European point of view, the President must be
taken at his own self-valuation. It is naturally assumed
that what he promises he can perform. When, therefore,
he states what the United States will do no one questions his
powers of execution. He carries the destiny of the country
in his closed hand more effectively than any king or em
peror under a parliamentary regime could do.

THE OBSTRUCTION OF PEACE 457

While an American President has this advantage over
any minister or even any sovereign in Europe, the President
of the United States well understands the embarrassment of
the heads of other governments at a moment when com
bined strength is needed to facilitate an issue from a condi
tion of emergency. Without America the balance of power
that has won the war would be lost and the victory for
feited.

In such circumstances the President does not hesitate to
speak disparagingly of European governments. Unless
they adopt a "League of Nations," he declares openly, they
are likely to be brushed aside. The "people" he affirms are
the ultimate authority, and it is to the people that he ap
peals. It is upon this popular pressure that he depends to
influence the governments, of whose spontaneous inclination
he expresses doubts. "The nations of the world," he said in
his speech on landing at Boston, "have set their heads to do
a great thing, and they are not going to slacken their pur
pose." But he hastens to explain that he does not mean the
governments. Having received the plaudits of the multi
tude as a distinguished foreigner and apostle of liberty,
when he made his tour of Europe before the Peace Con
gress assembled, he has made evident to his own mind
something which the governments seem not to have been
aware of before, but with which he affirms they are duly
impressed now. "When I speak of the nations of the
world," he says, "I do not speak of the governments of the
world. I speak of the peoples who constitute the nations of
the world. They are in the saddle and they are going to see
to it that if their present governments do not do their will
some other governments shall. And the secret is out and
the present governments know it."

What is the nature of this "secret"? With whom has our
President been conferring? The governments now also are
said to participate in this disclosure, but apparently it did
not come originally from them. It is something that has
been forced upon them through popular pressure, and it is
upon this that the President counts as the basis of the
"League of Nations" which the governments will be com
pelled to accept or give way to others. His confidence is
not founded upon those with whom he has been negotiating,
but upon those who will have "other governments" decide
the question if their will is not obeyed.

458 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Who are those " other governments "? Are they govern
ments foreign to those people — ours for example — who are
to force obedience to the popular will, or are they revolu
tionary governments yet to be created? Would the Presi
dent of the United States be pleased to have any foreign
potentate, or even an ambassador, tour the United States,
making popular speeches in our cities, and then make such
observations regarding the American Government with
which the stranger had come to negotiate?

Judging by the President's estimate of the European
nations — and he is speaking not of governments but of
nations now, by which he says he means "peoples" — Europe
is sadly in need of a guardian, but would prove an unruly
ward.

Here is his graphic picture of the nations with which, in
the future, he desires us to be closely associated, and by
whose collective judgment he wishes our future policy to be
determined:

You understand that the nations of Europe have again and again
clashed with one another in competitive interest. It is impossible for
men to forget these sharp issues that were drawn between them in
times past. It is impossible for men to believe that all ambitions have
all of a sudden been foregone. They remember territory that was
coveted; they remember rights that it was attempted to extort; they
remember political ambitions which it was attempted to realize — and,
which they believe that men have come into a different temper, they
cannot forget these things, and so they do not resort to one another
for a dispassionate view of the matters in controversy.

If this is a just estimate of the European nations, it
would appear to be the part of wisdom for a distant people
to keep as far as possible from intervention in any of their
quarrels. The picture, however, is drawn with no discrimi
nation, and is as erroneous in substance as it is unjust in its
implications. It is monstrous to include innocent Belgium,
which did resort to the good faith of others for a dispassion
ate view; or France, which has been made the victim of
every crime; or Great Britain, which has played a noble
part in the endeavor to avoid strife and to save the world
from the ruin of civilization, in the picture of a discordant
and distrustful Europe which the President has drawn in
the paragraph just quoted. These countries have stood to
gether, and fought together, amidst great sacrifices, to put
down aggression; and this is the first time that anyone has
revived the unhappy memories of a past that has been

THE OBSTRUCTION OF PEACE 459

buried, to question the solidarity and mutual confidence
that existed in the Entente before the President went to
Europe. It is injurious and unpardonable to try to make
it appear that America, and America alone, can harmonize
a discordant Europe, and lead the music in a new concert
of world power. The nations of the Entente and the gov
ernments of the Entente are as capable of pursuing high
ideals and creating the conditions of peace as America her
self, and are as much disposed to do so. It is both
sophistical and reprehensible to appeal to American pride,
and to exalt American conceit, by detraction from the
capacities of Powers with problems far more serious to
solve than any which confront this nation.

The truth is that America very tardily, but with abund
ant and long disregarded warning of what awaited her,
finally came into the war in time to prevent the defeat of the
Entente by adding a fresh force to tip the scale of the
balance of power, and it was this new preponderance that
won the war.

It will require the maintenance of that superior counter
poise to conclude and enforce a victorious peace. That is
the immediate problem, and the only immediate problem.
The imposing of just, but necessarily punitive, terms of
peace on Germany and her allies would secure the peace of
the world for a long time to come. Ulterior questions of
international reorganization could then be discussed calmly
and effectively in the light of the conditions which would
prevail when peace had been concluded and the power to
enforce it had been demonstrated. Until that power can
be proved to exist by actual achievement, the speculations
about permanent and universal peace are mere excursions
in dreamland.

Instead of promoting peace, the efforts of the President
of the United States to impose his own views and to array
the populations of other countries behind them by bringing
pressure — if that has actually been the case — upon other
governments have seriously impeded and obstructed the
only peace in which the world is really interested at this
time, and for the need of which whole nations are dying
with hunger and are kept in an abnormal and dangerous
state of mind as a climax to their physical distress. In the
meantime the Entente is weakening through discourage
ment and the enemy is reorganizing, if not for resistance

460 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

at least to display a refractory attitude toward conditions of
peace that could at one time have been easjly imposed.

There is no division of opinion in the United States re
garding the duty of this country to stand firmly with our
Allies in this war in the complete suppression of a common
enemy and the maintenance of a peace thus imposed. Yet
the President raises the sophistical question, "If America
were at this juncture to fail the world, what would become
of it? I do not mean any disrespect to any other great
people when I say that America is the hope of the world,
and if she does not justify that hope the results are unthink
able. Men will be thrown back upon the bitterness of
disappointment not only, but the bitterness of despair. All
nations will be set up as hostile camps again ; the men at the
peace conference will go home with their heads upon their
breasts, knowing that they have failed — for they were
bidden not to come home from there until they did some
thing more than sign a treaty of peace."

What necessity is there for raising the impertinent and
defamatory question, What would become of the world if
America failed to do her duty? The American people have
no thought of failing in the performance of their duty, and
the description of what would happen if they did fail is
superfluous. The real question is, What is America's duty?
and it is not answered by a dogmatic assertion that America
must make herself responsible for the future peace of the
whole world, which may be beyond her powers of accom
plishment. Her plain duty is to do now what she can do,
which is by loyal cooperation with her Allies to impose and
maintain immediate peace on a common enemy growing
every day more dangerous.

The President has never frankly spoken of the Powers
with whom we have together fought in this war as our
"Allies." For a long time he was in a state of cold neutrality
regarding them. Gradually they became in his mind "asso
ciates," but they have never seemed nearer than that; and
to-day his aim is to place them, after this intimate compan
ionship in action and suffering, in which our soldiers and
sailors have fought side by side with British, and French,
and Belgian, and Italian combatants to win a common
cause, in a "general association of nations" to which he
would have all peoples irrespective of their affinities
equally belong.

THE OBSTRUCTION OF PEACE 461

The President's mind seems always to dwell in a region
of abstractions. The concrete does not appeal to him. Over
looking the pressing necessity of immediate peace, the one
imperative duty in this regard has not been performed. His
policy has been, and is, world reconstruction first and peace
afterward. This policy has obstructed and prevented the
action by the Entente Allies that should have been taken,
and would have been taken, but for his personal interfer
ence. It was the right of the Entente Allies, as victors, to
impose an immediate peace upon the enemy; and it was
the duty of the United States not only to aid in this, but to
secure the execution and preservation of the peace after the
treaty of peace was signed. It could not then be said of it,
as the President says, that such a treaty would be a "scrap
of paper."

If, in November, 1918, when the German armies were
defeated in the field and called for an armistice, a peace
hnd been signed during that month at Berlin, Germany
and her allies would have known that they were beaten,
and that the terms insuring a European peace would be im
posed and would have to be carried out. Among those
terms it would have been proper to include this: that any
attempt on the part of the Central Powers or their Allies to
make an unprovoked attack upon any of the Entente
Powers would be regarded as an attack upon all, including
the United States. That would have been the honorable
way for America to have treated her co-belligerents in the
war against a common enemy, and that alone would have
been sufficient to dispel all thoughts of war for a long time
to come. Peace once secured, the new nationalities would
have had an opportunity to complete their organization
under conditions of peace, and Russian Bolshevism could
have been taken in hand and suppressed by a united Europe.
France would have been made at once secure. Without
this, the war has been virtually lost. That security was the
first and most pressing problem, and it is still unsolved.

And what is the situation that has been allowed to de
velop? I quote the words of one of the most candid and
best informed observers of the proceedings of the Peace
Conference now in Paris. "Mr. Wilson came to Paris,"
says Mr. Frank H. Simonds,

Resolved that there should be a league of nations. * * * Find
ing French interest and French attention fixed upon the salvation of

462 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

France rather than upon the formulation of the principles of a league
of nations. Mr. Wilson and those associated with him were not suc
cessful in concealing their disappointment or their disapproval of what
seemed to them a particularistic national policy. When France as a
whole asked Mr. Wilson to go and see her devastated regions, that he
might understand her heart, he returned a cold and unequivocal nega
tive. I do not think that any single act of any man ever carried with it
profounder disappointment than Mr. Wilson's refusal to go to the
northern regions and see what the boche had done.

And we have had, week after week, a slow but sure change in
French emotion with respect to the President. He was hailed by the
little people of France as a savior. He was hailed as a man who came
from another world to deliver France and other peoples of the world
from the shadow of tragedy which had been, and little by little his
course here had the effect at least of creating the impression that he
cared nothing for the life or death of France, that he was not con
cerned with those things which the tragic years of war had burned into
the soul of every French man and woman.

I do not think it possible accurately to represent how profound was
the disappointment of France at this course of the American Presi
dent. A sense first of desertion and then of utter isolation crept into
the French heart, as more and more the American attitude toward
France passed from mere coldness with respect of French necessities
to open criticism and hardly concealed suspicion. I do not think one
would exaggerate by saying that three months ago France believed the
war won and to-day, as a result of what has occurred here in the peace
conference, there is something amounting to real terror lest the war
shall be lost after all, and France left alone again across the pathway
of a Germany increased in power and population by the last war.

These words were received from Paris on the very day
when the President was delivering his speech in Boston, in
which there was not one word regarding the sufferings and
peril of France, but the intimation of changes of govern
ment in Europe, if a "League" was not accepted. At the
same time the newspapers were informing us that the Con
stitution finally assented to as a project for a "League" is by
no means a spontaneous embodiment of the desires of the
fourteen nations alleged to have adopted it. We were as
sured that the "League" had been "on the rocks," because
Monsieur Clemenceau had urged that France could not
subscribe to a compact that did not offer her security;
whereupon the situation for the "League" was saved by an
American diplomat's sending for Monsieur Bourgeois and
saying to him "that President Wilson was very near the
limit of his patience in the matter," was very much cha
grined by the attitude of the French press, which was
pleading for the security of France, and would perhaps

THE OBSTRUCTION OF PEACE 463

drop the whole question of a "League of Nations.'* It was
then put squarely to Monsieur Bourgeois that he would
have to decide between this compact and no "League" at
all. After consulting Monsieur Clemenceau, Monsieur
Bourgeois reported his reluctant acceptance of the proposed
covenant rather than permit France to be thus deprived of
the good will of America.

It is known that when the President went to Europe the
main object of his going was that he might be able to say
privately what he did not wish to write or to discuss openly.
He had in mind a programme of universal peace which he
had gradually thought out in isolation without giving it full
publicity, based on the conception of a "League of Na
tions," a project which has been strongly advocated for some
years by the "League to Enforce Peace." Such a "League,"
as foreshadowed by the President in his public speeches, in
volved a "general association of nations" that would
mutually guarantee the independence and the territorial
integrity of all its members ; that would secure freedom of
navigation upon the seas, alike in peace and war; and that,
by the removal of economic barriers, would establish equal
ity of trade conditions for all nations.

At the time this idea of a "League" was conceived, it was
intended as a medium for reconciling the differences made
prominent in the Great War by securing a compromise
peace which might afterward be made the basis of a perma
nent peace. This was the inner meaning of the "fourteen
points." These rubrics were formulated at a time when
victory on either side was thought by the President to be
still doubtful, and when his original idea of "a peace with
out victory" may have seemed to him the best method of
demonstrating the utter futility of war.

The problem at that time seemed to him to be, to
formulate a plan that could be accepted by both sides by
promising to secure in the future the most important in
terests of all the belligerents. The wrong done to France
by Prussia in 1871 was to be "righted, in order that peace
might once more be made secure in the interest of all."
Belgium was to be "evacuated and restored" as a sovereign
State, without any stipulation of indemnity. In return,
since the new "association" was to be "general," Germany
was to have a place in it, and also to enjoy the status quo de
termined by the peace after surrendering the conquered

464 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

territories, together with all the advantages which the plan
implied. Great Britain was to abandon her naval suprem
acy under the protection of the "League." Armaments
were to be reduced to the lowest point consistent with dom
estic safety. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial
judgment of all colonial claims was to be assured, based
upon a strict observance of the principle that in determin
ing all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the
populations concerned must have equal weight with the
claims of the government whose title is to be deter
mined.

Thus, it was imagined, the gates of the temple of Janus
would be permanently closed. There would never be any
more war, because there would remain no just causes for
war. As to the unjust ambitions of nations, these would of
course wholly disappear!

As a plan for universal and permanent peace, this is
comparable with the great proposal attributed by Sully to
Henry IV of France, and should no doubt appeal to the
imagination and the sympathies of peaceloving men in a
similar manner; but, like that and other great and noble
conceptions for world reorganization, its defect was that it
did not reckon with the fact that no Great Power was ready
to accept it in its entirety except as the result of military
defeat.

The truth of this last statement is demonstrated by the
events which have followed. When the fourteen rubrics of
peace were proposed, in January, 1918, seeing that they
embodied a purely mediatory proposal, Germany was ready
to accept five of the fourteen points, but these were the five
that the Entente Allies were not willing to accept because
they implied that Germany was to be treated and trusted as
if she were a just and pacific nation. In October, 1918,
when the certainty of her defeat dawned upon her, and her
allies were failing her, Germany, in the belief that all four
teen were intended in a mediatorial sense, was ready to
accept them all "as a basis for discussion." The Entente
Allies when invited, not wishing to alienate the President,
whose support was necessary in the war, also accepted them
with one exception, in the belief that the conditions of the
armistice would be sufficiently strong to show that a victory
had been won, and on that basis peace was possible with
honor.

THE OBSTRUCTION OF PEACE 465

When the President went to Europe, he hoped to per
suade the Entente Allies to accept his entire plan. He
intended to convince the British Government that it would
be in the interest of Great Britain to accept his idea of the
"f reedom of the seas" under international control, for if this
were not accepted, the United States would in future pre
pare to hold the supremacy of the seas; and, to impress this
point, he directed the Secretary of the Navy to propose im
mediately an extensive programme of naval construction,
and through him exhorted Congress to hasten in passing the
necessary legislation, subject to its non-execution if the
"League" were formed.

If the British Government had resented this proposal,
the consequences to the Entente would have been serious,
indeed; but, retorting that, as the two nations were fast and
inseparable friends, the building of a greater navy by the
United States would afford to Great Britain a new sense of
security, the agile-minded Premier convinced the President
that British sea-power could not be a menace to neutral
nations, since, under the "League," there would be no
neutrals in any war in which Great Britain could engage;
and the President is reported to have declared that "the
joke was on him for not thinking of this," and the "freedom
of the seas" is thus settled!

With regard to the "general association" promised in
the fourteenth point of the President's peace programme, a
similar renunciation has been made, as it was certain from
the beginning it would have to be. Nothing could induce
France, after what she has endured, to enter any "general
association" of which Germany is a member; and of course
Russia, — although arrangements were made to negotiate
with the Bolsheviki, in spite of Monsieur Clemenceau's
declaration that France would never associate with
assassins, — could not be included. Germany's recent allies
will also, no doubt, if the "League" comes into being, and
probably some other Powers, have to sit a long time in the
anteroom, even if they are on the waiting list. As a scheme
of world organization, therefore, the President's plan is far
from being accepted, although so recently as his speech in
Manchester on December 30th, he voiced his conception of
what the "League" should be in the words: "If the future
had nothing for us but a new attempt to keep the world at a
right poise by a balance of power, the United States would

VOL. ccix.— NO. 761. 30

466 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

take no interest, because she will join no combination of
Powers which is not a combination of all of us."

It is precisely such a combination as he here repudiates
which the President now insists it is our sacred duty to join,
or remain "selfish and provincial." It is Monsieur Clem-
enceau who has had his way regarding the "balance of
power"; for the "League", as the President represents,
would be "a scrap of paper" if the power of the United
States were not thrown into the scale to render preponderant
this combination of four Great Powers and some little ones,
which latter will need but not afford protection.

From the moment when the President saw the "joke"
regarding British naval supremacy, the British Govern
ment became as eager for the "League" as the President had
been. In this the Government was joined by the British press
and British public opinion, for it was seen that the adher
ence to such a combination, with the United States as a
member, would create a preponderant balance of power.

With an American alliance in which the United States
would assume equal responsibility with the European
Entente Powers for the peace and control of the rest of Eu
rope, a "League" would undoubtedly be a great security to
them all. It would, in effect, place the balance of power
entirely in the hands of the "League."

It is not surprising, therefore, that Great Britain, with
vast imperial interests in every part of the world exposed to
attack, should become an eager advocate of the proposed
combination. Retaining her naval supremacy, acquiring
no new obligations, and relieved of a share of her responsi
bility, Great Britain is much interested in bringing the
"League" into being. General Smuts, a former Boer officer
who had become an ardent imperialist, in order to satisfy
the President's desire for a "League" of some kind, had
made ready for use in the Peace Conference a detailed plan
that would be acceptable to Great Britain. That plan,
which contained a provision for the administration of the
colonies conquered from Germany, now figures more
largely in the proposed "Constitution of a League of Na
tions" than any other. The idea of administration by
"Mandatories" ingeniously extricates those who have taken
the German colonies from the dilemma of either stultifying
their claims to democracy by annexing them outright or
returning them to Germany, by placing them under the ad-

THE OBSTRUCTION OF PEACE 467

ministration — temporary, no doubt — of other Powers, pref
erably of the United States, which would thus be drawn into
the complications of a joint imperialism in distant parts of
the world.

It is quite intelligible that, although it was assumed in
Europe that the President speaks with authority for the
purpose and policy of the United States, there is in this
country no corresponding unanimity regarding the obliga
tions which the United States should undertake to assume
in remote and turbulent parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa,
or the islands of the Pacific.

In the United States it is clearly perceived that we
should be an unequal partner in the combination that is
proposed ; and the President not only admits this, but urges
it as a reason for our accepting new and unpredictable re
sponsibilities.

In stating the case thus candidly, there is no intention to
disregard the strong friendship which has developed with
Great Britain during the latter years of the war. On the
contrary, it is timely to emphasize the wish that this friend
ship may always continue to be close, loyal, and permanent;
but it is the part of wisdom to avoid those complications
which, in circumstances that may arise, might tend to alien
ate two great nations by too close an intimacy in affairs that
separately concern them. Great Britain and America have
many great interests, as well as many strong bonds of
sympathy and understanding, in common. We have among
the nations no better friend, unless it is France; for which
we have a particular affection of long date and recent dem
onstration. The British fleet, it is true, annoyed our ship
ping and embarrassed our trade early in the war, but before
the war was ended it became our faithful protector and co
partner. Anywhere in the world, on sea or land, we feel
safe where the British flag floats over us, and we should not
wish to see it lowered. But before we could agree that we
would send our sons and brothers across the seas to fight to
keep it wherever it floats outside Great Britain itself, —
which to many of us is a mother-land, — we should have to
ask ourselves whether we or our fathers would have fought
to place it everywhere in the world where the policy of the
British Empire has carried it.

Nations and governments, like individuals, from their
very nature, must limit their responsibilities. Without this

468 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

they weaken and destroy their own capacity for usefulness.
It is necessary to be strong before we can help the weak, and
we render no real service to those for whom we become en
tirely responsible. It is for this reason that we ought not as
a nation to permit ourselves to be influenced by an appeal
to our national pride or the personal sentiments which
might properly control us in affairs of a private nature.

The personal experience of the President during his un
precedented ovation in Europe, as the head of a nation that
turned the scale in the war, is of a kind that appeals power
fully to the emotional element in his nature. He has led the
Entente nations to expect great things of America, and he
undoubtedly feels responsible for realizing these expecta
tions. He has held up to enraptured audiences that have
thronged to see and hear him the vision of a reconstructed
world. Naturally they have had faith in him. They were
longing for peace, and he has pictured to them Utopia. He
returned to America with a demand for the realization of
his promises.

The urgent appeal to the United States to adhere to a
"League" without debate, without hesitation, and without
regard to any question of national interest or expediency,
is the almost necessary psychological consequence of the
President's self-imposed activity. The Constitution pre
sented for adoption is not, it is true, the realization of his
original purpose; but it is a result of it, — the nearest ap
proach to it that he could achieve. To reject it utterly
would be a repudiation of his leadership. The acceptance
of it, at least in substance, is necessary to his prestige. It is
for this that his "fighting blood" is aroused. It is for this
that the President's public and his still more fervid and less
parliamentary private denunciations of all critics and op
ponents, have seemed to him justified. The role must be
carried to its logical conclusion.

In commending immediate action the President employs
none of the arguments which would be expected of a states
man. He has found in Europe, he reports, a general con
fidence in the disinterestedness of America as a country of
great ideals. This is the chief impression of his experience.
He said to his Boston audience: "Every interest seeks out
first of all, when it reaches Paris, the representatives of the
United States. Why? Because — and I think I am stating
the most wonderful fact in history — because there is no

THE OBSTRUCTION OF PEACE 469

nation in Europe that suspects the motives of the United
States,"

It is frankly admitted that all other nations have "inter
ests," that they are objects of contention among themselves,
and that all these nations turn to the United States as a great
disinterested benefactor. The United States alone is pre
sumed to have no interests, or to act without regard to them.
The President never mentions them. He even scorns a
reference to them. His appeal to the country is as emotional
as his experience has been. We should, he affirms, act in
this great emergency "without regard to the things that may
be debated as expedient."

There is grave danger to our national life in resting a
decision upon an appeal to the emotions of the people. In
the past our statesmen have not hesitated to defend the na^
tional interests entrusted to their keeping. These interests
are now deliberately excluded from view and sunk in the
advocacy of a vague internationalism. This is proposed
ostensibly in behalf of "peace", but it will have other con
sequences. The prospect is confessedly one of interminable
suspicion, intervention, and restricted independence. In
the end, nations will settle their differences in the manner
that seems to them at the time in accordance with their
highest interest. Nothing can more effectually breed strife
than to mix them up in one another's disputes, — disputes
which, if the nations desire mediation, can be more readily
composed by a free, strong, united, and independent Amer
ica, whose word of counsel would be listened to, than by an
America bound to the control of a group of Powers, consti
tuting perhaps a third of Europe, in which her voice would
be drowned in the general clamor.

We have, of course, a great interest in peace. We have
a special and immediate interest in a conclusive and per
manent settlement of the actual issues of the war, in which
our honor as well as our interests as a nation is bound up.
We cannot without disloyalty desert our Allies so long as
we have a common enemy, but this does not make it neces
sary to assume new obligations in other parts of the world.
Unless we assume these, the President assures us, America
"will have to keep her power for those narrow, selfish, pro
vincial purposes which seem so dear to some minds that
have no sweep beyond the nearest horizon."

It is difficult to see the reason for this reproach, and it is

470 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

little short of exasperating to those who saw America's duty
and urged the performance of it long before the President's
vision had swept beyond the nearest horizon, when he was
urging neutrality in the midst of international outrage, not
only on the part of the Government but in the thoughts as
well as the deeds of citizens ; when he was still asking what
the war was about, and declaring that we had nothing to do
with its causes or its results ; when he was advising a peace
without victory; when he was elected to the Presidency be
cause he had kept us out of war; when he was still regarding
strict accountability as implying nothing more than liability
to pay a money indemnity for American lives, destroyed
ruthlessly in violation of International Law and every in
stinct of humanity, and yet did not see that preparation for
war alone could rescue the nation from contempt. It is,
therefore, impossible not to resent the attempt by mere
rhetoric and insinuation to silence the free speech of men
who are entitled to be heard on international and constitu
tional questions affecting the destiny of the nation and its
unveiled future by a public reference to them as " minds
that have no sweep beyond the nearest horizon " ; even
when this is spoken by the President of the United States.
It is not the path of peace that is being pursued, but a
course that is obstructive of peace. The Entente that has
saved Europe has been strained by the introduction of new
and irrelevant issues, many months have been consumed in
deliberations and journeys not related to the ending of the
war, and the American people are in danger of being
seriously divided over a question that can be rightly settled
only on the basis of an existing peace, when they may act
with freedom and not under compulsion. If the world is to
be made safe for free nations, it will be by an Entente of
Free Nations. While that lasts there is hope; but if that
ceases to exist, hope will have departed. The moment
bonds are felt they will destroy the power that has won the
war. By whatever name it is called, there is no third condi
tion between super-government and the independence of
free peoples. Discussion over speculations about such a
possibility are but a waste of time; for the free nations do
not desire a super-government. There remains, therefore,
no possibility but an Entente of Free Nations, however it
may be named, and our one solicitude should be that it be
not destroyed.

THE OBSTRUCTION OF PEACE 471

To the word " League " there is in itself no objection,
except to the bondage which the word implies. For the im
provement and enforcement of International Law, for the
pacific settlement of disputes, for aid to free nations exposed
to danger, for the suppression of Bolshevism, and for inter
national bodies to deal with these subjects, there is great
need. But these ends cannot be accomplished by mere
paper machinery, which presents only a new cause of dis
agreement — a new occasion for difference of opinion and
of strife. If the ideals of civilization are not safe in the
hands of the free nations, acting freely, they will remain in
danger. What happens in the future will depend upon
what the free nations will to do ; and the essential element
in their unity, their security, and their effective cooperation
is precisely their freedom.

DAVID JAYNE HILL.

THE FRENCH PEACE COMMISSIONERS

By MARCEL KNECHT

THE representatives of France at the Paris Conference
typify certain qualities of the French people which we as
Frenchmen have come to believe as thoroughly charac
teristic.

The President of the French Republic, Mr. Raymond
Poincare, who opened the Peace Conference by a masterly
speech, represents the lofty and supple intelligence of his
country; Premier Georges Clemenceau — a wounded of the
war — President of the Delegation, personifies, in the opin
ion of the world, as well as France, patriotism in its noblest
aspect. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Stephen
Pichon, and the Minister of Finance, Mr. Klotz, contrib
ute extraordinary diplomatic knowledge, lucid reasoning,
and the spirit of justice.

A great friend of America during the war, Mr. Andre
Tardieu, not only stands out splendidly as the champion of
the courageous youth of 1914, but above all, as the creative
energy needed for the moral and material reconstruction
of the nation.

Ambassador Jules Cambon, better acquainted with per
fidious German diplomacy than any other Frenchman, and
who learned to appreciate the United States while he was
in Washington, combines with his wisdom and idealism a
fund of good sense.

Another eminent Ambassador, Mr. J. J. Jusserand, al
though he takes no part in the Conference, accompanied
President Wilson, whose fellow-countryman he might have
been had not his love for France been stronger than his af
fection for the land of Washington and Emerson.

Two diplomats, the pride of the Quai d'Orsay, Messrs.
Dutasta, Ambassador to Switzerland, and Philippe Ber-

FRENCH PEACE COMMISSIONERS 473

thelot, founder of the Official Bureaus of Information
abroad and Director of Political Affairs, unite rare expe
rience with the clear-sighted vision that is needed for a
task of such tremendous import.

Very close to the Delegation, Mr. Leon Bourgeois,
author of a draft of a Society of Nations, and a high au
thority in matters of law, contributes a wide humanitar-
ianism.

In the Parliament, which is only separated from the
Quai d'Orsay by the residence of Mr. Paul Deschanel, the
Commission on Foreign Affairs has great figures of former
Cabinets, Mr. Aristide Briand, Mr. Louis Barthou, Mr.
Henry Franklin Bouillon. And dominating the Con
ference itself, our beloved Marshal Foch, our victorious
generalissimo, symbolizes in the present and in the past,
better than Richelieu and Louis XIV, better than Bona
parte and Gambetta, the immortal genius of the land that
gave birth to Roland, Joan of Arc and Guynemer.

These then are the men who are working side by side
with their allies and comrades to clarify in terms of lasting
peace the purposes that the guns spoke out across the fields
of France.

PRESIDENT RAYMOND POINCARE— I.

It is many a day since at Bar-le-Duc, in that historic
region of the Meuse, a young boy with eyes of singular
gravity, intelligent mouth, and forehead that showed even
then his strength of purpose, was studying eagerly and sys
tematically under the guidance of a most admirable
mother. Such a mother of France and Lorraine she was
as truly represents all those who throughout history have
created and cultivated the intelligence and heart of the
children of France. The little boy from the Meuse had
constantly before his eyes the strong and simple life of his
parents, whose existence was a series of sacrifices joyfully
accepted for the greater benefit of those who were to carry
on the family.

The Poincare family were famous in the department of
the Meuse for their intelligence. At Bar-le-Duc, and after
wards at the University of Nancy, worthy successor of the
Strasbourg alma mater, the young Raymond Poincare was
a source of astonishment to his masters on account of his

474 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

insatiable desire for scholarship and capacity for sounding
the depths of knowledge; above all, for his vast intelli
gence, with its marvelous suppleness in adapting itself to
the varied aspects of life.

As the young University graduate, somewhat weakened
by nights devoted to study but happy in the consciousness
of knowledge gained, spent some months at the home of
his uncle, Dr. Poincare, a distinguished physician of
Nancy, and in the more polished setting of the capital of
Lorraine he was better able than in the provincial milieu
of Bar-le-Duc, to give full vent to his creative imagination
and to the fancy of his literary dreams.

The sons of the Meuse, like those of Lorraine, possess
wonderful qualities: they brave every danger and defy
every obstacle. When an obstacle does happen to be un-
surmountable, they bide their time, wait in silence, prepare
for attack, and sometimes at the end of forty-seven years one
of them reconquers his beloved city of Metz and the an
nexed territory.

This extraordinary optimism, this indifference of the
true son of the soil to the eternal changes brought about
by time and destiny, was also taught to the young school
boy, Poincare, by the history of his province.

Poincare served his term of military duty, and in 1879-
1880 was first a private, and then a corporal in the famous
26th Infantry Regiment, one of the four glorious regi
ments of the Iron Division.

An intelligence sustained by patriotism and sane democ
racy will expand, then soar, then dominate. The excellent
student, the undergraduate who carried off every honor,
the good soldier, was soon to become one of the greatest
lawyers of France and of Europe. Working side by side
with such men as Millerand, Waldeck-Rousseau, Viviani,
Mr. Raymond Poincare brought to his profession an extra
ordinary legal diagnosis, an irrefutable documentation,
prodigious good sense, a profound knowledge of his
mother tongue and masterly oratory, and to this array of
qualifications may be added a clear voice, vibrant with
nervous strength, capable of moving the most sceptical au
diences. It is a characteristic of all the Poincares, from
the great scientist, Henri Poincare, to the President and
his brother, Lucien, General Director of Public Educa
tion, that the eyes, energetic and serious, slant slightly up-

FRENCH PEACE COMMISSIONERS 475

wards towards the temples, giving to the expression an
originality that reveals the richness of their imagination.

This imagination of Raymond Poincare is seen also in
a gift for word painting, inspired by the purest classicism
— such were the qualities of the lawyer, who soon left the
Bar for politics.

First a General Councilor, then Deputy for the Depart
ment of Meuse, with Commercy and St. Mihiel, finally a
Senator, Mr. Raymond Poincare was still in the flush of
his youth and ardor when he was appointed member of
one cabinet after another, showing rare ability as an or
ganizer. Like a true Lorrainer, the new cabinet member
would first examine and investigate, and instead of destroy
ing the work of his predecessor, he would improve, renew,
and modify it without breaking the necessary links that
must unite the unstable present to the past, sacred heritage
of the race.

The confidence of the French Parliament and the ad
miration of the elite gave him in 1912 the important min
istry of Foreign Affairs and the presidency of the Council
of Ministers, or premiership. After the disquieting threats
of Germany in 1904, 1908 and 1911, the Premier in power
in 1912 had a very heavy task before him.

The more intelligent Frenchmen, and Mr. Poincare was
at their head, felt that a German attack was impending;
the more idealistic refused to believe in it and were gener
ously trying to prepare for world peace by a superior kind
of internationalism.

Premier Poincare, while he secretly longed for the lib
eration of humanity, did not wish to compromise the im
mediate security of the country, and through his fortunate
negotiations with Great Britain, Russia, and Italy, before
relinquishing his premiership in 1913, he had greatly
strengthened France's position in Europe.

That same year Raymond Poincare was triumphantly
elected President of the Republic by the French people.
France, by allowing her choice to fall on this Lorrainer of
great intellect, showed the world in a pacific way that she
would continue to struggle for the maintenance of peace,
but with dignity and without renouncing anything.

The 1914 elections proved to an astonished world the
innocence — the naivete almost — of the masses of the peo
ple, who opposed the deputies in favor of the law for a

476 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

three-year term of compulsory military service. Poincare
had need of all his solid optimism, all his faith in our coun
try to keep from despairing of the future.

After his trip to Russia in July, 1914, he returned sud
denly, and acclaimed by the population of Paris, gravely
took his place in his beloved France, who realized at last
the ineffectiveness of the olive branch and took up the
sword of older days, a little rusty in parts, but shining with
patriotism.

Then the Barbarians lit their fires of destruction and
began their slaughter. And the fire and slaughter went on
for over four long years. But like the sacred flame of the
Vestals, French intelligence was still burning; it began
grouping hostile parties, bringing provinces nearer to
gether, strengthening alliances and Ententes.

During the entire war, this intelligence has never ceased
manifesting itself in the councils of the nation. Foch,
Joffre, and Petain never appealed to it in vain; Viviani
called it into play to put on a solid basis the " Sacred
Union," which we used to speak of before the war as the
" Franco-French Entente." Briand, Ribot, Painleve, and
especially Clemenceau, realized that they must cooperate
with this permanent force, which was protecting Right.

Several fine books on education, patriotism, the soul of
French democracy, made the name of Poincare, already
famous as that of a statesman, rank also among professional
writers. The French Academy, that illustrious assembly
of all our national glories, admitted him within doors that
have ever been jealously guarded by dignity, taste and tra
dition.

Although the Constitution does not vest the President
of the French Republic with the same powers as the Amer
ican Constitution gives the President of the United States,
yet Mr. Raymond Poincare, since August 1st, 1914, has
weathered the furious storms that have shaken his country,
and has held the helm with a firm hand, eyes ever fixed on
the distant port of Victory.

MARCEL KNECHT.

IS GERMANY BANKRUPT?

BY HAROLD G. MOULTON

Is Germany bankrupt? Was it her staggering national
indebtedness and rapidly approaching, if not already ex
istent, financial insolvency that prompted that summary
capitulation of the German Government? These questions
have been widely discussed in financial and business cir
cles during recent months. They are of more than his
torical interest. Upon the existing state of industry and
finance depend the possibility of an early payment of in
demnities for the losses inflicted upon the Allies during
the war. Upon Germany's ability, moreover, to return
quickly to a normal production and distribution of food
and other necessities of life largely depends the spread of
Bolshevism in Central Europe. Revolution breeds best in
an empty larder.

If the German nation is indeed bankrupt, it is sheer
futility on the part of the Allies to attempt to make the
Hun pay in the near future, — a bankrupt nation cannot
liquidate its obligations. Nay, it is worse than futility, for
it would serve to fan into fuller flame the smouldering
fires which even now threaten the conflagration of the erst
while Fatherland. We must obviously either discard the
notion that Germany is bankrupt or abandon the idea of
an early indemnification of the losses that have been in
flicted. The time would therefore seem to be opportune
for examining the prevailing belief that Germany is finan
cially insolvent.

In proof of the contention that Germany must have
been virtually, if not actually, bankrupt at the end of the
war, statistics are usually presented which compare the
annual interest charges on the public debt with the annual
savings of the nation before the war. It is observed that

478 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

in the spring of 1918 the interest charges on the German
war debt reached the approximate sum of $1,450,000,000
a year, and it is believed that by the end of the year it had
reached $2,000,000,000. Now, according to the official
estimates of Dr. Helfferich the annual savings of Germany
before the war were a little less than $2,000,000,000. As
suming that these savings could not have been increased
during the war, Germany was living beyond her income;
the annual savings were less than the annual interest.

And besides the annual interest charges it is pointed out
that Germany must make provision for the gradual ex
tinguishment of her huge national debt, requiring the set
ting aside of an annual sinking fund of perhaps $600,000,-
000 a year. Nor is this all; for there must of course be
pensions for the disabled and for the widows and de
pendents of deceased officers and men — estimated to reach
as a minimum $700,000,000 a year. Now add to all this
an indemnity of $94,000,000,000, as has been suggested —
payable, let us say, at the rate of a billion a year, plus in
terest on the balance, for ninety-four years. Would it not
be enough to drive any nation to economic and political
anarchy?

But let us pass by the indemnity — for this is not our
present problem — and consider merely the meaning of
these statistics of German indebtedness. Do they or do
they not — accepting them as authentic — reveal a real na
tional bankruptcy? The analysis that follows is intended
to show that these statistics reveal nothing of the kind — that
they are almost entirely beside the point.

The fundamental fallacy in these figures of war in
debtedness is that they show only one side of the financial
accounting involved. The problem of war finance is al
most universally approached with the assumption that
when a nation borrows, it necessarily borrows from an out
side party, who becomes its creditor — just as when an in
dividual borrows he places himself in a position of debtor
to another person. The analogy between individual bor
rowing and national borrowing holds good, however, only
so long as the nation borrows by placing its loans in foreign
countries. It must be borne in mind that Germany is not
financing this war by borrowing from outsiders. It
is practically all being done through domestic loans and
taxes. When it is pointed out, therefore, that the interest

IS GERMANY BANKRUPT ? 479

charges which Germany has to meet each year are $2,000,-
000,000, or more, one must reflect that this interest is re
ceived by the German people as well as paid by the
German people. Similarly, when it is argued that an
enormous tax will have to be levied after the war to pay
pensions, it must again be reflected that the government
in its financing is merely transferring funds from German
people to German people. The people of Germany, as a
whole, as indicated by the Treasury statistics, merely owe
the people of Germany a staggering total of wealth, ex
pressed in monetary terms.

Indeed, where a nation does not borrow anything from
abroad, its Treasury statements are in a sense nothing but
bookkeeping records. They register in a financial way
the value of the goods and services of the nation that dur
ing the war have been devoted to public ends. The sum
total of all private budgets would in a similar way reveal
the total of goods and services that during the war had
been devoted to private ends. During four years of war
these private budgets would not represent a debt to be paid
to some external parties. They would merely be a record
of four years' private consumption of wealth, nearly all of
which had been produced during these very years. Sim
ilarly, the Treasury records of war expenses show the
aggregate of four years' public consumption of wealth, —
nearly all of which was produced during these very years.
This truth that the goods and services devoted to the wag
ing of war were nearly all produced during the war (even
in Germany with all her preparedness) must be clearly
perceived; for in it lies the explanation of the oft repeated
dictum of the economist that, unless a nation borrows
abroad, it cannot shift the cost of the war to the future (^ ;
it must pay as it goes. If, at the end of the war, these pri
vate budgetary records were all destroyed, and if the books
of the Treasury were burned, would this have any net ef
fect upon the real wealth of Germany? Did, in fact, the
repudiation by new Russia of the domestic debt of old
Russia lessen one iota the existing stock of Russian wealth?

No, national debts owed to the nation's own citizens
are merely the paper claims of individuals to ownership
of the existing supply of national wealth and to wealth
that may be produced in the future. The payment of a

1 Except as indicated in the third paragraph following.

480 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

domestic debt at the end of the war does not therefore in
any sense involve a net reduction in the total wealth of the
nation; it means merely that the government will collect,
through taxation of the people, funds which will in turn
be paid back to the people — that is, to the owners of gov
ernment bonds and other obligations. Now, if all had
contributed equally to the financial support of the war, and
if post-bellum taxes were levied in exact proportion to the
bond holdings of those who financed the war, the payment
of Germany's war debt would be merely a balancing of
the books and without economic significance except in so
far as it required a large force of people to collect the rev
enue, make the disbursements, and keep the necessary finan
cial records.

But individuals do not in fact ever contribute to the
financing of a war in equal proportions, nor is it ever pos
sible to adjust the incidence of post-war taxation precisely
in proportion to individual contributions to war finance.
War finance, therefore, always involves readjustments in
property and income among the various groups of people
who make up the state. It may result in giving to certain
classes a larger proportion of the national wealth than be
fore; it may give to others less. But by itself, domestic
borrowing has no direct effect upon the immediate total
of a nation's wealth.

The real costs of war to a nation are not to be measured
in terms of money. They are to be measured rather by the
deterioration of plant and equipment; by the exhaustion
of natural resources; by the loss of new capital which
would have been created had not war diverted the energies
of the people from construction to destruction; by the de
cimation and impoverishment of her population — impov
erishment in the sense of being undernourished and in sub
normal health conditions ; and by the arrested training and
development of the youth of the land.

Thus measured, Germany will be seen to be far from
bankrupt. At the conclusion of hostilities she had a popu
lation nearly equal to that in 1914 (at the outside, two mil
lions less) ; she still possessed her original agricul
tural area, though doubtless somewhat impaired as to fer
tility; and she still possessed her mines of raw materials,
her factories, and her transportation lines, though unques
tionably much the worse for wear and tear. In short,

IS GERMANY BANKRUPT? 481

when stripped of the monetary camouflage, we find that
Germany is still a puissant as well as solvent nation. In
demnity aside, she is in debt to foreign nations scarcely a
copper. She has her internal reckonings and financial
adjustments to make, to be sure, — no simple problem
this, — but she is not in any sense financially insolvent.
Given political and economic stability and access on equal
terms with other nations to the supplies and to the markets
of the world, and a decade might see Germany largely re
covered from the economic effects of the war.

HAROLD G. MOULTON.

VOL. ccix.— NO. 761. 31

THE PROBLEM OF EASTERN EUROPE

BY JAMES BISSETT PRATT

WHEN the whistles began blowing and the bells began
ringing on that memorable first Thursday afternoon of No
vember, we all got out into the street and shouted and shook
hands and tore up paper and paraded because peace had
come; and it was a bit humiliating to learn, a few hours
later, that all our noise and delight had been based upon a
false report. That did not matter a great deal to be sure ;
but it would be infinitely worse than mere humiliation
should it develop that our second celebration and the
present joy of the whole world over the end of the world
war were also based upon a false report. And yet it
is surely only too well within the range of possibility
that our rejoicing is again premature and that we
are today hailing peace when in truth there is no peace.
For a large part of our joy in victory is due to our hope that
it marks the end not of this war only but of war as such;
and should this hope prove fallacious we should have little
reason for prolonged congratulation. Yet we seem but
dimly aware of the fact that half of the battle is still to be
won if the world is to be made really safe for democracy
or for anything else. Many of us appear to be convinced
that we have a sufficient guarantee for the peace of the
world in the fact that all the wicked have been beaten and
all the righteous are now in the saddle, and that since the
meek at length inherit the earth there is nothing more to
fear. It would be superfluous to point out that a large per
centage of the previous wars have ended with the same
comfortable feeling on the part of the victors; but it may
be worth while to indicate one of the many special dangers
to the continuance of peace with which the world will cer
tainly be threatened immediately upon the close of the
peace conference, unless very definite measures are taken to

THE PROBLEM OF EASTERN EUROPE 483

avoid it by the governments and peoples in whose hands
rests the making of the coming treaties.

Dangers there arc enough in Western Europe — not to
mention Eastern Asia; but the danger I have specially in
mind is one that springs from the new birth of freedom
which as a result of our victory has come to the little na
tions and oppressed peoples of Eastern Europe. As a
natural consequence of their conflict and ours against im
perial despotism, sympathy for them has turned into con
fidence, and confidence is now approximating something
like idealization. They were in the right, and they were
fighting for their liberties against oppression, and now that
they have won, the problem is solved, and we — at any rate
we in America — feel we need trouble our heads no more
with the affairs of these distant folk, whose outlandish
names were till yesterday hardly known to us. As cham
pions of liberty they have made Eastern Europe safe for
democracy and they will keep it safe.

Just how secure a guarantee of peace and democracy we
really have in these champions of liberty we may be able to
decide a little better if we consider the case of the most
famous champion of liberty which Eastern Europe has yet
produced. Not even Washington nor Patrick Henry are
more indissolubly associated, in the minds of most middle-
aged Americans, with the idea of the defense of freedom
against tyranny than are Kossuth and his brave Hungar
ians, with whose praises both this country and England
were ringing all through the boyhood of most of us. How
nobly they fought against oppression, what stalwart apostles
of the rights of humanity they showed themselves to be!
Up till two or three years ago there were but few Americans
who realized that these same champions of liberty, once
they got the power into their own hands, had become the
most systematic foes that the democracy of the Twentieth
Century had to face. The Magyars had indeed vindicated
their nationality and won for themselves a thoroughly
democratic form of Government; but they used the power
they had wrung from their Austrian masters to oppress
their own subject peoples as tyrannically as ever they them
selves had been oppressed by the Hapsburgs. Since the
formation of the Ausgleich in 1867 the subject peoples of
imperial Austria have been fortunate and free compared
with those of democratic Hungary.

484 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

It would of course be easy to say that nothing of the
sort is to be feared from the newly liberated peoples of to
day because they are not Magyar; but such an answer would
be far too simple. The Magyars oppressed their subject
peoples not out of any native tyranny inherent in the Mag
yar race, but chiefly out of the same intense love of nation
ality which has been the source of most of the movement
for liberation among their subject peoples in the present
war. Baser motives no doubt played their part. Poli
ticians like Tisza and Andrassy may have been moved by
the desire to retain power in their own little circle, and
others no doubt wished to protect vested interests and the
" rights of property." But these men had the backing of
the rank and file of the Magyars because they all wished
Hungary to be a united Magyar land. It was not only
men of the Tisza type who sought to root out every vestige
of national feeling, not to say independence, among the non-
Magyar inhabitants of Hungary. In the year of liberty,
1848, the great Kossuth himself informed the representa
tives of Croatia that he recognized no Croatian nationality.
It was this intense ambition for their own beloved national
ity (and not some tyrannous tendency in the Magyar blood
as such) that has made Hungary first a glorious example
of oppressed liberty struggling against tyranny, and then
the most systematic oppressor of the liberties of others that
the twentieth century has known.

Now the point which it is necessary to keep in mind is
the fact that this same intense feeling for nationality is to
be found in most if ixot all of the newly liberated peoples,
and that just as this has been the chief source of strength
in their struggle for liberty, it may also easily become a
great danger both to the liberty of other peoples, and to
the peace of the whole world. This danger is not one of
mere probability or guess work; it has long been active.
For years before the war began the most radically national
ist party among the Croats was even more venomous toward
the Serb minority in Croatia than toward the Magyars.
The war, indeed, and the common struggle of all the south
Slavs against Austria-Hungary, for a time put an end to
this. In November, 1914, Pasic, the Prime Minister of
Serbia, announced a programme for the union of all the
Southern Slavs, and by the " Declaration of Corfu " in
July, 1917, signed by Pasic and Mr. Trumbic, President

THE PROBLEM OF EASTERN EUROPE 485

of the Jugo-Slav Committee, all three branches of the
Southern Slavs — Croats, Slovenes, and Serbs, whether sub
jects of Austria-Hungary or of the Kingdom of Serbia — •
officially bound themselves into one state. This union was
strong so long as pressure from without, applied by a pow
erful Austria-Hungary, held them together. Almost im
mediately upon the collapse of Austria, however, the old
separatist tendencies of the different nationalities came to
the surface. The Declaration of Corfu had acknowledged
the Karageorgevic dynasty of Serbia as the monarchs of
the future Jugo-Slav state. The Austro-Hungarian Slavs,
on second thought and after the removal of the Austro-
Hungarian menace, are now not at all certain than a Kara-
georgevitch will be much better than a Hapsburg. It was
for this reason that the Jugo-Slav Committee in the United
States not long ago formally repudiated the Declaration
of Corfu, and its members came out for a republic.
Just what is the position of the Austrian Jugo-Slavs in the
home-land is uncertain, further than the fact that they mean
to settle the question of the future government of Great
Jugo-Slavia in a grand constitutional Assembly. The gift
of prophecy is not required to foresee that there will be
lively times when this Assembly meets, but further than
this, prediction cannot safely go. It is pretty plain, how
ever, that a constitution of the sort likely to be acceptable
to the Croats and Slovenes is about the last thing which
Pasic and the Karageorgevics desire. They would wel
come their brother Slavs with open arms into a kingdom
of Greater Serbia just as the Croats and their friends would
welcome the Serbs of the kingdom into a new Jugo-Slavian
Republic; but the difference between republican and
monarchical ideals, which seemed negligible in war time, is
likely to prove considerable in the actual formation of a
union. For the present, to be sure, the Italian menace has
obscured the importance of the constitutional question; but
once the danger of a war with Italy is removed, the liberal
and conservative, as well as the Catholic and Orthodox,
forces are likely to find the problem of union bristling with
unrealized difficulties. Some way out may indeed be
found; one side may yield for the sake of unity. But the
chances of inner peace within a Jugo-Slavia thus consti
tuted do not seem very bright, especially when we remem
ber that Austria, the old common foe, will no longer be

486 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

there to soak up the products of Slavic belligerency. For
it is hardly to be supposed that the sense of separate nation
ality which has resisted every hostile influence these last
fifteen hundred years in all three of the races is going to be
destroyed by the one new and magic word — Jugoslavia.
If on the other hand no union of the Southern Slavs is
brought about, we shall have simply added another nation to
the Balkan medley — an addition, moreover, of a peculiarly
dangerous nature because of the large number of Serbs in
Croatia and Bosnia. No one acquainted with the South
ern Slavs could regard such a situation with anything but
foreboding.

When we turn from the southern extremity of the old
Austro-Hungarian monarchy to what was its northern bor
der we find much the same story repeated. If Kossuth
with his Hungarians had a rival in the admiration of the
lovers of liberty in the last generation it was Kosciuszko
with his Poles. Most Americans are happily ignorant of
the fact that the Polish martyrs of liberty, both before and
after their conquest by the Austrians, were all but as op
pressive toward their own subjects, the Ruthenes, as the
Magyars have been toward their Croats, Roumanians and
Slovaks. The Ruthenes, being an uneducated and peasant
people, with few native leaders, have offered little resist
ance to their Polish masters ; but in the last year of the war
they summoned up courage to form a Committee a la mode,
and appealed to President Wilson and the Allies to be per
mitted to form an independent state or to join their kins
men the Ukrainians, across the Russian border. In fact,
once Austria was out of the game altogether and Galicia
as a whole seemed about to be appropriated by the new
united Poland, the Ruthenes saw that it was now or never
for them, and accordingly have taken up arms in defense of
their national existence. The Poles, strong in the histori
cal fact that before the Dismemberment all Galicia formed
a part of Poland, are loud in their demands for its reincor-
poration in the resuscitated fatherland and terribly shocked
at what they call the treason of the Ruthenes. So they are
answering blow for blow and a new war is beginning as
the old war ends.

But for lack of space, it would be easy to show how the
same narrow but intense sentiment of nationality which
makes for separatism and jealousy among Magyars, Serbs,

THE PROBLEM OF EASTERN EUROPE 487

Croats and Poles, dominates the political tendencies among
all the peoples, new and old, of Eastern Europe. The
breaking up of the Russian, Austrian and Turkish Empires
has left an unbroken series of petty states, stretching from
the Polar Sea and the Baltic to the Adriatic and the Aegean,
each swelling with the sense of nationality, bent upon its
own internal unification, and jealous of all real or imag
inary encroachments upon its rights. To make matters
worse, the races are so split up and intermingled in this
Babel-like part of the world, that nearly everyone of these
little nations has an " irredenta " somewhere near by, bur
ied in one of its neighbor's bosoms, a prolific source of irri
tation between states that even without it would be only
too ready to quarrel. An instance of this which is par
ticularly embarrassing to us is to be found in the
relations between Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece. The
second Balkan war gave to Greece and Serbia a
large amount of territory whose inhabitants are
chiefly Bulgarian in both race and sentiment. This
violation of the principle of the self-determination of
nationalities was made more difficult to deal with
by the fact that the diplomats of Bulgaria led her to
join the Germans in the Great War. Now that the war
is over Serbia and Greece will of course expect their suf
ferings to be rewarded by some substantial " rectification
of frontiers " ; and the way which naturally suggests itself
for granting these demands is to carve off from wicked Bul
garia some more of her territory to be handed over with its
unwilling Bulgarian inhabitants to our little allies. But
these three nations are not the only ones among whom the
racial problem is certain to make trouble. A similar mix
ture of races is to be found throughout the Balkans, and in
fact is characteristic of the whole region we have been con
sidering. The truth is that instead of settling the Balkan
problem, the war has resulted in extending the Balkans in
a broad belt right up to the Polar Sea.

The situation seems dismal enough. Is there any real
hope of a continued peace? One thing at least is plain.
No peace of more than a few years' standing is to be looked
for on the old principle of a balance of power. History has
made it very plain that you cannot balance the Balkans.
As we know only too well, moreover, a war arising among
them is pretty certain to spread, sooner or later, to their

488 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

bigger neighbors on the west. It would, therefore, seem
clearly to follow that if the world is to have real peace and
not merely an armistice, some new method of treating the
problem of Eastern Europe must be devised. I certainly
have no panacea to suggest, but two of the conditions of
anything like permanent peace must surely be plain to
everyone who thinks over the facts. Both of these condi
tions are, indeed, so obvious as to be commonplace, yet both
of them, strangely enough, are repudiated in act by many
militarists and " red-blooded patriots " in all the Allied
countries. The first condition is the trite yet profound prin
ciple that there can be no lasting peace but a just peace.
To carve off territory from our foes so as to give it to our
friends regardless of the wishes of its inhabitants, to be so
moved by sentiment for the newly liberated subjects of
Austria-Hungary, Germany or Russia, as to enable them
to play the Hapsburg over newly subject peoples, to re
arrange the Balkans only on the principle of gratitude for
military assistance and with but slight consideration for
racial preferences— to make a peace of this sort would be
to perpetuate the very evils and dangers which we have
fought to destroy, and to raise a whole new litter of little
Austria-Hungaries, each a center of racial jealousy and op
pression and a breeding-place of future wars. In spite of
sentiment and gratitude we must realize that in attempting
to reshape the world we are dealing with racial and social
forces which resemble the Laws of Nature in the inevitabil
ity of their working. If this war has taught us anything
it has shown that artificial political arrangements, at this
stage of the world's history, are bound sooner or later to
defeat themselves ; that no peace can be permanent which
does not respect the wishes of the peoples concerned, or
which fails to treat fairly both " those to whom we wish to
be just and those to whom we do not wish to be just." Such
a peace may not square with our greed for revenge, which
we like to call a demand for " punitive justice " ; but to
make any other kind of peace would be an attempt to fight
against nature — with the bloody results to our descendants
which a hundred thousand years of peace-making upon the
punitive model make altogether certain.

It would, however, be inexcusably sanguine to suppose
that any distribution of territory or reframing of govern
ments, no matter how just or how democratic, could in itself

THE PROBLEM OF EASTERN EUROPE 489

insure peace in Eastern Europe. The racial lines are too
intricate to be followed by any political boundaries. Do
what we will to be fair to all concerned, there will still be
split-off communities of one nationality embosomed within
the territory of some alien race. Other causes of jealousy
and enmity moreover will inevitably arise, new rivalry of
interests combined with many ancient hatreds, so that the
Greater Balkans if left to themselves will be ever on the
very verge of war. They must not, then, be left to them
selves. Peace forbids it. But Liberty equally forbids that
they be swallowed again by some new paternal empire.
Neither will it do to trust them to the benign management
of a few Powers, delegated for that purpose by " Europe."
That scheme has been tried long enough for us to estimate
its value without further costly experimentation. The one
plan which has not been tried is the one which alone on
the face of it seems truly promising. That plan, of course,
is that the nations of Eastern Europe should be prevented
from breaking the world's peace by a league of all the
world's nations, a league in which they themselves should
have their rightful place, and one, therefore, which should
represent them as well as all other peoples. Many of the
causes of friction that have arisen in the Balkans or that
are likely to arise in the Greater Balkans are of the kind
that would plainly be justiciable before a neutral Court.
Many others are of the sort that might be smoothed away
by a neutral Council of Conciliation. And if it were
known that the breaker of the peace would have to face not
only some weak neighbor but the power of the whole
League, and that no backing could be looked for from some
friendly Great Power standing by and only too willing to
sow discord in the Balkans for its own ends, there would
be much less likelihood of war, and war if it should come
would be far less dangerous to the world.

JAMES BISSETT PRATT.

COMPULSORY HEALTH INSURANCE

HOWELL CHENEY

To the general principle of health insurance, volun
tarily conducted and established on a commercial basis, no
one will take exception. We have come to look upon the
health insurance of the people with small incomes as just
as legitimate a part of their plan of life as either death or
accident insurance or a credit or wage system. It is only
when the idea of compulsion is applied to it that we have
any serious cause for doubt. This is the starting point of
all general objections.

It is acknowledged that the simplest forms of voluntary
health insurance cost the average working man from two
to three times per $100 of insurance what the same pro
tection per $100 would cost in units of $10,000. It is pri
marily from this angle that a feeling of opposition to exist
ing insurance arises in the workingman's mind. We are
probably within the truth in stating that forty to fifty per
cent of the premium is an inevitable and necessary carry
ing charge upon the business of commercially insuring
under a voluntary plan great masses of laboring men for
small amounts against disabilities arising out of sickness
and death.

Our commercial organizations, further be it remem
bered, have only successfully tackled the problem of Group
Insurance, or of insuring as an averaged unit a large num
ber of individuals, as applicable to the hazard of death.
In insurance against death they have succeeded in remov
ing one of the insuperable obstacles of expense by treating
great groups as units and by looking to the employer to pay
the premium in one lump sum. Even here it is predicted
that the experiment is doomed to disappointment, if not
failure. It may be sound as an insurance proposition. It

COMPULSORY HEALTH INSURANCE 491

has not been tried on any considerable scale except where
the employer has paid either the whole or a very large
share of the premium and has practically given the insur
ance as a bonus, gift, or charity to his employees. The
underlying motive has been the expectancy of attaching
his employees to him by the prospect of reserves accumu
lating in proportion to the years of service. This motive
may work as long as its application is exceptional with
higher classes of employees, but has obviously a weakened
power as it is generally adopted. It is at bottom a false
motive and any employer who expects to solve his wage
problems on the basis of either charity or gratitude has
only himself to blame for the failure he is courting through
dangerous temporizing.

While voluntary and mutual plans of sickness insur
ance can succeed within a certain field where either the
employment policy or the social basis of selection gives a
fair average risk, compulsion will automatically add four
most important factors to this class of insurance. First, a
true average of the risk. Under any voluntary plan there
is an inevitably higher probability of securing a poorer
average risk. Second, economy in administration through
the forced collection of premiums at the source of the in
come, thus eliminating all expenses of agents and solicita
tion, and minimizing the expense of investigation and the
payment of claims. Third, under a compulsory system a
much higher degree of discipline can be enforced against
doubtful claims, thus reducing malingering. Under a
voluntary system it is almost impossible to enforce neces
sarily rigid rules for the protection of all where they hap
pen to exclude individuals who have failed to comply with
the requirements through carelessness or indifference.
The necessary physical examinations for both membership
and benefits are freed from many difficulties when they
are enforced legally. Fourth, only full legal compulsion
will remove the suspicion and distrust with which the ma
jority of laboring men view any attempt of either employ
ers or philanthropists or commercial agencies to promote
an insurance of their disabilities.

Because we all of us accept the principle of insurance,
practically without opposition today, we often do not stop
to analyze the elementary character of the economic re
serve that it gives us. The ordinary average working man

492 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

is found to lose on an average of from seven to nine days a
year from sickness. If he wishes to protect himself against
half of the average loss of wages, he has to provide an in
surance reserve of, say approximately, half of his wages
for nine days, which will cost him from $10.00 to $15.00
in premiums a year. This is only true in the event that the
loss is an average loss and covers not one individual, but
groups of individuals large enough to secure an average
loss. As an individual, if he wishes to give himself an
equal protection, he has got to provide a fund which would
give him half wages during disability, besides providing
death benefits of half of one year's wages and medical at
tendance. It is estimated that the man who is earning $4.00
a day, if he is uninsured should have reserves behind him
of approximately $1,500 to $2,000. As an individual, no
smaller reserve will give him the same protection that pre
miums of from $10.00 to $15.00, distributed over the
whole year, will guarantee. If the man has neither the in
dividual surplus nor the insurance guaranteeing protec
tion when adversity overtakes him, he and his de
pendents must immediately come down to a lower scale of
living, and weakened by ill health he must again shoulder
the problem of subsistence for himself and his family, not
only with reduced physical strength, but with no material
resources to fall back on. It is not surprising that he falls
a prey to discontent on one hand and on the other gives
himself up, either from ignorance or from superstition, to
all sorts of fake remedies and quack doctors.

We have come to look upon insurance as a moral duty,
which a man with very material resources behind him owes
to his dependents to prevent their being thrown upon a
lower scale of living when his immediate income stops.
If they are subject to a moral obligation in order to prevent
a break in the hopes and aspirations of their children,
what is the condition of those to whom the sudden cutting
off of support means not only the blotting out of hopes and
aspirations, but perhaps of subsistence itself?

To the working man then, sickness insurance is not the
luxury that it is to the man of higher income, which allows
him to go about his work with a more comfortable feeling
of mind that he has not got to pinch himself in any ma
terial comforts when some of the major hazards come upon
him. To the working man without capital behind him, it

COMPULSORY HEALTH INSURANCE 493

means immediately tackling life from a lower plane with
less physical strength and with less food, and hence, with
less courage and with infinitely less chance of success. The
possibility of creating the necessary reserves seems to in
evitably and of necessity depend upon the compulsion that
will automatically place this reserve behind him. It is
well enough to assume that the working man ought to do
it voluntarily. It is unquestionably proven that he will
not do it voluntarily. Can he even be expected to do it
voluntarily when it is acknowledged that the existing vol
untary agencies are either wasteful in administration or
unsound in principle? The only relief in sight which will
practically work is to compel the deduction at its source
of a percentage of wages sufficients to cover the average
risk and to so safeguard the essential principles of insur
ance and the investment of these funds as to guarantee the
relief in the hour of need.

The objection is raised that no automatic system can
take the place of individual thrift; that the paternalistic
or socialistic attempt to compel a man to do what he
ought to do for himself is foredoomed to failure and makes
for dependency and shiftlessness. Space does not permit
of quarreling with the theory of this contention. We can
only face the facts which are apparent to all — that the
average working man who is earning less than $1,000 a
year does not save and has no reserves behind him. We
are all vitally interested in this fact and would like to miti
gate it and explain it away if it were possible to do so. If
you accept it as a fact, will you veto the application of a
principle which you know to be sound in your own life, if
this application can only be effectively and broadly secured
by compulsion? Will you veto it if you realize that for
small incomes especially the insurance principle has a far
sounder economic basis than the pure savings idea? He
who saves in order to meet a future disability must
have a long time in which to do it and exercise great self-
sacrifice in saving and skill in investing. He is finally the
greater speculator in futures. To lay by, say $100, a year out
of $1,000 he must have the ideal combination of four fac
tors: — time, self-sacrifice, investing skill, and a justifiable
spirit of adventure. And, if he dies at the end of one year,
he leaves but $100, but if he insures he leaves his heirs
$1,500. The saver is an isolated adventurer. He cares

494 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

only for himself. The insurer is in strong contrast and
rests himself upon the principle of combination and co
operation with all those who are exposed to the same
average degree of risk. If this principle is sound for
larger incomes, it is beyond dispute for those who are liv
ing close to the line of subsistence.

We must first, however, insist that in the enforcing of
this principle under compulsion, we can only avoid un
reasonable individual injustice if it is limited to groups
who are subject to a similar degree of risk. As long as the
hazards which are averaged are fairly within the common
experience of all of the members of a group, there is no
injustice in compelling contributions to a common fund.
It is only when it is proven that " A," in contributing to
relieving " B's " disabilities, is contributing to a far higher
average of risk than he is himself subject to, that injustice
occurs.

If we are willing to agree to the idea of compulsion,
when limited to groups of a like average of risk, can we
bring this compulsion into harmony with our social and
legal philosophies?

If it is a part of our political, as well as our moral
creed, that it is the duty of every individual to support him
self ; and if it is the duty of the state to protect itself as far
as possible from dependency, why cannot the state compel
the individual to actually perform what is recognized to
be his universal obligation? We certainly are not willing
to give up lightly the immense benefits and liberties that
individualism has brought us. We believe in individ
ualism and are going to continue to fight for it. Is it then
a contradiction that we are willing to make some sacrifices
to accomplish a higher degree of individual support on this
earth, here and now? Shall we actually enforce the fun
damental duty of self-support in the only practical way it
can be accomplished, i. e., by the compulsory contribution
to a common fund of all those who are subject to a like
degree of economic risk, or shall we continue to attempt
the impossible — the salvation of the derelicts of our indi
vidualism through the deadening influences of charity and
poor relief?

Social workers and socialists exclaim with impatience
against the restraints of constitutional limitations in work
ing out social reform. It is confidently believed, however,

COMPULSORY HEALTH INSURANCE 495

that we can find methods of working out this reform under
constitutional methods and that in so working it out with
strict regard to both individual rights and responsibilities,
and under strict observance of sound and tried insurance
principles, we will immensely increase its power for social
upbuilding.

We would first lay it down as a fundamental and uni
versal obligation of every man and woman of legal age, to
provide during their working days for their own self-sup
port during disability and temporary support for their de
pendents at their death. This is laid down not merely as
a moral theory for general guidance, but as a fact of eco
nomic necessity, which the state is justified in enforcing.
It is foreign to the method of development of the theory
to insist that the state must do this to protect itself from
dependency, but, if this theory gives the lawyer an added
comfort, we need not object to it, unless it necessitates look
ing upon the exercise of this duty as an exercise of the
police power, and the relief as poor relief and charity.

The method of enforcement should logically be through
the imposition of an income insurance tax, pro-rated ex
actly upon the incomes of all classes of individuals within
the state who were engaged in any form of labor for profit,
i. e., upon all those who had any incomes, without respect
to the character of their employment, but with certain ob
vious and reasonable exceptions, as the theory of the law
permitted.

It is fundamental to the purpose in mind that both pre
miums and benefits be rigidly fixed in relation to income.
So also must all individuals be classified according to those
who are subject to a like degree of hazard. Only by ob
serving these elementary principles of sound insurance can
we guarantee that the compulsion does not bring about the
taking of property inequitably from one class of indi
viduals for the support of another class. Also, if we
neglect these principles, we shall lose sight of the indi
vidual's rights and responsibilities upon which our foun
dations rest, and will forfeit one of the most valuable
influences of such an undertaking — the safeguarding and
protection of the health of groups so that the cost may be
reduced or the benefits increased. So far the proposal has
allowed for the greatest freedom of the individual in plac
ing his insurance and has emphasized the necessity of the

496 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

fulfilment of the individual's duties. The removal from
any individual or class of an obligation, which clearly rests
upon them, for the social betterment of another individual
or class must inevitably fail of its purpose.

In the case of insurance, there can be no question but
that a relation of dependency of the people upon the state
will develop if the individual benefits derived are not pur
chased by proportionate individual sacrifices. If this is
true as regards the receipt of benefits, it is more than true
as regards the remedial and curative effects, which should
be the most valuable factor to the state of such an insur
ance plan. Unless individual sacrifices will make for a
reduction of the burden of the cost, there will be no incen
tives upon either individuals or groups to apply the pre
ventive and protective measures which the modern con
ception of medicine has made available. The greatest
benefit of the workmen's compensation law socially has
not been in the benefits or compensation paid. It has been
in the more direct incentive to prevent accidents, which
has been a great economic saving, particularly among self-
insurers. So in sickness, if the relation between the cost
and its avoidance can be kept simple and direct, the incen
tives towards the scientific prevention of disease will be
powerfully multiplied. We do not appreciate the amount
of the cost at present. The first step is to visualize the cost
by definitely locating it; the second is to establish more
definitely the responsibility for its existence; the third is
to apportion justly both the cost and profit for its reduc
tion.

So far we have considered only the responsibility of
the individual and the apportionment of the cost in rela
tion to it. In doing this, we have attempted to present a
method which is somewhat novel in the modern develop
ment of the subject, but which is in conformity with sound,
economic and legal ideals.

May we now develop a theory to justify the placing of
a part of the burden upon both employers and the state?
Heretofore the employer's liability has been very vaguely
based upon the theory of his responsibility for occupa
tional diseases, but actually has been based upon the ease
with which the tax could be collected from him. There
was little justification for or thought of the establishing of
an exact relationship between diseases and the conditions of

COMPULSORY HEALTH INSURANCE 497

employment. Probably the amount of disease attributable
to employment, in the sense that it is either preventable
by the employer or is in excess of the best obtainable stand
ards ruling in any employments, is relatively small. Is
not the fact apparent that the great bulk of sickness does
not arise out of the conditions of employment, but does
arise either out of our personal indulgences and abuses, or
out of our relations with each other as citizens or members
of a community?

The basis of the employers' and the State's contribu
tions should be justified on some calculable theory of their
responsibility for causes. Too exact and rigid a justifica
tion in each case need not be insisted upon, and it seems
perfectly possible that the statute might establish rules of
presumptions of accountability that could only be offset
by reasonable proof to the contrary, as well as rules of spe
cific accountability for certain diseases.

Diseases and injuries not covered by existing compen
sation laws may be attributable to three general sources.
First, to personal indulgences, abuses, strains or infections
arising out of the voluntary acts of individuals or their
guardians, other than their choices of employments or
habitations. Second, to occupational poisons, irritants,
strains and infections when resulting from specific condi
tions of employment. Third, to infections and injuries
arising out of our social and community environment, not
due to employment.

The greater amount of our disabilities is fairly trace
able to the person suffering them. The statute might spe
cifically state that the presumption in the following cases
was that they were attributable to the individual and that
this presumption could only be offset by reasonable proof
to the contrary. Under this class would come all petty
complaints which are fairly attributable to the direct and
personal neglect of the primary laws of hygiene; diseases
resulting from congenital, organic or hereditary causes;
all disabilities directly traceable to the effects of alcohol,
drugs and narcotics; sexual diseases and diseases peculiar
to sex and the genito urinary organs; organic mental dis
orders and diseases of the brain ; all accidental injuries, not
received in the course of employment, and for which there
exists no legal liability to pay damages.

Diseases which might be attributable to the State and

VOL. ccix.— NO. 761. 32

498 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

charged directly to the State fund are those contagious dis
eases, against which legal quarantines are, or can be, es
tablished over individuals; and infectious diseases, which,
it is fair to assume, State supervision through an enforce
ment of the police powers of the State, as directed by mod
ern science, might control, if not entirely eliminate.
Where a past history exists to account directly for the in
fection, the responsibility might be divided, either between
the State and the individual, or the State and the employer.

The diseases attributable to the occupation would in
clude all occupational poisoning cases; the diseases con
tracted in caisson or under high air pressure; and all dis
eases due to physical strains and diseases of the nerves,
which could be traceable predominatingly to employment.

There remains an indefinite field, which would tend to
become constantly narrower, in which there would be no
presumption and in which the responsibility might be di
vided. This would include a division of the responsibility
for nervous diseases and for the more common communic
able diseases. If the individual, previous to employment,
had a history that would account for the existence of these
diseases, as is usual in a great majority of cases, they could
not be fairly charged to the employment or the State,
though they might be aggravated by employment or pub
lic sanitary conditions. No investigations could arrive at
exact proportions of responsibility in each case, but they
could arrive at approximations or averages which would
work for a pretty exact measure of justice as a whole.

The point to insist upon is that, unless we get some
fairly approximate apportionment of the responsibility,
we shall not work for the elimination of the causes and
shall fail, as has been pointed out, of the highest purpose
we are pursuing.

HOWELL CHENEY.

THE STRATEGY! ON THE WESTERN

FRONT-III

BY LIEUTENANT COLONEL H. H. SARGENT, U. S. ARMY RETIRED

GERMANY'S THIRD GREAT MISTAKE

Since the great attempt to break through the Western
front at Verdun had utterly failed and Germany saw there
was no longer any hope of doing it and resuming a war of
movement, she again reverted to her former plan to hold it
defensively with a sufficient force to prevent the Allies from
breaking through, and with her available forces took the of
fensive successfully against Russia, Roumania, Italy, and
again against Russia; and, largely as a result of carrying
out this plan, was wholly or partly successful against each.
Had she continued in this way to mass her forces in turn
against the Allied armies at Salonika and in Italy, she would
most probably, with considerably less effort than she later
spent in attempting to break through on the Western front,
have conquered or annihilated or captured both.

With the Salonika army defeated, the German and Aus
trian armies could have quickly overrun and occupied
Greece ; and with the Italian army defeated, they could have
occupied the valley of the Po, rich in agriculture and manu
factories, and have pushed forward to the French and Mari
time Alps; and might have been able to break through the
Maritime Alps and invade France via Nice. And even had
Germany been stopped there, she could easily have held tem
porarily the line of the French Alps, and thence southward
to the sea, as well as the line of the Western front, while
she was organizing and bringing into her system all the con
quered countries. Master of Italy, Greece, Albania, Monte
negro, Serbia, Roumania, Bulgaria, Austria, Russia, and
the greater part of Turkey, her dominion would have been

500 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

mightier than was that of Napoleon at the height of his
power.

Having reached such success as here set forth, she would
have been in a position to forestall the landing of any ex
pedition in the Balkans from the Aegean Sea, in Austria
from the Adriatic, or in Turkey from the Eastern Mediter
ranean ; or, had it been landed, would have been favorably
situated militarily for concentrating a greatly superior force
against it; and destroying it before it could have gained a
foothold and advanced into the interior.

For some reason Germany did not continue to carry out
this plan ; but decided to renew the offensive on the Western
front; and with this end in view began on March 21, 1918,
a little more than two years from the time of beginning the
attack on Verdun, a powerful attack against the Allied line
opposite Amiens, and then followed it up by a like attack
against the British line in the vicinity of Ypres, and two
other similar attacks against the French line between Reims
and Montdidier, towards Chateau-Thierry. By massing
overwhelming forces against sectors of the line in these at
tacks, Germany succeeded in pushing it back thirty-five
miles opposite Amiens, thirty miles to Chateau-Thierry, and
about ten miles in the vicinity of Ypres ; but in no case was
she able to break completely through the line and resume
a war of movement.

Just why Germany made such a complete and momen
tous change in her whole strategical plan1 in March, 1918,
is not now fully known; but the principal reasons for the
change are probably as follows:

First: Because she felt that she must make a supreme
effort for victory on the Western front before the American
troops arrived there in large numbers.

Second : Because the German commanders, having dis
covered that the British had built very few if any lines of
entrenchments behind certain sectors of their line, and had
very few reserves behind them, hoped by attacking these
weak sectors with greatly superior forces, which had become
available as a result of the collapse and disintegration of
the Russian armies, to be able to break through them and
resume a war of movement.

Third : Because the military authorities, by a study of

1 There was a persistent rumor at the time that Hindenburg was opposed to this
change of plan which the German General Staff approved.

STRATEGY ON THE WESTERN FRONT 501

General von Hutier's plan of attacking, based upon his ex
perience in the capture of Riga, and their easy success in
driving back the British troops after the British victory at
Cambrai, had become convinced that the best way to break
through an entrenched line was not to pound themselves for
ward by a succession of small attacks, as they had attempted
to do at Verdun, and as the British had done at the Somme,
but to assemble their divisions in overwhelming force
against a long sector of the enemy's line and gathering up
all their implements and methods of destruction, to move
forward on an extended front and strike it with their utmost
power.

Since the strategical situation on the Western front dur
ing this time had not changed, the question arises: Why
did not Germany make the second effort to break the Allied
front along the Verdun-Reims sector, instead of making it
along the Somme sector from La Fere to Arras? The an
swer is, that although strategically the Verdun-Reims sec
tor was the better place to break through, tactically it was
the more difficult. Bitter experience had already taught
Germany that it would be impossible to break through this
sector of the line. Then, again, Germany must have known
that a large portion of the French reserves were at this time
in Champagne south of Reims and that very few, if any,
were in rear of the Somme sector. And she doubtless knew,
too, that the British had constructed few, if any, lines of
intrenchments behind this sector after the battle of the
Somme ; and that she had taken over only recently that por
tion of the sector south of St. Quentin ; and, as yet, had not
had time to make complete arrangements for holding it.
Then, too, the Germans knew that the dividing line separat
ing the French from the British armies crossed this sector
at its southern end ; and that there was as yet no commander
in chief of the Allied armies on the Western front, each
army having thus far in the war acted to a great extent in
dependently; which facts could not but be bound to prevent
that full unity of command between them, so essential to
success. All of which no doubt led the Germans to choose
this sector for their great attack.

Their plan evidently was to throw an enormous force
against this fifty miles of British front and to open a gap
between the British and French armies, forcing, if possible,
the British back on the English Channel and the French

502 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

back upon Paris ; then to contain one while they settled with
the other.

As to whether, if successful, they would have first pro
ceeded against the British and attempted to throw them
back on the Channel ports and captured them; or against
the French and attempted to envelop, defeat, and capture
them and the French capital, is not now known ; and, per
haps, was not known by them at the time; for they may
have intended awaiting future developments before making
a decision.

But it may be remarked here that it probably would
have been better for the Germans to settle with the British
first; since to proceed against the French about Paris while
this large British army was in their rear and threatening
their lines of communication back through France and Bel
gium would have been highly dangerous.

Although the great attack begun by the Germans on
March 21, 1918, failed to separate the British from the
French armies, it forced the Allied line back a distance of
about thirty-five miles, producing an immense salient op
posite Amiens whose base was about fifty miles in extent;
and it had the immediate effect also of changing the slightly
curved front between Verdun and the English Channel into
an angular front which extended from Verdun in a gener
ally western direction past Noyon to a point about one mile
south of Montdidier and thence in a generally northern
direction to Nieuport on the English Channel. This
change from a curved to an angular front, as well as the
creation of the salient opposite Amiens, not only made a
vast difference in the strategical situation of the combatant
armies, but it had the immediate effect of bringing about
greater unity of action between the Allies, by causing them
to select General Ferdinand Foch as Commander-in-Chief.
It is purposed to discuss in this and an article in the next
issue of THE REVIEW, each of these changes under the
headings: An Angular Front; A Salient; and Unity of
Command.

AN ANGULAR FRONT

Occupying that portion of the theater of war within the
angular front, the Germans had the advantage of interior
lines, which enabled them to mass a superior force upon
either the western or southern portion of their front much

STRATEGY ON THE WESTERN FRONT 503

more quickly and easily than could the Allies on the out
side of the angular front assemble a sufficient force to
meet it.

But, on the other hand, this angular front gave to the
Allies a great strategical advantage, in that, if they should
break through on either front it would so threaten the com
munications of the Germans attacking on the other as to
compel them to turn back to save their communications.
In other words, it gave the Allies the opportunity of carry
ing out that great principle of strategy of striking at their
adversary's communications without exposing their own;
for it mattered not whether they should strike northward
from the Reims-Verdun front toward Mezieres and Sedan
or eastward from the Amiens-Arras-Lens front toward Hir-
son and Maubeuge, in either case they would sever a con
siderable number of the German lines of communication
and threaten seriously the remainder without in the least
exposing their own to a German attack.

And this advantage which the Allies possessed, had they
had the strength or genius to make use of it, far surpassed
the advantage which the Germans possessed as a result of
their central position and interior lines. And the reason for
this is that an attack made directly through the lines upon
the German communications would not only have effectu
ally put a stop at once to their advance, but would have
placed them in a most precarious situation and compelled
them to turn back to fight for the recovery of their lost or
threatened communications.

To illustrate: Suppose that at the time the Germans
began their great attack of March 21, or a day or two after
wards, the French with their reserves massed in Champagne
had been prepared to make a great attack northward from
the Reims-Verdun front and had broken through a con
siderable distance, very much as the Germans broke through
in their great push toward Amiens, and had cut the east and
west railways south of the Ardennes Mountains, what would
have been the result? The answer is, that the Germans
would have been compelled to stop their advance, turn back,
and either fight to recover the lost railways or try to escape
from the pocket in which this maneuver had placed them,
by retreating northeastward and gaining the Charleroi-
Namur-Liege-Aix-la-Chapelle railway.

If to this the reply be made that the Argonne forest,

504 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

just north of the Reims-Verdun front, was such a difficult
country to operate in, and so strongly fortified and held,
that little headway could have been made through it, the
answer is that the Americans afterwards forced themselves
through it in the face of a most desperate resistance; and
that a powerful attack on this vital part of the angular front,
even if it had not made much headway, would nevertheless
have compelled the Germans to halt their leading divisions
and send back many of them to stop the French advance,
just as a few months later they were forced to send them
back to try to stop the onrush of the American soldiers.

The maxim or principle of war which applies in these
cases is, that where two armies are maneuvering against each
other's communications, or are attacking each other, that
army whose communications are the more seriously threat
ened will invariably abandon any effort to press on and will
fall back to fight for its communications. And " The im
portance of this fact," says Hamley, " is immense; for the
commander who finds himself on his enemy's rear, while
his own is still beyond his adversary's reach, may cast aside
all anxiety for his own communications, and call up every
detachment to the decisive point, certain that the enemy will
abandon his own designs in order, if possible, to retrieve his
position."1

There are, it is believed, no exceptions in history to this
maxim, save in a few cases where the commanding general
had decided to give up his communications because he had
established, or planned to establish, new ones ; as Napoleon
did at Austerlitz,2 where he made no effort to fight to pre
serve his threatened communications back southward
through Vienna, because he had already prepared new ones
westward through Bohemia, which he could have used in
case of defeat; or as Sherman did in the Atlanta campaign,
where he made no effort to fight for his communications
back to Chattanooga, upon Hood's marching rearward from
Sherman's front to cut them, because he had decided to cut
loose from them and march to the sea, where he would es
tablish, and did establish, a new base for future operations.

It would appear that had the Allies been in a condition
to strike at the communications of the Germans by breaking
through the line on one side or the other of the angular

1 Hamley, Operations of War, p. 93.

2 Sargent, Napoleon Bonaparte's First Campaign, pp. 186 and 1ST.

STRATEGY ON THE WESTERN FRONT 505

front, there was offered them strategically a most favorable
opportunity for its success, since the Germans in their great
attacks invariably selected the front behind which there were
few Allied reserves for massing their own reserves prepara
tory to making the attempt to break through, thus necessar
ily weakening proportionately their own front behind which
the Allied reserves were massed, and thereby making it the
very front on which an Allied offensive would most prob
ably succeed.

But, as a matter of fact, nothing of this kind was at
tempted. On the contrary, when the Germans made their
attack on March 21, 1918, the Allied reserves in Cham
pagne, and such other reserves as could be collected, were
hurried around the angular front with all possible speed
to stop the German advance on Amiens ; then when the Ger
mans made their second great attack south of Ypres on
April 9, the reserves were hurried northward to that point
to help save the British, who in a critical situation with
" their backs to the wall " were fighting desperately to keep
themselves from being driven into the sea; then when the
Germans made their third great attack on May 27, upon
Chateau-Thierry, and for the second time in the war reached
the Marne, the reserves were hurriedly sent to that front to
check the Germans and keep them from cutting off the
French right wing and from finally reaching Paris.

Why were all the Allied efforts to stop the Germans
during these four months, from March 21 until July 18
when Foch began his great offensive, confined entirely to
defensive operations? Until fuller details of the situation
become known this question cannot be satisfactorily an
swered ; but probably the failure of the Allies to appoint a
commander-in-chief prior to the great German offensive
of March 21 had much to do with it; for it must be remem
bered that it takes time to prepare for an offensive, and that
" the transition from the defensive to the offensive is," ac
cording to Napoleon, " one of the most delicate operations
of war."1 Of course the aim of the Allies during these four
critical months was to hold the Germans until America
could transport sufficient men to France to give the Allies a
preponderance of fighting troops. But whether this purely
defensive strategy, which seems to have been the Allied
plan up to the counter-attack begun by General Foch on

1 General Bournod, Napoleon's Maxima of War, p. 50.

506 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

July 18, was as effective in gaining the result sought as
defensive-offensive strategy would have been is question
able.

As to waiting for prepondering forces before beginning
an offensive, there is this to be said in its favor: since the
Americans were sending to France on an average of more
than 200,000 soldiers a month the Allies would soon con
siderably outnumber the Germans. But did this justify
their waiting during these critical months for preponderat
ing forces? Perhaps so! At any rate, it succeeded.
Nevertheless, it is well to remember that great soldiers have
seldom deemed it necessary, even in critical times, to wait
for preponderating forces before undertaking offensive
operations ; and that, not infrequently, such operations have
led to the greatest victories. A vastly preponderating
force against Robert E. Lee did not prevent him and his
great lieutenant, " Stonewall " Jackson, from winning the
battle of Chancellorsvillc; nor did it prevent Bona
parte in his first Italian campaign, although greatly out
numbered at all times in the theater of war, from bringing
a superior force upon practically every battlefield; and by
so doing defeating and crushing one Sardinian and six Aus
trian armies sent successively against him.1

But until the facts are more fully known it is not safe
to pronounce definite criticism on any of the operations of
the Allies during these four critical months. Nevertheless,
from what is known, and judging from the strategical abil
ity shown by Marshal Foch in his subsequent operations on
the Western front as commander-in-chief, we are of the
opinion that, had he been appointed commander-in-chief
of the Allied armies a sufficient time prior to the great
thrust toward Amiens, begun on March 21, 1918, to have
formulated and worked out his plans for meeting the at
tacks, he would have put a stop to them much earlier than
he did.

(To be continued.)

Sargent, Napoleon Bonaparte's First Campaign, pp. 168 and 169.

THE RAILWAY PROBLEM— II1

BY VICTOR MORAWETZ

If permitted by law to increase their rates the railway
companies could earn large returns for their stockholders;
for the industries and commerce of the country could not
exist without the railways. It is true also that the earnings
of most of the railway companies prior to our entry into the
war would have been adequate to sustain their credit if the
stability of these earnings had been assured. It seems evi
dent, therefore, that the failure of the credit of the railway
companies has been due to the fact that investors have lost
confidence in the wisdom and fairness of the rate-regulating
commissions established by the National and State govern
ments. Investors have reached the conclusion that in the
long run the companies will not be allowed to charge the
rates necessary to enable them to earn adequate returns upon
their stocks and bonds, except bonds of the safest class. Con
fidence in railway investments can be restored only by fur
nishing to investors some irrevocable governmental prom
ise or assurance of a definite and certain return on their in
vestments.

Although such a promise or assurance of the Govern
ment commonly is called a " guaranty/' it must be under
stood that it is not a guaranty in any strict sense. The word
" guaranty " implies an assumption of responsibility for the
acts of others ; but in giving the promise or assurance under
consideration the Government would assume no responsi
bility for any acts except its own. In substance and effect,
the Government merely would undertake not to exercise its
power to regulate railway rates in such manner as to deprive
the owners of railroad securities of certain minimum re
turns on their investments, the sums thus assured to in-

1 The concluding portion of the Morawetz Plan, the first part of which was printed
in the March REVIEW, will be found on pages 514 to 520 of the present issue. — EDITOB.

508 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

vestors being less than the returns which they have a con
stitutional and moral right to claim. Such an undertaking
would not really impose a new obligation on the Govern
ment. The so-called " guaranty " of the Government
would be a guaranty against its own wrongful acts.

As pointed out in my article published in the March
number of the REVIEW, legislation directing the Interstate
Commerce Commission to apply new formulas in fixing
rates or directing the Commission to fix rates that will yield
some specified return on the capital of the companies would
fail in the long run to restore the credit of the companies,
first, because such legislation could be altered, amended or
repealed at any time, and secondly, because of the difficulty
of enforcing it. If such legislation could be depended upon
as a permanent protection to investors, it would amount to
a promise or guaranty by the Government that rates shall
always be kept high enough to furnish the railway com
panies with certain prescribed incomes.

A sounder and better plan is to restore confidence in rail
way bonds and stocks by utilizing the high credit of the
Government in the form of a definite and irrevocable prom
ise or guaranty of interest on the bonds and of minimum
dividends on the stocks. If the railway companies were
enabled by means of such governmental promise or guar
anty to raise needed capital upon favorable terms, the sav
ing thus effected should accrue to the people through a
lowering of transportation rates, or through participation
of the Government in the earnings of the Companies.

In the plan submitted by me it is proposed, tentatively;
that the aggregate amount guaranteed by the Government
at the outset shall be approximately 65 per cent of the
amount now payable by the Government under the Federal
Control Act on account of the average operating income of
the railways during the three test years specified in the Act,
and that the Government shall guarantee the interest on the
bonds and minimum dividends on the stock thereafter issued
with the approval of the Government for additions and im
provements. It is proposed that in determining the oper
ating income upon which the guaranty is to be based all
attending circumstances shall be taken into consideration
and that all proper adjustments shall be made. Thus, if
during any part of the test years a railway was in the hands
of a receiver or made capital expenditures not reflected in

THE RAILWAY PROBLEM— II

its earnings, these facts should be taken into consideration.
Special allowances or arbitraries should be given to short
lines contributing long-haul business to through lines and
due allowance should also be made for the prospective in
crease of the business and earnings of lines located in un
developed sections of the country.

It has been urged that the amount guaranteed by the
Government under this plan would be too low and that
rates probably would be kept down to a level that would
not permit the companies to earn more than the amount
guaranteed by the Government. The proposal of an initial
guaranty amounting to 65 per cent of the operating income
of the test years was made merely for purposes of illustra
tion, and it is probable that a higher per cent — possibly 75
per cent — should be adopted. However, it is important
that the stockholders of the railway companies shall retain
a substantial contingent interest in the future results of the
management of their companies. The higher the govern
mental guaranty, the less interest would the stockholders
have in the management of their companies and the nearer
would we come to governmental ownership. The most
desirable course would be to have the guaranty of the Gov
ernment large enough to make railway securities attractive
to investors, but to leave a substantial part of the return to
the stockholders dependent upon efficient management
of their companies. The stockholders of the companies
certainly cannot complain if the Government by its guar
anty furnishes them with the credit needed for their future
capital requirements, while leaving unimpaired their pres
ent constitutional right to earn a fair return on their prop
erty.

Consolidation of the Companies

No plan for the solution of the problem can be success
ful without providing for the consolidation of the railway
companies into a comparatively small number of large, well-
balanced railway systems, each built up around one of the
existing great systems as a nucleus. A consolidation in
volves an exchange of the stocks of the several constituent
companies, and in some cases an exchange of their bonds,
for stock or bonds of the new company to be formed by the
consolidation. It is necessary, therefore, in every plan or
agreement of consolidation to fix (1) the aggregate amount
of stock and bonds to be issued by the consolidated com-

510 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

pany for the properties vested in it through the consolida
tion, and (2) the portion of the stock and bonds of the con
solidated company to be given to each class of bondholders
and stockholders of the several constituent companies.

Such an exchange of stocks and bonds would, of neces
sity, require much labor and expense, even though many
issues of safe bonds may be left undisturbed ; but it is dif
ficult to see how this can be avoided under any satisfactory
plan. The aggregate interest charges of the companies
should be reduced to an amount substantially less than the
aggregate amount of the Government's guaranty, so that a
portion of the guaranty may inure to the benefit of the
stockholders. Moreover, companies which accept the
plan and obtain the benefit of the governmental guaranty
should be required to consolidate upon some prescribed
terms with other companies that ought to be included in the
same system. To extend the guaranty of the Government
to each of the existing companies separately without a
change of its capitalization and without providing some
definite basis for the consolidation of the companies would
not solve the problem.

The fairest and most practical plan appears to be to
fix the capitalization of the companies, the apportionment
of securities upon a consolidation and the amount of the
governmental guaranty all on the basis of the average oper
ating incomes of the companies during the test years, ad
justed as above provided. As these operating incomes
were the result of rates fixed by the Federal and State com
missions during a period in which the companies did not
enjoy more than average prosperity, it may fairly be as
sumed that these operating incomes were not unduly large.

It has been proposed that 40 per cent of this average
annual operating income shall be capitalized on a 4 per
cent basis by the issue of guaranteed 4 per cent bonds, and
that the remaining 60 per cent shall be capitalized by the
issue of shares of stock upon which this operating income
would suffice to pay $6 per share in dividends, the Gov
ernment guaranteeing $2.50 per share. The result would
be an issue of 4 per cent bonds to an aggregate amount at
par equal to ten times the average annual operating income
and the issue of a like amount of stock assuming the shares to
be a par value of $100 each. According to my proposal, the
shares thus issued are to have no nominal or par value. If,

THE RAILWAY PROBLEM— II 511

however, it should be found necessary to give the shares a
nominal or par value, and if in the opinion of Congress a
nominal or par value of $100 per share would make the
aggregate par amount of the stock too large, the amount
could be reduced to any desired sum by making the par
amount of each share less than $100. It should be under
stood, however, that the number of shares should not be
diminished and that the reduction of their par amount
should not affect the guaranty of $2.50 in dividends on each
share and the right of the Government to share with the
stockholders in any distribution of earnings in excess of $4
per share.

A physical valuation of the railways may be of service
in determining the amount of operating income of which
the railway companies cannot constitutionally be deprived
by governmental regulation, but there is no good reason
for limiting the aggregate par amount of stock and bonds
to be issued upon a consolidation to the original cost, or
cost of reproduction, of the properties vested in the con
solidated company. The rates which a company is allowed
by law to charge, or which it is able to charge, are not af
fected by the nominal or par amount of the stock and bonds
which the company has outstanding. Neither the rates
chargeable by a company nor the substantial rights of the
stockholders or of the public are affected by the nominal
or par value of a company's stock, and it is not important
whether the par value of shares be fixed at $100 or at $50,
or at nothing, as is now common practice in forming in
dustrial companies under the laws of some of the States.
Certainly, a physical valuation would furnish no just
basis for the apportionment of the stock and bonds of a
consolidated company among the stockholders and bond
holders of its constituent companies. The value of the
stock of a company does not depend upon the original cost
of its property or the cost of reproducing it, but upon the
amount of the operating income which the company can
earn and apply to the payment of dividends on the stock.
Upon a consolidation of companies the only fair course is
to apportion the securities of the consolidated company
among the security holders of the constituent companies
according to the estimated operating income which these
companies severally will contribute to the combined com
pany.

512 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

A statutory valuation of the railways has been in prog
ress since the year 1914 at enormous cost to the Govern
ment and to the railway companies, but the valuation of
only a few of the smaller lines has been completed. Prob
ably it will take more than five years more to complete
the valuation of all the lines, and probably additional
years will be consumed in controversies and litigation to
correct errors in the official valuations. When completed,
these valuations will be of little service as they will be based
on the prices of previous years. It seems obvious, there
fore, that no plan based upon an official valuation of the
properties of the railway companies can be carried out
within any reasonable time.

The official valuation of the railways should be com
pleted — not for the purpose of providing a basis for the
recapitalization of their companies, nor for the purpose of
providing a basis for the consolidation — the companies —
but for the purpose of assisting the governmental authori
ties and the courts in determining the amount of income
which the companies thereafter will have a constitutional
right to earn over and above the sums guaranteed by the
Government.

Limitation of State Regulation

At the present time the corporate powers of the rail
way companies are governed by the varying laws of the
different States, and each State exercises an independent
power to regulate the railways within its territory and to
fix intrastate rates, while the Federal Government under
takes to regulate the interstate transportation and interstate
rates of all the companies. The resulting multiple and
often conflicting regulation renders impossible the adop
tion of any wise or consistent policy of regulation or of
rate-fixing and is injurious both to the railway companies
and to the people of all the States. No satisfactory or
permanent solution of the railway problem is practicable
without providing for the incorporation of the railway
companies under Federal laws, or without centralizing
supreme control over their regulation in some agency of
the Federal Government.

Adequate provision should, however, be made for the
protection of local interests. The power of each State to
tax the railways within its borders should be preserved

THE RAILWAY PROBLEM— II 513

and the police powers of the States should not be interfered
with to a greater extent than is necessary. In these respects
the railways should be placed substantially upon the same
footing as the National banks.

While supreme control over intrastate as well as inter
state rates must be vested in some commission or board
established by the Federal Government, provision should
be made for the protection of the interests of the several
States and localities by the appointment of regional boards
with jurisdiction over matters of local interest. A major
ity of the members of each of these regional boards should
be residents of the State or States in which it has jurisdic
tion. Each State commission should continue to exercise
its power to investigate the practices of the railway com
panies within the State and should have the right to rep
resent the interests of the State in all matters before the
Federal commissions or boards.

Methods of Federal Control

Whatever plan may be adopted, it is certain that the
control over the railways exercised by the Federal Gov
ernment prior to the war will be largely extended by Con
gress upon the termination of Federal control. The duties
and functions of the Interstate Commerce Commission
have grown to be so complex and burdensome that no
single commission possibly could perform them in a sat
isfactory manner. With a further extension of Federal
control over the railways the need of relieving the Inter
state Commerce Commission of some of its duties and
functions will become imperative.

A satisfactory plan for the solution of the problem,
therefore, must provide new and improved machinery for
exercising the regulatory powers vested in the Federal
Government. The power to regulate the rates and prac
tices of the companies and to deal with matters of an ad
ministrative character should be vested in a central board
with numerous branches or regional boards subject to its
supervision and control. Supreme control over the whole
system of regulation, including the power to hear appeals
from the decisions of the central board having immediate
control over the rates and practices of the companies should
be vested in a Federal Railway Board similar in its con
stitution to the Federal Reserve Board. The duty of in-
VOL. cox.— NO. 761. 33

514 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

vestigating and prosecuting violations of law or of regu
lations should be in charge of the legal department of the
Government.

The Federal Railway Board should be appointed by
the President with the advice or approval of the Senate;
but, in order that the whole system of regulation may, so
far as is possible, be kept free from politics, it is desirable
that the members of the central board and of the regional
boards of regulation shall be appointed by the Federal
Railway Board.

No plan can succeed unless its execution is placed in
the hands of men of proven ability and character. In view
of the vital importance of the subject, it is not unreason
able to expect that in the appointment of the Board or
Commission which will exercise supreme control over the
railways of the country, the President and Senate will brush
aside arguments of political expediency and will consider
only the welfare of the country.

VICTOR MORAWETZ.

THE MORAWETZ PLAN

(Continued from the March issue of the REVIEW.)

It is further suggested tentatively that for each railway
property vested in a Federal corporation there be issued

(a) 4 per cent debentures of the Federal corpora
tion, guaranteed by the Government, to an aggregate
amount that would impose an interest charge equal to
forty per cent of the estimated operating income of the
property, and

(b) shares of stock to an amount upon which the
remaining sixty per cent of the operating income would
suffice to pay $6 per share, the Government to guaran
tee payment of $2.50 per share; any distribution of in
come in excess of $4 per share to be divided between the
Government and the shareholders and the Government
to have an option to purchase the stock at any time at
$85 per share.

THE RAILWAY PROBLEM— II 515

On this basis the Government would guarantee in the
aggregate only 65 per cent, of the operating income which
the railways would be entitled to earn under a fair and
constitutional exercise of the Governmental power to regu
late their rates. In consideration of this guarantee it is
proposed to give to the Government (1) a share in any dis
tribution of income in excess of four per cent, on the stock
of the Federal corporation, (2) ample power to control the
management of the railways free from interference by the
courts, and (3) an option to acquire the railways at a fair
cost without condemnation proceedings, if hereafter it
should be found desirable to establish direct Governmental
ownership and operation.

The distribution among the stockholders and bondhold
ers of each existing railway company of the aggregate
amounts of debentures and stock of the Federal corpora
tion to be issued in exchange for the company's property
would have to be adjusted by agreement of the parties as
in ordinary reorganizations. It is, therefore, suggested
that the Federal Railway Board to be established under the
plan should have full power to negotiate with the direc
tors of each company and with committees of security
holders.

It is believed that the great bulk of the stockholders
and bondholders of the companies would soon agree to any
fair terms offered them. Unanimous agreement of the
bondholders and stockholders would not be necessary. A
majority of the stockholders of some of the companies have
now the power to sell the property of their company sub
ject to its indebtedness, and in other cases legislation prob
ably could be obtained giving such power to the majority.
But, if in any case the stockholders are unwilling to agree
to reasonable terms their equity could be acquired through
a condemnation proceeding.

In most cases it would be safe to proceed upon obtain
ing the assent of the holders of a majority of the junior
issues of bonds of a company. The outstanding bonds
would not be assumed by the Federal corporation, and the
bonds received from assenting bondholders would be kept
alive in the treasury of the Federal corporation, so that the
security of the non-assenting bondholders would not be im
proved. Separate accounts should be kept of a railway
thus acquired subject to outstanding bonded indebtedness,

516 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

and if the property should not earn the interest on all out
standing bonds, including those in the treasury of the Fed
eral corporation, the latter could foreclose the mortgage
securing the bonds held in its treasury, in which event the
property could be bought in by the Federal corporation
by paying to the non-assenting bondholders only their pro
portional share of the net proceeds of the foreclosure sale.

It is proposed that the management of the Federal cor
porations owning and operating the railways shall be
shared by the Government and by the stockholders of the
corporations, as in case of the Federal reserve banks, and
that the consummation of the plan as well as the future
management of the Federal corporations be placed under
the control and supervision of a Federal Railway Board
similar in its constitution to the Federal Reserve Board.

An Act of Congress to be passed conferring all powers
required to carry out the following plan.

1. A Federal Railway Board to be created with su
preme power of regulation and control over the Federal
railway companies to be formed as herein provided. This
Federal Railway Board should be a body of the highest
dignity. A member of the President's cabinet should be
a member, and its other members should be selected with
the greatest care by the President with the advice and ap
proval of the Senate.

2. The Federal Railway Board to organize ten to fif
teen Federal railway companies under the Act of Congress.
Each of these companies to have the usual powers of rail
way companies and also power, with the approval of the
Federal Railway Board, to acquire all or any existing lines
of railway. In carrying out the plan the existing lines
to be consolidated in the Federal corporations as directed
by the Federal Railway Board in such manner as to make
ten to fifteen well balanced railway systems.

Provision to be made for the issue by each Federal cor
poration of debentures and stock in amounts sufficient to
take up as hereinafter provided the bonds and stocks of the
existing companies whose properties are to be vested in
such Federal corporations and also to provide for future
capital requirements. The stocks of the Federal corpora
tions to have no nominal or par value. Payment of the
principal and interest of the debentures issued by the Fed
eral corporations and payment of fixed minimum dividends

THE RAILWAY PROBLEM— II 517

(say $2.50 per share) on their stocks to be guaranteed by
the United States.

Upon any distribution of net income of a Federal cor
poration in excess of a minimum dividend on its stock (say
$4 per share per annum, non-cumulative) the excess to be
divided between the Government and the stockholders of
the corporation in prescribed proportions.

3. A specified number of the directors of each Federal
corporation to be appointed by the Federal Railway
Board and the remainder to be elected by the stockholders
of the corporation. The president and executive officers
of each Federal corporation to be chosen by its board of
directors, but all directors and officers to be subject to re
moval by the Federal Railway Board. Salaries of officers
to be subject to approval by the Federal Railway Board,
but the board of directors of each company to have power
to pay additional compensation to executive officers out of
moneys which otherwise would be payable to the stock
holders as dividends. The directors to be paid salaries ap
proved by the Federal Railway Board, subject to a deduc
tion for every meeting which they fail to attend.

4. The Federal Railway Board to have plenary and
exclusive power of regulation of the Federal corporations,
including power to require them to make any operating ar
rangements deemed desirable in the interests of the whole
country.

The Federal Railway Board to appoint regional boards
of regulation and one central board of regulation. A ma
jority of the members of each regional board to be
appointed from persons resident in the region in which the
board sits. Each regional board to have power to take
up any regional matters, including rate questions, at its
own initiative, or when directed by the central board of
regulation; but no regulation by a regional board to take
effect until approved by the central board of regulation.
(The latter requirement is deemed necessary to secure har
mony and is essential to the proper regulation of rates.)

The central board of regulation to deal primarily with
all through rates and matters affecting all regions of the
country. Questions relating to local rates and strictly
regional matters to be referred to the regional boards, sub
ject, however, to the supervision of the central board.

518 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

All acts and decisions of the central board as well as
of the regional boards of regulation to be subject to the
supreme authority of the Federal Railway Board.

Power to be vested in the Federal Railway Board,
through the central and regional boards of regulation,
(subject to the necessary constitutional limitations) to regu
late all rates of existing railway companies as well as those
of the Federal corporations and to execute all the powers
now vested in the Interstate Commerce Commission; but,
except as to rates and as to other matters of which the
Interstate Commerce Commission now has exclusive juris
diction, the existing companies to remain subject to regu
lation by the several States.

5. The Act of Congress to provide that each Federal
corporation shall pay in each State taxes on the proportion
of its property located within the State. The basis for fix
ing the aggregate value of the taxable property of each
corporation and for the apportionment thereof among the
States to be prescribed by the Act of Congress and all
questions of taxation to be decided in the first instance by
the Federal Railway Board subject to an appeal to the
Supreme Court.

The police powers of the several States in relation to
the Federal corporations, their officials and their property
to be left unabridged, except when in conflict with the Act of
Congress or with regulations of the Federal Railway Board.

6. Issues of debentures and stock of the Federal cor
porations to be made only as authorized by the Federal
Railway Board and for purposes approved by it. Deben
tures and stock to be issued as hereinafter provided to take
over existing lines when authorized by the Federal Rail
way Board. Additional debentures and stock for new con
struction, betterments and additions to be issued only up
to aggregate amounts authorized from time to time by Act
of Congress and each sale to be approved by the Secretary
of the Treasury.

7. The accounts of each Federal corporation to be
kept according to the best methods of accounting as pre
scribed by the Federal Railway Board and detailed annual
reports to be published.

8. The Federal Railway Board to have power to nego
tiate with the representatives of each railway company

THE RAILWAY PROBLEM— II 519

and with committees of its bondholders and stockholders
for a transfer of the property of their company to a desig
nated Federal corporation and for an exchange of their
bonds and stocks for debentures and stock of the Federal
corporation.

The aggregate amount of debentures and stock of a
Federal corporation to be issued for each property not to
exceed an amount fixed as provided in paragraph 14 intro
ductory to this plan on the basis of the estimated prospec
tive true operating income of the property, so that the
amount of interest and dividends guaranteed by the Gov
ernment shall in no case exceed sixty-five per cent, of the
estimated operating income of the property and that the
interest on the debentures shall not exceed forty per cent, of
this operating income. It is suggested tentatively that the
debentures of the Federal corporation be made payable in
sixty years and redeemable after forty years.

For example, if the true operating income of a railway
company is $6,000,000 per annum, the aggregate amount
of debentures and stock of the Federal corporation to be
issued for the company's property would be as follows:

(a) $60,000,000 of guaranteed 4 per cent, de
bentures, upon which the annual inter
est charge would be $2,400,000

(b) 600,000 shares of stock (without par
value) upon which $6 per share would
be earned and the Government would
guarantee $2.50 or 1,500,000

Total Government guaranty $3,900,000

The Government to have an optional right to purchase
the stock at any time at $85 per share.

As expenditures for unprofitable improvements, etc.,
would be deducted from the operating income shown un
der the rules of the Interstate Commerce Commission in
determining the true operating income for the purposes of
this plan, the whole amount thereof could properly be dis
tributed. Assuming that the operating income in excess of
dividends of $4 per share on the stock is to be divided
between the stockholders and the Government, the $6,000,-
000 of operating income would be applied as follows :

520 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

? Interest on $60,000,000 debentures $2,400,000

Dividend on 600,000 shares at $4 per

share .. 2,400,000

Balance to be divided between the Gov
ernment and the stockholders 1,200,000

Total $6,000,000

A railway to be acquired only if an amount of outstand
ing bonds satisfactory to the Federal Railway Board shall
be deposited for exchange into the debentures and stock of
the Federal corporation. Until bonds held by non-assent
ing bondholders are exchanged or paid off, an amount of
debentures creating the same aggregate interest charge as
the outstanding bonds to be reserved by the Federal cor
poration out of the aggregate amount to be issued by it for
the property. Bonds of existing companies received by a
Federal corporation upon such exchange to be kept alive
in its treasury and a separate account to be kept (unless
otherwise ordered by the Federal Railway Board) of the
earnings of each railway upon which there is a mortgage
securing unexchanged bonds, with a view to a foreclosure
of the mortgage in case the property should fail to earn the
interest on all bonds secured by the mortgage, including
those in the treasury of the Federal corporation.

Each Federal corporation to have power to condemn
existing lines of railway (subject to existing mortgages)
when authorized by the Federal Railway Board, the con
demnation proceedings to be carried on through special
tribunals established for that purpose.

It is not intended that all bondholders of a company
whose property is acquired shall receive the par amount
of their bonds in 4 per cent, guaranteed debentures and
that all stockholders shall receive share for share guaran
teed stock of the Federal corporation. The intention is
that the aggregate amount of debentures and stock to be
issued in each case shall be equitably apportioned by agree
ment among the stockholders and bondholders. Under
such arrangement some stockholders and bondholders may
receive more and some less than the par amount of their
present holdings.

THE ABIDING QUESTIONS

BY JOSEPH S. AUERBACH

If we vaunt of war's fame

Till throned curse it become,
And fetter'd Peace await shame

At the Triumph of Doom;
Will through deed Joy again have expression,
or alone in the dust-cover'd tome?

Should Wealth toil for increase
That the poor poorer grow,
And quicken'd without cease

Be ill seeds which men sow;
Shall such reproach be exalted, or living waters
these dead wastes overflow?

Should old wrongs prevail still

In contention with Right
And the Law and Good-will

Yield their standards to Might;
Is the issue to be with the Christ, the Fates,
or hope-dower'd, vanquishing knight?

If creeds fail at the end,
And the priest be no more,

And prayers never ascend

To a God as of yore ;

Will Faith die in the dark, or rear for the morn,
new shrines at which Truth to adore?

Are there thoughts to cherish

Of life in yon void,
Or shall we but perish,

Be enrich'd or destroyed?

And where shall the Soul find a grave for its death,
or whither set free be convoy'd?

ABODE OF JUSTICE

Portray not purposed Justice to be blind,
Where but freed eye may know if with constraint
Truth's cause is plead, or mere dissembling plaint

Be advocate to hold in thrall the mind ;

Wildered let her not grope through dark to find
The virtue, sorely overcome and faint
And mute with pallid woe, that dures attaint

Of calumny though to shame's death consign'd.

Have Justice sojourn in a temple fair,
With guerdoned sight; yet be frequented ways

Her dwelling-place, life's wastage to repair
And wrong arraign by sentence of her gaze,

To make prone worth with loveliness co-heir
Of favor, and it to joy's dawn upraise.

JOSEPH S. AUERBACH,

THE COMMUNITY OF LANGUAGE 1

BY JOHN GALSWORTHY

WE are celebrating the memory of a great man of Let
ters. What strikes me most about that golrious group of
New England writers — Emerson and Longfellow, Haw
thorne, Whittier, Thoreau, Motley, Holmes and Lowell —
is a certain measure and magnanimity. They were rare men
and fine writers, of a temper simple and unafraid.

I confess to thinking more of James Russell Lowell as
a critic and master of prose than as a poet. His single-
hearted enthusiasm for Letters had a glowing quality which
made it a guiding star for the frail barque of culture. His
humor, breadth of view, sagacity, and the all-round charac
ter of his activities has hardly been equalled in your coun
try. Not so great a thinker or poet as Emerson, not so
creative as Hawthorne, so original in philosophy and life as
Thoreau, so racy and quaint as Holmes, he ran the gamut
of those qualities as none of the others did ; and as critic and
analyst of literature surpassed them all.

But I cannot hope to add anything of value to your es
timate and praise of Lowell — critic, humorist, poet, editor,
reformer, man of Letters, man of State affairs. I may, per
haps, be permitted however to remind you of two sayings
of his : " I am never lifted up to any peak of vision — but
that when I look down in hope to see some valley of the
Beautiful Mountains I behold nothing but blackened ruins,
and the moans of the down-trodden the world over. . . .
Then it seems as if my heart would break in pouring out
one glorious song that should be the Gospel of Reform,
full of consolation and strength to the oppressed — that way
my madness lies." That was one side of the youthful
Lowell, the generous righter of wrongs, the man. And this

1 An address delivered before the Academy of Arts and Letters in celebration of
the Lowell Centenary, February 22, 1919.

524 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

other saying: " The English-speaking nations should build
a monument to the misguided enthusiasts of the plains of
Shinar, for as the mixture of many bloods seems to have
made them the most vigorous of modern races, so has the
mingling of divers speeches given them a language which is
perhaps the noblest vehicle of poetic thought that ever ex
isted." That was the other side of Lowell, the enthusiast
for Letters ; and that the feeling he had about our language.

I am wondering, indeed, what those men who in the
fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth centuries were welding the
English language would think if they could visit this hall
tonight, if suddenly we saw them sitting here among us in
their monkish dress, their homespun, or their bright armor,
having come from a greater Land even than America — the
Land of the Far Shades. What expression should we see
on the dim faces of them, as they took in the marvellous
fact that the instrument of speech they forged in the cot
tages, courts, cloisters, and castles of their little misty island
had become the living speech of half the world, and the
second tongue for all the nations of the other half I For
even so it is now — this English language, which they made,
and Shakespeare crowned, which you speak and we speak,
and men speak under the Southern Cross, and unto the
Arctic Seas !

I do not think that you Americans and we English are
any longer strikingly alike in physical type or general char
acteristics, no more than I think there is much resemblance
between yourselves and the Australians. Our link is now
but community of language — and the infinity 'which this
connotes.

Perfected language — and ours and yours had come to
flower before white men began to seek these shores — is so
much more than a medium through which to exchange ma
terial commodities; it is cement of the spirit, mortar link
ing the bricks of pur thoughts into a single structure of
ideals and laws, painted and carved with the rareties of our
fancy, the manifold forms of Beauty and Truth. We who
speak American and you who speak English are conscious
of a community which no differences can take from us. Per
haps the very greatest result of the grim years we have just
been passing through is the promotion of our common
tongue to the position of the universal language. The im
portance of the English-speaking peoples is now such that

COMMUNITY^OF LANGUAGE 525

the educated man in every country will perforce, as it were,
acquire a knowledge of our speech. The second-language
problem, in my judgment, has been solved. Numbers, and
geographical and political accident have decided a question
which I think will never seriously be reopened, unless mad
ness descends on us and we speakers of English fight among
ourselves. That fate I, at least, cannot see haunting the
future.

Lowell says in one of his earlier writings : " We are the
furthest from wishing to see what many are so ardently
praying for, namely, a National Literature; for the same
mighty lyre of the human heart answers the touch of the
master in all ages and in every clime, and any literature in
so far as it is national is diseased in so much as it appeals to
some climatic peculiarity rather than to universal nature."
That is very true, but good fortune has now made of our
English speech a medium of internationality .

Henceforth you and we are the inhabitants and guard
ians of a great Spirit-City, to which the whole world will
make pilgrimage. They will make that pilgrimage pri
marily because our City is a market-place. It will be for
us to see that they who come to trade remain to worship.

What is it we seek in this motley of our lives, to what
end do we ply the multifarious traffic of civilization? Is
it that we may become rich and satisfy a material caprice
ever growing with the opportunity of satisfaction? Is it
that we may, of set and conscious purpose, always be getting
the better of one another? Is it even, that of no sort of con
scious purpose we may pound the roads of life at top speed,
and blindly use up our little energies? I cannot think so.
Surely in dim sort we are trying to realize human happi
ness, trying to reach a far-off goal of health and kindliness
and beauty; trying to live so that those qualities which make
us human beings — the sense of proportion, the feeling for
beauty, pity, and the sense of humor — should be ever more
exalted above the habits and passions that we share with the
tiger, the ostrich, and the ape.

And so I would ask what will become of all our recon
struction in these days if it be informed and guided solely
by the spirit of the market-place? Do trade, material pros
perity, and the abundance of creature comforts guarantee
that we advance towards our real goal? Material comfort
in abundance is no bad thing; I confess to a considerable

526 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

regard for it. But for true progress it is but a flighty con
sort. I can well see the wreckage from the world-storm
completely cleared away, the fields of life ploughed and
manured, and yet no wheat grown there which can feed the
spirit of man, and help its stature.

Lest we suffer such a disillusion as that, what powers
and influence can we exert? There is one at least: The
proper and exalted use of this great and splendid instru
ment, our common language. In a sophisticated world
speech is action, words are deeds; we cannot watch our
winged words too closely. Let us at least make our lan
guage the instrument of Truth ; prune it of lies and extrava
gance, of perversions and all the calculated battery of par
tisanship; train ourselves to such sobriety of speech, and
penmanship, that we come to be trusted at home and abroad;
so making our language the medium of honesty and fair-
play, that meanness, violence, sentimentality, and self-seek
ing become strangers in our lands. Great and evil is the
power of the lie, of the violent saying, and the calculated
appeal to base or dangerous motive ; let us, then, make them
fugitives among us, outcast from our speech!

I have often thought during these past years what an
ironical eye Providence must have been turning on National
Propaganda — on all the disingenuous breath which has been
issued to order, and all those miles of patriotic writings duti
fully produced in each country, to prove to other countries
that they are its inferiors! A very little wind will blow
those ephemeral sheets into the limbo of thin air. Al
ready they are decomposing, soon they will be dust. To
my thinking there are only two forms of National Propa
ganda, two sorts of evidence of a country's worth, which
defy the cross-examination of Time: The first and most
important is the rectitude and magnanimity of a Country's
conduct; its determination not to take advantage of the
weakness of other countries, nor to tolerate tyranny within
its own borders. And the other lasting form of Propa
ganda is the work of the thinker and the artist, of men whose
unbidden, unfettered hearts are set on the expression of
Truth and Beauty as best they can perceive them. Such
Propaganda the old Greeks left behind them, to the imper
ishable glory of their land. By such Propaganda Marcus
Aurelius, Plutarch; Dante, St. Francis; Cervantes, Spinoza;
Montaigne, Racine; Chaucer, Shakespeare; Goethe, Kant;

COMMUNITY OF LANGUAGE 527

Turgenev, Tolstoi ; Emerson, Lowell — a thousand and one
more, have exalted their countries in the sight of all and
advanced the stature of mankind.

You may have noticed in life that when we assure others
of our virtue and the extreme rectitude of our conduct, we
make on them but a sorry impression. If on the other hand
we chance to perform some just act or kindness, of which
they hear, or to produce a beautiful work which they can
see, we become exalted in their estimation though we did
not seek to be. And so it is with Countries. They may
proclaim their powers from the housetops — they will but
convince the wind; but let their acts be just, their temper
humane, the speech and writings of their peoples sober, the
work of their thinkers and their artists true and beautiful—
and those Countries shall be sought after and esteemed.

We, who possess in common the English language—
" best result of the confusion of tongues " Lowell called it—
that most superb instrument for the making of word-music,
for the telling of the truth, and the expression of the imag
ination, may well remember this: That, in the use we
make of it, in the breadth, justice, and humanity of our
thoughts, the vigor, restraint, clarity, and beauty of the set
ting we give to them, we have our greatest chance to make
our Countries lovely and beloved, to further the happiness
of mankind, and to keep immortal the priceless comrade
ship between us.

JOHN GALSWORTHY.

AN ITALIAN POETESS -AD A NEGRI

BY RUTH SHEPARD PHELPS

IT has almost ceased to be the rule for women to demand
that their works of art be judged as if they were men's. That
they be judged with equal seventy, this indeed they do re
quire, and are coming nearer perhaps than heretofore to
getting, but fewer women now than fifty years ago would
choose that their work should be mistaken for that of a
man, or care to adopt a masculine pseudonym like George
Eliot or George Sand, in the hope that it might be. It is
well, perhaps, that women are thus developing a kind of
class consciousness, which enables them to face with more
equanimity the charge that this or that is " just like a
woman," for it is difficult to see why it should be intrinsical
ly more fortunate that a woman's book should be mistaken
for a man's, than an Englishman's for a Russian's. Point of
view contributes elements of its own to a work of art, and
a woman's must necessarily be different in some respects
from a man's. If she never expresses it honestly for her
self, how is the one-half of the world to learn how the other
half lives?

The Italian poetess who is best known today outside of
her own country did not, however, begin by expressing
woman as distinct from man. Her earliest book was not
the voice of a woman, but the cry of a class. Such poetry
was new to Italian literature, although there has seldom
been a period of its history when some poetry has not been
political. Most Italian poets from Dante to Carducci have
diverted a part of their lyric passion from love to politics.
The poets of the nineteenth century fought for the inde
pendence of Italy with both the pen and the sword, and
some of the best Italian poetry must always fail to make
its way across the Alps or across the Atlantic, because it

AN ITALIAN POETESS— ADA NEGRI 529

requires such a minute knowledge of Italian history for its
better understanding. But the oppression that poets had
lamented in beautiful verse heretofore had been the weight
of the foreigner's heel; the bitter cry of the poor had not
been heard. Ada Negri's early poems, on the other hand,
while they seemed to speak in the well-remembered voice
of the old Lombard spirit of revolt, which Frederick II
had heard lifted against him, and which spoke against the
Austrian in the bloody Five Days of Milan, were railing
at no political oppressor, but at the more impersonal cruel
ties of the social order. It was in the early nineties that
they began to be heard, when readers of the well-known
evening paper of Milan, // Corriere della sera, experienced
a gathering curiosity as to the authorship of certain fiery
little poems that appeared in it from time to time. They
bore the short and non-committal signature of Ada Negri,
and uttered the complaint of oppressed industry, which
had never made itself heard in Italian verse before. They
sang, in rather rough, stirring verses, the wretchedness of
the helpless and the poor, of the old, and the beaten; they
described the long miseries of unemployment, mutilated
hands of factory women, the workman broken by his work,
the vagabond who never knew a home and who lies at last
beneath the stranger's dissecting knife, the bewildered
family of evicted tenants, their humble goods confessing
their paucity and pitiful domestic shifts too frankly to the
daylight.

Nothing was known of the writer, save what could be
pieced together out of the scanty bits of information scat
tered through these poems. It was a woman, so much was
certain. The habit of the Romance tongues, with their
gracious feminine adjectives (which describe the feminine
moiety of the animate and inanimate world), left no doubt
of it, although she did not insist on the point as yet, nor
seem to draw any material from it And she was young:

Mine is youth, and all of life is mine! . . .
In the mortal struggle,
None, none shall ever see me once repine.
High above ruin, above cares and tears,
Shine out my twenty years !

It could be believed that she lived at Motta-Visconti, a
little village of the Lombard plain, on that river Ticino
which Charles Albert crossed at the outset of his ill-fated

VOL. ccix.-— NO. 761. 34

530 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

campaign of 1848, because her poems were dated from
there; and it was easy to see that she worshipped her
mother, who had supported her childhood with the work
of her hands.

While I, a happy child, would softly cower
Into the pillows, sinking into sleep,
Bent to her needle evenings, hour by hour,
My mother watch did keep.

And again, in a poem called " The Factory Mother," we
may safely substitute a daughter for the son in the poem,
and find another portrait of the poetess's valiant mother.

Her son is at his books. — She at the loom
Pours her heart's blood out without rest or ruth.

And of her worn old age
She makes glad sacrifice, as once of youth.

And Ada Negri was brave:

Who's knocking at my door?

. . . Good day, Misfortune, thou'lt not frighten me !

But there was the acerbity of youth in her courage. Even
friendship drew back from her girlish austerity that dis
dained laughter, while love she strove to chill and terrify
with her pride.

You, who are generous, fair, and strong,
Ask love of me? . . . Nay, cease!

If fate reserves you hope and song,

Cast yourself not in my dark path.

Go, earth is rich in love and peace,
But I, oh youth, am wrath !

And Ada Negri was ambitious.

Conscious of her genius, and of a mission, the only lover
she sought was fame, and in the " Factory Mother's " hopes
for her son, it is not hard to discern her own ambitions.

Her son, her only son,
Her mighty pride through poverty, who now

On his broad serious brow
Shows to her hope the flash of genius' sun, . . .

Her son shall study. — In her visions bold

She sees him great and envied, free from dread,

And fame for his dark head
Shall weave a wreath of laurel and of gold.

On her own dark head, no doubt, she and her mother

AN ITALIAN POETESS—ADA NEGRI 531

looked to see the future lay a crown, and the present indif
ference of the world moves her impatience.

For all my struggles, though I curse and weep,
The world goes by and laughs, and hears me not.

These poems, and many more like them, revealing a
young, rather crude, intense and honest personality, were
gathered at last into a volume called " Fate" (Fatalita),
and a preface, written for it by Signora Sofia Albisi, sat
isfied in part the growing curiosity of her readers. They
learned that the vehement young poetess was a schoolmis
tress, who had to harness her genius to the humble and
fatiguing task of teaching a hundred little children of
Motta-Visconti their a b c; that she lived alone with the
mother she loved, trudging to and fro to the schoolroom
each day in wooden shoes ; that she had never seen the sea,
nor a mountain, nor a city, but had nourished all her fires
of imagination on books and dreams alone. For books, it
appeared, were not lacking. An anonymous admirer of
her verses sent her great parcels of them from Milan by
every post, with all the reviews and latest published liter
ary gossip. With her voracity and sure instinct, she hap
pily appropriated what she needed, and based many cor
rect literary judgments on a hint or clue in a book review.
We may not be wrong, indeed, in concluding that she read
more book-reviews than books, since there are no traces
of reading in her poetry, and its form does not suggest
any previous study of a literature in which excellence
of form has been supreme. Hers is a poetry of sincerity,
of experience, and owes little to poetic tradition.
Cold, I am cold near you, old books severe!

To read Fatalita when it was new, was something like
reading the first installment of an autobiographic novel.
What would life do to this ardent, candid, young maiden
spirit, endowed, it would seem, with great emotional power
and sensibility, and the " experiencing nature " which
heightens and interprets all personal experience? At any
rate, she was not long to remain the inexperienced school
mistress of Motta-Visconti, though she was later to realize
that in the four years she spent there " had been enclosed,
as in a magic ring, the best part of her life, the most in
genuous, the richest in energy and freshness." It was, as
a Florentine poet was to tell her in after years, her " heroic
period."

532 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Earlier still, in her childhood, she had lived at Lodi,
lived a life, as she writes long after from the safe shelter
of wealth and fame, " almost cloistral, almost aristocratic,
in its austere poverty. I dwelt with my mother in two
small rooms on the third floor of a beautiful house in Corso
Roma, overlooking the garden. The little rooms were
gleaming with whitewash and cleanliness; from our tiny
balconies we could see the vast garden, walled-in like a
convent's, all green and silent. . . . My mother used
to leave for her workroom at five o'clock in the morning,
and would not return till evening. After school hours I
used to stay alone with my books, almost always seated on
one of the little balconies, facing that green conventual
peace. I dreamed and studied much; without friends,
without desires, melancholy by temperament, I would pass
hours upon hours in absorbed contemplation of the slow
course of the sunlight as it crept over the old garden's high
ivied walls, which were overspread with climbing roses."

When she had first left her studious life of balconied
meditation for the noisy roomful of children at Motta-Vis-
conti, who submitted themselves against their will to their
alphabet and ciphering, she was appalled by the shock of
the contrast. Yet it was among these rough children, and
in sight of the meager and difficult life their families led,
that her human sympathies developed, and she came to
understand poverty. " When at the age of twenty I wrote
* The Failures,' (I Vinti], feeling myself fairly encircled,
imprisoned and oppressed by the anguish of the suffering
many, I wrote in red, with the heart's blood of those who
had suffered with my mother and me, the most powerful
and the most characteristic of my wild rustic verses."

Fame found Ada Negri quickly after Fatalita opened
the road, and the " Milli Prize " from Florence, which
assured her for the next ten years an annuity of a few hun
dred dollars, was accompanied by the offer of a teaching
post in the Normal School at Milan. Here she could re
visit the Brera galleries, and enjoy the many wonders of
city life which had so excited her during a three-day visit
arranged a year or two before by her good friend Signora
Albisi. Now she could share that life to the full. It was
fairly certain that a part of her new experience would be
that the harsh young virgin would fall in love, since she
was now living for the first time among her equals, in a

AN ITALIAN POETESS—ADA NEGRI 533

circle where intellectual and emotional cultivation might
be taken for granted. And in fact the second volume of
poems, Tempeste, bears witness to such an experience, brief
but disturbing. There is suspense, absence, final desertion
and disappointment; but her splendid strength reasserts
itself, and the proud poem Ego sum declares her enfran
chisement from love's sorrows, and her repossession of her
self. A poem some pages farther on, entitled Amor Novo,
suggests final recovery.

In spite of a few such autobiographical hints as these,
this second volume is chiefly concerned with such subjects
as filled the first. Some of the most striking pictures of
poverty and industrial miseries, such as " Eviction," " The
Strike," " After the Strike," are in Tempeste, as well as
the noble and sympathetic poem, I Grandi (which might
be rendered "The Truly Great"). These are, she says:

The Hungry, the Oppressed, who drag life's chain,

Whom Nature dealt harsh lot,
Who never knew reprieve or truce from pain,

(And yet have hated not!)
Who saw for others ripening the grain,

(And yet have pillaged not!)

WhoVe but a bed of straw whereon to lie,

Ailing and slow to mend;
Who've but a hospital cot whereon to die,

Yet love unto the end.

The allusion in the next but last line receives added poign
ancy from our knowledge that it was on a hospital bed
that Ada Negri's own father had died. A poem in this
same volume, L'Ospedale Maggiore, commemorates a visit
she paid to the spot where he drew his last breath.

St. Joseph's Alley, far down to the right,
At Number Twenty. No one's in that bed,
Where years ago, this pillow at his head,
My father lay one night.

He died. And I, — frail baby in my cot,
For whom he shed his sacred dying tears,
Whom he adored, — of him, across the years,
Remember naught.

In the same year with the publication of Tempeste,
when Ada Negri was twenty-six, came the announcement
of her marriage, and readers remembered Amor Novo.
The next volume was eight years in coming to light, and

534 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

was entitled Maternita. Long before, in the days of her
armored maidenhood when she repelled the thought of
love, the maternal instinct was already articulate in her,
and she invoked maternity in a poem beginning " Never
a child of my own! " With her ardor of nature, and her
literary habit of self-revealment, we look for and find full
expression of the experience which had absorbed those
eight years of silence. The emotion of the mother who is
waiting for her child to come into the world, — " terrible
little strange voice, which cries to the infinite tenderness
of motherhood : ' Life, here am I P " — the ecstasy of some
moment when she hears her child cry out to her in a sunny
April garden, the terror of the shadow that hangs over all
parents, the fear that their child may die, — all these in
tense moments of motherhood are caught, live and palpi
tating, and imprisoned in words. Very striking is her
" Dialogue " with her unborn child:

'Tis he — from being's depths unknown
He stirs, in dreams I hear him cry :
" In this pale, vast content am I,

Why wilt thou claim me for thine own ?

" Too sad thy world ; I know its gloom ;

The unreturning dead have told.

I ask not life. Oh, overbold
Mother, to shape me in thy womb ! " . . .

" Nay, to one solemn call above

No soul is silent, rebel none.

Child, if love light for thee the sun,
Live thou, burn thou, love back my love ! "]

Yet with all her passion, her intelligence is not sub
merged; it tells her that she could endure it better than
her husband if the shadow should envelop them and they
should lose their child. For she would have the consola
tion of her art, and the relief of expression.

I ? Yes, I still could bear to live,

Among her scattered, silent toys,
Her lettered blocks, her blonde-haired dolls,

That shut their china eyes — her joys !

White-haired and broken, still I'd live,

And proudly fight to my last breath
To master sorrow, and constrain,

In verses that should challenge death. . . .

1Dora Greenwell McChesney, In the Thrush, 1910.

AN ITALIAN POETESS— ADA NEGRI 535

But you, without the tiny bed
That held your blossom, your white elf,

You would not then have anything.
I know that you would kill yourself.

The marriage of Ada Negri made a great difference to
her literary career, not so much in the fertility and quality
of her poetry as in the way it was received. The cry of
social injustice being new in Italian poetry, her poems had
seemed to identify her with a movement Arturo Gio-
vanitti had claimed her for internationalism in " The In
ternational," calling her " the sister-of-charity of the class
war," and she had become something almost legendary, a
kind of Joan of Arc of the poor. The legend received a
rude shock when her marriage to a wealthy manufacturer
of Biella, " the Manchester of Italy," lifted her into the
very class that class warfare is directed against. Reviewers
of a hasty turn of mind, who were fond of catchwords, began
to talk of Ada Negri's apostasy; and however unjust it
may have been, some harm was assuredly done her literary
reputation, in so far as that rested on the legend of the
wooden shoes.

That it was unjust, any fair-minded critic cannot but
feel. Her marriage did not at all destroy her sympathy for
the humble and the oppressed; indeed in the poem Amor
Novo, which we may fairly connect chronologically with
her marriage, she warns her lover that he must espouse with
her the cause of her poor. The poor and the suffering
claimed her, she says, before he did; as long as she lives
their path is hers.

It is for that you love me? Oh then, come,
Come with me, in the very name of grief. . . .

Come, come with me ! Our chosen home shall be
Wherever a defeated man needs aid,
Wherever lonely childhood is afraid,
Wherever seethe the ills of poverty.

This does not sound like betrayal. In any case, she had
betrayed nothing, for she had promised nothing. She had
merely made the instant response of a very ardent nature to
such suffering as she had seen and understood. Later she
was to see and understand other kinds. Her early life had
thrown her among the impoverished slaves of industry, and
she interpreted them with sympathy; marriage made her a

536 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

mother, and her sympathy then went out to mothers. Many
of the poems of Maternita sing their sorrows; a pathetic
young mother, dead with her dead child in her arms ; one
demented with sorrow, who, unwilling to stay behind, has
followed hers into the grave; the desperate one, who is
driven by hunger or shame to abandon hers in the streets ;
the factory worker who can spare but three days in which
to bring a dead child into the world — these are all brought
before us in unforgettable little vignettes. It was not that
Ada Negri's capacity for suffering in the sufferings of others
had failed in prosperity, it was only that her sympathy had
always been more personal and less sociological than it ap
peared.

She reversed the usual development, which is from the
narrower to the wider, from the personal to the general.
So far is this true that she was not to know until her thirties
that kind of causeless melancholy which is oftener the in
dulgence of youth. Between her first three volumes of poetry
and her last two, " Exile " and " Out of the Depths," there
seems to have opened a gulf across her life. The fire, the
struggle, the triumph of the earlier time, have given way to a
dull depression, a kind of anaemia of the spirit, which seem
the mark of a different personality. There are, to be sure,
some objective reasons hinted at. A second baby girl has
been born to her, only to die at the end of a month ; she feels
the first chill of middle age, " the melancholy of the first gray
hairs " ; her remaining daughter will soon be out of child
hood, less dependent and less near; she has had a long sick
ness which threatened to prove mortal ; society has claimed
and tamed her, and left her half cynical and disillusioned.

You do not know me? I may seem

More fair to-day, more flexible

In my smooth sheath of tawny velvet

Which likens me unto a panther.

I know now how to do my hair in waves,

As well as ladies who go past in carriages ;

I now can feign a smile,

Even while my heart breaks ; I can break a promise,

Give, with a cup of tea, my hand

To those who turn their backs upon my door

To tear my name to tatters, and my heart.

Her heart aches, " as if they had trampled me under
foot," she has lost faith and thinks of suicide. Where now
the valor of her strenuous girlhood, which defied misfortune

AN ITALIAN POETESS— ADA NEGRI 537

to frighten her, and bade misery good day? There is noth
ing left of it but the restlessness and rebellion. Her cour
age had perhaps exhausted itself against the external ob
stacles of poverty and oblivion; against the inward foes of
the spirit there was no fight left in her. Then, too, for her
it was so evidently true that

That age is best which is the first.

for by the time she was thirty the factory woman's
daughter had left her wooden shoes outside the door of a
palace, and gone to live inside it, and had received the two
guerdons she had most desired from life, motherhood and
fame. The end of the serial came too soon. " Man's aim
is to culminate," remarked Meredith; " but it is the saddest
thing in the world to feel that we have accomplished it."
Ada Negri had now to seek new occasions for living, or do
without. She had not books to fall back upon, for hers is
not a learned muse ; and the writing impulse, while it did
not fail her, just as she had prophesied it would not, did
not suffice to keep alive her wish to live beyond the quar-
antalne. Perhaps, she says to the woman in the glass,

Perhaps, poor soul,

To perish in thy Spring were wise,

Ere time, more fearful far than death,

Make thee a stranger to thine eyes.

Perhaps, poor soul,

To close thyself the door were sweet —

The door of dark and silence — while

Thine eyes still glow with youth's last smile.

It is not possible to imagine the grave intellectualism of
Alice Meynell or the high spirituality of Emily Dickinson
permitting either to address herself thus; and Christina
Rossetti, faced with this crisis in a woman's life, " answered
'Yea!' But a woman of Latin race would feel more
sharply the failure of her vie de femme. Even a poetess
does not know how to survive her roman. For strangely
enough, since it was never love that she asked of the gods,
save once or twice in mere lip-service to rhetoric, it is pre
cisely her roman that Ada Negri in her later verse bewails
and invokes. It is as if outraged Aphrodite were avenging
herself on the proud virgin of Fatalita, when Ada Negri
owns to herself, in " Confession," and " To the One Who

538 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Never Came," that the spring of her life is broken because
no one has ever moved her to the love of which she was
capable.

I was none other's, yet was never thine.
I am my own,

she writes — to whom? To the stranger she writes:

I waited for you long after that day

When first I knew that I had come to flower,

A March primrose. One came, with true heart's dower.

But " Tis not he ! " my heart did softly say.

Sunshine and rain, thorns, roses, chaff and wheat,
The years brought to me. Love they brought me too.
But brought not you ! Yet one resembled you,
Who knew to take my heart with magic sweet.

I lost myself, my pride aside I threw.
. . . It was not you !

In a group of affectionate domestic poems in Maternita
entitled Dolcezze, and dedicated " To Giovanni," there oc
curs this stanza :

To tell the tender love
Which binds my heart to thy true heart alone —

That love thou doubtest of ! —
See at thy feet, what flowers on flowers I've thrown !

But it is evident that the instinct of her lover was sure.
" Tender love," though sincere and wishful to be satisfying,
was not all that her nature could have been moved to, and
in " Confession " she admits it

Now when the night weighs heavy on the pain

Of them that watch, and you are face to face

With your sole self, alone and cold in space,

Wrapped in your shift, as penitents have lain. . . .

Confess that your rebellious disaccord

Is nothing but a wail of sick distress

From a weak soul who missed her happiness

Because she failed to find her heart's true lord. . . .

And — though to say it be like a whip-stroke

Upon your pride — that if tomorrow he

Should come to you with arms outstretched, you'd be

The very slave of love, and love your yoke !

If Ada Negri's poems succeed, in her own proud phrase,
in " challenging death," it will be more for their human

AN ITALIAN POETESS— ADA NEGRI 539

than for their literary value. Hers is a poetry without art
and largely without form; it has little melodic beauty, and
she comes cheaply off for her rhymes in a language where
nearly all participles and infinitives can be made to chime.
It is a poetry which is not poetic. But it is the direct, un
forced expression of a deep sincerity, that has carrying
power in all departments of life. She has broken through
the literary woman's frequent reticence, a reticence that
masks itself below a flood of misleading words, and has been
frank where she might have dressed her emotions prettily
in plumes borrowed from man's view of her. It has not
been, it would seem, a difficult frankness. Ada Negri gives
to a singular degree the impression of having written in the
only way it was possible to her to write, her verse having
been forced from her by the power of her feeling and of her
impulse to self-expression.

But while she has thus given us some authentic docu
ments of feminine psychology, a field in which most pub
lished knowledge has come at second hand, (through obser
vation), it is safe to prophesy that she will be remembered
as the author of / Vinti and I Grandi rather than of Con-
fessione. That is partly, of course, because of the legend,
because of the personal appeal of the poor and proud young
schoolmistress of Motta-Visconti. Her own eyes and heart
evidently turn back with regretful longing to her " heroic
period," and we may leave her with a quotation from the
most finished of her poems, " The Return to Motta-
Visconti," whither she makes a sad pilgrimage, her baby
girl tugging at her skirts, to look for her lost youth, and
" that past of struggle and of hope, her rebellious, splendid
past."

She saw again the twenty-year-old girl,

Her forehead marked with destiny's bright ray,

Trip down the steep roadway,

A proud young eaglet, winged and strong.

Her room, full of bright ghosts, she saw again,

The bed, where sleepless nights were full of song;

She seemed to see from her own veins the blood

Pour forth into her rhymes its flood,

Rhymes that went through the world upborne by pain,

That seemed a tocsin bell,

Of bare homes without bread or fire to tell,

And the dull grief of earth's defeated ones.

RUTH SHEPARD PHELPS.

LEAVES OF JAPANESE POETRY

BY GERTRUDE EMERSON

I CHANCED to be idling along the main street of the lit
tle village of Nikko looking into shop windows one autumn
morning, when the wind was whistling down the mountains
through his teeth. Many of the shops were already boarded
up, the transient trade of summer tourists gone with the but
terflies, but there was one whose windows still presented a
tempting display of old blue and white porcelain, bronze
bells, incense burners, carved and lacquered bowls, and all
that assortment of small, fashioned things which speak so
eloquently the language of a different age than ours. Out
in front was the shop-keeper, rubbing his hands with the
cold, and bowing and smiling an invitation to enter. A
threshold always signifies possible adventure. As soon as
I had passed into the shop my eyes fell upon a small crepe
paper book, called Sword and Blossom Poems, lying on the
edge of a table. Blue waves were chasing one another
across its covers, half hidden by scalloped clouds of orange
and purple, and scattered grey cherry blossoms. I do not
remember now which poem I read first, but it may have
been this one :

I have so long been sick, I cannot tell
What path the spring has taken, yet I fear
That long ago the cherry blossom fell
For which mine eyes had waited all the year.

There is a picture by Koho illustrating it — a temple
pagoda rising from among green tree-tops, and on the oppo
site page, under a cherry tree from which all the blossoms
are gone, an old man in a blue coat and a yellow kimono
leaning pensively on his staff. A brief introduction to the

LEAVES OF JAPANESE POETRY 541

volume stated that the score of verses contained within its
covers were translations of classic Japanese poems written
over a thousand years ago.

When I returned to Tokyo a few days later, I wrote to
a young friend of mine and asked him if he would not come
and teach me a little about the spirit of poetry in his coun
try. He had a very strange and intense feeling for English,
this Japanese boy: feelings strange and intense on many
subjects. I do not think he ever quite understood why I
bothered so much about the question of poetry. It was all
so very natural and simple, and there were other questions
infinitely more important. For instance, when a young
man graduates from a government Middle School, what
attitude is he going to adopt toward compulsory mili
tary service? Loyalty to the Emperor and to one's country
constitute the first principles of living, but it is hard to give
up three years of one's life to learn how to become an excel
lent machine, if one has a passion for books and study, and
a shrinking from the brutality of war.

" But sometimes I think the purpose of life is that you
should do all things you do not want to do! " he said once
with an almost ascetic fervor. It was as though the circles
of his questioning had broken with a faint metallic clang
on the far shore of some impregnable ground.

I found it curiously difficult to get him to say anything
concrete, to set any formula, to establish any landmark,
whereby one might recognize the tidal ebb and flow, or the
little lanes and currents, of Japanese poetic expression, and
in the end I was forced to fall back on a system of mechani
cal questions. Then, in his soft voice, hesitating now and
then for the right word, he would answer to the best of his
ability. Always with a puzzled air, as if he did not quite
grasp the why and wherefore of this alien questing after
his country's gods. He was very gentle, almost shy; with
a laugh that rustled like a paper fan.

Outside the snow fell in flurries, and great crows, calling
raucously to one another, came and perched on the cedar
tree in the garden or ate the little scarlet, lace-like leaves
that still clung desperately to the bare branches of the maple
trees ; or maybe there was fine, misty grey rain, or real sun
shine sliding up the steep slopes of the tiled roofs. The
afternoons were always short, for he came after school hours,
and very soon the blue shadows would sweep down Valley

542 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Street and the lantern fireflies come out here and there: and
in the temple compound at the foot of the hill, the paper
shoji gleamed through the gathering dusk. Sometimes, if
the day had been clear, Fuji hung like a purple veil at the
end of the tilted street. It was then that the Japanese maid
brought the tea, and we put away the disconnected notes for
another day, without sorting them.

II

One forgets, and remembers with increasing astonish
ment, how long ago a great part of this Japanese poetry was
written down. Before King Alfred was born in England
a significant collection of 4496 poems of old Japan, in
twenty volumes, called the Manyoshiu, or Myriad Leaves,
had already been made. In 905 a second collection, the
Kokinshiu, a Record of Ancient Things, was compiled, and
in 1235 the Hyakuninishiu, or Hundred Poems of a Hun
dred Poets, gained a popularity which they have not for
feited to this day. Still other important collections fol
lowed, made always by Imperial order, known under the
general name of the Anthologies of the One-and-Twenty
Reigns.

We are told of strange " poem parties " in those earlier
days of Japanese history — of the River Winding Festivals,
when lords and ladies and the throng of the Nara Court,
even unto the Emperor himself, descended to the banks of
a stream to launch little cups of rice-wine and tilt in the
making of such verses as this one:

No man so callous but he heaves a sigh

When o'er his head the withered cherry flowers

Come floating down. Who knows ? The spring's soft showers

May be but tears shed by the sorrowing sky.1

If spring and love were not the theme, then surely it was
the sorrow of autumn, for the stops are few and often
played upon in this ancient poetry of the Nara epoch.

There were even more fantastic gatherings when the
Court was holding holiday for three centuries in Kyoto.
The uta-awase assumed the proportions of the most elab
orate of state ceremonies. Rare flowering trees and plants
decorated the Imperial halls, where the assemblage, glitter
ing and stiff in gorgeous brocade, solemnly concocted poetry

1 B. H. Chamberlain, Japanese Classical Poetry. London, 1880.

LEAVES OF JAPANESE POETRY 543

according to rules as formal as court etiquette. It must
have been on such occasions as these that Tadahira, younger
brother of the leader of the great Fujiwara family and him
self a proven warrior, won lasting fame by his inspiration
of uttering the cry of a cuckoo every time he opened the fan
upon which he had painted an image of that noble bird.
The making of many an official of state hung on a thread
slender as the ability to turn an effective conceit in verse.

It was in the Kyoto or Heian era (A. D., 798-1192) that
the poetic mania of Japan reached its height. When the
flood of Chinese influence swept over the country through
the Korean gate, ear-marking for all time the religion,
the art, the learning, all the complicated cere
monial of life, it scarcely touched the poetry. This
was, and remained, one of the few original pro
ductions of the Japanese genius. Perhaps there was
something alien in Chinese literature, something too
philosophic, over-passionate, which was unacceptable to
Japanese taste. But although Chinese influence did not
directly mold the poetry of Japan, the Chinese culture
which was superimposed on the country was responsible for
much that was significant in its subsequent development. A
material and artistic civilization was the first result of Chi
nese domination, a civilization in which religious concepts
exercised little or no restraining influence, as in the T'ang
and Sung periods in China. The history of the Heian
epoch is the succession of stages by which a culture based
on principles of aristocracy alone precipitated its own ruin
— refinement of idle pastimes, sensuousness, unparalleled ex
travagance, excesses of every kind.

Art has always reserved unto itself the high privilege
of selection. Poetry but lifts the hem of its garment above
the general contamination : the contrast between dreams and
reality is only the more poignant. Tsurayuki, a nobleman
of the first half of the tenth century, writes from the center
of the licentious court life delicate verses about gathering
simples on the hills, fantasies as illusive as dragon flies :

As on the mountains, when the clouds above
Fall to the earth in mist — a man may see
The dim white blossom of some cherry tree,
So only have I seen the one I love.1

1 Sword and Blossom Poems, done in English verse by Sbotaro Kimura and Char
lotte M. A. Peake.

544 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

The usual explanation is that the large number of wom
en writers influenced for the better the literature of the
period. There were indeed some of signal distinction: the
pathetic figure of Ono no Komachi, and Murasaki Shikibu,
author of the most famous of Japanese classical romances.
A typical bit of fleeting verse has come down from the
brush of Murasaki Shikibu:

I wandered out this moonlight night,

I think that someone hurried by,

But ah, the clouds obscured the light. . . .

I only heard a wind-blown sigh !

However true it may be that women influenced the char
acter of the poetry — in its lack of robustness, its flower-like
grace, a certain indefinable exquisiteness — the particular
point of propriety does not rest with them. They did not
possess it. It belongs rather to the rigid code of etiquette
which prescribed that even the most profligate courtesan
should go abroad with her face modestly covered, and con
verse with her lover through a paper door or from behind
a screen; to that formalism which has grown around the
heart of life in Japan and stifled natural expression.

The Imperial suzerainty was finally thrust aside by the
rising military class. In 1 189 the seat of power was shifted
from Kyoto to Kamakura, the stronghold of the military
Shogun, although Kyoto continued as the official capital of
Japan for several centuries later. The spirit of Buddhism
at last burst into full flower and the general tone of life
changes. ... A stream of men on every side hurrying
to cast off worldly garments and flee to the mountains to
live as hermits among the rocks! Grown weary of idle
amusements, they turn in increasing numbers to the religion
which tells them that existence is as fleeting as a drop of
dew. A subtle change creeps over the poetry. It becomes
as philosophic as the narrow compass of form permits, and
it is permeated with the poet-priest's love of nature, the
vibrant background to all his solitary contemplations. He
writes :

Alas ! unworthy, I ... and yet I dare
To spread my ample black-dyed sleeve and bless
This people whose sad burdens I must share,
Dwelling apart in mountain wilderness.

Something of the struggle of trying to reconcile life with

LEAVES OF JAPANESE POETRY 545

the mystic operation of the universe begins to appear in the
little verses :

Ye who are sad, if it should chance that when
Ye thought to leave the fretful world and go
Far up among the silent hills of snow
That there ye found no peace at last — what then?

What then indeed! Will the echoing hills, or the piti
less sky, or the passing wind, or the wild geese with wings
intercrossed in the white clouds, give any answer to satisfy
the aching human breast?

One other great movement was to occur as the result of
long centuries of military suppression, a bloodless revolu
tion fraught with vast potentialities: the upward struggle
of the lower classes, or, if you will, the widening downward
of aristocratic privileges. It was the Tokugawa Shogunate
(1603-1867) that threw wide the gates of progress with an
end to the long period of feudal quarrels and the establish
ment of peace throughout the country. The abolition of
the samurai, education for the masses, the growth of intel
lectual commerce with other nations, the rise of business
enterprise and full-fledged industrialism and, finally, the
voluntary grant of a constitutional charter by the restored
Emperor, descendant of the gods — and old Japan passed
away forever!

At night I sit and looking o'er the fields
Think of the myriad poor and of their years
Of patient toil that scanty comfort yields,
And as I think, my sleeves are wet with tears.

The tender solicitude of Her Imperial Majesty, consort
of Mutsuhito, Emperor of the Meiji era, expresses no mod
ern note of sympathy for the lot of the common people, as
one might at first think, corresponding to the romantic
awakening after the classical period in English poetry.
Sovereignty by Divine Right was always identical in Japan
with benevolent despotism (made possible by the docility
and good will of the Japanese people). Chinese culture
had long since faded like a rain-washed camelia flower,
ceasing to be any inspiration in the living thought of the
day. If Western mechanism offered an all too seductive
substitute, and furnished the military technique presently
responsible for Japan's bold claim to leadership in the Far
East, it was scarcely conducive to the production of good

VOL. ccix.— NO. 761. 35

546 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

poetry. Such as there was merely reflected the windless
flame of thought out of other days and clung tenaciously to
forms not new a thousand years ago. It is too soon to tell
what springtide of blossoms grafted stocks may bring forth.
Japan is alert to all trends of modern expression in art, and
significant departures have been made, but so far as actual
output of distinctive genius is concerned, both the quality
and quantity are disappointingly small.

Ill

It is true that Japanese poetry " knows nothing of rhyme,
assonance, alliteration, accented stress, quantity, or parallel
ism," but it is nevertheless governed by very definite prin
ciples of composition. The most obvious of these, and the
simplest, is a syllabic cadence following from alternating
lines of five and seven syllables. In the form called naga-
uta, literally long-poem, the lines alternate indefinitely.
These poems partake of the nature of epics, usually narrat
ing historic feats of valor or dwelling on the glories of bat
tle. From the eighth century downward the tendency was
toward a shorter verse form, and the tanka, composed of
five lines of 5-7-5-7-7 syllables respectively, became the
standard form for all poetry. For a mind steeped in the
unlimited variety of complicated Western forms of versifi
cation it is difficult to conceive how a simple stanza of only
thirty-one syllables, corresponding most nearly to our
quatrain, was able to satisfy every need of poetic expression
among a people as rich in artistic tradition as the Japanese.
The spirit of uniform adherence to an established code or
standard, the formal repression of the East resulting from
long centuries of ingrowing culture, so puzzling to the
West accustomed to a spontaneous yielding to individual
impulse, must offer what explanation there is. At any rate,
a sense of selection which is carried to the highest point of
elimination directs the poet as it guides the brush of the
artist and maker of ukioye prints. Even the tanka proved
too long for popular taste, and gave forth in the seven
teenth century an offshoot known as haikai or hokku. The
hokku came into vogue through the literary pastime of cap
ping the verses of tanka, the object being to propose a situ
ation of some complexity that would require ingenuity of
conclusion, or contrariwise. Presently the second part of

LEAVES OF JAPANESE POETRY 547

the poem was dropped off, and the initial hemistich of sev
enteen syllables came to stand as a definite verse form.
Haikai won immediate popular favor, and came to be in
vested with a spirit of wit, of play on words, sometimes
even of buffoonery, quite far removed from the classical
tanka. Poetry in seventeen syllables! Can any other
nation boast as much?

The Japanese themselves consider only their tanka as
the perfect expression of their poetic emotions. It is in the
form of tanka that today several thousand verses are pre
sented to the Imperial Poetry Bureau at New Year's, upon
some subject designated by the Empress — " Bamboos in the
Snow," " The Stork on the Pine Tree," " The Cedar by the
Shrine " — contending for no prize except selection to be
read aloud before the Emperor and Empress and members
of the Court. The subject thereafter flaunts itself for the
year as one of the commonest motifs of ornamentation,
wherever the quick fancy and nimble fingers of the Japan
ese can devise ornamentation.

The most important principle of construction, syllabic
arrangement, thus defines the few distinct forms of Japanese
poetry. It is the rhythm of verse corresponding to our
measured feet. The stanzaic system, beyond the alternat
ing 5 and 7-syllabled lines of the naga-uta, has never existed,
and there is no rhyme, since all the words of the Japanese
language end in one of the five vowels or in n, and rhyme
could mean only a monotonous repetition of similar sounds.
Toward the close of the sixteenth century the language un
derwent decided changes and new canons of poetry began
to be formulated. Many technical words and words denot
ing abstractions, with finer shades of meaning, were taken
over from the Chinese, colloquialisms multiplied. The
grammar itself was simplified through the influence of the
uninflectional form of Chinese. Poets resented these " bar
barisms," and established a mold of expression in which a
purely native vocabulary and archaic construction were
maintained.

Among the few points of technical construction that can
be analyzed, the makura-kotoba, translated as pillow-words,
are the most curious. They were originally not unlike the
stock epithets of Greek poetry, but in course of time came
to be applied to words of remote analogy, or were subject
to certain letter changes, so that they lost all significance.

548 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

A second characteristic in construction is the extensive use
of the so-called pivot-word, in which two words are abbrevi
ated and their syllables combined, or in which a word with
a double meaning is used when both meanings are necessary
to the sense. The vast number of homonyms in the lan
guage facilitates this mode of expression, and the restric
tion of space encourages it. It is not an attempt at punning
in our usual understanding of that word, but is rather an in
tensive use of Japanese. A third distinctive ear-mark is the
use of expletives frequently untranslatable beyond an ex
clamation point, introduced at the beginning, the middle,
or the end of the poem to mark a stop somewhat like a
caesural pause. The most common ones are ya, kana, keri,
tarn.

There have been times in the history of Japanese poetic
literature when the most minute details were under regula
tion, such as the proper sequence of colors in a poem or the
exact number of adjectives to be employed: when the dic
tates of a meretricious form entirely destroyed any quality
of poetry. Even today the manner of writing down a poem,
the size and shape of the paper, are immutably established.

Chomei, a twelfth century recluse, in attempting to de
fine the proper limitations for the subject matter of poetry,
writes :

If a flower is the subject, the poem must be wrought with
deep feeling: wishes of infinite joy and constant love should be ex
pressed. . . . One must always take care not to err in the subject matter
described by the poem, but to hold a subject too firmly is also bad.
For example the cuckoo being the subject, the poet's mind may search
the heights in mountain and field, and describe the song as if he really
heard it ; but he must never say he wanted the nightingale to sing. The
poet may search for cherry blossoms but never for the willow ; he may
expectantly look for the first snow but never for autumn rains or hail
storm. He may offer his life for the fading flowers, but never for
maple leaves.

Chomei seems to have meant simply that the poet must
identify his mood with that of the bird, the flower, the fall
ing leaf, in accordance with a very definite symbolic inter
pretation of nature.

Was it the moon herself that just now uttered
the cry of the cuckoo?

" The bird flies very swiftly. When the poet turns his
head, the moon alone is shining, so he doubts if the moon

LEAVES OF JAPANESE POETRY 549

did not sing its cry," explained my Japanese student with
patient elaboration.

Under the mosquito net : moonlight flooding in,
and the lone cry of the cuckoo !

" Its meaning is very peaceful night," was the laconic
interpretation.

The cuckoo is the friend of the poet in his solitary hours

—it is moonshine, the voice of the fields and wooded hills

calling to him their companionship. But the song of the

hototogisu, the Japanese nightingale, has another message:

Passionate music of the Nightingale,
Not joy you bring me, but a strange regret,
A memory of nothingness, the pale
Face of a lover I have never met.

A delicate oriental conception, full of bitter pain. It
is for this reason that the poet may not ask to hear its song.
And the flowers, too, have each a special significance. The
lotos, rising fresh and pure from the stagnant river-bed, is
the mystic symbol of Buddhism, of the transitoriness of life.
The plum-blossom, coming when the snow is often still upon
the ground and everything is cold and barren, represents the
beauty of constancy. A hundred times does the poet go
forth to lose his way in the snow of cherry blossoms that
have drifted across the mountain paths. He sleeps at a lit
tle inn and dreams of the dear delight of the spring days:

Sometimes before my casement bars I place

A lighted lamp, and in the gloom outside

I watch the cherry petals softly glide

Like snow, lighting awhile the black earth's face.

The Japanese find a perfect symbol for the transient
character of life's loveliness in the cherry blossom. It opens
to the first warm sun of April and is gone with the first wind.

Even love itself dare not be free in its self-revelation.

Thou wilt return to me. Why should I grieve
For such short parting ? Yea, thy words are true,
I will not weep. See these are drops of dew,
Not tears — not tears, that glitter on my sleeve.

Since the imagination cannot be adequately stimulated
in a brief space except by a very specific image, nature is

550 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

never described generally, but in some minute phase or ar
rested detail of her every-day existence. The close obser
vation that we point out as a great gift among certain of our
poets exists everywhere as a commonplace in Japan. The
dragon fly trying in vain to alight on a blade of grass, the
noisy cicada shrilling from the garden, the sound of the
pounding of rice in the moonlight at the mountain temple,
an old decaying shrine from which the paint is peeling,
butterflies lingering in the wet grass after the light of morn
ing has broken, the fishing-stakes of the river coming out
one by one through the mists of the early dawn — these are
the pictures of Japanese poems. Realism exists, but not for
its own sake. Everything speaks in terms of something else.
Dragon flies are the horses ridden by the spirits of the dead;
the cicada casts off its shell, which becomes a symbol of the
emptiness of life ; tears are not tears, but dew.

" Up and down of peaks, come and go of clouds, do
not give definite feeling, but flowers blooming, leaves fall
ing — we know everything else. In spring plum-blossoms
and cherries are out, butterflies wander, larks sing, rice puts
out green shoots in the field, and warm breeze blows about
in the valley. In summer mosquitoes come, bats fly, leaves
grow thick and remember the cool fountains in the rocks.
In autumn rice-plants ripen, dragon-flies ride, the moon
shines brightly. In winter leaves fall down, snows and hails
come, people sit around hibachi warming their hands day
long and night short. The train of our thought is very com
plicated. We think of many things." So spoke my friend,
his eyes staring vaguely into a world of Japanese realities.

GERTRUDE EMERSON.

ROOSEVELT1

BY WHITNEY WARREN

L'HOMME qui vient de mourir est le premier qui, non
seulement aux Etats-Unis, mais dans le monde entier, se soit
ouvertement, publiquement declare pour la France et pour
les Allies. Je ne sais si on a fait suffisamment ressortir, dans
les articles qu'on lui a consacres ces derniers temps, son role
de precurseur. C'est quelque chose, cependant, d'avoir
montre la voie a des millions d'etres, d'avoir etc le guide et
la lumiere de 1'Humanite. Mais bornons nous a I'Amer-
ique. Sa destinee pendant la guerre, c'est Roosevelt qui Fa
forgee, et nous n'avons rien accompli sans qu'il Fait predit
et voulu.

Les premieres paroles qui soient tombees de ses levres,
en aout 1914, furent celles-ci: " Je suis avec la France parce
que le droit est de son cote; si le droit etait du cote de
1'Allemagne, c'est avec elle que je serais." Phrases directes
et claires, telles qu'il avait Fhabitude d'en prononcer et qui,
aujourd'hui, semblent toutes naturelles. Mais qu'on fasse
un retour en arriere, qu'on se replace a 1'epoque du doute
ou elles furent dites, quand les Etats-Unis, gangrenes par
les mensonges allemands, submerges par la propagande alle-
mande, hesitaient a designer et a reconnaitre le camp de la
justice! Roosevelt, qui n'ignorait rien de rAllemagne, qui,
au cours de ses voyages, Tavait etudiee et comprise, ne fut
pas dupe, un seul moment, de la comedie d'innocence qu'elle
jouait a la face des neutres. II savait qu'elle avait premedite
son agression; il savait que toute son education, depuis
quarante ans, la dirigeait vers le crime; aucun pretexte,
aucune excuse ne purent le tromper, parce qu'il etait, ce que
nous appelons " a man of the world" un citoyen du monde,
aux yeux ouverts vers le dehors, sur Fetendue d'ou nait
la clarte.

1 From I/o Renaissance, February 1.

552 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

II representait un type d'homme bien particulier ; il etait
exceptionnel en toute chose, et bien fait, par la meme, pour
etre a la fois ecoute et decrie. Les etres que rien n'intimide,
qui ont une forte personnalite et ne 1'abdiquent jamais,
exercent un grand ascendant, meme s'ils sont seuls a lutter
contre tous. S'ils sont isoles, c'est parce qu'ils dominent.
Ce fut le cas de Roosevelt. Au debut des hostilites, il ren-
contra des haines, de 1'indifference, a peine quelques appro
bations, mais, malgre tout, ce fut sa voix qui prevalut, et les
plus ardents a le combattre, les moins zeles a 1'ecouter,
finirent par agir exactement comme s'ils etaient ses disciples.
C'est 1'honneur et la prerogative des grands hommes
d'imposer leur vues a leurs ennemis memes.

Si THistoire est vraiment ce qu'on nous assure qu'elle
est, si elle tient les promesses qu'on attend d'elle, si elle est
le juge impartial des siecles, des epoques, des generations,
des individus, elle proclamera qu'en dehors de Roosevelt
personne ne peut revendiquer la gloire d'avoir arrache les
Etats-Unis a la honte de la neutralite. II sut, par ses
discours, par ses conversations, par ses ecrits, former autour
de lui le premier noyau de ceux qui s'insurgerent contre la
meprisable passivite a laquelle les diplomates, les politiciens,
les sceptiques, les endormeurs de tout rang pretendaient
nous condamner. II fut le premier soldat americain enrole
dans les rangs de 1'Entente, et, depuis 1'instant ou il cut pris
parti, pas un jour ne s'ecoula qui ne lui apportat un
contingent de convertis. La cause de la France, pour nous,
la-bas, c'etait lui qui la personnifiait; il fut Tambassadeur
du Droit, 1'avocat de la souffrance injuste, le grand esprit
centralisateur qui groupa les energies bienfaisantes de la
nation, Tame de la resistance a Pemprise germanique. Qu'on
fut politiquement son ami ou son adversaire, on ne pouvait
pas devenir clairvoyant sans le reconnaitre pour un chef ni
sans se dire: " J'ai fait ce que Roosevelt reclamait"

Ce qui lui manqua, ce fut Tautorite directe qui permet
de prendre les decisions au nom de la masse. S'il en avait
dispose, les Etats-Unis seraient bien certainement entres en
guerre longtemps avant 1917. Qu'on songe au nombre
d' existences qui auraient ete epargnees si nous avions moins
hesite, moins tergiverse, moins retarde le moment du
sacrifice. II n'y a pas en France de mere, de femme, de
soeur en deuil qui ne soit fondee a regretter son absence du
pouvoir, au moment ou, d'un geste, il aurait pu nous engager

ROOSEVELT 553

et eviter au monde de longs et cruels mois de douleur. II
n'avait pas d'autre horizon, d'autre interet que ceux de
1'humanite; il la voulait tout entiere coalisee centre ses
oppresseurs, a la fois pour augmenter son honneur et pour
restreindre ses pertes. En sorte que, sous son aspect belli-
queux, il etait, plus que tout autre, soucieux de menager le
sang, mais il lui importait peu de savoir a quelle race, a
quelle nation appartenait ce sang; au total, si meme un plus
grand nombre d'Americains avait du perir, moins de sang
humain aurait etc verse. Voila encore une maniere d'aimer
1'humanite. II n'est pas dit que ce soit la moins bonne.

La disparition de Roosevelt est irreparable. Les Etats-
Unis sont prives de leur plus belle energie et d'un esprit
doue, au supreme degre, pour comprendre la realite. Son
sens pratique va nous faire grandement def aut a une heure
ou, avant de s'abandonner aux utopies, il convient de
liquider une situation de fait extremement grave et ex-
tremement embrouillee. S'il avait etc la, ses idees sur la
paix auraient fini par triompher, a Texemple de ses idees
sur la guerre. II aurait apporte, par sa plume et par sa
parole, a la solution des problemes ardus de 1'heure, sa
grande clairvoyance, son bon sens, son gout inne de Tequite ;
il aurait preconise et obtenu le chatiment complet des cou-
pables et la recompense integrate des justiciers. Je dis qu'il
1'aurait obtenu, car il aurait eu derriere lui tout le peuple
americain. Les dernieres elections sont, a ce point de vue,
tres significatives. Qu'on n'en doute pas ; elles marquent la
victoire de Roosevelt et de ce qu'il representait, de son esprit,
de ses tendances. Du moins sa memorie subsiste. II n'a pas
peri tout en tier; il a laisse, a travers tout le pays et dans
toutes les ames, une empreinte ineffagable. Ses doctrines,
ses precedes sont conformes a notre tradition, et quand
un Americain retombe sur son fonds, il revient aux idees de
Roosevelt.

II ne s'agit pas ici de politique interieure. Les questions
qui sont actuellement Pobjet de la discussion des Allies nous
occupent seules. De 1'aveu general, elles depassent 1'en-
tendement des hommes les plus avertis et des intelligences
les plus elevees. On fera pour le mieux, c'est entendu.
Mais ce mieux, comment le determiner, sinon en s'inspirant
des exemples du passe et des grands morts dont la pensee
demeure? Vouloir regler 1'avenir, par divination, c'est
risquer une experience grosse peut-etre de dangers plus

554 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

graves que ceux qu'on pense eviter. Les conceptions de
Roosevelt — on salt d'ailleurs qu'elles ne manquaient pas de
hardiesse — avaient, toutes, leur racine dans la connaissance
des hommes et de 1'histoire. Personne n'est plus digne que
lui d'inspirer les resolutions qui seront prises autour du tapis
vert. En ce qui concerne les Etats-Unis, leur action ne sera
bienfaisante et equitable, j'en suis convaincu, que pour autant
qu'elle sera d'accord avec les principes dont Roosevelt s'etait
fait le champion, et nos diplomates ne seront surs d'avoir
bien defendu les interets de 1'humanite que si le souvenir de
ce grand citoyen commande leur decision, et s'ils peuvent se
dire " Si Roosevelt vivait, il nous aurait approuve."

WHITNEY WARREN.

THE BOOK OF THE MONTH

LITERATURE UNVEILED1
BY LAWRENCE OILMAN

THE Comic Spirit is a tethered filly these days — or at
most she is goaded into becoming an Irish bull and utter
ing a horse laugh of cynical derision at the international
spectacle; yet we cannot but think (to change again the
metaphorical gear) that one of her old-time silvery peals
would result from her observation of that moment in Mr.
Albert Mordell's psychoanalytical unveiling of the Liter
ary Great wherein he seeks to give us the Freudian view of
Browning. Reading Mr. Mordell's blithely Boccaccioistic
diagnosis of The Last Ride Together, and remembering the
generation of austerely puritan Browning Clubs that guile
lessly exposed themselves to this apparently innocent poem
of the master's, one cannot but join in concert with those
relaxing peals of pure joy. Browning, Mr. Mordell re
marks, " wrote rarely of sex " ; but he warns us against
" those innocent poems of the poet where we have no doubt
there must be sex symbolism." Of course it is precisely in
these seemingly " innocent" aesthetic expressions (as every
good Freudian knows) that that ubiquitous Bolshevik, Sup
pressed Libido, is most divertingly concealed.

We shall not dull the edge of the classic Browningite's
reaction to Mr. MordelFs interpretation of The Last Ride
Together by attempting a conveyance of it. We should
perhaps not be thanked. Certainly Mr. Mordell will not
be. But then he is not writing primarily for the Elderly
Virgins of culture, either male or female. " The critic
who examines literary masterpieces to find sexual symbols
will not be a popular one," he admits ; " but that does not

1 The Erotic Motive in Literature, by Albert Mordell. New York: Boni and
Liveright, 1919.

556 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

alter the fact that the sexual meaning is there. The field
will no doubt be taken up in the future by some critic who
will not fear to brave public wrath." Who could say
that Mr. Mordell is afraid? Yet, faithful Freudian that
he is, he knows that insistence upon the sexual aspect of this
matter of aesthetic psychomancy is about as soothing to the
Elderly Virgins of culture as a red flag to a stock-broker.
He remembers, no doubt, what Hitschmann says in the in
troduction to his Freud's Theories of the Neuroses: that
" by far the greatest and most universal opposition raised
against the Freudian doctrines has been because of the dis
closure of an unfailing sexual agency in the causation of
neurotic manifestations. Here the resistance, a normal one,
lies in the nature of the thing itself, since both healthy and
slightly neurotic individuals are inclined for intelligible
reasons to deny the paramount importance of sexuality: the
healthy, because it constitutes no problem for them; the
others, because of their unconscious need to spread a veil
over their own weaknesses. . . ." Such protestants
" stand under the ban of that combination of prudery and
lust which governs the attitude of most cultivated people in
sexual matters." Those who recoil from this phase of
Freud's theory of the strict determinism of all psychic
processes are betrayed, as Hitschmann points out, by their
narrow reading of the term " sexual." As Freud uses it,
and as his literary disciple Mr. Mordell uses it, all but the
ingenuous and the bigoted understand a denotement not
only of the physical activities of the sexual life, but also of
its " phantasies " — its phychic overtones.

Such elementary clarifications as these, which Mr.
Mordell is at pains to make before he gets under way in
his study, are, naturally, commonplaces to the student of
modern explorations into the unconscious. No doubt Mr.
Mordell had to establish certain comforting premises. It
would have been heartless not to reassure those who will be
horrified by his cheerful juggling with such terrifying ver
bal spheroids as " sadism," " narcissism," " masochist,"
" homosexualist " ; yet we cannot help wishing that, after ob
serving that "the ideas advanced here will displease the puri
tanical opponents of scientific research," he had refrained
from adding this unctuous sop : " The ' unconscious/ besides
containing the seeds of crime and immorality, also is the
soil of all those finer emotions that the church and the state

THE BOOK OF THE MONTH 557

cherish." The survivors of a million Browning Clubs will
need much more detailed and emphatic reassurance than is
to be found in that pious gesture before they can forgive
Mr. Mordell for his unveiling of The Last Ride Together.
Mr. Mordell's book provides rare sport. Mainly, be
cause of the joyous enthusiasm with which he seeks to
demonstrate his thesis that " many writers who were deemed
respectable and pure because they never dealt with sexual
problems are full of sex symbolism. They consciously
strove to conceal their sex interest, but their unconscious use
of sex symbolism shows that they were not as indifferent to
the problems as they would lead us to imagine." Obvious
ly, his book would have been comparatively unrewarding
if he had confined himself to such easy game as Burns,
Byron, Rousseau, D'Annunzio, Heine, De Musset, Whit
man, Verlaine, and the rest of the passional declaratives.
Mr. Mordell deals with this familiar type, as a matter of
course, but his principal quarry lies in other fields. Packing
his complete set of Freud in a not too cumbersome grip, stuff
ing in his pocket a capacious note-book already crammed
with voluminous observations on the Technique of Psycho
analysis, the Compulsion Neurosis, the QEdipus Complex as
an Explanation of Hamlet's Mystery, the Nature and Mech
anism of the Obsessional Neurosis, Unconscious Consolatory
Mechanisms, the Reaction Impulse and Infantile Regres
sion, etc., etc., and emitting the glad cry of the pursuing
Freudian following a scent, he sets forth hot-foot after such
unsuspecting victims as Dickens and Wordsworth, Cowper
and Keats, Tennyson, Longfellow, Charles Lamb.

The chase is delectable indeed. Let us see, for exam
ple, how Mr. Mordell goes after the author of that earliest
of Prohibition lyrics, Drink to Me Only with Thine Eyes.
" The repression of the libido," preambles Mr. Mordell,
" includes the damming and clogging up of all the emo
tional concomitants that go with sexual attraction and make
up the feeling called love. Whenever, then, sex or libido
is referred to in psychoanalysis the word has the widest
meaning. The man who loves a woman with the greatest
affection and passion, without gratifying these, suffers a re
pression of the libido, as well as the man who satisfies cer
tain proclivities without feeling any tenderness or love for
the woman. In the attraction for the other sex called love,
in which admiration, respect, self-sacrifice, tenderness and

558 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

other finer feelings play a great part, there is consciously
or unconsciously, however, the physical attraction. If this
is totally absent the emotion cannot be called ' love.' What
differentiates our feelings towards one of the opposite sex
from those felt for one of the same sex (assuming there are
no homosexual leanings) is the presence of this sexual in
terest. Love, then, must satisfy a man physically as well
as psychically. It is a concentration of the libido upon a
person of the opposite sex, accompanied by tender feelings.
Hence when we read the most chaste love poem, we see
what is the underlying motive in the poet's l unconscious.'
He may write with utter devotion to the loved one and ex
press a wish to die for her, and though he says nothing about
physical attraction, we all know that it is there in his ' un
conscious.' It is taken for granted that a man who writes
a real love poem to a girl wants to enjoy her love. And
when the poet complains because he is rejected or deceived,
or of something interfering with the course of his love, we
are aware also that his ' unconscious ' is grieved because his
union is impeded or entirely precluded. The suffering is
greater the more he loves, for his finer instincts, as well as
his passion, are prevented from being fulfilled."

True, too true. And now we are ready for Ben Jon-
son and his disguised temperance propaganda. " Let us take
at random," says Mr. Mordell with disarming candor, at the
same time creeping up silently behind his victim, " a few
innocent poems, and test the theory. There is Ben Jonson's
well-known toast, Drink to Me Only with Thine Eyes. He
tells how he sent Celia a rose wreath, that she breathed on
it and sent it back to him.

Since when, it grows, and smells, I swear,
Not of itself but thee.

" It is well known in science what a great part odour
plays in sexual attraction. In this poem the poet, after hav
ing received the returned rose breathed upon by Celia, smells
her perfume, which now submerges the natural fragrance
of the rose. In other words, the poet's ' unconscious ' says
that he wishes to possess Celia physically. He is talking
symbolically in the poem." That is as pretty a demonstra
tion as one could desire, is it not?

Then again, take Tennyson. Recall the song in The
Miller's Daughter. The poem begins innocuously:

THE BOOKfeOF THE MONTH 559

It is the miller's daughter.

But Mr. Mordell is too shrewd a Freudian to be deceived by
such Victorian window-dressing. There is more here than
meets the eye. The poet says — naively enough, discreetly
enough, you would think — that he would like to be the
jewel in the ear of the miller's daughter in order to touch
her cheek, the girdle about her waist —

I'd clasp it round so close and tight —
and the necklace upon her bosom to fall and rise —
I would lie so light, so light.

At this point Mr. Mordell engages his victim, wielding
his scalpel with exquisite deftness. " The unconscious sex
ual feelings here are only too apparent," he says. " The
symbols of the earring, girdle and necklace are unmistak
able. The poet is saying in a symbolical manner that he
would possess the miller's daughter."

And how fares the stainless muse of Longfellow? Surely
there is no Obsessional Neurosis in that sweetly decorous
breast? Surely a Suppressed Libido would perish of
inanition in that placid inner chamber of the poet's soul?
Be not deceived. Attend to the remorseless probing of Mr.
Mordell : " One may see the sex motive in poems where it
does not seem to appear. If certain facts in an author's
life are known, we may discern the unconscious love senti
ments in poems where no mention seems to be made of them.
Let me illustrate with a fine poem by Longfellow, the
familiar The Bridge. Take the lines:

How often, oh how often,

I had wished that the ebbing tide
Would bear me away in its bosom

O'er the ocean wild and wide !

For my heart was hot and restless,

And my life was full of care,
And the burden laid upon me

Seemed greater than I could bear.

But now it has fallen from me, etc.

" To the student of Longfellow, this poem speaks of the time
he found it difficult to win the love of his second wife. . . .
He married her July 13, 1843. He finished the poem Oc-

560 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

tober 9, 1845. At the end of this year he wrote in his diary
that now he had love fulfilled and his soul was enriched
with affection. He is therefore thinking of the time when
he had no love and longed for it, and now that he has it, he
is thinking of the love troubles of others. In the olden days
he wanted to be carried away by the river Charles, for his
long courtship, seemingly hopeless, made his heart hot and
restless and his life full of care. So we see that in this
poem the poet was thinking of something definite, relating
to love (and hence also sex) ; though there is no mention of
either in the poem."

Sometimes, however, Mr. Mordell is too rashly assump
tive. If we are Freudians, he says, we will conclude that
Herbert Spencer does not tell us the whole truth when in
his Autobiography he ascribes his nervous breakdown to
hard work. " We know that most cases of breakdown have
had a previous history, usually in some love or sex repres
sion. We are aware that Spencer was a bachelor who
never had his craving for love satisfied, and probably led
a celibate life. This led to his nervous troubles. This is
merely one instance where by the aid of psychoanalysis we
can read more than the author reveals."

Well, we are Freudians, too, and we dissent. Would
not Freud, a lover of scientific precision, read with a blush
such loose and slipshod assertion on the part of a professed
disciple? Spencer "probably" led a celibate life, and
"This led to his nervous troubles"! Mr. Mordell should
know that such blandly irresponsible writing discredits
genuine scientific investigation.

And does not Mr. Mordell follow Max Graf too un
critically when he says that " psychoanalysis will show us
. . . why Wagner dealt with themes like the woman be
tween two men"? Bless your subtle heart, Mr. Mordell!
Is that theme peculiar to Wagner? Is it not, probably, the
commonest of all dramatic situations? Further, does he in
tend us to understand that psychoanalysis reveals Shelley's
social and political radicalism as having resulted from his
disappointment in love? " He hated intolerance, religion
and monarchy," says Mr. Mordell, " because by his hetero
doxy and the offence it gave to Harriet Grove's parents, he
lost her." In the eleventh canto of The Revolt of Islam,
Mr. Mordell points out, Shelley " describes the agonies of
his lost love, with Harriet Grove in mind, no doubt. This

THE BOOK OF THE MONTH 561

poem was written in the summer of 1817. Shelley then be
came an uncompromising reformer; he had suffered in love,
on account of the hostility and sorrow he met because of his
radical ideas, hence he would make it his aim to spread the
views which he held so that in the future other lovers should
not lose their sweethearts because of liberal notions" We
think that this is unduly na'ive.

The trouble with such bald and ingenuous applications
of the Freudian technique as Mr. Mordell too often per
petrates is that they are discouraging to those who are try
ing to promote a more intelligent public attitude toward
the problems of what William James called " an en
tirely unsuspected peculiarity in the constitution of human
nature." Mr. Mordell deserves well of all students
of psychoanalytic experiment by reason of his honesty, his
inexhaustible curiosity, his gusto, his complete conviction.
He has produced an unexampled book, challenging and
provocative. But we wish he had spent another ten years
on it. And we wish he had omitted such uneasily depre
catory sentences as the last of these: " It is therefore true
to say that in the tenderest and sweetest love lyrics, like
those of Burns and Shelley for instance, one sees the play
of unconscious sexual forces. This fact does not make the
poem any the less moral or the poet any the less pure!' Is
Mr. Mordell afflicted with the Presbyterian Complex?

LAWRENCE OILMAN.

VOL. ccix. — NO. 761. 36

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED

THE BRITISH NAVY IN BATTLE. By Arthur H. Pollen. Garden
City: Doubleday, Page & Company.

That public opinion should be for the most part ill-instructed, if
not quite uninstructed, about naval matters, is a condition more regret
table than surprising. What could have been more natural than for
people to think, as they did think, before the war, that " battleships are
everything " ? And why should not one take it for granted to-day that
submarines and destroyers are everything? Did not the British Ad
miralty attribute the escape of Von Hipper at the Dogger Bank to the
unexpected presence of enemy submarines? And did not Scheer at
Jutland succeed in preventing by a torpedo attack the close action he
dreaded? If battleships are too precious to be risked against such
tactics, the conclusion seems obvious.

It would make little difference, of course, whether the layman's
reasoning on such points were right or wrong if all questions of naval
policy were invariably decided by a well-organized and perfectly quali
fied body of experts. This desirable state of affairs did not begin to
exist in England, however, until early in 1918. Meanwhile, blunders
were committed, of which the attempt to force the Dardanelles was
only one. Apart from that terrible mistake, there were two main causes
hampering the usefulness of the British Navy. In the first place, naval
authorities said, and the public believed, that an " invincible " navy
was as good as a " victorious " navy. In the second place, there was no
Higher Command to work out accurate answers to all those technical
problems which must continually arise in naval operations, and which
no one man is competent to solve.

These two ideas come out as clear as daylight in Arthur Pollen's
surprisingly frank, minutely searching criticism, not of the British
Navy, but of British naval policy. For that is what Mr. Pollen's book,
The British Navy in Battle, really is — a far-reaching and accurate criti
cism, of a sort that few men at any time have had the knowledge and
the courage to write. Seldom indeed, when a great crisis has been
passed, is one found to point out unsparingly and at the same time
without the least suspicion of special pleading, the errors of the winning
side. Mr. Pollen, to be sure, seems sometimes to be aiming at mere
instruction or even at popular interest. But his clear non-technical
explanations of such matters as the control of gunfire and the superior
accuracy of heavy cannon, his well-reasoned and thrilling narratives of

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED 563

action, scarcely obscure for any but the most superficial reader, and
certainly are not designed to camouflage, his actual purpose. In reality,
throughout his whole treatise, Mr. Pollen strikes with the power and
precision of a well directed naval bombardment at certain well-fortified
wrong ideas.

Like all impersonal, vigorous, well-informed thinking, Mr. Pollen's
strictures have a lasting value. Take the hard-gained naval experience
of Great Britain in the late war, place all the facts on the table, analyze
the technical matter as you would a chess-problem, but include the
human elements, too, and treat them, if you can, with equal coolness.
Then, so far as your insight will allow, let the facts lead you to certain
simple (but not obvious) general conclusions. The result ought to be
a degree of enlightenment such as many in the pre-war period desired
to gain and could not gain.

England's naval experience is set forth by Mr. Pollen in very full
detail and in very clear outline. Roughly, this experience may be
summed up as follows :

In 1914, before the British ultimatum was despatched, the British
fleet was at its war stations, and within a week transport and trade were
going on without interruption. On August 28, in the action near Heli
goland the Germans ran away from the English ships, thus apparently
conceding the " invincibility " of the British Navy. But in September
Goeben and Breslau were allowed to slip out of the Adriatic and to
reach Constantinople, where their presence was a large factor in
enabling the Germans to control Turkey. The commerce-destroyers,
Emden and Karlsruhe, were at large, as was Von Spec with a formid
able fleet. Several British cruisers were sunk by submarines, and as a
final insult German battle-cruisers crossed the North Sea and ravaged a
small town of the east coast.

These occurrences brought about the first naval crisis. Prince
Louis of Battenberg retired, and Lord Fisher became First Sea Lord
of the Admiralty. Then for a time there was vigorous action. The
destruction of Craddock's fleet by Von Spec off Coronel in November,
1914, was amply avenged by Sturdee at the Falkland Islands in Decem
ber. Meanwhile, Emden had been defeated and captured by Sydney,
and Karlsruhe seemed to be in hiding. Finally the ignominious flight
of the Germans in the action off the Dogger Bank, together with the
destruction of one German war-vessel, the Blucher, was counted as a
considerable British victory.

Although Von Tirpitz's threat of an underwater blockade was
disquieting, it caused at first little anxiety, and the second crisis in naval
affairs did not occur until the spring of 1915, as the result of the disas
trous failure at the Dardanelles. Then there was another change of
regime, Sir Henry Jackson succeeding Lord Fisher as First Sea Lord.
In reality a much more drastic remedy was needed. " The lessons of
the first crisis and the second crisis," says Mr. Pollen, " were the same.
Things went wrong in October, 1914, for precisely the same reasons
that they went wrong in February, March, and April, 1915. The Ger
man battle cruisers escaped at Heligoland for exactly the same reasons
that the attempt to take the Dardanelles forts by naval artillery was
futile. We had prepared for war and gone into war with no clear

564 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

doctrine as to what war meant, because we lacked the organism that
could have produced the doctrine in peace time, prepared and trained
the navy to a common understanding of it, and supplied it with plans
and equipped it with means for their execution."

On May 31, 1916, was fought the indecisive battle of Jutland, in
which the Grand Fleet failed to come to close quarters with the enemy
because of the risk from torpedoes. Though it was obvious that the
way to deal with the submarines was to mine them into their harbors,
and that the only obstacle to this operation was the German fleet, the
doctrine of the " Invincible Navy " still held sway. It was no immedi
ate dissatisfaction with the results of Jutland, but rather the growth of
the submarine peril, that led to the third naval crisis. By July, 1916,
the world was losing shipping at the rate of three million tons a year.
Although when Admiral Jellicoe went to Whitehall several colleagues
accompanied him from the Grand Fleet, the change of direction and of
personnel was not adequate to meet the needs of the occasion. Ruthless
submarine warfare went on, and it was clear that unless this were
checked England and her Allies could hold out only for a limited
period.

In the summer of 1917 began a reorganization, which was com
pleted in the following year. The lesson had now been learned, and
the results were seen in the growing mastery of the submarine that
marked the period from June, 1917, to January, 1918. A Higher Com
mand was built up; the principle of convoy was adopted. In 1918 a
mine barrage was stretched across the channel ; minefields were placed
in the North Sea, from Norway to Scotland, and in the Kattegat. On
April 22 and 23 came the well-planned, daring, and effective operations
against Zeebruge and Ostend. Something positive and definite had at
last been accomplished.

All the actions mentioned in the foregoing summary, as well as
some others, are described and analyzed by Mr. Pollen with such skill
in narration and such easy mastery of complex detail as make his
accounts highly interesting in themselves. But what strikes one most
is the discernment which, without once losing its way or once failing
to take account of a relevant circumstance, traces the pattern of the
general truths that exist in the mass of miscellaneous facts. The
destruction of the Koenigsberg at Rufigi was accomplished only after
the hasty and approximate mastery of technical problems that had never
before been properly studied. Again in the battle of Jutland, Sir David
Beatty executed a manoeuver which, " judged not as a self-contained
evolution but as part of a large plan was one of the most brilliant and
original in the history of the naval war." The object of this plan,
carried out at great risk, was to bring the German fleet into touch with
the British fleet in a position favorable to the latter. Yet by the rela
tively simple expedients of smoke screens and a torpedo attack —
employed, it is true, under conditions of light and of weather favorable
to their success — the German admiral was able to escape what looked
like certain destruction. Since it cannot be supposed that the British
commanders did not know their trade, the only inference from the facts
would seem to be that a brilliant and probably successful stroke for
victory was frustrated by the obsession of a defensive theory.

Thus, in all the acute analysis of intricate problems which makes

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED 565

up a large part of Mr. Pollen's book, it will be seen that every fact has
been made to give up its meaning, and that the meanings of all the
facts gather into two general ideas of a sort not unfamiliar in appear
ance but seldom found, on examination, to be supported by reasoning
anything like so rigorous and realistic as that which Mr. Pollen employs.
When Mr. Pollen says that a Higher Command is necessary both to
determine the root principles of strategy and to solve so far as possible
in advance the technical problems that naval warfare involves, he is
not simply urging, on general principles, what would seem on a priori
grounds to be a good thing: he is giving us the logic of England's
experience.

It is plain that a navy department may blunder. It is plain that a
navy department needs as safeguards, first, an organization of expert
knowledge such as will enable it to solve its particular problems
adequately and consistently, and, second, such an education of public
opinion as will subject the administration of the navy to the wholesome
effect of intelligent criticism while preserving it from ill-judged inter
ference. In a democratic country, like England or America, in which
naval measures must inevitably be influenced to some extent by the
popular judgment, there is danger when the people, disappointed with
the results of naval policy, simply cry out against certain leaders and
so bring to pass changes of a political rather than an administrative
nature ; and there is danger, at least as great, when the people are led
by specious logic into false security. Surely these things are worth
knowing and pondering.

THE ESSENTIALS OF AN ENDURING VICTORY. By Andre Chera-
dame. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Although it was completed a little before the cessation of hostilities
and so fails to take into account the armistice and the facts immediately
connected with that event, M. Cheradame' s latest book is important
and timely. One can never be sure that the depths of German duplicity
have been sounded ; one can never be warned too often against the old
fatal mistake of underrating the enemy. It is because M. Cheradame
was one of the first — if not actually the first — of men outside the Cen
tral Empires to take the full measure of the Pan-German scheme, that
he has been able all along to perceive the hidden motives and to appre
ciate the resources of the Germans. The map of Europe, as he has
studied it, has furnished the key both to economic and psychological
problems — in short to the whole problem of power.

M. Cheradame anticipated what David Jayne Hill has called
" Germany's pose for peace," and he was quick to see the dangers that
might grow out of an armistice.

It is surprising to learn the extent to which during the war
Allied public opinion was misled as to real conditions in Ger
many. From the rumor that the Kaiser was dying of cancer to
the seemingly authoritative statement that the German people had
at last learned, despite their rulers, the magnitude of the disaster that
had befallen their arms, all was deceit subtly designed to encourage
a too hopeful feeling among the people in the Allied countries and thus

566 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

to cause a relaxation of effort. A majority of those despatches con
cerning German conditions that filtered through from neutral states are
seen to have been inspired. On analysis it is clear that all this inspired
news, so widely circulated and so eagerly read, fitted in exactly with
German schemes, and that none of it failed to produce a certain effect.

During the war we were many times ready to believe that Germany
was reduced to the verge of starvation, and that her man-power was
nearly exhausted. Both opinions seem to have been quite wrong; for
it was neither want of food nor want of men that finally brought
Germany to her knees, but the collapse in the Balkans — a collapse that
meant the failure of the whole Mittel-Europa system. So true is. this
that M. Cheradame is able to show by very precise arguments that " if
the decisive importance of the Danube front and of political strategy
had been understood in 1915, the war might have been ended long since
by a decisive victory." Even so able a critic as Colonel Repington was
wide of the truth in his estimate of the number of German reserves,
and the rest of us, when we rejoiced over the presence in the German
army of boys of seventeen, were mistaking for a sign of weakness what
was really an indication of strength! But the whole argument con
cerning German reserves alone failed to take into account a factor that
became of immense importance after the suppression of the Russian
front. After that event Germany could have drawn men from a popu
lation of about 163 millions, including German subjects in Russia (to
the number of 2,400,000), Finns and Ukrainians, always strongly pro-
German, and many different groups of Moslems. Unless, therefore,
the German armies were somewhere (preferably in the Balkans)
promptly and decisively defeated, the Central Powers might hold out
indefinitely so far as man-power was concerned. Similarly, whatever
temporary privations (severe enough, no doubt) the German people
had to endure, it was certain that in the long run, the resources of
Mittel-Europa would prove abundant. The problem, in short, was not
only military but also geographical and political to an extent that the
people in the Entente nations could scarcely be expected to realize and
that their leaders were slow to grasp. " It is only at the end of the
fourth year of the struggle," writes M. Cheradame, " that we are begin
ning to understand the value of the Czecho-Slovak and Jugo-Slav popu
lations, who with the Poles and Roumanians form a group of nearly
sixty millions of anti-Germans inhabiting central Europe. ... If
the Germans were in the Allies' place, is it possible to believe that they
would fail for four years to play the trump-card in their hand, repre
sented by seven millions of anti-German populations ? "

Just as Germany, during the war, sought to persuade us that she
was starving and that her people were ripe for revolt, so now she will
make it appear that she is too poor to pay indemnities, and that she has
become republican at heart. The fact is, declares M. Cheradame, that
Germany is running over with the plunder of the countries she has
despoiled, while France has suffered economic losses not easily to be
repaired. Easy peace terms, such as Germany now whines for, might
leave Germany the victor and France the loser. " Only annuities paid
by the Germans for damages inflicted, used to back French national
loans, will enable France to save her people from taxes that would
soon be fatal. . . . The French believe firmly that a just peace

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED 567

will bring restitution, and that is why they have not lost faith in their
paper currency, which in spite of its increase retains its full purchasing
power." Moreover, past experience should have taught us to distrust
not merely the German militarists, but also the German Socialists, many
of whom are at bottom Pan-Germanists, and who have the military
spirit in the very blood of their race. Into the war the whole German
people flung themselves, body and soul ; they must bear their responsi
bility, and, republican or not, they must be both severely dealt with and
must continue to be distrusted by the rest of the world.

M. Cheradame's statement of the peace terms that ought to be
imposed is clear, definite, and bold. As to territorial rearrangements,
the author is in general accord with the ideas expressed by Colonel
Roosevelt and by Senator Lodge, but he points out the difficulties, the
danger spots, and the opportunities, with a clearness and definiteness
possible only to a life-long student of the mid-European situation. As
to reparations and indemnities, he voices the just claims of France,
which Americans should be the last to question. As to the necessity of
completely crushing German militarism M. Cheradame undoubtedly
expresses the prevailing American temper of mind. In regard to this,
" thorough " is the word ! His warnings as to the real nature of
German Bolshevism and as to the dangers of a league for peace give
answers to questions just now arising in many minds. This book of
M. Cheradame's should, therefore, do much to crystalize American
sentiment on the points of real importance. The author's eminently
practical and concrete way of thinking, coupled with his unmistakable
enthusiasm for ideals that are realizable, ought to give his words easy
entrance into American minds.

FRANCE FACING GERMANY. Speeches and Articles by Georges
Clemenceau. Translated from the French by Ernest Hunter Wright.
New York : E. P. Button & Company.

In order to understand the spirit of a people, the shortest way,
and one of the best ways, is to study the minds of the men who lead
that people and the nature of the eloquence that really moves them.
And so without undervaluing the many excellent interpretations of
French fighting spirit, of French unanimity, and of French loftiness of
motive, that have been given to American readers, one may say that
no work of more lasting significance as affording insight into the soul
of the nation has appeared than the collected speeches and occasional
articles of the Premier Georges Clemenceau.

What has impressed foreign observers in France is the humanity
of the French army and people — a quality that appears to be at the
root of their unconquerable resistance. This " humanity " — character
istic of an advanced civilization — seems, in the writings of Clemenceau,
to be founded, curiously enough, in a deep disillusionment, which is,
however, still more strangely (as it would seem to Americans) coupled
with a devoted idealism.

Try to conceive of an American statesman addressing the people,
or any considerable body of the people, in words like these :

" The absolute ideal is not given to man ; we know that but too

568 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

well. The most ignorant among us has received assurances that what
we call truth is but an elimination, more or less complete, of errors.
In the hours of crisis, modesty is imposed upon our declarations. Do
you not admire the way in which every one, at the first sign of the
general peril tacitly took for his dominant principle the obligation to
subordinate everything to duties so all-important that they pass even
beyond the interest of the country, since the future of the race is
involved in them ? "

Translated into the terse and emotional Anglo-Saxon idiom, this
does not seem so strange. It means simply : Truth is relative ; but all
Frenchmen fought for the truth as God gave them to see the truth, and
in this there is absolute grandeur. But such translation does not
altogether bridge the gap. The French mind certainly seems to perceive
the relativity of things with extraordinary clearness, with a certain
sadness, and yet with a singular exaltation.

Any approach to a true disillusion — sign of an advanced develop
ment of humanity — confers insight. Can any one fail to see in these
pages of Clemenceau's that in a Frenchman skepticism, realism, may
be consistent with a practical faith that leads to the utmost self-
sacrifice — a faith all the purer because skepticism has purged it of
material elements. Faith in itself is good — it is perhaps in a sense
necessary; but when a man can say to himself, " I do not know; I see
no certainties; but I will die for my country," has he not taken a step
upward in the scale of being?

The point of view expressed by Clemenceau could lead to no errors
because it does not bind men to disregard truths, or impose the labor
of being at all times optimistic. It clears the eyes to see material facts
and to perceive calmly and ironically those immaterial facts, the
thoughts and motives of one's enemies. It is eminently a civilized point
of view.

The eloquence dictated by this way of thinking has at once a
curious pathos and a strange sternness. " And you," he said to the
people early in 1913, " your France, your Paris, your village, your
field, your high-road, your little rill, all of that tumult of history from
which you emerge, since it is the work of your forefathers, is it then
nothing to you, and will you without emotion hand over that soul, from
which your soul is sprung, to the fury of a foreigner?" Than this
passage nothing could be more concrete, more practical and yet more
elevated. The plea is directed not so much to conscience as to the
motives that underlie conscience. In order to understand the attitude
of France in regard to the peace terms now under discussion it is neces
sary to grasp this peculiar blending of actual and immaterial values.
The soldiers of France, said Clemenceau, as early as December, 1914,
" have not exerted more than human virtues in order to serve as a
theme for popular speech-making. They have determined to do some
thing that counts. They are inspired by the idea that aroused their
ancestors — the creation of a new Europe for the better uses of
humanity, and a higher life. They will accept no German peace and
leave behind them conditions pregnant with disaster. A French peace,
a peace that will establish a lasting destiny for Europe by reducing to
impotence the leaders of savagery, that is the peace desired by our
soldiers."

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

ITALY'S GREAT SERVICE

SIR. — Allow me, as an old contributor, to express the grief and sur
prise by which I am overcome as I read your editorial, "The Old Year
and the New," in the January NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW, which has
only reached me this morning. By an incomprehensible oversight (I
am almost sure that it is not by any deliberate ill will) you ignore Italy
as if it did not exist, and as if, in these four years of war, we had not
cheerfully sacrificed 500,000 of our best and noblest children, killed
outright, twelve billion dollars out of the twenty which form our
meagre national capital, and suffered famine and privations such as no
other nation has had to sustain. We Italians, the descendants of a
civilization two thousand years old, are naturally aware of the melan
choly fact that gratitude is notoriously even rarer among nations than
it is among individuals, and therefore demand only justice, nothing
more, but nothing less. This justice you have denied us in your
last Editorial.

Imagine for sake of argument that on that fatal August, 1914,
Italy's attitude had been different, that the Italian Government, as
Signor Salandra once more pointed out yesterday to the Matin, had
not assured France that her southeastern frontier was absolutely
safe, imagine that Italy had not fearlessly and disinterestedly pro
claimed neutrality, no "Miracle of the Marne" could ever have been
achieved, Paris would have been taken, France totally submerged under
the Hunnish flood, and Great Britain, notwithstanding the Great Fleet,
invaded and conquered. The war would thus have ended long before
the United States dreamed of intervention, and then you would have
had to face alone the overpowering might of a victorious and truculent
Teutonic autocracy. Later, on May 25, 1915, when Italy entered
the war, the fortunes of the Allies were at their lowest ebb, and by
her attack, Italy saved Russia and prevented the whole of the Teutonic
forces from falling upon the British and the French armies, then in
the most critical of conditions. Italy, whom you ignore, had saved
the world for a second time, at a moment when America took only
a very languid interest in "the European squabble." And finally, on
November n, 1918, "the Day of Days in the World's modern History
. . . Germany surrended," only because Italy, whom you ignore, had
on October 27-28, 1918, utterly routed and broken all the Austrian army
at the great battle of Vittorio Veneto, and by opening the road to
Germany's undefended southern frontier, had convinced the Teutons
of their irreparable defeat.

570 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

I repeat it once more: we Italians demand justice and nothing
but justice, and it would be well that our friends in America, in Great
Britain and especially in France, should not attempt to belittle or still
less forget the paramount importance of Italy's generous actions and
the value of Italy's selfless sacrifices.
Rome. LITTA VISCONTI ARESE.

[The Duke Litta-Visconti-Arese needs, as he himself gracefully
intimates, no assurance that our omission of special mention of Italy
in the article named was not due to ill will, which, we beg to say, it
would be impossible for us to feel for his gallant nation and our
chivalrous Ally. To that fact the pages of this REVIEW bear eloquent
witness. To go back no further than July of last year, we then
published an article relating largely to Italy, " Delenda est Austria,"
from the accomplished pen of our present correspondent himself. In
August, " The Bersaglieri of the Sea," by Captain Vannutelli ; in Oc
tober, " To a Friend in Rome," by Anne C. E. Allinson ; and in De
cember, " Venice at War," by Gertrude Slaughter. In addition we
have frequently expressed editorial appreciation of Italy's participa
tion in the war and the keenest sympathy with her efforts, now hap
pily attaining success, for the redemption of Italia Irredenta. If the
exigencies of space forbade special mention of Italy, and of other
worthy themes, in " The Old Year and the New," we may at least
gladly testify that the record of Italy's achievements in the Old Year
is secure, and that the promise of her reaping their full fruition in
the New Year is assured. — EDITOR.]

THOUGHTS ON SOCIALISTIC ROTTENNESS

SIR, — You saw in the platform of the British Labor Party, among
other things, " Free entrance of foodstuffs ;" in the Peace Proposals of
American Labor, " No export of goods not made in factories ;" and
lastly in the Wilson Peace Proposals, A Representative of Labor on the
International Board. But you did not see anything about a Farmer's
Representative, because it isn't there. And if it had not been for Mr.
Hoover, there would not have been any show for " the men that
raised the food to win the war " in the general scramble for everybody
else's dollar now going on.

Labor, loud-mouthed, domineering, threatening, and irresponsible,
does not contain the majority of American citizens ; but it is well on the
way to, and then — the Deluge. Once we had a fair working majority
of agriculturists ; now we have lost it, and with it the conservative bal
ance of power. Let labor begin dictating the future of farmers, and
there will not be any farmers. How is England going to revivify her
agriculture if the price of everything she raises is controlled by Argen
tina, but every article of manufacture is raised to the nth price by ar
bitrary labor exactions? We can see the situation very well, looking
across the Atlantic. It is precisely the same here. Labor may be
down-trodden, but it is quite attractive enough to empty the farms
adjacent to the great industries. The Indians tilled more of Rhode
Island than Americans do. They tilled more of Connecticut and Mass
achusetts. Stop the importation of foreign agriculturists, and see
where the milk and butter and eggs will come from. Can any sane man

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 571

think that the two thousand hands in a brass mill are as valuable to
the state as they would be on the farms they have deserted ? And is it
conceivable that men will choose a fourteen-hour farm day and bare
subsistence in preference to a forty-four hour week, pensions, profit-
sharing, and inflated wages ? I trow not. They won't and they don't.

When Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations that two an
tagonistic interests were at work in every community: manufactures
and agriculture, and that in practice one was always built up at the ex
pense of the other, he foretold what is the matter with England and
America to-day. Unless we call a halt, and begin to rebuild our con
servative rural classes, the world will not have to be safe for Democ
racy : there will be no Democracy. It is to the interest of the consum
ing class to depress the cost of food and with it the condition of the
agriculturist to the lowest possible limit. Observe the New York milk
strike. As serfdom has not yet come in, the too much depressed class
melts away. It does not make much difference to the farmer's wife in
Kansas whether there is a mob of anarchists at work in the Paterson
silk-mills — she does not wear silk; but it matters a good deal to the
inhabitants of Paterson whether the price of flour goes up or down.

The abolition of home industries in farming communities and the
transference of them to factories is one prime cause of the gradual but
certain destruction of agriculture as an attractive means of livelihood.
When all the women and half the sons of the farm home are forced
into the city to earn their living, the fate of that farm home is sealed.
The forty-four hour day for them all.

Moral: If Wilson forces through that labor representative, there
must be someone added to look out for the food people.

The advance of Socialism has been steady. At the top of society
it has fascinated people with a benevolent turn. To them it combined
two absolutely incompatible ideals : a level affluence for all and a total
absence of social law. Twenty years ago well dressed people were
saying, " Socialism will never get on till we abolish the fetish of a
home " ; but they had no idea of abolishing their own homes. We dined
a Fabian Socialist couple last summer. They are morally the salt of
the earth. The husband was attired in a fetching green smock, a la
Tolstoi, and, as he stated, in deference to our prejudices, trowsers.
His wife beside him, he beamed on us and asserted that " marriage is
a mistake." We entertained another type earlier in the season, a more
dangerous variety. The husband is a rich, pacifist, clergyman-socialist,
whose occupation is tampering with the proletariat. " The Germans
in Belgium have been frightfully misrepresented," said the wife.
" Everything that happened was the fault of the Belgian women ; they
went mad over those blond German officers ! Anyway, non-resistance
is the principle." " Applied to yourself ? " " Yes ; I would cheerfully
offer myself and my children as martyrs in the cause." Down further
in the social stratum, I heard a carpenter and his friends talking as
they built a dam in a brook. This was just after Wilson's New Free
dom had brought business to a standstill. " We will never have better
times till we go down to New York and kill a few millionaires," said
the carpenter. " Millionaires are to blame for all this. Why, I would
as soon shoot a millionaire as a muskrat." Everybody agreed.

572 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

It has been going on a long time. When Robert Louis Stevenson,
before he went to Samoa, observed, " Socialism is said to be coming ;
it is here. When everybody is engaged in sawing off the bough his
neighbor is standing on, that's Socialism" (I quote without book).
Stevenson sensed it at the inception. But what of Mr. Creel's gleeful
reply at a Socialist love-feast : " What will become of our millionaires ?
When we get through with them, they'll have very little left."

What have we with us in the very air we breathe? This rotten
ness that is creeping into our daily thought? No nationality! No
common honesty ! No home ! No chastity ! All seething in the imag
inations of as yet perfectly law-abiding people (except Mr. Creel).
Now look at the Congressional investigation of Bolshevism. Nothing
appears there except these same vague imaginings put to their logical
test. The microbe is here, next comes the black death.

There is one weapon at hand — a weapon most effective among
the plain people. Now that women can vote more or less, let us take
hold of the conservatism that lies in their habits of thought. It has
been the instinct of womankind to build up the home, and around it the
state, ever since the first woman tamed the first man. Make no mis
take. Equal distribution of wealth may appeal ; but equal distribution
of women and babies hurried into asylums to die, and no conservation
of property — these will not suit at all. Never has such a campaign
document come to hand as that testimony. The Republican managers
should see to it that a copy gets into every house in the agricultural
sections and among the wage-earning class. The old slogan, " defense
of the home," will have some force with such a commentary. Let the
Republicans make it theirs.

NEW YORK CITY. AN AMERICAN.

THE UNIVERSE AND JOHN BURROUGHS
SIR, —

John Burroughs' article in your January number, " Shall We
Accept the Universe ? " is rationalistic in method and optimistic in
tone, but it does not fully reflect the latest scientific views of the
ultimate realities either on the materialistic or psychical side, and it
does not fully account for some of the highest motives in human
conduct.

Science has no evidence of the existence of one and only one
universe, nor is there evidence of the existence of one and only one
supreme personality or being. The earth is a unit; the sun and the
planets and their satellites are a system ; we know also that there are
countless other solar systems scattered throughout infinite space. But
astronomers have never ascertained that these countless systems con
stitute one ultimate system rather than a plurality of systems. The
same chemical elements appear to compose all the stars, and very
likely there are all-pervading laws of force and motion; but these
common properties do not make the bodies one, any more than uni
form color or habits make the sheep in a drove one sheep, or the
birds in a flock one bird. Thus the ultimate physical totality may be
an aggregate rather than a universe. Kapteyn and some other noted

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 573

astronomers hold that the visible stellar universe has resulted from
the collision of two enormous gas clouds coming from opposite re
gions of boundless space — a theory which points to a pluralistic ultimate
conception.

The truth regarding the psychical realities is largely similar. The
individual person in the main is a unit; but the whole human race is
not one personality. Many types and traits of character are opposite
or mutually exclusive; such as, husband and wife, parent and child,
soldier and nurse, artist and machinist; or blondness and swarthi-
ness, seriousness and merriment, contemplation and activity, asceti
cism and luxuriousness. The sum of individuals and types, therefore,
is not one personality, but an aggregate of individuals or races. Fur
thermore, since human life has its source and inspiration in still
higher psychical realities, we must attribute to the latter in infinitely
higher forms all the types and traits found in humanity and presum
ably many not found in humanity. In the final synthesis, then, we
shall have, not one male supreme being, as Mr. Burroughs holds, but
a society or perhaps hierarchy of beings. There will be the divine
Mother, Father, Child, Friend, Architect, Artist, Laborer, Statesman,
Soldier, Nurse, Teacher, and many others. This society, needless to
say, would resemble the deities of the Greeks and Romans.

More correctly, the true view may be a compromise between
the monistic and pluralistic ideas: in some degree the realities are
one, but in some degree, on the other hand, the universe is many.
A serious difficulty for the rationalists is that we must choose be
tween employing old religious terms in new and misleading senses,
and inventing new terms for the new conceptions. The latter is
quite difficult, and we have as yet but partially accomplished it.

Mr. Burroughs presents a hopeful view of human evolution and
welfare, but he does not clearly show why human beings should devote
their lives to such an enduring system. It is easy to see why indi
viduals should labor for the pleasures experienced in their own lives.
But why should they labor for future generations ? Are they to serve
the universe for naught? The answer must be that, just as there are
enduring objective physical processes, so also there are enduring sub
jective psychical processes. The individual life has its final realiza
tion, not in the present existence, but in the larger evolutionary pro
cesses that reach through the ages. In other words, the individuals
in the highest sense live on and themselves share in the higher joys
and achievements for which they labor and suffer.

Briefly, in conclusion, I would say that, while Mr. Burroughs'
views are in many respects instructive and encouraging, there is need
of recognition of other fundamental realities, and need of a statement
of the inner motives that actuate humanity in the super-individual
labors and achievements of civilization.

CYRUS H. ESHLEMAN.

LUDINGTON, MICH.

A SOLDIER ON WAR AND PEACE
SIR, —

The darkness of war which for four years has covered the face
of the earth is clearing away. It rests with us whether the world

574 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

shall be cast back into another night as black as that which is past.

In many countries, men's minds are full of worthy pride for
those of their blood who fought bravely, and gained victory with honor
or met defeat without disgrace. Frenchmen and Germans, British
and Americans have glorious memories which for a thousand years
will inspire those who come after them with courage and discipline
and devotion. But in each of the nations there are also men whose
minds are filled with envy, hatred, malice and all uncharitableness.
These and their like, in whatever land they lived, did their unconscious
but infernal part in bringing on us all the horrors of this war. These
and their like will labor on, ignorant instruments, to bring the horror
of another and another on us and on our children.

Must we suffer through their iniquity? War is a tonic, it is
true; it reveals the noblest traits of men and of nations — traits buried
so deep in the rubbish piled up in the easy times of peace that they
were forgotten, or remembered only to be ridiculed. But war is evil,
even though not wholly evil. Peace is worth almost — but not quite —
any price.

It is a professional soldier that writes these words — one
of those who, we have been told by so many advocates of peace,
love war for its own sake, and gladly force it upon unwilling peoples.
But those whose lives are spent, even in peace, in the daily contem
plation of war, have learned to hate it with a living, burning hatred
that few other men can ever feel until they see its cruelty before
their very eyes.

Let us have none of it, so far as with us lies the power of choice.

But neither let us dream that wars are over for all time. The
evil-minded man has helped, indeed, in causing every war. But it
is the honest difference of opinion of honest men that makes most
wars possible. The moral conviction, the belief in the justice of the
cause, were equally sincere in North and South in 1861, in France
and Germany in 1,914. It is when the strong man armed keepeth his
house that his goods are in peace. And it is as true now as in those
long past days of which the writer wrote, when he said that armor
is a proud burden, and a man stands straight in it. Within this year
we have seen thousands of shifty eyes learn to look squarely, thou
sands of stooping shoulders straighten; and into the souls of thou
sands have entered two previously unknown things — respect for others
and respect for self.

Have we learned our lesson? The next few months will show.

But while war may not altogether be prevented either by just
treatment of our neighbors or by discipline of ourselves, it may be
made sooner or later inevitable by the fostering of suspicion and
hatred.

Then let us cleanse the stains of war from our hearts as well
as from our hands, in order that there may be not only peace on earth
but also good will among men.

S. M. T.

WAR DEPARTMENT,

WASHINGTON, D. C.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 575

PAPER LEAGUES
SIR, —

It is unfortunate that current discussion regarding international
relations has focused upon a League of Nations and has lost sight of
the following underlying facts which demand recognition : —

i — An elastic and sufficient League of Nations composed of socie
ties which adhere to the basic principles of International Law exists
and has existed for generations.

2 — International Law, approximating in its broad principles the
Law of God, furnishes a better standard upon which nations can
govern their relations, than can be provided by commitments of the
Peace Conference.

3 — The war, fiercely fought out on moral issues, has established
the Law of Nations which whining publicists were ready to entomb.
It has revealed an unsuspected power in law-abiding states which
recognize their international obligations and are swift to act.

4 — The surprises of an exigent period have shocked the race into
recognition of national wickedness and righteousness, and made it
suspicious of elaborate programmes which can be used to mask treach
erous designs.

5 — The fight against autocracy has discovered new and relentless
foes. These are anarchy and socialism. The latter, although en
dorsed by many amiable persons, is a sworn enemy of freedom.

These facts contain in themselves matter which discredits any
plan for a convention-made League which is less flexible than that
which already binds nations having regard for righteousness or law
in an offensive and defensive alliance. The same facts represent a
world impatient of experiment, tolerant of universal laws which the
human conscience endorses, and suspicious of mechanical efficiency.
It is foolish to offer labored and shackling programmes of German-
like ingenuity to states which have vindicated their right to freedom.

Before 1914, free peoples did not realize the danger that lurked
in compacts with ambitious Governments. There was much regard
for form. Pedantry flourished. Men saw in a glass darkly. Now
they are seeing face to face. As a consequence, it will not be strange
if nations that have suffered by the ambitious action of renegade
states, prefer joining in coalitions for mutual defence or the safe
guarding of defined principles (a necessary and desirable course), to
elaborating vague plans for the perpetuation of peace. That there is
danger in any other course is obvious from the experience of the past.
Paper Leagues have always failed, notwithstanding the fact that they
have frequently sought ends far more concrete than those that are
now advocated.

BOSTON, MASS. DANIEL CHAUNCEY BREWER.

FROM A SOLDIER'S MOTHER

SIR, — I am just in receipt (Feb. 21) of a letter from my son,
Sergt. Victor Marks, 41 Labor Co., A. S. C, American P. O. No. 915,
American Expeditionary Forces, Nancy, France, under date of Jan.
25th, which reads in part as follows :

" Was certainly disappointed today not to have received a letter

576 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

as I have been expecting one for a long while. The delay certainly
worries me as I know that you all write regularly. I hope to God that^
everything is okeh. Just think of it — almost two months since i have
had a letter from home."

This is another striking example of the handling of mail to soldiers

abroad, in spite of the fact that General Pershing recently announced

through the War Department that all mail was being delivered promptly.

Your kindness in giving this the publicity it deserves will be

appreciated.

MRS. H. P. MARKS.
MONROE, LA.

" PLAIN HORSE SENSE "

SIR, — I have just read in THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW for
March David Jayne Hill's " International Law and International Pol
icy." If any reader has not read it yet he should read it at once. It
has learning and wisdom, patriotism and statesmanship, and plain
horse sense. Why think in the clouds and utter the east wind when
it is so easy to take counsel with the ancients? Why drug our souls
with sounding phrases when the realities stand bare before our eyes?

H. G. PROUT.
NUTLEY, N. J.

THE NATURE OF THE PUNISHMENT

SIR, — In the November issue of THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW,
in the article " Freedom of the Press," the statement occurs : " The
Christian Science Monitor was denied circulation for three days as a
punishment for its publication of and comment upon the aviation re
port." Please permit me to state that the restriction cited above re
lated only to foreign circulation as there was no restriction whatsoever
to the domestic circulation.

ALBERT F. GILMORE.

NEW YORK CITY.

(C) Braun & Cie

GENERAL GOURAUD
COMMANDING THE FRENCH FOURTH ARMY

Tros Tyriusgue mihi nullo discrimine agetur
^3 & ^

V -;. .^^o—
^bliC Lit

NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

MAY, 1919

PEACE WITH VICTORY

IT will be peace with victory. Be sure of that. Amid
the multitude of wild and whirling words, which darken
counsel, that fact stands regnant and supreme. There will
be peace with victory.

We do not, it is true, know at this early writing what
will be the details of the treaty which, after innumerable
postponements, is promised to be made public before these
pages meet their readers' eyes. The exigencies of " open
covenants, openly arrived at," seem to require a cryptic
secrecy. That treaty may, as it should, secure a peace

Proud, to meet a people proud,

With eyes that tell of triumph tasted.

Or it may — God forgive the abhorrent possibility! — pro
vide for a negotiated peace, a patched-up peace, a peace in
which the wrongs of the injured will not be righted and the
crimes of the guilty will not be punished. It may be a peace
so based on compromise with sin as to contain within itself
the pregnant menaces of future wars. It may be a peace of
pusillanimous surrender to Bodies' bluster and Bolshev
ists' blackmail.

Yet, in what must after all ever be to Americans the
supreme sense, it will be peace with victory; for it will be
marked with the victory of American nationality and inde
pendence over the insidious and pernicious attempt which
was made to subvert them to a mawkish and malign inter
nationalism.

Copyright, 1919, by North American Review Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
VOL. ccix.— NO. 762 37

578 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

We do not at this writing know, though it will probably
be known to our readers before they scan these words, what
will become of the Covenant of the League of Nations. It
may be altogether committed to the discard. It may be
modified, transmogrified — as indeed it has already been —
and adopted. It may be embodied in the treaty of peace.
It may be added as an appendix to that instrument. It may
be left for after consideration. We do not know. We do
not prophecy. We do not greatly care.

But this we do care, and this we do know, that the thing
in the detestable form in which the President first arro
gantly sought to foist it upon us and to force it to adoption
letter perfect, will never again affront the American mind.
It will not be presented to the Senate for ratification. It
will not be " inextricably intertwined " with the treaty of
peace so that, as the President boasted, the two would have
to stand or fall together. It will not be adopted by the
" Big Four," or by the Grand Council, or by the Plenary
Council, or by any other body. The thing is dead and
damned. And its successor, whatever its form, and in what
ever way it is presented to us, will be a radically different
thing; and whatever it may be, it will have to stand success
fully the severest tests of American principles and Ameri
can policy, of American nationality and American inde
pendence, or it too will be cast into the discard.

The destinies of the American Republic are not to be
determined by any council at the Quai d'Orsay, however
august and friendly, nor by any cabal at the Hotel Crillon,
however secret and autocratic, but by the American people
themselves.

This, then, is the supreme victory which we shall have
with the impending peace, a victory which is already as
sured in advance of the making of peace. And for this vic
tory we owe thanks to the brave and resolute men, in the
Senate and out of it, who in the face of unprecedented ob
loquy from exalted sources took to themselves the words of
the hero of Verdun, and said of the President's denational
izing monstrosity, " It shall not pass!"

We expect that we shall have peace. But whether we do
or not, we shall have victory.

We shall have victory for nationality over denationality;
for the Declaration of Independence over a confession of
dependence. We shall have the victory which is implied

ITHE VICTORY! LOAN 579

in this country's remaining a national integer among other
integral States instead of its becoming a mere vulgar frac
tion of a heterogeneous mass of fractions.

We shall have victory for the Monroe Doctrine over a
proposal to abrogate it and to throw American affairs into
the olla podrida of Europe, Asia, Africa and the islands of
the sea.

We shall have victory for our right to enact and to en
force our own immigration laws, and thus to determine for
ourselves what aliens we shall receive into the fellowship of
the State, and on what terms we shall receive them.

We shall have victory for our national right to regulate
our foreign commerce, and to say what tariff, if any, shall
be paid by alien producers for the privilege of competing
with our own artisans in our own markets.

We shall have victory for the right to determine for
ourselves how large an army and navy we need, and how
they shall be organized and for what purposes they shall be
used.

We shall have victory for the right to mind our own
business, to be free from foreign meddling in our affairs
and to be free from any obligation to meddle in the affairs
of other nations.

We shall, in brief, have victory for America, as our
fathers designed America to be, over the malefic attempt to
make it merely the ninth part of a hybrid league.

This victory was assured for us when patriotism startled
into aggressive life at the very menace of the Presidential
Covenant; when loyal Senators pledged themselves that the
thing should not pass ; and when the sound judgment of the
nation, without regard to partisan affiliations, asserted itself
in self-defence and made it clear that not even a misguided
President could seduce it from the way of righteousness and
safety.

THE VICTORY LOAN

DECATUR'S toast is apt. There have been those who
have dissented from it; good patriots, too. If we remem
ber aright, John Quincy Adams's New England conscience
protested against its spirit, though he would have fought for
the substance of it to the bitter end. We all wish our country

580 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

always to be right. We all know that she is not always
right. But allegiance must not fluctuate. When our
country is not right we must set her right, and we must do
so from within, as loyal citizens. Indeed, it may happen
that at the very time when she is furthest from right she
will most need our constant loyalty, and a loyalty that is
not passive but aggressive. Also it is to be remembered
that when our country seems not to be right, it is in fact
merely some man or party that is in the wrong, while the
great heart of the nation is as true as ever. Wicked in
deed would it be to desert America by so much as the
shadow of a shade at a time when she is misrepresented
by arrogant self-representatives, and when she chiefly needs
the hearty support of her loyal sons to vindicate her
standing.

This reflection comes home with mighty emphasis at
this time, in the midst of the campaign for the Victory
Loan. It would be idle to deny that there is widespread
dissatisfaction with the course of the Government. That
fact blazons itself before our eyes and shouts itself into
our ears. At home and abroad the country has erred, or
has been made to seem to err. It would be insufferable to
pretend that the real sentiment of the nation has been
expressed at the Paris Conference, or that its real wishes
in the matter of peacemaking have there been officially
made known. In more than one or two respects America
has been placed in a false light before the world. Nor have
affairs at home been better. Detestable policies have been
pursued which have impaired the efficiency of some of the
most important public services and have laid unwarranted
and odious burdens upon the people. Railroad transpor
tation and telegraphic and telephonic communication, two
of the chief necessities of business and society, have been
made less efficient and far more expensive; in the presence
of unexampled plenty of supplies the cost of food is
maintained at exorbitant figures ; and onerous taxes burden
even the humblest and the richest households. In such
circumstances, what answer is to be given to the Admin
istration which in one breath refuses to give the elected
representatives of the people opportunity to abate their
evils, and in the next asks for the subscription of an
enormous loan?

The answer is unhesitating and emphatic. We must

THE VICTORY LOAN 581

subscribe that loan as promptly and as fully as we should
do if all these things to which we take exception had been
ordered exactly to our liking. " Right or wrong, Our
Country! " That is the only spirit worthy of an American
citizen. It is the only course worthy of a practical and
prudent business man. Three primary reasons, widely
different in character, urgently demand it.

The first, of course, is that of simple patriotism. It has
always been our boast that while we might have our differ
ences among ourselves at home, toward the rest of the
world we show a united front. There is no room for party
politics in foreign relations. So in the war we knew no
party. The names of Republican and Democrat did not
pass the three-mile limit. Beyond that line we were
merely Americans. But if we were thus united in the war,
we must be the same in finishing up the issues of the war,
in establishing the terms of peace, and in readjusting our
own affairs at home. So just as we subscribed the Liberty
Loans to carry on the war, no matter what we thought of
certain policies, it is incumbent upon us to subscribe this
Victory Loan to settle up the war and to reestablish peace
in the land and in the world. " God Almighty hates a
quitter!" sententiously declared a practical-minded states
man. The American nation must not incur that odium by
showing itself a quitter now, at the very crown and climax
of its victorious efforts.

From the more selfish, not to say sordid, point of view
of personal interest, there is, of course, strong reason for
subscribing to the loan. Every argument that was ad
vanced in favor of the former loans as advantageous
investments was quite true, and every one is just as applic
able to this Victory Loan. It is an opportunity to save
money by investing it in the best security in the world at
a fair rate of interest. Nor is that all. Paradoxical as it
may seem, the very fact that a burdensome income tax has
been imposed upon us is itself a reason for buying bonds.
That is for the reason that thus people acquire a non-taxable
income. The man whose investment is in a savings-bank
or a mortgage or other securities is taxed for the income
which he receives from it. But if it is in Government
bonds, the income from them is exempt from taxation. In
that there is, of course, nothing unworthy. It is a system
prescribed by the Government itself, and is economically

582 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

sound. When the Government pays interest on its bonds,
it is simply returning to the people money which it has
taken from them in some form of taxation, and there is no
reason why it should tax that interest. To do so would
simply be to reduce by so much the rate of interest paid.
Pecuniary self-interest, both in spite of and because of the
income tax will therefore impel everyone who can do so
to invest as much as possible in the Victory Loan.

The third reason is suggested by the alternative. If the
loan were not subscribed, the result would be most un
pleasant, not only to the Government but also to the
individual citizen. It would not merely cause a certain
degree of humiliation in the eyes of the world. It would
actually intensify those very circumstances and conditions
of which citizens now complain, and of which as we have
said they have a right to complain. There is a homely old
adage about the folly of one's biting off his own nose to
spite his face. Exactly comparable with that would it be
to injure ourselves to spite our Government, since in the
last analysis our Government is ourselves. Has it made a
good job? It should be supported as a manifestation of
approval. Has it made a bad job of some things? It is
sound policy to make the best of a bad job, when it is one's
own job that is in question.

From every rational point of view, then, the success of
the loan is earnestly to be desired, and is to be promoted by
every loyal citizen. It will be the last loan needed on
account of the war; be sure of that. The subscription of it
will therefore be the pecuniary winding up of the business
of the war. " Let us," said Lincoln in his last and greatest
utterance, " let us strive on to finish the work we are in."
The triumphant over-subscription of the Victory Loan
will finish, financially, the work we are in. Other matters
may call for other settlements. The making of this loan
will not dispose of them. To give the Government the funds
needed for its work is not to approve every detail of the
work. It is simply to assure that the faith of the nation
will be kept and its necessary activities be continued with
out embarrassment. More than that the Administration
could not ask. Less than that even the severest critics of
the Administration could not afford to do.

THE DEBACLE OF DOGMATISM

BY DAVID JAYNE HILL

ALTHOUGH during four months of secret negotiation
American public opinion on the League of Nations re
mained unsolicited, America has at last spoken. What
ever the outward form of words may be, her voice is clearly
against supernational government and for an Entente of
Free Nations. The unpledged press and the great hiero-
phants of party opposition have condemned the Constitu
tion of a League of Nations as it was incubated at Paris,
and have demanded radical changes as a condition of
American support. Every interpretation by its advocates
and every amendment proposed by its critics has tended
to abolish the " League " and restore the " Entente."

When it was first published it seemed that the " Consti
tution " was intended not to solicit the cooperation of the
nations to be included under it, but by their agreement to
command their future action. Assailed as a super-govern
ment, it was pleaded by its defenders that it was not a gov
ernment at all, but a kind of international social club,
whose Executive Council possessed no real authority, and
whose sole function was to make " recommendations," which
might be accepted or rejected. This defense reduced it to
something less than an Entente, because it threw doubt
upon its sincerity of purpose.

Instead of treating the " Constitution " as meaningless
for a real community of action, the critics sought to endow
it with real obligations, by pruning its pretences and mak
ing it effective for some at least of its alleged purposes. It
remains for the world to judge who were the sincere friends
of peace ; and especially of a peace to end the war in such
a way that the treaty of peace, when secured, would un
questionably be enforced.

Had some open process of this kind been adopted in
the beginning, it would without doubt have saved much

584 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

precious time. If it were in the order of the day to con
tinue it deliberately after an actual peace had been de
clared upon conditions that would render discussion
wholly free and entirely amicable, the result would be bet
ter still. Nevertheless, the chances for the Entente of Free
Nations are to some degree improved even by the tardy
and reluctant concession that the document alleged to have
been " agreed upon " and to be " unalterable " was not too
perfect to be publicly discussed.

It may not, perhaps, be too late, now that public debate
is not openly proscribed as a manifestation of hostility to
peace, to consider, at least in an academic manner, some
of the provisions which it would still be desirable to elim
inate from this document and some of the methods which
it would be profitable to abandon.

The Peace Conference at Paris has suffered from too
much theory and too little regard to practical results. In
the meantime, while the delegates have been preoccupied
with devising defenses against the consequences of a remote
future, events have occurred of which they have seemed
unconscious, and the irrepressible stream of human activi
ties still flows irresistibly onward. Occurrences have at
last reached a point where action must take the place of
meditation, or victory will be transformed into defeat.

The theory underlying the Conference has been that all
possible future wars must be prevented now; and that, un
less this could be done immediately, the present war could
not be ended. In other words, the League of Nations, it
was held, must of necessity be a part of any treaty of peace.

This theory dates from the attempt to prepare a com
promise peace by creating a future situation with which
all the belligerents would be satisfied. It rests upon the
assumption that while governments are often bad, peoples
are always perfectly good; and that, if the governments
could be overthrown and the peoples could have their way,
there would never be any more war in the world.

As a proposition in political philosophy this doctrine
has never yet been proved to be true. In the belief of
many it is not only incapable of such proof but is er
roneous. If it were true, we should be able in a very short
time to secure universal peace by a general plebiscite. The
truth is that all nations want peace, but they want it in
their own way; and, as their own ways differ, they are not

THE DEBACLE OF DOGMATISM 585

likely to consent to perpetual peace until there is created
a common interest so great that, to secure it, they are will
ing to forego all less urgent aspirations. The realization
of such a community of interest as this is undoubtedly an
ideal to be aimed at ; and, in time, it may be possible to at
tain it. It is, however, an obvious error to insist that such
a community of interest must be made universal before an
existing common interest in a narrower field can be util
ized as a basis for a peace of victory, in which aggression
against public right has been overborne and the aggressor
is rendered powerless. For unless actual aggression is
defeated, is made conscious of its defeat, and is caused to
suffer the consequences of it, peace becomes a mockery.
A distinction must be made between a compromise peace,
in which the aggressor is treated as an equal, and a peace
of victory, in which he must pay the penalty of his offense ;
or war would become a recognized innocent diversion and
peace the mere plaything of participants in a rude and
dangerous game of chance. To state the matter concretely,
unless the Central Powers and their allies are so weakened
and punished for their crimes against the peace of the
world that they will not repeat the performance at a more
favorable time, the war has been lost to the Entente, and
the treaty of peace, no matter what it contains, will prove
ineffectual.

The community of interest on which the present peace
should be made is the defeat of a common enemy. When
that peace is made there will be a long period of compara
tive repose during which the larger problem of universal
and permanent peace might be considered. If, however,
the Entente Allies cannot impose a just peace in the con
crete, what hope is there that they can forever maintain it
in the abstract?

The truth is that proposing peace in general has taken
the place of imposing peace in the actual particular situa
tion because it was easier to imagine the theoretical po
tency of a League of Nations than it was to deal with reali
ties. As a result, the common interest which the Entente
had when the armistice was signed in rendering Germany
powerless for harm in the future, has been held in the
background by the discussion of a theory, while the sep
arate interests of the victors in the war have seemed to
most of them the only realities with which the Conference

586 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

would deal or which its conclusions would affect Thus
Great Britain has thought of her maritime supremacy and
her colonial conquests, France of her future territorial
security, Italy of the control of the Adriatic, Japan of her
Eastern interests, Belgium of her rehabilitation, and the
new nationalities of their racial integration and safety
from their neighbors old and new. The representatives of
the United States, on the other hand, having nothing to ask
for except the adoption of their theory of universal peace,
have held a position of influence which enabled them to
say, " The League of Nations first, and peace with Ger
many afterward."

The inevitable consequence of such a mise en scene of
the Conference was delay, the exaggeration of separate
interests, and an effort to make the League serve, as far as
possible, these particular national aims, while the original
community of interest in the suppression of German ag
gressiveness was gradually dissipated. In brief, attention
to Germany, the new nationalities, the rise and spread of
Bolshevism, the growing menace of Russia even in a mili
tary sense, was withdrawn, to be fixed on getting into the
theory of the League something besides abstractions. This
has been in part accomplished. Dogma has answered to
dogma, interest to interest, and instead of a pacifically dis
posed general society of nations agreeing to accept, respect,
and maintain International Law as its rule of conduct, we
have an organized balance of power only, dominated by
five Great Powers, whose interests have been in some man
ner incorporated in a Constitution for a League of Na
tions; — all except those of the United States, which seeks
nothing but the realization of ideals I If we adopt the
theory that a League is a necessary preliminary to a peace
with Germany, say the Entente Allies, America must agree
to defend us always and everywhere. That is Europe's
answer to the President's insistence on a League as a pre
liminary condition of peace.

The President went to Europe with an ideal. Europe
welcomed him and confronted him with the result of its
experience. To this experience his ideal has had to adjust
itself. The result is not the realization of his expectations.
He sought to reconstruct the world. He has been obliged
to engage his country in a permanent defensive alliance of
a kind that a very short time ago he expressly repudiated,

THE DEBACLE OF DOGMATISM 587

not merely because it is contrary to the traditions of the
United States, but as he emphatically declared because it
is incompatible with our national purpose.

Only four years ago he voiced his conviction by saying:
" Every man who stands in this presence should examine
himself and see whether he has the full conception of what
it means that America should live her own life." And,
referring to our relations to the rest of the world, he added:

It was not merely because of passing and transient circumstances
that Washington said we must keep free from entangling alliances. It
was because he saw that no country had yet set its face in the same
direction in which America had set her face. We cannot form alli
ances with those who are not going our way; and in our might and
majesty and in the confidence and definiteness of our own purpose we
need not and we should not form alliances with any nation in the
world.

At that time the President spoke in words which his
countrymen understood. During the Great War he
gradually saw that the United States could not remain iso
lated in a world of which it forms a part. We entered the
war, as our honor compelled us to do. We became asso
ciated with Great Powers in Europe. We had a common
cause, and we fought valiantly with them against a com
mon enemy. We won a victory, and what was demanded
was a peace of victory. But the President had set his mind
on a peace of reconstruction. America's life was no longer
to him the highest purpose. He wanted to be the creator
of a new world.

From that moment the President no longer represented
America. He was the victim of his obsession, the recon
structed world. He did not even care for America's con
sent. He did not seek it. He did not desire it. His mind
was closed to it. He had a doctrine which he apparently
felt he could not teach. He made no attempt to teach it.
He was resolved to enforce it. Then it would be believed,
because it would be no longer merely an idea, it would be
a fact.

Such a determination, with all America apparently
behind it — although America had not been asked to speak
— could not fail to produce some result; but it was not the
result intended. In the contest between the dogma that
only a reconstructed world could make peace at all and the
pressing necessity that peace should be promptly made,
diplomacy wrung from idealism three concessions:

588 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

(1) Peace is to be guaranteed to the peacemakers by
stereotyping the map of the world as they will make it;

(2) Imperialism may pass for democracy by becoming
international; and

(3) Democratic leadership does not require democratic
methods of procedure.

The President accepted these results, and they were
embodied in the " Constitution " sent from Paris and pro
nounced unalterable. But American public opinion was
yet to be learned ; and American public opinion, even that
most favorable to a League, was not satisfied with the form
or the substance of this document.

A new map of Europe is undoubtedly necessary, in or
der to secure the safety of the countries inclined toward
peace from a new outbreak of aggression; but the Consti
tution of a League of Nations is not satisfied with this, it
demands that the boundaries of the States which are mem
bers of the League, together with all their widely scattered
colonial possessions, shall for all time be protected by all
the associated Powers. This is the first and most conspicu
ous victory of diplomacy over idealism.

To the uninitiated this Constitution is the outgrowth
of new and original conceptions, arising out of the peculiar
circumstances of recent international experience. It has
been heralded as the application of the Christian religion
to the problems of international relationship, and glorified
as its consummate flower and perfect fruit.

How far this proposed League is from being either new
or original will be apparent to those who will compare its
provisions with those contained in " The Project of Per
petual Peace," written by the Abbe de St. Pierre, more
than two hundred years ago, during the Congress of
Utrecht, in 1713.

The good Abbe's purpose, like the alleged object of
the League of Nations, was to make a permanent end of
war, and his method was substantially that which is now
proposed. His plan was as follows:

1. A contract of perpetual and irrevocable alliance be
tween the principal sovereigns, with a diet composed of
plenipotentiaries, in which all differences between the
High Contracting Parties are to be settled by arbitration
or judicial decision.

2. The number of Powers sending plenipotentiaries to

THE DEBACLE OF|DOGMATISM 589

the congress to be specified, together with others to be in
vited to sign the treaty.

3. The Confederation thus formed to guarantee to each
of its members the sovereignty of the territories it actually
possesses.

4. The Congress to define the cases which would place
offending States under the ban of Europe.

5. The Powers to agree to arm and take the offensive,
in common and at the common expense, against any State
thus banned, until it shall have submitted to the common
will.

6. The plenipotentiaries in the congress shall have
power to make such rules as they shall judge important,
with a view to securing for the European Republic and
each of its members all possible advantages.

The learned Abbe's plan sought to establish perpetual
peace by mutual guarantees of possession. It was rejected
as impracticable because it ignored two persistent tenden
cies of human nature, — the ambition of rulers on the one
hand, and national aspiration for freedom and equality on
the other. During the two hundred years that have
elapsed since his project was published, it has encountered
these two obstacles, and not being able to overcome them,
could not be realized. There has never been a time dur
ing those centuries when the process of political evolution
seemed complete. There were always nations that were
not yet satisfied. There was always a longing among sup
pressed peoples for liberation, and among all nations, ex
cept the greatest, for an unattained equality. Is it possible
to believe that these conditions have changed, or will
change when the peace treaty is signed at Versailles?
Alongside the " satisfied nations " there will remain the
unsatisfied, and the dissatisfied, even among those who are
beneficiaries of the peace.

It has been well said that, if the map of Europe could
have been thus perpetuated in the time of the benevolent
Marcus Aurelius, when it might have seemed desirable,
Europe would still be living under the Roman Empire.
There would be to-day, if this had happened in the time of
St. Pierre, no French Republic, and no free governments
in America. The project would have arrested the entire
historic development of Europe. There have been mo
ments when to many that would have seemed to be a happy

590 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

event. What a perfect world this would be to inhabit, if
the professions of the Holy Alliance could have been per
manently carried into effect, when Their Majesties, the
Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia, and the Emperor
of Russia, " having acquired the intimate conviction of the
necessity of settling the steps to be observed by the Powers,
in their reciprocal relations, upon the sublime truths which
the Holy Religion of our Saviour teaches," solemnly de
clared " their fixed resolution, both in the administration
of their respective States, and in their political relations
with every other government, to take for their sole guide
the precepts of that Holy Religion, namely, the precepts
of Justice, Christian Charity, and Peace, which, far from
being applicable only to private concerns must have an im
mediate influence upon the counsels of Princes, and guide
all their steps, as being the only means of consolidating
human institutions and remedying their imperfections."

Could any form of words be more inspiring to the
believer, or more appealing to his confidence? The " only
means of consolidating human institutions"! and it really
seemed to be true. How rude it must have appeared to
Their Majesties — and we always have those who assume
that they alone know what is good for the world — when
Castlereagh, the clear-headed realist, the soul of loyalty
to the Grand Alliance against Napoleon, the apostle of
national freedom, voiced the danger of placing all Europe
under the control of this vague idealism which, it was soon
discovered, served as a mask of the most pernicious despot
ism, and imperilled the national liberties of all the
remainder of the world.

Thanks to the courage of Castlereagh and his deter
mined opposition to the Holy Alliance, that imperial
syndicate was broken up. Had it not been thwarted, and
had not the influence inspired by Washington and sustained
by Monroe and his advisers warned the King of Spain,
supported by this conspiracy, not to attempt to reclaim his
colonies in America, they would still, no doubt, be depen
dencies of the Spanish crown, and more than half of the
Western Hemisphere would still be monarchial. But if
the project of St. Pierre had gone into effect before the
American Revolution, there would have been in 1823 no
American Republic to hold aloft the standard of liberty and
self-government. There would perhaps be even now

THE DEBACLE OF DOGMATISM 591

no democratic Britain; for the American Revolution was
not merely a war for independence, it was a struggle in be
half of inherent human rights and representative
government against reactionary absolutism imported into
England, which had nearly undone through parliamentary
corruption the whole work of the earlier English
Revolution.

It is now proposed to base the League of Nations on
the permanence of the map of the world as redrawn at
Paris, at least so far as the members of the League are con
cerned. Its motto is, Beati possidentes. This is the meaning
of Article X, which is the one substantial element in the
proposed Constitution. This article binds the High Con
tracting Parties " to respect and preserve as against external
aggression the territorial integrity and the political inde
pendence of all States members of the League," present
and future. It is a solemn and absolutely binding engage
ment. Had it been in force before the Spanish-American
War, Cuba would probably still be a subject colony of
Spain, a scene of continuous revolution, badly governed,
the subject of extortion and oppression, and a nuisance to
its neighbors ; and there is no provision in the Constitution
of the League of Nations that would have furnished a
remedy. The sinking of the Maine would not have been
held to justify a war against Spain; for it would have been
disavowed, and the sovereignty of Spain protected. There
are countries that do not govern well; there are countries
that will not govern well ; and there are countries that can
not govern well ; and the only remedy is revolution. Article
X does not, it is true, require aid to a sovereign State in
suppressing an unsuccessful revolution; but if any portion
of it should attain its independence and the mother country
continued at war with it, " external aggression " would be
alleged; and the aid of all the High Contracting Parties,
economic and even military, could then be invoked against
the new claimant of independence.

The perpetual guarantee of territorial integrity, espe
cially when applied to conquered colonies and dependencies,
occupied by alien peoples desiring independence, was not
one of the objects for which the Entente Allies became
associated in the war. It was first suggested in the four
teenth rubric of the compromise peace plan proposed by
the President of the United States, who foreshadowed

592 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

such a " mutual guarantee " as one of the bases of the
" general association " in which the Central Powers were
intended also to have a place. The League now to be con
stituted is far from being such a general association. It is,
in effect, a new preponderance of power. The reason why
it is acceptable to several of the Powers entering into it is
that it affords them this guarantee as against all possible
enemies in the future. Their interest is in the acquisition
of the wealth, the natural resources, and the potential mili
tary efficiency of the United States in a defensive alliance.
That was not the original purpose of the President; but
that is the price he has had to pay for the realization of his
idea of a League of Nations, as distinguished from a
permanent Entente with regard to the specific purposes of
the war. The European nations would not for a moment
have considered the suggestion until the military value of
this country had been demonstrated by the part it has taken
in the Great War.

Irrespective of any League, the co-belligerents on the
side of the Entente Allies are in honor bound to enforce
upon the common enemy just terms of peace that will pre
vent further aggression; but this does not involve the
necessity of a permanent engagement to prevent the future
dismemberment of surviving empires. It is assumed in this
Constitution, and it may be true, that the extensive popu
lations ruled by the countries that now hold them in a
relation of dependence are better governed than they would
be if they enjoyed self-determination. I have no disposition
to raise an issue on this point; but it is not certain that this
condition, if it exists, will always remain the same, or that
the preservation of territorial integrity, which now covers
many conquered peoples, will prove to be the method of
justice or conducive to peace. There is, however, in this
Constitution, no provision for the " consent of the
governed " ; and it is not apparent that there could be with
out a frank abandonment of imperial claims which the
High Contracting Parties have no intention to surrender.

Undeniably, by accepting Article X the United States
would become an underwriter of imperial insurance in
which it would not be, and ought not to ask to be, an equal
partner. What the United States would gain by this
engagement has never been even considered. On the con
trary, all questions of " expediency " have been contemptu-

THE DEBACLE OF DOGMATISM 593

ously waved aside as unworthy of consideration. But it is
more than a question of expediency, — it is a question of
principle. The ideal of peace is noble, but it is not the only
ideal. We are urged as a duty to sacrifice to it not only our
interest but our ideal of freedom, the foundation of our
conception of self-government. That we should cherish
the ideal of peace, and endeavor in the right way to serve
it, is a proposition which no true American will deny; but
that we should in any way barter our freedom for it, or
abandon our principle of the " consent of the governed," is
a quite different proposal. One would be rendering a better
service to his country, and in the end to humanity in general,
if he should seek to establish peace in some other way. It
is not doubtful that the present generation of Americans,
and those that are to follow, can be more serviceable to
the highest human interests as a strong, free, and independ
ent people than by being bound to do that against which,
when called upon to observe the bond, their consciences as
lovers of liberty would revolt.

One of the alleged purposes of the war has been " to
make the world safe for democracy." This Constitution
does not carry out that purpose. It does not in any way
refer to it. It is a union and an intended domination of
Great Powers, and the small States are treated as of second
ary importance. They have had thus far no collective
voice. They have been permanently relegated to the rear.
Far from being recognized as truly " self-determining," the
new nationalities are treated as creations, the handiwork
of the potters at Paris, who are moulding them out of the
debris of the extinct autocracies, Russia, Prussia, Austria,
and Turkey, whose populations have been left in turmoil
and turbulence by the fall of the only governments they
ever knew.

During the protracted negotiations at Paris regarding
the League of Nations, a new enemy has arisen, — a form
of internationalism more dangerous than any single coali
tion. It aims at the life of nations and would destroy all
national existence. It is, therefore, a time to think first of
the national life, to maintain it in its strength, its purity, its
freedom, and its established foundations. Nothing but a
vigorous nationalism can overcome this insidious enemy,
which would divide every house against itself. It is a time,
therefore, for every free, self-governing nation to be a

VOL. ccix. — NO. 762 38

594 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

master in its own house. Its association with other nations
should look toward a peace based on justice with all of
them, a willingness to help, but not to be bound. It is timely
to face this new and all pervading menace of Bolshevism,
to isolate it, to circumscribe it, and to exterminate it. The
Constitution of the League of Nations ignores this problem,
Some of its advocates even seem to dally with it.

Two obvious duties lie before the Entente Allies: first,
to destroy, not Germany, but German militarism, by
imposing a peace of victory over militarism through geo
graphic limitation under conditions of disarmament; and,
second, to reinforce that limitation through geographic
circumscription, by the formation of new independent
States, so as to create a barrier on the East and Southeast
against the German appropriation of Russia. The order of
the day should be, first peace, and then an affirmation of
the restored existence of a Society of States based on their
inherent rights under International Law, with a pledge to
respect, improve, and apply it judicially.

If the conflict with Germany were ended, an under
standing between the Powers now deliberating at Paris, and
a united effort to respect and defend International Law if
again violated, would go far toward securing the peace of
the entire world for some years to come. Instead of allow
ing Bolshevism to spread, and permitting Germany to enter
into alliance with it until she can appropriate its spoils, a
new order of normal State existence should be aimed at, in
which an assenting Germany can participate before she is
destroyed.

When peace is once established, it is the Society of
States, not a defensive League within it, likely to be counter
poised by another political combination of the same kind,
that should be instituted. But this is not the work of war.
It is essentially a work of peace, to be elaborated in a time
of peace. The first condition of it is not a self-protective
and dominant League; but an open forum, where the small
States, unintimidated, may freely voice their necessities, not
to a junta of Great Powers, but to the world at large ; which
will then quickly discover which nation is deserving of aid
and sympathy. For this the Constitution of a League of
Nations makes no provision. It demands that we shall
walk by faith and not by sight; and that we shall place our
faith not in open discussion, not in the disinterested judg-

THE DEBACLE OF DOGMATISM 595

mcnt of mankind, but in the wisdom, the virtue, and the
unselfishness of an international imperium, constructed and
designed primarily to secure its own immunity by maintain
ing a predominant collective force, and secondarily to
convert the small States into virtual protectorates under its
own laws.

Instead of a directory in Paris, working in camera,
hedged about with secrecy, forming new nations out of the
debris of these disintegrated empires, and setting up a
separate and exclusive control by Great Powers, the appeal
should be to the smaller States and to the newly liberated
nationalities to express their desires and preferences, and
together to unite in determining their own future destinies.
They should be told: We shall now treat and help you as
free peoples. We ask you to cease fighting and choose
your own representatives. We shall aid you as far as we
can in securing an adjustment of your differences and shall
respect your self-determination, but we must do this im
partially in response to your wishes. We shall open the
ways of communication and commerce, but if you fight it
will be at your own peril and the effect of your quarrels
will be to close the avenues of trade.

This is not the manner in which the Conference at
Paris is proceeding. It is a secret conclave, conducted by
a Supreme Council composed of Great Powers, with a
growing tendency to leave all decisions to the " Big Four."
It is reconstructing Europe in its own way, and presumably
in its own interest. It proposes a close corporation for the
future, acting in secret, to secure its own peace and dictate
the peace of the world upon the basis of a map of its own
making. The Great Powers claim to be just, virtuous, and
even benevolent, and perhaps they are, but the Holy
'Alliance a hundred years ago also claimed the noblest
intentions.

It is interesting to note how democracy, in the end, has
usually inadvertently played into the hands of autocracy,
and confided its destinies to a single dominant will. When
the Directory was formed at Paris, in the French Revolu
tion, and the directors met to fortify their control, their
first thought was of organization; but at their first meeting
it was observed that it was unnecessary; — Bonaparte had
already taken his seat at the head of the table! No one
disputed his right to remain there. Was he not necessary

596 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

to the cause? Had he not fought successfully the battles
of democracy? Democracy, it appeared, could not be im
perilled by its most valiant apostle.

The small States — the truly democratic States — wait in
the anteroom while the " Big Four " decide the fate oi
Europe. The Executive Council, when the League is
adopted, is to take their place. Democracy will, of course,
be safe; for our President is named in Article IV of the
Constitution as the person to summon the first meeting of
the Body of Delegates, and of the Executive Council. He,
of course, represents democracy, — at least the type of
democracy which he represents. We shall in time, perhaps,
learn what it is.

There might, however, in the interest of democracy, be
some additional assurance in the Constitution of the League
of Nations itself; but, when we examine it, we find that it
contains no declaration of principles which the members
are pledged to respect and support. There is no Bill of
Rights, defining the essential and immutable prerogatives
of sovereign States, — not a word in the entire document to
indicate that States possess any inherent and sovereign
rights whatever. Nothing is said of the right of " self-
determination," nothing of any rights as belonging to the
" people " anywhere. The whole document is devoted to
the interests of Governments. There is even no indication
of any right in any people to be directly represented in
this corporation of State interests. The only reference to
the people in this Constitution, aside from the power and
prerogatives of States and Governments, is in Article XX,
which promises to establish a permanent Bureau of Labor,
with implicit power to regulate the conditions of industry,
" both in their own countries and in all countries to which
their commercial and industrial relations extend " ; that is,
it would appear, to prescribe the conditions of labor in all
the countries of the world, whether members of the League
or not.

The most pernicious vice in the system of ideas upon
which this League is founded is that peace can be secured,
without the existence of immense armed forces, by artificial
lines drawn on a map.

A great force of cartographers has been employed at
Paris in dissecting out of the conglomeration of races the
various nationalities, and circumscribing them by lines of

THE DEBACLE OF DOGMATISM 597

geographic demarcation. The secret of peace does not lie
in geography, but in institutions, political and economic.
The one great lesson that constitutional self-government has
taught is that peace and contentment are not created by
geographic boundaries, but by just laws and the economic
opportunities afforded under a good government. The pre
cise delimitation of races in the Near East, — the debris of
the Turkish Empire, for example, — is a physical impossi
bility. There cannot be created a Czecho-Slovakia, a Jugo
slavia, an Armenia, a Poland, or a Syria, where the popu
lation will be entirely homogeneous, without impracticable
migrations. There will always be left enclaves or trans
fusions of distinct races. We should never dream of such
an operation in the United States. We merge our popula
tion by our institutions. Given constitutional guarantees,
representative government, and the abolition of hyphenism
— that is, the total obliteration of race distinctions — and
the problem of government is solved. If we undertook to
set up in America the conception of race-nationality as a
basis of government, we should plunge this nation into civil
war. And the attempt to do this in Europe will have no
other result.

The whole conception of race-nationality is fallacious
and involves a new danger. Its logical outcome is a struggle
for race domination, as Pan-Germanism well illustrated.
Wider territorial expansion was demanded, in order that a
prolific race might always remain under the same political
regime. This is the basis of the present efforts at scientific
race cartography. It will prove illusory. It is for the
peoples by choice and agreement to make the map, and not
the ethnographers.

In the United States, and in America generally, no map
has ever been made by a Supreme Council. The existing
map has been made by the peoples who inhabit this con
tinent, or by negotiation with other peoples; not always
without conflict, but always followed with consent. It may
not be a perfect map, but it is more generally assented to
than one which a Supreme Council could have imposed.
We, in America, have protected our sister republics from
foreign intervention, but we have never pretended to por
tion out the continent among them.

The principle followed in constituting the new nation
alities and fixing their frontiers is of importance chiefly in

598 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

its relation to future peace. Unless they are satisfied there
will be continued rivalries and possible conflict If Article
X is retained in the Constitution of the League of Nations,
there can be no change in the map when once the Constitu
tion is adopted. Self-determination, so far as national
allegiance is concerned, will then be finally repressed. If
it is to have any recognition, it must be respected now; if
not, all the members of the League will be arrayed against
freedom and compelled to defend by force mistakes that
might have been avoided.

By whatever standard we judge it, it is evident that the
League of Nations, in proportion as it is to be real, is not
the ultimate international ideal. It is, and by its essential
nature must be, a combination of Powers within the wider
Society of States. So far as the President of the United
States is concerned with it, it was appealed to as a com
promise expedient in the midst of war, in order to provide
a means of reconciliation between the Entente Allies and
the Central Powers. That was the purpose of the fourteen
rubrics, and the League of Nations is merely the vehicle
for enforcing them.

But the problem now is not reconciliation, and it never
was. The real problem was and is to show the Central
Powers, and particularly Germany, that ruthless aggression
and violation of the Law of Nations cannot be tolerated,
and cannot escape a just punishment. The whole future of
the Society of States depends absolutely on that. There
must be a peace of victory and not a peace of compromise,
or there will never be any sure peace in the world.

The President has never entertained this idea. He still
holds to his fourteen points of compromise as the only
ground of reconciliation with criminal nations. They must
cease to be criminal and pay the penalty of their crimes.
After that they can take their places, if they confess and
abandon their faults, in the free and responsible Society of
States.

The idea of the League has been to bring them into it
upon a basis of equality in the treaty of peace itself. That
is why the Constitution of the League and the treaty of
peace were to be so interwoven and compacted that they
could not be separated, and that no nation could make peace
without accepting the League. If Germany signed that
treaty, she also would accept the League; and, having

THE DEBACLE OF DOGMATISM 599

accepted it, with all its obligations, why should she then
not become a member of it?

That, in brief, is the whole content of the dogma of the
League. If Germany and other nations were really peni
tent, really virtuous, really minded to submit to Interna
tional Law, to respect it, and to maintain it, the League
would be a superfluity. But if Germany and other nations
are not so minded, then they have no proper place in it;
and such a place should not be prepared for them.

Finally, the President's dogma breaks on the determina
tion of the Entente to remain an entente, no matter by what
name it is called. The basis of that Entente was and re
mains that the aggressor must be defeated and punished for
crime, not welcomed into a fraternity of equals. Unless
the President accepts that conclusion, he and the Confer
ence at Paris have nothing in common. If he does accept
it, the League, as it must be amended before it can be
adopted, is in its essence nothing but a written form of an
understanding for mutual defense against an enemy not
wholly overcome. If the enemy had been made to acknowl
edge defeat at the moment when he really was defeated,
all this circumlocution would have been avoided. The
Entente would have obtained la victoire integrate and a
chastened Germany would now be rehabilitating her
national life, as it is her right and duty to do, in order to
suppress Bolshevism instead of allying herself with it, and
preparing to take a normal and useful part in the Society
of States.

DAVID JAYNE HILL.

ENGLAND AND DRINK

BY SYDNEY BROOKS

The proposal that the State should take over the liquor
trade of the United Kingdom at a cost of over $2,000,000,000
is one of the most interesting developments of the war.
Financially it ought to prove a good investment. Socially
there could hardly be a more beneficent undertaking. Politi
cally it would have the result of freeing British public
life from an influence that has been always unpleasant and
sometimes degrading. Administratively it seems the only
just and the only effective solution of a problem that has
baffled British statesmanship for centuries. A dozen years
ago Lord Rosebery declared that if the State did not con
trol the traffic in drink, the traffic in drink would control
the State. His judgment was but too amply confirmed by
what happened in 1908. The Licensing Bill of that year
was the most powerful and earnest effort that this gener
ation has witnessed to assert the supremacy of the State over
the liquor trade. It had four main purposes : ( 1 ) To im
pose a time-limit of fourteen years on the expiration of
which all saloon licenses were to revert to the State and
such of them as were reissued were to be subjected to far
higher duties than hitherto; (2) to reduce the excessive
numbers of licensed premises; (3) to restore to the Justices
their old unfettered discretion over licensed houses ; and (4)
to give to the people in each locality a right to say whether
they would have a new license in their area.

It is exceedingly difficult to say what England as a whole
thinks of any given measure. But my pretty clear impres
sion at the time was that the best and most moderate opinion
in the country approved the Licensing Bill, realized that
unless its principal objects could be carried out it would
no longer be possible to deny that in England beer ruled,

ENGLAND AND DRINK 601

and looked upon the imposition of a time-limit as the only
means by which the State could resume control over the
monopoly it had created. I do not recall that the cry of
robbery and confiscation with which the brewers deafened
the public ear had much weight with reflecting people. On
the masses it unquestionably had an effect and taken in con
junction with the " Socialistic " tendencies ascribed to the
then Government — they seem humdrum enough now in
retrospect — it no doubt led a good many middle-class people
into the belief that " property " was actually " in danger."
But on the whole, considering the intensity of the brewers'
campaign against the bill, considering, too, the enormous
intricacies of the problem and the passions it aroused, I
think the measure was one with more solid and non-partisan
support behind it than any Licensing Bill of my time. It
was debated in the House of Commons for six weeks, and
the Government showed by the concessions it made in com
mittee and by its whole conduct of the measure that it had
no wish whatever to press the extreme temperance point of
view. The third reading was passed through the House
of Commons by the immense majority of 237.

Here, then, was a measure the general scope and purpose
of which were discussed on every platform during the Gen
eral Election of 1906, a measure which the Government had
a clear mandate to carry through, a measure dealing with
a question of crucial moment to the well-being of the coun
try and adopted by the representatives of the people after
a discussion that extended over nine or ten months by an
almost unprecedented majority.. Yet everyone remembers
its fate when it went up to the House of Lords. A really
impartial Revising Chamber would, of course, have been
glad to second the efforts of the Government in writing such
a measure of reform on the statute book. As the professed
guardian of the public interest it would have scorned to be
moved by the brewers7 agitation, and would have resisted
the preposterous argument that the license issued by the
State became the freehold property of the licensee and that
any change in its conditions was equivalent to " spoliation."
But the House of Lords took a very different line. Lord
Lansdowne summoned a meeting of Conservative peers at
his own house in Belgrave Square. It was there decided,
after a debate of less than two hours, to reject the bill on its
second reading. The programme was duly carried out.

602 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

When the bill came up for its second reading the bishops
and several of the weightiest and most respected members
of the House protested against its destruction. It was to
no purpose. Lord Lansdowne had the bulk of his party be
hind him and the bill was thrown out by 276 to 96. The
Lords acted as a purely Conservative caucus ; they wrecked
in two hours the labors of nine months; they threw over
the interests of the community and upheld the interests of
a trade that everywhere except in England is under the
social ban; they demonstrated with the most striking em
phasis that though the Liberals might be in office it was
the Conservatives who were in power; and they furnished
Lord Rosebery's prediction with a mournful justification.
There have been few more discreditable episodes in
relatively recent British politics.

Before the war our people were spending about $800,-
000,000 a year on drink. This was about six times as much
as the Army cost us, nearly four times the amount of the
Navy estimates, exceeded the total railway receipts by all
but $250,000,000, was greater than the annual value of all
the private dwellings in the kingdom, and furnished the
State with about a quarter of its revenue. Nearly five-
eighths of the national drink bill went in beer, about a
third in spirits, and one-thirteenth in wine. The expendi
ture per head on the basis of the whole population worked
out at just over $17, but as there were some 3,000,000 ab
stainers, and about 15,000,000 children under the age of fif
teen, the actual consumers of alcohol must have been spend
ing an average of over $30 apiece. In many a working-class
family that can hardly have meant less than one-sixth of
the family income was devoted to drink. About $1,500,-
000,000 has been invested in the trade in the British Isles;
over 110,000 premises are licensed for the sale of alcohol;
some eight thousand registered clubs are in existence, a great
many of which are simply unlicensed drinking-shops, free
from any effective supervision; and the number of people
who hold shares in brewery and distilling companies must
run into several hundreds of thousands. Moreover, most
of the public houses in this country are what is called " tied "
houses. That is to say, they are owned by the brewing or
distilling companies, whose influence thus finds a local rally
ing point in every town and village in the land. No other
interest is quite so closely or so pervasively organized. Ai

ENGLAND AND DRINK 603

a general statement it is safe to say that in England cor
porations and politics either keep apart or that the connec
tion between them is incidental and fairly wholesome.
Great industries, of course, are represented, as they should
be, in the House of Commons. The shipping industry and
the railways are particularly strong. But on the whole the
only business that is marshalled as a political force and that
plays politics as a matter of course is the liquor business.
There have been times when it seemed as though it had
given up brewing and distilling for the sake of conducting
vast electioneering campaigns.

Now it is clear that the attitude of the State towards a
business so huge, so militant, so intimately related to the
social life of the people, and so productive of revenue, must
always be a matter of supreme importance. In Great Brit
ain, as everywhere else, there is no free trade in the sale
of intoxicants. Sale is only permitted by license, the num
ber of licenses is limited, their duration is confined to twelve
months, and at the end of the year they must all be renewed.
No holder of a license possesses a legal right to have it
renewed. Renewal may be refused at the discretion of the
local licensing justices (subject to appeal to quarter-
sessions) for various reasons — if the public house, for in
stance, has been improperly conducted, or if there are too
many of them in the district. I think there is no question
that Parliament intended licenses to be the property of the
State, liable to termination at the end of any twelve months,
and that in point of law the license-holder has no vested in
terest in his license beyond the period of one year. The
point has, indeed, been definitely established more than once
by judicial decisions. On the other hand, the license-holder
has the reasonable expectation that his license will be re
newed unless on grounds of gross misconduct. And this
" reasonable expectation " has naturally developed a mone
tary value. The licensing justices have hesitated to cancel
licenses. They have been inevitably reluctant to take away
a man's livelihood. The result is that a well-run house has
little or nothing to fear from the annual formality of renew
ing its license. Moreover, the State by levying death duties
on licensed premises on the basis of the license being a con
tinuing possession; the local authorities by proceeding on
the same assumption in the matter of assessments ; and the
courts of law by protecting the rights of those interested in

604 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

the reversion or remainder of a license — have all shown that
the expectation of renewal is all but a certainty.

And in this expectation, which is all but a certainty,
many millions of pounds have been invested. The brewers,
as I have said, have acquired control of the licensed prem
ises, often at extravagant prices, and they figure of course
among the assets of the brewing companies. Thus the situ
ation has become immensely complicated by the fact that
an army of shareholders has come to have a direct pecuniary
interest in regarding licenses, not as annual and revocable
privileges, which is their proper legal status, but as perma
nent grants. An immense amount of capital has been staked
on what I have called the " reasonable expectation " that
licenses would be renewed. It is easy enough to say that
the money should never have been so invested, that the law
was perfectly clear, and that those who insisted on treating
a probability as an unqualified certainty were simply gamb
ling and would have no right to complain if they were made
to suffer the consequences of their rashness. But as a mat
ter of hard fact no Government can ignore these thousands
upon thousands of innocent investors who have put down
their money, for the most part, in ignorance of the facts,
without looking into the pros and cons of a very intricate
question, and blindly following the financial fashion of the
moment. Their presence has had two important results
It has rallied a powerful body of opinion to the view that a
license, instead of being an annual tenure, is virtually a
freehold and has thus made any drastic remedy by the State,
short of complete expropriation, politically impossible.
Secondly, it has had the effect of popularizing the notion
that compensation should be provided for every license that
is extinguished.

As a consequence of these various factors it has come
about that the State has practically parted with its control
of the liquor traffic. It has issued annual licenses at a very
low rate of duty. These annual licenses have acquired a
high value principally because their prospect of renewal
has been very good. They have changed hands and been
bought and sold at prices which were the equivalent of a
freehold and monopoly value. But from these increased
prices the State, until quite recently, has derived nothing
whatever. Issuing low-duty licenses for one year, it has
had the mortification of seeing them treated by hard-headed

ENGLAND AND DRINK 605

men of business as though they were licenses for all time.
It has, in short, created a vast property, largely monopolistic
in character, and has handed it over without receiving in
return any adequate consideration. In 1904 the Unionist
Government passed a Licensing Bill which in some ways
perpetuated the improvidence of the State and added to the
one-sidedness of its relations with the trade. The bill went
on the principle that compensation ought to be paid in the
event of a license being withdrawn for any other cause than
that of misconduct; and it provided the necessary funds by
imposing a graduated tax on all public houses in the dis
trict, a tax locally raised and administered. The effect of
this was that the license-holder found a new security given
to his property, its value immensely increased through the
extinction of rivals, and compensation provided if his license
were refused renewal — all this without the State being a
penny the better. The bill was vigorously opposed by the
Liberals, who made no attempt either at the time of its pas
sage or during the General Election to conceal their
determination to amend it when they again found them
selves in power.

That was the task to which they addressed themselves at
the beginning of 1908. It was made all the more formid
able by reason of the very parlous state in which the brewery
companies found themselves. During the previous ten
years their shares had greatly depreciated. The value of
the shares in twenty-three leading companies showed a de
cline that averaged over 60 per cent. This was not the
fault of any Government, but simply of the company pro
moters and managers. They had bought up public houses
at preposterous figures; they had overcapitalized their con
cerns ; and they had made no adequate provision for writing
down their inflated capital or the exorbitant amounts at
which their precarious license values stood in their books.
The brewery boom was dead ; people were drinking far less
than they did; and the condition of the stock market since
the Boer War had depressed the value of all securities. The
brewers in 1908 felt that if, on the top of all this, the State
was now to begin harrassing them once more and was to
resume its control over the licenses that figured among the
most imposing assets in their balance sheets, then ruin and
a widespread crash were inevitable. They prepared there
fore to put up the fight of their lives. At the same time the

606 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

immensity of the interests involved and the undoubted cer
tainty that too stern a policy would reduce a large number of
shareholders to penury or something near it, made it neces
sary for the Government to deal as tenderly as possible with
vested interests and to recognize the claims of equity on a
liberal scale.

The Licensing Bill which they brought forward was an
extremely intricate and technical measure, but its main ob
jects were clear. First, the bill sought to provide for an
immediate and compulsory reduction in the number of
licenses. There was to be, roughly speaking, not more than
one public house to 750 people in the towns and to 400
people in the country. Secondly, the bill provided for the
gradual but complete recovery by the State of those rights
in the monopoly of the drink traffic with which it should
never have parted. It effected this by imposing a time-limit
of fourteen years, after which compensation should cease to
be payable for any extinction of old licenses, and all appli
cations for renewals should be treated as though they were
applications for new licenses and only issued on the basis
of their full monopoly value. The bill had other aims as
well. It established, for instance, with regard to new
licenses, the right of localities to exercise a veto. It pro
posed a more effectual system of supervision over clubs in
order that the extinction of the public houses might not be
nullified by the growth of unlicensed and unregulated drink
ing dens. It empowered the licensing authorities to ex
clude children from public houses, to order their closing
on Sundays and on election days, and to prohibit the em
ployment of barmaids. It provided, too, that while the
compensation fund was to continue during the next fourteen
years to be drawn from the trade, the methods of assessments
were to be changed so that its benefits might be distributed
on a fairer and more uniform scale. But these provisions,
while important, were of little significance by the side of
the two main purposes of the bill : to reduce the number of
licenses — Mr. Asquith hoped to wipe out thirty thousand —
and to recover for the State after a period of fourteen years
its full control over the drink traffic.

It was a keen challenge to the trade and there was not
the least hesitation in taking it up. The brewers and the
distillers denounced the bill as a wholesale piece of con-
fiscatory fanaticism. They warned the public that, if it

ENGLAND AND DRINK 607

passed, no property of whatever kind would be safe. They
stigmatized the proposed time-limit, which, after all, merely
required the trade to- find an annual sinking fund of about
five per cent on the total value of the beer and spirits sold
in the public houses, as unblushing robbery. The means
they employed to arouse hostility against the measure estab
lished a new record in electioneering impudence. To meet
ings and pamphlets and newspaper articles and every in
strument of legitimate propaganda no objection could be
taken. That the trade should have mustered in force at
every by-election and should have done all they could by
argument and appeal to defeat the Government candidates
was natural and reasonable. But when it came to wealthy
brewers trying to bully the Church into resisting the bill,
threatening to cut off their subscriptions to charities if it
passed, menacing tradesmen with the loss of custom and
working men with the loss of employment, wailing their
appeals on behalf of the widows and the orphans who were
the misguided holders of brewery shares, and replying to
every argument of national policy and of social justice or
well-being with the conclusive shout: " Your beer will cost
you more! " —when it came to this, and in England ten years
ago it got beyond it, then I think the limits of political in
decency had pretty well been reached.

There had never since the Liberals came into office been
the smallest secret of how they intended to deal with the
licensing problem. The brewers had foreseen the bill for
two years and were prepared for it. They were splendidly
organized; they had an enormous campaign fund at their
disposal ; with the exception of the Morning Post, all the
Unionist papers were on their side; every bar and restaurant
contained a flaming petition of protest which its patrons
were pressed to sign; every public house in the country be
came a centre of electioneering proselytism; every share
holder was adjured in circular after circular to make his
voice heard. The Church, it is pleasant to recall, stood by
the Government and the bill unflinchingly, sinking for the
time all other questions in order to forward what it felt to
be a cause of national moment, and steadfastly disregarding
both the importunities and the threats of the trade. But
the Lords capitulated and the end was that meeting at a
famous house in a famous square and the rejection of the
bill. I do not think anyone who remembers those days will

608 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

feel other than drawn towards a scheme of State purchase
which by its very finality must for ever put a stop to scenes
and incidents so full of humiliation. for the credit of our
public life. Nor do I see how anyone who reflects on the
hopeless legal and political entanglement in which the
licensing problem had become involved can regret that there
is at last a prospect of its being severed by the sword of
the State.

The triumph of the brewers proved a short-lived one.
The engine of taxation was brought heavily to bear upon
them in the Budget of 1909. For the first time the State
took something like a fair toll of the monopoly values it had
itself created. But that the trade had still an immense
power in the House of Commons was shown perhaps more
clearly after the outbreak of the war than at any time before
it. "Drink," said Mr. Lloyd George in February, 1915,
" is doing us more damage in the war than all the German
submarines put together." And a little later he declared:
" We are fighting Germany, Austria and Drink; and as far
as I can see the greatest of these three deadly foes is Drink."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he then was, spoke by
the book. He knew better than any man how alarmingly
the output of our shipyards and munitions factories was be
ing curtailed by drink and how large a proportion of the
increased wages of the workmen was being spent in the
public houses. He would himself have favored complete
prohibition for the duration of the war, but the Cabinet
shrank from so daring a leap. He sought accordingly for
an effective compromise only to find that in the matter of
controlling the drink traffic everybody and every party had
" previous convictions." He assured the House, as he well
might, that " after the experience of weeks of trying to get
a solution that will not provoke controversy, I feel at the
end of it I am prepared to take, politically, a pledge never
to touch drink again." The proposals he ultimately intro
duced in April, 1915, included powers to close or control
public houses in munition, transport and training areas, the
doubling of the duty on spirits, a stiffly graded surtax on
beers, and the quadrupling of the duty on wines. Instantly
the Unionists and the Nationalists, English beer and Irish
stout and whiskey, were up in arms ; the whiskey taxes were
cancelled; the new duties on beer and wines were with
drawn; and all that Mr. Lloyd George saved from the

ENGLAND AND DRINK 609

wreckage was a bill prohibiting the sale of spirits under
three years of age, and the appointment of a Central Control
Board to administer the powers taken in the Defence of the
Realm Act for the control of licensed premises in munition-
producing and similar areas. Here, again, it is obvious
that, had State purchase been in operation before the war,
the emergency that confronted and defeated the Govern
ment in 1915 could either never have arisen or would have
been dealt with by a simple administrative order.

I do not suppose that anyone is particularly proud of
our drink record during the war. There was a moment, in
the first exaltations of the struggle, when I believe the coun
try would have accepted prohibition or any other sacrifice
at the bidding of the Government. But that moment, if it
ever existed, was permitted to pass, and our policy since
then in regard to drink has been characteristically unheroic.
It was a clear case of allowing a national habit to con
tinue, even at some loss of war efficiency, rather than face
the tumult that would have been stirred up by an attempt
to suppress it. But while we did nothing dramatic
and have followed our natural bent by avoiding sudden ex
tremes, none the less by one unsensational step after another
we steadily abated the worst evils of alcoholism. By
rigorously cutting down the hours within which drink might
be sold, by forbidding treating, by closing many public
houses altogether, by starting canteens at the munitions
works, by limiting the amount of beer that might be brewed
and of whiskey that might be distilled, by lowering at the
same time their alcoholic content, by prohibiting off-sales
and sales on credit, and in certain areas, as for instance, at
Carlisle, by taking over the complete control of the busi
ness — by these and similar measures an immense change
was wrought, not in our national habits but in their con
sequences.

The statistics tell the tale. In 1914 there were 176,000
convictions for drunkenness. In the following year the
number was decreased by over 40,000; in 1916 it fell to
84,000; in 1917 it was somewhere in the neighborhood of
50,000. In other words, so far as the police court records
are a fair gauge, there was over three times as much drunk
enness in 1914 as in 1917; and no sociologist will regard it
as a mere coincidence that the figures for infant mortality
are today the lowest in our annals. Whether we are actu-

VOL. ccix. — NO. 762 39

610 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

ally drinking less I am not sure, but it is quite clear that we
are drinking less alcohol, about half as much, I should
judge, as we were consuming in the year before the war,
when no self-respecting working-man would have tolerated
the light beers and attenuated spirits that he is now obliged
to put up with. But at the same time we are spending more
on drink than ever before. The drink bill for 1914 was
$820,000,000 ; for 1 9 1 7 it was all but $ 1 ,300,000,000. Noth
ing could be more eloquent of the national determination
to keep up the good old national customs at any cost and
under any circumstances. Reformers may rage, may point
out that up to the end of the war we were still employing
150,000 men of all ages, directly or indirectly, in the sale
and manufacture of intoxicants, may urge that the 600,000
tons of barley that were used in the breweries in one year
might have made 268,000,000 four-pound loaves of bread,
and may insist that it was sheer humbug to talk of putting
our last ounce of strength and our last shilling into the war
when we allowed this monstrous waste of money and energy
to continue. But the only answer of the British working-
man was to raise his glass with a hearty " 'Ere's 'ow."

Emphatically we are a drinking people, always have
been, and always will be. I said at the beginning of this
article that the drink problem had baffled British statesman
ship for centuries. The statement was literally true. For
the past seven or eight hundred years the problems to which
it gives rise have been the constant preoccupation of the
people, the clergy and the legislature. There was a distinct
temperance movement in the sixth century, some early-
closing enactments in the thirteenth, a regular licensing sys
tem in the fifteenth, and a whole series of penalties imposed
on drunkards and innkeepers by legislation in 1603. The
eighteenth century saw some of the hardest drinking and
the wildest liquor laws in all human experience ; and from
the beginning to the end of the nineteenth century hardly
five years went by without the drink question in some form
or other coming up before Parliament. Those who inveigh
against the present and talk of the England of today as
though it were given to drink on a quite unparalleled scale
can have little knowledge of the past. I was reading the
other day in Macauley that in 1688 the people consumed 90
gallons of alcohol per head ; they now drink only about 27.
A century and a half ago there was one public house to

ENGLAND AND DRINK 611

every six homes and every fifty people ; there is now but one
public house to every eighty homes and to every 350 or so
people. Drunkenness, too, besides having virtually died
out as a society accomplishment, has steadily diminished
among all classes. Our people show not the least inclina
tion to give up drink, but they take it in more decent fashion.
There is less excessive indulgence, a growing preference for
the lighter kinds of liquor, more moderate drinking but less
drunkenness, more use but less abuse.

Indeed for the past ten years and more there have been
loud complaints that England is growing sober. The com
plaints have come from hotels and public houses, the man
agers of restaurants, the directors and shareholders of
brewery companies, the secretaries of the big London clubs,
and finally and in greatest anguish from successive Chancel
lors of the Exchequer. All have found their receipts
diminishing and all have ascribed it to a real and permanent
alteration in the habits of the people, an alteration they wel
comed as social reformers but deplored as financiers. The
figures confirm their apprehensions. During the thirty
years prior to 1873-76 there was a steady and very large in
crease in the consumption of intoxicants. Then a down
ward movement set in and reached its lowest point in 1888.
It was succeeded by an upward wave which, after a slight
check in 1893 and 1894, culminated in 1898-1902. Since
then there has been a somewhat rapid falling-off, but the
amount drunk, though it has never reached the record fig
ures of 1873-76, is still greater than it was in 1888. If the
statistics of the last fifty years can be held to demonstrate
anything it is that poverty does not lead to nearly so much
drinking as prosperity. Bad times and scarcity of employ
ment mean that the wage-earner, who is the real mainstay
of the brewer, has less to spend at the public house. In
other words, it is not poverty that takes him there but afflu
ence; poverty drives him out. To improve his condition,
therefore, in the hope of thereby winning him over to tem
perance, seems a policy that is storing up for itself some
bitter disappointments.

On the other hand, it does not necessarily follow that
good wages and improved conditions always mean more
drinking. If such were their invariable effect we should
today be drinking more, instead of less, than we were drink
ing thirty years ago. We smoke well over a third more

612 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

than we did in the seventies, consume half as much sugar
again and drink fifty per cent more tea, but we are less and
not more indulgent in spirits, wine and beer. If we spent
as much on alcoholic liquors today in proportion to the
population as we spent thirty years ago, our drink bill just
before the war would have been at least $125,000,000 more
than it was, and if the increase in drink had kept pace since
the seventies with the increase in tobacco, the drink bill for
1913 would have been probably $400,000,000 higher than
it was. There has clearly been a shifting of tastes and I
should judge a wholesome one.

The countries that drink most are not necessarily the
most drunken. On paper the greatest drinkers in the world
are the French. They consume about fifteen gallons more
of alcohol per head than we do. Yet France is a notoriously
temperate country. Before the phylloxera ravaged the
vines and led to spirit-drinking, the French probably held
the palm for sobriety among European peoples. Italy,
Spain and Portugal, being wine-growing and wine-consum
ing countries, have large statistics of consumption, but are
as a matter of fact exceedingly temperate. Northern Rus
sia, Scandinavia and Scotland are the most drunken parts
of Europe, though the consumption of alcohol per head is
comparatively low. Climate and race have much to do in
determining such matters. A warm country is naturally a
sober and usually a gambling country. A raw, dull and
damp climate predisposes to indulgence. Thus the north
ern counties of England are more drunken than the southern,
Scotland is more drunken than England, and the west coast
of Scotland more drunken than the east. The predominant,
vigorous, fighting races of Europe, if not of the world, seem
always to have been given to strong drink. Energy, enter
prise and drink have hitherto been invariably associated in
the sum total of national character; and the idea so popular
in America just now that temperance makes for virility and
that the way to develop strength of character is to run away
from temptation instead of meeting and mastering it, is one
that has never found favor with our people.

We in Great Britain have an ingrained hatred of all
social bigots and fanatics, and the prohibition of drink is
about the last cause that is ever likely to succeed in Great
Britain. For myself I rejoice in that fact. There are
moments, it is true, when one can forgive an English tern-

ENGLAND AND DRINK 613

pcrance advocate everything. He may exaggerate, he may
be unpractical, he may be defeating his own ends by his
unmeasured violence, but the provocation he meets with in
the spectacle of the crime, the wretchedness, and the physi
cal and mental deterioration for which drink is largely re
sponsible in Great Britain is undoubtedly prodigious. But
a wider philosophy and a deeper experience of life convince
one that it is better for a community to drink in moderation
than to attempt the impossible task of imposing abstinence
by force. There is a masculine calmness and common sense
in the British attitude towards such questions that social
reformers, instead of girding at, should seek to imitate and
to profit by. I detest the political influence and the social
position which the liquor trade has won for itself in my
country. But I certainly do not want to " rob the British
working-man of his beer." On the contrary, I want to edu
cate or induce him to drink as much of it as is good for him
and no more. And the most effective steps that can be
taken to these ends are, first, to provide him with his favorite
beverage in the most wholesome form — to stimulate, in other
words, his growing preference for light beers — and secondly,
to see that he has a chance of drinking it in clean and cheer
ful surroundings, in an establishment where he can buy
things to eat as well as drink and can consume them sitting
down at tables instead of standing up at a bar. Destroy the
public house as a drinking den merely and convert it into a
miniature restaurant and place of recreation, and temper
ance will have gained the most powerful ally it can ever
hope or desire to secure. It is because the resources of the
State can alone effect these reforms that State purchase of
the liquor trade on terms that are financially equitable to all
the interests embraced by it seems to me a project of the
most hopeful significance.

SYDNEY BROOKS.

A TRIBUTE TO MY FRENCH GENERAL

BY COLONEL WILLIAM HAYWARD, 369th INFANTRY

I AM glad to have an opportunity to pay my tribute to
the finest, most efficient organization I have ever seen op
erate, the French Army, and at the same time to the big
gest, bravest man I ever came in contact with, a general
of that army, Gouraud.

On the afternoon of March 14, 1918, I detrained my
regiment, composed of New York City negroes, on the
edge of the Argonne Forest. We had toiled in the mud
at all sorts of manual labor for nine weeks at St. Na-
zaire when we had been turned over bodily to the French
Army as an American combat unit by General Pershing.
Organized hurriedly, when our entrance into the great
world war seemed to be imminent, with no armory to
house them, my boys had been taught close order drill on
the sidewalks of New York, rifle fire, at State expense, for
eighteen days at Peekskill, extended order during two
weeks at Camp Whitman, and general discipline and or
derliness in sixty days' pioneer duty at Camp Dix, and
Camp Upton, and guard duty over six hundred miles of
railroads, the German interned prisoners at Ellis Island,
and seized German ships. It was the street urchin of New
York National Guard regiments that now found itself the
black orphan of the Army left on the door-steps of the
French.

We were met at Givry-en-Argonne by a French gen
eral, and learned for the first time that, whereas we had
been hurried to France as the 15th New York Infantry,
our new name was to be the 369™* Regiment d'Infanterie,
U. S. We also learned that we were to become an integral
part of the famous French 4th Army, commanded by a
general whose brilliant fighting at the First Battle of the
Marne had earned for him the title " Lion of the Ar
gonne," and whose exploits in command of the French at

A TRIBUTE TO MY FRENCH GENERAL 615

Gallipoli, where he had left an arm and part of his hip,
had increased his reputation and given him command of
the wonderful army which had stubbornly hung on to
the difficult terrain stretching from Rheims to the west
edge of the Argonne Forest. We were proud to know we
were to serve under this man, Gouraud.

We did not have to wait long to see him- The second
day after our arrival he came to my billet in a tidy room
of a clean French house, the walls of which were covered
with sacred pictures and family portraits. The mutilated
hero sat down and in fifteen minutes found out from me
all there was to know about my regiment. Instead of de
precating our ignorance of modern warfare, he pro
pounded the startling intelligence that he would re-
equip and re-organize us into a French regiment from
top to bottom, teach us to fight in a couple of weeks
and then place us between the German Army and
Paris. The General said in a kindly way that while we
did not seem to know much about war he was convinced our
hearts were in the right place and that, after all, was the
main thing with soldier men. I understood at the end of
our interview why the French phrase, " The mere sight of
him made men brave," had been so often applied to him.
It was on this first visit that he became enamored of our
band and many times afterward he would motor from
Chalons to hear it play. His favorite piece was " Joan of
Arc," sung by the Drum Major with the band accompani
ment. After such a performance one day he unosten
tatiously slipped into my hand a considerable sum of money
which he insisted I take and give to the families of the first
of my soldiers who should be wounded or killed under
heroic circumstances. He said, " It is only a little, but
the Americans have done such wonderful things for our
unfortunate people, I feel we French should at least do all
we can, though with no possibility of even beginning to
repay the debt."

The general kept his word, and on the 8th day of April
my recruits had their baptism of fire " doubled " with a
French battalion in the "Main de Massiges" Before we
could realize it we were holding 5% kilometres (about 4
miles) of front line trenches and were having daily and
nightly encounters with the dreadful enemy who faced us.
For nearly ninety days we held this one sector, two bat-

616 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

talions in line, twenty days at a time, and one battalion
out ten days. During this time the French trained us and
taught us and encouraged us. It was no unusual sight to
see two French generals carefully instructing and drilling
a battalioa of my regiment, theoretically at rest for a ten
day period, at 7 o'clock in the morning and again after
dark. And there was no impatience, no needless criticism,
no arrogance, no condescension from these wonderful com
rades in arms who had accepted us, and who told us, " You
now belong to our house."

By the first of July we could stand alone. Early in
June the French High Command had concluded that the
next great German offensive was to be directed against the
Champagne, the part of France that the army of Gouraud
held. Although the terrible assaults of the Boche on the
English, March 21st, and upon the French, May 27th, had
not been disastrous, nor decisive, it was clear that another
such successful push would stretch the thin blue and khaki
line to the breaking point and put the German Army into
Paris. No means had been devised for stopping the ter
rible mass formation used by the Germans. And while the
colossal losses suffered by them were gratifying to talk
about and think about, a look at the map was disconcert
ing, even terrifying.

The probability of the great attack falling on us in the
Champagne became a certainty before the end of June.
Repeated French raids, carefully prepared and executed,
brought back German prisoners, who told us all we wanted
to know of the concentration of great forces, re-organized
divisions, and reserves of infantry and artillery opposite
us. In the March attack sturdy British " shoulder-to-
shoulder " defense of the first lines had failed. In May
the French checker-board defense of " Eschelons in
Depth " had failed, so General Gouraud decided on a de
parture from former methods. It was very simple, once
he had thought it out. We were to practically evacuate
our first-line positions and very strongly build up, fortify,
and man what were known as the " intermediate positions "
from two to three kilometres in the rear. We were to
leave only a handful of men in the front lines to retard and
signal the advance of the enemy assault, hinder it with
machine-gun fire, and on retiring leave the dugouts and
trenches drenched with mustard gas.

A TRIBUTE TO MY FRENCH GENERAL 617

It was on this unique plan that we toiled day and night
all through June and the first days of July. Our thin line
grew stronger. Infantry and artillery crawled in behind
us night after night under cover of darkness, and on the
7th of July came the thrilling order of the day from Gou-
raud addressed to the French and American soldiers in
his army. The American soldiers were the Rainbow Divi
sion, including the gallant 69th, New York, a little Amer
ican heavy artillery, and my Regiment. It was translated
and read to our men as follows :

" Order of the day addressed to the French and Amer
icans of the 4th Army, July 7th, 1918.

" We are about to be attacked at any moment. You all
realize that never was a defensive battle fought under
more favorable conditions. We are prepared and are on
our guard. We are powerfully reinforced in artillery and
infantry. You will fight on terrain which you have trans
formed by your unceasing toil into a redoubtable fortress,
an invincible fortress if all the passages are well guarded.

"The bombardment will be terrible; you will bear it
without weakening. The assault will be brutal, in clouds
of dust, smoke and gas. But your positions and armament
are formidable. In your breasts beat the brave, true hearts
of free men. No one will look backward. No one will
yield one bit. Each one will have but one thought, — to
kill, to kill much, until they have had enough of it.

" That is why your general says to you, t You will crush
this assault, and it will be a beautiful day.'

GOURAUD."

To show the extent of the withdrawal from the front
line, it is only necessary to say that in the sector held by
us, where there had been two battalions — approximately
1,600 men — there were left two patrols of eight men each.
A successful raid by the French on the night of July 14th
brought back prisoners who gave us the information that
the German artillery preparation was to begin at midnight
and that the great infantry mass would leave its trenches
at 4:15 and, following a creeping barrage, would come
across " No Man's Land," capture the first positions, and
continue victoriously crushing its way to Chalons and
down the valley of the Marne to Paris. But it did not hap
pen that way. This information enabled General Gouraud

618 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

to start his counter artillery preparation in advance of the
German. As our boys said when the furious French artil
lery fire began, " The old man has beaten them to it." Our
guns were heard in Paris, and the terrible deluge of French
steel, gas and explosives was felt in Berlin. It was too
late for the Germans to change their plans, so they went
ahead as best they could, but their great 4:15 assault, even
following their artillery fire, was a thrust against empty
trenches on which a deadly French fire fell as soon as the
Germans occupied them. The French guns were firing
into the back doors of their own gas-filled dugouts and it
was an unhappy afternoon for the Boche. At no point
did the enemy pierce General Gouraud's real line of re
sistance, the intermediate position. By noon the advance
had stopped, but the Germans were still savagely attack
ing. By night, with broken lines of wire communications
somewhat repaired, runner routes re-established and work
ing, and the whole marvelous French system of liaison
functioning, as it only can function, a thrill went through
the army. There was good news from the right, and better
news from the left. The French losses had been relatively
small. Everywhere the enemy was stopped. " It could not
be better," the French said. The Germans, terribly
punished and demoralized, were in a suitable frame of
mind to be easily driven from our front lines by counter
attacks, and July 16th came the second Order of the Day
from our great leader:

" Soldiers of the 4th Army, July 16th, 1918.

" On the 15th of July you have destroyed the effort of
fifteen German divisions, supported by ten others. Accord
ing to their orders they expected to reach the Marne by
evening; you have stopped them in their tracks, at the spot
where we chose to give and gain the battle.

" You have the right to be proud, heroic infantry and
machine gunners of the advance posts, who signalled the
attack and retarded it, aviators who flew over it, battalions
and batteries which broke it, headquarters which had so
minutely prepared the plan of battle. It is a hard blow
for the enemy, it is a beautiful day for France. I count
on you always to do the same thing each time that they
will dare to attack, and from all my heart of a soldier, I
thank you. GOURAUD."

A TRIBUTE TO MY FRENCH GENERAL 619

The night of the 17th, as we were working our way back
to the original front lines, from my dugout I wrote Gov
ernor Whitman : " The Boche is beaten. At his maximum
strength, we have stopped him along a front of fifty miles,
with fewer soldiers than we will ever have again on our
side in this war. It may take two months or it may take
two years to drive him across the Rhine, but each day will
see him on his way." And it was true. Marshal Foch
executed that most difficult operation, according to Napo
leon, and passed from defensive to offensive warfare. The
counter thrusts west of Rheims followed quickly, one after
the other. He began to throw in the American divisions,
the 1st, the 2nd, the 3rd, the 4th, the 26th, the 28th, the
32nd and finally the gallant Rainbows, who had been in
our defensive fight as well. Whatever the outside world
knew, our American soldiers away up there on the French
battle front, the advance guard of the mighty American
Army that was coming so slowly, knew that civilization
and liberty were saved, and that it was the crafty strategy
and sturdy leadership of Gouraud and the splendid hero
ism of the inspired French Army which had saved them.
The French, — clean, brave, modest, gallant and scientific
through and through!

We hope and pray France may never have to fight
again for her very life ; but if she does and she can use an
American infantry officer, who knows and loves the French
poilu as a brother, I will be there.

WILLIAM HAYWARD.

THE SOLDIER IN THE CLASSROOM

BY HAROLD A. LITTLEDALE

PERHAPS the Pen is mightier than the Sword. Frankly
I am skeptical. Some day I may know. At present I am
giving it the acid test in my class in journalism.

Before coming to the acid test should I not mention
that I am a soldier and that my students are soldiers? Also
that I am a private in the ranks sitting as one in judgment
upon my superiors? For my students are three sergeants,
four second lieutenants and one first lieutenant, and the
uniform we wear is that of the Tank Corps, British Army.
And should I not mention that our classroom is an artil
lery harness shed in an English camp; for is there not
romance in journalism, and is there not great romance
in teaching journalism in an artillery harness shed in
Hardy's country?

Properly speaking, my acid test, my class and myself,
come under the head of Reconstruction. We are a part of
it, for my little experiment is a part of the Army's Educa
tion Training Scheme.

Let it suffice that the Education Training Scheme is a
whole hearted effort to prepare the British soldier for civil
life. It aims to reach the skilled and the unskilled and
those who, after working in the heat of the day, find their
whole outlook changed. To the skilled it offers supple
mentary training to make up for all that was lost in four
years of war. To the unskilled it opens up an opportunity
to learn a trade. To the legion whose outlook is changed
it comes as a refreshing breeze at the close of a mid-sum
mer day, bringing to the shop assistant the knowledge that
he need not return to the counter and to the clerk a respite
from his books.

The call to Reconstruct comes in the night. It is the
week before Christmas. " Last Post " has sounded. The
door of our hut opens and in walks the Orderly Sergeant.

THE SOLDIER IN THE CLASSROOM 621

This is unusual for in our hut are only men of the British
Expeditionary Force. All others, those who have " dodged
the column " and never have been overseas, together with
the " rookies " are in huts apart and they bear the burden
of the fatigues we are spared. So it is not usual for the
Orderly Sergeant to visit us for the office of Orderly Ser
geant is such that he may say to one " Come " and to an
other " Go"!

We turn from the stove and stare at the intruder. He
walks in with a cheery " Hello, lads," but we are not to be
taken in with that and remain silent. Then comes the call
to Reconstruct for he reads to us the programme of the
Education Training Scheme.

" Any of you boys," he says, " who want to go in for
these things are to give in your names at the company of
fice in the morning." He leaves us and we poke the fire
and talk it over.

" Education be blowed ; give me my ticket," says one.

" Ain't it just like the army," exclaims another.
" When you've finished fightin' and shed your bloomin'
blood for them they wants you to go to school ! "

" Still," argues a third, " if they are going to do this I'd
like to learn poultry farming-"

All eyes turn upon the radical. " Say, old china, what
do you know about hens? "

" Nothing! That's why I want to learn." The reason
ing is not correct

" Righto, mate, we'll learn it together," comes encour
agement from across the room.

" I'll go in on that." ..." And me."

The critics resort to ridicule and the hut resounds with
ironic cock-a-doodle-doos.

" Lights Out! " falls upon our ears. We hurry to turn
in. Over in a corner someone is whistling " Roses in Pic-
ardy-"

I unroll my puttees.

" Never a rose like you "

I kick off my iron-shod boots, fold my tunic for a pil
low.

The lights snap off.

I wrap my blanket about me and stretch out on the
floor. The sergeant said Spanish. Very well, I will learn
Spanish and some day when I am demobilized I will

622 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

search for sunken galleons and for boxes bursting with
Spanish gold. My boyhood ambition reaches attractively
before me. My path is strewn with pieces of eight. I
close my eyes and, because truth is stranger than fiction,
dream of nothing!

In the morning the poultry farmers number six! Two
of them are of the scoffers who crowed the loudest. They
go to the company office and give in their names to a bored-
looking clerk. Some duty prevents me from going so I
write out an application to join the Spanish class — and at
the bottom I offer to instruct in journalism. The urge
comes at the last moment.

That afternoon I hear my name shouted along the lines
and tumble out of the hut to be told to report at once to
the education officer.

"What do you propose to teach?" asks the military
headmaster.

" Practical journalism so far as the classroom permits."

"Sit down!" the Captain waves me into a chair and
lights a cigarette.

Now imagine the scene : the cubicle in an army hut, the
Centurion and the man-at-arms, rank for the moment put
aside, intent alone upon Reconstruction!

" Go on! " the Centurion says.

" Practical journalism," I repeat. " How news is gath
ered and written and interpreted; how it is printed and
spread abroad — in short newspaper publishing — " I break
off to correct the phrase. " Newspaper making is better,

sir."

" Ah! " The Centurion's cold eye brightens. " News
paper making," he repeats. " I like that word ; sounds
practical." He makes a notation of it on a pad. " When
could you begin? " he inquires.

" After returning from Christmas leave, sir."

The cold eye stares at the calendar behind me. " Very
good; be ready to start up the first week in January." He
nods pleasantly. I rise and salute and leave the room.

Christmas finds me in London. Each day I buy the
newspapers and make clippings and prepare my syllabus.
The days pass quickly. I find it will take months, per
haps years, to select typical news stories, but in the
British Museum I find just what I want and when I return
it is with Prof. W. G. Bleyer's Newspaper Writing and

THE SOLDIER IN THE CLASSROOM 623

Editing as an unbruised reed upon which to lean. True,
the examples are American, but for the purposes of the
classroom, Broadway can easily be converted into the
Strand!

The Poet is the first to come- He taps timidly on the
door and waits for the word within.

"Come"!

He enters only as far as the threshold.

" Can you tell me where the class in journalism is be
ing held? "

" It is to be held here, sir."

"Oh! . . ." as if the answer was what he feared.
But he steps inside and closes the door. For a moment he
is evidently half-inclined to put his cane on one of the bar
rack tables, with which the harness room now is furnished,
but something causes him to change his mind. Instead
he stands and eyes me with an evident embarrassment that I
do not share.

"Won't you sit down?" I wave him to one of the
forms.

"Ah! . . . Er! . . . Ah! • . . Thanks."
This time he does lay his stick on the table.

I explain that others are to come and we sit and talk-
about the weather! Half an hour drags past. We have
learned that we were in the same brigade and that in the
March show we fought on either side of the same road.
. . . Are the others never coming? Ah! the door opens
—but it is the Centurion.

"Is this all?" The Centurion looks unfortunately at
the Poet. I remain silent. Then fingering his wrist watch
nervously: " I'll send a note round to the adjutants of Nos.
1 and 2 Battalions and the Officers Battalion asking what
on earth has happened to the others." He disappears with
out further parley.

For a minute or two the atmosphere is charged with
Failure. The Poet sits in silence, flicking the ash off his
cigarette. I force the talk and soon he is confiding to me
that he is a mechanical engineer.

" But I want to write," he admits. " I want to write
Poetry. You know, I believe it's awfully well paid — two
guineas for half a dozen lines — and I could so easily dash
off a triolet or two in my spare time."

624 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

I shall not try to describe my feelings. What is one to
say to persons who do not know what they are talking
about? Evidently, I think, Reconstruction is not without its
humors. I make no effort to explain that Poetry and news
paper work are things apart. In time I will refer him to
Lanier's Science of English Verse. He will take it up be
cause the title will attract him in view of his training along
the lines of mechanical engineering! I simply suggest that
we call it off until the morrow, and he leaves.

In the morning they come in ones and twos — the Short
Story writer, the Iron Molder, the Sphinx, the Compos
itor, the Contractor, the Gold Coast Trader and the
" Bookie." The Poet is the last to arrive. I suspect he has
purposely delayed.

Now that we are all assembled we sit in a group to
gether and chat aimlessly for a few minutes, after which I
take down their names and inform them that attendance
is considered a parade and there can be no unaccountable
absences. This by force of written instructions to me.

I look up from my nominal roll with fears that my
students are here to escape irksome regimental duties and
with no burning desire to take up journalism as a career.
I think it best to let them know my feelings and I put my
cards face up on the table- They smile a little but in the
eyes of two or three I think I detect seriousness of purpose
and am encouraged to begin my first lecture.

Of course an artillery harness room cannot be expected
to have all the contrivances of a modern classroom, but I
note a great expanse of wall of some composition, dark in
color, that will serve as a blackboard and as the ground is
chalk I have only to stoop down for the wherewithal to
write. So with a white sticky substance that is half stone
and half clay I inscribe in a conspicuous place the skeleton
of newspaper organization :

I. Business office.
II. Editorial staff.
III. Mechanical force.

As I talk I encourage questions and it is not long be
fore I discover that one has served his apprenticeship and
is now a not unknown writer of short stories. From him
I exact a promise to talk on short story writing, and the
Compositor I enlist to explain the mysteries of the lino
type. They offer a strange contrast those two. The writer

THE SOLDIER IN THE CLASSROOM 625

proves himself to be a practical craftsman, the compositor
an impractical mechanic, although probably competent by
force of the habit to work.

Gradually I come to know them all intimately. The
keenest is the Iron Molder. He is training himself under
one of the " Improve Your Memory " courses and is en
thusiastic about it. He is determined to raise himself out
of his rut and he will succeed. If all the work showed the
marked improvement of his we should do well. The con
tractor has been in business house building with his father.
As an officer he mixed with men he would never otherwise
have met and now he wishes not to fall back into the pre
war groove. If necessary he will emigrate, and he tells me
his wife is rather anxious to get away to a new country-
The Gold Coast Trader I find to be anything but an ad
venturer. More glamor attaches to lectures in journalism
than to instruction in arithmetic or language and so he
joins. When I point out that he has a splendid reserve to
go to in his experiences on the West African Coast he at
once becomes a disciple and drinks in all I say. The
" Bookie " is an Irishman of the type who has an Irish
name. To look at him would be to guess his name. I
never learned his civil occupation but I think of him as
the " Bookie " because I'm sure that when he shall put
aside his uniform he will wear loud clothes. The " Sphinx "
I never fathom. He rarely speaks and yet is not serious
for he always has that enigmatic Mona Lisa smile.

Before many days are over we are discussing ways and
means toward publishing a newspaper of our own and
interest is general for even those who were apathetic seem
to have found something to stir them from their lethargy.

" Who will suggest a name for our paper? " I ask —
there is a momentary pause — of nervousness more than
anything else.

" The Tanks Corps Chronicle." The Short Story
Writer looks around for approval. No one speaks.

" That is rather long. The title should be short." For
a moment I feel that he is offended at my words, for he re
mains silent and seeks solace in his pipe. Curiously the
Contractor, from whom least of all I expected happy in
vention, comes to the rescue.

" What do you say to The Whippet? "

" Excellent ! " Approval is general and each day we

VOL. ccix.— NO. 762 40

626 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

spend an hour discussing how best to overcome such trifling
difficulties as having neither paper nor ink nor printing
materials. But we feel we can have our paper printed
somewhere and blindly go on planning its scope.

Our lectures on newspaper making progress satisfac
torily. I select examples from Bleyer or The Times
and write the facts on the blackboard — for we have one
now, complete with real chalk — and my students recon
struct the crime. They are quick to learn and each
written story shows striking improvement.

At last I feel we are far enough advanced to gather
materials for our newspaper. From the door the word
JOURNALISM has been erased and in its place appears

Offices Of
THE WHIPPET

The announcement makes a mild sensation in camp
and all who pass stop to read. We begin to gather our
material together and I draw up an assignment sheet and
send out my reporters — one to get an article on the educa
tional scheme, one to report all the sports, a third to get a
color story of the work of the Woman's Auxiliary Army
Corps, which is represented in our camp, a fourth to write
up the band and the Short Story Writer to do the editorials.
Other articles quickly suggest themselves.

We are all working feverishly, the harness room look
ing like a veritable editorial office, with newspapers
strewn upon the floor, when the Centurion ushers in
a General! I look up and am about to call my class
to Attention when the General waves all formality
aside. He surveys the inscriptions that have not been
rubbed off the walls and questions me briefly. He leaves
at last, surprised and satisfied.

But I am not to see The Whippet published. Sud
denly the order for my demobilization comes through. I
appeal to the Short Story Writer and he agrees to carry on.
So I bequeath Bleyer to the class, leave The Whippet in
the hands of my students, and pass out of the class room a
soldier no more.

HAROLD A. LITTLEDALE.

THE FRENCH PEACE
COMMISSIONERS-II

BY MARCEL KNECHT
PRIME MINISTER GEORGES CLEMENGEAU

IN 1865, William E. Marshall, famous for his picture
of Lincoln, and the landscape painter, A. B. Durand, re
ceived a visit from a young French physician who brought
letters of introduction to them and who had been obliged by
his avowed republicanism to leave the France of Napoleon
III. He was only twenty-four, with moderate resources
besides his doctor's degree. His light blue eyes, deep sunk
under bushy eyebrows, were bright with youth, fancy and
wit, and a light moustache softened somewhat the irony of
the mouth. Dr. Georges Clemenceau was simple; he
made a good appearance without being a dandy, and his
charming spontaneity and burning enthusiasm imme
diately won for him the friendship of artists, writers and
congenial men of New York, on whom he made an in
delible impression. In the quiet of a little apartment at
212 West 12th Street, Dr. Clemenceau spent many a fev
erish night preparing a translation of John Stuart Mill,
whose philosophy he endorsed, with the cooperation of W.
E. Marshall, who was a thinker as well as a painter.

It was the resort of poets, artists and dreamers : the
cradle of the Washington Square writers and of the daring
innovators of Greenwich Village. He loved this Latin
Quarter of New York, where, in spite of the roar of indus
trial life, men still found time to inquire into the origin of
the good and the beautiful. Clemenceau had about him
a charming group of faithful friends, who greatly admired
his brilliant intelligence and clear judgment, whole-souled
disinterestedness and great heart.

I was listening the other day to a New Yorker of

628 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

seventy — also a noble heart — whose memories of our Great
Young Man from 1865 to 1869 are still fresh, and this is
what he said to me:

" I knew that our dear Georges would one day be a very
great Frenchman and that he would unite his compatriots
to ensure victory. No one knows better than myself the
nobility of his sentiments, the delicacy of his soul and the
loyalty of his friendship. And I cannot tell you how
deeply moved I was when I saw, in our magazines, pic
tures of him sharing, in spite of his great age, the rough
life of his soldiers, his i poilus/ martyrs in the holiest of

causes."

Between two pieces of literary work, and visits to
studios or museums, the young man had decided to teach
in an excellent school for girls, Miss Aitkins' Academy, at
Stamford, the green and picturesque Connecticut town.
Every week, Doctor Clemenceau would go several times
to Stamford, but always returned with alacrity to 12th
Street and his friends. His original, conscientious and
remarkable method of teaching was most successful, and
in Stamford I have come across several old people who
still speak with admiration of the " wonderful French
teacher" of 1868.

After having enjoyed to the full the liberty of free and
idealistic America, Dr. Clemenceau instinctively realized
what his next task was to be and left for France, where he
took up the hard and thankless business of politics. Then
the hurricane of 1870 blew over France, separating Alsace-
Lorraine from us, in spite of the fiery protests of the Re
publican deputies, among whose signatures was that of the
former Stamford teacher.

Next came the birth of the third Republic, and its
growth amidst storms, gales, crises and deaths. Gambetta
first, then Deroulede, Ferry, General Boulanger, Floquet;
finally Meline, Waldeck-Rousseau and our present days.
What problems! What stupendous struggles! Abroad
the menace of Bismarck, still unsatisfied, and our colonial
campaigns; at home, social, religious and economic ques
tions bringing in their train violent movements. But
Clemenceau, more and more master of his prodigious abili
ties, persistently fought, attacked, pursued and avenged,
with the formidable weapons he wielded: his pen and his

THE FRENCH PEACE COMMISSIONERS— II 629

eloquence, sometimes winged like poetry, sometimes as piti
less as Retribution.

The year 1903 dawned on France with the heavy
oppression of the brewing tempest. So far she had
frankly turned her activity to her great inner problems and
had just avoided a conflict with England over Fashoda.
The intelligence and tact of Admiral Fournier had also
averted for the world, and especially for France, a clash
between England and Russia, which might have resulted
from the Hull incident.

It was on the coast of Morocco, in 1904, that the first
shot of the world conflagration of 1914 was fired; the in
solent and threatening arrival of the Kaiser, backed by his
entire people and drunk with pride and hatred, was the
premonitory sign of the catastrophe to come, — for those
Europeans who could read it. A few French statesmen,
realizing how serious the future looked, appealed to the liv
ing forces of the nation, so as to present before the brutal
enemy as fortified a front as possible, and above all, a front
morally invincible. Clemenceau left his favorite seat on
the opposition benches, and became a member of the Cab
inet, and Prime Minister.

With the inspired fire that had attracted to him so many
American friendships, Clemenceau restored confidence,
and strengthened the prestige of the glorious French army,
which the shock of recent political passions had not ex
actly diminished, but disconcerted. He continued the suc
cessful policy of M. Th. Delcasse, and Great Britain will
never forget the deep emotion of the people of London
when, in Westminster Abbey, a strong man, full of energy,
came with simplicity, in the name of the French Republic,
to lay a wreath of flowers of France on the coffin of his
friend, Campbell-Bannermann.

Ever imaginative, hiding under his moustache and
the shafts of his humor an exquisite tenderness and
youthful spirit, Georges Clemenceau has always made the
right national gesture and found the words that eternal
history engraves in the memory of men and nations. A
true son of Vendee, he incarnates the knightly spirit of the
noble population that gave so many heroes first to its kings,
then to the immortal and victorious Republic.

The Christianity of the race has set its seal upon the
most independent of philosophers, upon the thinker

630 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

free from any organized religion, who used to translate
John Stuart Mill on the banks of the majestic Hud
son and who wrote that strange Chinese story: The
Veil of Happiness.

If M. Clemenceau pays no heed to dogmas and to the
practices of religion, he nevertheless observes its spirit of
sacrifice. He has transmuted his religious aspirations in
the magnificent love, both spiritual and physical, that he
bears his French fatherland, its provinces, its fruitful soil,
its peasants and workers, laborious and sensible, and all its
joyous children. Sister Theonesse, who, before the war,
nursed her illustrious patient with such devotion, was
well rewarded in November, 1918, for the Premier caused
the news of the armistice to be telephoned to her before any
one else.

Germany had already had him to deal with, a few years
before the war, when, relying on the righteousness of our
cause, on Russian friendship and British good feeling, M.
Clemenceau won a victory over German diplomacy, whose
heavy artillery was not yet completed. This new move of
the " Tiger " gave fresh hope and legitimate pride to
France, whom Bismarck had almost mortally wounded.
During the years that preceded 1914, M. Clemenceau
constantly and vigorously supported those who were pre
paring a strong army. It was his clear-sighted judgment
that gave the management of our famous War School to
Colonel F. Foch, a pupil of the Jesuits, and brother of
Father Foch, S.J.

The mobilization of France inspired him with great
words; then the polemist came uppermost.

A powerful figure in the Senatorial Commission of the
Army, M. Clemenceau examined, verified, suppressed
^nd organized, projecting into every corner his searching
scrutiny. The Senate had both respect and affection for
him, for his colleagues were well aware of his sincerity and
devotion to the country.

The Chamber of Deputies admired his unconquerable
youth, and those parries and thrusts of the practiced
duelist. The Parisian, who dearly loved opposition, took
a keen delight in his editorials in L'Homme Libre, later
L'Homme Enchaine — freer than ever.

As President of the Inter-parliamentary Committee, his
old friend Stephen Pichon at his side, M. Clemenceau

THE FRENCH PEACE COMMISSIONERS— II 631

rallied all the members of the allied Parliament: Lord
Bryce, L. Luzzatti, Sir Charles Henry, etc.

When he thanked the British members of Parliament
who officially came to place flowers on the Statue of Joan
of Arc and on that of the City of Strasbourg, the former
Stamford teacher availed himself of the opportunity to
praise Lorraine's most noble daughter in an oration
whose classicism was pure delight to his hearers.

Young in spite of his years, young with the youth of the
America of 1868, the "Tiger" divined that the Allies
were about to weaken, that they would lose the war if they
did not make a mighty effort. So he donned a trench hel
met, armed himself with a stout Vendee stick, and " le Pere
la Victoire " leaped to the front, where, hidden in a depres
sion of the soil, sometimes at Verdun, sometimes at Ypres or
Rheims, he listened less to the hiss of German shells than
to the unconstrained conversation of the new saints of
France,, the poilus. He loved them with a grandfather's
affection ; he was ready to help them, as he helped, when a
young man, his artist and writer friends of New York.
And as these obscure heroes had suffered for months and
were sometimes discouraged, the Great Old Man had talks
with them, and gradually, in the mud of the trenches,
through nights of hardship, the young soldiers of France
would catch the glimpse of a new star. Confidence re
turned; Clemenceau had blown the bugle, and all
responded to its clarion call. It was the birth of a new
" Sacred Union."

M. Clemenceau gave us one more proof of the sound
ness of his judgment; in 1914 Colonel Foch became one
of the victors of Nancy and of the Marne, then of Ypres.
Proud of having Petain at the head of the French armies,
M. Clemenceau suggested his friend, General Foch, to
the Allies as generalissimo, enabling the latter to make use
of the admirable American reserve forces and to gain the
most signal victory in History. General Mordacq and M.
G. Mendel, his cabinet chief, surround him with almost
filial devotion. Since 1918, M. Clemenceau has con
stantly held the flag of France, while Foch and Petain have
held the sword.

The matter of Franco-American cooperation in connec
tion with war affairs, M. Clemenceau entrusted to his
friend and colleague, M. Andre Tardieu, and it has had

632 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

no more enthusiastic worker than the Prime Minister.

When the latter saw the superb soldiers of the United
States march by, hundreds of thousands strong, he must
have felt deep emotion upon reading on their young faces
the same loyalty, the same alert intelligence, the same sim
plicity he had known long years before in the streets of
Manhattan, as an exile doctor and teacher.

The last surviving member who signed the republican
protest of 1871, the "Tiger," now 76 years old, a Bayard
without fear and without reproach, has recently been the
recipient of three supreme rewards, and he has given the
world an example of the brotherly spirit of forgiveness.

France and her Parliament bestowed upon him the
honor of announcing the armistice and liberation of Al
sace-Lorraine to the world.

The Allied armies acclaimed him in reconquered Metz,
in front of the statue of Marshal Ney, when, after he had
given Marshal Petain the insignia of his rank, in the pres
ence of Joffre, Foch and Pershing, President Poincare
turned to the Premier and gave him the symbolic accolade
of France and her army.

Finally, the respect and confidence of the Allied dele
gates and chiefs of the various nations gave him the chair
manship of the Peace Conference, at which he tries with
every fibre of his extraordinary being to protect at the same
time the higher interests of humanity and the sacred cause
of his martyred country.

As all the world knows, a dastardly attempt was re
cently made on the life of this pioneer of democracy. With
utter unselfishness, with the kindly wisdom of a very old
man who has seen much, and in recognition of the deeper
bond linking all humanity, M. Clemenceau has requested
the President of the Republic to save the would-be assas
sin, Cottin, from the guillotine, and not to break the hearts
of the unfortunate parents.

We are all of us proud, we Frenchmen of France and
of Alsace-Lorraine, to have at the head of our Delegation
Dr. Georges Clemenceau, one-time citizen of New York.

THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW 633

FOREIGN MINISTER STEPHEN PICHON

IT was in 1918 that Georges Clemenceau again chose
as his immediate helper his faithful friend, M. Stephen
Pichon, Senator from Jura, whose intelligence, judgment
and experience he had already had occasion to appreciate
during certain critical hours of the past. Side by side,
united by their ardent love for France and devotion to the
Republic, by years of work in the journalistic field and in
the Senate, the two veterans organized the Victory Cab
inet — not the least of their many achievements.

After receiving a thorough education at Besancon, M.
Stephen Pichon was attracted by the intensive culture of
Paris. There he learned something of the struggle for life,
but he very soon found himself in the Republican circles
which were later to bring him to the highest offices of
the State.

The restless life of Paris, the contact with Republican
committees, gave the budding journalist a large field for
action, in which he could experiment with his vigorous
pen, always tipped with reason.

Between 1890 and 1904, M. Stephen Pichon rapidly
acquired the reputation of being a remarkable newspaper
man, with a peculiar gift for foreign politics; he also
proved of immense value to his country as Governor of
Tunisia, and then as Minister to China, during the Boxer
uprising.

A real orator, a diplomat by profession, he was cer
tain of considerable success in politics, and as soon as he
entered Parliament he enjoyed the absolute confidence of
his colleagues of the Senate and Chamber of Deputies.
Under President Loubet and Fallieres, with M. Cle
menceau and Th. Delcasse, first as Minister of Foreign Af
fairs, then as an independent orator and journalist, M.
Stephen Pichon devoted his untiring energy to restoring
France's prestige abroad and to consolidating her alliances
and ententes. He was one of the rare statesmen who, as
early as 1900, understood that for France, isolated as she
is in the West, it was an imperious necessity to strengthen
the bond of the " Entente Cordiale," to renew with Italy
the former fraternal conferences, and to neglect nothing
that would tend to make our country loved and respected
throughout the world.

634 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

No one more than M. Pichon encouraged the efforts
and valuable initiative of the France-Amerique Committee
and of M. Gabriel Hanotaux, Minister and Academician,
who, as early as 1906, smoothed the way for the great alli
ance with the United States and for our cordial relations
with South America. It was natural enough, therefore,
that when war broke out, the Senator for Jura should im
mediately become one of the most eminent leaders of the
Senate Commission on Foreign affairs, whose intensive
labors, added to those of the sister Commission of the
Chamber of Deputies, were to bear such good fruit.

In conjunction with three other great journalists, M.M.
Georges Clemenceau, Andre Tardieu and Henry Franklin
Bouillon, M. Pichon organized the Inter-parliamentary
Committee which, in 1915 and 1916, was to establish close
friendly and business relations between the French, British,
Italian, Serbian and Belgian parliaments. More intimate
union between the various parliaments was the starting-
point of greater cooperation between the Allied armies,
navies and industries.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Clemenceau
Cabinet is the second delegate of France at the Peace Con
ference. He is above all the representative of the diplomacy
and people of France, and we are too well acquainted with
the political career and sincere democratic aspirations of
M. Stephen Pichon not to be convinced that he has never
ceased to give the other Allied delegates the benefit of his
invaluable common sense, and an experience and wisdom
worthy of his great country.

MARCEL KNECHT.

OUR WELCOME TO THE SOLDIER

BY JOSEPH S. AUERBAGH

With welcoming Sun and Sky and the thrill and murmur of
Pageantry in the expectant air, that long heralded day had dawned at
last for the Metropolis of our land. Along the commanding Avenue,
decked out in festival attire of flag and banner, streamer and emblem,
through the Victory Arch proclaiming in its every part the creative
genius of Architect and Sculptor, between a multitude such as no man
might number, and to accompaniment of martial and joyous strains,
of acclaiming plaudit and emotional tear, and yet alas behind the pro
cessional gun-caisson with solemn trappings and memorial laurel
wreath, and the eloquent Service Flag with its many Golden Stars,
symbolic both of a supreme sacrifice — the returning Soldier of the
Republic marched on with rhythmic tread and face aglow with glad
consciousness of a beloved City's pride and exultation in his faith, his
valor and his fame.

In vain might Memory search her fairest tablets for such a tribute
and a like home-coming.

In turn will each city and hamlet of the country, with appropriate
fervor and ceremony, open arms and heart to its own Hero-Boys.

Shall this, however, be all there is to be told of the story
as to the home-coming of the Soldier, and is his old life
to be resumed as it was before? Are we content to
see him take off with the khaki that something of the
spirit, which we had persuaded ourselves and him he
had put on with that khaki, never to take off again?
Is our proffered handshake on that day to be the last? Is
our applause of his deeds to be succeeded by no abiding in
terest in his future welfare? Are we only in charity or from
motives of decency or prudence to give an artificial eye to
make more presentable the disfigured face, or for his live
lihood the artificial leg or arm in the place of that
which was shot away, and give him next to nothing
of ourselves in substitution for the comradeship that
was his whilst under arms? Are we to leave solely
to National and State Legislation and to Community
Councils the bettering of his industrial condition and
ignore all thought of his intellectual training which

636 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

would fit him not alone for a more comfortable but
for a wiser, more influential and profitable life than ever be
fore? Are we to fail to realize that at last we have a vast
disciplined unit, ready under right guidance to serve the
Republic in peace against the enemies of law and order as
effectually as against the brutal forces of Junkerdom on the
field of battle, and to make its contribution of reasonable
ness to the readjustment and compromise we know to be be
fore us, as the old order is yielding to the new? Is our at
titude toward the Soldier, of whom we have asked and re
ceived so much, to be but one more illustration of Henry
Adams' cynicism, that America has always taken tragedy
lightly?

Let every right-minded citizen with much searching of
his conscience, or fears if need be, ponder well the possible
sequel. For the tasks and problems which confront our
Country will not be changed materially, even if the coun
sels of perfection prevail at the Paris Peace Conference;
where, however, Contention and Procrastination seem to
occupy not inconspicuous seats. And when we shall have
ministered to the maimed, the halt and the blind and
provided jobs for the jobless, have seen the benefit
to them of such legislation as the Vocational Reha
bilitation Act of Congress and have sought to relieve
the misery of our crippled world whose tears are not yet
dry, we shall scarcely have entered upon the discharge of
our duty to the Soldier or through him to the State and to
ourselves.

We have heretofore known altogether too little of the fine
quality of our youth, even in communities where we reside.
Again and again, as Chairman of a Board of Instruction in
Nassau County of New York, I saw manifest a new spirit
among them, though space suffices to recount but one or two
of the quickening experiences which were of almost daily
occurrence.

It so happened that a justifiable claim for exemption was
made by the relative of a boy whose two brothers had gone
to the War. As discussion of the matter proceeded, it trans
pired that the Boy, who was disposed not to go, had once
been in the Elmira Reformatory. He was told how com
mitment to a reformatory as against confinement in prison
suggested a view on the part of the Judge that there was
something in the offender which entitled him to his locus

OUR WELCOME TO THE SOLDIER 637

poenitentiae; that if he stayed at home he would always
carry about with him the stain of his misdoing, but that it
might be washed out forever by service to his Country.
Without a moment's pause he put behind him his right of
exemption, as with a new light on his countenance he de
clared " I'm going " ; and he went.

A contingent of these Boys, as they were starting for
Camp, were told of the momentous errand on which they
were bound, and how — if they came back with a new con
ception of the dictates of citizenship — they might make a
lasting contribution to the future well-being of themselves,
their families, the community and the State. One of them —
deputized to speak for all — said with very apparent emotion
at the end of the address, "We want you to be sure that we
have resolved to come back better men."

Another made a false answer in his Questionnaire so as to
entitle himself to exemption. It was handed to the Chair
man of the Local Board of Selection, who declined to re
ceive it officially; and when a new Questionnaire was filled
out, it contained only the facts, and the Boy thereupon went
to Camp and subsequently to France. Again and again on
the field of battle he was promoted for valor ; and as a Com
missioned Officer he wrote back to the Chairman letters
filled throughout with such lofty spirit as in BarreY Faith
of France or in Lausanne's Fighting France we find to be a
possession of the soldier of the French Republic.

Said this Boy:

This experience over here has given me an entirely new outlook on
life — a better, cleaner and purer one, I am sure. It must come to
every man who is constantly facing sudden death. It makes one think
seriously and solemnly where he has never thought before. I feel
an entirely changed man — and for the better too! If God brings me
out safely through this struggle I shall surely make much of my life

where I couldn't have done so without this tremendous experience.
***********

I am about to advance even once more into a position of awful
combat where we meet the enemy — man to man — and to a finish. I
wish you would remember me kindly in your prayers and think of me

as glad to be here.
***********

I feel that in this army life of one year I have made my largest
success — rising, alone, on merit only — from private to commissioned
officer. I want my record to be clean and straight, either to bring it
home as such — or to hand it down to my wife and child (if I be so
blessed) in case fate decrees that my body remain here.

638 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

These Boys are types of hosts of others throughout our
land, with their manhood tempered and refined now by the
fires of devotion and sacrifice. Nor are we, except at our
peril, merely to permit them — with this new faith in them
selves and this new light in their eyes which re
flects the visions they have seen — to go back to their old
surroundings, to show their scars and tell over and over
again the story of their deeds until they and their hearers
weary of the recital ; to take up again the unrelieved burdens
of their former existence, and not teach them how they may
better their own condition in life and yet make war now
against evil declarations, evil tendencies, and evil practices
of misguided classes, and against selfish aims and unwisdom
in high or low places. For coming back disciplined phy
sically and spiritually, but without much added intellectual
training, they may learn through us, if we will, that
to attain to true understanding, they must become able to
bear witness of the faith we know is in them ; and that so
long as they are mute and have only within themselves the
unuttered promptings of a finer nature, just so long will
they not see opened wide the door of opportunity for them
to pass through.

It is appropriate, and perhaps essential, that the move
ment to stimulate and direct this new energy, if it is to be
nation-wide, should be initiated by members of the thou
sands of Local Boards and Boards of Instruction through
out the country. For they were not alone representative
men in their respective communities but have been in close
and sympathetic touch with the Soldier; and between
the two is a very real tie of comradeship and de
votion and affection. Until the new Club House is forth
coming, they can improvise for the place of assembly with
the Soldier — with his family and with others of the com
munity as well — the Public Hall or Library or Parish
House of the neighborhood. They can take it upon them
selves to arrange for the meetings and select the speakers;
they can speak there themselves, and can invite and promote
discussion. Preliminary debating classes might well be in
stituted where would be taught also the well-nigh lost art
of reading aloud. Not alone controversial, but educational
topics should be the subject for discussion. What is being
done can be communicated to Churches, Colleges, Bar
Associations and other agencies for their adoption or guid-

OUR WELCOME TO THE SOLDIER 639

ance. Out of each successful effort can proceed an example
to stimulate rivalry elsewhere ; and the project should be so
wisely ordered and fostered that no community would care
to be without the benefit or honor of such an organization.
There must, however, be no approach to a patronizing con
descension or even forbidding pedagogy about the plan.
The places of assembly must ostensibly and in reality have
an immediate relation to wholesome entertainment and di
version. A responsive, fraternal spirit of fellowship must
pervade the gatherings and the instruction and training,
which is to fit the Soldier for a new preparedness in the
world, be a by-product of them.

Generous co-operation with the movement, if well in
augurated, is all but certain.

The Press can be stirred to high endeavor by a feasible
and an appealing plan of procedure. In another place,
even when making it clear that at times the Press is respon
sible for the injustice of harsh and indiscreet rebuke of
worthy men, I said:

It is in the best sense independent; it has a stanch courage and is
entitled to the outpost of responsibility it occupies, as the incorruptible
sentinel to warn us of threatening peril ; it takes vice by the throat with
a rough hand and gives no quarter to wrongdoing; it is intolerant of
sham, and does yeoman's service in exposing hypocrisy in the stocks
to the contemptuous gaze; it is subservient to no interest and wears
the yoke of no master; it seeks to hold open the door of industrial
opportunity through which the deserving may pass. And more im
portant than all, it is doing as much as is the pulpit to lift men up
above the sordid things of life so that, on the extended horizon, there
may be seen the vision, without which, in the language of the proverb
of Scripture, the people perish.

Nor has time caused me to change this judgment; and
the Press can be trusted to give its invaluable aid of cur
rency to the idea if we, having furnished the text, shall ex
emplify its application.

The Church, too, can make its effective contribution, if
under a courageous impulse it resolve that its teachings shall
square with the facts of life and even of Scripture ; and, if
turning its back upon a discredited orthodoxy, it face the
light with the enduring truth for its creed and faith. Allied
to this cause, the Church may win back the regard of in
tellectual men and restore to itself some part of the leader
ship it has so ignobly abdicated. In the Chapel and Parish

640 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

House the Church has much of the machinery at hand to
further the movement. How much wiser this course will
be for the Church, than for it to persist in announced sym
pathy with so many new-fangled Socialistic notions, until
the practice seems to the thoughtful observer to be some
kind of ecclesiastical disease! Civic bodies, Chambers of
Commerce, philanthropic organizations and Foundations
may see here an inviting prospect for some part of their
activities.

Nor can our Universities afford to sit with folded hands
— never idle when the world was under arms — as the price
less opportunity of striving with and through the soldier for
a better citizenship presents itself. Never can we fitly repay
in lasting gratitude the vast debt we owe to our institutions
of learning for their unselfish and tireless co-operation with
the Government through those anxious days of peril. The
Academy became the training camp, and out of cloistered
precincts went forth to battle and victory and death a long
procession of adventurous youth that our land might be
saved and civilization not perish. It must not be found
wanting now. What an accompanying benefit, too, it would
be for the students — many of whom were beloved officers of
these Boys and shared with them the same privations and
faced the same death — to participate intimately and fre
quently in discussion at these gatherings. For it is a kind
of indictment of those institutions that the undergraduate
is often so poorly fitted for discourse, debate or argument
and knows next to nothing of the inestimable value of writ
ing and speaking with precision and power. With meagre,
starved vocabulary, and rambling thought — manifesting it
self in a scandalous admixture of jargon and slang — he, as a
rule, cuts but a sorry figure in even colloquial consideration
of vital topics of the day. The advantage to him would ex
ceed in value that of the much vaunted Chair of English;
and many a class-room would be better employed than to
day, if within its walls soldier and student were working
together to the end that articulate right and reason might
prevail.

To whom, also, in this matter may we look more surely
for leadership than to the lawyer, with his intellectual
equipment and splendid traditions and who is already or
ganized for the work through many Bar Associations. Nob
lesse oblige is not a sentiment to be appropriated by the

OUR WELCOME TO THE SOLDIER 641

aristocracy of worldly place or power, but is equally oblig
atory upon the aristocracy of intelligence. The statistics as
to the lawyer-class in the winning of the war are very heart
ening. It is difficult to believe that the intricate machinery
of the Selective Service Law could have been set in
motion or continued, without aid of the Lawyer's ability
and experience. Fifteen hundred Lawyers were members
of Local Boards ; approximately eleven thousand were per
manent members of Legal Advisory Boards ; more than one
hundred thousand were Associate Members of them, and
nearly five thousand served as Government Appeal Agents ;
thirty per cent, of lawyers between the ages of twenty one
and thirty-one were inducted into the army. And it was a
Lawyer who led the Lost Battalion 1

Then, too, who shall be so foolish as to think he can
visualize the multitude of that vast army of noble women
enlisting again in this new, sacred cause ; and who shall be
so deaf as not to hear for himself the Call of the Colors?

We do not have to indulge in much conjecture concerning
the urgent need to-day of such a disciplined unit as is rep
resented by the home-coming Soldier. Let us in this even
go so far as to feature to ourselves our personal interests, if
nothing else will stir us to action. For it is only the profes
sional altruist who mouths his protest against self-preserva
tion, while the candid Statute makes attempt or connivance
at suicide a crime. Round about us are not only professional
altruists and advocates of visionary aims but apostles of rev
olutionary creeds and practices, and they have the stage
very largely to themselves. Any longer to make light of the
insidious spread of baneful doctrines of Bolshevism, of the
I. W. W., and of all other conspiracies that want something
for nothing and are not concerned about means to the end,
is criminal optimism. Truculent labor struts and stalks
abroad with vicious, weaponed threats ; and that it was not
drafted into service but paid with a lavish wage has not
added to its gratitude or its loyalty. Yet the wise know that
often the antidote to even such poison is not force but con
vincing reason, though the sword of defence must never
be so eaten away with the rust of neglect, that it cannot be
drawn against uncompromising violence.

If we walk into one of the present-day forums which are
being spawned about us, under conditions of tolerance
if not approbation from those who are ill - advised

VOL. ccix.— NO. 762 41

642 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

in their outlook upon industry, upon capital and labor and
upon life, we shall marvel at illustrations of the cunning and
artifice whereby many of the men and women of the aud
ience are skilled to present their reprehensible views. The
young men of the office, even though they be college grad
uates, are often no match for these glib rhetoricians. In
such forums or assemblies, however they be catalogued, we
hear, as a rule, a preliminary lecture or address, and after
wards the colloquy, when permission is granted to catechise
the speaker. Then follow impromptu speeches from mem
bers of the audience ; and in many instances one will see the
speaker, before the close of the exercises, discredited by in
solence, and with no disciplined mind there sufficiently qual
ified or courageous to defend his wise utterances. Yet at
times the speaker himself is the chief offender in blatant
advocacy of unrest and even lawlessness. Not only from
the street corner soap-box but from many a pulpit and leg
islative hall a like demagogy is declaiming.

We need entertain no doubt that the Soldier will be able
to stand before all such audiences and before all men,
if equipped with instruction and requisite experience.
Over and over again, we have seen on the plat
form during the war Selected Men acquit themselves
acceptably in formal and informal speech without
much, if any, adequate preparation. They soon came
to realize that if not well trained they would be ill-
fitted for the trade of war. Thereupon, almost in a night,
they became disciplined soldiers; and now it is possible to
persuade them that they can be educated for as profitable a
service. We shall err if we hold the view that we do not need
such an asset as the returning Soldier, thus enabled to ex
press his convictions as occasion offers itself. For often
the man of distinction in the professions or in the world of
affairs rests under disadvantages in the public presentation
of even right views. Before many an audience he may not
be the most persuasive exponent of the truth, which at times
finds acceptation according to the source from which it pro
ceeds. He may not be qualified by tact or temperament for
the give-and-take of rough debate, in which reputation is
frequently treated with scant courtesy.

But for the Soldier — who, like the English at Agincourt,
showed at Cantigny the mettle of his pasture; who did not
loiter long in the valley of the Vesle when there was the

OUR WELCOME TO THE SOLDIER 643

commanding Rheims-Soissons highroad to be won ; who tore
his way through the impenetrable jungle of the Argonne
Forest only to sweep with a rush that would not be denied
into St. Juvin, and to storm the height beyond under a with
ering and destroying fire; who was of the Lost Battalion;
who was stayed not by the mud of the Meuse ; who was the
heroic soul at St. Mihiel; who transfused into the jaded
armies of the Allies a new and quickening spirit; who kept
always that bent line in France from being broken and had
no concern as to any enemy line except to reach and over
whelm it; and who, having turned back the battle when
within the gates of civilization, was ever after on the heels
of the fleeing braggarts — for such a man the flippant and
the lawless will betray a prudential respect, and will ac
cord to him a seemly if not generous hearing.

Never in our history has there been a more auspicious
time for a saving awakening among us as a People. For
with the gates of our foolish and undiscriminating hospi
tality shut and barred at last against illiterate and seditious
immigration, the State has the security and composure
wherewith to set in order its household, to which so many of
the undeserving and the wicked are asserting a kind of ex
clusive proprietorship. And shall we not, when the hour
has thus come, realize that in the Soldier the man too has
come?

If courageous, disciplined men, such as fit representations
of these million of Soldiers may become, had been able to
express themselves effectively as advocates of the cause of
reason, we cannot seriously believe that the Prohibition
Amendment could have been forced into adoption by the
lash of fanaticism, or that there would be in Statute and
Court decision so many instances of the invasion of rights of
property or even rules of conduct as the well-informed are
conversant with. So long in this country have we been in
different to a rightly ordered public opinion, that we have
ceased to be startled at the threatening consequences of our
slothfulness. The Press, our Legislatures and even our
Courts have often been injuriously affected by it. Not
merely astigmatism but at times almost blindness can be
charged against us in our outlook upon social and national
life. Under the persistent pressure of spurious but un-
rebuked public opinion sovereign States have in more than
one aspect the appearance of subjugated boroughs, and

644 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

some of our vested rights seemed to be enjoyed only on
sufferance. We have much to answer for in our laissez faire
stupor, as to many a vital public controversy in which judg
ment has been taken against us by default. Or, to change
the figure of speech, the prognosis of more than one kind of
Sleeping Sickness is death.

We ought to realize that steadily appreciable limi
tations have been set to the right to gather and possess
property; and one may not fairly say that all of these
limitations find their warrant in good reason. Even as to
our organic law it may be claimed that public opinion has
affected conclusions to which the Supreme Court of the
United States has come. Clearly it has influenced inter
pretations, found to be erroneous, of laws passed agree
ably to the Constitution and has brought about a re
formation of those interpretations; and we do not have
to search far to find the illustration. Popular preju
dice, often but a symptom of disordered public opin
ion, some years ago, ran high against large aggregations of
corporate capital and coerced from Congress the Sherman
Anti-Trust law, which was loosely drawn as no criminal
statute ever should be. Pursuant to original decisions it
was held by a majority of but one of the judges that any
restraint of trade irrespective of its extent or character
was an offense under the Statute. Serious consequences
flower therefrom, and in conformity to an aroused pub
lic opinion, the Rule of Reason was substituted as the
test of the violation; and even such a rule lends itself
to a varying — though a lawyer would not wish to say a ca
pricious — construction. Little wonder that a Justice of
the Court should say its judgments at times, do not reflect
so much convictions as they do reconciliations of opinion,
or that so distinguished a lawyer as ex-Senator George
Sutherland has recently stated in his illuminating lectures
on Constitutional Power and World Affairs : " I have no
doubt that a much larger proportion of the decisions of
Courts are wrong than is generally suspected." Nor can
our Supreme Court or some other Courts of last resort be
said to be given over to idolatry of the time-honored
principle of Stare Decisis.

Again, not long ago the Supreme Court decided by a
unanimous Bench that there is little or no limit to the right
of a Legislature through the so-called Police Power to en-

OUR WELCOME TO THE SOLDIER 645

act into a Statute prevailing public opinion. There
was a time when this Power could be invoked only for
matters having to do with Public Health, Safety and Wel
fare in the popular sense. Thereafter, however, such Wel
fare came judicially to mean a kind of general " prosperity
and progress " wholly disassociated from all question of
Health or Safety. And in a case which was received with
altogether too little general appreciation of its effect,
whether or no we be in accord with it, the Court announced
a view which was in some respects startling, and not couched
in phraseology we are accustomed to look for in judicial
utterances :

It may be said in a general way that the police i>ower extends to all
the great public needs. It may be put forth in aid of what is sanc
tioned by usage, or held by the prevailing morality or strong and
preponderant opinion to be greatly and immediately necessary to the
public welfare. * * * If then the legislature of the State thinks that
the public welfare requires the measure under consideration, analogy
and principle are in favor of the power to enact it.

Recognizing that the authority thus conferred upon —
perhaps it is not unjustifiable to say the invitation thus ex
tended to — a State has never been the subject of definition
and therefore of limitation; that the conclusion was come
to by a unanimous Court and that it has never been qual
ified or questioned but, on the contrary, has been rein
forced in later decisions which declare that the right must
be sustained unless exercised in a manner " purely arbi
trary," can we longer doubt the supreme importance to
our future of creating among us a salutary public opinion?

This too should be added. If there be the suggested crim
inal neglect on our part to stand steadfastly by the returning
Soldier in ministry to his needs and hopes, the alternative
may not necessarily be that he will merely consent to go
back to his old life with a cherished grievance ; for he may
then seek elsewhere for the comradeship he has lost, and
not regained through us. He may not even have to do the
seeking; he may be sought for. What more likely than that
the crafty politician and the other enemies of the Republic
will thereupon, with specious and perhaps justifiable har
angue, invite him to make common cause with them? Can
we not hear them declaim that the favored few with but
unctuous phrase and plea urged upon the Soldier the privi
lege of serving his Country in the hour of her need, and

646 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

that the kinship we asserted to exist between us and him has
been shamelessly disavowed in the hour of our safety? The
Soldier would then hear only one appeal; would see no
other prospect of stimulating, sympathetic comradeship, and
but one path for his further journey pointed out to him as
he arrives at the crossroads. Who of us would care to be so
insane as to contemplate without ominous misgivings the
dread consequences of such an alliance? For if through a
misguided or even uninstructed public opinion we have
seen accomplished the difficult feat of limiting the consti
tutional right to gather and enjoy property, what may we
not reasonably look for through a like influence, as to a cur
tailment or even extinction of those rights which are purely
statutory, such as the right to transmit property by last will
and testament?

Yet we should be prompted to wisdom not by such
solicitude, but out of an abounding gratitude unwilling to
forget the wondrous ways, whereby we have been saved
from so much of war's blood and horror. For however
greatly to-day we glory in the doubt of our religious
estate, we must nevertheless see with the eye of
a sure faith how the issue of this criminal lust and
quest for world dominion seems again and again to have
proceeded from a hidden instrumentality and interposition
we may not now interpret. We know of the "Miracle of the
Marne"; of the surmised second and third trenches at the
first Battle of Ypres where were no men but where theEng-
lish soldier believed the Christ to be; when in matter of
numbers a really "contemptible" army held back a remorse
less but uninformed horde in the drive upon the Channel
Ports ; of the marvelous rout at Chateau Thierry of an army
flushed with victory and making ready for its leisurely ad
vance to the subjugation of Paris and of the world. Shall
we in the arrogance of disbelief assert that nothing was there
present during those cruel hours beyond what we may calcu
late and measure and weigh ; and do not the least imagina
tive hear about us strange voices vibrant with deity and
prophetic of a new earth? And if without intellectual
humiliation we may entertain these thoughts, shall we not
seem, across the centuries, to hear — from the lips of him
who is the chief glory of our English speaking world — this
admonition as to the prodigal gift of ourselves to our neigh-

OUR WELCOME TO THE SOLDIER 647

bor and the State, if we would know the high privilege of
responsive citizenship ?

Thyself and thy belongings
Are not thine own so proper as to waste
Thyself upon thy virtues, they on thee.
Heaven doth with us as we with torches dp,
Not light them for themselves; for if our virtues
Did not go forth of us 'twere all alike
As if we had them not. Spirits are not finely touched
But to fine issues.

Let us make effective the new faith of these Soldiers, —
and that which is to be in the long procession of youth who,
under some form of military training, shall serve themselves
and their Country in the approaching years — by making it
heard and heeded of all who would threaten the integrity of
law and order. For the time may come when this splendid
and ever supplemented body of disciplined men, knowing
no more fear of evil debate or conduct than of brutal forces
on the field of battle, shall, with a consecration vocal
of the new spirit that has been born again among us, arise to
save the Nation from its own folly.

JOSEPH S. AUERBACH.

THE STRATEGY ON THE WESTERN

FRONT -IV

BY LIEUTENANT-COLONEL H. H. SARGENT, U. S. ARMY, RETIRED

WE have seen how the Germans by massing overwhelm
ing forces against weak sectors of the Allied front succeeded
in forcing it back, in three cases, from ten to thirty-five
miles, but in no one were they able to break completely
through the line. And the reason for this was, that in each
instance, as they moved forward through the enemy's en
trenched lines, they created a situation which made their
own lines more and more vulnerable and harder and harder
to defend. In other words, they created a salient.

A salient is vulnerable ; its weak points strategically are
along its sides near its base, because an attack in force there,
by threatening the communications of the occupying troops,
would, if successful, force their retreat.

Then, too, any advantage of a central position — of in
terior lines — that may be possessed by troops occupying a
salient is overbalanced by the advantage which the enemy
has of interior lines within the angular fronts on each side
of the salient. To illustrate: Let the line ABCDE rep
resent the front between the two opposing armies. Now if,

French / \ French

Germans

on account of their central position, the troops occupying
the salient BCD have an advantage of interior lines, it
must be evident that such advantage is more than counter-

THE STRATEGY ON THE WESTERN FRONT 649

balanced by the advantage of interior lines possessed by
the opposing troops occupying the angles or counter-salients
ABC and CDE.

But as a matter of fact, where a salient is small, or is
well filled with troops, there is no strategical advantage
for troops occupying it; on the contrary, there is a great
strategical disadvantage; first, because they have a too
limited space in which to maneuver; and secondly, because
they are subject to a converging fire from the enemy oc
cupying the counter-salients. Troops within a salient are
not infrequently so situated that long range guns from one
or the other side of it can enfilade or take them in reverse.

Then, too, the numerous roads and railways within a
salient, although absolutely necessary for the movement of
men and supplies, are strategically a source of weakness to
the occupying troops, principally because they can be fired
upon from many angles and often be enfiladed throughout
long stretches by the guns of the troops occupying the
counter-salients or by the guns at the nose of the salient.
And the nature of the terrain, and direction and position of
the roads within a salient, of course, influence greatly the
strategical situation of the occupying troops, but these are
special cases which would call for a special analysis.

Then, again, a salient is per se not only weak, but it
weakens the whole front by greatly lengthening it, making
it necessary, of course, to use many more troops to defend
it. Thus the sides BC and CD would require more than
twice the number of troops to defend them than would
the base BD, which was the line of the original front. And,
naturally, when these salients are multiplied, the strength
of the front becomes much weakened since its length be
comes proportionately greatly increased. But, on the other
hand, it should be borne in mind that the weakening is not
confined to one side, since the front of the opposing army
is correspondingly lengthened and likewise weakened.

Having pointed out the weakness of a salient to the side
occupying it, attention is invited to the fact that, after the
great German attack of March 21, 1918, upon Amiens had
been checked, and prior to the German attack south of
Ypres on April 9, 1918, there was offered a splendid oppor
tunity for striking a telling blow at the base of the Amiens
salient. Such a blow, could it have been made in sufficient
force, would have threatened the communications of the

650 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

troops occupying it, and compelled them either to retire or
to fight desperately to prevent the Allies from breaking
through the salient at its base. And, in either case, the re
sult would, no doubt, have put a stop to the attack south
of Ypres, as well as to any further offensive by the Germans
upon either side of the angular front.

But the failure of General Foch to take advantage of
this opportunity to attack at the time, was no indication
that he did not fully appreciate the vulnerability of the
Amiens salient to an Allied attack. On the contrary, his
subsequent masterly operations, beginning with his great
counter-offensive against the Chateau Thierry salient on
July 18, 1918, and continuing until every German salient,
including that of St. Mihiel, had been ironed out and the
Germans driven back to the Hindenburg line and even
beyond, were indisputable proofs that he appreciated fully
the weak points of the salients and knew where and how to
attack them.

Up to and including the beginning of the great attack
by the Germans in March, 1918, there was no supreme
commander of the Allied armies. Each army was acting
more or less independently; and as there was little or no
co-ordination of their movements, serious consequences
threatened. Especially was this true in the great German
offensive in March. Then and there was seen the absolute
necessity of a commander-in-chief of the Allied armies ; as
a result, on March 28, just one week after the beginning of
this great offensive, General Ferdinand Foch, of the French
Army, was appointed Commander-in-Chief.

But, prior to this time, there had been much opposition
to such an appointment. As early as 1915, Lord Kitchener
had suggested Allied co-ordination, but nothing was done
in the matter. In July, 1917, at a conference of the chiefs
of the Allied staffs of Great Britain, France, and Italy, a
resolution was passed urging the necessity of unity of
action, if success was to be achieved; but no commander
in chief was appointed. Then in November, 1917, at a
conference of the Premiers of Great Britain, France, and
Italy and the chiefs of staff of the Allied armies, held at
Rapallo, near Genoa, Italy, the appointment of a generalis
simo, who should control all the Allied armies, was
proposed; but Lloyd George, the British Premier, stated
that he was utterly opposed to this plan. Accordingly, and

THE STRATEGY ON THE WESTERN FRONT 651

as a sort of compromise, an Inter- Allied strategic board, to
be known as the Supreme War Council, was created. It
was to consist of the Prime Minister and a member of the

fovernment of each of the great Powers whose armies were
ghting on the Western fronts. Its first act was the creation
of an Inter-Allied General Staff, consisting of General
Foch of the French army, Wilson of the British army, and
Cadorna of the Italian army.

There was strong opposition in Great Britain and in
the British army to the creation of this Supreme War
Council, principally on the ground that the proposals
therein for obtaining unity of action would not only sub
ordinate the military chiefs to political control, but were
bound to be unworkable and militarily ineffective; and in
the House of Commons on November 14, 1917, Lloyd
George made this statement:

The Council will have no executive power, and final decision in
the matter of strategy and the distribution and movements of the
various armies in the field will rest with the several governments of
the Allies. There will therefore be no operations department.

On November 18, 1917, President Wilson made public
a cablegram to Colonel Edward M. House, in which he
stated emphatically that the United States Government
considers " unity of plan and control between the Allies
and the United States essential," and asked him, with Gen
eral Tasker H. Bliss, U. S. Army, as military adviser, to
attend the first meeting of the Council at Versailles, France,
on December 1, 1917. This action of the President was
understood as removing any doubts as to this Government's
attitude towards the Supreme War Council. Indeed, it
was practically equivalent to giving it its unqualified
endorsement.

On December 6, 1917, General Foch was relieved as
French representative on the Inter-Allied General Staff of
the Supreme War Council to become the military adviser
of the French Premier, Clemenceau, and General Wey-
gand was appointed in his place.

The third session of the Supreme War Council was held
January 30 to February 2, 1918, at Versailles. From the
official statement of the proceedings issued February 3, it
appears that the decisions taken by the Council at this meet
ing " embrace not only a general military policy to be
carried out by the Allies in all the principal theatres of

652 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

war; but more particularly a closer and more effective co
ordination, under the Council, of all the efforts of the
Powers engaged in the struggle against the Central
Powers."

In the House of Commons on February 5, Andrew
Bonar Law, Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to an
inquiry, announced that no generalissimo had been ap
pointed by the Council at this meeting; and on the same
day it was announced from Washington that " for the
present no assent to any policy or declaration involving
considerations other than those purely military will be
given by any American representative sitting with the
Council until it has first been submitted to this Government
and received its approval."

Thus it is seen that notwithstanding the statement of the
British Premier, the Supreme War Council at this meeting
proceeded to formulate the military policy which was to
be carried out and that it was anxious for a clearer and
more effective co-ordination, not through the appointment
of a generalissimo, but " under the Council itself " ; and
that the United States Government by implication gave its
consent to any policy or declaration of the Council involv
ing purely military considerations ; but withheld its assent
as to other considerations until they had been submitted to
and approved by it.

But the important point of the whole matter is that no
generalissimo, no commander-in-chief, was appointed;
and that the supreme control of the Allied armies continued
to remain in the hands of this Council and would probably
have so remained indefinitely had not the great attack of
the Germans in March made absolutely necessary the im
mediate appointment of a commander-in-chief.

Major General Sir Frederick B. Maurice, of the British
Army, says that at this session this Council " vested the
supreme control of the Allied forces on the Western front
in an executive board composed of the representatives of
the American, French, Italian, and British armies under
the presidency of General Foch " ; and that " this was in
effect putting the higher command of the Allied operations
in the hands of a committee." l

But whether the higher command was to remain in the
hands of the Supreme War Council itself or in the hands

1 Maurice, in Review of Reviews, August, 1918, p. 138.

THE STRATEGY ON THE WESTERN FRONT 653

of the executive board appointed by it, matters not; for in
either case failure was bound to result. History proves
this; invariably when the supreme control of armies has
been vested in a council, or committee, failure has resulted,
and always will so result; for a decision by a council, or
committee, means delay, discussion, compromise; and these
are fatal in war. It must be evident that no party to a
compromised decision could, if called upon to execute it,
have full confidence in the result, since he would be bound
to feel that his own proposal would be much better. In
war there must be promptness of decision, singleness of
purpose, boldness of action, confidence in one's own plan;
to delay, to discuss, to compromise is to court defeat.

It was fortunate for the Allies that they were wise
enough to appoint General Foch Commander-in-Chief at
the time they did, and not to leave the conduct of the cam
paign to this Supreme War Council. And it was unfortun
ate that they had not been wise enough to appoint him
commander-in-chief when the question of unity of command
was first raised; or, at least, to have appointed him before
March 21, 1918, and by so doing have given him a chance
to formulate his plans and make ready to meet that great
attack. "To the Aulic Council," said Jomini in 1804,
" Austria owes all her reverses since the time of Prince
Eugene of Savoy."

In this connection, Napoleon's views upon the supreme
importance of unity of command may not be out of place.
In one of his maxims he has said: " Nothing is so
important in war as an undivided command." And in his
first Italian campaign, when the Directory, which was
jealous of his brilliant success in Italy, proposed to put a
check on his career by sending General Kellerman to share
with him the command of his victorious army, he submitted
his resignation and wrote the Directory:

It is the highest degree impolitic to divide the Army of Italy; and
it is equally contrary to the interests of the Republic to put over it
two generals. * * * If you weaken your means by dividing your
forces ; if you break in Italy the unity of military thought, I tell you
with sorrow, you will lose the finest opportunity that ever occurred
of imposing laws on Italy. * * * Every one has his method of
carrying on war. Kellerman has had more experience and may do it
better than I. Together we should do nothing but harm. Your deci
sion in this matter is of more importance than the fifteen thousand
men the Emperor of Austria has sent to Beaulieu.

654 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

And to Carnot he wrote:

To associate Kellerman with me is to desire to lose all. I can not
serve willingly with a man who believes himself to be the best tactician
of Europe; moreover, I believe one bad general to be preferable to
two good ones. War is like government — a thing of tact.

Thus we see that Napoleon looked upon unity of com
mand as the supreme essential in winning a war; that he
regarded it of more importance than the reinforcements
sent his adversary; and that so strong was his belief on this
point that he even declared that one bad general in com
mand of an army was better than two good ones.

In no campaign in history has unity of command played
a more important part than in this great world war. The
operations of the Central Powers were directed by Ger
many. The Supreme authority was the commander-in-chief
of the German armies, who was advised and assisted by
the German General Staff and his immediate staff officers.
The Austrian, Turkish, and Bulgarian armies all obeyed
this supreme authority. In consequence, there was among
the Central Powers unity of command, resulting in unity
of thought, unity of purpose, and unity of action. The
effect was that whenever a plan of operations was decided
upon, all the resources and available military strength of
the Central Powers were brought to bear to make it a suc
cess. To this unity of command, was largely due the fact
that Germany won such great victories in Russia, Italy and
the Balkans and, despite her stupendous strategical blun
ders, came near, on at least three occasions, to winning the
war on the Western front.

But on the side of the Allies there was for nearly four
years neither a commander-in-chief nor any unity of action.
Each of the Allied armies acted to a great extent independ
ently of the others. There was little co-ordination between
them, and such as there was, came about through mutual
consent and not because it was in any way obligatory upon
them. The result was that for four years the Allies were
compelled to fight almost entirely on the defensive, and at
the Marne, at Verdun, and on March 21, 1918, came des
perately near to final defeat, although during a good part
of that time they had a numerical superiority in fighting
forces.

Of course the successes of the Central Powers cannot
be attributed entirely to unity of command nor the reverses

THE STRATEGY ON THE WESTERN FRONT 655

of the Allies entirely to a lack of it, but unquestionably it
had much to do in determining these results; so much, in
deed, that it is doubtful whether the war could ever have
been won by the Allies without the appointment of a com-
mander-in-chief of the Allied armies.

One of the remarkable facts connected with this war
is that it should have continued nearly four years without
a commander-in-chief of the Allied armies ; and that in less
than eight months after his appointment, it should have
been brought to a close. And still more remarkable, per
haps, is the fact that the Allies should have permitted the
war to continue for almost four years without making any
serious attempt to appoint a commander-in-chief. The ap
pointment, it is true, was considered and discussed by those
in authority, but when they came to act, the nearest ap
proach to it — until it was, so to speak, actually forced upon
them by the great German drive of March 21 — was to ap
point a Supreme War Council.

But it does not necessarily follow that, had a commander-
in-chief been earlier appointed, the war would have been
sooner ended; for that would have depended upon the
commander-in-chief selected. It is war that develops the
genius of command and of generalship ; and the selection
of an Allied commander at the beginning of the war would
have been no easy task. And yet, General Foch's brilliant
operations in the first battle of the Marne clearly indicated
that he would have been a most suitable man for the place.

(To be continued.)

THE PICTURES OF JESUS IN
THE LOUVRE*

BY O. W. FIRKINS

I write of the small infants in the Louvre

To which the hands that drew them gave the name

Of Jesus ; I will set them side by side ;

And he that lists may call the matter vain.

And he that wills may ponder ; earth is large.

There are strange infants on these storied walls :
Verrochio's with the spirit sunk in earth,
Credi's with hard, impermeable eyes,
Carrucci's with the brutish, idiot stare,
A Lippi with an old and wizened look,
And that grained lump of Umbria's sullen clay
That Perugino placed in Mary's arms ;
Giorgione's is a tawny Bacchanal,
Emergent from the lethargy of wine,
And Titian's babe is sure (amid all doubts)
That milk and sleep are sanative for boys,
With casual looks that roam — adventurers —
In that uncharted sea, a mother's face.

There's Veronese's brown and mottled boy

With the quick, lancet look in the fixed eyes,

And Cimabue's sturdy iittle man,

Firm-faced, strong-wristed, steady as the square,

And upright as the compass, he shall wield ;

And Francia's with the patriarchal head

That centuries might have tonsured, and the eyes

That look out meekly on the mazeful world

In their strange innocence of yesterdays ;

* NOTE. — Where the same painter is mentioned more than once in this poem, the
references are to separate paintings of divergent types. — Author.

PICTURES OF JESUS IN THE LOUVRE 657

And Perugino has a courtly babe

The face bland, and the light wrist backward flung

In delicate refusal modishly —

Only the eyes, the eyes with lake-like calm,

Reclaim the wavering godhead; plump and round,

A babe of Botticelli's, on his back,

Two cynic eyebrows indolently curves

At this unprobed and questionable world ;

And Spagna's is a midge-philosopher,

Naked and prone, his finger on his lip,

The rounded legs crossed meditatively

While he the faces o'er his head surveys

With tentative, agnostic tolerance

Note Raphael in that small bright innocent group,

Where slumbers the child Jesus tranquilly;

The sleep hangs like a down or clinging fleece

On the mild limbs and makes them lovable

(Sleep for the godhead! Can the godhead need

That harbor from the turbulence of man?)

Murillo has a child with vermeil lips

And a strayed, drooping lock, and in the eyes

Such dewy, shy, beseeching innocence;

Compact of hope and fear, like some frail flower

Whose hesitant motion bids you vainly guess

If it be dance or tremor; Gozzoli

Has drawn a child of lightness magical,

A bubble seems it by God's breath upblown

In some faint film of flesh ; and Raphael,

In that fair picture which the gracious French

Stamp in the bright enamel of their tongue

With the clear signet, " Belle Jardiniere,"

Painted a babe whose eyes are upward turned —

Eyes — the whole body changes to an eye,

The limbs dream, and the form is meditant ;

Mother above and child beneath repose

Each in the other's look, like sky and sea

At sunset, in forgetfulness of time.

Sarto has limned a visionary child

With a face cuplike, fashioned like a Grail —

Like the Grail's legend mystical yet warm;

He dreams, yet there is wildness on the brow,

As if the wind of God had blown like flame

On some still altar dedicate to peace.

And Raphael, in that picture, fit for kings,

Which the first Francis guerdoned with his name,

Hath drawn a child prayerful as Sarto's own,

But in the veins there runs a lustier life ;

Dark, with the dark of grape or the grape's wine,

From plenitude of color, stands the boy ;

VOL. ccix.— NO. 762 42

658 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

The eyes gaze in adoring steadfastness ;

But through the calmness leaps another mood,

A passionate exultation, a high joy

Like the heart's bound at vision of great seas,

And sting of their salt billows. And the thought

Of Leonardo to like purpose ranged,

When underneath those figures venerant,

Calm Mary, and her kind, plain mother Anne,

He drew a Christ whose eyes had kept the gleam

Reflected from the swords of cherubim

And seraphs helmed; yet chastened and subdued

By ardors from the beatific throne.

To all these Christs or Christs akin to these

Have men brought tears and worship, love and prayer;

And he wno lists may call the matter vain,

And he who wills may ponder; earth is wide.

O. W. FIRKINS.

IS NATURE WITHOUT DESIGN?

BY JOHN BURROUGHS

WHAT unthinking people call design in nature is simply
the reflection of our inevitable anthropomorphism. What
ever they can use they think was designed for that pur
pose, — the air to breathe, the water to drink, the soil to
plant. It is as if they thought the notch in the mountains
was made for the road to pass over, or the bays and harbor
for the use of cities and shipping. But in inorganic nature
the foot is made to fit the shoe and not the reverse. We
are cast in the mold of the environment. If the black cap
of the nuthatch that comes to the maple tree in front of
my window and feeds on the suet I place there, was a
human thinking-cap, the bird would see design in the regu
lar renewal of that bit of suet; he would say, " Some one
or something puts that there for me " ; but he helps him
self and asks no questions. The mystery does not trouble
him. Why should not I, poor mortal, feel the same about
these blessings and conveniences around me of which I
hourly partake, and that seem so providential? Why do
not I, with my thinking-cap, infer that someone or some
thing is thinking about me and my well-being? The mass
of mankind does draw this inference, and it is well for
them to do so. But the case of the bird is different. The
bit of suet that I feed on is not so conspicuously something
extra — something added to the tree ; it is a part of the tree ;
it is inseparable from it. I am compelled, as it were, to
distil it out of the tree, so that instead of being the act of
a special providence, it is the inevitable benefaction of the
general providence of nature. What the old maple holds
for me is maple sugar, but it was not put there for me; it
is there just the same, whether I want it or not; it is a part
of the economy of the tree; it is a factor in its own
growth; the tree is not thinking of me (pardon the term),

660 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

but of itself. Of course this does not make my debt to it,
and my grounds for thankfulness, any the less real, but it
takes it out of the category of events such as that which
brings the suet to the nuthatch. The Natural Providence
is not intermittent, it is perennial, but it takes no thought
of me or you. It is life that is flexible and adaptive, and
not matter and force. " We do not," says Renan, " remark
in the universe any sign of deliberate and thoughtful ac
tion. We may affirm that no action of this sort has existed
for millions of centuries." I think we may affirm more
than that — we may affirm that it never existed. Some
vestige of the old theology still clung to Kenan's mind, —
there was a day of creation in which God set the universe
going, and then left it to run itself ; the same vestige clung
to Darwin's mind and led him to say that at the beginning
God must have created a few species of animals and veg
etables and then left them to develop and populate the
world.

Says Renan, " When a chemist arranges an experiment
that is to last for years, everything which takes place in his
retort is regulated by the laws of absolute unconscious
ness; which does not mean that a will has not intervened
at the beginning of the experiment, and that it will not in
tervene at the end." There was no beginning, nor will
there be any ending to the experiment of creation; the will
is as truly there in the behavior of the molecules at one
time as at another. The effect of Renan's priestly training
and associations clings to him like a birth-mark.

In discussing these questions our plumb-line does not
touch bottom, because there is no bottom. " In the infinite,"
says Renan with deeper insight, " negations vanish, contra
dictions are merged," in other words, opposites are true.
Where I stand on the surface of the sphere is the centre of
the sphere, but that does not prevent the point where you
stand being the centre also. Every point is a centre, and
the sky is overhead at one place as at another; opposites are
true.

The moral and intellectual worlds present the same
contradictions or limitations — the same relatively of what
we call truth.

Nature's ways, which with me is the same as saying
God's ways, are so different from ours ; " no deliberate and
thoughtful action," as Renan puts it, no economy of time

IS NATURE WITHOUT DESIGN? 661

or material, no short cuts, no cutting out of non-essentials,
no definite plan, no specific ends, few straight lines or right
angles; her streams loiter and curve, her forces are un
bridled; no loss or gain, her accounts always balance, the
loss at one point, or with one form, is a gain with some other
— all of which is the same as saying that there is nothing
artificial in nature. All is natural, all is subject to the hit
and miss method. The way Nature trims her trees, plants
her forests, sows her gardens, is typical of the whole process
of the cosmos. God is no better than man because man is a
part of God. From our human point of view he is guilty
of our excesses and our short-comings. Time does not count,
pain does not count, waste does not count. The wonder is
that the forests all get planted by the hit-and-miss method,
the pines in their places, the spruces in theirs, the oaks and
maples in theirs ; and the trees get trimmed in due time, now
and then, it is true, by a very wasteful method. A tree
doctor could save and prolong the lives of many of them.
The small fountains and streams all find their way to larger
streams and these to still larger, and these to lakes, or to the
sea, and the drainage system of the continents works itself
out all right. The decay of the rocks and the formation of
the soil comes about in due time, but not in man's time. In
all the grand processes and transformations of nature the
element of time enters on such a scale as dwarfs all human
efforts.

When we say of a thing or an event that it was a chance
happening, we do not mean that it was not determined by
the laws of matter and force, but we mean it was not the
result of the human will, or of anything like it; it was not
planned or designed by conscious intelligence. Chance in
this sense plays a very large part in nature and in life.
Though the result of irrefragable laws, the whole non-living
world about us shows no purpose or forethought in our
human sense. For instance, we are compelled to regard the
main features of the earth as matters of chance, the distri
bution of land and water, of islands and continents, of
rivers, lakes, seas, mountains and plains, valleys and hills,
the shapes of the continents; that there is more land in the
northern hemisphere than in the southern, more land at the
South Pole than at the North, is a matter of chance. The
serpentine course of a stream through an alluvial plain, a
stream two yards wide, winding and ox-bowing precisely

662 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

as does the Mississippi, is a matter of chance. The whole
geography of a country, in fact, is purely a matter of chance,
and not the result of anything like human forethought. The
planets themselves — that Jupiter is large and Mercury
small, that Saturn has rings, that Jupiter has seven moons,
that the Earth has one, that other planets have none, that
some of the planets are in a condition to sustain life as we
know it, for example, Venus, Earth, and probably Mars,
that some revolve in more elliptical orbits than others, that
Mercury and Venus apparently always keep the same side
towards the sun — all these things are matters of chance. It
is easy to say that God designed it thus and so, as did our
fathers, but how are we to think of an omnipotent and om
niscient Being as planning such wholesale destruction of
his own works as occurs in the cosmic catastrophes that the
astronomers now and then witness in the siderial universe,
or even as occurs on the Earth, when earthquakes and vol
canoes devastate fair lands or engulf the islands of the sea?
Why should such a Being design a desert, or invent a
tornado, or ordain that some portion of the earth's surface
should have almost perpetual rain, and another portion
almost perpetual drought? In Hawaii I saw islands that
were green and fertile on one end from daily showers, and
the other end, ten miles away, a rough barren rock, from
the entire absence of showers. Were the trade winds de
signed to bring the vapors of the sea to the tropic lands?

In following this line of thought we, of course, soon get
where no step can be taken. Is the universe itself a chance
happening? Such a proposition is unthinkable, because
something out of nothing is unthinkable. Our experience
in this world develops our conceptions of time and space,
and to set bounds to either is an impossible task. We say
the cosmos must always have existed, and there we stop.

We are no better off when we turn to the world of living
things. Here we see design, particular means adapted to
specific ends. Shall we say that a bird or a bee or a flower
is a chance happening, as is the rainbow, or the sunset cloud,
or a pearl, or a precious stone? Is man himself a chance
happening? Here we are stuck and cannot lift our feet.
The mystery and the miracle of vitality, as Tyndall called
it, is before us. Here is the long hard road of Evolution,
the push and the unfolding of life through countless ages,
something more than the mechanical and the accidental,

IS NATURE WITHOUT DESIGN? 663

though these have played a part; something less than
specific plan and purpose, though we seem to catch dim
outlines of these.

Spontaneous variations, original adaptations, a never-
failing primal push toward higher and more complex
forms — how can we, how shall we, read the riddle of it all?
How shall we account for man on purely naturalistic
grounds?

The consistent exponent of variation cannot go in part
nership with supernaturalism. Grant that the organic
split off from the inorganic by insensible degrees, yet we
are bound to ask what made it split off at all? and how it
was that the first unicellular life contained the promise and
the potency of all the life of to-day? Such questions take
us into deep waters where our plummet - line finds no
bottom. It suits my reason better to say there is no solution,
than to accept a solution which itself needs solution, and
still leaves us where we began.

The adjustments of non-living bodies to each other
seems a simple matter, but in considering the adaptations
of living bodies to one another, and to their environment,
we are confronted with a much harder problem. Life is
an active principle, not in the sense that gravity, or
chemical reaction are active principles, but in a quite differ
ent sense. Gravity and chemical reactions are always the
same, inflexible and uncompromising, but life is ever va
riable and adaptive; it will take half a loaf if it cannot get a
whole one. Gravity answers yea and nay, Life says, " Prob
ably, we will see about it, we will try again tomorrow." The
oak leaf will become an oak-ball to accommodate an insect
that wants a cradle and a nursery for its young; it will de
velop one kind of a nursery for one insect and another kind
for a different insect.

As far as I have got, or ever hope to get, toward
solving the problem of the universe is to see clearly that
it is insoluble. One can arrive only at negative conclusions,
he comes to see that the problem cannot be dealt with in
terms of our human experience and knowledge. But what
other terms have we? Our knowledge does not qualify us
in any degree to deal with the Infinite. The sphere has
no end or handle to take hold of, and the Infinite baffles
the mind in the same way. Measured by our human
standards, it is a series of contradictions. The method of

664 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Nature is a haphazard method, yet behold the final order
and completeness! How many of her seeds she trusts to
the winds and the waters, and her fertilizing pollens and
germs alsol And the winds and the waters do her errands,
with many failures, of course, but they hit the mark often
enough to serve her purpose. She provides lavishly enough
to afford her failures.

When we venture upon the winds and the waters with
our crafts we aim to control them, and we reach our havens
only when we do control them.

What is there in the method of Nature that answers to
the human will in such matters? Nothing that I can see,
yet her boats and her balloons reach their havens — not all
of them, but enough of them for her purpose. Yet when
we apply the word " purpose " or " design " to Nature, to
the Infinite, we are describing her in terms of the finite,
and fall into contradictions. Still the wings and balloons
and hooks and springs in the vegetable world are for a
specific purpose — to scatter the seed far from the parent
plant. Every part and organ and movement of a living
body serves a purpose to that organism. The mountain
lily looks straight up to the sky, the meadow lily looks
squarely down to the earth ; undoubtedly each flower finds
its advantage in its own attitude, but what that advantage
is, I know not. If Nature planned and invented as man
does, she would attain to mere unity and simplicity. It
is her blind, prodigal, haphazard methods that result in
her endless diversity. When she got a good wing for the
seed of a tree, such as that of the maple, she would give
this to the seeds of other, similar trees; but she gives a
different wing to the ash, to the linden, to the elm, the
pine, and the hemlock, and to some she gives no wings at
all. The nut-bearing trees, such as the oaks, the beeches,
the walnuts, and the hickories, have no wings, except such
as arc afforded them by the birds and beasts that feed upon
them and carry them away. And here again Nature has
a purpose in the edible nut which tempts some creatures to
carry it away. If all the nuts were devoured, the whole
tribe of nut-bearing trees would in time be exterminated,
and Nature's end defeated. But in a world of conflicting
forces like ours, chance plays an important part, many of
the nuts get scattered, but not all devoured. The hoarding-
up propensities of certain birds and squirrels result in the

IS NATURE WITHOUT DESIGN? 665

planting of many oaks and chestnuts and beeches.

The inherent tendency to variation in organic life, to
gether with Nature's hit-and-miss method, account for her
endless variety on the same plane, as it were, as that of her
many devices for disseminating her seeds. One plan of
hook or barb serves as well as another — that of bidens as
well as that of hound's tongue — yet each has a pattern of
its own. The same may be said of the leaves of the trees,
namely, to expose the juices of the tree to the chemical
action of the light and air, yet behold what an endless
variety in the shape and size and structure of the leaves!
This is the way of the Infinite — to multiply endlessly, to
give a free rein to the physical forces and let them struggle
with one another for the stable equilibrium to which they
never, as a whole, attain ; to give the same free rein to the
organic forces and let their various forms struggle with one
another for the unstable equilibrium which is the secret of
their life.

The many contingencies that wait upon the circuit of
the physical forces and determine the various forms of
organic matter — rocks, sand, soil, gravel, mountain, plain
— all shifting and changing endlessly — wait upon the
circuit of the organic forces and turn the life impulse into
myriad channels, and people the earth with myriads of
living forms, each accidental from our limited point of
view, while all are determined by irrefragable laws. The
contradictions in such statements are obvious and are in
evitable when the finite tries to measure or describe the
ways of the Infinite.

The waters of the globe are forever seeking the repose
of a dead level, but when they attain it, if they ever do,
the world will be dead. Behold what a career they have
in their circuit from the sea to the clouds and back to the
earth in the ministering rains, and then to the sea again
through the streams and rivers I The mantling snow with
its exquisite crystals, the grinding and transporting glaciers,
the placid or ploughing and turbulent rivers, the sparkling
and refreshing streams, the cooling and renewing dews,
the softening and protecting vapors, wait upon this circuit
of the waters through the agency of the sun, from the sea,
through the sky and land, back to the sea again. Yes, and
all the myriad forms of life also. This circuit of the waters
drives and sustains all the vital machinery of the globe.

666 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Why and how the rain brings the rose and the violet,
the peach and the plum, the wheat and the rye, and the
boys and the girls, out of the same elements and conditions
that they bring the thistles and the tares, the thorn and the
scrub, the fang and the sting, the monkey and the reptile,
that is the insoluble mystery.

If Nature aspires toward what we call the good in man,
does she not equally aspire toward what we call the bad
in thorns and weeds and reptiles? May we not say that
good is our good, and bad is our bad, and that there is, and
can be, no absolute good and no absolute bad, any more
than there can be any absolute up or any absolute down?

How haphazard, how fortuitous and uncalculated is all
this business of the multiplication of the human race!
What freaks, what failures, what monstrosities, what empty
vessels, what deformed limbs, what defective brains, what
perverted instincts! It is as if in the counsels of the
Eternal it had been decided to set going an evolutionary
impulse that should inevitably result in man, and then
leave him to fail or flourish just as the ten thousand con
tingencies of the maelstrom of conflicting earth forces
should decide, so that whether a man be a cripple or an
athlete, a fool or a philosopher, a satyr or a god, becomes
largely a matter of chance. Yet the human brain has
steadily grown in size, human mastery over nature has
steadily increased, and chance has, upon the whole, brought
more good to man than evil- Optimism is a final trait of
the Eternal.

And the taking off of man, how haphazard! how for
tuitous it all is! His years shall be three score and ten,
but how few, comparatively, reach that age, how few live
out half their days! Disease, accident, stupidity, supersti
tion, cut him off at all ages — in infancy, in childhood, in
youth, in manhood — his whole life is a part of the flux and
uncertainty of things. No god watches over him aside from
himself and his kind, no atom or molecule is partial to him,
gravity crushes him, fire burns him, the floods drown him
as readily as they do vipers and vermin. He takes his
chances, he gains, and he loses, but Nature treats him with
the same impartiality that she does the rest of her creatures.
He runs the same gauntlet of the hostile physical forces,
he pays the same price for his development; but his greater
capacity for development — to whom or what does he owe

IS NATURE WITHOUT DESIGN? 667

that? If we follow Darwin we shall say natural selection,
and natural selection is just as good a god as any other. No
matter what we call it, if it brought man to the head of
creation and put all things (nearly all) under his feet, it
is god enough for anybody. At the heart of it there is still
a mystery we cannot grasp. The ways of Nature about us
are no less divine because they are near and familiar. The
illusion of the rare and the remote, science dispels. Of
course we are still trying to describe the Infinite in terms
of the finite.

We are so attached to our kind, and so dependent upon
them that most persons feel homeless and orphaned in a
universe where no suggestion of sympathy and interest
akin to our own comes to us from the great void. A provi
dence of impersonal forces, the broadcast, indiscriminate
benefits of Nature, kind deeds where no thought of kindness
is, well-being as the result of immutable law — all such ideas
chill and disquiet us, until we have inured ourselves to
them. We love to fancy that we see friendly hands and
hear friendly voices in Nature. It is easy to make ourselves
believe that the rains, the warmth, the fruitful seasons, are
sent by some Being for our especial benefit. The thought
that we are adapted to Nature and not Nature made or
modified to suit us, is distasteful to us. It rubs us the wrong
way of the fur. We have long been taught to believe that
there is air because we have lungs, and water because we
need it to drink, and light because we need it to see. Science
takes this conceit out of us: The light begat the eye, and
the air begat the lungs.

In the universe, as science reveals it to us, sensitive souls
experience the cosmic chill; in the universe as our inevit
able anthropomorphism shapes it for us, we experience the
human glow. The same anthropomorphism has in the past
peopled the woods and fields and streams and winds with
good and evil spirits, and filled the world with cruel and
debasing superstitions; but in our day we have got rid
of all of this; we have abolished all gods but one. This
one we still fear, and bow down before, and seek to pro
pitiate — not with offerings and sacrifices, but with good
Sunday clothes and creeds and pew-rents, and praise, and
incense, and surplices and ceremonies. What Brocken
shadows our intense personalism casts upon nature! We
see the gigantic outlines of our own forms, and mistake

668 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

them for a veritable god. But as we ourselves are a part
of Nature, so this humanizing tendency of ours is also a
part of Nature, a part of human nature — not valid and in
dependent, like the chemical and physical forces, but as
valid and real as our dreams, our ideas, our aspirations.
All the gods and divinities and spirits with which man has
peopled the heavens and the earth are a part of Nature
as she manifests herself in our subjective selves. So there
we are on a trail that ends where it began. We condemn
one phase of Nature through another phase of Nature that
is active in our own minds. How shall we escape this self-
contradiction? As we check or control the gravity without
us by the power of the gravity in our own bodies, so our
intelligence must sit in judgment on phases of the same
universal Intelligence manifested in outward Nature.

It is this recognition of an Intelligence in Nature akin
to our own that gives rise to our anthropomorphism. We
recognize in the living world about us the use of specific
means to specific ends and this we call intelligence. It
differs from our own in that it is not selective and intensive
in the same way. It does not take short cuts; it does not
aim at human efficiency; it does not cut out waste and delay
and pain. It is the method of trial and error. It hits its
mark because it hits all marks- Species succeed because the
tide that bears them on is a universal tide. It is not a river
but an ocean current. Nature progresses, but not as man
does by discarding one form and adapting a higher. She
discards nothing; she keeps all her old forms and ways and
out of them evolves the higher; she keeps the fish's fin,
while she perfects the bird's wing; she preserves the inver
tebrate, while she fashions the vertebrate ; she achieves man,
while she preserves the monkey. She gropes her way like
a blind man, but she arrives because all goals are hers. Per
ceptive intelligence she has given in varying degrees to all
creatures, but reasoning intelligence she has given to man
alone. I say " given," after our human manner of speak
ing, when I mean achieve. There is no giving in Nature
— there is effort and development. There is interchange
and interaction, but no free gifts. Things are bought with
a price. The price of the mind of man — who can estimate
what it has been through the biological and geological ages
— a price which his long line of antecedent forms has paid
in struggle and suffering and death. The little that has

IS NATURE WITHOUT DESIGN?

been added to the size of his brain since the Piltdown man,
and the Neanderthal man — what effort and pain has not
that cost! We pay for what we get, or our forebears pay
for it. They paid for the size of our brains, and we pay
for our progress in knowledge.

The term religion is an equivocal and much abused
word, but I am convinced that no man's life is complete
without some sort of an emotional experience that may be
called religious. Not necessarily so much a definite creed
or belief as an attraction and aspiration toward the Infinite,
or a feeling of awe and reverence inspired by the contem
plation of this wonderful and mysterious universe, some
thing to lift a man above purely selfish and material ends,
and open his soul to influences from the highest heavens
of thought.

Religion in some form is as natural to man as eating
and sleeping- The mysteries of life and the wonder and
terror of the world in which he finds himself, arouse
emotions of awe and fear and worship in him as soon as
his powers of reflection are born. In man's early history
religion, philosophy, and literature are one. He worships
before he investigates, he builds temples before he builds
school houses or civic halls. He is, of course, superstitious
long before he is scientific; he trembles before the super
natural long before he has mastered the natural. The mind
of early man was synthetic as our emotions always are; it
lumped things, it did not differentiate and classify. The
material progress of the race has kept pace with man's
power of analysis, — the power to separate one thing from
another, to resolve things into their component parts and
recombine them to serve his own purposes. He gets water
power, steam power, electric power, by separating a part
from the whole and placing his machinery when they tend
to unite again.

Science tends more and more to reveal to us the unity
that underlies the diversity of nature. We must have diver
sity in our practical lives, we must seize Nature by many
handles. But our intellectual lives demand unity, demand
simplicity amid all this complexity. Our religious lives
demand the same. Amid all the diversity of creeds and
sects we are coming more and more to see that religion
is one, that verbal differences and ceremonies are unim-

670 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

portant, and that the fundamental agreements are alone
significant Religion as a key cr passport to some other
world has had its day, as a mere set of statements or dogmas
about the Infinite mystery it has had iu day. Science makes
us more and more at home in this world and is coming more
and more, to the intuitional mind, to have a religious value.
Science kills credulity and superstition, but to the well-
balanced mind it enhances the feeling of wonder, of ven
eration, and of kinship which we feel in the presence of
the marvellous universe. It quiets our fears and apprehen
sions, it pours oil upon the troubled waters of our lives, and
reconciles us to the world as it is. The old fickle and jealous
gods begotten by our fears and morbid consciences fall
away, and the new gods of law and order, who deal justly, if
mercilessly, take their places-

" The mind of the universe which we share," is a phrase
of Thoreau's — a large and sane idea which shines like a
star amid his many fire-fly conceits and paradoxes. The
physical life of each of us is a part or rill of the universal
life about us, as surely as every ounce of our strength is a
part of gravity. With equal certainty, and under the same
law, our mental lives flow from the fountain of universal
mind, the cosmic intelligence which guides the rootlets of
the smallest plant as it searches the soil for the elements
it needs, and the most minute insect in availing itself of
the things it needs. It is this primal current of life, the two
different phases of which we see in our bodies and in our
minds that continues after our own special embodiments
of it have ceased; in it is the real immortality. The uni
versal mind does not die, the universal life does not go out.
The jewel that trembles in the dewdrop, the rain that lends
itself to the painting of the prismatic colors of the bow in
the clouds, pass away, but their fountain-head in the sea
does not pass away. The waters may make the wonderful
circuit through the clouds, the air, the earth, and the cells
and veins of living things, any number of times, — now a
globule of vapor in the sky, now a star-like crystal in the
snow, now the painted mist of a waterfall, then the limpid
current of a mountain brook — and still the sea remains un
changed. And though the life and mentality of the globe
pass daily and are daily renewed, the primal source of
those things is as abounding as ever. It is not you and I
that are immortal, it is Creative Energy of which we are a

IS NATURE WITHOUT DESIGN? *

part. Our personal immortality is swallowed up in this.
The poets, the prophets, the martyrs, the heroes, the
saints, — where are they? Each was but a jewel in the dew,
the rain, the snow-flake, — throbbing, burning, flashing with
color for a brief time, and then vanishing; adorning the
world for a moment and then caught away into the great
abyss. " O, spend-thrift Nature!" our hearts cry out, but
Nature's spending is only the ceaseless merging of one form
into another without diminution of her material or blur
ring of her types. Flowers bloom and flowers fade, the
seasons come and the seasons go, men are born and men die,
the world mourns for its saints and heroes, its poets and
saviors, but Nature remains and is as young and spontan
eous and inexhaustible as ever. " Where is the comfort in
all this to you and to me? " There is none, save the com
fort or satisfaction of knowing things as they are. We shall
feel more at ease in Zion when we learn to distinguish
substance from shadow, and to grasp the true significance
of the world of which we form a part. In the end each
of us will have had his day, and can say as Whitman does,

I have positively appeared. That is enough.

In us or through us the Primal Mind will have contem
plated and enjoyed its own works and will continue to do so
as long as human life endures on this planet. It will have
achieved the miracle of the Incarnation, and have tasted
the sweet and the bitter, the victories and the defeats of
Evolution. The legend of the birth and life of Jesus is but
this ever-present naturalism written large with parable
and miracle on the pages of our religious history. In the
lives of each of us the supreme reality comes down to earth
and takes on the human form and suffers all the struggles
and pains and humiliations of mortal, finite life. Even
the Christian theory of the vicarious atonement is not with
out its basis of naturalism. Men through disease and igno
rance and half-knowledge store up an experience that saves
future generations from suffering and failure. We win
victories for our descendants, and bring the kingdom nearer
for them by the devils and evil spirits we overcome.

JOHN BURROUGHS,

THE ANSWERER: WALT WHITMAN

BY EDITH FRANKLIN WYATT

THERE is a season of the year in the Middle West in
late May when the spring ends and the summer begins,
that always seems to breathe with especial freshness the
sense of continuing change in the ways of nature. Lilac-
blooms fall. Columbines first sway their delicate horns of
pale scarlet and fawn-color. Visiting Graceland cemetery
in Chicago I was stirred on last Decoration Day to see that
the city graveyard was filled as never before with men,
women and children. It was as though in the year since
we had entered the struggle of the European War, the
city's sympathies had moved not only forward to the ap
preciation of an international future, but back to a quicker
understanding of our memories of struggle for democracy.

Soldiers and civilians, the bugled strains of far music,
rising and falling to the pulse of distant drum-beats, the
flags' clear white and crimson stripes and dark-blue star-
fields fluttering against the turf under the delicately-leaved
elm and maple branches, the crowds of people carrying
the colors, and palm-wreaths and baskets of geraniums —
all this quietly peopled scene of the city of the living
seemed in an ineffable accord with the invisible spirit of
the dead and of her " camps of green." If one could have
chosen a time for the birthday of the greatest poet of de
mocracy it would have been this very season : and it seems
especially fitting that Whitman, the destined singer of our
national hope, our dearest common purpose, should have
been born the last of May a hundred years ago, in the age
of a dream that was dying and one that was coming to
birth.

From that time forth, in the decade following Water-

THE ANSWERER: WALT WHITMAN 673

loo, to the present day, there has been a continuous, one
might indeed say an increasing need for defenders of de
mocracy. Whitman has of course many valuable and re
warding aspects : but it is in this aspect of the defender of
democracy, the writer who has actually undertaken to be
a responsible philosopher for our national social faith, that
he has seemed to one reader, at least, especially valuable and
rewarding in the last four years.

He replies to us with a wonderful adequacy not only
in his lyric responses, but in Specimen Days, in Democratic
Vistas, Collect, Good-Bye My Fancy, and November
Boughs.

II

The reader of the history of this continent, from Las
Casas' terrific picture of the slave trade in the West
Indies in the Sixteenth Century, to the last New York and
Chicago dailies, will be chiefly struck with its senseless
disorder. Unkempt, disreputable, vast, the forces that
have made our nation have always, it would seem, shambled
forth in cosmic guise. Looking at them from a little
distance we conceive of these forces, in the past at least,
as clear-sightedly progressive, and moving forward,
through dangers indeed, but in the manner of those
conducting an intelligent and well-equipped surveying
party. Seen closer at hand, not only Columbus, but
Washington and Lincoln, appear in the character of
scantily-provisioned voyagers over the Sea of Darkness,
the harassed captains of a poor, mean rabble proceeding
towards Shores Undreamed, the discoverers of continents
they never realized in their life-times, and advancing to
the air of " I don't know where I'm going, but I'm on my
way."

We think of our Revolutionary ancestors as a formal,
well-clad soldiery, in neatly-cockaded tri-corners. We
think of the Revolution in terms of the clear-lined dignity
of the Declaration of Independence. We think of the
Civil War in terms of the profound common, national
sympathy of the Gettysburg address. But on reading Lord
Charnwood's Lincoln we perceive that the pulse of
common national sympathy was so thin, feeble and
uncertain that it is amazing the Union ever squeezed
through — a circumstance that appears less a result, than

VOL. ccix.— NO. 762 43

674 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

a species of miracle ; and we realize how long it is that we
have been shambling forth, when we learn that our
ancestors fought naked, at the battle of Eutaw Springs,
with moss fastened around them to prevent abrasion from
their powder flasks and muskets.

What is to be said about the desperate courses, and the
casual ways, the inconsistencies and worthlessness, in which
democracy seems to have lumbered along? Who will
attempt the impossible feat of account for our shambling
cosmic guise? Whitman will attempt it. Much as he
determined to visit the soldiers, Northern and Southern,
cared for in the Washington hospitals in the Civil War,
Whitman goes forth to re-assure. He will not minimize
difficulties. He will not conceal the event of battle. But
he will bring you all sorts of encouragements little and
large; and he will convince you, or perhaps one should
say he will mesmerize you, into a frame of mind in which
you

Know that the past was great and the future will be great
And that both curiously conjoint in the present time.

You are able to consider your own time and your own
government in a larger manner; and to look around you
and see that

The sun and stars that float in the open air ;

The apple-shaped earth and we upon it — surely the drift of them is
something grand !

Whitman in Specimen Days has a great deal to say about
what seems to many persons, to more persons far than in
his time, the most serious danger for democracy — the
growth of plutocratic ideals.

Whitman has plenty of direct opposition to plutocracy:

Beneath the whole political world, what most presses and per
plexes to day, sending vastest results affecting the future is not the
abstract question of democracy, but of social and economic organiza
tion, the treatment of working-people by employers and all that goes
along with it — not only the wages-payment part, but a certain spirit
and principle, to vivify anew these relations ; all the questions of prog
ress, strength, tariffs, finances, etc., really evolving themselves more
or less directly out of the Poverty Question, (" the science of Wealth,"
and a dozen other names are given it, but I prefer the severe one just
used.)

The American Revolution of 1776 was simply a great strike, suc
cessful for its immediate object — but whether a real success judged
by the scale of the centuries, and the long-striking balance of time,
yet remains to be settled. The French Revolution was absolutely a

THE ANSWERER: WALT WHITMAN 675

strike and a very terrible and relentless one, against ages of bad pay,
unjust division of wealth-products, and the hoggish monopoly of a
few, rolling in superfluity, against the vast bulk of the work-people,
living in squalor.

If the United States like the countries of the Old World are to
grow vast crops of poor, desperate, dissatisfied, nomadic, miserably-
waged populations, such as we see looming upon us of late years —
steadily, even if slowly, eating into them like a cancer of lungs or
stomach — then our republican experiment, notwithstanding all its sur
face successes, is at heart an unhealthy failure.

The music-makers and dreamers of dreams wandering
by lone sea-breakers, walking by desolate streams, are the
builders and makers of the world, no doubt, as much as
O'Shaughnessy pleases. They are not, however, the makers
of the world's immediate programmes and time-tables.
Swinburne's really intense passion for the serene republic
has a detachment from reality that cannot but seem
whimsical. Whitman's deep devotion to democracy is by
no means detached; but it is unfocussed. In spite of his
drawing an unascertained picture of plutocracy, in spite
of his liking for a species of idealized sketch of " workers "
as mainly brawny athletes, and his pleasure in his obvious
conception of industrial occupation as an almost therapeutic
field for the development of health and energy, yet Whit
man knew democracy at first-hand, saw its faults and
dangers and did not minimize them.

But he dislikes to be definite about what is to be done
next. It is amusing to observe his friends' vain struggles
to obtain a programme from him. He will visit you in
the hospital: but he will not act as the doctor. He is a
wonderful nurse for democracy; but he refuses the
responsibility for ordering prescriptions.

This element of the quiet friend of humanity in
Whitman's nature, an element doubtless partly of Quaker
strain, is one of his greatest attributes. His social
philosophy here, his inspired service in the Civil War —
that volunteer care of his which he says was the very centre
and circumference of his being, and worth shattering his
health for — was a thrilling prophecy of a tremendous
national phenomenon. I mean of course the vast, long-
continued national energy that has poured increasingly
into the wide field of social services in our own life-time.
The very tempo, the very mood of his hospital days is
immeasurably repeated, the mood of a worker who

676 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

combines support and relief with a liking for economic
justice, and who cannot prescribe, can only work on
through the need of a sea of individuals, step by step, one
by one — the way of a thoughtful stretcher-bearer who
ministers with a constant sense of the inadequacy of his
ministrations in wretched miseries.

For Whitman no one in need is trifling, or obscure, or
negligible or to be left out — not one. The soul of each
person is identified to him as though he had been that
soul's creator. Its passage through existence is sacred to
him with homely splendor. No metric poem the Answerer
ever wrote is more poetic than his tale of his hospital days ;
none more serenely lit with the divine fire of a passion for
individual creatures, individually seen but multitudinous;
none more finely swept with the music that knows the
Universe as " roads for travelling souls."

Perhaps just this understanding, this knowledge that
none must be forgotten, this pride for the obscured, could
we but learn it wisely, is the contribution of our continent
to civilization — a gift to the hold of time more different
from Roman roads or Egyptian Pyramids than we had
ever guessed.

Whitman's own hand wrote the inspired chronicle of
his hospital service that replies by the divine law of
indirections to so many questions about our national
experiment. About the questions of the danger of pluto
cratic standards he has given us also some hints for whose
preservation we owe a debt of gratitude to the faithfulness
of his devoted friend Horace Traubel.

The record of Whitman's Camden years tells the story
of a man who knew how to be poor, with a species of
grandeur. The tale of these years has a faery element, the
attraction of some classic symbol of divine power existent
in nature, the subtle charm of a Lempriere fable.

Whitman in his blue cape, his beautiful silver hair,
his exquisite cleanliness, sits like a god in his shabby room,
with no money, no wide acceptance or successful literary
career in a certain sense, almost no physical strength left.
None of these circumstances are material. The whole
scene is like that of Jupiter's and Mercury's visit in the
cottage of Philemon and Baucis. This sojourn of an
immortal in a homely habitation is an irresistible episode.
The fact that the immortal often behaves in as un-god-like

THE ANSWERER: WALT WHITMAN 677

a manner as Jupiter did, does not detract from his divine
characteristics; and even seems to add a touch almost of
grand opera comedy. The bragging and boasting; the firm
calm of the great poet's concealment from his friends of
just how much money he possessed ; his majestic, impressive
comment on books he had not read or even seen ; his rating
of works of genius in proportion to their authors' regard
for Leaves of Grass; his divine nonchalance; his ineffable
candor combined with his striking capacity for a species
of placid, humorous trickery, something in him like
Proteus, or even, if you will, like Autolycus — all these give
the world a portrait of an impoverished poet which upsets
all expectation and precedent.

Sometimes he sat in a chair on the sidewalk in front of
his house; sometimes received callers in a room down
stairs where he had great piles of unsold copies of his
books. At the period when his lameness increased,
admirers clubbed together and obtained a horse and buggy
for him. Friends were fond of bringing him cookies.
Lord Houghton and John Morley came to see him here
in Camden, and Frank R. Stockton and Mr. John Bur
roughs, Mr. Doyle, the poet's railroad-conductor friend —
all sorts of people. Towards the end of his life, Mr. Bliss
Perry tells us, " Visitors were shown to the large upper
room where the poet usually sat in a stout oak chair by one
of the windows, a gray wolf-skin flung over the back of
the chair." It was a littered low-ceilinged .room strewn
with papers in " a mean house upon an unlovely street.
Trains jangled and roared at a railroad crossing not far
away; when the wind sat in a certain quarter there was a
guano factory to be reckoned with. The house was hot
in summer and had no furnace for the winter months."

Here the Good Gray Poet lived for the last eight
years of his life in high content and much spontaneous
conversation, surrounded by innumerable kindnesses and
friendlinesses and visited by hundreds of persons most of
whom, like Dr. Bucke, were " Almost amazed by the
beauty and majesty of his person and the gracious air of
purity that surrounded and permeated him," and by his
presence, which " seemed to take on a dignity and beauty
as of some heroic, vanished epoch."

Such was the Answerer's final response to existence.
The whole manner of his last years said as much on the

678 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

subject of democratic and plutocratic ideals as all his books.
It said these things in that persuasive way he has described
so completely:

Logic and sermons never convince;

The damp of the night drives deeper into my soul.

Ill

But Whitman had many fine, poetic and suggestive
things to say in words, too, in his Camden years. He said :
" Any love that involves slavery is a false love — any love."
He said " The best part of any man is his mother."

Henry Adams observes in his distinguished and
absorbing Education that asking himself whether he
knew of any American artist who had ever insisted on the
power of sex, as every classic had always done, he could
think only of Walt Whitman; Bret Harte, as far as the
magazines would let him venture; and one or two painters.

It is not too much to say that if Whitman's art treats
this great subject with classic frankness, it adds a touch of

freatness of its own in its expression of democracy in sex.
n the pages indeed of both Bret Harte and Whitman
social morality for men and for women is exactly the same.
What Bret Harte says in the parting of John Oakhurst
from the Duchess in the face of death, is what Whitman
sings when he says that a man's strength is sacred and a
woman's strength is sacred.

No matter who it is, it is sacred.

He hates sin. He is by no means among those who
believe there is no such thing. He will confess his own —
You degradations — you tussle with passions and appetites

and the toil of painful and choked articulations — mean
nesses, shallow tongue-talks at tables (his tongue the
shallowest of any) — broken resolutions. He will recognize
sin. He will blame it. But he will not cast out sinners.
Especially he will have nothing to do with a philosophy
that casts out only such sinners as are women.

I am the poet of the woman the same as the man ;
And I say it is as great to be a woman as to be a man ;

The beauty of Whitman's expression of democracy
in sex would alone rank him as a great contributor to
civilization, a great poet in the sense in which Sophocles
and Bunyan are great poets.

THE ANSWERER: WALT WHITMAN 679

Henry Adams has much to say in his chapter on " The
Dynamo and the Virgin " about the failure of our world
to face the truths of nature that the Western World
expressed for centuries in the worship of the Virgin as an
avatar of the distinctive force of woman, whether
economized or developed.

The highest energy ever known to man, the creator of four-fifths
of his noblest art, exercising vastly more attraction over the human
mind than all the steam-engines or dynamos ever dreamed of: and yet
this energy was unknown to the American mind.

He excepts Whitman from this ignorance: but the spiritual
power and genius in this respect of such a poem as

Unfolded out of the justice of the woman, all justice is unfolded,
Unfolded out of the sympathy of the woman is all sympathy

is forgotten even by such a penetrating critic of moral
values as Emerson, in the endless question of the moral
expediency of frankness on the subject of sex.

Without attempting to answer that question, one may
be grateful to Whitman for the dignity of his moral inten
tion in all he says on that topic. It is a curious circumstance
that the two poets of genius in our tongue, immediately
preceding him, who have most to tell us of this aspect of
life, can say almost nothing about it without a leer. Both
Byron and Burns are of the manners of a prolonged
Eighteenth Century sentimentalism as alien as possible
from the knowledge that understands that " any love that
involves slavery is a false love." They were both, indeed,
professional enslavers. Burns at times, it is true, is humble
and honest. But mostly he is the " boastful, libertine bag
man " of Stevenson's detestation. Byron has hardly more
depth on the subject of the relations of men and women
than the " red-blooded man " of Bernard Shaw's satire.

This I think is what Whitman means when he says in
an otherwise warmly laudatory appreciation that Burns is
" weak and worse than weak " ; and of Byron that his
poetry is " introverted " — " not at all the fitting, lasting
song of a grand serene free race." Whitman remarks
elsewhere, with a severity that might confuse, that the verses
of Poe are " almost without the first sign of moral prin
ciple." But in the sense in which Whitman uses the term
morality, it is really true that it hardly occurs in the
inspired poetry of the author of To One in Paradise. It has
no comment to make on the economy or development of

680 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

sex, nothing whatever to say about what is wise or unwise
in this regard, or cowardly or courageous or right or wrong.
Neither has the work of Emerson, Longfellow, Lowell,
Whittier or Bryant. No one blames any of these poets for
not choosing topics other than those his own genius had
assigned. Yet it is certainly a merit of Whitman's poetry
that without evasions or Druidical superstitions it placed
the subject of sex before the world with candor as a great
social and moral theme.

It is needless perhaps to remark that an individual of
no worthiness as a human creature may be able as an artist
to present the world with creative discriminations of the
highest usefulness. It may not be superfluous to point out
that echoes of a poet's life often qualify the tones of his
poetry and make one understand them more clearly. The
fact that Burns took care of his illegitimate child in his own
house; Byron's misguided but responsible concern for his
natural daughter Allegra, and his grief at her death — these
are circumstances that make much these poets have sung
more a matter of a fashion of eighteenth century coxcombry
and less a personal conviction of the poets themselves than
before one knew of them.

It is not quite fair to leave these circumstances out in
considering their detestable attitude towards sex; and it is
not quite fair in considering Whitman's splendid assertions
of the responsibilities of parenthood to eliminate an episode
that invalidated for some people the sincerity of his poetry.
Mr. Bliss Perry says " The controversy over Whitman's
writings has inevitably raised certain questions as to his
own conduct." When John Addington Symonds first read
Calamus it seems he was troubled by some lines about
which he wrote to Whitman.

Shocked at a misinterpretation of which he had not
dreamed, Whitman wrote frankly in reply concerning his
own early relations with women : — " My life, young man
hood, mid-age, times South, etc., have been jolly bodily,
and doubtless open to criticism. Though unmarried I
have had six children — two are dead — one living Southern
grandchild, fine boy, writes to me occasionally — circum
stances (connected with their fortune and benefit) have
separated me from intimate relations." When this letter
was first made public, many of Whitman's staunch friends
of the later fifties and the sixties refused to credit its

THE ANSWERER: WALT WHITMAN 681

statements, preferring to believe that the old man had been
romancing. But it had long been known to a smaller
group of his Camden friends that Whitman was the father
of children, and that he had been visited in his old age by
a grandson. To one of these friends he promised while on
his death-bed to tell the whole story, but the time for ex
planation never came. ... In our ignorance of all the
precise facts concerned in these early entanglements we may
wisely bear in mind some traits of his character about
which there is no reasonable doubt. One of these traits
was an unfailing respect for women. . . . The long and
bitter controversy over the decency of a few of his poems
has led many critics to assume that they were dealing with
a libertine. But diligent inquiry among Whitman's early
associates has never produced any evidence that he was
known to be a companion of dissolute women. What
woman or women bore his children, what unforeseen tides
of passion or coils of circumstance swept and encircled him
for a while, may never be known.

It is somehow impossible to believe Whitman capable
of prolonged mean irresponsibility, deceit, unkindness and
worthlessness to women and to children whom he loved
intimately. You can only feel here concerning this story
and the dreams and beauty of his poetry that you are in a
mist of ignorance where the rest is silence. Besides, an air
of American myth persists about it. There is something in
it at once clear and yet blind and unbelievable like the
Peruvian history of the Inca Huayna, of whom Garcilasso
relates that he had " from two to three hundred enumerated
children."

Truthfulness compels one to add concerning Whitman
and his relations to women in poetry and in life something
that may perhaps be more obvious to a woman reading
Specimen Days and his Camden biography than to a man.
You agree so fully with all his poetic belief in Woman that
you regret exceedingly an unescapable perception that in
his daily conversation he shows every mark of a man who
knows almost nothing at all about individual women : and
has never known many or perhaps any of them very well.
This is especially apparent in his moments of closest
observation on the topic — as for instance when he says
with an air of discovery possible to keen and thoughtful
penetration that " women can have capital times among

682 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

themselves, with plenty of wit, lunches, jovial abandon."
Yet you cannot feel that you would have even this trait, this
agreeable, dulled brightness and unfocussed conception of
his changed; and it has something thoroughly pleasurable
about it, like all his other discriminations large and little.

IV

Whitman's answers about how democracy must proceed
by a march in the ranks hard-pressed and the road unknown ;
about the poetry of openways; of common service for
multitudes; about how to live your own life, whatever
yours means ; about sex, and the native powers of women —
these fine replies are all to be heard in the human conversa
tion of Whitman's non-lyric writings, and of his life.
Because less familiar, it is to the speaking voice of the
Answerer that I have turned for them. But in all except
some of the lesser turns of his thought, these truths are all
given also in that great singing voice of his which is a
national glory — in the songs of the open road that tell you
yourself is good-fortune; in the songs that grieve for
bereavement down all space and time through the moody
and tearful night; and comfort shame and wrong and
sinning in their poverties, wincings, and sulky retreats ; and
rise and fall on forever as rain falls from the heavens and
vapors rise from the earth, from the thousand responses of
the heart never to cease. Here is the reply of the Answerer
who has undertaken to be responsible for democracy.
Better than any one might have hoped, it seems to me, he
tells us what we are all here for ; sings us songs that we can
hear before they begin and long after they are ended. He
says that they are for those to come after him: and we may
believe indeed that this is true; and that the music he says
he had always around him unceasing, unbeginning, yet,
long untaught he did not hear, is not only for the Bravest
Unnamed Soldiers of the past, but for those of trie future.

EDITH FRANKLIN WYATT.

OF GARDENS

BY ANNE ATWOOD DODGE

Oh, Mary, give my garden grace
To be his fit abiding place.
I would not have his small heart miss
One least thing of thy garden's bliss,
Nor know regret in any wise
For the starred lawns of Paradise.
That sweet enclosure where you sit —
Oh, tell me what blooms flower in it!
There will be lilies there I know,
Tall silver trumpets, row on row,
And roses blowing white and red
(All tender words of lovers, said
On Earth, gone up to Heaven to be
Thy garden's joy eternally),
And humbler blossoms as beguiled
The laughter of Another Child.
Where his dear stumbling feet shall pass
I will set daisies in the grass,
Pied, tender things of pink and white,
And jonquils for his quaint delight.
There shall be borders proud and fair,
With clove-pinks spicing the clear air
Beneath the larkspur's azure lance,
And gilly flowers and Maids-of-France;
Here the white foxglove spires and there
The clouds of misty lavender.
And all day long a golden bird
Within the hawthorne shall be heard.

ANNE ATWOOD DODGE.

A MEDITATION ON AN OLD
FASHIONED WOMAN

BY ANNE C. E. ALLINSON

I WAS taking supper with some women who are char
acteristically " modern." The hour was instinct with life
and energy. We were out of doors, in October, breathing
air that still sparkled and shone, as the sun in firm tread
neared the west. The hour had been caught, like a shining
ball, at the end of a day filled, for most of the group, by pro
fessional occupations. It seemed to me the apotheosis of a
picnic, as I saw the domestic science expert, who runs a
successful lunch-room, bending over our steak and fried
onions. Her fellow-hostess, who owns with her the fertile
farm, where, in a birch grove of their timber-lands, we were
picnicing, is a broker with a brilliantly growing business.
My fellow-guests were the superintendent of a hospital and
the confidential clerk of a firm of exporters. These women
had come out from the city, tired from the day's work, but
capable of a buoyant reaction to the exceeding beauty of
the autumn evening. Those whose home was at the farm
had shed their tailored, urban suits, and put on knicker
bockers and loose shirts. I admired their free movements,
and graceful strength. We were all hungry and ate boldly
of an abundant and excellent supper. Cigarettes, for those
who wished, followed the coffee, and as the pungent fra
grance rose upon the autumn air the talk grew. It ranged
from agriculture to Bolshevism, from taxes to religion. It
was vigorous talk, pointed and interesting. I was de
lightedly conscious of the sanity and the resourcefulness
of the modern woman who walks out into the market-place
unashamed and unafraid.

But I was even more intensely conscious of another ele
ment in the beauty of the hour. The mother of one of
these women was there, rich in some seventy-five years of
human life, and she was par excellence the centre of our

AN OLD-FASHIONED WOMAN 685

group. Her face was lovely with quietude, her smile
rippled gently from one to the other of us, her soft woollen
gown fell, in old-fashioned grace, to her feet. To me, whose
own mother is dead, she seemed like the hearth-fire of the
world. Her daughter, I could see, was ever warming her
heart at her. For the broker's fine, almost masculine,
strength of body and temperament grew soft when she
turned toward her mother, to be sure of her comfort, to see
that she had the best seat, the best from the supper table,
the best from the conversation. But, indeed, we were all
bent toward that same purpose. Involuntarily, like plants
turning toward the sun, we sought the consciousness of the
older woman's presence. Without her the hour would have
lost its tenderest charm. Our modernity would have been
harsh without its tribute to a quality in her which is with
out epoch or age.

The quality seemed to me indefinable but pervasive,
as I sat with this guest of honor on the warm rug beneath
a golden birch-tree, and watched the others clear away the
supper, and heap fresh wood on the ramparted fire. Later,
as the broker and I walked across the brown and purple
fields, beyond the flaming maples, to the great yellow hay
stacks, I said to her: " Something is wrong with us if we
leave your mother's equipment out of our standards."
" But," she said, in quick alarm, " don't you think we shall
have it, too, when we are old? It's her tranquillity, which
has followed work and sorrow and victory. We can't have
that till life gives it to us." And she told me a little of her
mother's life, how she had borne and brought up many
sons and daughters, and how the usual griefs, through death
and through disappointments, had come to her. " It's her
peace now," she said, " and that isn't our privilege yet.
Don't you really think we shall gain it in time? " " No,"
I said, " not unless we take her road. It isn't the details of
her experience that have made her lovely, but her conclu
sions from them. At our age she must have chosen " — the
Biblical phrase fell upon me — " to hear the reproof of
life." " I wonder," mused my friend, " I have never thought
of my mother as choosing — she has just been, she is per
fection."

There it was again — the mother's undeniable power of
inspiration. I knew my friend well enough to understand
its manifold working. Without her mother, neither her

686 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

character nor her business success would have about them
their aura of strength and shining vitality. The mother,
unknown in person in the market-place, is a continuous fac
tor there.

Now in this attitude toward an old-fashioned woman,
this modern woman is but following the habit of men who
have acknowledged the pursuing inspiration of the home.
Among my own acquaintances I have noticed a lack of such
appreciation chiefly in feministic " women of leisure " who
rebel against their own internment. The genuine business
or professional woman, working for her living and often
for that of dependents, is far more likely to seek in others
and to rely upon the qualities that welcome, comfort and
inspire her at home: she knows life well enough to evalu
ate correctly both temporary and eternal feminism. This
class of women will inevitably increase. Not only the prac
tical exigencies, but also the soundest ideals of modern life
require it. Strikingly enough, through these very women
who are obliged to work outside the home we shall probably
have again enshrined the guardians of the hearth. It is an
empty thing to work unless there is someone at whose feet
we can lay the fruits of work. It is a hard thing to work
unless there is someone to rejoice in our success, to console
us for our failures. The real workers of the world, whether
men or women, long for a home, from which to go out, to
which to return. Perceiving the insistence of this demand,
we learn to discount the shallow absurdities of the social
rebel who invents activities only to get away from home.

" I work hard," the broker was saying, as we turned
back, " I work hard because at the end of the day I find my
mother reading by the lamp, waiting for me to come." We
rejoined the group under the birches and the mother wel
comed us with a little smile for our brief vagrancy into
the silent twilight. Words came to me, suddenly, for her
quality. Surrounded by experts, she set them all free and
gathered them all in by a wisdom which transcended their
knowledge. As we all grew silent, watching the fire die
down to coals, my mind pursued the matter.

Feminism, in its best and most benign sense, has largely
consisted in opening to women the doors of knowledge.
College and professional educations are foregone conclu
sions for thousands of them. Technical training of all
kinds is urged upon thousands more. The war has hastened

AN OLD-FASHIONED WOMAN 687

the normal industrial process. We have yet to see the effect
of a restored peace. But, whatever the adjustments may be,
it is not conceivable that the future holds any return for
women to the limitations of ignorance.

With our entry into a multiform knowledge has come
our exaggeration of its solitary value. To know how to do
things — we seem to say — is the equivalent of knowing how
to live. To be proficient in the technique of a trade or pro
fession is to be proficient in the business of being a human
being. Experience, to be sure, is forever controverting this
opinion, but we retain its implications in our talk and our
theories. Rather, education ought at every step to cor
relate the necessity of wisdom with the astonishing advance
of women in all kinds of expertness.

Women have always had the capacity for being wise.
This partly explains, I believe, the slowness of society in
seeing that both she and man needed also her knowledge.
Having the better part already she was not so much scorned
as left free in the lesser issues. Blindly, perhaps, but not
wholly unrighteously, she was permitted to forego — and
she chose to forego — the contribution of technical efficiency
in order to contribute the life-blood itself. The objection
to her advance along the roads of knowledge, while often
seeming like selfish and arrogant conservatism, has in re
ality been due to an unconscious fear that through this ad
vance the world would suffer in its vital functions. We
who are women must acknowledge that we ourselves have
sometimes furnished grounds for such a fear. The business
woman has been hard, the University woman has been
bloodless. Often neither has created fresh spiritual re
sources in her environment. But such under-nourishment
of society is in no sense a necessary corollary of woman's
modernity.

In old-fashioned days, indeed, women displayed wis
dom chiefly within the home. In spite of the power of
Aphrodite, we know perfectly well the value that has been
set on the wise woman through the centuries. The imme
morial praise of her is ever fresh. Strength and honor are
her clothing. Her children arise up and call her blessed,
her husband also and he praiseth her. Literature, in all
languages, teems with illustrations of this appreciation.
Latin found a fine phrase for it, in epitaphs which dealt
with the unforgotten influences of dead women. Often the

688 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

chief asset of the wives of the efficient Romans was regis
tered as wisdom of the heart — sapientia cordis.

This gives a usable name, at least, to woman's special
ized form of a widely diffused human quality. All history
shows that it is by wisdom, rather than expertness, that
" kings reign and princes decree justice," that democracies
come into being, and ordered freedom prevails. To-day
Germany has once for all given dramatic and titanic proof
of the truth long since apprehended by the Greeks, that
mere knowledge without wisdom is destructive. Inwrought
in the law of God — so Hellenism insisted— is the necessity
of attaining to this wisdom. If you do not accept the law
voluntarily, you will have acceptance forced upon you
through suffering. In this reverence for wisdom women
must share, as they come to share in the government of the
state and in the development of all the arts. But in the
economy of life there is also a specific wisdom required of
either sex. To deny this is to waste one's breath against
the decree of nature and the confirmation of experience. It
is, in fact, denied only by extreme feminists — and by them
only as a sort of lip-service to their cause. One such was
insisting to a man that she hoped to see the day when all
his New York clubs would be open to women, " because
there is no difference whatever between the sexes." The
man, assailed in his most sacred retreats, answered with bru
tal wit: " You are the last person who should say that, you
who like anything in trousers, and are bored by everything
in skirts." It was true. She perceived the differences as
keenly as anybody, only she preferred the masculine. Under
a barrage of " identity " she was merely trying to escape
from her own sex. But the many women who are working
as men thankfully acknowledge the heritage of sex, and
gather courage and joy from the distaff side of life.

To define the distaff kind of wisdom is difficult, as soon
as we endeavor to see it transplanted beyond its indigenous
habitat in the home. There we can describe it by its re
sults. But in the market-place we have yet to see its full
fruitage. And yet, there is no reason why it should be, in
essence, different from what we already know. In office or
factory or shop woman's wisdom can help to infuse democ
racy with the spirit of love. To her, it may well be, will
belong this special element in our social reconstruction. Nor
is it sentimental to attribute to her a peculiar skill in those

AN OLD-FASHIONED WOMAN 689

personal relations which underlie all " social " ethics. Much
that is silly has been written and said about woman's " un
selfishness." But sentimentality is often only the froth and
foam thrown off from the tides of truthful feeling. We
must face the fact that without a sensitive individual re
gard for the condition of those about us — in the market
place as well as by the hearth — all schemes for " social jus
tice " will die of inanition. It is not a doctrine for women
alone, but to woman may well be apportioned the inculca
tion of the doctrine through her wisdom of heart.

I speak thus inclusively because I believe that this
sapientia cordis is open to any woman who will seek it. In
this respect it differs from other feminine dowers, such as
beauty and charm. These gifts, poured out upon some wo
men and withheld from others, do vastly increase the love
liness of life. But their scope and influence are not to be
compared with those of a wisdom which can be attained by
all. The first step toward its attainment is to consign know
ledge to a secondary place in our scheme of values. The
successive steps will be pointed out by life and made tra-
versible by discipline. Wisdom, in tender leaf, ought to
show its promise in youth, to burgeon and bloom in the
vital years of work, and in old age to bear fruit in that
tranquillity which, like the autumn sunshine, gives an aure
ole to the processes of fruition and completion.

The fire was out, the sun had set. The broker motored
us back to town, her car, in a certain sane speed, responding
to her sane, strong hand upon the wheel.

" How's business, Johnnie?" a hearty voice called out
from the back seat. " Ripping," Joan flung back, as she
swept us by a belated truck team. The road to business
stretched on ahead of us. An evening wind had arisen and
blew fresh in our faces. "I enjoyed the supper," came
again the voice from the tonneau, " because your mother
was there. She gets me every time." " She is beautiful,"
came in another and gentler voice. My own voice could
not be trusted. But I, too, on my way back to expertness,
carried with me the benediction of wisdom.

ANNE C. E. ALLINSON.

VOL. ccix. — NO. 762 44

CRITICISM AND SCIENCE

BY JOHN M. ROBERTSON, M. P.

CHANCING recently upon a forgotten obituary notice of
Lowell, I find that I wrote thus of him at his death :

Needless to say, Lowell's want of science and method must affect
his literary criticism, on some sides, as Arnold's did his. Both men had
a fine literary palate, which was the foundation of their critical work;
and they have each done for thousands of us the inestimable service of
helping us to know and discriminate literary beauty and charm, and to
find in these an indestructible solace and inspiration. To do this is to
be abreast of, and to minister to, a full half of the intellectual needs of
the age, for not half of the people of any country are yet near the point
of profiting by the best ministry of the literature that lies to their
hand. Civilization has been on this side one long failure. Thus it is
only the few who are concerned to trace and expound the inadequacies
and the misjudgments of Lowell and Arnold in their treatment of what
we may call the science of literature. No need to speak of them further
here : the work of analysis will doubtless be done soon enough.

That the work had already been done to some extent
in the United States I gather from Mr. Ferris Greenslet's
biography of Lowell, published in 1905; and it has since
been done with much completeness and competence by Dr.
Joseph J. Reilly in his James Russell Lowell as a Critic,
to which I referred at some length in my article on Lowell
in a recent issue of the REVIEW.

We are invited to make up our minds as to the literary
status of Lowell, the critic. Mr. Reilly concludes with the
verdict that

If Lowell is to survive, it must be frankly as an impressionist.
For so far as criticism approaches a science, so far as it depends to any
serious extent on ultimate principles, so far, in a word, as it is some
thing more fundamental and abiding than the ipse dixit of an apprecia-
tor, Lowell is not a critic.

This drastic judgment is supported by Dr. Reilly, and
to some extent anticipated by Mr. Greenslet, in really ex
cellent analyses of Lowell's method and matter, which

CRITICISM AND SCIENCE 691

only at certain points seem to me to be open to serious chal
lenge. Dr. Reilly shows Lowell to be imperfect in his
literary sympathies, radically and frequently contradictory
in his statement of what he represents as fundamental crit
ical positions, inconsistent in his tests, unphilosophical in
many of his analyses and generalizations, and, as a general
result, often disappointing, "provoking" to people of
warm feelings. Barring certain rectifications of particu
lar judgments by Dr. Reilly which seem to me to be called
for, I do not think his general indictment can really be
rebutted. The issue is as to his final verdict, that from a
scientific point of view " Lowell is not a critic."

Those of us who have expressly striven for " science in
criticism " are specially interested in having the final ver
dict properly put. On Dr. Reilly's view, an impressionist
critic is properly not a critic at all. He does not do or
seek to do what the spirit of critical science requires at the
critic's hands, which is, by implication, to reach judgments
prcximately as unassailable as those reached in the sciences
commonly so called. Such a judgment will probably be,
and perhaps has already been, challenged in the name of
criticism itself, and is not unlikely to have the effect of
arousing hostility to the very ideal that Dr. Reilly cham
pions. Fifty years ago Sainte-Beuve, one of the great
practitioners, insisted that criticism is " an art" which the
merely anecdotic state of " the science of the moralist "
prevented from attaining scientific status. A quarter of a
century ago, Professor Droz of Besangon, in a carefully
reasoned study, declared that " literary criticism, in so far
as it sets itself to judge the beauty of works, is not a science."
Dr. Reilly might perhaps reply that by criticism he does
not understand merely the judging of literary beauty, and
that Lowell, like most other critics, attempted much more
than that. But even if we take in the whole field, and in
clude in criticism the judging of authors and the estimat
ing of all the grounds of their appeal, the demand put by
M. Droz would probably still be forthcoming if the pro
cess of judgment throughout the field were claimed to be
" a science." Solution of the deadlock, I suspect, is to be
found only by discriminating between the forces of the
expressions " a science," " science," " scientific."

The term " science," and still more " a science," by
common agreement carries the usual sense of a body of

692 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

ascertained and co-ordinated knowledge, formulated in
textbooks, and in the main or in large part agreed upon
among special students, with reservation only of some mat
ters in dispute for the time being. Now in this sense,
clearly, a " science of criticism " does not exist and is not
likely to exist in the near future. But then this sense,
which merely indicates the most common application of
the term, does not constitute its whole scope, even in aca
demic usage. There is in constant use the phrase " moral
science," though it would be hard to make out that there
is any body of accepted knowledge coming under that
head. And so it is with such terms as " historic science "
and " political science " : nay, experts in economics have
not yet done debating as to whether that specialism is a
science or an art, though " economic science " has just as
much currency as " moral science." We are forced, in
short, to remember that " science " has a generic as well
as a particular, an abstract as well as a special meaning;
and that the term " scientific " is even wider in its appli
cability.

Science, which primarily means simply knowledge, has
come to mean exact and tested and ordered knowledge,
and thus really signifies just the carefully ascertained truth
about things ; even as " scientific " points to a methodical
and circumspect as against a haphazard or purely impres
sionist way of thinking, inquiring, and judging. And if
we but ask ourselves how, where, and when science did or
does begin, we are compelled to see that the quasi-absolute
force which we tend to assign to the word is a straining
of the facts. There was no moment at which geology or
astronomy or biology became a science after being non-
science. There is science in all considerate and painstak
ing notation and collocation of facts. Men proceed by
generalizations and hypotheses, which are checked by other
men and modified and recast, and then made the basis of
other generalizations and hypotheses, which are similarly
treated. In the words of F. A. Wolf, adopted by Matthew
Arnold, " all learning is scientific which is systematically
laid out and followed up to the original sources." This
necessarily means tentative approach, some error, and rec
tification. Absence of error cannot be made the mark of a
science, for every science goes on admitting rectifications,
to say nothing of re-formulations. Scientific method is just

CRITICISM AND SCIENCE 693

careful, critical, reflective, tested and consistent method.
For that very reason, there arises in regard to literary
criticism, which claims to be reflective and judicial, the
demand that it shall become less haphazard, less arbitrary,
more consistent than it has been. And the demand is in
the long run irresistible. Impatient men of letters, and
emotional readers, may protest that it is all a matter of
comparing tastes, which in the nature of things vary; but
this protest will not carry them far. If they are convicted,
as so many critics have been, of pronouncing expressly con
tradictory judgments, and are challenged to say which
term of the contradiction expresses their " taste," even they
must so far bow to the demand for circumspection. If they
choose to say, with Whitman in a humorous mood, " If I
contradict myself, why then I contradict myself," they
merely end, so far as they are concerned, the discussion;
which will go on in their absence, among people content
to recognize the multiplication table. They must go
further, or fare worse. Mr. Arthur Symons did go further
when, over twenty years ago, he declared concerning an
appeal for science in criticism that such science, as he un
derstood it, would not be literature. And in large measure
he may be said to have been right, having regard to the
current aesthetic force of the term literature. It implies
a concern for beauty or charm of statement, a way of say
ing things that is in itself an artistic possession. The pri
mary purpose of science is different: it aims at tracing
law and causation; and the proposed critical science, or
scientific criticism, would aim at tracing law and causation
in respect of literary effects, following up the literary phe
nomena on the one hand to the mental structure of the writer
studied, and on the other hand to the varieties of mental
structure and bias which determine the varying response of
the reader. I am not sure whether Mr. Symons would have
said that this procedure could not be literature. But some
probably would; and the answer to them would be some
thing like this:

It is quite true that an eloquent or finely phrased "ap
preciation" of an author, "laying down the law" as to his
merits and demerits, his character and his gifts, may be
more readily made a source of literary pleasure than an
enquiry which proceeds judicially, examines contrary esti
mates, analyzing problems and propositions, and tracing ef-

694 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

fects and impressions on the one hand to varying faculties in
the author and on the other to varying receptivity in the
readers. It is common ground that Lowell's criticisms give
much literary pleasure by their impressionism. But then
Lowell certainly claimed, at least implicitly, to be doing
more than conveying impressions, unless we are to say that a
man does no more than that who emphatically and elabo
rately says "the thing is so," and impugns or derides those
who say it is otherwise. In a word, the purely impressionist
critic is nowhere to be found in bulk. The mere impres
sionist does not write, or very rarely writes, his judgments ;
whereas Lowell was a critic and judge by profession. And
no critic can have it both ways. When he puts a definite
judgment he is claiming to convey a truth to people who
believe that truth in that regard is attainable ; and he must
admit his judgment to be open to the tests of truth — consist
ency, adequacy to the problem, conformity to admitted
facts. Lowell surely made the admission.

And even if, for the time being, there is less sparkle and
charm about the more circumspect enquiry than about the
more heedless pronouncement, the matter does not end there.
Literature which claims to guide opinion, while it may win
much of the privilege of poetry — the typical mode of liter
ary art, and the one which is avowedly most alien in its aim
to the aim of science — is always more conditioned than is
poetry by the test of Tightness and consistency of thought.
Even poetry cannot wholly escape the test. Newman's
Lead, kindly light, has been subjected, by people quite
sympathetic with its mood, to tests of simple analysis of
meaning which disconcert old admirers, leaving them less
enthusiastic, or even unenthusiastic. And criticism, which,
however " literary ", is necessarily ratiocinative, where
poetry is relatively "simple, sensuous, and passionate", can
not but be impaired even as to its charm by the discovery
that it is false, that its implied reasoning is absurd, that its
judgments are inadequate or self-contradictory. Say what
they will, critics know this ; and if they have the root of the
matter in them they practice vigilance, ^//-criticism, cau
tion in judgment.

In a word, they seek to become more scientific than they
were, or than their predecessors were. Arnold's primary
and characteristic demand was that criticism shall become
more heedful, more thoughtful, and so more veridical ; and

CRITICISM AND SCIENCE 695

Lowell's criticism is from the first an appeal for rectific
ations. And if these critics succeeded in being from the first
more truly "literary" than those whose judgments they chal
lenged, whereas those who in turn challenge them are forced
by their clearer purpose and more ratiocinative task to a
process of analysis, eristic and judicial, which at first par
takes more of the tone of science than of that of literature,
the latter are not thereby in the least confuted. The more
single-minded among them will not even concern them
selves as to whether they shall ultimately hold literary or
scientific status — or any status at all. It will suffice for them
that they reached or sought truth.

But the more scrupulously truth-seeking criticism is re
ally not ultimately debarred from "literary" status even by
acceptance of that drudgery of patient thought from which
the impressionistic innovators recoiled or abstained — or, let
us plainly say, for which they were not qualified. The more
scientific grasp of truth, the sifted truth, passes in due course
into the blood streams, as it were, of the new generation, be
coming as truly part of the life of feeling as were the un
tested guesses and intuitions of the past; and in that stage it
is as much matter of "literature" as what went before.
Under Arnold's ill-considered and formally false definition
of poetry as "at bottom criticism of life", lies the truth that
even poetry is ultimately tested by its hold on sanity, its
congruity with life and things, its relation to the developing
psychosis and philosophy of the evolving world. Thus a
great deal of temporarily successful literature tends in time
to fail as literature.

The same is true, certainly, of what aims at being science.
Much of the criticism of past centuries took a quasi-scienti
fic form, and professed a scientific purpose. Burke in his
day wrote of "the science of criticism," and Kames claimed
that it was "a rational science" ; and their science did not
prove adequate. Yet the just inference is not a verdict for
the anti-scientific spirit, or for the rejection of the scientific.
Kames had his effect on the literature of his age in so far (it
was not very far) as his own aesthetic perceptions were
abreast of the existing product. Science means a perpetual
reconsideration, even as literature is a perpetual re-impres
sion and re-wording of feeling and thought. Twenty years
ago, French students filled with the new spirit had come to
employ " de la litterature" as a term of derision: It sig-

696 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

nified for them obscurantism, the preference for verbiage
over reasoned thought, rhetoric over true criticism, decla
mation over the scientific spirit.

But their derision does not dispose of the spirit of liter
ature, any more than literary obscurantism disposes of the
spirit of science. Science and literature alike are at per
petual grips with inertia: the struggle is the eternal and
fundamental conflict between the forces of change and the
forces of resistance to change. The new criticism, in due
course, becomes literature just as did the old. Hennequin's
treatise on La Critique Scientifique is indeed a work of
nearly pure science, hard to read and master, avowedly
(even needlessly and unfortunately) repellent in term
inology; but his critiques of authors are just as truly
literature as are Lowell's, albeit a drier wine. Impression
ism has not disappeared : in reality we get the impressionism
of a new knowledge, no longer amateurish — at least re
latively much less so — but in its more watchful way quite
as confident as the old; perhaps, some will say, quite as over
confident. For there is more science to come, more re
consideration, a recognition of yet further problems, with
doubtless a further recasting of criticism. Such is the law
of evolution, in literature as in life.

JOHN M. ROBERTSON.

THE BOOK OF THE MONTH

THE AMERICAN LANGUAGE1

BY LAWRENCE OILMAN

" WHEN I speak my native tongue in its utmost purity
in England," said Mark Twain in 1882, " an Englishman
can't understand me at all." A generation later, Sidney
Low, writing in the Westminster Gazette (July, 1913) re
marked that " we [the English] ought to learn the Ameri
can language in our schools and colleges . . . We teach
. . . Spanish, Russian, modern Greek, Arabic, Hin
dustani . . . But . . . there is nobody to teach you
American. I have never seen a grammar of it, or a
dictionary . . . The native speech of one hundred mil
lion of civilized people is as grossly neglected by the
publishers as it is by the schoolmasters. You can find
means to learn Hausa or Swahili or Cape Dutch in London
more easily than the expressive, if difficult, tongue which
is spoken in the office, the bar-room, the tram-car, from the
snows of Alaska to the mouths of the Mississippi, and is
enshrined in a literature that is growing in volume and
favor every day."

Mr. Low thought he was being funny when he wrote
that — certainly he did not mean to be taken literally. But
the Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica
(1910) was not trying to be funny when it said that
" it is not uncommon to meet with [American] news
paper articles of which an untravelled Englishman
would hardly be able to understand a sentence." Our
own Evening Post (N. Y.) has recently plucked from
the Philadelphia Public Ledger a typical newspaper
headline written in " American " which would prob
ably elicit cries of acute distress from any untravelled

1 2V»e American Language, by H. L. Mencken. New York : Alfred A. Knopf, 1919.

698 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

citizen of Liverpool. It reads thus: CARFARE GOUGE PUT
UP TO EDGE." One might hold that four out of those six
words are slang, and that an Englishman should not be
expected to understand foreign slang at sight, any more
than an American should be expected to be reciprocally
intelligent. But at what point does a word or a phrase
cease to be slang and become respectable? Is "gouge"
(the noun) any longer to be regarded as slang? We are not
sure. " Put up to "? — yes, perhaps.

A writer in the London Daily Mall recently essayed to
make plain the way of the English movie fan confronted
by American films. He deemed it needful to define for the
British " cinema " spectator such familiar elements of our
American language as hoodlum, hobo, bunco-steerer, rub
berneck, drummer, sucker, dive (the noun), and graft.
Now which of these are " slang," — and, as such, per-
missably baffling to a foreigner, — and which belong to our
polite speech? Beyond any question at all, hoodlum has
ceased to be slang, and is now admitted into the drawing-
rooms of " polite " writers and allowed to sit at ease on the
chintz. Just as certainly, rubberneck has not yet had its
adam's apple scrubbed in preparation for the starched
collar of genteel usage. It is still "slang" (though, as
slang, it is what the azygous F. P. A. would call " Old, old
stuff," and what the returning Parisianized doughboy would
doubtless call vieux chapeau). But it is, beyond dispute,
slang, even if it is stale slang, and one cannot imagine it
being used in a piece of serious writing by Mr. Paul Elmer
More. Surely graft (the noun) has ceased to be slang; but
how about hobo? Would Mr. More use hobo? It is not a
matter of age at all. Age may wither and custom stale,
but they do not necessarily legitimize: for dead-beat, whose
origin has been traced to 1877, is still expected to eat with
its knife and wear " made " cravats, whereas dive (in the
sense of a " low " resort) is now perfectly good academic
American, though it is of later origin than dead-beat.

It is all very perplexing indeed. And if foreigners like
the English are not going to teach American with earnest
and intelligent assiduity, what is to happen? Someone
has said that it will all come out right, because the English
are appreciative and acquisitive enough to appropriate a
linguistic invention as soon as we turn it out, and incor
porate it in their own language. But how does that help

THE BOOK OF THE MONTH 699

to promote comprehension if the Englishman mistakes the
meaning of the words he fancies and wants to appropriate?
We have heard one Englishman explain to another
Englishman that when an American called someone a
" dead beat " he meant to denote an undertaker. And there
is this further difficulty: If American is to be taught in
English schools, how are the instructors to know whether
an American word is still " slang" (and therefore neg
ligible in the present education of English boys and girls),
or whether we have taken the verbal unfortunate off the
streets and made an Honest Woman of her? We ourselves
don't always know.

What would an English school-teacher make of such
an ordinary American sentence as this : " He had a skirt
with him"? Is skirt, in this sense, "slang"? No doubt.
But for concise and comprehensive and triumphant ex
pressiveness, it is irreplacable. Try to convey exactly the
same sense, with the same economy, using any word that
the Spectator would use. It can't be done. We have here
an authentic addition to expressive speech, not merely a
lazy substitute ; and in five years you may find it in a New
York Times editorial — without quotation-marks.

To anyone who has read Mr. H. L. Mencken's new
book, the inspiration of the foregoing reflections will be
obvious. Mr. Mencken in this book is more than engross
ing. He is pestiferous. For is it not pestiferous to tie one
to the tail of a 320-word book, in smallish print, from
milking- time till sun-up? That is what will happen (" in-
fallyibly," as Mr. Barrie's Policeman says) to anyone whose
trade is words, English or American; and it is probably
what will happen to anyone else who is sufficiently interested
to begin Mr. Mencken's book.

Every newspaper editor knows that an unfailing
way to educe a torrent of correspondence from his
readers is to start some verbal controversy. It is as
certain to produce results as the throwing of a tomato
omelette into an electric fan — an experiment which Mr.
Oliver Herford (we believe) once declared to be the most
urgent of his suppressed desires. We think Mr. Mencken
has started something almost as exciting as the realiza
tion of Mr. Herford's secret ambition would be. His title
alone is enough to rejoice the soul of any newspaper
editor who might have thought to use it to initiate

700 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

a discussion. " The American Language "1 Does it exist?
Is it different from standard English, " not merely in
vocabulary, to be disposed of in an alphabetical list," but
" in conjugation and declension, in metaphor and idiom,
in the whole fashion of using words " ? Mr. Mencken set
out to prove that it is, and he has pulled off an achievement
of extraordinary interest and importance.

This is no mere dictionary of Americanisms, as its pub
lisher justly observes, but an attempt — an exceedingly able
attempt — " to investigate the lines of growth of the
language in America, with particular attention to its spoken
form." Mr. Mencken examines the grammar of colloquial
America, American spelling, the influence of immigrant
languages upon English in America, the mutations of
American surnames, American proverbs, American slang.
It would be impossible to do justice to his book without
carrying representation and discussion to an impracticable
length. There is no help for it but to be unjust to his
treatise, and unwillingly seem to contract its scope and
comprehensiveness by dwelling upon one or two of its many
significant aspects.

One's agreement with Mr. Mencken is so nearly one
hundred per cent that one gets a certain low-lived satisfac
tion from disagreeing — when one can. Our chief difference
with him is caused by what we feel to be a defect of
emphasis. It seems to us that Mr. Mencken is too much
dazzled by what he somewhere calls our " incomparable
capacity for projecting hidden and often fantastic relation
ships into arresting parts of speech." Such a term as rub
berneck, he thinks, is almost a complete treatise on national
psychology. " It has in it precisely the boldness and dis
dain of ordered forms that are so characteristically
American." The American " likes to make his language
as he goes along." We incline, he thinks, toward a direct
ness of statement which, at its worst, lacks restraint and
urbanity. So far, he thinks, we have escaped tall-talk,
Johnsonese, machine-made jargon. We " rebel instinc
tively " against circumlocution. " There is more than
mere humorous contrast between the famous placard
in the wash-room of the British Museum : These Basins Are
For Casual Ablutions Only, and the familiar sign at Amer
ican railway crossings: Stop! Look! Listen."

At our best, there is no denying the fact that we are

THE BOOK OF THE MONTH 701

wonders at inventing bold, vivid, concise, direct, and
brilliantly expressive speech. Joy-ride is incomparable.
So is standpatter. So are lounge-lizard, high-brow, bone-
head, tight-wad, road-louse; barrel (for illicit affluence),
pork (for public graft). There is no doubt that we have
a creative way with language — let us admit it. But we
think Mr. Mencken is a little too easy with us, a little
under-critical. Along with this obvious tendency of the
American language toward condensation, we must recog
nize — if we look steadily and honestly — another ten
dency, equally typical, in the opposite direction. We mean
the patent American love for the verbally evasive, the ver
bally indirect, ambiguous, redundant.

We love the pretentious in speech, the absurdly ornate,
the circumlocutory. It was our beloved America that
invented tonsorial parlor; that adores the clumsily elab
orate, the timidly genteel phrase; that prefers a shambling
euphemism to a racy and swift directness. It was in
America, in 1918, that the Army Medical Corps com
plained of the handicap imposed upon their work of es
sential public education because of the anserine squeamish-
ness of the newspapers, which in most cases refused to print
its bulletins regarding the prevalence of syphilis because,
as one blameless journalistic soul explained, " the use of
such terms as ' gonorrhea/ l syphilis/ and even ' venereal
diseases' would not add to the tone of the papers" (the
italics are ours) . Such fatuous and panicky evasions as statu
tory offense for adultery, or an interesting condition for
pregnant, are typically American. It is said that the New
York Evening Post only recently permitted its reporters to
use the bold term street-walker.

This trait, so far as it concerns language that touches
upon the more urgent realities of the flesh, is due, of course,
merely to our irremediable Puritan hang-over. Mr.
Mencken recognizes this truth, and has his fun with it.
How can one thank him sufficiently for incidentally un
earthing the fact that during the Victorean era in England
the linguistic drapers, seeking a polite substitute for bull,
which was banned as too gross for refined ears, hit upon
and used the enchanting subterfuge, gentle man- cow? But
while England has for the most part recovered from that
ludicrous and horrible distemper, America has not. Mr.
Mencken refers to a recent example of the use of male-cow

702 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

for bull as quoted in the Journal of the American Medical
Association for November 17, 1917.

Mr. Mencken might point to the edifying fact that
the American who now represents us abroad has not hesi
tated to use in public discourse such phrases as go
ing some, and hog (as a verb). That is indeed all
to the good. But Mr. Wilson is sufficiently expert in
the use of language to know when to express himself like
Walter Bagehot and when to express himself like the Man
in the Street. Mr. Wilson's speech is, however, scarcely
typical of the American language. Take a speech that is;
not that of the motorman in New York, the ironworker
in Pittsburgh, the corner grocer in St. Louis, the carpenter
in Ohio: that, in the main, as Mr. Mencken says, is "a
highly virile and defiant dialect," disdainful of precedent,
without self-consciousness, " deriving its principles from
the rough and ready logic of every day." Take the speech
of the semi-educated American — the habitual speech of the
American manufacturer, of the lower grade of Congress
man, of the small-town matron, of the T. B. M., of the
average newspaper-man — the American language that is
used in a million prosperous provincial homes, a million
business offices, a million newspaper " stories " and edi
torials. It is a speech that is flabby with timorous
euphemisms. It is shambling, mincing, cheaply " refined,"
indecently " respectable." It seems almost incapable of
direct and honest speech. It not only says limbs when it
means legs (which is merely the Puritan complex uttering a
feebly shameful reminder of its dirty past), but it fails to
say what it means even when it means something wholly
unrelated to Sex and Sin. One would not expect a " nice "
American woman to emulate the shameless English and
call a female canine a bitch. She would be content with
dog; or, if pressed, would take refuge in lady-dog — we
have heard it. (Mr. Mencken admits this fact, but attempts
to account for it by the delightfully na'ive and excessively
indulgent explanation that it is due " largely, perhaps," to
the English people's " greater familiarity with country
life.") But why does the average semi-educated, middle-
class American (who, bless his amiable soul, rules our intel
lectual life) say under the influence of liquor when he
means drunk, and retire when he means go to bed?

THE BOOK OF THE MONTH 703

We think it is because the average American, despite his
indisputable liking for the succinct and the vividly direct,
has a concurrent, deep-seated, ineradicable inclination
toward the euphemistic, the evasive, the stilted, the highfa-
lutin'. This tendency permeates the speaking and writ
ing of Americans, in regions of reflection and reaction
where the Puritan complex does not enter at all. Is it be
cause the American is really, for all his superficial raci-
ness and vividness and impatience, at heart a quaking tra
ditionalist, an incurable side-stepper? One sometimes sus
pects that this is so.

Mr. Mencken speaks of " the disdain of ordered forms "
that is " so characteristically American." We think this
" disdain " is largely superficial. In his heart of hearts,
the American loves the old ways, the conventional ways.
The art that he loves is saccharine, pretty, conventional —
he infinitely prefers Howard Chandler Christy to Glack-
ens; the Pretty-Girl, Little Tot, Lover-and-Sweetheart con
fections on the popular magazine covers to the drawings of
Boardman Robinson or Art Young. He would willingly
chuck Walt Whitman any day for Longfellow. He thrills
at the Meditation Religeuse from " Thais " and goes to
sleep over Moussorgsky.

But all this is hardly Mr. Mencken's fault. We have
dwelt upon it merely because he did not, and we think his
indulgence a defect in a book that is almost always sound,
shrewd, discerning, just. This treatise is accomplished with
humor, with brilliancy, with sympathetic imagination.
And, as we began by saying, it is deplorably engrossing.

LAWRENCE OILMAN.

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED

TEN YEARS NEAR THE GERMAN FRONTIER. By Maurice Francis
Egan, former United States Minister to Denmark. New York:
George H. Doran Company.

Did the war begin in the Balkans, in the brain of the Kaiser, in
the policy of Frederick, called the Great, or in the murder of Abel?
It is always permissible for a writer to choose his own point of
departure. Mr. Egan says that the war began in Denmark ; and there
is much to be urged in favor of this view. In 1864, Denmark was
deprived of Slesvig-Holstein — a province as Danish as Alsace-
Lorraine is French — by the united pressure of Prussia and of Austria,
Prussia's subservient ally. " This was the beginning," says Mr. Egan,
"of the mighty German Empire ; it made the Kiel Canal possible, and
laid the foundation of the German navy. Slesvig, too, supplied the
best sailors in the world. Bismarck, when he cynically treated Slesvig
as a pawn in his game, had his eye on a future navy — a navy which
would one day force the British from the dominion of the sea ! "

Certainly, wherever one looks for the beginning of the war, one
finds (if one keeps within the modern period) that it began in German
perfidy, German treachery, exercised toward some weaker neighbor.
The fate of Belgium roused American conscience; it made Americans
set their teeth in grim determination ; the fate of Serbia made American
blood boil. But nothing could have exacerbated American sensibilities
or outraged the American spirit of self-assertion more than to have
been placed — if that had been possible — in the situation of Denmark.
America in constant fear of a powerful, unscrupulous " Southern
neighbor," America forced to consider what that neighbor might think
of every ordinary exercise of American sovereignty — unthinkable!
Yet such was the situation of Denmark — and the Danes did not like
it much better than we would have liked it if we had been in their
place.

To a diplomat during the war, and before it, Copenhagen afforded
a most advantageous post of observation not only because it was a
favorable position for watching German dealings with Norway and
Sweden as well as with Denmark, not only because it enabled Mr.
Egan to obtain a somewhat intimate view of Germany through Danish
eyes, but also because Copenhagen was a sort of diplomatic clearing
house. One important truth of world-politics was impressed on Mr.
Egan soon after he first went to Denmark as United States Minister
in 1907. Laugh as one might, and as most people did in that year, at

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED 705

German bumptiousness and at German encroachments, — the alarm had
already been sounded in South America, — it became plain to Mr. Egan
that Prussianized Germany might at any moment seize Denmark, and
that in this case the Danish West Indies would become Prussian — a
pleasant prospect for us, in view of our Monroe Doctrine ! Thus, an
interest in the West Indian problem, unusual among Americans at
that time, and an opportunity to feel out Danish opinion in this
matter and to catch the Danish reaction toward Germany, gave our
Minister, not the gift of prophecy, but a certain insight into Ger
man motives and methods, from the first. But this was not all:
to be a diplomat at Copenhagen required an unusual attention to
the mysteries of dynastic politics — the bad old system of personal
relationships between rulers that had not, during Mr. Egan's stay in
Denmark, by any means lost its power. That Mr. Egan possessed the
requisite knowledge is made apparent not only by the ease — dazzling to
republican simplicity— with which he treats of royal and semi-royal
family histories, but also by the many graphic thumbnail sketches he
gives of important and interesting personages. Although King Fred
erick objected to having the Court at Copenhagen regarded as a sort
of royal marriage market, and discouraged suitors for the hands of his
daughters, it was none the less true that previous royal marriages and
the fact that nearly every diplomat at Copenhagen was a favorite with
his sovereign, gave the post unusual prestige, and made " conversa
tions " possible there which could not have taken place elsewhere. Mr.
Egan evidently understood the situation and tactfully adjusted himself
to it. He was on good terms with Szchenyi, the Austro-Hungarian
Minister and rather intimate with Henkel-Donnersmarck, a German
statesman somewhat too old-fashioned to please the Kaiser. Than Mr.
Egan few of our diplomats seem to have learned more from their
colleagues.

The ideas which the keenly observant, shrewdly receptive, and
notably far-sighted author of these memoirs seems desirous, amid all
the entertaining digressions and incidental pleasantries of his narrative,
of impressing upon his compatriots are two: first, the extent, the
subtlety and the virulence of German propaganda, and second, the need
of America for an intelligent knowledge of those smaller countries in
which the American democratic example ought to have been most
powerful but in which German influence was in reality least opposed
from without.

We are friendly to the smaller countries, and they now have some
reason to trust us — but do they really understand us, or we them ? In
Denmark, Minister Egan was seriously embarrassed in his efforts to
negotiate the sale of the Danish West Indies — a sale completed just
in the nick of time, before America entered the war — because Danes
generally considered Americans so barbarously disposed toward
negroes that they could not be trusted to rule them. Actually, Danish
humanitarian feeling was up in arms against America. What a pity
that certain Southern lynchings should so have misrepresented to Den
mark the general attitude of America. How unfortunate that the real
nature of the American negro problem could not have been even a little
understood in Denmark ! Before the war we did not concern ourselves
much about such things. The fact that we almost lost the Danish West

VOL. CCIX.—NO. 762 45

706 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Indies because Denmark saw our civilization through the medium of
Uncle Tom's Cabin may serve as an example to warn us against pro
vincial indifference to the opinions of the world ; but the whole problem
is of course bigger than Uncle Tom's Cabin and broader than Den
mark.

" We have two bad habits," writes Mr. Egan : " We read our
psychology as well as our temperament — the result of a unique kind
of experience and education — into the minds of other people, and we
despise the opinion of nations which are small." Is it not one of the
conspicuous lessons of the war that it makes a world of difference
whether the little countries regard democracy with hope and affection,
or look " with helpless respect " toward autocracy ? Truly there has
always been too much truth in the gibe of Mr. Dooley : " Up until
recently ye thought Bulgaria was only the name of a sleepin' car." Yet
Bulgaria counted — and on the wrong side.

In the little countries German vigilance was sleepless, German in
fluence unceasing. In Sweden the upper classes were allowed no intel
lectual contact with the democracies of the world, the fear of Russia
was sedulously kept alive, and the good feeling between Sweden and
Denmark was undermined. Kultur patronized Danish letters. It was
impossible for a Danish author to succeed, on a large scale, unless his
works were translated into German and sold in Germany; and hence
it was impossible for a Danish author to write against Germany with
out sacrificing at once his market and his reputation outside of Den
mark. In all the Scandinavian countries scholars looked to Germany
as the center of learning, and received encouragement from Ger
many.

And if German intrigue was unsuccessful in Norway, this failure
was due neither to counter-influences upon the part of the Allies nor to a
lack of diligence upon the part of the friends of Germany. The reason
for German unsuccess in Norway should be interesting to Americans.
Neither Swede nor Norwegian, it would seem, is designed by nature
to be a slave of autocracy, and of the Norwegian in particular it is
said that he " can neither be laughed, argued, or coerced out of an
opinion that he believes to be founded on a principle " ; and that " he
looks on all questions from the point of view of a free man thinking
his own thoughts."

All this spreading of German influence and prestige Mr. Egan
from his central position in Copenhagen could see and understand.
No other book is itself less of the nature, or has less the tone, of propa
ganda than this one of his; yet no other book tells us quite so much
about the working of propaganda. Honest propaganda, one sees, of
course, is the best. The Germans knew this as well as anybody, and
so up to a certain point their methods were honest! Germany did
indeed encourage and praise Scandinavian scholars and authors who
had merit — not those who lacked it. She was as honest as lago —

And what's he then that says I play the villain,
When this advice I give is free and honest,
Probal to thinking, and, indeed, the course
To win the Moor again?

Such mock honesty must be counteracted by real honesty. Propa-

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED 707

ganda — much as Americans have come to loathe the very word — must
be used not for intrigue but in the interests of mutual understanding ;
it must be a propaganda of truth designed to build up that public
opinion of the world which is the surest safeguard of peace. And
nowhere is the need of mutual understanding more apparent than
in the case of America and Scandinavia ; for " our position in the
world of democracy has been affected in these northern nations by the
constant representations upon the part of our enemies that we are a
people of usurers and materialists " — and this at a time when the
Danes and Norwegians are in love with democracy and the Swedes
are turning toward freedom.

Persuasive, plausible, and poisonous, German intrigue did not
scruple to use religion as a means to strengthen itself. This was
obvious enough in Germany itself; but it is probable that the very
blatancy of German utterances about " the good old German God "
blinded most of us to the scope of German religious propaganda.
Could it be that a nation which appeared to have lapsed into paganism
could hope to influence other nations through religion? But it was
even sol

The Cahensly plot in America, the plan to keep German
Catholic immigrants in America faithful to the Fatherland by placing
them under the exclusive influence of German preachers and teachers
— a plan bravely and successfully opposed by Archbishop Ireland —
showed the possibilities in this direction. The same thing had been
tried among the Lutherans and had for a time succeeded. Not only
was religion in Germany compelled to justify Kaiserism, but Kaiserism
was elsewhere " concealed in the glove of piety."

But it is scarcely less surprising to learn something of the true
religious and political situation within Germany. What elements in
Germany, if any, were anti-imperialistic? Not the Socialists certainly
— every one understands that now. How about the party of the
Center? The matter is rather top complicated and too delicate for
brief exposition, but it may be said that at the outbreak of the war
the Center was no longer the party of Windthorst, and that something
of a surprise awaits those whose ideas about the position of the Center
have been derived, let us say, from that work of imposing frankness
and text-book gravity, von Buelow's Imperial Germany.

Ultra-gravity, by the way, is not the chief characteristic of Mr.
Egan's book. This is well, for though there is really no subject so
serious as that of international politics, the portentous technicalities
and solemn mysteries of world politics are just now somewhat dis
credited.

In general our books of ambassadorial authorship in Amer
ica have manifested a saving sense of humor, which is often in
America the complement of earnestness. If there is a certain glee in
Mr. Egan's accounts of how he escaped relatively unscathed from Dr.
Cook, and of how he deprived his friends the journalists of a big
sensation in connection with the visit to Copenhagen of Booker T.
Washington — to whom Mr. Egan pays, in passing, a high tribute —
American readers will be only the more readily impressed with the
value of the viewpoint which he sets forth with so much insight and
so much knowledge.

708 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

JOYCE KILMER. Edited with a Memoir by Robert Cortes Holli-
day. New York : George H. Doran Company.

In order to understand Joyce Kilmer, one must have him whole.
That is why one is so much more grateful for these two volumes oi
poems, essays, and letters than one usually is for such collections. The
poems are original and sincere, certainly ; the essays are clever and as
natural as sunshine. Yet there is no single essay or poem, perhaps,
that would preserve the name of Joyce Kilmer from ultimate oblivion.
That Joyce Kilmer should be forgotten, however, would be a calamity ;
he was a man whose vital influence should not be restricted to a small
circle or a short life. Few can read his story and the things that he
wrote without a sense of enlarged life and heightened hope.

Here in America we have been mixing bloods, educating, democ
ratizing, exposing young people to all sorts of stimulating influences
for a good many generations. And what do we expect to be the result ?
What, in other words, do we hope, in our hearts, that the state of our
children and our children's children, at best, will be? For of course
our ideals, so far as they are not meant merely to keep us in the
straight and narrow path, mostly have reference to posterity. Perhaps
it is not too bold an assertion to say that we more or less consciously
look forward to a time when, on the whole, our youthful descendants
will be in freedom, in sincerity, in buoyancy, in humanity, and above
all in joy of living, much as Joyce Kilmer was. Francis Thompson
wrote of the " after- woman " ; Joyce Kilmer was the after-youth, come
before his time.

This statement, while it sounds sentimental, is in fact perfectly
logical. Joyce Kilmer was a natural product of our loose and much
criticized, but now at last triumphantly justified American system of
education. He was as sturdily independent as one of the men of 1776,
as daring as a pioneer, as adaptable as an American woman. He was
unconventional ; he was not technical ; he was not profound, but he was
keen and right. He was amazingly versatile, full of quenchless en
thusiasm, thoroughly alive. He had the divine gift of humor without
unkindness, and a pathetic seriousness without the least taint of old-
world melancholy or imported romanticism. He was, as the new
American will certainly be, cosmopolitan in sympathies, but at the same
time warmly nationalistic. He could be ecstatic as a lark sometimes,
but was eminently shrewd and sensible.

Certainly if all this does not represent our ideal of the future
American, it represents with fair accuracy what we seem to be doing
our best to make him. If we want a type sadder, more prudent, more
deeply marked by the precocious sobriety of an early maturity, some
thing graver and more " vocational " in aspect, something a little more
old-fogyish, more like a German student, perhaps; more given to
accepting ready-made ideas, more profound with a second-hand pro
fundity, more skeptical, more submissive, — then we are not, in this land
of the free, with our colleges, with our free association of the sexes,
with our throwing open of every door to the young — we are not taking
the right way to get it. Our young people have a good deal their own
way, and it seems to us who are older, that they undergo a good deal
of excitement and store away a good deal of experience before they are

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED 709

twenty-five. Does this spoil them or make them blase? Not neces
sarily.

Joyce Kilmer himself always declared that he was half Irish.
No one who has himself a " flash of the Irish " can fail to recognize
the truth of this claim. But there were other strains — English and
Scotch. And the quality of Kilmer's mind was, after all, quite as
much Yankee as Irish. No sooner does one permit oneself to say of
some remark of his that it is a perfectly characteristic example of Irish
wit than one is struck with the general kinship of the thought with
something said, for instance, by Mark Twain. So of his poetry : some
of it has an appeal like that of James Whitcomb Riley ; but Riley was
above all things sentimental and Hoosier, while Kilmer at times more
truly connects with the older American tradition. He is often in
spirit not unlike Holmes, or Lowell — but with, of course, a difference.

What strikes one in Kilmer's writings, after all, is that here is
something not so much modern, after the present fashion of modernity,
as actually and refreshingly new — something warmer, truer, better
balanced, and more natural than the older literature ; something more
honest than the old efforts after honesty, freer than the old struggles
for freedom. Is it not possible that this better spirit, this less hampered
expression, this easier access to sympathy, is waiting for us, or for our
children, somewhere not too far in the future?

The feeling of newness, the sense of the future, in Kilmer's work,
is due less to its originality than to its harmonious combination of
widely different feelings and impressions — a combination not at all
suggestive of what is called " modern unrest." Stridency, shock, over
done realism, fine-spun skepticism, over-wrought mood — all the most
characteristically modern things, in short, appear to be automatically
excluded from his poetry. There is no apparent effort at exclusion;
he simply writes as he pleases, and his writing suggests a new order of
things, built on the old — suggests a love of children, for instance, that
is not especially Hoosier or small-townish, a love of home that is
robust enough to find joy in steam heat, electric light, and hardwood
floors, as that of pur fathers was sufficiently vigorous to survive the
discomforts and inconveniences of the old homestead — all this felt
with a greater relish than of old, and with a fuller, a more varied
sympathy for others.

A poet who writes of love, if he is sincere, produces from within
himself things old and things new, all that he has, in fact. If he is
discontented or narrow minded or moody or flippant, he is very likely
to reveal the fact. Kilmer had an unbounded scorn for those whom
he addressed as —

You little poets mincing there

With women's hearts and women's hair.

He himself wrote love poetry in the spirit of Walter Scott — except,
of course, that Sir Walter did not know how to write love poetry and
did not have the advantage of being brought up among modern Ameri
can young women. But it is not merely the fineness, the chivalry, of
such a poem as " The Blue Valentine " that impresses one ; it is the
I

710 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

richness of the offering, the wealth and contentment of the mind that
can so think and feel.

What all this betokens is a personality perfectly integrated and
therefore, as was always felt by those who knew Kilmer, happy and
strong. In him, humor, piety, love, friendship, intellect, meet in a
synthesis that one feels to be somehow new. In this personality, there
seems to be no unhappy break with the past, no undue discontent
with the present, no sense of homelessness, no apparent lesion of any
kind. It accepts heartily the conditions that so many have found
disturbing — modern life, this modern war of ours, everything — and
adjusts itself to them. Not even the work of a hack-writer could
embitter it.

What of his standing as a man of letters? It is idle to discuss
the question of whether or not he was a genius. As a writer, perhaps
not; as an avatar of young America, yes. Only a personality having
the strength of genius could be such an orator — an average mind could
not compass it. Kilmer's poems say just what they were meant to
say, with convincing sincerity and sometimes with singular originality
of phrase — the sublest form of originality of thought. His verses, in
all their intensity, are always as friendly and human as a hand-clasp.
He will probably not go down to history, however, as a great poet in
the sense either of a great word-master, or a great creator of verbal
melodies, or as a great seer. What matter?

America will take Joyce Kilmer to her heart, not because he was
a genius in any of the narrower senses, but because he was a prophesy.

CAN GRANDE'S CASTLE. By Amy Lowell. New York: the Mac-
millan Company.

In subtlety of suggestion, splendor of phraseology, and picturesque-
ness of imagery, surely most writing of the past, whether in verse or
prose, must be regarded as drab and tame by comparison with Miss
Lowell's polyphonic prose. And it would be mere folly to denounce as
simply " precious " writing which has so many facets of simplicity
and of art. The element of surprise due to the use of words and phrases
in combinations that give them an entirely new luminosity; the rich,
vari-colored effect of the whole, with its superposition of picture on
picture and mood on mood, tempts one to believe that Miss Lowell has
really developed a new and immensely powerful art.

Perhaps she has. Certainly, liberty is a great thing and not to be
trammeled whether in verse or in thought. But without disapproving
the tendency, one may raise certain queries as to its scope and effect.

The truth about free verse would seem to be — as, indeed, its
adherents assert — that its defiance of scansion is nothing new. No one
of course reads the line, " The quality of mercy is not strained," as
it is scanned. But these lines and other lines of classic English poetry
are measured — measured, it is true, according to some rather mysteri
ous psychic law, but indubitably measured : we know whether the full
number of feet in the line has been filled out even though we cannot
without pain force our utterance to conform to the formal metrical
scheme. And so what the free versifiers do is not so much to introduce

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED 711

subtler rhythms than the older poets (barring the eighteenth century)
used, as to abandon that measure which all the classic poets, writing by
ear rather than by rule, used in order to give effect to the subtlety of
rhythm which they actually achieved. In this view polyphonic prose
seems less comparable to music without melody than to music without
time. Whether more is gained than is lost by the method is a question
not to be decided hastily.

But there is a larger question involved in the new art, a question
that concerns the use of words not as to their rhythmical possibilities
but as to their meanings.

Music makes use of symbols which suggest no ideas except as these
arise through stimulation of the emotions, through mimetic adaptation,
or through an arbitrary prearranged connection. Painting seems even
less dependent upon concepts, the order of feeling it arouses being one
stage farther removed from conceptual thought than are the emotions
called up by music, which seems to owe a part at least of its power to
its appeal to feelings that were originally promptings to action and are
therefore not far removed from definite thought. But words mean
things or concepts. To use them continually for the sake of their mere
connotation, to adopt a style almost purely suggestive and largely
ejaculatory, strains them from their natural function. Words make us
think, and the polyphonic prose will not let us think. Instead of subtly
availing itself as the older poetry did of the capacity of a little definite
thought to support an immense amount of suggestion, the polyphonic
prose constantly arouses and then represses the tendency to reflect
coherently.

To be sure, some of the loveliest lines of poetry in the language
are by no means valuable for what they denote : —

In Xanadu did Kubla Kahn
A stately pleasure dome decree,
Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
Through caverns measureless to man,
Down to a sunless sea —

If there is more in the stanza than Coleridge's mood and vision, no critic
has been able to find it. But Coleridge's words are led along in stately
procession, their suggestiveness subdued to the formal decorum of
ordinary, sane human thought. All Miss Lowell's words are straining
at the halter.

So long as men incorrigibly use words to think with, will there not
be something painful and unnatural to all but the most sophisticated
minds — that is to all minds but those whose possessors have leisure and
adaptability sufficient for the cultivation of artificial (though not neces
sarily reprehensible) tastes — will there not be something painful to
most minds in an art which inclines toward ignoring the natural func
tion of words ?

Though it is dangerous to mark out limits for a new tendency, one
may risk the conjecture that the good effect of the free- verse move
ment will be felt in its enrichment of matter-of-fact prose, and in its
bringing to pass a more democratic sympathy, so to speak, between
prose and poetry, than in its establishment of a new art to take the
place of an old one.

712 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

CONSTITUTIONAL POWER AND WORLD AFFAIRS. By George Suth
erland : former United States Senator from Utah. New York : Colum
bia University Press.

Hitherto controversies regarding the Constitution of the United
States have had to do with the distribution of powers between the
various States and the central Government. Just now a new question
has been raised — a question concerning the power of the Federal Gov
ernment, or of any other governmental agency in this country, to do
certain things at all. Does the Constitution, for example, permit, or
does it by implication forbid, the Government of the United States to
enter into such obligations with European nations as are by some
deemed to be necessary for the future peace of the world ? In assuming
such obligations, necessary as they may be, shall we be straining the
letter of the Constitution in order to adapt it to new conditions, or
shall we be simply carrying out that course of evolution for which the
framers of the instrument advisedly left the way fully open?

These questions are exactly answered by ex-Senator Sutherland
in the course of his scholarly work, Constitutional Power and World
Affairs. Mr. Sutherland draws a clear distinction between powers
applicable to internal affairs and those necessary for the conduct of
external affairs. Nor is the distinction artificial. It is ridiculous to
suppose that in the distribution of powers between the States and the
central Government, certain powers essential to a sovereign state were
meant to be completely withheld and not conferred upon any agency
whatever. By the Tenth Amendment powers, not delegated to the
United States, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States or to the people : " In external affairs, however, there is no
residuary agency ; the sole agency capable of acting is the National Gov
ernment. Is it not reasonable to assume that those who were so careful
to avoid any lapse or loss of active power in the case of internal mat
ters were equally solicitous in the case of external affairs? If this be
answered affirmatively, as it must be, did their expression fall short
of their meaning? To put the extreme case : If the framers of the Con
stitution have omitted to specify affirmatively some highly useful and
important external power, is it therefore to be withheld by virtue of
the doctrine which limits the general government to the powers ex
pressly granted, and such as are auxiliary thereto ?"

That the course of constitutional development, as well as common
sense, approves a negative answer to this latter question, Mr. Suther
land shows through a somewhat detailed and strikingly clear review
of historic facts.

The underlying doctrine is, of course, that the general govern
ment, as a creation of the people, must be supposed to be clothed with
all the powers necessary for effecting the purposes for which it was
brought into existence. No one has applied this principle with more
rigorous exactness to a great variety of cases than has Mr. Sutherland.

It is noteworthy, however, that the author, while thus demon
strating and clearly expounding the powers of the general Government
in relation to those external affairs which loom so large to-day, ex
presses pointed disapproval of the plan for a League to Enforce Peace,
The Government may, it would appear, enter into such a league.

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED 713

Whether it ought to do so is quite another question. Mr. Sutherland
points out, with emphatic clearness, a frequently overlooked objection
to the plan — the difficulty, in view of the adeptness of statesmen in
shifting responsibiity, of determining in any given war just which
nation is really the aggressor: so plain a case as that of Germany's
invasion of Belgium is not likely to occur again. Moreover he puts
into a nutshell the true philosophy of those who oppose the League
plan: "If the world has not advanced to such a period of respect for
law and order as to insure submission to the decisions of an Interna
tional Court of Justice, it has not reached the point where it may
safely rely upon its own enduring adherence to any other plan of peace
enforcement."

DUTCH AND ENGLISH ON THE HUDSON. By Maude Wilder Good
win. New Haven : Yale University Press.

It is not usual to find so much literary charm and craftsmanship
employed in the telling of an accurate and somewhat detailed historic
narrative as one discovers in Mrs. Goodwin's story of colonial New
York. The book may well be read for pleasure ; yet any one who so
reads it will be certain to gain some clear and definite ideas supported
by facts — if it be only that Peter Stuyvesant was not the " valiant,
weather-beaten, leathern-sided, generous-spirited old governor" of
legend, but on the contrary a brutal tyrant and a religious bigot. The
author corrects the view that the Dutch colonization in America was
purely a commercial venture, and shows that in reality " the founding
of New Netherland marked a momentous epoch in the struggle for
the freedom of conscience." Very frequently, indeed, Mrs. Goodwin
shows real breadth of historic thinking in conjunction with the interest
in details of topography, of life, of character, and of government which
properly characterizes the writer of a chronicle as distinct from the
historian. The author's account, for example, of the old Red Sea
pirates is extraordinarily picturesque and striking, but not at all in the
nature of a mere peddling of romance. In these pages one may quite
casually acquire such interesting bits of information as the derivation
of the word filibuster or the word buccaneer, while at the same time
one gets the effect of a coherent and well-compacted narrative. In
writing this book, Mrs. Goodwin has evidently thought out all the
facts anew, and her thought is as independent as her style is fresh.
She has written a scholarly and entertaining narrative that is quite
her own — a book, like the publications of the Yale University Press in
general, written not for the market, nor for the glory of learning alone,
but for value and service.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

THE NEED FOR INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATION

SIR, — The enclosed letter which I have received from the Bishop
of Birmingham may encourage the clergy and ministers of other de
nominations to take up this supremely important matter.

Manchester, England. CHARLES W. MACARA.

[Enclosure]

BISHOP'S CROFT,

BIRMINGHAM, February 10, 1919.
Dear SIR CHARLES MACARA, —

The events in the industrial world of the last week or two have
shown to all who have marked them carefully that nothing but co-op
eration between all the classes engaged in productive business life can
solve the problems connected with labour unrest. Had we availed our
selves of the services of the Industrial Council appointed by the Gov
ernment in 1911 we should have nipped in the bud some of the
dangerous growths which, if allowed to develop, are not only difficult
to destroy, but are liable to spread.

A general lowering of the moral standard of business life must
follow upon strife between the component parts of our industrial world.
The times are very critical. The United States, Japan and even Ger
many are all buckling on their armour for the war of business competi
tion which lies ahead, whilst our own people are quarrelling and Gov
ernment Departments cannot be called over active in the encourage
ment of enterprise. We must hasten to become friends all round, and
our public authorities must foster industry if we are to maintain our
great position in the world's markets.

To me, however, the consideration is, that unless all classes realize
their interdependence before God, and strive to bring out in the social
life the principle of mutual helpfulness, all the preaching of Chris
tianity is proved to be ineffective for the national well-being.

It is because such a body as the Industrial Council, consisting of
experienced Representatives of Capital and Labor, with equal rights,
will hasten this fitting co-operation that it makes such a strong appeal
to one's moral sense. One sad thing in present-day conditions is the
suspicion which exists on the part of the employed, and which is the
offspring of a not unnatural ignorance of the difficulties of the
employer.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 715

Would it not be easy for the Industrial Council to encourage cer
tain foundation principles between those who employ, and those whose
manual labor produces the final result in industry?

The first essential for peaceful working is that " all the cards shall
be upon the table." Ignorance is the parent of mistrust. Surely if the
exact position were shown to men by the employer, it would generally
be seen that all the wiser heads of businesses were anxious in their
own interest to pay more and not less wages. In America men are
warned that if they cannot earn up to a certain standard they are not
worth employing. As a rule, the higher the wages the greater the pro
duction, and the cheaper the product. If employers are frank with the
men there must be similar openness on the other side. Then there will
grow up a desire throughout the whole business to work with heart to
produce the best possible. This will brighten the whole industrial life,
and a contented working class means a rapidly developing trade.

I regard this kind of industrial life as something likely to make
this earth a little more like heaven, this world more like what God
would have it be. Therefore I trust the day is very near when the In
dustrial Council will be used to the fullest extent, labor unrest being
thereby killed, and our England not only a more prosperous, but a
happier and a nobler land. H. R. BIRMINGHAM.

OUR SOLDIERS AND PROHIBITION

SIR, — More than a million and a half American voters are coming
back to the United States this year, or next, with some definite plans
about the elections in 1920. They know quite well that, in addition to
their own ballots, they will have a far-reaching influence on the political
developments of the next sixteen months. For that reason, it may in
terest you to know how the members of the American Expeditionary
Forces in France and Germany are discussing the questions that are
now coming to the front.

It is a serious mistake to believe that the doughboys will favor a
Presidential candidate drawn from the personnel of the army. Very
frankly, they are weary of army life, army authority, and the glamor
of military pomp. They enthuse over some officers, but the objects of
their sincere regard are the men who actually led them in the fighting.
Some colonels, captains and lieutenants might control the ballots of
their own companies or regiments, but officers of higher rank would
not be flattered by an accurate forecast of the votes they could com
mand in the American army.

The American soldier is, as the English say, thoroughly " fed up "
on military control and would flinch from the thought of placing in the
White House a man selected from military circles. In an overwhelm
ing majority of cases the doughboy's one ambition is to get out of uni
form and settle down to the job of winning the battles of peace. His
vote will go to the man who in his opinion is best suited to the task of
restoring and maintaining national prosperity.

As a general rule, the doughboy will come back home with some
deep-rooted theories about what he considers unfair treatment He
believes that he has been charged exorbitant prices by the French. He

716 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

thinks that, after risking his life for his country, he should have been
given a chance to get back to the United States before the men in the
training camps with a record of only a few months' service were re
leased and given a first chance to find good jobs. And he regards the
prohibition amendment as a distinct violation of his rights as an Ameri
can citizen.

It is quite useless to argue these points with a majority of the men
in northern France and Germany. They balance the present cost of
commodities in France with pre-war prices in the United States and
insist that profiteering is responsible for what they regard as a series
of hold-ups. If, on the theme of their retention on foreign duty, you
point out the mechanical impossibility of transporting troops from
America to relieve them, they counter with the argument that "the
first troops sent back from France were the last troops to get here."
This, of course, is true. But, instead of being flattered by the fact that
the War Department reposes more confidence in them than in the un
tested products of the training camps, they stick to their argument that
they " earned the right to go home first and let the other fellow do the
policing and road-repairing."

Every doughboy with whom I have discussed the question, regard
less of his personal habits, is exceedingly bitter on the subject of the
prohibition amendment. The American soldiers insist that politicians
took advantage of their absence from home to " put over " the bone-
dry law. The fact that the question was not put to a popular vote does
not alter their convictions. They think it was a " crooked deal " to
make a radical change in the Constitution while two million voters were
fighting for that Constitution on foreign soil and unable even to voice
their opinions. The men in the A. E. F. will return with a distinct
grudge against the national and State legislators who favored a change
in the Constitution while the war was being fought and won.

The American soldier has had no chance to talk since he was sent
to France, but he will have a great deal to say when he returns. And
some of the things he is waiting to say will exert a tremendous influ
ence on the next national election.

A NEWSPAPER CORRESPONDENT JUST BACK FROM FRANCE.

A LITTLE HISTORY

SIR,— Concerning current discussions as to the League and the
Nation, the following may be of interest : The Colonists, prior to the
Declaration of Independence, acted as one people. The first Conti
nental Congress, which assembled at Philadelphia, September 5, 1774,
adopted a Declaration of Rights, October 14, 1775. In its introductory
sentence it recites that " Since the last war, the British parliament,
claiming a power of right to bind the people of America, by statutes
in all cases whatsoever, hath, etc." The declaration part begins with
the mention of it as the action of, " The good people of the several
colonies," and proceeds to include those of New Hampshire and all the
others except Georgia. By the Declaration of Rights, it was resolved,
that certain acts of parliament were " Infringements and violations of
the rights of the Colonists." It declared " That the inhabitants of the

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 717

English colonies of North America by the principles of the English
Constitution, etc., have the following rights, which the declaration then
proceeds to set forth as rights of the people, — not of the colonies as
such.

A second Continental Congress assembled at Philadelphia, May
10, 1775, and continued its sittings during the war of Independence.
On the fourth of July, 1776, it adopted and promulgated our Declara
tion of Independence, described as " a declaration by the representa
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled." It was
the " Declaration of our representatives " acting " by the authority
of the good people of these Colonies." It gave us our name, then for
the first time used, and made " The United States of America " an
addition of ONE to the family of Nations, with a complete potential
nationality. It was governed by the same second Continental Congress,
under articles of Confederation, adopted November 15, 1777, and
finally ratified, March i, 1781.

The convention which adopted the Constitution was called by this
same Continental Congress, February, 1787, for the purpose of revising
the Articles of Confederation and rendering " The Federal Constitu
tion adequate to the exigencies of the government and the preserva
tion of the Union." By its preamble it was the act of " the people of
the United States to form a more perfect Union," etc., whereby they
did for themselves and their posterity " ordain and establish this Con
stitution for the United States of America."

These statements are a partial foundation for Mr. Lincoln's mes
sage to the first Congress which assembled under its Administration,
called together by him in special session July 4, 1861. In it, he attacked
the Doctrine of Secession very ably and convincingly. He contended
that the States never had any rights nor any existence except as mem
bers of the Union; that all of their powers arose from their mem
bership of the Union and that the right of secession did not exist.
The result of the Civil War would seem to have settled the question of
the rights of the States as Mr. Lincoln put it, namely, as nugatory,
except as parts of the United States of America. Their relationship
is as similar to that of the League of Nations as chalk is to cheese.

H. A. D.
Camden, N. J.

MORE DEBATE NEEDED

SIR, — Your recent speech at Indianapolis, coupled with Senator
Knox's analysis of the League, furnishes enough ammunition to blow
the precious covenant into perdition.

Permit me to suggest that the contest now being waged through
out the country, for and against this pernicious covenant, is being
carried on rather unequally. Such part of the opposition as is being
expressed is being put forth individually, while it appears that the
whole strength of the Democratic party is behind an active and or
ganized propaganda for the endorsement of the League.

I am entirely convinced that it is only that the American people
should thoroughly understand the covenant and what it means in

718 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

order that they should overwhelmingly reject it, but I doubt that they
are hearing one quarter as much against the covenant as in favor of it.
A great amount of public speaking is being carried on in this state
in favor of the proposition and there have been enlisted for this
service, to a large extent, people whose ordinary activities train them
for public speaking.

Last Sunday, for instance, at a Providence theatre, that most en
gaging and likeable personality, Beatrice Forbes-Robertson Hale, en
thralled an audience with a description of the blessings that might be
expected of the covenant, and resolutions were passed, to be forwarded
to the President in the Peace Treaty. The audience departed deco
rated with " The League of Nations " button, which happens to re
semble the emblem of the Democratic party.

All of this happened, of course, without debate or opposition of
any kind, and I am told that this is the general method of procedure
wherever audiences are brought together by the proponents of the
proposed constitution. Perhaps it is by the receipt of numberless
resolutions of this kind that the President hopes to convince the Peace
Conference that the united opinion of America is solidly behind him.

I think it is vital that an organized opposition be launched without
delay and that it spread before the American people the truth about
this matter with all the energy it can command. While it has been
assumed in some quarters that the matter should not be handled along
political party lines, it is, nevertheless, being so handled and it would
appear that it would be much better that the Republican party take up
the opposition and press it, than that the covenant should be forced
upon us for the lack of organized opposition. No newly formed or
ganization could hope to effectively cope with the Democratic party
on such short notice. Furthermore, the matter is, in reality, a politi
cal issue; it is a bigger political issue than the tariff, prohibition, or
any issue that has been presented to the people of our country during
its existence.

I know that there are countless men who are ready and eager
to devote their energy to oppose this injurious visionary scheme, if
the things can be organized so that their efforts shall have force.

AUSTIN T. LEVY.
Harrisville, R. I.

HABIT?

SIR, — Referring to Mr. Wilson's statement that had Germany
known that England would come in with France and Russia, she
[Germany] would never have struck the blow in 1914, and the logical
reply thereto that a League of Nations would have been no more
effective under such circumstances than the old balance of power,
reminds me of another equally inconsistent statement which the Presi
dent recently made in reply to a question propounded by Senator
Brandegee. It was to this effect: " If there had been one week's dis
cussion before the beginning of the European war, it would not have
taken place."

It is an indisputable fact that the Administration did all in its

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 719

power from April, 1917, until the day of the armistice to lead us to
believe that Germany, having spent forty years in preparation and
thinking that the proper moment had arrived, struck deliberately and
wantonly, and plunged Europe into bloody conflict in order to de
stroy her rivals, create a Central European empire, and grasp the
prize of world dominion.

Now is it illogical to hold such a theory while at the same time
assuming that one week's frank discussion of differences between
them on the part of the European Powers would completely have
disarmed Germany, altered her course, and satisfied her ambi
tions.

Both assumptions cannot be true. Why does Mr. Wilson attempt
to lead us astray? Or does he falsify unconsciously and from force
of habit? I confess that such inconsistency is a sore puzzle
to me.

I believe in clear thinking and honest statement.

Newport, Ky. T. W. RAINEY.

A WASHINGTON VIEW

SIR, — I have just read your address before the Columbian Club,
and I cannot restrain the impulse to write and offer my personal thanks
and congratulations.

The analysis and logic of Senators Lodge and Knox are all right
for Senators, Judges, Lawyers and such folk, and will sway the citi
zen, if given weeks or months to germinate ; but it needs the machine-
gun fire of Roosevelt to reach the Man-on-the- Street and the Man-
at-the- Work-bench, the Preacher, and the Church pews, and shock them
into the consciousness of the fact that the President is violating his
oath of office " to support the Constitution of the United States of
America," in his mad chase after his Will-o-the-Wisp, and in bartering
the birthright of American Independence for a mess of personal am
bition. This last is for the Preachers and pseudo-Pacifists.

I want to say that T. R.'s picture is the only public man's effigy I
have in my den, but if you keep on making the Columbian Club brand
of Addresses, and writing editorials as heretofore, I will have to hang
another alongside of it.

May the spirit of American Manhood continue to give strength to
your voice, and point to your pen ! CHAS. W. FITTS.

Washington, D. C.

WHO IS FOR IT?

SIR, — The Democratic papers and, in fact, some of the Republican
papers, frequently quote the number of soldiers in favor of the " League
of Nations," or the number of people in favor of the " League of Na
tions;" but I feel sure that this is not representative of the people's
feeling about the manner in which the " League of Nations " is being
presented and perfected.

Of course, everyone is in favor of some kind of a " League
of Nations " which will prevent war. No honest human being could
be opposed to it, and when you simply ask a soldier or any other

720 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

man if he is in favor of a " League of Nations," he naturally says yes,
not understanding what you mean by the question. If one would take
the trouble to explain just what the present " League of Nations "
means to this country, I am sure the sentiment and vote would be very
different, and I believe it is to the interest of the people of the country
for the newspapers to bear down on this point and to emphasize that
we are all in favor of a " League of Nations/' but not for one made up
and dictated by foreign countries and agreed to by one man for the
entire United States of America.

FRED. C. CLARKE.
Hartford, Conn.

Tros Tyriusque mihi nullo discrimine agetur

I

NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

JUNE, 1919

THE TREATY OF PEACE

IT is done. For better or for worse the Treaty of Peace
has been completed and has been presented to the nations
of the world for their approval. Its preparation has con
sumed months of time and has commanded the activities,
we are told, of more than a thousand expert minds. It
was fitting that it should be prepareci deliberately, though
there is a difference between that which is deliberate and
that which is dilatory, and that it should be the product
of the world's best thought; for it would probably be no
exaggeration to regard it as on the whole the most mo
mentous international instrument ever framed by man.
The world has been impatient for it, because every day's
delay in its appearance was very painful and very costly
to humanity; and the impatience was provoked in the main
by the thought that the delay was due chiefly to the inter
jection of extraneous and irrelevant matter. However that
may have been, the delay is ended ; the treaty is completed ;
and the world may now judge the results of the long con
ference, of whose operations it has been permitted to know
so little.

The provisions of the treaty are naturally divided into
three general classes or groups, though there is no demar
cation of them nor indeed any logical arrangement of
them, in the text of the document. These are, first, the
Military provisions, including, of course, the strategic dis
position of territories; second, the Fiscal provisions, in-

Copyright, 1919, by North American Review Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
COL. ccix. — NO. 763. 46

722 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

eluding not only the cash indemnity which is to be paid
but also reparation in kind; and third, the Diplomatic pro
visions, including the recognition of states, the non-stra
tegic disposition of territories, and the formation of the
League of Nations.

In respect to the first of these, the Military provisions,
it is to be said gratefully and ungrudgingly that they are on
the whole satisfactory. Not altogether. Marshal Foch,
than whom there is no higher authority on the subject, is
reported to be dissatisfied with the assurance, or lack of
it, which France enjoys against another German irruption
across the Rhine. It might be quite pardonable for him
to be over-cautious and over-sensitive on the subject;
though we are not inclined to charge him with it. France,
as the President of the United States has well reminded
us, is the outpost of civilization against the Hun, and there
fore needs for her sake and the world's to have the strongest
possible protection. It is true that M. Clemenceau ap
peared to dissent from Marshal Foch's views, and to be
satisfied with the treaty in that respect. But obviously that
was because he had secured, as he supposed, assurances of
efficient aid and protection for France entirely outside of
and in addition to the terms of the treaty.

Certainly the terms of the treaty, if fulfilled and main
tained, should make an end of Germany as an important
military Power. They reduce her army and navy to the
rank of negligible factors, and abolish all her strategic
fortifications; they abolish her system of universal mili
tary service, and practically stop her manufacture of mili
tary munitions ; while at the same time they leave all such
affairs of the other nations unaffected. Thus Germany
must have no forts along the Rhine or within fifty kil
ometers of it, while France may maintain Belfort and Ver
dun and transform Strasbourg and Metz into like strong
holds. Germany must have only six battleships, six cruis
ers, and a dozen torpedo boats, while Great Britain may
continue to count her dreadnoughts and super-dread
noughts by the score. Conscription, making every man a
soldier, may continue in France, and England's arsenals
may surpass even what Essen was.

That is well. It is in accord with justice and reason
that such discrimination shall be made against Germany;
for the same reason that civilized nations have long pro-

THE TREATY OF PEACE 723

hibited the sale of firearms to savage tribes while permit
ting free commerce in them among themselves. Germany
is the one Power in Europe that has greatly misused the
things of which she is now to be deprived. She is the one
Power that is not to be trusted with them longer. She is
the one Power that would make possession of them a men
ace to her neighbors and to civilization. Great Britain
has a far greater navy than that of which Germany is now
deprived. But no rational man ever regarded the British
navy as a menace to the peace of the world, or as intended
for aggressive purposes or for anything more than defence.
France has a conscription and universal military service
system as thorough as that of which the treaty deprives
Germany. But everybody knows that the military system
of the Third Republic has never for one moment been in
tended for any other than defensive purposes. The world
will feel its peace perfectly safe if those and other Powers
maintain their present military establishments. The world
knows that its peace and welfare require the German mili
tary establishments to be abolished, and to be kept abol
ished.

If under the head of military provisions we consider
the surrender of Alsace-Lorraine, the Polish provinces,
and other territory, and the relinquishment of all German
colonies, similar approval is unhesitatingly to be given to
those acts. So far as the cessions of territory in Europe
are concerned, they must be regarded as mere acts of repa
ration. Germany is simply required to surrender to other
nations their own property which she has long unjustly
and dishonestly withheld from them. That much of this
territory is of immense strategic value is an interesting and
gratifying circumstance, but is not the reason for its resto
ration to its owners. It was the reason for Germany's theft
of it. A thief steals goods simply because they are valu
able; the owner takes them back not merely because they
are valuable but because they are his.

In the case of the colonies, there is to be applied a prin
ciple similar to that which justifies the abolition of the
German military establishment. Germany was the one
great colonial Power that both notoriously maladminis-
tered her possessions and made them a menace to others.
Her atrocious treatment of the African natives, especially
those in Southwest Africa, rivalled if it did not surpass the

724 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

iniquities of the Spanish conquistadors in the Indies and
South America. The contrast in that respect between her
African holdings and those of France and Great Britain
was appalling. Moreover, she notoriously made her col
onies bases of intrigue and menace against the adjacent col
onies of other Powers. Thus both within and without her
administration was unworthy of civilization, it was repug
nant to civilization, it was an offence to the world. It was
an unjust stewardship, which cried aloud to justice for
demolition.

There is not an item among the military provisions of
the treaty to which exception can be taken on the ground
of too great severity, or which can reasonably or truthfully
be characterized as mere revenge or oppression. Every
one is clearly and readily to be vindicated as just and as
prudent. If as a whole they fail to give entire satisfac
tion, that is because they fall somewhere short of the se
verity which they might justly have displayed.

The Fiscal provisions are on the whole less satisfactory;
partly because of a certain indefmiteness, and partly, no
doubt, because of the practical impossibility of making
them entirely adequate. The requirement of restoration
or replacement of shipping destroyed, ton for ton, is good,
and can doubtless be fulfilled. Good also — indeed, a mat
ter of course — is the payment of full indemnities for the
losses suffered by civilians; so far as these can be deter
mined. There are many such losses, and not among the
least of them, which are in their very nature incapable of
assessment in dollars and cents, or indeed of pecuniary in
demnification. Money stolen can be repaid, and buildings
burned can be rebuilt; but for the ravishing of women and
the torture of babies, what atonement can be made?

There is a certain indefiniteness, perhaps inevitable, in
the amount of pecuniary indemnity which is to be made.
Thorough as has been the work of the Allied Governments
in keeping account of losses, it may be that it is yet too
early to report and to appraise them all, and that it is neces
sary for a commission to keep at work upon them for a
couple of years longer. Certainly that should be done
rather than to let a single actual loss go unatoned, and we
must hope that in such lapse of time the scrutiny of the
commission will not grow less acute nor its resolution be
come less inexorable. Delay must not mean compromise.

THE TREATY OF PEACE 725

There is also, it is said, — perhaps oversaid, — some uncer
tainty as to Germany's ability to pay even the $25,000,000,-
000 called for in the treaty, not to mention the very large
additional sum which the commission is likely to assess
against her. It is, of course, an ancient trick of would-be
insolvent debtors to depreciate their ability to meet the just
demands made upon them; but it is not a creditable thing
for those who profess to be seeking justice to encourage or
to support such dishonest pretences.

As a matter of fact, Germany might justly be required to
pay, or to attempt under pressure to pay, a sum several
times larger than that which is mentioned in the treaty. We
confess our inability to distinguish between losses inflicted
upon civilians by destroying their property and by
running them into debt; between stealing their money out
right and compelling them to spend it against their will for
that which profits them nothing. The ravages of war in
flicted losses of billions of dollars upon the people of north
ern France. But the war also placed a burden of indebted
ness of billions of dollars upon all the people of France. If
it is just to require Germany to recoup the former losses,
it would be equally just to require her to relieve French
civilians of the latter burden.

Nor are we much impressed with the inclination of
some to relieve Germans of such responsibility on the
ground of non possunt. In dealing with them the true
policy would be not to fix a minimum and then try to get
as much more from them as they may indicate an ability
to pay, but rather to fix not indeed a maximum but at least
a very large sum, an approximate maximum, and then see
how nearly to it they could be compelled to go. We must
bear in mind that the total wealth of Germany has been
estimated at much more than three times the sum mentioned
in the treaty, and that that wealth has not been diminished
by ravages of invading war. German deviltry has put
upon France a load of indebtedness proportionately more
than twice as great as the total sum named in the treaty as
to be paid by Germany to all her victims. France will bear
it and discharge it scrupulously, to the last centime, despite
the ravages she has suffered. Germany, without such rav
ages, might well be required to bear a proportionate burden
for the relief of those whom she has irreparably wronged.

If thus the fiscal provisions arc somewhat less satisfac-

726 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

tory than the military, least satisfactory of all, from the
American point of view, are the Diplomatic provisions of
the treaty. In some respects, it is true, these are all that
could well be desired. The recognition of the new states
which have been formed, or of the old states which have
been rehabilitated, is admirable. So is the discrimination,
expressed or implied, against Germany. So are the provi
sions regarding German commercial and diplomatic rela
tions, which are to be enforced upon her, and regarding
the navigation of German waterways.

We cannot, however, regard as at all satisfactory those
provisions of the treaty, quite gratuitously introduced,
which affect American as well as European affairs, and
which substantially require abandonment of some of our
fundamental policies and even some recasting of constitu
tional principles. "Let us," said Dr. Johnson, "rid our
minds of cant." Laying aside, seriously and sincerely, the
rhetoric of controversy, the makers of this treaty will of
course admit frankly that it gravely impairs the independ
ence and sovereignty of the United States, particularly in
depriving our Government of control of its own army and
navy, and that it practically abrogates the Monroe Doctrine.
It may be excusable, in the fervor of propaganda, to pre
tend that it does no such thing. But it is quite inconceivable
that in calm and deliberate moments the President and his
supporters should think of denying that that is precisely
what it does, and what it is intended to do.

Now if such sacrifices were necessary, if they had been
necessary for winning the war or for concluding an honor
able peace, it may be that the nation would have accepted
them and borne them; but of course such a hypothesis is
fundamentally absurd, since it implies relinquishing for
the sake of victory some of the very things for which vic
tory was to be won. The dominant and formidable fact,
which has been conspicuous from the beginning, is that they
were not necessary. These things were, as we have said,
gratuitously introduced into the treaty, of which they form
no integral and congruous part. It is that which greatly
adds to the unsatisfactoriness of the diplomatic features of
the instrument. There is a bitter irony, not altogether un
expected, in the circumstance that men of war have done
better than men of peace in making a treaty of peace. Inter
leges silent. Perhaps it would have been better to

THE TREATY OF PEACE 727

have left the mere lawmakers silent, and to have let the
soldiers alone dictate the treaty.

We have said that the provisions of the treaty are
grouped under these three heads. There are other provi
sions, or features, which we should perhaps have grouped
under a fourth head, namely, the Moral. It was admirable
that the writers of the treaty insisted upon placing upon
Germany all the blame for the war, and that they also in
sisted that the German leaders in the war, even the All
Highest, should be brought to trial for their crimes. This,
we say, was admirable. How necessary, also, it was, the
sequel quickly showed. The German plenipotentiaries
showed it in their reception of the treaty at Versailles. Their
attitude and tone were thoroughly bad. It was significant
and ominous that they arrogantly sought to deny a full mea
sure of responsibility for the war, and to claim for Ger
many immediate and unimpaired fellowship among the na
tions on equal terms with all others. This circumstance
demonstrated again what we have repeatedly pointed out,
that the Germans do not yet realize, or are not yet willing
to confess, their culpability and their defeat.

It is therefore one of the supreme merits of this treaty
that it does impress upon them a sense of their criminality
and of their defeat. At least it makes them feel that the
other nations regard them as having been criminal, which
is the next best thing to thus regarding themselves ; and of
course it brings home to them a keen realization of their
military defeat. The fact that they are required to accept
such a treaty, and are unable to reject it, is ample demon
stration of their military impotence; and it will be im
possible for their leaders, however specious and hypocrit
ical, to offer any other explanation to the people.

There remains a final consideration, of equal import
ance with all that have gone before. That is, the question
of enforcement of the treaty, or of some of its most drastic
requirements. A shrewd French writer made at once this
comment upon the instrument, that there was "a flagrant
disproportion between the plans proposed and the means
given to carry them out." For the payment of indemnity,
sufficient assurance is given in the continued occupation by
the Allies of German territory west of the Rhine. But
there are other things for which no such assurance is pro
vided. The world remembers how Prussian militarism

728 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

flourished, more than a hundred years ago, in spite of what
Napoleon supposed to be suppression of the Prussian army.
We may be sure that the Germans of today will be resource
ful and indefatigable in their efforts to escape the full ef
fects of this epochal treaty. The world's welfare requires
that all such efforts shall be defeated.

By whom, is the question. The pretence that the
League of Nations is to be efficient for that purpose, and
that it was for that purpose that it was created in the
treaty, is of course quite untenable and will, we
think, no longer be put forth. That is because the
League, according to the terms of its own Cov
enant, would be impotent for such service. That im
potence was frankly confessed in advance of the comple
tion and presentation of the treaty, when our President, the
last man in the world to underrate the efficiency of the
League, engaged to undertake the formation of another
combination of Powers, outside of the League, to maintain
some of the essential objects of the treaty. We must expect
then, that peace and the practical requirements of the treaty
of peace, will be assured — so far as they can be assured —
by old-fashioned alliances and balances of power, such as
the President not long ago vigorously denounced but which
he now apparently favors.

Two other factors must be taken into account. One is,
the severity of the fate which has befallen Germany. With
all its imperfections, this treaty is perhaps the most humil
iating and crushing that ever was imposed upon a beaten
Power; though not one whit too humiliating or too crush
ing. Never before in the world's history did a new empire
rise to power and greatness so swiftly as did Germany.
Never, certainly, did one so swiftly fall, or fall so far and
into so complete disaster and disgrace. That the Germans
have fully learned the lesson, and that they will be willing
henceforth loyally to conform themselves with humane civ
ilization, may be too much to hope. But at least we may
feel sure that it will be physically impossible for them to
retrieve their fortunes sufficiently to be a menace to the
world, for a number of years to come.

The other factor is, that even if Germany has not done
so, the civilized nations of the world have learned the lesson
of the war. They have learned the need and the virtue of
preparedness for self-defence, and we do not think that any

PERSONALITY AND PATRIOTISM 729

of them, not even our own, will forget it or ignore it. The
nations have learned how much or how little trust is pru
dently to be reposed in a treaty or a precept of international
law to prevent war, when a powerful nation which has long
been preparing for war decides that the time is opportune
for it to begin war. They will not again be caught napping
in a fool's paradise. It is one great service of this treaty,
that it will restore peace to the world after the world's
greatest war. It is another and comparably great service,
which we must trust will be performed as unmistakably and
as enduringly, that it will incline the responsible nations of
the world to those sane and prudent courses which are the
best guarantee of the perpetuity of peace.

PERSONALITY AND PATRIOTISM

THE injection of the personal factor is one of the most
regrettable and most reprehensible features of the current
controversy over the terms of peace. It is unfortunate that
there is any serious difference of opinion whatever, because
our relations with other countries are involved, and in such
matters it is obviously desirable that we should present an
entirely unbroken front. A distinguished writer has given
to a certain passage in our career the significant and ap
propriate title " the Critical Period in American History,"
because in those early years the young nation was divided
on factional lines over grave issues of foreign policy,
actually making domestic politics subservient to the inter
ests of alien nations. The hope and the boast have fre
quently been expressed that we have safely outgrown such
folly, and for these we trust there is substantial ground.
Various events in recent years have demonstrated the tri
umphant prevalence of most gratifying cooperation if not
absolute unanimity between the two great parties in foreign
affairs which might well provoke differences. Such was
notably the case in the crisis of the Spanish war in 1898, in
the case of President Cleveland's memorably superb vindi
cation of the Monroe Doctrine in Venezuela, and in the
support of President Wilson in the recognition and prose
cution of the war against the Hun.

Nor is there at this time, in the controversy which so
greatly vexes the land, any division on party lines suffici
ently distinct and complete to warrant considering it as

30 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

purely or even chiefly a partisan affair. It is true that the
traditional principles of the Republican party incline the
most authoritative leaders and the great mass of members
of that organization against any abatement of the Monroe
Doctrine or any impairment of national independence and
sovereignty. It is also unhappily true that the autocratic
dominance of the President over the Democratic party, and
the demoralization which his inept leadership has caused,
have made a large part of that organization supine and sub
servient to whatever fads and vagaries he may see fit to im
pose upon it. But such party attitudes are by no means
universal. With the one surviving Republican ex-Presi
dent fully and aggressively committed to the support of the
President's policies, and with several of the most conspic
uous Democratic Senators of the United States as vigor
ously opposing them, it would be foolish to regard it as an
essentially partisan controversy.

It is, then, apparently, personal rather than partisan.
That may not be as ominous as the other, but it is in some
respects actually more discreditable, since it is so incongru
ously out of place in a democracy. In a monarchy, the per
sonality of the sovereign counts for much. In a republic
we are supposed to have a government of laws, not of men,
in which the personal will of the individual should be an
entirely negligible quantity. There have hitherto been very
few attempts at personal government in the United States.
Andrew Jackson did, it is true, impose a singularly im
perious personal will upon the government, with the result
of effecting something almost resembling a revolution. It
was on the whole a beneficent achievement, but it was one
which even his most ardent admirers would not wish to see
habitually emulated as a precedent and example. Andrew
Johnson, through his unhappy personal exploitations, won
for himself the nickname of " My Policy " ; an achievement
which nobody will envy him.

But neither of these, nor indeed all former Presidents
combined, sounded the personal note in administration so
strongly, so insistently, and — to use the term in its least of
fensive sense — so arrogantly, as Mr. Wilson has done from
the very beginning. A striking example of this occurred
early in his first term, when he demanded of Congress re
peal of the discriminatory act concerning tolls in the Pan
ama Canal. It will be remembered that the supreme argu-

PERSONALITY AND PATRIOTISM 731

ment was not that it was right, not that it was just, so to do,
but simply that he wanted it done in order that he might
thus be aided in the pursuit of certain other policies which
he had in mind but which he did not deign to disclose.
Similarly, years later, he demanded passage of the Woman
Suffrage amendment chiefly because he wanted it as a neces
sary aid to him in prosecuting the war. There were many
other like examples of the personal appeal.

Another equally significant phase of the same element
has appeared in the President's communications to Con
gress; in their matter rather than in their manner. No ex
ception can be taken to his preference for oral rather than
written delivery. In that he has simply harked back to
early examples for which we must have profound respect.
But it is in the subject matter of his addresses that he has
most departed from custom, and in which indeed he has
largely ignored the constitutional prescription. The Con
stitution provides that " He shall from time to time give to
the Congress information of the state of the Union, and rec
ommend to their consideration such measures as he shall
judge necessary and expedient." But the former provision
he has practically neglected, while the latter he has carried
out to a most extraordinary degree. It would be foolish to
pretend that his addresses have given to Congress any com
prehensive or serviceable information of the state of the
Union, such as generally composed the bulk of the written
messages of his predecessors. Perhaps there was no need
of it. Congress had before it, or was soon to receive, the
annual reports of the various Department Secretaries and
bureau chiefs, containing a plethora of technical and de
tailed information, and it may have been superfluous for the
President to epitomise those documents, or even to call
attention to their special features of interest; though we
doubt not that there are many who would gratefully ap
preciate such continued treatment of them by the President,
and who would thus be moved to give to those reports more
and more favorable attention.

Of his fulfilment of the other provision, however, there
can be no question. Probably not all of his predecessors
put together so often recommended to the consideration of
Congress measures which they judged necessary and ex
pedient. He has not merely recommended them. He has
argued, exhorted, denounced, lauded, exhausted the re-

732 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

sources of rhetoric in appeal and propaganda. His ad
dresses have been controversial disquisitions upon political
policy, through all of which the personal note has been in
sistent and dominant.

Now this characteristic of Mr. Wilson's administration,
whatever may be thought of its propriety or of the benefi
cence of its effects in other respects, has naturally and in
deed inevitably had the result to which we have already
referred. It has caused whatever controversies have arisen
over the policies of the administration to assume a personal
rather than a partisan guise. They are indeed essentially
personal. And they are so through the President's own
making, and if not at his desire certainly not at the desire of
the nation. A single illustration will suffice. When it be
came necessary for American delegates to be sent to the
Peace Congress, the normal and customary procedure
would have been for the President to nominate them to the
Senate, and for that body to confirm them. Then they
would have been not the President's personal representa
tives, but the representatives of the nation. Instead, the
President, against the unmistakably manifested wish of the
nation and quite contrary to precedent and to constitutional
intent, insisted upon appointing himself, together with four
other gentlemen purely of his own selection, without the
slightest regard to Senatorial approval. That, of course,
made the delegation representative of himself, personally,
and not of the nation or of the National Government.

In all these vagaries of its Chief Executive the nation
has shown an extraordinary degree of acquiescence;
largely, we assume, because of the unexampled gravity of
the international conditions which have surrounded it, and
because of the impropriety if not the outright peril of rais
ing an acute issue with him at such a time of stress. In so
doing it has not, however, necessarily given them its ap
proval, and it assuredly has not abdicated its right of judg
ment, or its privilege of criticism and dissent. To the results
of negotiations conducted by representatives of the Gov
ernment and of the nation, such as were sent to Paris in
1898 and to Ghent in 1814, the nation might indeed be ex
pected to give approval, though even then with delibera
tion and due discrimination; as it did on those occasions.
But in no sense is it under any such obligation with respect
to the results of negotiations which were conducted in pro-

PERSONALITY AND PATRIOTISM 733

found secrecy by delegates not of its own choice but rather
were selected and appointed against its will and who were
by no means representative of its sentiments.

Nothing could therefore be more unjust, or more insin
cere, than the peevish and querulous complaints which are
now being made by the President's apologists, that criti
cisms of his League of Nations vagaries are personal and
partisan attacks upon him. Thus we find even so respect
able and dignified a journal as the New York Times mak
ing the amazing statement that the Republican Senators
who opposed over their signatures the original Constitution
of the League of Nations " were bent upon framing an issue
against President Wilson, their party was in desperate need
of an issue, and their zeal in the search for one betrayed
them into misjudgment." What would be offensiveness in
that grotesque misstatement becomes palpable silliness
when we remember that representative Democrats were as
much opposed to that Constitution as were any Republic
ans, and that the result of the elections only a few months
before showed how little in need of an issue the Repub
lican party then was.

We believe that it is well within bounds of truth and
temperance to say that never was a President supported by
the nation regardless of partisanship or of personality more
loyally or more unanimously than Mr. Wilson has been,
whenever his policy has been in accord with the sentiments
of the people and with the principles upon which our Re
public is founded.

It is always the desire of this nation to take pride in its
chosen Chief Executive, and to show to the world that it
stands behind its elected President at least as strongly as
any monarchical nation stands behind its hereditary sover
eign. Supremely has it been the desire of all Americans
to do this in the greatest world-issue in their history, or in
the annals of mankind.

These apologists of the President seem to forget, if the
President himself, in his extreme self-confidence and opin-
ionatedness, does not overlook it, that there is after all,
something stronger than partisan affiliations, or than per
sonal likes and dislikes. It would indeed be an ominous
day for the Republic when that was not so, and when in the
last analysis purely patriotic considerations were not para
mount. It is not because the President is a Democrat that

734 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Republicans oppose his League of Nations. It is not be
cause of his personality that Democrats and Republicans
alike dissent from his policy. These are mere incidents.
It is to the substance of his proposals that Americans object,
and they would object to them just as strongly if they were
made by any other man, or if the man who made them be
longed to any other party. It is not an issue of Republican
or Democrat. It is not an issue of Woodrow Wilson or
anybody else. It is an issue of American independence and
sovereign nationality against a vague and marplot interna
tionalism; and that issue may well be left to the decision
of the American people.

AN EMPIRE CLOSED AND OPENED

THERE can be little danger of our overestimating the
importance to the world, from more than one point of
view, of the disposition which is being made of Germany's
former colonial empire.

The first thought is naturally that of the loss which Ger
many thus suffers; against which Germans are protesting
with agonized ferocity. The blow to her dignity is shat
tering. It reduces her at once to the rank of second or
third class nations. Five years ago she boasted of being
geographically as well as in other respects a world Power.
Seated in Europe, she had also extensive possessions in
Africa, Asia and Australasia and Polynesia, with ambi
tions for a footing also in America. To-day she is irrepar
ably shorn of everything save the historic lands lying be
tween France and Poland. All who have read history
know how grievous a blow to Spain was the loss of her col
onies on the American continents, and how bitterly she pro
tested against being bereft of her last insular possessions in
1898. Yet even Spain to-day retains some colonial pos
sessions, as also do Portugal and the Netherlands, all coun
tries upon which Germany has been wont to look with pat
ronizing condescension. Belgium, Denmark and Italy,
too, hitherto victims of Teutonic spoliation, have extensive
and valuable holdings. France and Great Britain have
colonial domains of vast extent. But Germany has not and
never again can have one rood of such possessions.

For it will not escape notice that now the map of the
world is not merely recast; it is completed. If hereafter

AN EMPIRE CLOSED AND OPENED 735

Germany should so amend her ways as to be freely admitted
into the fellowship of nations, she would still have to re
main without colonies. There would be no lands left for
her to acquire. The whole world is now definitely parti
tioned.

Apart from this loss of prestige, which Germany must
feel more than some other less imperiously ambitious na
tions would, it is no light thing to be deprived of owner
ship of more than a million square miles of land, more than
twelve million subjects, and natural resources of fabulous
wealth. It is true that these colonies were not yet a source
of financial profit. Germany was every year spending per
haps twice as much on them as she was able to extract from
them. But there is no doubt that in time, and that not a
long time, they would have become immensely valuable.
Their mines of gold, of copper and other metals are likely
to rank among the richest in the world. They would have
given great stores of raw materials to German factories,
and would have purchased in return the shop wares of Ger
many. They would have been valuable bases for com
mercial advances in adjacent lands. Territories more than
one-third the size of the United States cannot be negligible
quantities anywhere within the inhabitable regions of the
globe. Lying within the temperate and tropical zones,
adjacent to rich empires, and along some of the chief routes
of international commerce, their value is incalculable.

From the point of view of military strategy, too, their
value to Germany was great, or would have been, could she
have retained them, and their loss is disastrous. As bases
for submarine operations they commanded the South At
lantic Ocean, the Indian Ocean, the China Seas, and half
of the Pacific Ocean. They were a potential menace to all
the world's commerce in the Southern hemisphere, and to
the chief colonial possessions of Great Britain, France, Bel
gium, Holland, Portugal, and the United States. Possess
ing them and developing their military and naval strength,
Germany would have occupied a strategic position second
to none in the world. Deprived of them, her dream of
world-wide conquest vanishes beyond recall, while the re
mainder of the world is relieved forever of a haunting peril.

Thus the story of Germany's attempt at colonial expan
sion is definitely closed. It began in ambition, it was

736 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

pursued through ruthlessness and dishonor. It ended in
unrelieved disgrace.

At the same time, and in the same event there is opened
to the world a vast new empire for peaceful commerce and
for the beneficent extension of civilized culture. For under
German proprietorship those territories were practically
closed against the rest of the world. They were for Ger
man exploitation, and no other. That doubtless was a fool
ish policy; as foolish as many other deeds of the arrogant
Huns. To it may justly be attributed in great part the un
profitableness of those territories and their backward con
dition in contrast with those administered by other Powers.
But it was a characteristically German policy, giving earn
est of what was to be expected elsewhere, wherever the same
selfish and sordid Power might extend its sway.

We may be sure that no vestige of that policy will be
continued under the new order of affairs. The Treaty of
Peace provides that those. territories shall be relinquished
by Germany to the Allied and Associated Powrers, and that
these in turn shall administer them as mandataries of the
League of Nations. Well, that League may or may not
be formed, and if formed it may or may not be effective.
But that does not matter. We all know what is certain to
become of those colonies. It would have been as well, and
indeed better, for the treaty to be frank and direct, and to
state outright to what Powers the former German colonies
were to be given ; for that is beyond question what the dis
position of them, mandate or no mandate, will amount to,
as it should.

Under such new ownership those lands will be opened
freely to the equal trade of the world. That is the policy
which is consistently and profitably pursued in British,
French and other colonies. It will be pursued similarly in
the colonies which once were Germany's, when they are
administered by those or other Powers. That will of course
mean new opportunities for the expansion of trade, even
of American trade, and for the introduction of the appur
tenances of civilization throughout those vast and populous
realms. These colonies will be opened to the world, and
other nations than the mandataries will have free oppor
tunity to participate in the work of civilizing them.

THE PRESIDENT'S CHALLENGE
TO THE SENATE

BY DAVID JAYNE HILL

AT Paris the President of the United States has had
considerable apparent success in securing the embodiment
of his own personal terms and at least a part of his plan
for a League of Nations in the treaty of peace prepared by
the Entente Allies. The reason for this is obvious. The
United States was necessary to a victorious conclusion of
the Great War, and it is equally necessary to the future
maintenance of peace. Representing in his own person,
as it appeared, the future policy of America, it was possible
for the President at any time to order his ship, to abandon
the Conference, and to leave the Entente Allies to face
Germany alone. That decision would have created a great
embarrassment for the exposed countries like Belgium and
France. Such a desertion, it is true, would not have met
the approval of the American people, but they would haVe
been powerless to avert its consequences.

When the President, after his brief visit to the United
States, returned to Paris to resume negotiations in the Con
ference, he found that in his absence great progress had
been made toward the completion of a treaty that would
end the long suspense and bring the war to a formal con
clusion; but this treaty did not contemplate the inclusion
of the Constitution of the League of Nations. The
President had, however, thrown down to the Senators who
had declared their unwillingness to ratify the Constitution
of the League as it had been presented to them a challenge
which he intended to carry out. "When that treaty comes
back," he had said in his address in New York, on March
4, "gentlemen on this side will find the covenant not only
in it, but so many threads of the treaty tied to the covenant
that you cannot dissect the covenant from the treaty without
destroying the whole vital structure."
?OL. ccix.— NO. 763 47

738 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Thirty-six Senators, elected by the people, representing
more than two-thirds of the entire population of the United
States, were thus virtually informed that the "advice and
consent" of the Senate would receive no consideration.
They might, if they chose, privately regard the Constitution
of the League of Nations as a defiance of their judgment
and even a violation of the fundamental law of the Re
public, which they had solemnly sworn to defend, but they
would find themselves placed in a position in which they
would have to accept this document as it had been formula
ted, without alterations, or they would be compelled to bear
the odium of preventing the conclusion of peace, because
the League of Nations would be an essential part of the
peace treaty.

It is not necessary to dwell upon this defiance of the
constitutional division of the treaty-making power and of
the purpose with which that division was originally made
and should always be maintained. This defiance assumed
what every autocratic usurpation of authority assumes,
namely, that power could be invoked to sustain it. In this
case it would no doubt be an attempt, in the nominal interest
of peace, to bring political pressure to bear upon refractory
Senators, in order to compel them to yield to a superior
will. It requires no reflection to perceive that if this were
done and were successful, it would mark the extinction of
representative and even of constitutional government in the
United States. That it was ever even contemplated in
dicates a departure from the principles on which our
Government is based which should awaken a deep concern
for the future and call attention to the perils of autocratic
as distinguished from representative democracy.

How serious the incident is from this point of view be
comes clear when we compare the status of the American
representation in the Peace Conference with that of any
other of the Great Powers. In that conclave, the United
States is the only country not represented by a single person
confirmed by the legislative branch of government; and
yet that body, negotiating in secret, has formulated a com
pact which, if adopted, is to become under our Constitution
"the supreme law of the land." The treaty which is to
contain this supreme law, it has been declared by the Presi
dent of the United States, is to comprise matters foreign
to its main purpose which cannot be separated from it, and

THE PRESIDENT'S CHALLENGE 739

upon which the legislative half of the treaty-making power
is not to be permitted to exercise its untrammeled judgment.

It is in this connection important to note that while the
"plenipotentiaries" of the United States in the Peace Con
ference have no legislative authority and derive their
powers solely from the Executive, none of them having
been confirmed by the Senate, all the representatives of the
European Powers in the Conference are subject to recall
by the legislative branch of their governments if their
actions in the course of the negotiations are not approved.
In order that approval or disapproval may be intelligently
expressed and in a timely manner, the legislatures insist
that they be kept informed of the course taken ; and, as an
example of this surveillance, it may be noted that the British
Premier found it necessary to return in person to London,
in order to explain to the House of Commons the attitude
he had taken on behalf of his government in a matter of
interest to them. And the Italian Premier did the same.
No European Premier, the head of a responsible govern
ment, would for a moment venture to ignore the advice of
the legislative body upon which his official existence is
dependent, much less to attempt to force its hand by em
bodying in a treaty anything which he had occasion to
believe would not meet with its approval. If he should be
so rash as to do so, he would be immediately withdrawn
from the negotiations and another would be substituted in
his place.

It was certainly never intended by the founders of the
American Republic that the vital questions of foreign
policy and international engagements should be subject to
decision by a single person. If the precautions taken to
avoid that result are lightly to be set aside and ignored, and
especially if the voice of the people should proclaim a
preference for that method of procedure, the United States
would at once take rank as the least democratic nation in
the world, and there would be new evidence that a de
mocracy unrestrained by law is the inevitable victim of
autocracy.

Whatever the attitude of the majority of the people may
be in this matter — and it would be a serious reproach to
them to suggest that they would approve the suppression
of freedom in their representatives — the real issue created
by the purpose to force acquiescence is not the ratification

740 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

or non-ratification of a particular treaty but the attempt of
the Executive to dominate the legislative branch of the
Government

It is of incalculable importance that this issue should be
clearly understood. If the compact proposed were the most
perfect conceivable, it should still be open to examination
by the Senate as a branch of the treaty-making power; for
an attempt at adverse criticism would, in that case, only
make its perfection more apparent.

Among the arguments employed in support of the
League of Nations one of the most forcible is, that the
Council and the Assembly afford an opportunity for con
ference and discussion. But what a mockery of this argu
ment it would be to try to prevent conference and discussion
by a responsible body like the Senate of the United States
through the inextricable blending of wholly separate
propositions, carefully combined with a deliberate purpose
to prevent the free action of judgment regarding them! If
the business of the League of Nations is to be conducted in
this manner or upon this principle, that fact alone should
be decisive for rejecting it. The destinies of mankind can
not safely be entrusted to the action of a secret conclave, nor
can the future of America be bound up with the ukase of a
single negotiator separated from contact with the American
people.

The Senate has the constitutional right to withhold its
consent from a treaty of which it does not approve. It
may withhold it completely or in part. Possessing the
right of amendment — which is in effect a conditional
ratification — it has a ready defense against any attempt to
force its decisions. There can be no intertwining of en
gagements which it cannot unravel. It can ratify a treaty
of peace and at the same time reject a compact for a League
of Nations. It would then remain for those responsible
for the negotiation of a treaty designed to frustrate the
judgment of the Senate to obtain the acceptance of the
changes which the amendments might require.

Two courses, in such a situation, would be open. The
President might refuse to act any further, or he might con
sent to reopen the negotiations for the purpose of securing
agreement on the changes. In the first case, the respon
sibility for the delay of a formal conclusion of peace would
evidently rest upon those who had concluded a treaty which

THE PRESIDENT'S CHALLENGE 741

they knew beforehand would not be acceptable to a body
necessary to ratification.

In the second case, the Signatory Powers could not
consistently refuse to separate what they had themselves
intended not to join together, until the President forced
them to do so; for they were prepared to postpone the
League of Nations and sign a preliminary treaty of peace
when the President returned to Paris from his visit to
America and changed their plans. The embarrassment of
asking for a reversal of a course upon which the President
had himself insisted would no doubt be for him very great,
but the alternative to resorting to it would be a clear
responsibility for the failure of the peace negotiations.
Whatever course might be followed as a consequence of
the Senate's insistence upon its constitutional right, it is
inconceivable that four, or ten, or any other number of
delegates sitting in council at Paris could frame any
document on any subject which the Senate of the United
States could be forced by the Executive to adopt against
the better judgment of its members. If the people of the
United States, for any reason whatever, arbitrarily insisted
upon that, it would mark the end of the Republic.

From the beginning it was made clear that the Senate
of the United States would not ratify any treaty which
created a super-government; that is, a government that
rendered the Government of the United States in any way
subordinate to it.

Immediately there began a series of extenuations regard
ing the purport of the Constitution of the League. The
representations of Senators regarding it were repudiated
as "bogies." Far from the Constitution creating a super-
national government, it was declared by its advocates, it
was only an agreement to listen to "recommendations," not
necessarily to follow them. In the cases where the
Constitution seemed to call for war, in order to impose
peace, it remained for the separate governments to declare
war, or not, as they might deem best. Thus, it turned
out that, if this interpretation was correct, it was the League
itself that was the real bogie ; — a device not to enforce peace
by an international army but by sheer intimidation, pre
tending to show a mailed fist but in fact merely shaking a
finger at a possible aggressor.

742 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

It was a difficult task to mediate between these extreme
interpretations, that of a super-government and that of an
unaffected sovereignty. Some middle ground was even
more necessary to the theory of the League to Enforce
Peace than it was to the President's conception of a league
which should aim to "insure" peace; a result which, he
thought, might be accomplished without force if the in
timidation imposed were sufficiently impressive.

It was upon the President of the League to Enforce
Peace, Ex-President William Howard Taft, therefore, that
the task chiefly fell, by the use of his great prestige and
his dialectical skill, to reconcile the Constitution of the
League to the Constitution of the United States. Coming
from him, almost any assurance seemed to many citizens a
sufficient guarantee that the conflict between the two
"constitutions" was purely imaginary, which makes it of
importance to know what the former President's position
was regarding the obligations of the League.

Answering the argument of Senator Knox, the Ex-
President, in his speech before the Economic Club of New
York, parried the accusation regarding super-government
in the following adroit manner:

"When Senator Knox's attack upon the covenant is
analyzed, it will be seen to rest on an assumption that the
Executive Council is given executive powers which are
unwarranted by the text of the covenant.

"The whole function of the Executive Council is to be
the medium through which the League members are to
exchange views, the advisory board to consider all matters
arising in the field of the League's possible action and to
advise the members as to what they ought by joint action
to do.

"The council makes few, if any, orders binding on the
members of the League. Where the Executive Council
acts as a mediating and inquiring body to settle differences
not arbitrated, its unanimous recommendations of a settle
ment must satisfy the nation seeking relief, if the defendant
nation complies with the recommendation. All other
obligations of the United States under the League are to
be found in the covenants of the League, and not in any
action of the Executive Council. When this is understood
clearly the whole structure of Senator Knox's indictment
falls."

THE PRESIDENT'S CHALLENGE 743

The argument here is that the Executive Council is a
purely "advisory" body, without any power to command.
The obligations of the United States therefore, are not to
be found in the action of the Council, but solely in "the
covenants of the League." These covenants, being freely
made, it is held, are in no sense infractions of sovereignty.
On the contrary, they are affirmations of it. They are
voluntary agreements.

The answer to Senator Knox then reduces itself to this :
that there is in the Constitution of the League as originally
presented no element of a super-government. That the
League, as such, can enforce nothing; and that the "recom
mendations" of the Executive Council are in no sense
binding.

To verify this interpretation, the Ex-President quotes
Lord Robert Cecil as laying down the principle, "that all
action must be unanimously agreed to in accordance with
the general rule that governs international relations;"
adding, that "this interpretation by one of the most distin
guished draftsmen of the League shows that all its language,
reasonably construed, delegates no power to these bodies
to act for the League and its members without their
unanimous concurrence unless the words used make such
delegation clear." It is interesting, however, to observe
that Ex-President Taft has proposed four amendments to
the original draft of the Constitution of the League, the
third one "definitely stating the rule of unanimity and
making it perfectly plain that any action taken by the
Executive Council of the League must be unanimous,
thereby necessitating the concurrence of the American
Government's member of the Executive Council before its
action could be binding upon the United States." This
amendment has been accepted, and to that extent the League
becomes an Entente.

It is not possible, however, thus easily to destroy the
argument of Senator Knox. The fact that Mr. Taft finds
it desirable to make sure of the unanimity of the Executive
Council before it can even be allowed to "recommend,"
shows that there is lodged within it some potency against
which it is necessary to guard. It cannot be overlooked
that Article I, creating the Executive Council, makes it
the "instrumentality through which action shall be ef
fected." That is why it was called and still is an "Execu-

744 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

tive" Council, although the word "Council" is now un
qualified. It has important functions to perform. When
the allotment of armament has once been made, the scale
of forces cannot be exceeded "without the concurrence of
the Council" (Article VIII), and under the rule of
unanimity one single member could prevent a State from in
creasing its means of defense. The Council is to "advise"
upon the means by which the obligation to protect terri
torial integrity and political independence, under Article
X, shall be fulfilled. If this advice involves a declaration
of war, the Governments advised to make a declaration may
indeed refuse ; but they would, in that case, be regarded as
delinquent. Under Article XVI such a member may be
expelled from the League; and a member may not volun
tarily withdraw on two years' notice unless "all its obliga
tions under this Covenant have been fulfilled at the time of
withdrawal" (Article I). A worse situation would arise
if the opposition of a member of the Council should nullify
any action whatever, and thus completely paralyze the
League. When the Council, acting as a judge, makes a
recommendation, under Article XII, compliance with the
award by one party binds the other to accept it; and, under
Article XV, if any party shall refuse so to comply, "the
Council shall propose the measures necessary to give effect
to the recommendation." Under Article XVI, the Council
is to recommend "what effective military or naval force
the members of the League shall severally contribute to
the armed forces to be used to protect the covenants of the
League." Under Article XVII, the Council may coerce
States not members of the League, and under Article XXII
it exercises sovereign rights through its mandates to mem
bers of the League. It is true that all these powers are
expressed in terms of invitation rather than terms of com
mand, but unless the Council is regarded as acting with
authority it is difficult to see that there is any provision for
the effective enforcement of peace or of any covenants
whatever.

There remain, however, the "obligations of the
Covenant;" and it is upon these that the Ex-President lays
the whole burden. The treaty-making power, he holds,
— that is the President and Senate, — are empowered by
the Constitution of the United States to make treaties,
which "enables them to bind the United States to a contract

THE PRESIDENT'S CHALLENGE 745

with another nation on any subject usually the subject
matter of treaties between nations, subject to the limitation
that the treaty may not change the form of the government
of the United States.... It therefore follows that whenever
the treaty-making power binds the United States to do any
thing it must be done by the branch of that government
vested by the Constitution with that function." This is to
say that when the treaty-making power engages to make
war, to raise armies and maintain navies, or not to raise
armies and maintain navies, or to do anything which the
Constitution empowers Congress to do, Congress must do
it, and has no choice, except to take notice that the obliga
tion has fallen due and action must be taken.

Thus Mr. Taft very ingeniously takes away from the
Council of the League all the attributes of a super-govern
ment only to include them in the "obligations of the Coven
ant" created by the President and Senate of the United
States.

That the Constitution of the League thus creates a
super-government, that is, a form of authority under which
the Congress of the United States is compelled to act when
the casus foederis calls for its action, must be candidly
admitted. Senator Knox finds this authority in the
Council, the "instrumentality" through which the League's
"action is effected." Mr. Taft finds it in "the obligations
of the Covenant." In either case, the result is the same.
The League binds Congress to declare war, raise and ex
pend money, and do many other acts, not when in its own
judgment Congress considers them timely and necessary,
but when the "obligations of the Covenant" require it.

These obligations, the Ex-President not only admits
but asserts, are commands to Congress to act in the way they
prescribe. Who then creates these obligations? The
President of the United States thinks they can be created
by himself alone through his influence at Paris, and that
the Senate can then be forced to accept them whether the
senators wish to do so or not. The Ex-President of the
United States does not go so far as this. He considers it
necessary for the whole treaty-making power to create
these obligations, but he believes that the President and
Senate together can create them ; and that, having done so,
the Congress of the United States must act when the obliga
tions fall due, and will have no freedom beyond the rec-

746 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

ognition of the fact that the time has arrived for the ful
filment of the obligations thus created. The Council will
"advise" the Congress of this and "recommend" its action.
The only escape from action would be either an attempt
on the part of Congress to prove that the Council was mis
interpreting the treaty or the failure of our Government
to respect it.

In such circumstances, is it reprehensible that the
Senate of the United States should wish to consider with
great care the nature of the obligations to be undertaken,
and should refuse to be forced into acquiescence by an
executive demand that all "expediency" is to be dis
regarded?

Objections to the original proposal accepted at Paris
were raised by members of all political parties in the
United States. It is futile, therefore, to regard crit
icism of the Constitution of the League as a par
tisan opposition. Its most ardent advocate, for rea
sons which are obvious, has been ex-President Taft.
Although committed a priori to a " League," there
were, nevertheless, modifications which he as well
as others considered it desirable to make respect
ing the engagements of the United States. The first
relates to the Monroe Doctrine, consisting of an amend
ment making reservations to safeguard it; the second to
secure any country in the League the right to control
matters solely within its domestic jurisdiction, such as the
question of immigration; and one to provide for a with
drawal from the League of Nations, and possibly for a
definite term of the existence of the League itself. It is
noteworthy that all these changes are in the direction of re
stricting the power and limiting the duration of the League.
Other eminent American statesmen also have suggested
improvements in the Constitution of the League as origi
nally proposed. All of them unite in demanding the re
tention of the Monroe Doctrine. Upon this point Mr.
Charles Evans Hughes and Mr. Elihu Root have been
particularly explicit in counselling that it be made clear
that no obligation assumed by the United States shall imply
the renunciation of its time honored policy with regard
to strictly American questions.

This earnest expression of solicitude has produced an
effect at Paris, but the result has occasioned bewilderment.

THE PRESIDENT'S CHALLENGE 747

It has never been considered that the Monroe Doctrine is
to be classed with international engagements, treaties of
arbitration, or regional understandings for securing the
maintenance of peace, and the amazement was therefore
great when the public was informed that Article X, which
pledges the members of the League "to respect and preserve
as against external aggression" one another's "territorial
integrity and existing political independence," was to be
amended by the addition of the words:

"Nothing in this Covenant shall be deemed to affect the
validity of international engagements, such as treaties of
arbitration or regional understandings like the Monroe
Doctrine, for securing the maintenance of peace," which
now appear as Article XXI in the revised Covenant.

It is proudly announced that at last, in the midst of
much opposition and by great efforts, the President suc
ceeded in securing recognition of the Monroe Doctrine as
a part of International Law! It seems rather disingenuous,
after heralding the League as itself an extension of the
Monroe Doctrine to all the world, as the President has
done, that he should make a struggle for its inclusion in
this treaty, and in such a form! That the President should
ever have accepted the language of this amendment, which
it is inconceivable that any American could have written,
as a characterization of a policy of the United States which
is neither a law, nor an engagement, nor a regional under
standing, but simply and solely a political policy, is cer
tainly surprising.

It is doubtful if the presence of these strange words in
the Covenant of the League can ever transform a purely
national policy into International Law, which would only
denature it. It requires no sanction by a lawmaking body,
and if it did the Conference at Paris could not give it. It
is a life principle of the American Republic, and means
two things: first, that no foreign Power shall ever acquire
a foothold on this continent that would menace the security
of this nation ; and, second, that this nation will never im
peril its own existence by intervention in non-American
affairs.

Never before the Great War had it been necessary for
the United States to fight in Europe for its own rights, but
the ambitions and methods of the Imperial German
Government created that necessity. We have in this war

748 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

fought for Belgium, for France, for Great Britain, and
other nations because they were fighting for us, and we
shall do so again if our common enemy renews the attack;
but we have never yet been committed to a pledge to fight
for everybody everywhere. The Monroe Doctrine has
remained until now an uncompromised national policy, and
it should be permanently maintained in its twofold meaning
as a prohibition of foreign intrusion on the American con
tinent and as a limitation of responsibility in other parts
of the world.

The amendment as it stands in the revised Covenant
does not express this intention. Article XXI has more
appropriate application to the secret treaty of London,
which the President repudiates, than it has to the Monroe
Doctrine; for the secret treaty of London was a "regional
understanding," while the Monroe Doctrine is not. The
form of reservation attached to the Hague Conventions was
explicit and accurate, and might well, with slight modifica
tion, be attached to the present treaty, which would be in
the spirit of Mr. Root's third and Mr. Hughes' third and
fourth proposed amendments.

Mr. Root further suggests, in his sixth amendment, the
calling of a general conference of the members after five
or ten years to revise the Covenant, after which any mem
ber, on a year's notice, may withdraw from the League;
and Mr. Hughes would make provision that any member
may withdraw "at its pleasure on specified notice," instead
of after two years' notice of its intention to do so, as
provided in the revised draft of Article I. He also pro
posed that no member shall be constituted a mandatory
without its consent, which has been accepted, and that no
European or Asiatic Power shall be constituted a man
datory of any American people.

Even as thus modified, the League would be far from
the realization of the highest international ideals. It has
been pointed out that the Covenant neither recognizes as
binding the rules of International Law nor makes provision
for the improvement of them. As a limited corporation
in the general Society of States, it cannot claim universality
or justly exercise lawmaking powers that all sovereign
States would be bound to respect. It would be merely a
single political organism in a community of jurally equal
States. Other leagues might be formed which, even if they

THE PRESIDENT'S CHALLENGE 749

did not equal it in power, could claim an equal justification
for their existence. They also would aim to be self-pro
tective. In brief, even though the League were prepon
derant, it would not constitute the Society of States.

To prevent the continuance of what would thus remain
at most a mere preponderance of power, Mr. Root has
proposed in his second amendment a method of making
the League the means of a transition to a real Society of
Nations. His proposal, which was endorsed by the
Executive Committee of the American Society of Inter
national Law and cabled to Paris, is as follows:

The Executive Council shall call a general conference of the
Powers to meet not less than two years or more than five years after
the signing of this convention for the purpose of reviewing the con
dition of International Law, and of agreeing upon and stating in its
authoritative form the principles and rules thereof.

Thereafter regular conferences for that purpose shall be called
and held at stated times.

This wise suggestion was not adopted at Paris; a fact
which justifies the inference that the League intends to
decide questions of International Law in its own way, and
in accordance with its own corporate policies. In short,
it intends to act imperially.

As an example of this, take the provision for de
termining whether or not a given question is one of domes
tic jurisdiction, like the tariff or the immigration question.
Article XV reads: " If the dispute ... is found by the
Council to arise out of a matter which by International
Law is solely within the jurisdiction of that party, the
Council shall so report, and shall make no recommendation
as to its settlement." But, it is immediately added, "The
Council may in any case under this Article refer the dispute
to the Assembly " ; that is, even though the question at issue
is under International Law a domestic one, upon which
the Council made no recommendation, it could be referred
to the Assembly for decision! The nature of the decision
would then depend upon the policy which the Assembly
chose to adopt. If the United States were a disputant, it
would have no voice in the decision, which would be made
by others, without reference to International Law, in ac
cordance with their prevailing policies, whatever they
might be.

Before entering into such bonds with foreign Powers,

750 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

it is timely to consider the consequences of making engage
ments, nominally in the interest of peace, regarding matters
which have no logical connection with a treaty of peace
and are arbitrarily forced into it. It is inevitable that
matters which we have always considered purely national
will be treated by the League as international. This is true
of our foreign policy as a whole, which under the League
would be equally the affair of all the members. Not even
the Monroe Doctrine, which we have always considered
peculiarly our own affair, would be exempted from this
total surrender of national policy. In the British
Memorandum, giving the views of London regarding the
Monroe Doctrine, for example, that purely American
policy is already treated as an " international understand
ing," to be interpreted and applied by the Council and the
Assembly, and not any longer by the United States alone.
" Should any dispute arise between American and Eu
ropean Powers," concludes this commentary, " the League
is there to settle it."

After such an assumption as this what will remain,
under this Covenant, of an independent American foreign
policy? The powers which in the first draft of the Cove
nant were attributed to the Executive Council are in the
revised document largely transferred to the Assembly. In
that larger body the United States would have three rep
resentatives, but only one vote. Among the " original
members" of the League and separate "signatories of the
Treaty of Peace," are specified, "the British Empire,
Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and India."
These six members, with a close community of primary in
terests, would be entitled to eighteen representatives and
six votes in the Assembly, while the United States, which
has a greater self-governing population than all of these
imperial dominions combined, would have only three rep
resentatives and only one vote.

It is an unwelcome task, in view of the close friendship
that should exist between the United States and Great
Britain, to call attention to this disparity; for real friend
ship never anywhere long continues in the presence of doubt
as to perfect freedom and perfect equality. For common
interests and common purposes the United States and Great
Britain — which have so much in common — should act to
gether; but it must not be overlooked that the British Em-

THE PRESIDENT'S;>CHALLENGE 751

pire has interests and policies which the United States has
never shared and has not always approved. As a people
we have never regretted our separate and independent
existence, and there are many millions of American citizens
who will not submit to abandoning it now. Nothing could
more fatally destroy the friendship of these two countries
than a conviction that what was fought for and won in 1776
is to be lightly surrendered in the flood-tide of our national
greatness at the end of a victorious war.

There are those who believe that at Paris American
interests have been subordinated to foreign interests, in
order to secure the success of the President's personal
theories. They believe that he went to Europe to
say in private what he did not wish to discuss in public;
that he intended to establish a League that would make
possible a compromise peace; that this League was origi
nally intended to limit the supremacy of Great Britain on
the sea, and thus placate the hostility of Germany; that
France, as a means of obtaining future security, could be
made to enter such a League along with Germany; that,
upon these conditions, a general reciprocal guarantee of
territory could be obtained, and that the rivalries of trade
could in future be avoided by "the removal of all economic
barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade con
ditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and
associating themselves for its maintenance."

To carry this theory into effect, it was necessary to in
terweave the treaty of peace with the formation of a League
in such a manner that all who desired peace, — for it was
certain that all belligerents wished for peace as soon as
possible, — would be forced to accept the League, whether
they desired it or not; for the League thus organized was
to create a new international order, which the President
believed would put an end to war, and be the greatest
achievement in history.

Without discussing in a critical spirit, the character of
the motives of this great enterprise, it is clear that the
execution of this purpose involved secrecy, opposition to a
prompt peace of victory, negotiation with adverse national
interests, and some concessions for the purpose of winning
adherents.

It will probably be many years before the conversations
of the Supreme Council of Ten, the " Big Four " and the

752 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

"Big Three" will become known to the public, and some
of them will perhaps never be known or be variously re
ported in memoirs and autobiographies. The participants
will no doubt have for a long time a certain control over
one another.

It was pointed out in a friendly spirit, before the Presi
dent went to Europe, that by appointing himself as first
delegate and repudiating written instructions to inter
mediaries, he was risking the charge of secret diplomacy
and the deliberate abandonment of the idea of covenants
"openly arrived at."

The Senate of the United States, if the ordinary course
had been adopted, would be in a position to know from
records what was the actual course of negotiation. In the
absence of this, unless the President wishes personally to
submit to interrogation, there is room for a wide scope of
inference regarding the bargains made to secure the
League.

There are those who will wonder why the alleged
American plan of a League has never been published; who
will infer that it was rejected or withdrawn because it was
needful to adopt a more flexible trading programme; and
who will think that the Smuts plan was adopted because
without concessions to Great Britain there could have been
no League, and without a league of some kind the Great
Mission would have been a failure.

One might imagine the British Premier as saying:
"There is already a League of Nations. The British Em
pire is such a league. If you will model the League on
that, as General Smuts suggests, we might regard it favor
ably. Of course we must retain our sea-power. Unless
you will pledge the large navy you are developing in the
United States to the defense of the Empire, we must defend
ourselves. Of course under the League the rights of neu
trality, to which you have held so closely in the past, would
no longer exist. If you will help us out with mandataries
and defend our imperial possessions from future attack,
perhaps we can arrange for a League."

"But by this plan, what advantage does the United
States get?"

"Why, Mr. President, you get the League! "

With France negotiations were, perhaps, less com
plicated, for without some special provision, even after

THEfPRESIDENT'S CHALLENGE 753

peace was signed, France would be unprotected. One can
imagine a question to Monsieur Clemenceau : " Where will
France look for protection, if not to the League?" — "To the
honor of her co-belligerents." — "But would not the mutual
guarantees of the League be sufficient?" — "With Germany
a League is impossible."

And so, even without documents, the logic of the situa
tion renders it not difficult to understand what has happened
at Paris; why the League was always, except in America,
regarded and spoken of as "I'idee Americaine ;" and also
why the League had to be intertwined inextricably with
the long deferred and much desired treaty of peace, in
order to force the hand of the Senate.

Acting by itself, the Senate of the United States would
probably regard the prestige of reorganizing the world on
paper as bought at too high a price by the acceptance of
the responsibilities of Article X and American participation
in the international political trust that is to issue "Acts and
Charters" for the sovereign rule of countries and colonies
in Europe, Asia, and Africa with which the United States,
as a constitutional self-governing nation, has no right of in
terference.

However the Senate may regard the President's chal
lenge, it cannot escape responsibility for its decision. There
is one aspect of the subject of the highest importance to the
future of the American Republic that has been left in ob
scurity by nearly all who have commented on the proposed
League, namely, the joint imperialism which it establishes.
This, though overlooked in America, is well understood
in Great Britain, and preparations are making to render it
effective. General Smuts, who is a practical officer, rec
ognizes that it is necessary for the League " to train big
staffs to look at things from a large human, instead of
national, point of view." The Grand Secretariat now being
organized in London, under the direction of Sir James Eric
Drummond, of the British Foreign Office, will be the
school in which the international bureaucracy will be
formed and tempered to its task. Viscount Grey sees a
great future for this super-national rule of the world under
benevolent experts. "I don't see," he said, "why the
League of Nations, once formed, should be necessarily
idle." Nor would he leave it without means of action. " I
don't see why," he continued, " it should not be arranged

VOL. ccix. — NO. 763 48

754 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

for an authoritative and an international force to be at its
disposal, which should act as police in individual coun
tries/'

It is this that makes the acceptance of a place in the
League by the United States so imperative for its success.
This policing of the world requires men and money.
America has both. Europe's answer to America's great
idea of a League is, uWe accept it with pleasure. Now
stop the fighting that has not ceased from Finland to the
Crimea while the Peace Conference has been in session.
We have our own idea of these things based on a long
experience. We will try your plan, but in the meantime,
you must make the Turk spare the Armenian, a mutilated
Poland be satisfied with its lot, keep the Hungarians and
the Roumanians quiet on the Theiss, settle the disputes of
the Italians and the Jugo-Slavs in the Adriatic, make Persia
a safe place to live in, and keep Germany within bounds.
Unless your League can do these things, it has not helped
us much, but if it does then it will be chiefly at your
expense; for we must put our house in order and pay our
debts while we guard our frontiers. We have not asked
you for a League. We are interested in our own national
life. We have consented to the League, but we have never
much believed in it. Now let America show us that it will
work."

And the Senate will have to answer to the country for
the engagements it ratifies.

DAVID JAYNE HILL.

WANTED-A FOREIGN TRADE
POLICY

JOHN HAYS HAMMOND

AMERICA faces a new era in her national development.
The future holds immeasurable potentialities. At no time
in the life of the nation has the outlook been brighter.
Peace is at hand. Prosperity and happiness, on a plane far
greater than the world has ever before known, may be hers
if she will but grasp and develop them.

The degree of our future success will be measured by
the degree of our vision and judgment. These blessings
are not laid before us to take or leave in a casual manner.
They are dependent upon the faithful fulfilment of well-
defined duties and the complexities of the problems before
us are great but they are not insoluble. Let us view the
situation from the standpoint of facts and experience,
rather than through the spectacles of those fascinating
optimists who assume that prospects and possession are
synonymous. If we follow these gentlemen we may for
get that while America stands inert and undecided every
other great nation is preparing the quickest and surest
method of snatching the advantage from her. The world
war has come to an end but war for world dominion has
been started on the ashes of the old system. Let us bear
this in mind and let us remember that a well defined
national policy is as essential to success in the contest for
national supremacy as a wise military policy was in the
war that is happily ended. Failure to prepare for the new
contest will be little less reprehensible than was our fail
ure to prepare for the world war.

The problems that are presented to us have no counter
part in Europe, Asia, Africa, or South America. We can
not follow the example of any other nation. If we would
succeed we must lead. Our economic position is as dis-

756 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

tinct fundamentally as is our country's position geographi
cally. The war has given us an unprecedented handicap
over every other nation in the world. Our foreign com
merce has jumped by leaps and bounds until we have
almost monopolized the world trade in many lines. It
came to us through the temporary weakness of our com
petitors, and not through our own efforts alone. It is
unreasonable to assume that we shall hold all of the mar
kets that we now control.

Irrespective of the renewed efforts of our competitors,
now released from the inexorable demands of war, we may
command all the foreign markets that we require and are
capable of developing along healthy lines, if we will but
capitalize our inherent potentials by wise fostering and con
servation. No matter what efforts our competitors may
make we can meet them and beat them if we will but pro
tect our incomparable home market while developing on
sound principles, foreign markets which present natural
and permanent outlets for our surplus products.

I shall proceed upon what I deem to be an axiom. Our
ideal foreign policy is one that would give America the
greatest degree of commercial independence and compel
the greatest dependence from the rest of the world. In
other words, we as a great producing nation should develop
our foreign trade as an incident to a well defined policy
of strengthening our home market, by stabilizing our
financial mechanism, conserving our natural resources and
raising our labor to the highest possible state. These are
the fundamentals of a permanently successful policy, — one
that will give us an unassailable commercial position.

In order to realize fully our tremendous potential
power, as well as the dangers which are ahead of us, it is
necessary to review the economic history of this country
during the last fifteen years.

America is the only country in the world which pos
sesses and which has at the same time developed to the
point of availability, the greater part of the raw materials
essential to her industries. This is the cornerstone of our
great industrial structure; the basis of our economic in
dependence. It must be protected! There must be no in
ternationalism in our economic policy! According to the
Director of the United States Geological Survey, our
country contributed to the world's total in 1913 more than

WANTED— A FOREIGN TRADE POLICY 757

64% of petroleum; 55% of copper; 43% of phosphate;
42% of sulphur; 38% of coal; 37% of zinc; 35% of iron;
34% of lead; 30% of silver; 19% of gold and 20% of salt.
We have timber in abundance and an adequate supply of
agricultural products to make us in a great measure indepen
dent. With respect to nickel, platinum, tin and a few other
minerals, there is not much likelihood of our country being
self-supporting. We are deficient in potash and certain
other minerals essential to our industries, but many of them
can be supplied by a policy fostering their development.
Such a policy may, in some instances, be well justified apart
from economic considerations in view of the possible recur
rence of conditions similar to those that existed during the
war.

In the ten year period beginning in 1904 the export
value of American goods was $18,692,400,442, against an
import value of $13,826,293,032, showing a surplus in our
favor of $4,866,107,410, or approximately $500,000,000 per
annum. But from this favorable trade balance, between
$400,000,000 and $500,000,000 must be deducted yearly on
account of the so-called "invisible exports," *. e. the interest
and dividends paid by us on $5,000,000,000 of loans and se
curities held by European investors: money spent by
Americans abroad; remittances made by immigrants;
and payment by American manufacturers and merchants
for freight shipped in foreign bottoms.

During this period we were compelled either to provide
a favorable trade balance to the extent of approximately
$500,000,000 a year to thus off-set the invisible exports, or
to sell additional American securities to foreign investors.
Payment in gold would have depleted our gold reserve.
The financial condition of this country at the outbreak of
the war was serious, owing to the fact that under the
present tariff, the value of the imports actually exceeded
that of the exports. Fortunately, the effect of the war was
to create what was tantamount to a protective tariff, by rea
son of the incident restriction of exports to this country
from the belligerent nations, thus averting a great national
calamity, financial and industrial.

It is estimated that, prior to the War, upwards of 90%
of the products of our national industries were absorbed by
our own market, and amounted to more than twice the
export trade of the whole world. It is not generally known

758 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

that New York alone had, before the War, a yearly output
of 2l/4 billions of dollars of manufactures, approximately
equal to the entire export trade of either Great Britain,
Germany or the United States, and nearly three times the
value of the total imports into South America from all
sources. From these considerations, the conclusion would
seem irresistible that the keynote of our industrial policy
should be to preserve unimpaired this incomparable home
market. Shall we dissipate this tremendous market, or
shall we maintain it by the protection that can be accom
plished through tariff legislation wisely administered?
This is inherently an economic — riot a political problem.

It is vital to the industrial peace, social contentment and
prosperity of the nation that unemployment of labor be re
duced to a minimum. This can be effected in a large meas
ure by the restriction of immigration and by the develop
ment of foreign markets to insure uninterrupted operation
of our industrial plants. The condition of the labor market
in the near future is a subject upon which authorities dis
agree. Among the factors which will determine this condi
tion are the future position of women in industry and the
rate of immigration compared with that of emigration. Un
doubtedly, there will be a large exodus of our wage earners
to their native lands as soon as conditions admit of their de
parture, and, in all probability, many of these emigrants
will not return to America. But, on the other hand, the
higher wages and better living conditions here, coupled
with the desire of leaving behind the scene of sad memories,
will soon attract a large number to America and perhaps
far more than off-set the loss through emigration.

A law restricting immigration should be of short dura
tion and subject to suspension by a body of officials to whom
Congress would delegate the authority. The quality of our
immigration from all countries would be improved if the
work of debarring undesirables was carried out abroad
before their departure, instead of after their arrival here;
in other words, the Ellis Islands should be established at
the points of emigration. The number admitted should be
based upon the record of naturalization among the various
races during the decade previous to the War. Preference
should be given to those nationalities which have evinced
a disposition to become naturalized American citizens. It
would be far better to suffer a temporary shortage of labor

WANTED— A FOREIGN TRADE POLICY 759

than to have any considerable oversupply under normal in
dustrial conditions.

We can dictate the types and numbers of our future
immigrants. Shall we accept hordes of undesirables, or
shall we accept the best that apply and in the number
required?

After the period of reconstruction in Europe, America
cannot depend on European markets to absorb her surplus
products. If England permanently adopts and extends the
principle of the protective tariff, as she surely will, as a
basis of preferential tariffs with her colonies and depend
encies, America will be deprived of her most important
foreign market. In the fiscal year ended June 30, 1914,
nearly 40% of our total exports were to the United King
dom and Canada. This almost equalled the entire importa
tions into South America from all nations. These com
parative figures are instructive. Germany, also, will lose
her best market, for in the year 1913, one-sixth of her entire
exports, a large part of which were manufactures, went to
England, in addition to her very considerable export trade
with the British colonies.

There is a tendency in this country to over-estimate the
disabilities under which the great commercial nations of
the world will labor as a result of their war losses. Let us
examine the facts. France unquestionably will require
most of her strength and capital for some time to come to
rebuild her devastated areas.

Japan undoubtedly will attempt to make great strides
in South and Central America, and in many lines we can
not hope to compete with her under-paid labor.

Germany, driven from her old markets under the Brit
ish flag will, and in fact already is attempting to regain
and enlarge her sphere in Latin America. We shall meet
her at every turn. Her unscrupulous agents will be found
in every market and their activities will bear fruit. While
England has paid a tremendous price to carry on the war,
it has not all been lost to her. As a result of the war, her
industry has been modernized and she is now far better
equipped than ever before to compete for world trade.

It is to the so-called " backward nations," of South
America, Africa, Asia and to Russia that America must
look for her future markets. These countries possess enor
mous natural resources, as yet undeveloped, and conse-

760 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

quently of no present value. Their people lack purchasing
power, and because of the low standards of living there is
but little demand for foreign goods. The exploitation of
these countries would involve the expenditure of colossal
sums of money. Where is the money to come from? Ob
viously, European financial centers can no longer provide
capital, and it is to the United States that they must look
for financial assistance. In developing new fields of indus
trial activity, we shall not only create markets for Ameri
can products but for the exports of Europe as well. In that
way we shall profit by enhancing the value of the securi
ties which we now hold. Our Allies cannot repay these
loans in gold — that would be impossible, even if it were de
sirable, — and to receive payment in their industrial prod
ucts would seriously affect our own industries. Therefore
they must repay us by securities we help them to create.

Before the war, England, Germany and France were
the great bankers of the world. Indeed, many of our own
most important industries were financed by foreign capital.
England's investments abroad were estimated in 1914 at
upwards of 20 billions of dollars, from which she received
an annual income of one billion dollars. In Latin-America
alone England has invested 5 billions of dollars. Both Eng
land and Germany have encouraged the investment of the
capital of their nationals abroad in order to control the
trade resulting from the industries developed. The in
vestment of capital in the development of a country is the
" open sesame " to trade with that counttry.

In international investments, what the borrowing nation
requires is cheap money; what the lending nation de
mands is good security. Under present conditions, good
security is what the so-called " backward nations " find most
difficult to furnish. It is not only that all business arrange
ments may at any time be disrupted by political disturb
ances, but where a dispute arises between the foreign in
vestor and the local interests, the matter is decided by a
biased local court or by executive decree, from either of
which the only appeal in practice is to diplomatic interven
tion. Whichever way the case is finally decided, the course
of procedure creates bad feeling on both sides. For this
reason, I advocate the creation of a High Court of Equity
to hear and determine cases solely in the category to which
I have referred.

WANTED— A FOREIGN TRADE POLICY 761

The authority of such a Court would be enormous. Its
decisions, published all over the world, would constitute a
powerful deterrent to dishonest practice; and its influence
would extend over the whole field of international business.
For the plaintiff or defendant, as the case might be, would
not be called upon to accept the decision of a foreign judge
and jury whom he would suspect of bias against him. It is
not suggested, of course, that every dispute should be taken
to the High Court of Equity, and jurisdiction might be
fixed by a minimum sum as the amount to be involved in the
suit.

If we wish to induce the investment of American money
abroad, our Government must change its attitude towards
American investors in foreign countries. Heretofore, no
attempt has been made to distinguish between legitimate
undertaking by Americans, founded upon the purchase for
cash of land, mining rights, etc., and those schemes, for
tunately few in number, which are based entirely upon con
cessions extorted without valuable consideration. The view
has been that there is something base and sordid in any
American business enterprise conducted in a foreign coun
try. The fact is that the opposition to the legitimate invest
ment of American capital abroad usually rests upon com
plete ignorance of the circumstances.

Anyone who is familiar with the conditions in Latin-
America, in Africa, in the West Indies, for example, knows
that whatever measure of prosperity and civilization exists
among the natives has been developed by the activities of
foreign capital in those regions. What may very properly
be asked of a man who invests his capital in a so-called
" backward country " is : " Are the inhabitants of this
country better off or worse off because you have gone among
them to do business?" and by the answer to this question
any foreign enterprise should be approved or condemned.
In modern times there are few instances in which native
races have not secured great benefits both moral and mate
rial from the establishment among them of foreign enter
prises.

The foreigner, acting for his own selfish interest, will
do everything he can to maintain law and order and to
avert internal warfare. He will build hospitals, import
physicians and surgeons, improve the sanitary conditions,
develop means of transportation and communication, and

762 THE NORTHf AMERICAN REVIEW

encourage local industry. la the actual conduct of his busi
ness, he will bring capital to the country, give employment
to labor and elevate the standard of living. Through the
taxation of his enterprises, the government of the country
will increase its revenues and find it easier to borrow money
for its own purposes. The foreign investor invariably pays
a higher rate of wages than native employers, and his busi
ness always stimulates the development of whatever re
sources the country possesses.

It would be manifestly impossible to discuss all the
phases of foreign trade policy in a paper of this scope. I
have dwelt only on those which I deem to be of major im
portance. It seems almost unnecessary to remind even the
most casual observer of the necessity for improving our
financial facilities abroad and of strengthening our diplo
matic and consular agencies.

I have emphasized the essentiality of fostering our in
comparable home markets as the basis of all our prosperity
and the natural foundation of a great foreign trade. If we
are to build on such a foundation, then our foreign trade
policy should embrace:

(1) A tariff based upon the recommendation of tariff
experts to protect our home markets from the dumpings of
Europe and Asia and, also, to secure reciprocal trade ad
vantages with other countries.

(2) Legislation supplementing the Webb-Pomerene
Law to promote efficiency in our home industries by elim
inating uneconomic and unessential features of the Sherman
Law.

(3) The creation of an immigration board which shall
regulate immigration to meet economic demands.

(4) The development of a great American Merchant
Marine, privately owned and privately operated, with such
governmental assistance as is accorded the nationals of our
maritime competitors.

(5) The creation of a High Court of Equity which
shall adjudicate commercial disputes between Americans
and nationals of countries in which they invest or seek to
invest.

JOHN HAYS HAMMOND.

GREECE, BULGARIA AND THE PRIN
CIPLE OF NATIONALITY

BY A. ANDREADES

PROFESSOR OT ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS

I.

EASTERN peoples delight in didactic tales. Two such,
generally known in the Balkans, give a graphic picture of
the Bulgarians.

According to the first, God said to a Bulgarian one day,
"Ask of me whatever you wish, and I will do it for you;
but 1 shall do twice as much for your neighbor." The Bul
garian, without hesitation, put out one of his own eyes.

This anecdote was repeated in 1895 by a Bulgarian Cab
inet Minister to the well-known French sociologist, Alfred
Berl, who in his turn narrated it recently, saying that Bul
garia preferred to ally herself with the empires of prey in
the hope of bringing about the destruction of Serbia and
Greece rather than join the Entente whose victory would
have brought, to be sure, much profit to Bulgaria, but even
more to Serbia and to Greece.

The second tale runs as follows: Once a Bulgarian and
a Greek entered into a partnership. They acquired three
lambs. When the time came to divide up, the Bulgarian
said: "The first lamb belongs to me by right; the second
you will give me because I am your partner and you love
me; and the third I take away from you because I am
stronger."

This anecdote was time and again told by the Greeks
among themselves in the Spring of 1913, between the first
and second Balkan Wars, when the Bulgarians were
advancing their claims upon Central Macedonia on the
ground of nationality ; upon Southern Macedonia for com
mercial reasons; and upon Thrace by virtue of their
victories at Loule-Bourgas.

764 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

There was a special argument invented for Saloniki —
one of a religious nature.

This metropolis had reared the Greek orthodox monks
Cyril and Methodius, who gave Christianity to the Bul
garians. Ex-King Ferdinand, himself a Roman Catholic,
did not hestitate to make capital of this argument. At a
dinner given by the late King George in Saloniki he said
to Queen Olga, the consort of his host, "Madam, Saloniki
is the Mecca of the Bulgarians." Now, in this modern
Mecca, the number of the Faithful was not even half of one
per cent. Imagine Greece claiming Tarsus on the ground
that Saint Paul, who evangelized the Greeks, came from
there!

The tale of the three lambs constantly recurs to my
mind as I become conversant with the arguments put forth
by the Bulgarian propagandists who are active in this
country.

The basis of all pro-Bulgar activity here is the conten
tion that the Treaty of Bucharest was a violation of the
principle of nationality, especially so in having awarded
to Serbia the districts of Ochrida, Veles and Ishtip, in
Central Macedonia.

The Serbians and their friends have retorted that this
population is Slav, and Serbian rather than Bulgarian, in
language as well as in customs, and that if a generation ago
it adhered to the Bulgarian exarchate, it did so on orders
from Russia, then the Great Slav Power, whose policy
aimed at the creation of a Greater Bulgaria.

It is curious to note that the Serbs have failed to bring
out the inconsistency of the Bulgarians, who while com
plaining that the Treaty of Bucharest violates the principle
of nationality by surrendering to Serbia what they call Bul
garian populations, have, nevertheless, in utter disregard
of this principle, occupied, under provisions of the same
treaty, lands inhabited almost exclusively by Greeks and
Turks.

The Greeks have been laboring under the error of think
ing that the whole world was following closely the events
in the East. They have not, therefore, tried to show that
the Treaty of Bucharest, far from having given them more
than they were entitled to on the principle of nation
ality, imposed upon them the obligation of yielding Gre-

GREECE AND BULGARIA 765

cian territories which they had liberated with their own
sword.

II.

The Bulgarian propagandists, when speaking of Greek
Macedonia, artfully conceal the fact that Greece was not
given Macedonia in its entirety, but only its southern parts.
In fact, at some places, as in the region north of Saloniki,
the Greek boundaries run only a few tens of miles from the
sea. Now, in the course of long centuries of struggle be
tween Greeks and Bulgarians, the latter never took
Saloniki, nor did they ever succeed in establishing them
selves firmly in Southern Macedonia. For this reason, in
Greek Macedonia Bulgarians are either altogether absent,
or found in trifling minorities.

On the other hand, for centuries, the Greeks had con
trol of Central Macedonia. This explains the Greek char
acter of many cities such as Monastir, Krushevon, Strom-
nitsa, Melnikon, which are today under either Serbian or
under Bulgarian rule.

In January, 1915, Mr. Radoslavoff, the Bulgarian
Premier, declared officially to Sir Alfred Sharp that Bul
garia asks from Greece the Eastern Departments of Serres,
Drama and Kavalla. This statement is interesting insofar
as Bulgarians recognize that they are not entitled to the
rest of Greek Macedonia, although it does not indicate the
grounds on which the Bulgarian title to Eastern Macedonia
is established.

Mr. J. D. Bourchier, who with Mr. Brailsford is the
usual mouthpiece of Bulgarian claims before the English-
speaking public, was so good as to explain in a recent maga
zine article that Kavalla should have gone to Bulgaria "for
commercial reasons." He does not state, however, what
those "commercial reasons" are.

That the principle of nationality is dropped in the case
of Eastern Macedonia is easily explained by the well-
known fact that in the districts of Drama- Kavalla, Bul
garian nationality may be said not to exist (the Bulgarians
constitute one and one-half per cent, of the whole
population).

Neither Mr. Radoslavoff, however, nor Mr. Bourchier
favors us with an explanation of the grounds on which

766 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Serres is claimed. Surely, it is not on commercial grounds?
Is it on ethnological grounds then? If so, how can we ex
plain the burning of Serres by the Bulgarians in 1913, and
the almost complete extermination of its inhabitants be
tween the years 1916-1918? The report of the investigation
by the University of Athens proves, on the basis of official
documents, that when the Bulgarians entered Serres (Au
gust, 1916), the population was between 22,000 and 24,000,
and that when they fled after their recent defeat (Septem
ber, 1918), the population had decreased to 3,500. The
population which had disappeared died either of starva
tion, or was deported to Bulgaria where it was decimated
by hunger and exhaustion.

The investigation shows that what happened at Serres
took place throughout Eastern Macedonia. A great Lon
don morning paper summing up the situation declared that
the Bulgarians have "outhunned the Huns ;" it might have
said that they have outhamided Sultan Abdul Hamid.

It is not my purpose to enlarge here on the unspeakable
Bulgarian atrocities. Americans who wish to learn details
may apply to the Interallied International Commission,
which has just finished its investigation, or to the mem
bers of the American Red Cross Committee, who have
been on the spot since the retreat of the Bulgarian army and
who have done so much to relieve the terrible sufferings
of the unfortunate population.

All that I want to show is that the behavior of the
Bulgarians would have been different in Eastern Mace
donia if this province had been Bulgarian.

III.

On the eve of the Treaty of Bucharest, the victorious
Greek forces were holding Central Macedonia, east of the
Axios (Vardar), and the Aegean coasts of Thrace.

Always loyal to the principle of nationality, Mr. Veni-
zelos declared that he was ready to evacuate Central
Macedonia but insisted on keeping Thrace.

In his Memorandum to the Peace Congress of 1919, he
states that he was compelled to drop his claim for this
province, owing to "strong pressure." This alludes mainly
to Russia, which was anxious to keep Greece away from
Constantinople, and to Austria, which had already concluded

GREECE AND BULGARIA 767

an alliance with Bulgaria.1 This explains why, now
that Austria and Russia have disappeared, the Congress at
Paris has not opposed the Greek claims upon Thrace. The
London Times was able, as early as the sixth of April,
1919, to announce, on official authority, that the Peace
Congress had accepted the boundary proposed by Mr.
Venizelos which gives to Greece Thrace, south of the
River Arda, on condition that a commercial outlet be given
on the Aegean.

If I were aiming only at supporting the claims of my
country to this province, it would be unnecessary for me
to add anything more, now, when Greece has been given
satisfaction on this point. I desire, however, to show that
by the Treaty of Bucharest Greece and not Bulgaria was
wronged.

According to the official census, in Thrace, where there
is a total population of 2,200,646, there are only 112,000
Bulgarians, who are inferior in number not only to the
Greeks and the Turks but even to the Armenians. (183,
253). The only regions in which they are somewhat more
compact are those north of the River Arda, upon which
Greece lays no claim. In the other regions, they are an
infinitesimal part (69,000 or three per cent) of the total
population.

This numerical weakness the Bulgarians officially ad
mitted in 1912. At that time it became necessary to co
operate, in view of the elections against the Ottomanizing
programme of the Committee of Union and Progress. It
was agreed between the Greeks and the Bulgarians, under
the auspices of the Oecumenical Patriarchate, and the
Bulgarian Exarchate, that their coalition in Thrace would
support seven Greek candidates as against only one Bul
garian candidate.

The single Bulgarian Deputy provided by the Treaty
was to sit for the Northern district. In the region south
of the Arda the Bulgarians are numerically so weak that,
despite their occupation since 1913, all its deputies to the
Sobranie have been Turks. These gentlemen, sixteen in
number, on the 31st of December 1919 signed an address
to General Franchet d'Esperey, Commander-in-Chief of

1 The text of the treaty was published recently (March 1919) by the Journal
des D(X>at8, the leading Paris newspaper. It was signed on September 1913. Yet the
Entente was credulous enough to believe until September 1915 that Bulgaria would
not attack Serbia!

768 THE NORTH (AMERICAN JREVIEW

the Allied armies in the Near East, which may be sum
marized as follows:

The Mussulman deputies begin by observing "that
western Thrace is peopled by Mussulman Turks, a Greek
minority and some Bulgars." They declare that "it is
impossible for their compatriots to live under Bulgarian
rule, in view of the entire lack of tolerance on the part of
the Bulgars towards all those among their subjects who are
not of their own race, and the frequent abuses and vexations
practised by the Bulgars which are unworthy of a civilized
nation." They indicate that their protests to the Sobranie
have but "served to bring about the demolition of the only
Turkish mosque which existed in Sofia; " and that, " if the
abuses continue and increase, it is not impossible that the
latent irritation which is felt in Thrace will break out
against the oppressors." Under these circumstances the
deputies demand an occupation by Allied troops. They
add:

It is desirable that Hellenic troops should participate in this occu
pation, seeing that the Greeks of Trace have experienced the same
vexations as ourselves; that the Hellenes have always shown them
selves generous towards us, that theirs is a nation with whom we can
live on very good terms, and that they could, at the same time as their
allies, protect us from the oppression of the Bulgars.

In a letter of the same date (December 31, 1918) the
Turkish deputies ask Mr. Venizelos "to intervene in their
behalf in the manner they indicate."

This document proving the Bulgarians accorded no
better treatment to the Turks than to the Greeks, had no
little influence on the decision by which, in Paris, the Greek
claims to Thrace were recognized.

But it must be pointed out that military consideration
also, and the desire to avoid new wars in the future, have
pleaded in favor of Greece.

Bulgaria's presence in the littoral of Thrace has ever
meant the splitting of Hellenism in two, since, by the de
velopment of the submarine, the presence of Bulgaria in
the Aegean might paralyze Greek mobilization.

It is argued that Thrace should be given to Bulgaria
in order to prevent another war. Such a concession will,
in fact, be the cause of new conflicts. Let us overlook, for
a moment, the persecution of the Greek element under the
Bulgarians, and the constant irritation of the Greeks on

GREECE AND BULGARIA 769

this account. Can we also overlook the fact that Hellen
ism, cut in two, will tend to reunite? Even if the Greeks
should give up their rights, the Bulgarians, feeling that
their submarines could easily paralyze Greek mobiliza
tion, would not resist the temptation to let loose a war
in which the initial advantages would all be on their side.
None who knows the way Bulgaria entered the war in 1913
and in 1915, will doubt this. The danger of Bulgarian
submarines in the Aegean is even greater when we consider
that the Bulgarians are in the habit of launching attacks
by irregulars, for whose actions they can readily deny all
responsibility.1 A dozen or so submarines, run by
comitadjis, would be enough to spread disorder in the
Greek seas.

Against our overwhelming ethnological strategic and
diplomatic arguments, the Bulgarians have been able to
oppose only what Mr. Bourchier calls "commercial neces
sity." But to this ample satisfaction has been given by
the offering of a commercial outlet under the auspices of
the League of Nations, as mentioned above. Mr.
Venizelos, always over-anxious to conciliate the Bulgarians,
did not hesitate to give them for such an outlet the choice
of Dedeagatch, Kavalla or Saloniki.

A statesman of a less conciliatory temper would have
observed that Roumania, a friend and practically an ally
of Greece, has not claimed such an outlet, although the
Roumanian coast on the Black Sea is one-third as extensive
as the Bulgarian one.

He would, moreover, have reminded the Conferences
that Bulgaria came into the possession of that stretch of
land on the Black Sea, at the expense of Hellenism, as,
when it was granted to Bulgaria, it was inhabited almost
exclusively by Greeks, to whom the Great Powers then
guaranteed special religious and educational autonomy.

This fact is of some importance. The Bulgarians
always speak to foreigners of their kinsmen in the
Roumanian Dobrudja. But they avoid every reference to
the Greeks of the Euxine, included in Bulgaria by the
Treaty of Berlin. Their silence on this subject is certainly
not to be attributed to their ignorance of the facts. This

1 In this fashion have they fought the Turks, attacked the Greek army at Pargaeon
in May 1913, and blown up the bridges on the Vardar (November 1914). This last
action coincided with the first great Austrian offensive and was aimed at preventing
Greek guns and ammunitions from going to the Serbs. Fortunately the explosion
was late.

VOL. ccix.— NO. 763 49

1 ; THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

is how, in December of 1904, a Bulgarian newspaper
(The Coast) described the situation. I quote from a trans
lation of it which appeared in the Contemporary Review
of London (September 1905, p. 386) :

From the Rumanian to the Turkish frontier, one finds on the eoast
of the Black Sea but three Bulgarian settlements : Siavla, St. Nicalas
and Kioprou ; even the inhabitants of these villages are emigrants from
Turkey.

For the rest, the coast is inhabited from Kavarna to Varna by
Greeks speaking Turkish, but nonetheless fanatic and ready to volun
teer for the Hellenic navy. From Varna to Pyrgos the littoral is
Greek, with the exclusion of Galata, which is a Turkish village.
Messivria and Anchialos are purely Greek cities. The Bulgarian
schools of Anchialos cost 25,000 francs per annum and contain five
pupils. The remainder of the coast from Pyrgos to the Turkish fron
tier, again with the exception of some Mussulman settlements, con
tains a population which is Greek and fanatic.

Of course, these Greek populations, which, by the
way, suffered so dreadfully in August of 1906, when
Anchialos was burned to the ground, are lost forever to
Greece. But their loss confirms what I have said before,
that in the case of Greece versus Bulgaria, it is Greece that
has a right to complain of the non-application of the prin
ciple of nationality.

IV.

The conclusion is obvious. Bulgaria has no ground for
complaint. Her conduct in 1915-1918 deserves very severe
punishment. She has escaped, however, practically un
scathed. In spite of the fact that Greece has twice defeated
Bulgaria, more Greeks will be included in Bulgaria than
Bulgarians in Greece.

It is true that the Bulgaria of tomorrow will be smaller
than Roumania, Serbia or Greece. But no injustice is
done, the Bulgarians being numerically smaller than amy
other Christian Balkan people. The entire Bulgarian race
consists of from four and a half to five millions, whereas
the Roumanian race numbers fifteen millions, the Serbian
twelve, and the Greek eight-and-a-half millions.

With the break-up of Turkey and Austria, Greece and
Serbia obtain territorial enlargements proportionate to the
numbers of their respective peoples. Bulgaria will become
a third-rate state in the Near East. This is a situation

GREECE AND BULGARIA 771

which she has not as yet been able to stomach. Every
satisfaction given to the just claims of the other Chris
tian Balkan States appears to Bulgaria as an in
justice done to her. Hence, the treacherous attacks
of 1913 and 1915. As an offsetting circumstance,
however, it should be noticed here that the " bound
less ambition " of Bulgaria, which for the last
forty years has been the stumbling block to a Balkan
Federation, is partly the outcome of Russian diplomacy.
The Czars would have won immortal glory and permanent
influence, if they had aimed at the liberation of all the
Eastern Christian races. But the blind Russian autocracy,
indifferent to moral influence, sought territorial expansion,
and especially Constantinople. It was suspicious both of
the Serbs and of the Greeks, peoples comparatively
numerous, who had shown their spirit of independence
by continual uprisings against the Turks.

Hence, the Treaty of San Stephano created an exag
gerated Bulgaria, at the expense of the other Christians in
the Balkans.

Beaconsfield and Bismarck, instead of righting this
wrong, endeavored only to save the Sultan. That is why
both the Treaties of San Stephano and of Berlin have been
styled great political crimes. Nearly all the Bulgarians
were emancipated, while only a small portion of the Greek
and Serbian races were made free. And thus, for many
decades, although the Bulgarian race is equal to one-half
the Greek race, and to one-third the Serbian, the Bulgarian
Kingdom was nearly double that of Greece, as well as of
Serbia.

Now, if we want justice and peace to reign in the
Balkans, Sofia must be made to understand that the tradi
tions of Russian and Austrian diplomacy have been wiped
out, and that the Great Democratic nations cannot befriend
Bulgaria at the expense of the legitimate rights of their
Balkan allies.

A. ANDREADES.

FULLER LIBERTY FOR INDIA

BY CHARLES JOHNSTON

IN the days when I was Assistant Magistrate in Mur-
shidabad, I remember a certain camping ground in the
cool heart of a mango grove. The lucid air was full of the
cooing of turtle doves; golden orioles flashed through the
dense green of the branches ; gray squirrels chattered like
Bengali schoolboys. Our tents, white pyramids mottled
with deep shadows, had come to that remote outland in
order that I might hold elections for the District Board.

After a ride in the cool of dewy morn, a soul-refreshing
shower bath, and tea and toast served by my scarlet-tur-
baned butler, I drove along a road already blistered by the
sunshine to the neighboring thana — that is, a rural police
headquarters — where the elections were to be held. A
crowd was already there, squatted in Oriental fashion in
the blots of shadow beneath the trees of the thana garden ;
dark brown cultivators, almost black — for there is a great
deal of Dravidian blood in East Bengal — girt about the
loins with a strip of cotton, smoking their clay hookahs in
supreme content. Seated on the veranda of the thana was
a little group of " bhadra lok," Bengali gentlemen, as they
love to call themselves, who rose and greeted me with some
ceremony:

"Your Honor's body how is?" That is the correct
thing in high Bengali ; my Honor's soul being presumed to
be in a state of grace. The cultivators, who had promptly
risen to their feet, in their greeting, with profuse bows, ap
plied to me such flattering terms as " Umbrella of the Poorl
Incarnation of Virtue 1 "

Standing on the well shaded veranda, with the Bengali
gentlemen at my right and the Police Sub-Inspector at my
left, I made the assembled voters a little speech in my best
Bengali, beginning with the equivalent for " Gentle-

FULLER LIBERTY FOR INDIA 773

men! . . ." at which the cultivators nudged each other in
some perturbation; I doubt whether the " bhadra lok "
were altogether pleased.

I told them that the Government — which they still call
"The Company," though the East India Company has
been dead these sixty years — solicitous for their welfare,
and eager to bestow upon them a larger measure of self-
government, had decreed the organization of an elected
Board for every District — that is, for some million or so
of dusky souls — and that they had been summoned, on that
November morning, to select, of their own free choice,
some one of themselves, in whom they had confidence, to
represent their group of villages upon that Board. Other
groups of villages would do the like; then the elected per
sonages, meeting together at the Sudder Station — the Dis
trict metropolis at Berhampore — would assume control of
certain things throughout the District: such as roads and
bridges, hospitals and schools, levying, for that purpose, a
light tax, according to their discretion, to pay the bills.

There was much concerned whispering among the as
sembled rice-growers. Finally a spokesman came forward
with a profound obeisance, which signified that his neck
was beneath my instep. We deprecate that sort of thing,
but it is bred in the Oriental bone; you might as well try
to stop the Ganges.

"Whom does your Honor wish us to elect?" The
spokesman came to the point at once, while the " bhadra
lok " cast their eyes down in conscious merit.

I explained, in such Bengali as was available for so
un-Oriental an expression, that that was up to them. The
Government, in its benign wisdom, wished them to choose
according to their liking. It was to be a genuine election,
wholly uncontrolled. Then I sat down and left them to
think it over.

The " bhadra lok " also sat down, after a courteous in
terval, and Bhangshi Babu, on my immediate right, opened
a flowery conversation about the weather, the prospects of
the rice crop, the flood that had recently swamped the Dis
trict. Bhangshi Babu was a Brahman with fine Roman
features, and owner of a large patchwork estate dappled
over a score of villages — the outcome of their inheritance
laws. There was a thread of self-consciousness running
through his talk, the meaning of which was presently re-

774 THE NORTH AMERICANgREVIEW

vealed. For, after much whispered consultation among
dusky groups, where sluggish mental action was stimulated
by much hookah smoking, till the air was full of acrid
fumes, the spokesman came forward again with another
salaam:

" May we elect Bhangshi Babu, Protector of the
Poor?" And that Bengali gentleman looked down, but
there was the wraith of a smile in his fine Brahmanic eyes.

I was not there to electioneer for him or anyone, even
though of quintessential Brahman blood, so I explained
that they could choose whom they pleased, whether Bhang
shi Babu or another. I do not think the Bengali gentle
man was quite pleased. But he said:

" I can understand! Such a sentiment is acceptable —
between friends! "

After a few more words of consultation, interrupted by
"Ha!" the Bengali equivalent of "Yes!" the spokesman
returned :

"We think we had better choose Bhangshi Babu, Pro
tector of the Poor! "

So I shook hands with the successful candidate, and the
thing was done.

There is the rub, when it comes to self-government for
India. The danger, and every Anglo-Indian recognizes it,
is, that we may put back into power the Brahmanical hier
archy which, by all the wiles of priestcraft, by organizing
aboriginal idol-worship and blood-sacrifices, by astrology
and " miracles," has held the lowlier races of India en
slaved, body and soul, these three thousand years. Even
the English-speaking Masters of Art of Calcutta Univer
sity, after their graduation, go back to temples reeking
with the blood of bulls and goats, and chant Vedic man
tras before hideous idols. Exactly so far does their study
of Mill and Huxley emancipate them. And this, in flat de
fiance of the fact that all the best of their sacred books
sternly condemn this evil ambition and its instruments,
black superstition and idolatry, the things against which the
Buddha made his heroic protest. But long centuries ago,
the dark Brahmanical reaction drove the Buddha's follow
ers out of India.

Nevertheless the British trustees for the welfare of In
dia continue to do all things in their power to advance the
natives of that many-colored congeries of peoples along the

FULLER LIBERTY FOR INDIA 775

path of real liberty. Beginning with the village-com
munity, oldest of all political institutions, the British have
carefully fostered what there is in it of self-government.
The people of these clustered mud huts thatched with reeds,
that are dotted over the vast immensity of the rice-fields,
are encouraged to elect their Commissions of Five, their
Panchayets, for the conservation of village law and order ;
the five must choose, equip, drill and pay the chowkidars—
the village watchmen — who, with aboriginal boar-spears
not changed at all in shape since the age of bronze, po
lice the dust or mud by-ways of the villages. It was one
of my duties, while out in camp, to assemble and review
these blue-clad chowkidars and, a vital thing for them, to
ascertain, from the little note-book that each of them car
ried, that they were promptly and regularly paid. The or
ganization of the District Board I have already outlined.
In the main, it works well, though it is wholly in the hands
of the " bhadra lok." And there is a like organization, on a
smaller scale, for the Sub-divisions, some half-dozen of
which make up the District. In general, the chief official
of the Sub-division is a native magistrate, a Bengali gen
tleman, who has had his training at the Sudder Station ; but
I suppose every Covenanted Civilian in India has had an
apprenticeship in a Sub-division also; I among them,—
having sole responsibility for some 300,000 dusky souls,
keeping the peace among them, settling their feuds, gath
ering taxes distributed in the main for their benefit, and
clapping the disorderly in jail.

The next self-governing unit is the municipality, the
larger or smaller town. Of these there are, I believe, some
700,000 in India, with a population of eighteen or twenty
millions. And in every municipal council, without excep
tion, the majority consists of natives of India, freely
elected; in many, all the members are natives. To realize
how far this great reform goes, we must keep in mind that
these municipalities include the Civil Stations, the houses
of the British officials and European residents, who thus
freely put into the hands of the natives the care of their own
health and lives and, what counts far more, the health of
their wives and children, in that exceedingly menacing
climate. But it goes without saying that the municipal
councilmen have the good sense to recognize that western
modes of sanitation are better than their own, and, in gen-

776 THEj.NORTHrAMERICAN .REVIEW

eral, they carefully apply them. Generally ; not invariably.
When I was in charge at Kandi Sub-division, we had an
epidemic of cholera. A deputation of the " bhadra lok " —
it is always the " bhadra lok " ; the great multitude of " chota
lok," lesser people, are wholly inarticulate — well, the
" bhadra lok " came to me, asking me to set a police guard
about a certain little tank, dotted with blue water-lilies,
from which they draw their drinking water, to keep it from
pollution; for cholera is always spread by bad drinking
water. This I did — and then discovered that these same
u bhadra lok " were bribing my policemen, to let them bathe
in that secluded tank, from which they then proceeded to
drink. So there befell what is called, in more* favored
lands, a shake-up in the police force . . . But that, I
think, was a rare exception.

The municipalities, like the District Boards, work
fairly well, but — absolutely all power remains in the hands
of the oligarchy; through deeply ingrained psychological
causes, so far as the lowly masses are concerned freedom
of election is a dead letter. To change that, you must
change the souls of 300,000,000; and High Heaven has not
accomplished that in all these millenniums. But the Brit
ish in India continue to hope, and to try.

We have considered the District, with its population
averaging, perhaps, a million souls. These Districts are
largely administered by well-paid native officials, under
British control; in the courts and offices at the Sudder Sta
tion, there are, perhaps, fifty natives for each British of
ficial; and, in general, they do their work with honest
effectiveness, though there are some great rascals
among the native police. Every little while are dis
closed ugly police " extortion cases," and " torture
cases." But these again, I think, are the excep
tion. The Districts, each with its million inhabitants
and its little metropolis at the Sudder Station, are gath
ered in groups of ten, to form a Division, under a Commis
sioner. Five or six of these Divisions make up a Province,
or, as the more venerable Provinces are called, a Presi
dency, under a Governor or a Lieutenant-Governor. Some
dozen Provinces make up the whole of British India — that
is, the part of India under immediate British rule. Its area
is just over a million square miles. Before we consider the
degree to which Home Rule already exists in these larger

FULLER LIBERTY FOR INDIA 777

aggregates of Districts, let us, in order to illustrate one of
the difficulties of Indian Government, an almost insuper
able difficulty in the way of applying representative insti
tutions — let us draw a comparison :

The Indian Empire— British and native India taken
together — covers about 1,800,000 square miles; say, an area
equal to that of the United States, if we omit the eight larg
est States. Our remaining forty States, then, have just the
area of the Indian Empire, though India has nearly four
times their total population. Now let us imagine that each
of these forty States had a distinct language of its own, as
widely separated, some of them, as ancient Hebrew is from
English, or as Finnish is from Italian, and each of these
forty tongues representing, in the last analysis, a difference
of race, of history, of tradition; we should have something
like the real situation in India. A Parliament genuinely
representing these forty mutually unintelligible tongues
would make Babel mere child's play. Yet that is just what
a general Parliament in India, if it were genuinely repre
sentative, would have to face.

I have spoken of forty races in India. Again, let me
try to illustrate. Take the four extreme types we know
here : American, Red Indian, Chinese, Negro. They would
only be four dots along the line of Indian races; for the
Brahmans are of the same Aryan racestock as the Ameri
cans; the Red Rajputs — the lordliest race in India, and
one of the finest races in the world — are remote cousins
of the higher tribes of Red Men, like the Arapaho or the
Cheyenne; the so-called Kolarian races in India are close
to the Chinese ; while all the Dravidian races, totalling 60,-
000,000 are black. But America at once meets obstacles,
when it is a question of representing only one-fourth that
number of the black race; while tribal Red Indians
have no political rights among us, and Chinamen can have
no rights; a reminder of the complexity of our own prob
lem, which is infinitely simpler than India's problem. To
make the picture more complete, I should add, to yawning
chasms of race, a half-dozen jealous religions, and the dead
weight of the caste system, which rests, ultimately, upon
age-old difference of race. One sometimes hears Ameri
cans ask why the British trustees for India do not abolish
caste. The answer is, first, that this would be a violation
of a cardinal principle of the British trusteeship: never to

778 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

interfere in matters of religion, except where, as in widow-
burning, these violate the criminal law. But there is a far
deeper reason : I have spoken of four race types, white, red,
yellow, black, in India. But these are the original " Four
Castes," which are called, in Sanskrit, the " Four Colors."
And I do not think that anyone has found a way to abolish
difference of color — or the far deeper psychological, moral
and mental differences which difference of color covers.

If the men of these many hues were exact equivalents of
each other in wisdom, force, aggressiveness, power of self-
defence, there would be no great obstacle in the way of a
chequered Parliament, odd and picturesque as it would un
questionably look. But the trouble in India — and it is the
real justification for the British trusteeship — is, that the In
dian races are not anything like equal, most of all in the
power of self-protection. There is, on the one hand, the
Brahman oligarchy, as determined as ever to enslave all
India, and, on the other, a small group of conquering races,
like the Mahometan invaders (Arabs, Persians, Afghans,
Mongols), or like the predatory Mahrattas of the central
hills. If Britain abandoned India, to-morrow, the Brah
man oligarchy would be back in power the day after ; but,
on the third day, the Mahometan and Mahratta warriors
would be slitting Brahmanical throats; on the fourth day,
they would try to cut each others' throats — exactly as they
were doing, when the British came. Or, if their manners
are now more mild, this simply marks what the British trus
teeship has accomplished since Plassey, in 1757.

When we come to the larger aggregates, the Provinces
and Presidencies, and the question of representative insti
tutions for them, this race question instantly leaps into high
relief. And the British administrators have been seeking
a way for its solution, ever since the old East India Com
pany was superseded. Some ten years ago, a definite stage
of the way was marked by the Indian Councils Act of 1909
which, like the Constitutions of the Dominions, is an act
of the British Parliament. This act gives each of the larger
Provinces (I include the three older Presidencies) two
Councils, in a way corresponding to our two Houses of
Congress. The smaller is an Executive Council, which al
ways includes native members; the larger is a Legislative
Council, averaging SO members; the majority, in each of
these, is unofficial, and most of the unofficial members are

FULLER LIBERTY FOR .INDIA 779

natives of India. But, precisely to safeguard the rights of
minorities — of the lesser peoples and the lower castes —
these native Members of Council are appointed, not
elected. If they were all elected, they would all be chosen
from the Brahman oligarchy; and their counsels, to say the
least, would not be favorable to men of other faiths and
castes. So the British method is in reality far fairer, far
more genuinely representative. I believe that the wish of
the Government to extend the native membership of the
Legislative Councils, and, perhaps, to make some of them
elective, was the motive of the recent journey of the Secre
tary for India to the East. To complete this part of my
theme, I need only add that the Governor General has like
wise his two Councils, for all British India; natives sit on
both; and, in the larger, the Legislative Council of some
70 members, special care is given to the equitable repre
sentation of native minorities. Here, as at every point
in India, the danger is that, in the name of freedom, we
may injure the reality of freedom. And visitors to
India are under the risk of real deception here. In In
dia, only one in every thousand speaks English, and this
minute minority belongs almost wholly to the old oli
garchies. But the visitor can talk only to these, who
have their own purposes to serve, and who, for these
purposes, are apt in the use of phrases like " Home Rule."
What they really want, I am afraid, is — the rule of India
by themselves, strongly entrenched by the superstition of
the masses, who would find themselves once more the slaves
of the strongest and subtlest priestcraft in the world. There
fore the British trustees are justified in going slow. . . .

I have given two discrepant figures for the area of In
dia: 1,000,000 and 1,800,000 square miles. The first is the
area of British India, directly administered by the Cov
enanted Civil Service; the second includes the whole In
dian Empire. With the difference, some 800,000 square
miles, we have now very briefly to deal. It contains the
Native States, which are, in their way, a signal victory of
administrative skill and a striking illustration of the genius
for conservation, which so marks the Indian Empire. In
these Native States, the trustees of India have applied this
principle: to conserve the genius, the historical tradition,
the indigenous institutions as perfectly as possible, while
removing certain abuses and assuring public and private

780 THEL NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

security. And the treatment has been different in every
State.

Let us again make a comparison : The total area of these
Native States is roughly equal to the area of the United
States east of the Mississippi. If each of the States between
the Mississippi and the Atlantic were divided into two,
we should have about the number of India's Native States,
which range in size from one-half larger than Georgia
to one-quarter of Rhode Island. And each has its own in
digenous Government, most have their own language. Take
such a State as Hyderabad in Southern India, as large as
Great Britain. It is a fragment of the old Mogul Empire,
with a Mahometan ruling house, though most of the in
habitants are Hindus. Kashmir, just the same size, has a
largely Mahometan population, with a Hindu ruling house.
Mysore, south of Hyderabad, is the most Brahmanical State
in India, the center of the tradition of Shankaracharya and
the Vedanta. And Shankaracharya, a competent critic has
said, is the intellectual equal of Plato or Kant, with all of
Kant's closeknit reason, and with much of Plato's artistic
grace ; one of the greatest intellects, therefore, that human
ity has ever produced. If you seek a State moulded on his
ideals, you will find it in Mysore. Then there are the an
cient Rajput houses, going back almost to Homeric times,
and now safeguarded and preserved by the same adminis
trative principle. And, in sharp contrast, the modern
Mahratta princes, who sprang into power just before the
English came. They too have been conserved. And just
these Native States have shown what they think of the Brit
ish trusteeship, by raising and equipping fine forces for the
Allied cause.

No one will say that the present rulers of India have
not made mistakes. No one will say that their motives have
been invariably right. But this one may say: on the whole,
they have gained a magnificent success ; on the whole, they
have maintained a high ideal of justice and of honor.

CHARLES JOHNSTON.

AMERICAN LITERATURE IN THE
COLLEGES

BY T. J. BAKER

WERE the noted foreign writers who recently came to
this country to do homage to the great spirit of Lowell on
the occasion of the centennial of his birth, to be told that in
his own country this typically American poet was not con
sidered worth the serious attention of the college under
graduate they would be not a little surprised and puzzled.
Yet such is the case. In our leading universities not only
Lowell but other American writers are quite neglected, or
at best are given secondary consideration. The youth who
wishes to imbibe the spirit of Poe or Whittier, or Emerson
or Bryant must interpret for himself the writings of these
exponents of the nation's life and history, for in his college
work he will find them brushed aside for the study of more
favored foreign writers.

In one of our best known universities, an institution
whose Faculty contains one of the foremost living Ameri
can men of letters, there is offered no course whatsoever,
graduate or undergraduate, upon the literature of this
country. Were it not for the cursory study of a few fav
ored Americans in courses upon the general field of letters,
this college would seem to be oblivious to the very existence
of a national literature. Of the hundreds of splendid
young men who leave its halls each year to take their places
in the life of the nation, few indeed are acquainted with the
Biglow Papers, Leaves of Grass, the Commemoration Ode
or other great works inextricably interwoven with the spirit
and history of America.

Everywhere the story is the same ; our own authors are
neglected for the minute study of foreign writers. In a
prominent New England university, which numbers its
matriculates by the thousand, there is given but one course

782 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW ,

upon the field of American letters, a two hour course,
" omitted in 1917-1918," which begins with Franklin and
concludes with the writers of today. Another institution
which feels it unnecessary to offer more than two general
half-term courses on the national literature, gives its
students the opportunity of devoting their attention to such
offerings as the Arthurian Legends, Dante in English,
Early English Literary Types, Layamon's Brut.

An examination of the catalogues of all the large East
ern colleges reveals not one course on the American poets,
not one on the American novelists, not one on American
essayists. Although courses on Chaucer, Wordsworth,
Spencer and Milton are common, apparently Emerson, to
whom Professor Bliss Perry devotes a half term at Har
vard, is the only American deemed worthy of careful study.

This unfortunate state of affairs is in large part ac
counted for by the common misconception that American
literature is a part of English literature, and must always
and inevitably continue to be so. " Of course," says one
critic, " when we consider it carefully we cannot fail to see
that the literature of a language is one and indivisible and
that the nativity or the domicile of those who make it mat
ters nothing. Just as Alexandrian literature is Greek, so
American literature is English; and as Theocritus demands
inclusion in any account of Greek literature, so Thoreau
cannot be omitted from any history of English literature
as a whole."

It needs no deep analysis to see that this is a mere quib
ble. Surely it should not be necessary to point out that
writing in English does not necessarily make one an Eng
lish writer. If by English literature is meant all works
written in the English language, then one must include in
it the productions of Whitman and Mark Twain and Haw
thorne and Emerson. If our conception of literature is
confined to the vehicle of expression, to words and sen
tences, then American literature has no existence and our
colleges are quite right in devoting their attention to the
most noted writers in English, irrespective of their do
micile or of the theme of their works.

But if we accept as correct the point of view which de
fines literature as the reflection and the reproduction of the
life of a people, there is an American literature, distinct and
apart from the literature of England, and worthy of our

AMERICAN, ^LITERATURE IN THE COLLEGES 78S

attention and study. If the life of the American people is
worth understanding, the exponents of that life cannot be
neglected in our centers of culture and education. If the
simple heart of old New England, with its devoutness, its
frugality, its wholesomeness is still a matter of interest to
the nation which owes so much to it, one cannot relegate
to obscurity the writings of Whittier and Holmes and
Howells and Lowell ; if we are to understand the spirit of
the old South, the spirit which gave us Washington and
Madison, we must know Timrod and Lanier and Thomas
Nelson Page.

In colonial days, when as a part of the great British Em
pire, we looked to London for our spiritual as well as our
political leadership, it may properly be said that we had no
distinctive literature. In a very true sense we were not
Americans, but Englishmen living in America. Great
significance, and not a little pathos, attaches to the fact
that far into the Eighteenth Century our forefathers invar
iably referred to the mother country as home. To Eng
land they looked for political direction and for military
defense, from England came the books they read, the
clothing they wore, often the very furniture of their
houses. For them London was the center of refinement and
culture and learning, the great sun in the Anglo-Saxon
planetary system which gave life and light to the lesser
colonial bodies. There can be no surprise then that so long
as we remained a part of the British Empire we should fail
to develop a literature that we could call our own. In a
very real sense there was no America; how could there be
an American literature?

But the colonial period has long since past. For a cen
tury and a half we have been an independent nation, a na
tion different from England, a nation with its own distinc
tive characteristics. It is absurd to contend that England
and America have had parallel growths since the signing
of the Treaty of Paris in 1783, that our common ancestry
and the use of a common language have preserved in the
two peoples identical feelings and ideals and passions a»d
aspirations, that, in short, the literature of the one people
could suffice to interpret and reflect the life of the otktr.

The great throbbing civilization to which we belong
is a thing apart from that of any other nation. It is korn
not alone of our English descent, of our English institutions

784 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

and traditions, our English language, but of the unique
conditions which surround us here upon this continent, of
the frontier life through which our fathers passed, of the
New England farm, of the Southern plantation, of the
civil strife which rent us, tff the vast industrial develop
ment of the past century, of the great stream of immigrants
that beats upon our shores, of the ideals of liberty that were
embodied in our Constitution and perfected in the political
growth of the nation. All these have made us a separate
people, have given birth to that thing indefinable but per
fectly distinct, the American spirit. Our idealism, our love
of liberty, our overpowering vitality, our directness, some
would say our rudeness, are not British, they are Ameri
can, the product of our own life and development.

Were this American spirit a thing unworthy of the
attention of other peoples, were it incapable of exercising
a deep influence upon the world at large, were it dull, un
interesting, unprogressive, colorless, still it would be our
own, and so deserving our study. The first duty of any peo
ple is to know themselves.

But the American spirit is not dull or reactionary, it
is not entirely local in its influence. It is a mighty thing
which fills our own land with life irrepressible and bub
bles over to lend itself to all the nations of the world. The
American spirit is today a mighty force. What was it but
this spirit which brought us into the war upon the side
of liberty and justice? What but this that sent 2,000,000
men across the ocean to strike the deciding blow in the
greatest conflict of all history? What is it but this that
has made America today undisputed leader among the
nations; that makes one speak of the Americanizing of
Europe, of the future as the American age?

In the field of history and politics and economics there
has been no neglect in our colleges of things Ameri
can. The teacher of these subjects apparently has had a
better understanding of his opportunities. He has with
out apology directed the mind of the student to the de
velopment of his own country, and emphasized its import
ance both for him and for the world. He dwells upon the
rich field of American political growth, upon the develop
ment of those vast industrial forces which have made us so
powerful and rich, upon the transformation of a provincial
people into a great world Power.

AMERICAN LITERATURE IN THE COLLEGES 785

But the teacher of literature is beset with inexplicable
timidity. Before his mind are always the overshadowing
figures of Shakespeare and Milton and Chaucer. He dares
not make his declaration of independence, dares not pro
claim aloud his allegiance to American literature because
it is American. He does not realize that he may acknowl
edge frankly his country's good fortune in sharing in the
rich literary heritage that our English forefathers have left
us, and yet emphasize the existence, in fact the vital im
portance, of a literature of our own.

We fancy that this universal neglect of our own writ
ers which finds its reflection in the college curricula is not
a little the result of the whims of that creature whom we
call the intellectual snob. The good gray poets of New
England have been in the past too much the common prop
erty of all to suit his fancy. He could earn no especial
distinction by an acquaintance with writers known to every
schoolboy, writers whose faces adorned the walls of every
humble American home. His superior intellect, finding
food only in the music of Swinburne or the beauties of
Rossetti, scorned the shallow offerings of Longfellow and
Bryant and Holmes. The pernicious results of this move
ment, for it has assumed the proportions of a movement,
have been destructive to the prestige of American litera
ture. Two decades ago no educated American was unac
quainted with the great American writers ; one who reads
and loves them today is the object of condescending pity.

What we need in this matter is a breath of wholesome
common sense. We must know American literature, not
to garner material for displays of superior culture, not
even to garner the beauties which it undoubtedly contains,
but in order to know ourselves. If the proper study of
mankind is man, the proper study of Americans is Amer
ica. Unless our universities rise to a clear understanding
of this truth, they will fail signally in their duty to the
nation and to the youth who enter their doors.

T. J. BAKER.

VOL. ccix.— NO. 763 50

DEMOBILIZATION AND STATE
POLICE

BY KATHERINE MAYO

" WHAT do you think? Have you heard how it is over
there? Say, will there be jobs for us when we get home? "

These are the invariable questions fired at any civilian
newcomer to the A. E. F. Embarkation Camps in France.
Yet, give the eager-eyed lads who put them a moment
more, and almost as invariably they will add :

" But I don't want my old job back, though."

"Why not?"

" Oh— I don't just know — But I don't. And indoor
work would kill me for fair."

They don't want " the same old job." They want, they
don't know what, but something new, something free,
something alive with the savor of life.

It is simply the normal reaction of the hour. Our
Civil War bore the same fruit in hosts of young men whose
first essay into the world had been so highly emotionalized
— so crammed with strange, extreme experience as to make
all former channels of activity seem blank and dead. Some
had the grit to see and overcome their crisis. Some lounged
aimlessly through the rest of life. Some spent a costly
interval eating husks with swine. And not a few went ut
terly to the bad for lack of that protection that a wiser
State might have thrown about their paths.

Week by week, now, day by day, the human flood is
sweeping back upon America. The old order has passed,
though some of us will never find it out while yet its
shrivelled corpse knocks about, unburied, in the road.
What do we mean to do for the young men that come
home to us? Give them a welcoming parade or two and
then a chance to drop back into ancient harness? Unsettled
as they are, in reaction, mental and nervous, from the long

DEMOBILIZATION AND STATE POLICE 787

strain so gallantly endured, do we toss them blindly into
the old life and leave them to drift as luck may guide?
Those who have been with the colors overseas know all too
well what such a course will cost in wasted life — in delayed
restoration of the civic equilibrium.

" I don't want the same old job!" says the lad. No
doubt the day will come when that same old job will look
good to him. But meantime, through no fault or choice
of his own, his thoughts stray, groping. And meantime
the Bolsheviks in the land, striped every kind of yellow,
make their hideous secret war upon him. Vice in every
form, under every mask, goes hunting him. And this in
his own home — in the house of his friends.

" But," it is urged, " the returning soldier is no
weakling, to be coddled. He will stand on his own two
feet, protected by the law that protects us all alike."

That depends entirely on where his two feet rest. Laws
protect nobody unless they are enforced. Certain States
in the Union, honorably accepting their duty, have
equipped themselves with means to carry the respect and
protection of the law throughout their territory, even to
the remotest parts. In our remaining Commonwealths,
however, no such thing exists as a law everywhere equally
enforced — a law that equally protects all people.

As applied to such governments, the term " Sovereign
State " is grandiose nonsense. A State that continues to en
act laws, yet provides for itself no sufficient means to exact
obedience thereto, is like some old gabbler crone scolding
unheeded in the corner, mumbling toothless jaws.

Pennsylvania, fourteen years ago, earned the respect
and gratitude of the nation by the creation of a State Po
lice Force whose spotless record through succeeding years
not only has won it world-wide fame but has established the
priceless truth that a fearless, close-knit, single-purposed
and incorruptible body of men may attain, as public ser
vants, practical perfection.

New York, after long and careful study of Pennsyl
vania's example, demanded of her legislators the same
service that her sister State enjoys. And in 1917 New
York's creative act, almost exactly copied from that of
Pennsylvania, became law. Since that time five Western
and Southern States have followed the two great Eastern
leaders, making a total of eleven States now possessing

788 THE NORTH; AMERICAN REVIEW

State Police Forces. In ten other States the establishment
of State Police Departments is under active consideration.

Michigan, it is interesting to observe, created her De
partment as a War measure. But so essential has its work
proved to the general welfare that the State Legislature
of 1919 has now erected Michigan's State Police into a
permanency.

On March 22, 1919, Tennessee papers printed an appeal
to the Governor and Legislature of Tennessee that their
State Police Bill, then pending, be made law. This ap
peal was presented by the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People. Says one journal, in re
ferring to it:

It is stated in the memorial that lynching in the South has reached
a climax; that it would appear that the law had lost its sanctity; and
it charges that the confession of the citizens that lynching cannot be
prevented is but to say that the people are incapable of self-govern
ment. The memorial concludes by appealing to Governor Roberts to
give his support to the Police Bill.

The appeal is made in the name of 200,000 black peo
ple of Tennessee, " in the name of righteousness, justice
and fair play; in the name of the honor of the State, and
in the name of the soldiers who bled and died to make the
world a better place to live in."

That the State provided with an efficient State Police
is a better place for the returning soldier to live in, as well
as a safer place in which to leave his family while he serves
his country overseas, may safely be deduced from the
mere arrest figures of the New York State Troopers as
shown in the annual tables for 1918. The New York State
Troopers, having taken the field only in September, 1917,
are, as an organization, yet in the formative period. And
they number only four troops, or two hundred and thirty-
two men. Yet their records for the year ending with De
cember, 1918, show 3,750 arrests, for 67 types of offense,
with 84 per cent convictions, 10 per cent of the cases pend
ing, and only 6 per cent discharges.

While the creation of the New York Department of
Police was still a matter of debate, much contemptuous
humor found voice, here and there, as to the possible use
fulness of two hundred and twenty-odd mounted patrol
men spread over a State 47,620 miles square. Such humor

DEMOBILIZATION AND STATE POLICE 789

will scarcely again raise a laugh. Even in the great areas
of the Empire Commonwealth, 3,750 arrests for offenses
against the law, almost all of which were committed out
side of any city or borough jurisdiction, can be no indif
ferent matter. And when these offenses include ninety-
nine cases of assault, fifty-eight of burglary, twenty-five of
carrying dangerous and concealed weapons, one hundred
and thirty-six of common gambling, thirty-five of ma
licious mischief, eighty-three violations of the Agricul
tural Law, and two hundred and thirty-three cases of lar
ceny, it will be seen that the State Troopers know no fa
vorites among their only logical opponents.

The Pennsylvania State Police, the pioneers, although
originally of the same number as the New York Force of
today, were increased, by act of the Legislature of 1917,
to number 330 men. During 1918, however, the Force
lacked from fifty to seventy men of the full quota, owing
to the difficulty of recruiting material of the Pennsylvania
calibre during a war-period. As a matter of fact, a peril
ously high percentage of the Pennsylvania Force, old
soldiers as they were, harked to the voice of the trumpets
and went to France. And their immediate appreciation
by the Army may be measured by the fact that, of the first
five privates who signed up from one troop, four presently
sailed as Regular Army Captains and the fifth as a First
Lieutenant. And the Captain of that same troop was to
earn a regular army majority for distinguished service ren
dered as Provost Marshal of the City of Paris.

Meantime, the organizing and administrative skill of
Colonel John C. Groome, Superintendent of the Pennsyl
vania State Police, had been demanded by the High Com
mand in France for a succession of problems greatly dif
fering in their difficulties. From straightening a colossal
tangle in an intelligence department to the elevation of
the Prisoners of War scheme to a fine working system,
from the setting of the Provost Marshal General's Depart
ment, with its Military Police pendant, in such order that
anyone with wit enough to leave it alone could thereafter
have successfully run it; from housing some thousands of
officers daily in Paris to another task which may not yet
be made known, Colonel Groome's achievement in France
has been worthy of his fame and Pennsylvania may feel
that she has given a rich gift in loaning him to his country.

790 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Meantime, that half of the Pennsylvania State Police
officers and men who stayed at home, gritting their teeth
to do it, performed a patriotic service beyond all
computing. Filling with something of their own
fires the new recruits added to them, they faced
a battle stiffer, in its way, than any that in all
their stern career had before confronted them. Penn
sylvania during the War was one huge manufac
tory of munitions, one huge depot of steel, iron, fuel,
the very bone and sinews of the Allied armies in France.
A bridge blown up, a track wrecked, a chain of mines or
factories destroyed, and the vital stream of supplies of
men and guns — of support to the front line trenches — would
choke at its very source. The State teemed with spies and
secret agents, and its towns and mining patches swarmed
with alien peoples easily worked upon by those who spoke
their tongues to deceive them. One power alone they
feared, whether spy or agent or hostile alien — one power
they respected — dared not defy — the Pennsylvania State
Police. Twelve years of unvarying experience had taught
them that, till they felt it all through their shivering souls.

So once more the Pennsylvania State Police, shoulder
to shoulder, faced the people's enemies — a tiny handful
against a great and sinister horde. It was a giant
task, admitting, man by man, not a moment's lapse of
vigilance, not an instant's lapse of wit. But — " they can
do it," their commander had said, when his own call came
from across the sea. " My men can do the job. Why, they
never learned how to fail!"

Did they fail? They made 10,017 arrests in this one
last year, the little handful of them. And they secured
therefrom 90.4 per cent of convictions. They held down
the enemies of the Nation by the throat. They saved the
industries of the State, which were the very blood of the
army in France. And they preserved the lives, the peace,
the liberty and happiness of the 8,000,000 people of Penn
sylvania.

The whole A. E. F. knows about the State Police
Forces of the two great Eastern commonwealths. " I am
making all my day-dreams center on the Pennsylvania State
Troopers," runs the recent letter of a Sergeant in khaki
now " somewhere east of Berlin." " This life has plenty
of thrills, but I am very anxious to get back to the States

DEMOBILIZATION AND STATE POLICE 791

S^7f£j

and try myself out in what I believe is the best body oJ
the men in the world. Do you think I can make it? "

And the growing lure of the New York State service
casts its spell, too, upon the minds of the boys " over there."
To feel a horse between your legs, to take the open road
over the hills, to watch like a poised hawk over all the
countryside for chances to help in every sort of way where
help is due, for chances to pounce where harm is meant;
to live in the pride of military discipline, yet free because
" obedience to law is freedom " ; to know that all good
men and women will respect and welcome you so long as
you make good, because you bring to their defense a will
ing arm, a quick, true mind and the whole power of the
State; and to realize with it all, that many-masked adven
ture, taxing all your wit and nerve and will, lurks always
just ahead — all this appeals as few things could to the
young soldier so lately a world crusader, whose brain is as
full of restless thought as his body is full of health and
vigor.

Both will find expression — both mental and physical
energy. Give the lad means for a right, natural and suf
ficient expression or, through no fault of his own, he will
give himself, the world and you much costly trouble. He
is no jinn, stay corked down in the bottle.

Both the eastern State Police Forces have long waiting-
lists of demobilized soldiers. Both have their pick of the
best men back from France. And the other common
wealths that have adopted or are so actively urging the
adoption of the State Police principle will have no dif
ficulty in selecting superb personnel.

Meantime, what have the State Police done for the
soldiers? Speaking from personal observation, the mere
knowledge of their existence has been an invaluable reas
surance to our men in the service overseas. From rural
homes the vast majority of the Army was drawn. Mails
have been very slow, irregular, sometimes shut off. Espe
cially during the influenza epidemic men's minds turned
with devouring anxiety toward the lonely farmhouse or
the little wayside cottage whence no word came. And sol
dier citizens of such States as have had a care for those
little homes knew a comfort impossible to the rest.

The Pennsylvanians " over there " spoke with deep ap
preciation of the tried and trusty defenders of their own

792 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

homes. " /'// say so," they cried, when the newspapers of
their State brought them tidings and praise of the tireless
devotion of the " Black Hussars " to the needs of the plain
people.

An article in the Philadelphia Ledger said:

" Since the beginning of the war these men have been in active
cooperation with the Department of Justice, the Military Intelligence
Bureau, the United States Attorney and Marshals. But no cessation
of the regular police work of detecting and arresting criminals has
been permitted while carrying on the business, the depleted ranks hav
ing worked only the harder. The men have declined their leaves of
absence and stuck fast to the task in hand * * * During the in
fluenza epidemic they have been in the thick of the fray in the worst
pest holes in the State * * * Saloons have been cleared of sodden
foreigners in the settlements where the law has been openly defied
* * * 'pfie 5f-ate Police have driven ambulances for emergency
hospitals and rushed doctors about from place to place in an effort to
save more lives, and in many cases have remained with the sick, ad
ministering medicine and acting as nurses."

Federal officers of the various departments added their
public acknowledgments of peace and order brought out
of panic, of obedience to sanitary laws, otherwise dead, en
forced; of drug and vice holes wiped out; of illicit liquor
dens abolished.

Meanwhile in France, in England, in Scotland, on the
Rhine, New York men were insisting that their State
Force, young though it was, was already as good as the
famous Pennsylvania model, — that the rural homes of
New York had champions second to none.

Meanwhile, too, in New York State, the Troopers were
hard at work, steadily broadening and strengthening their
record. They, too, drove ambulances, sought out the help
less, hidden sick, brought doctors and enforced the health
laws everywhere in the rural State. They, too, with a
vigor, rapidity, justice and fearless disregard of persons
hitherto unimagined as a possibility by the people whom
they served, weeded out from the communities and the
countrysides every unlawful evil thing that their sharpen
ing eyes and wits could detect. Their patrols, too, fought
fires that must otherwise have meant grave loss, yet which
none but the far-reaching patrol would have discovered in
time. They, too, stopped on the road to chock up a hole
that might wrench some horse's leg or to patch a broken
bridge that might ditch a wagon.

DEMOBILIZATION AND STATE POLICE 793

And the Acting Director of Military Intelligence of
the Chief of Staff, Col. John M. Dunn, taking occasion
under date of December 21st, 1918, to thank the Super
intendent of the New York State Troopers for constant
cooperation and for the able assistance rendered the Gov
ernment in the work of locating and investigating enemy
suspects in the State of New York, added that " the aid
thus given has had no negligible part in the successful
prosecution of the war."

All the State well knew not only this but many other
things beside. So that when, early in January of the cur
rent year, a public suggestion was made to abolish the
New York State Police Force on the ground that its use
fulness did not balance the expense involved, such an out
cry of spontaneous protest rang forth from every quarter
of the State as to set completely at rest any doubt of the
real mind of the people.

From the great dailies of New York, from those of the
up-State cities and from the smallest of the country papers,
far and wide, rose the warning, " Hands off our State Po
lice!" The State Grange defended it. The State Agri
cultural Society came out for it. The State Motor Fed
eration took aggressive ground. The Rochester Chamber
of Commerce summoned all its allied organizations to an
organized defense. An important up-State newspaper syn
dicate served public notice that it would fight. And
finally, most significant of all, the country women all over
the State, whether by their clubs, by letters to their legis
lators or to the press, or even by personal visits to Albany,
showed that they knew the cause of the State Police to be
their very own.

But other elements enter into the relation of the State
Police to the soldier. In a conscript Army, we took some
very able natural rascals to France. These, not always the
tamer for the experience, and somewhat quicker in the use
of weapons than before, are now being brought home and
turned loose upon the land. Further, our breakdown in
keeping our soldiers paid, often for many months on end,
has practically forced upon thousands of honest men a
habit of looking to dubious means for necessary funds.

Cut a man off from any possible way of earning money;
take him to a far, strange land; shut off his mail from
home, together with any possible relief that might have

794 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

reached him through that avenue; and then keep him a
half-year, more or less, without one cent of pay, — and
what do you produce?

We are going to have an epidemic of tramps, of thiev
ing, and of crime, as demobilization goes on.

Already the State Police Force of New York, the great
debarkation area, has met this development. Already an
intense vigilance on its part, both separately and in stimu
lation of, or assistance to local police officers, is the price
of continued security in the rural parts. Already their ac
complished action in sweeping away haunts of vice im
pregnable to pre-existing powers, has powerfully protected
the wandering demobilized soldier from dangers and
temptations specially designed to fleece and ruin him or
to start him amuck.

Every Trooper riding his patrol on country roads and
byways with the knowledge in his mind that experience
has brought, examines the casual wayfarer on foot or on
wheel with a trained and critical eye. He may mean mis
chief: the Trooper forestalls him. He may have done
mischief; the Trooper, whether suspecting or knowing it,
gathers him in. He may want work; the Trooper, who
knows all the countryside, knows what work needs doing,
and where. He may be sick, or broke, or helpless — he
may need a friend; and then the Trooper comes into his
very own. For that is his long suit — never to turn a real
need down, never to be duped, and yet to be, first and last
and all the time, the friend indeed of all the world.

KATHERINE MAYO.

THE LYNCHING OF PUBLIC OPINION

BY GEORGE ROTHWELL BROWN

A SUBSERVIENT press can prosper only under personal
government, and it survives and flourishes then only when
the manipulators of one-man power confuse the public
mind with the dangerous doctrine that loyalty to an indi
vidual is synonymous with loyalty to the country. This cult
can be maintained and spread only by a constant policing of
public opinion, principally through the press.

During the past year and a half, there has been apparent
at the fountain-head of government an autocratic assump
tion of responsibility for public opinion, so that we have
come at last to the inevitable consequence — government by
organized opinion. As a result of this system the American
people today are generally in ignorance as to the conduct
of the war, which they fought and for which they paid an
extravagant price.

The lowering of the American press to idealize an indi
vidual, cloud an issue, and befog opinion, has been, from
the point of view of American institutions of liberty, the
most sinister development of the war. It has bred subser
viency, disguised failure, and has clothed incompetency
with the borrowed plumage of efficiency. Behind the wall
of secrecy and deceit reared by the agile manipulators of
public opinion throughout the war, blunders were made
without exposure, and repeated at frightful cost because of
that very lack; gold was dissipated without detection, fic
titious personages were created out of nothingness and
pigmies magnified to the stature of giants.

To understand what happened to the newspaper press of
the country after our entrance into the war it is necessary to
consider the state of public mind both before and after that
date. With the outbreak of the war in Europe American
public opinion was divided into three classes. There was
a powerful minority opinion, clear-eyed as to the funda-

796 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

mental issue that had been raised between right and wrong.
It was enlightened, militant, vigorously American, and
strongly pro-Ally. Eventually it forced a reluctant Execu
tive, of narrow horizon and limited world vision, to take
a step in 1917, after an election had been fought and won
on the platform, " He kept us out of war," that should have
been taken when the German submarines challenged our
right to use our own ocean highway.

There was, on the other hand, a noisy, unscrupulous, de
termined and abundantly-financed class that was viciously
pro-German. In this class were those who excused the rape
of Belgium, had no sympathy for France, hated England,
were indifferent to America, and were so devoid of patri
otic instincts that they openly rejoiced over the Lusitania
murders.

Between these two classes was a third, composed of per
sons who knew nothing about the issues raised by the assault
of the German people upon the peace and quiet of the
world, and cared less. These were known as " neutrals."
They inspired timid statesmanship with a ballot-box fear.

During the early stages of the war they encouraged the
openly German element in our population to acts of out
rageous defiance of the Government, and the courting of
this pacifist element, which was largely German, had for
months prevented the United States Government from tak
ing measures to get the nation into readiness for war. That
is one of the things that the manipulators of public opinion
have thus far prevented from becoming known. We had
an army — such as it was — on the Mexican border, but it
was not permitted to study those methods of modern war
that had been developed on the battlefields in France and
Flanders. We organized no staff. We had no plans for
participating in the war in Europe, which so many thought
ful men saw was inevitable. We actually waited until after
we had troops in France to invent and perfect an army shoe
suitable for service overseas. No courageous and alert
press investigated these things, and sounded a warning.

Thus we deliberately permitted to develop a situation
so dangerous, with respect to the treasonable element in our
midst, that we were brought face to face with a problem at
home as serious as that which awaited us across the water.
It was felt to be necessary to deal with it by drastic methods.
But the newspapers found themselves already shackled.

THE LYNCHING OF PUBLIC OPINION 797

They learned of dangerous things going on beneath the out
wardly placid surface, but they dared not print them. They
quietly pushed their investigations here and there, or in
formation was secretly brought to them.

It was well-nigh impossible to use facts in a way that
would have benefitted the country by speeding up the war.
The newspapers, by assisting in the lynching of public opin
ion, had created such a disordered state of mind in the
country that if they themselves had raised their voices to
full strength in protest against inefficiency they would have
been denounced as " pro-German." That fear hung over
the head of everybody. The very incompetents who should
have been shown up and thrown out sought refuge be
hind this psychological barrier. Newspapers above
all things dreaded that German propaganda charge,
and rightly. The country was so worked up that
any newspaper might have been ruined by falling
under that suspicion, however, baseless. The trouble
was that the public, that was getting its denatured
news from the Government news factories, had noth
ing upon which to base an intelligent and honest opinion.
Congress itself was all but terrorized. Statesmen feared
to criticise lest the newspapers accuse them of being pro-
German, and the newspapers halted and floundered lest
their efforts to help things along should be wrongly con
strued. How the newspaper press could escape from this
situation became the concern of some enlightened ed
itors, and an agreement by which certain newspapers, and
certain public men might aid one another in shaking off
some of the fetters was at one time almost reached.

What did much to restore and encourage, for a time at
least, freedom of speech and of the printing press, was the
courageous stand taken by Senator Chamberlain, chairman
of the Senate Military Affairs Committee, in his New York
speech, wherein he charged that in some branches the War
Department had almost ceased to function, and in the in
vestigation of the war which he conducted, and which did
so much to speed up the war. The breach between the
Oregon Senator and the head of his own party, as a result
of this patriotic boldness, served notice to others who might
wish to attempt the same thing of what they might expect
if they did.

798 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

So Congress — which had no press agent — became
dumb. It seemed to lie helpless at the feet of one
man, who gathered into his own hands all the pow
ers of press and legislature, and parcelled them out
at his pleasure to bureaus and extra-governmental
boards and commissions. These boards grew like
mushrooms. In a few months after the war had got
haltingly under way Washington had to be rebuilt to
house them, and their complexities had become so bewilder-
ingly intricate that the heads of them, unable to keep track
of what was going on, in turn passed many important func
tions over to subordinates with whose manifold activities
by the very nature of things they could not always be in
touch.

From this concentration of power in the hands of one,
which in turn necessitated the delegation of that power to
creatures of the Executive, sprang two institutions fatal to a
free printing press — the press agent, and its inevitable cor
ollary, the " official denial." Where one is, there shall the
other be found also. With Congress doing the legislating
there are five hundred public men whom the newspaper
correspondents, standing between the people and their
public servants as common carriers of information,
may see, interview, and ply with confidential questions.
When law-making passes into the hands of one man there
is but a single individual who may be seen with any degree
of authority, and no one man has the time to be a source of
news. Hence the excuse for the press agent. There had
been press agents in some of the Government departments
prior to the war. The institution was known to be
pernicious. It developed during the war into something
the like of which this country had never known before.
Hand in hand with the press agent went the " denial," for
the " denial " is as essential to Government-owned " pub
licity " as is the press agent himself. The " denial " is for
the hardy rebel who ventures out of the realms of official
fiction to invade the forbidden fields of ascertained fact.

Whether by accident or design, "publicity" in war-time
Washington developed along a new and original line. It
became a censorship that accomplished its purpose not by
starvation, but by over-feeding. The floods of publicity
poured out of the Government bureaus and boards in Wash
ington, each with its busy press agent, fairly overwhelmed

THE LYNCHING OF PUBLIC OPINION 799

the newspapers. Most of the Washington correspondents
speedily became intellectually devitalized. These scouts
and sentinels of the American people at their Capital had
for generations performed an honorable and a useful ser
vice to the country. With a few exceptions they followed
the example of Congress, surrendered to the inevitable, and
wrote what they were told, all from the loftiest of motives
and in the name of patriotism.

The capitulation of the press, I take it, was none less ab
ject and deplorable because the ideals which inspired it
were commendable. The press, meaning both publishers
and news gatherers, conceived it to be a duty to the country
to close their eyes to what was obviously going on only a
little beneath the surface. They accepted the output of the
official " news " factories and sent it broadcast, accepting
the theory that in so doing they were performing a con
scientious duty.

The reaction on the people was natural and inevitable.
Being deprived of fact they formed erroneous conclusions
upon misinformation. The lynching of public opinion was
complete and freedom of thought for the first time in Amer
ican history was about suppressed. In accord with the same
theory, Congress passed drastic laws which made the ex
pression of an honest conviction about the conduct of the
war a thing to be done with fear and trembling. Only a
few brave voices were heard here and there in the land.
To its eternal credit Congress refused to enact the drastic
censorship law which was sought, but an absolute censor
ship was not really essential, for it had been achieved in ef
fect by natural processes; while across the seas a remorse
less military censorship, controlled by the political power,
was master of every word sent by mail or cable. This cen
sorship was designed, not merely to prevent information of
value to the enemy from falling into the hands of Germany,
which was a. legitimate function of the military authority,
but to prevent information of value to the American people
from reaching the American public. This censorship
kept from the American people, at a critical time, the fail
ures made by those same incompetent officials who enforced
the censorship which protected them. During the. war pe
riod the public was treated as an infant. It was supposed,
for example, after the armistice had been signed, and the
war was over, that the American people could not stand

800 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

the truth about our battle casualties, which were shock
ingly uneconomic; and so Washington gave out that the
total losses would not exceed 100,000, at a time when it
was well known that they would go above 250,000.

This is the system, of which the corner-stone is dena
tured news, which bent professional news-gatherers, men of
a noble and highly responsible calling, to the will of in
competent or head-strong officials. It was this system which
led people to accept as an historical fact the absurd story
of a marvellous sea battle which was never fought and
made possible the Liberty Motor hoax. The Liberty motor
was in process of reconstruction and perfection for months
after that falsehood was put forth. Heaven knows how
many lives it cost, the lives of ill-trained, half-equipped,
poorly-led American soldiers, fighting hand to hand with
the trained veterans of the German armies in the dark for
ests of the Argonne, looking anxiously overhead for the
fleets of Yankee airplanes, which they had read about in
every deceived American journal, but which never came
to their aid for the most excellent reason that they were not
in existence.

What strong-arm methods were employed to keep fear
less and independent newspapers from publishing the news
of their own getting, in preference to the denatured news
thrust upon them, only time will disclose. At times the
press agents in Washington grew bold, and seeing in some
paper more fearless than the rest a displeasing item, would
write haughtily to the editor, saying, " Please make a cor
rection, and send us a copy of the paper containing it!"
Such were the arrogant methods actually applied to Ameri
can newspapers and to which American newspapers out of
sheer patriotism submitted.

The few Washington correspondents who, during the
war, revolted at the surrender of what had been a noble
profession, and who undertook to write fearlessly and
frankly the truth as they could find it in the rare undefiled
channels of news remaining open, were brow-beaten,
threatened and insulted. They would obtain confidentially
from one member of the Cabinet information of importance
to the country, only to have its publication denounced by
another who did not know the facts.

In consequence of this the Washington correspondents
during the war steadily declined in morale. Their environ-

THE LYNCHING OF PUBLIC OPINION 801

ment was too much for them. From diligently searching
for the truth alone they came to hunt, not merely in couples,
but in flocks and droves. Their conferences with responsi
ble heads of Government departments degenerated into
farces. Their vision being restricted by reason of the fact
that they had nothing to go upon except the doctored news
which was their daily mental diet, their inquiries of these
public servants rarely rose above the trivial. The corre
spondents who had once been proud of their profession
lost that pride, and all but lost their self-respect.

Although Congress some years before, in recognition of
the growing peril of the Government press agent, had in
cluded in an appropriation bill a clause to prevent the use
of any of the money thus appropriated from being ex
pended on fabricated news (an act of Congress never ef
fective), the official press agent flourished as though ex
pressly authorized by the law-making body. The situation
became so bad in Washington, especially during the war pe
riod, that every little minor official had a press agent of his
own, to serve his own selfish ends and enhance his own
prestige. In some departments responsible officials were
prohibited from making public any information, even of a
routine and trivial character, except through the medium
of the press agent. Thus the distribution of news — the
property of the people — was controlled by the few, and in
formation, to which the taxpayers were entitled, because
they were paying for the up-keep of the Government agen
cies which were creating it by their official acts, was col
ored and distorted at its source of origin. Even press as
sociations " handled " this official stuff and would send out
to the country over their own wires, to their clients, official
agents' statements so used as to indicate their own responsi
bility for the " news " contained therein.

The surrender of Congress with the coming of war
speedily resulted in Senators and Congressmen themselves
becoming as ignorant of what was going on as anyone else.
The only real source of news was an inaccessible figure who
terminated his intercourse with newspaper men shortly
after proclaiming the policy of " pitiless publicity," and
who did not resume those relations, which had long existed
between the correspondents and the President, until he re
turned from Paris to find Congress and the country in an
uproar over the League of Nations.
VOL. ccix. — NO. 763 51

802 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

The White House conference upon that subject between
the President and members of the Congressional Commit
tees on Foreign Affairs was of transcendent news value, and
the correspondents, deprived of opportunity to learn from
the President what had occurred, were compelled to ob
tain that information elsewhere, piecemeal. The New
York Sun's frank exposure of what happened at the famous
dinner, especially with respect to the absorbing topic of
Ireland and the League of Nations, was a public service of
high order. The Sun's exposure also focused attention
upon the " official denial," which it was the means of bril
liantly illuminating.

The wide publicity that is being given to Mr. Taft's ad
vocacy of the League of Nations, through recognized inde
pendent news channels, is a case in point. Mr. Taft, al
though long a private citizen, is enjoying today in advo
cacy of the President's programme, a wider use of the news
paper columns than he could obtain, except in interviews
and signed statements, when he was President of the
United States and a candidate for re-election.

President Roosevelt looked upon the Fourth Estate as
the eyes of the people. He made use of the Washington
correspondents in preparing public opinion for the adop
tion of his progressive policies, but in doing this, like the
master of men that he was, he did not degrade the writers —
he lifted them up. There was a decided intellectual
renaissance in Washington journalism under Roosevelt.
The newspaper men of Washington were richer for their
contact with Theodore Roosevelt, although many news
paper men cordially hated him and were slow to acknowl
edge the debt they owed him. The newspaper men of
Washington are the poorer for President Wilson, who has
given them nothing.

GEORGE ROTHWELL BROWN.

THE STRATEGY ON THE WESTERN

FRONT.-V

BY LIEUTENANT COLONEL H. H. SARGENT, U. S. ARMY, RETIRED

BEFORE proceeding to a further analysis of the strategy
of the operations on the Western Front, a brief reference
to the numbers of the opposing armies will not be out of
place.

On March 21, 1918, the fighting strength of the Ger
mans probably outnumbered that of the Allies by about
three hundred thousand men; but as the weeks and months
went by and more and more American troops were made
ready and brought into the firing line, this inequality be
tween them was overcome; and by July 18, 1918, when
Foch began his great counter-offensive, the fighting
strength of the Allies on the Western Front probably ex
ceeded that of the Germans as much as that of the Ger
mans had exceeded that of the Allies on March 21.

But it should be constantly borne in mind that a pre
ponderance of fighting forces on either side was not neces
sary to the carrying out of Napoleon's principle of bring
ing superior forces against the enemy at the point of at
tack; for by surprise, or by swifter concentration, or by
greater skill in maneuvering, an expert commander will
not infrequently be able to accomplish this, regardless of
whether his own or his adversary's forces are numerically
superior within the theater of operations.

Right here, perhaps, is a good place for pointing out
the fact that during more than four years of fierce and
bloody fighting on the Western Front, the constant pur
pose of the commanding generals on both sides, whether
they aimed a blow at some weak point of the enemy's line,
or struck fiercely at the bases of his salients, or attempted
to break through his line on a wide front and resume a war
of movement, was to bring outnumbering and greatly su-

804 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

perior forces upon their chosen objectives, the immediate
battlefields.

After a week's bitter fighting the onrush of the Ger
mans in their great thrust towards Amiens, which began
on March 21, 1918, was finally checked by the French re
serves who were hurried to that front mainly from Cham
pagne; and the first day after General Foch assumed su
preme command of the Allied armies, he announced that
Amiens was safe.1

Then, after a pause of eleven days, the Germans, on
April 9, 1918, began their great thrust south of Ypres; and
it was continued with hard fighting and varying success
until their final effort on April 29, which, resulting in ex
tremely heavy losses, caused them to abandon their at
tempts to break through the British line on that front. As
at Amiens, so at Ypres, it was the arrival of the French
reserves that turned the scale in favor of the British and
enabled them to stop the Germans.

From April 29 to May 27, the Germans again paused
in their efforts, in order to prepare for their third great
thrust. The question was where would they strike?
Would it be on the west side of the angular front some
where between Montdidier and Ypres? or on the south
side somewhere between Noyon and Verdun? There
were several reasons why they would choose, and did
choose, to strike on the south side :

First: The French reserves were along the west side,
some as far north as Ypres, but mainly concentrated about
Amiens, covering the point of junction of the British and
French armies ; and were being held there.

Second: The fact that the reserves were being held on
the west side indicated that the French and British com
manders expected the next attack on that side and were
prepared for it.

Third: By making their break through on the south
side and extending it between Paris and Nancy and be
yond, they would not only separate the French right wing
occupying Verdun and the line of the Vosges from the
French left wing in front and northeast of Paris, but would
sever the communications of the French right wing and
be in an advantageous position to force its capture or de
struction. Moreover, such a thrust as this would threaten

1 Frank H. Simonds in Review of Reviews, June, 1918, p. 593.

STRATEGY ON THE WESTERN FRONT 805

the communications of the American forces between their
camps south of the St. Mihiel salient and their ports of
debarkation on the west and south coasts of France; and
make it very difficult for them to fall back without aban
doning a good part of the great collection of munitions
and supplies which they had accumulated in that vicinity.

Thus we see that while a break through on either front
would have given the Germans the opportunity to carry
out that principle of strategy of defeating separately the
divided forces of the enemy, by holding one with a contain
ing force while they massed superior numbers against the
other and crushed or captured it, and then concentrated
their whole strength on the remaining force, it was only
on the south front that the Germans could also at the same
time carry out that other great principle of strategy of
striking at the communications of the enemy without ex
posing their own to his attack.

Accordingly, on May 27, 1918, the Germans began
their third great thrust against the Allied line on a front
of about thirty miles, from the point where it crossed the
Aisne, some ten or twelve miles north of Reims, to the
point where it crossed the Soissons-Laon Railway, about
seven miles northeast of Soissons.

The attack on this front was a great surprise to the Al
lies; and for awhile was remarkably successful. The
French were literally swept from the Chemin-des-Dames,
forced over the Aisne, and thence across the Vesle. Four
French divisions were practically annihilated; and the
British troops north of Reims, having their flank uncov
ered, were forced back towards that city. This practically
left the way open to a further advance; and the Germans,
taking immediate advantage of it, rushed forward almost
unopposed. It was a serious time for General Foch ; for
he had only the wreck of the four French divisions and
such local reserves as he could collect to stay the German
advance.

The onrush continued for about a week. The Germans
took Soissons, got possession of the Soissons-Chateau Thi
erry Railway, pushed south to Chateau Thierry and
the north bank of the Marne, and even succeeded in cut
ting the Paris-Chateau Thierry-Chalons-Verdun Railway,

806 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

one of the important lines of communication of the French
right wing with Paris.

But at Chateau Thierry and along the Marne they
were finally checked by the French and American
reserves that were rushed to the threatened front from
other sections of the Allied line. Here at the bridge which
crosses the Marne opposite Chateau Thierry, at Boursches,
and in Belleau Wood, and at Vaux, the Third and Second
American Divisions, by their superb fighting, helped to
bring the extreme German advance to a standstill and
gained for themselves an imperishable fame. Already the
First American Division had distinguished itself by cap
turing Cantigny, near Montdidier, on May 28, the day fol
lowing the beginning of this great thrust.

On the whole, this thrust was a success for the Germans.
They had pushed back the Allied line a distance of thirty
miles at its farthest point. But it was not the complete
success that they had hoped for, since it was stopped be
fore they broke completely through the line and resumed
a war of movement. And what was of the utmost impor
tance to the Allies was that the Germans did not succeed
in pushing back the Allied line more than four or five
miles westward of Soissons ; or succeed in taking Reims or
even the high ground about that city. As a consequence,
they were left in possession of the long, narrow, dangerous
Chateau Thierry salient. But it was not alone this salient
that gave them concern. The Amiens salient was also
long, narrow, and dangerous. Both were extremely vul
nerable. Both offered the Allies a splendid opportunity
for striking the Germans a telling blow.

In this precarious and dangerous situation the Germans
saw that they must attempt to widen the bases of these two
narrow salients and render them less vulnerable and dan
gerous before making any further attempt to break through
on the south side. This could best be done by an attack in
force from the Noyon-Montdidier section on the west side
of the Oise River towards Compiegne ; for, should this ob
jective be reached, it would force the French to withdraw
from the high ground and woods in the narrow salient,
Compiegne-Noyon-Soissons, in the angle between the Oise
and Aisne Rivers, and practically obliterate the Amiens
and Chateau Thierry salients. Or, to speak more accu
rately, such an attack, if successful, would entirely oblit-

STRATEGY ON THE WESTERN FRONT 807

erate the Amiens salient and change the narrow Chateau
Thierry salient into a much larger, broader, and less vul
nerable one, whose general outline would run from Mont-
didier through Compiegne to Chateau Thierry on one side,
and from Chateau Thierry to Reims on the other.

On June 9, 1918, just two weeks from the day the Ger
mans began their thrust on Chateau Thierry, they struck
with great force on the Noyon-Montdidier front. But the
Allies were not surprised as they had been on May 27.
Expecting the attack, they had reserves near at hand to
meet it. Nevertheless, by desperate fighting and through
the sacrifice of many men, the Germans met with some
success. They drove the French from the environs of
Noyon some five or six miles down the valley on the west
side of the Oise ; and this advance, by threatening the com
munications of the French on the east side of the river,
made it necessary for them also to retire down the stream.
But despite their most strenuous efforts the Germans failed
to reach their objective. On June 13 they were still mak
ing slight advances here and there in the face of enormous
losses; but by June 15 the fourth great German thrust had
been practically brought to a halt, with the German ad
vance lines still some six miles from Compiegne.

The total outcome of these seven days7 fierce fighting
was that the Germans had advanced their lines five or six
miles between the two salients and had gained some valu
able ground, but had fallen far short of reaching their ob
jective; nevertheless, the advance in this portion of their
front was of great importance to them, since it consider
ably widened the bases and diminished the vulnerability
of the Amiens and Chateau Thierry salients.

Then there followed a pause of a month, in which the
Germans prepared for their fifth great thrust, and the Al
lies were content to remain on the defensive, since every
day's delay was adding, on an average, from seven to eight
thousand men to the strength of the American Army in
France.

There was no change in the general strategical situa
tion. To break through the south front, push through be
tween Paris and Nancy and sever the communications
of the French right wing occupying the line of the Vosges,
was still strategically the best plan, as it had been from
the first. And since the German advance on Chateau

808 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Thierry had created a French salient — although a broad
one — with Reims as its apex, this was an additional reason
for striking on this front; for it was evident to all that
should the Germans break through between Reims and the
Argonne Forest on one side of this salient, and between
Reims and Chateau Thierry on the other side, they would
cut or threaten the communications of the troops occupy
ing it and force their capture or retirement. Moreover,
such an attack would at the same time greatly widen the
Chateau Thierry salient and make it much less vulnerable
to an Allied attack.

Then again, with the French holding Reims, Foch
could launch a counter attack from that city northward
and westward and cut the roads and railways so vital to
the existence of the German troops occupying the Chateau
Thierry salient. A thrust northward to the Aisne would
cut the Soissons-Neufchatel-Rethel-Mezieres Railway; a
thrust westward to Fismes would cut the Chateau Thierry-
Fismes Railway.

These reasons, evidently, were patent to the Allies; for
they were expecting the Germans to make the thrust along
these very lines ; and, consequently, it did not take them by
surprise as did the great thrust of May 27 on Chateau
Thierry. Of equal importance, also, was the fact that the
month's delay had given Foch time to prepare to meet the
attack.

On July IS, 1918, the Germans launched their fifth and
last great thrust against the Allied line on a front of about
seventy-five miles, extending from the western edge of the
Argonne Forest on their left, past Reims, to Chateau
Thierry on their right; and as the action developed the
front was extended northward from Chateau Thierry some
twenty-«five miles to Soissons.

From the start the Germans made but little headway
between the Argonne Forest and Reims. General Gouraud
who commanded this portion of the French line had as
certained only a few days previously just when the Ger
mans would begin their attack, and he made his disposi
tions so skilfully to meet it that a good part of the German
army in his front was practically annihilated. In repuls
ing the attack he was ably assisted by the Forty-second
American Division which fought with great valor near
Perthes.

STRATEGY ON THE WESTERN FRONT 809

Still, near the Reims salient on its east side, the Ger
mans made a little advance. Here they captured Monron-
villiers Heights; and, in the earlier rushes, even succeeded
in reaching Prunay and in cutting the Reims-Chalons Rail
way at this point; but the French, realizing the impor
tance of holding this line of railway, strongly counter at
tacked and retook the town. However, the Germans in
this vicinity held most of their gains, their line having
been advanced some three or four miles southwestward in
the direction of Epernay; and this was of the utmost im
portance to them, since it was a thrust into the very base
of the Reims salient.

Between Chateau Thierry and Reims the Germans
made a better beginning. On the whole Marne front, they
forced the crossing of the river, driving back the French,
and a considerable American contingent of the Third Di
vision which was on outpost duty a few miles east of
Chateau Thierry. But the Americans by a brilliant series
of counter attacks at Mezy and at the mouth of the Sur-
melin drove back the enemy and finally succeeded in re
establishing their line in their immediate front.1

But the Germans, despite these reverses and in the face
of spirited French attacks, held their position on the south
side of the Marne for five or six miles on either side of
Dormans and began slowly to push forward up the valley
of the Marne on a front of about twelve miles; and, by
the evening of July 17, their advance was within eight
miles of Epernay and extended northward to the western
edge of the Mountain of Reims, just north of Epernay.

The situation had reached a critical period. Although
the Germans had been successfully checked throughout a
good portion of their long battle front, they had, by mass
ing superior forces and making stupendous efforts on each
side of the base of the Reims salient, met with consider
able success. And it is evident that if they could have
pushed forward a few miles farther up the Marne Val
ley, captured Epernay, and seized the Mountain of Reims,
they would have gained possession of a considerable part
of the Epernay-Reims Railway, which would have forced
the Allies to withdraw immediately from the Reims sal-

1 " It was on this occasion," says General Pershlng in his report to the Secretary of
War, " that a single regiment of the Third wrote one of the most brilliant pages in our
military annals."

810 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

ient over the Reims-Chalons Railway; and this would have
been attended with great difficulties, since the German
line was very close to the railway in the vicinity of Prunay.

Then, a further advance of the Germans southward
from the Argonne Forest-Reims front, and southeastward
from the Epernay-Reims front up the Marne Valley to
and beyond Chalons, would have severed or threatened
the communications of the Allied troops occupying the
Argonne Forest and the great Verdun salient and forced
them either to surrender or retire. These operations, it
is readily seen, would have wiped out the vulnerable Ger
man salients of Chateau Thierry and St. Mihiel and left
the Germans in a most favorable position for taking in re
verse the Allied troops occupying the line of the Vosges.
Thus, Germany's original intention of turning the Vosges
and the French fortresses along that front would have been
accomplished; not by the south, but by the north; not by
passing through the Belfort gap, but by ironing out the
Reims and Verdun salients.

Here, then, was the turning point of this great battle;
for one more successf uL push up the valley of the Marne
to Epernay would have changed the whole conduct of the
campaign and most probably have produced astounding
results.

Strategically and psychologically the time had arrived
for Foch to strike.

First: Because there was every indication, every prob
ability, that there would be left no vulnerable German
salients to attack, should he delay a few days longer.

Second: Because the Germans in their fifth great
thrust, although partially successful, had met with great
discouragement and terrible losses. It was evident that
they could no longer expect, even with a month's prepara
tion, to break through the Allied line on an extended front
and advance some thirty or thirty-five miles into the en
emy's territory as they had done on March 21 and on May
27. And to win the war required them to do even more
than this; for unless they could eventually break through
the Allied line and resume a war of movement, there was
no hope of final success.

Third: Because the French had been greatly encour
aged by the fact that along the entire fighting line they had

L STRATEGY ON THE WESTERN FRONT 811

been able, with the assistance of the Americans, to hold
the Germans in their original positions, or to check them
in the few places where they had bent in the Allied line.
After months of falling back, after years of defensive fight
ing, to be able to check the onrush of the Germans in one
of their great thrusts, and to take the offensive here and
there and force them back, force them to retire, brought
encouragement to every French heart and raised the spirits
of the entire French army.

Fourth: Because the American troops, wherever em
ployed in the fighting, had demonstrated their fitness and
bravery. At Cantigny, at Chateau Thierry, at Boursches,
in Belleau Wood, at Vaux, at Perthes, at Mezy and the
mouth of the Surmelin, they had fought with extraor
dinary dash, determination, and courage. They were no
longer untried troops. Foch knew from the way they had
fought that they could be depended upon, that he could
put them into the front line beside the veteran and indom
itable French troops, and that they would not fail him.
Young, enthusiastic, energetic, brave, and with their very
souls yearning for the fray, there was no task too difficult
for them, no veteran German troops whom they feared to
face.

Just how General Foch, at this very crisis of the war,
took advantage of the situation to strike the blow which
stopped completely the onrush of the Germans and soon
turned the tide of battle against them along their whole
far-flung battleline will be described in our next article.

But before closing the discussion it will be instructive
and interesting to inquire, what would most probably have
been the outcome, had the Germans, as herein suppo-
sitiously described, been able to push south between Paris
and Nancy and take the French and Americans in reverse
along the line of the Vosges? There are two contingencies
that might have arisen.

First: The Germans might have pushed far enough
south to sever not only the communications of the French
with Paris, but also the communications of the Americans
with their ports of debarkation at St. Nazaire, La Ro-
chelle, and Bordeaux on the west coast of France and at
Marseilles on the south coast; in which case neither the
French right wing nor the American army could have es
caped capture; for with their supplies cut off, and a Ger-

812

THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

man army closing in on their rear, while another was
pressing them closely on their original front, there would
have been no alternative but to surrender.

Had these events taken place, substantially as here out
lined, — and it requires no stretch of the imagination to see
that they could easily have happened — they might have
led to the speedy ending of the war in Germany's favor;
for with the greater part of the American army and a con
siderable part of the French army out of the fighting, the
German armies in eastern France, with new communica-
tio'ns established directly across the Vosges into South Ger
many, could have safely pushed forward and enveloped
Paris and the French army defending it.

Second: The French and Americans along the Vosges
from Verdun to Belfort might have seen sufficiently early
the danger of losing their communications and have at
tempted a retirement to avoid the disaster which would
have inevitably resulted from their loss. But with the
Germans pushing south from Epernay and Chalons upon
Troyes and Chaumont, this retirement along the roads and
railways to Paris and the American ports of debarkation
on the west coast of France would have been directly across
the front of the German advance, which would have ex
posed them to a flank attack and compelled them to form
front to a flank,1 one of the most dangerous positions for

*An army forms front to
a flank when it operates on
a front parallel to the line
communicating with its
base.

To illustrate the danger
of fighting a battle in this
position: Suppose an army
AB is marching south per
pendicular to its communi
cations ab, and the opposing
army, which is marching
west along its communica
tions c.d., is forced to form
front to a flank, CD, and
engage AB in battle. Now
it is evident that a single
defeat of CD by AB would
drive CD from its com
munications and disaster
would follow; whereas, if
AB is defeated by CD, AB
can fall back and fight
again and again, without
any chance of losing its
communications.

t

STRATEGY ON THE WESTERN FRONT 813

an army when it fights a battle. " Nothing," says Napo
leon, " is so rash or contrary to principle as to make a flank
march before an army in position." l

But let us take the most favorable view of the case for
the Allies, and suppose that the retirement of their right
wing could have been made past the front of the German
army without any great loss or disaster, what would have
been the outcome? Evidently the French and Americans
of the Allied right wing could then have formed battle
line, * extending, say, approximately southward from
Chateau Thierry to the Seine and thence along the upper
stretches of that river toward Dijon, which would have
covered directly their communications with Paris and
the ports of American debarkation on the western coast of
France, and which would have put a stop to any German
envelopment of the Allied right wing and enabled the
French and Americans to make a prolonged resistance;
for, unless some unforeseen or unusual disaster had over
taken them, they could hardly have been conquered with
out first being driven entirely across North Central France
to the ports of American debarkation.

But before leaving this phase of the discussion, there
is another point worthy of attention. It will be remem
bered that one of the ports of debarkation for American
troops was Marseilles, and that the line of railway running
thence to the American Headquarters at Chaumont was
an almost due north and south line ; so that, had the Ger
man advance been such as to prevent the French and Amer
icans from falling back towards Paris and the western
coast of France, they might have retired towards Mar
seilles.

The establishment of Marseilles for a point of debar
kation and an American base of operations may be looked
upon, strategically, as a measure of safety taken against
the worst that might have happened; since it is evident
that, had Paris been taken and a large part of the French
and English armies been cut off and captured, the Ameri
can army, reinforced by a good part of the right wing of
the French army, might have been able to fall back slowly
along the railways towards its base of operations at Mar
seilles and, by fighting defensive and delaying battles,

1 Napoleon's Maxims of War, p. 66.

814 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

have become a rallying point for all Allied troops that
were able to escape capture or to free themselves from the
clutch of the German armies in Northern France. And,
perhaps, by this means, the Allies might have been able
eventually to turn the tide of battle; for the uncertainty
of war is proverbial, and so long as an army can maintain
its communications and obtain food, ammunition, and
equipments there is hope.

It is not the purpose here to carry this discussion
further, however interesting it might be to point out some
of the strategical problems that would have arisen had it
been necessary for the Allies to take this course, but simply
to say that the selection of Marseilles for a point of de
barkation and an American base of operations was a wise
choice; because no one could foresee what turn the cam
paign might take; and because it is always wise to con
sider all contingencies and provide for the worst. " In
forming the plan of a campaign," says Napoleon, " it is
requisite to foresee everything the enemy may do, and to
be prepared with the necessary means to counteract it."1
Again he says : " Reserve to yourself every possible chance
of success."2

1 Napoleon's Maxims of War, p. 6.
1 Napoleon's Mawims of War, p. 68.

(To be continued)

SHALL THE LONG COLLEGE
VACATION BE ABOLISHED?

BY ELMER ELLSWORTH BROWN

CHANCELLOR, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY

PERHAPS none of us in our college days understood the
purpose — if there was a purpose — in the long vacation, the
general abolition of which American educators are now
considering seriously. Students merely followed the habit
of students in this play time, which then began, as it still
begins in many educational institutions, in the latter half
of June and continued until the last week in September,
accustoming themselves to a life wholly different from that
spent in the college term.

It is not on record, I believe, that students have pro
tested against the long vacation with any marked degree
of vehemence. The beneficiaries have merely accepted it
as a mysterious dispensation, which they have received with
due gratitude.

One of the earlier conditions affecting the college year
in this country was the general disposition to relax every
other general activity in the Summer and early Fall months
so that labor could be concentrated on the cultivation and
harvesting of the crops. When cities and towns were small
and our population was overwhelmingly agricultural, when
man-power was often inadequate for gathering the
abundant yields of a soil of almost virgin richness, the sons
of farmers and planters were urgently needed at home
in summer. Even the wealthiest did their share in the
work upon which the success of large farming operations
largely depended.

Those elemental conditions of America-in-the-making
are gone, and with them is gone much of the argument
which then might have been held to justify the long college
vacation. The sons of farmers form a much smaller pro
portion of our student population than they once did. In

815 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

increasing numbers the sons of the poor from the industrial
masses of the cities are crowding to the halls of education,
especially since the colleges have added technical instruc
tion, business preparation, and many other forms of direct
training for daily remunerative work to the old standard
courses.

There is another large and doubtless growing class in
all of our older colleges. This is the class of rich or well-
to-do youth, city-bred, who accept college life as a social
tradition, and welcome the long vacation for recreational
and social purposes. This class has been moved to a deeper
seriousness by the war. A great proportion of them enlisted
as soon as possible after war was declared. They have met
its danger, discipline, and privation in the finest spirit.
And they will not readily go back to a life of leisurely tri
viality.

The war has indeed opened the way for a general
decision on the abolition of the long vacation; it has
practically forced this question upon us with a demand for
a " yes " or " no." It has produced a chain of developments
which began with the acceptance by a number of engineer
ing schools — the School of Applied Science of New York
University was the first of the number — of contracts with
the War Department to give a course of two months of in
tensive training to the so-called vocational army student.
These men, selected from those summoned in the first draft,
received instruction in the details of technical army service,
such as radio work, concrete construction, and the use of
machinery, so that at the end of the required period of
preparation they were able to do specialized tasks involved
in military operations. At the close of the first two months,
a new group was sent to us by the War Department, and
thus we came to possess a unit of students whose cycle
kept part of the university organization going forward on
the basis of a year divided into short terms of swift and
vigorous training without intervening vacations.

There followed the establishment of the Students' Army
Training Corps, which caused a number of institutions to
change definitely to a twelve-months7 schedule for the col
lege year. The students of this corps, being regularly en
listed in the army, could no more take vacations than their
brethren fighting in France, whom they hoped soon to
join.

SHALL THE LONG VACATION BE ABOLISHED? 817

The signing of the armistice only a little more than
two months after the Students' Army Training Corps was
instituted in the universities and colleges, and the subse
quent disbanding of this corps, forced us to establish a
status for the large number of young men released from
national service who wished to return to their studies on
January 1st. At New York University we adjusted
this situation by allowing credits for studies pursued by the
members of the corps while it was in existence, and also
by extending the period of instruction in the present uni
versity year to September 1, in order that students enter
ing on January 1 might complete the work of their classes
for the session and enter the next higher classes at the be
ginning of the session of 1919-1920.

Thus we are actually on a temporary twelve-months'
basis by force of circumstances; and a committee of our
faculty is considering the question whether we shall con
tinue on that basis for an indefinite period.

What are the considerations that move American
educators to contemplate the possibility of dispensing
permanently with the long vacation, as a few institutions
in the West have already done?

One of these, which is admitted by all to be of high
importance, is the fact that under the proposed arrange
ment the great plants of our leading educational institutions
will be fully utilized for the benefit of the public. These
plants represent an expenditure of millions of dollars by
the principal American institutions of higher education.
They include buildings amply equipped with apparatus
for scientific work and study and immense libraries, as well
as large bodies of men trained for instruction.

The war has caused us to realize more vividly the
value of these things in public service, although there was
by no means any lack of endeavor to use them for such
service before the war. We have, however, come to un
derstand better the place in the structure of our nation
which universities and colleges occupy as direct adjuncts
of the Government.

Hitherto, in most of our educational institutions these
plants have been idle approximately one-fourth or one-
third of each year. There is the same reason for making
continuous use of them as is urged for the use of public
school buildings at night and during the vacation season,
VOL. ccix.— NO. 763 52

818 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

for the benefit of the communities in which they exist and
from which they draw their support. A trace of the sense
of this necessity has been shown in past years in the increas
ing development of summer schools at the universities, in
which teachers and others who are not able to attend the
regular sessions have found a means of adding to their
educational equipment

An argument tending in the same direction is that where
students are enabled to compress their university work into
a shorter period, there will not be so much delay to many
of them in beginning their life occupations. The prepara
tion now required of a professional man rarely enables
him to start the real work of his profession below the age
of twenty-five years, if his educational equipment is at all
thorough. After his four years in college he must spend
three or four years in the professional school, if he goes to
one of the schools having the highest requirements, and the
tendency is to lengthen this last-named period.

By means of the four-term college year, each term
consisting of three months, it will be possible to graduate
students in three years instead of four, with precisely the
same degree of thoroughness in preparation, provided they
can stand the strain or continuous study. This saving of
time is a vital concern to young men of scanty means, who
wish to prepare themselves for scientific and professional
careers. Students of this class are now attending our uni
versities in great numbers and would welcome the oppor
tunity of gaining the full number of months of preparation
within a less number of years. For them, university life is
a period of intense work, on which they are concentrating
all of their resources and energies, and they cannot afford
long, vacant periods in which time goes forward while
their course of training is at a stand-still.

It is further urged in behalf of the four-term univer
sity year that students will do better work if their studies
are not interrupted for long periods in the summer, when
they forget a good part of what they have learned during
the previous eight or nine months. There is no doubt that
students " get rusty " during each long vacation and return
to college in that condition.

Objection to the four-term session is based to a great
extent upon the belief that intellectual processes cannot be
forced. It is asserted that students whose application is

SHALL THE LONG VACATION BE ABOLISHED? 819

almost continuous will lose the mental elasticity which is
vital if a maximum benefit is to be derived from their train
ing. They may go " stale," like over-trained athletes.

The same argument applies to the professors. If almost
their entire time is spent in the strenuous duties of oversight
and instruction of students, they will not have the intervals
for research of which they customarily make such excellent
use. It is supposed, too, that just as during the summer
term the interest of the student body will fall below normal,
there will perhaps be a similar decline in the interest of
their instructors.

A third point is a question of administration. It might
be difficult to adjust the extensive and complex organization
of one of our greater universities to the conditions of a
summer term, and a considerable increase of expense would
be involved.

At the same time it should be understood that the
work of universities and colleges under the four-term
session will be by no means lacking in opportunities for rest
and recreation. It is planned that, at the end of each term
of twelve weeks, the thirteenth week shall be an interlude
of rest. This would amount to a total of four weeks' rest
in the course of the year, besides the incidental holidays at
Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter. The mature young
men who form the bulk of our university and college student
body might be found to be amply satisfied with this ar
rangement.

Whatever may be the general decision of our universities
and colleges as to putting this programme, or something
like it, definitely into operation, I believe that American
educators generally have received a stimulus from war
conditions which will result in a more thrifty and less
wasteful use of these great establishments for the instruction
of youth. They have been developed by the public and
private liberality of our people, and they are to be made
to yield a larger return in public service.

ELMER ELLSWORTH BROWN.

IN MEMORY OF AN AMERICAN
SOLDIER

FALLEN IN FRANCE IN THE GLORIOUS YEAR 1918
BY FLORENCE EARLE COATES

He went singing down to death;

And the high Gods, who heard him,
Gave something of their breath

To the melodies that stirred him;
Lending some accents to his dying song
That only to abiding things belong.

His boyish heart had laughed
For joy of life's completeness —

Life had so brimmed the draught
It held for him with sweetness;

But when, unlocked for, came the suppliant cry

From tortured Lands, he put the full cup by.

Happy whose soul has wings
And has the strength to spread them !

Happy whose heart still brings

Its dreams where truth first led them!

Though he give all, his fellow men to save,

He has a tryst with Life, beyond the grave !

Blithely he took the path

Appointed him by Duty,
Whose face, viewed nearer, hath

Such deeps undreamed of beauty, —
Love, hope, ambition — he put all aside,
And for the things that do not perish, died.

Soul, was it tragedy to fall like this?
Oh, lovely, lovely, Ipvely, courage is !

And death itself may be most sweet,
Though the lips thirst, and empty be the cup,
If won in climbing — climbing up — and up,

To heights where vision and fulfilment meet :
If won at last, by deeds that glorify
Our lowly dust, where 'neath an alien sky,
Their service un forgot,
They sleep who, loving greatly, faltered not, —

The happy brave, who never knew defeat!

A VOLUNTEER'S GRAVE

BY WILLIAM ALEXANDER PERCY

NOT long ago, it was a bird

In vacant lilac skies
Could stir the sleep that hardly closed

His laughing eyes.

But here where murdering thunders rock

The lintels of the dawn,
Altho they shake his shallow bed,

Yet he sleeps on.

Another spring with rain and leaf

And buds serenely red,
And this field will have forgot

Its youthful dead.

And, wise of heart, who loved him best

Will be forgetting, too,
Even before their own beds gleam

With heedless dew.

Yet what have all the centuries

Of purpose, pain, and joy
Bequeathed us lovelier to recall

Than this dead boy?

THE PATH TO PEACE

BY CHARLES KELSEY GAINES

THE roads whose goal is peace, now as of yore,
Are trodden first by armies, and they lead
Athwart the field of battle; where the roar
Of cannon calls the reapers; and the seed
Which in the harvest yields the richest meed
Is watered by the life-blood of the sower.
The plough c@mes last; the axe still goes before.

POETS IN THE WAR

BY L. B. GILLET

THE war has stirred the world into poetry. As early as
the fall of 1917 Mr. Gosse pointed out that more than five
hundred volumes of original verse had been published since
the beginning of the war, and the number must be double
or treble that now. The output of war verse in Germany
by civilians alone is reported to be upwards of a million
pieces! This year's unprecedently large Christmas sales
in books of poetry indicate the response of the readers.
Do we really care more for poetry? Is the quality of the
current poetry better? Or is it mere curiosity to see what
the poetry of war can be like?

There would seem slim chance enough for poetry in a
business in which man's chief object is to kill his fellow.
In warfare itself, especially as it is conducted in modern
times with all the refinements of invention for assuring the
end of the enemy, if not of the race, and for minimizing
to the uttermost the self-respect and glory of the individual
fighter, even a born poet could find no inspiration. Experi
ence of it has turned life black for many a poor lad, and
sapped the very springs of joy. And the greater and more
distinctive part of this verse has been written not by the on
lookers but by the soldiers themselves. In this circumstance
lies its chief significance. Four years' trial of it has tended
to make their presentation more and more uncompromis
ingly realistic. Many a poet who started with the vision
of aspiration has ended with the lampblack and lightening
of grim reality. The glamor of war is from henceforth
utterly dispelled.

And yet the war has meant the regeneration of all the
nations that have taken part in it. Mr. Masefield said last
year:

I know what England was, before the war. She was a nation
which had outgrown her machine, a nation which had forgotten her

POETS IN THE WAR 823

soul, a nation which had destroyed Jerusalem among her dark Satanic
mills.

And then, at a day's notice, at the blowing of a horn, at the cry
from a little people in distress, all that was changed, and she remade
her machine, and she remembered her soul, . . . and she cried, " I will
rebuild Jerusalem in this green and pleasant land or die in the at
tempt."

. . . This was due to something kindling and alive in the nation's
soul.

And this was but a reflection in large of what was going
on among the individual soldiers. For as go the individu
als, so go the nations. To lose self in working together for
a great common end, to find a cause to dedicate oneself to
large enough to satisfy even the most ambitious, to expend
one's whole energy in standing up for others and laboring
out their good, that was to truly live, that was to find one's
soul. In this rediscovery of soul through the war is the true
well-spring of its poetry.

Mr. Arthur Waugh, in a masterly article in the Quar
terly for October, 1918, summarizes the spiritual evolution
reflected in the course of this poetry as follows :

Springing from various and diverse temperaments, these poems
illustrate in turn the honest soldier's fear of fear, his pilgrimage from
self-consciousness to altruism, his absorption into the machinery of
the war, and his gradual appreciation of the complex machinery as a
collection of human characters, each individual and all interacting,
combining at last into a unity in which self is merged absolutely in a
sense of common purpose and general obligation.

That states very nicely the effect of the development
evidenced in this poetry taken as a whole. But the most in
teresting thing of all is what it reveals about the men them
selves.

Many of these poets were very young when they fell,
and their verse, as one of their sympathetic readers re
marked, is like a blossom just opening to the light. Among
such perhaps young Captain Sorley is the shining example.
Apparently even in his schooldays Sorley had an almost
Rooseveltian enthusiasm for action as his Call to Action
shows. His Expectans Expectavi has a deeper note. It is
one of the simplest, manliest of the war poems of self-dedi
cation. Sorley has written, too, in loving reminiscence of
the country about Marlborough where he went to school.
That was the land of his heart's desire. These poems of his
are representative of quite a large number by others in

824 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

which longing transfigures the beauty of the country of
home. Sorley's Sonnet to Germany is distinguished by its
broad-minded and charitable attitude toward the enemy,
not seldom appearing in this poetry, but perhaps the more
remarkable in one so young.

You are blind like us. Your hurt no man designed,
And no man claimed the conquest of your land.
But, gropers both through fields of thought confined,
We stumble and we do not understand.
You only saw your future bigly planned,
And we, the tapering paths of our own mind,
And in each other's ways we stand,
And hiss and hate. And the blind fight the blind.

When it is peace, then we may view again
With new-won eyes each other's truer form,
And wonder. Grown more loving-kind and warm,
>' We'll grasp firm hands and laugh at the old pain,

When it is peace. But until peace, the storm,
The darkness, and the thunder and the rain.

Unless exception be made in favor of Robert Hillyer,
who has himself served in a double capacity in the war but
whose very beautiful sonnets do not directly concern it, and
of Sergeant Joyce Kilmer, the attractiveness and nobility of
whose life found but one of its many expressions in a hand
ful of fine poems, Alan Seeger seems the only true poet
America has produced in this war. Seeger had a spirit
singularly intense, intrepid, and a little terrible, because of
certain limitations in its humanity. No man in whom there
was very nimble play of the sense of humor could, I think,
in these times quite have lived his life. His nature had
the striking simplicity of many a strong man's. He him
self epitomized his life-story in the well-known sonnet
addressed to Sidney.

A rich sensuous endowment he was enabled by the smile
of circumstances to cultivate to the full. He seems to have
been born with an instinct for the harmony as well as the
color of words, and very carefully practiced his gift. At
Harvard he went deep into mediaeval romance. His col
lege chums write of him as rather disturbingly careless of
what such fellows expect of a man. Before the war he
seemed indifferent even to the publication of his verse, and
drifted without business or anchoring interest in life. He
seems to have been one of those rare cases where a man's
latent power and ability warrant his taking himself so

POETS IN THE WAR 825

seriously. For once in the war there was no doubt in his
own mind as to his course nor in the mind of his comrades
as to his ability. There he found and gave himself com
pletely. In a very special sense he had come into his own.
In this way of so convincingly finding himself, of gain
ing through the war " the sense of the job " that is so whole
some, he is representative, I think, of the experience of a
great many young men in the war. His spirit and enthusi
asm never flagged, and this despite the price of sickening
misery and discomfort, back-laden marches that felled
many a man stronger than he, standing inactive against all
the dangers of battle without any of its exhilaration, — the
hardest thing, as he said, of all. The exercise of his phys
ical strength to the fullest in a cause that satisfied his whole
heart thrilled him. " Be sure," he writes his mother, " that
I shall play the part well for I was never in better health
nor felt my manhood more keenly ." To do that was pe
culiarly satisfying to him. As he got nearer and nearer to
the great testing moments of " advance," his spirits mounted
higher and higher. He became elan incarnate. He is very
representative, too, of many of the fighting poets in that his
eye for beauty did not fail him, no matter what the circum
stances in which he was placed. The frost-kindled foliage
and frost-sparkled air are a part of all his account of that
first glorious autumn in France. When opportunity offers
he goes out of his way to enjoy the scenery. No beauty that
comes in the way of his daily life escapes him. Seeger felt,
too, very profoundly the sense of fatalism that creeps over
so many men in the army. He, I think, is the best spokes
man of this widely prevalent mood because by force of
imagination he connects this submergence of the individual
in the movement of the whole with the grander phenomena
of nature, cosmic forces. This is best illustrated in the stir
ring poem called The Hosts, and in prose, toward the end
6i a letter he wrote for the New York Sun :

Alone under the stars, war in its cosmic rather than its moral aspect
reveals itself to him. Regarded from this more abstract plane the
question of right and wrong disappears. Peoples war because strife
is the law of nature and force the ultimate arbitrament among humanity
no less than the rest of the universe. He is on the side he is fighting
for, not in the last analysis from ethical motives at all, but because
destiny has set him in such a constellation. The sense of his responsi
bility is strong upon him. Playing a part in the life of nations he is
taking part in the largest movement his planet allows him.

826 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

He thrills with the sense of filling an appointed necessary place in
the conflict of hosts, and facing the enemy's crest above which the
Great Bear wheels upward to the zenith, he feels, with a sublimity of
enthusiasm that he has never before known, a kind of companionship
with the stars !

It is granted few to live out so completely their true and
inner selves. Alan Seeger put his dreams and loves and as
piration all into burning practice. He surely attained to
the experience he once said he especially sought.

My interest in life was passion, my object to experience it in all
rare and refined, in all intense and violent forms.

He lived his poet's vision. To realize what a deepening
of spirit the experience of war meant to him one has only
to read the earlier sonnets, richly harmonious as they are,
beside the last, or any typical poem of Juvenilia side by side
with the noble ode, For the American Volunteers Fallen
for France. Seeger, solitary as he was, valued and en
joyed to the full " the bond of common dangers shared,
common sufferings borne, common glories achieved, which
knits men together in real comradeship." It is significant
that the associates in the Foreign Legion he especially men
tions in his letters, and the comrade who so vividly de
scribed his splendid heroic end, are foreigners, Serb, Arab
and Egyptian. He speaks repeatedly about the special
privilege and honor he feels it to march side by side with
the Frenchman, — " the admiration of all who love liberty
and heroism in its defence." The rendezvous with Death
that was his lot must have been quite after the heart of him
whose poem presaged it.

One or two lesser poets illustrate in a certain sense Mil
ton's characterization of a book as " the precious life-blood
of a master spirit," for their poems will live by virtue of the
personality they express. Eminent among these are Captain
Robert Graves and Captain Julian Grenfell. All I know
about Graves is that he has a jolly little house in Wales and
is the father of a couple of lively kids, — dream children
most likely, — who romp into Fairies and Fusiliers, teas
ing their daddy. He is also the vivacious friend of Sorley,
Nichols, and Sassoon, for they all write one another merry
letters in verse. But reading only so few of his poems as
are included in Georgian Poetry will impress you with his
spirit. He carries everything off with a jaunty air. War
may be tedious and hard and grim, but good fellowship

POETS IN THE WAR 827

can do much. To match fortune with high spirits is a
man's game, and if a man's, how much more a poet's. For
a poet, long before the war, Graves had resolved to be.
His poems are the outcome of animal spirits, whimsies of
fancy, mirth, and fun. To even an underlyingly deep-felt
poem on the death of a friend, David and Goliath, he must
give a humoristic cast. In the heaven of his conception
there must be found place for hunting. All life's to be
taken with a joke. Even when you can't keep the tears
back, it's to be played with the spirit of the game. To
keep one's spirits on tiptoe and to find sport in everything
is a service to literature as well .as to one's comrades in
arms. One can rest assured of Robert Graves' popularity
in the ranks. Even his readers inevitably think of him as
" Bobbie," the high-hearted and jovial, and they like his
verse because in it there's so much of him.

Julian Grenfell will always be remembered for his ver
satility. He was one of those rare young fellows who do
everything from hunting to writing a poem, and who do
everything well. The balance of his many-sided life
would have delighted a Greek, as Mr. Gosse remarked, the
passionate energy with which he threw himself into what
ever he did, an Italian Renaissance prince. Though he
had ever been as eager in the pursuit of knowledge as of
proficiency in manly games, it was the war that turned
him poet. His most famous poem, Into Battle, he wrote
upon hearing the news of Rupert Brooke's death and but
a month before his own. " His lips must have been touched
when he wrote it," was Mr. Kipling's verdict, and it is
reported that a young officer has already fallen at the head
of his charging men repeating,

The thundering line of battle stands
While in the air Death moans and sings.

The poem's intimate union of nature with the soldier's life
and death is illustrative of a very marked characteristic of
this war poetry.1

The fighting man shall from the sun

Take warmth, and life from the glowing earth;
Speed with the light-foot winds to run,

1 Masefleld's August 1914 Is the great poem of the war for associating the beauty o
the home country with the going forth of its men, century after century, to fight for It

828 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

And with the trees to newer birth ;
And find when fighting shall be done,
Great rest and fulness after dearth.

All the bright company of Heaven

Hold him in their high comradeship,
The Dog-Star and the Sister Seven,

Orion's Belt and sworded hip.

The woodland trees that stand together,

They stand to him each one a friend ;
They gently speak in the windy weather ;

They guide to valley and ridges' end.
The kestrel hovering by day,

And the little owls that call by night,
Bid him be swift and keen as they,

As keen of ear, as swift of sight.

The blackbird sings to him, " Brother, brother,

If this be the last song you shall sing,
Sing well, for you may not sing another ;

Brother, sing."

The figure of Rupert Brooke is the fairest immortal
ized by the war. Every one who had any association
with him in life, or even once saw him, seems to have been
struck by his beauty and the charm of his ways. It's not
quite a " flaming glory " he left behind him. His attrac
tion was too still and balanced and steady for that. He
was more like a star than a comet. Mr. Marsh's Memoir
gives one the impression rather of a strong personal
ity as capable as it was beautiful, and one most for
tunately circumstanced and befriended. For Brooke
lifelong commanded the friends that bring such a nature
out and are best able to appreciate it. No poet at
his death was more fitly comraded. The beautiful letters
his friends, especially the young musician, Denis Browne,
wrote home from Scyros prove that. For once such let
ters are just as they should be. In his biographer and his
critics Brooke was again most fortunate. Remarks of his
friends help us to understand how he won them and some
thing of the secret of his charm. To begin with, " he was
the incarnation of the spirit of youth, wearing the glamour
and glory of youth like a shining garment." " When
he entered a room," writes Mr. Gosse, " he seemed to
bring sunshine with him, although he was usually rather
silent, and pointedly immobile. He lived in a fascinated

POETS IN THE WAR 829

state, bewitched with wonder and appreciation." A true
and constant eye to the spirit of things was probably most
tributary to the impression of radiance he made. He was
observant, perceptive, sympathetic, and as Mr. Drinkwater
says, " It is intensity in perception that creates poetry."
That, I take it, was Rupert Brooke's special genius.

The early perfection of his art, so far as technique goes,
critics have already commented upon, and also the philo
sophic background before which all the detailed vividness
of his imagery moves. This early mastery of technique
together with his pronounced intellectuality might have
made for a certain hard brilliance of style had not the life-
content quickly matched it. From excess of abstraction
the young poet was saved partly by grace of humor, which
in his whole personality harmonized vivacity and culture
to a degree especially rare in youth, partly by the fine bal
ance his literary sense enabled him to preserve between
the abstract and the concrete. The last is beautifully ex
emplified in The Funeral of Youth. He started with the
two fairy gifts, invaluable to poets, a love for words in
themselves, and a nimbleness of imagination that could run
into ecstasy.

One wouldn't have to read ten lines of a typical poem
of his without realizing what a fine feeling he had for
words and for running them simply together and yet as if
in instinctive accord with the harmony that was himself.

The clean-cut and delightfully sly expression of his
humor is seen at its best in the poem called Heaven.

Fish say, they have their Stream and Pond ;

But is there anything Beyond?

This life cannot be All, they swear,

For how unpleasant, if it were!

One may not doubt that, somehow, Good

Shall come of Water and of Mud;

And sure, the reverent eye must see

A Purpose in Liquidity.

We darkly know, by Faith we cry,

The future is not Wholly Dry.

The Voice is a very illuminating poem to be read in
connection with Brooke's so-called " shocking " poems the
effect of which upon his readers doubtless gave the young
reactionary no little glee. Brooke was always just enough
of an idealist, seeker after the veritably true, to be shocked

830 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

in just the way he vividly pictures there by any sense of
shortcoming or divergence. In the first great 1914 sonnet
the emphasis is often put on the wrong word in the line,

And all the little emptiness of love

It was just because true love was to him anything but
empty that he wrote so many poems exposing its counter
feits. Superb rhetoric never rang truer than in his early
poem, The Call, which was no hyperbole to his conception
of what real love means. This strain in his poetry is but
an outward sign of a moral fiber within him all ready for
the deepening experience of the war and to be wrung into
as fine and high a poetry as the idealism of the war called
forth. Perhaps as telling as Mr. Churchill's much-quoted
and eloquent words on the significance of the IQI4 Son
nets is the simple testimony of a V. A. D. nurse:

More than any other poet of the time, Rupert Brooke, interpreted
and embodied the spirit in which our men have gone to this fight — not
from blind lust of battle or desire of conquest, not as slaves driven to
the slaughter by a military tyrant, but with clear eyes and steady hands
keenly conscious of the joy of life, of all that they are relinquishing,
yet willing and unafraid.

But The Great Lover and Grantchester are in their
way as characteristic poems of Brooke. Their power con
sists in his quiet but contagious perception of the beauty and
joy of simple things, of the deeper, spiritual significance
of life. Owing to this insight he had, life was ever rich, won
derful, and alluring to him. To live life truly was to
radiate happiness, to express it truly, poetry. No wonder
Rupert Brooke lives in men's memories as the ideal of a
young poet, for in his short life he yet achieved all three
of the things he said made up the world for him, " one,
to read poetry, another, to write poetry, and best of all, to
live poetry." And the best was his in fullest measure.

The poetry written after the war had dragged on a year
or more is very different in mood from that written at
first. This change, conspicuous in the poetry as a whole,
is pronounced in the course of the work of Captain Robert
Nichols and Captain Siegfried Sassoon.

Mr. Nichols' poems of the war will be very dear to all
who went out from college. And I think especially so to
Americans, for in many ways Nichols' experience was like
theirs. It was of just such lads as he that Miss Letts was

POETS IN THE WAR 831

thinking in her unforgettable poem, The Spires of Ox
ford. Young Nichols had known nothing of war, prob
ably little intimately of army life; once in, he felt the
strain and terror and preying despondency of it with
all the sensitiveness of his fine unhardened nature. And
in a succession of poems arranged something in the order
of occurrence he has dared to tell the truth about what
he felt and saw. Terror changing into confidence and
trust, grim endurance, heart-breaking incidents of life
in the trenches, the sense of the officer's responsibil
ity and his deep love for his men banishing all other
love, the assault itself, are all there. No one, except
perhaps Lieutenant E. A. Mackintosh, has excelled Nichols
in the expression of the regard and affection of the
officer for his men. In two of the manliest and most
deeply felt of soldier elegies he pays beautiful tribute to
friends that had fallen. He himself was severely wounded
at Loos, and doomed to the harrowing memories of a
tedious convalescence, to which I fancy we owe some of his
best poems. Of the sorrow-laden emotions of his slow
emergence he has told us in a series of candid poems called
Aftermath. Many a young fellow, akin to Nichols in feel
ing and experience but without his gift of word, will clutch
these poems to his heart as the voice of his own soul. In
that Nichols usually sticks to the scene and action imme
diately before him, has nothing to say of the great purpose
of the war, of enthusiasm for the cause, of hatred for the
enemy, I think he is also representative of the experience
of many in this war. What the ardors of war have been
to him and to spirits like him, his poems also show, — the
making of manhood, that is, through perseverance, hard
ship, and the seeing and doing of deeds that are at once
savagery and heroism. In reading them you feel very
close to a manly spirit in its hours of sorest trial. One
looks forward with eagerness to the future work of a soul
so awakened and of a faith come of such an ordeal.

A special sense of relief comes over one with the thought
that Captain Sassoon was spared to live through and out of
the war. His unusually long experience of it has wrought
so complete a change in his temper. He is another of
those big, all round men who, according to Nichols' ac
count, wrote poetry before the war much as he dashed off
of an early morning to the hunt. He divided his time be-

832 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

tween field sports and art. He loved music and tennis and
books. Above all he had the poet's eye for the finer essence
of truth which in poetry means beauty, and he soon learned
the command of a magic of expression which is perhaps
the first thing that strikes you in his earliest publicly
printed volume. Lines you come upon there that seem
to have taken some beauty of nature into the poet's heart
and given it back illumined and fairly " drenched with
the dews of human emotion."

Blindly I sought the woods that I had known
So beautiful with morning when I came
Amazed with spring that wove the hazel copse
With misty raiment of awakening green.
I found a holy dimness, and the peace
Of sanctuary, austerely built of trees,
And wonder stooping from a tranquil sky.

Such witchery and enchantment of expression mark Sas-
soon as unmistakably of the tradition of magic in English
poetry. Wonder is born anew in the heart of every poet.
In such passages we feel that Sassoon is himself of the wise
about whom he writes,

Who gazed in breathing wonderment,
And left us their brave eyes,
To light the ways they went.

But after reading his last volume, Counter-Attack, and in
deed many of the poems in The Old Huntsman, one won
ders whether he can ever quite walk in those ways again.
One wonders if, after all this haunting familiarity with
killing and its attendant circumstances he will ever have
the heart for even " the angry, eager feeling, a huntsman
ought to have." He invokes the old spell of " paradise,"
the name playfully given to some of his earlier poems, but
the fairy gift of speech seems for the time denied him.
The curse of war has bitten into his very soul. Sassoon
once exclaimed after commending Nichols for his success
in voicing the manly discipline of war:

Now let us nevermore say another word of whatever little may be
good in war for the individual who has a heart to be steeled.

Let no one ever from henceforth say a word in any way counten
ancing war. It is dangerous even to speak of how here and there the
individual may gain some hardihood of soul by it. For war is hell and
those who institute it are criminals. Were there anything to say for

POETS IN THE WAR 833

it, it should not be said for its spiritual disasters far outweigh any of its
advantages.

And it is to the enforcing of this earnest and deep-seated
conviction that all his later poems are addressed. In Con-
scripts he tells us with grim humor how the experience of
war gradually put into constraint the various elements of
poetry within him. One cannot but hope though that there
are deep enough springs of happiness within the author

Whose heart was a haunted woodland murmuring,

to in time win him out again of the shadow of war.

I sometimes think what is suppressed in some of the
poets of lesser volume is more impressive than the most
outspoken and glaring realism. This is true of the last
poem I have read of Sergeant Leslie Coulson. He was in
the war by September, 1914, having declined a commis
sion, and for two long years he served in Egypt, Malta,
Gallipoli, and France. How a sense of the tears in things
had fleeted like the shadow of a cloud across his naturally
sunny, carefree disposition he had sung in But a Short
Time to Live with the winning music and spontaneity of
phrase that always characterize the best song. That the
joys of home-coming would make up for all he had under
gone was the thought he cheered himself with in a later
song but those he himself was never to know. No wonder
after those unfurloughed years of hard service in a poem
in another mood called Judgment he insists when all is
over and known that he is to be the judge of God and not
God of him. And yet he could write The Rainbow within
a month of his death :

I watch the white dawn gleam,

To the thunder of hidden guns.
I hear the hot shells scream
Through skies as sweet as a dream

Where the silver dawn-break runs.
And stabbing of light
Scorches the virginal white.

But I feel in my being the old, high, sanctified thrill,
And I thank the gods that the dawn is beautiful still.

From death that hurtles by

I crouch in the trench day-long,
But up to a cloudless sky
From the ground where our dead men lie

VOL. ccix.— NO. 763 53

834 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

A brown lark soars in song.

Through the tortured air,

Rent by shrapnel's flare,
Over the troubleless dead he carols his fill,
And I thank the gods that the birds are beautiful still.

Where the parapet is low
And level with the eye
Poppies and cornflowers glow
And the corn sways to and fro
In a pattern against the sky.
The gold stalks hide
Bodies of men who died

Charging at dawn through the dew to be killed or to kill.
I thank the gods that the flowers are beautiful still.

When night falls dark we creep

In silence to our dead.
We dig a few feet deep
And leave them there to sleep —

But blood at night is red,
Yea, even at night,
And a dead man's face is white.
And I dry my hands, that are also trained to kill,
And I look at the stars — for the stars are beautiful still.

To make the record of even the poets who have written
of this war with distinction in any wise complete one would
have to add a great many other names. I should like par
ticularly to speak of some of the very interesting lesser
verse, for example, the sailor song of Mr. C. Fox-Smith
or the simple lyrics of Sergeant Patrick MacGill that
touch the heart and are much nearer the song stuff Tommy
Atkins and Poilu and Yank would make for themselves
than most of the more highly wrought literary pieces I
have been considering. I should like to quote some of the
lovely, fancy-quick lyrics of Francis Ledwidge. But I
may only speak of two other poets, Lieutenants Robert
Ernest Vernede and William Noel Hodgson, very dif
ferent in age but similar in manly spirit and heroic con
secration.

Such poems as Vernede's Little Sergeant, Before the
Assault, and A Petition are not only the work by which
he will be longest remembered, but memorial, because of
their author, of a small group of volunteers in the war not
often thought of and to whom great honor is due. I mean
the men beyond what is usually considered the fighting
age whose patriotic ardor steeled them to overcome hard-

POETS IN THE WAR 835

ships greater for them even than for their younger com
rades. What a thrilling satisfaction it must have been to
such brave hearts to feel that they were proving them
selves the worthy comrades of those younger fellows whom
they envied and loved I To Vernede belongs especial
credit. He was thirty-nine, when after two futile attempts
he succeeded in enlisting. Nothing in his previous life,
except his athletic prowess at Oxford, had fitted him for
the life of a soldier. Since leaving college he had devoted
himself to literature and to the care of his beautiful flower-
garden. That his resolve to enlist was determined with the
writing of The Call probably accounts for the peculiar
force and attraction of that poem, and A Petition is him
self in the high lights of his life and in his bearing toward
the soldier's death.

Lieutenant Hodgson, on the other hand, was but twenty-
three when he fell, thoughtful and old enough, however, to
write a prayer just before engaging in his last action, which
grips the heart. Strength of serious, manly character, —
the moral fibre in the English strain which literature long
ago recognized in the application of that epithet " moral "
to one of Chaucer's contemporaries, — is the source of the
compelling power of Hodgson's little group of poems.
As you might expect, Hodgson had what he himself
called a " passionate allegiance " for the grand old school
of his education. In the poem called Durham, and espe
cially in The Master-Smiths (the smiths are the masters
of the school) and Ave Mater-atque Vale, he has paid
noble tribute to the ideals for which a school should stand
and for which it will be loved, and to the part that they
play in the making of men. The event in his case proved
how well-grounded was his faith that the old school sent
her sons forth well-armored in manhood for the battle of
life. His sonnet to a friend killed early in the war gives
indirect expression to his own devotion to " things above
the common run of duty." And he acted his ideals. On
the way back to rest camp after furious fighting at Loos he
dwells upon the thought of the divinity brought out in his
fellow man :

We that have seen the strongest

Cry like a beaten child,
The sanest eyes unholy,

The cleanest hands defiled ;

836 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

We that have known the heart blood

Less than the lees of wine,
We that have seen men broken,

We know man is divine.

Before Action, fortunately the most familiar of his
poems, is the poem of his life:

By all the glories of the day,

And the cool evening's benison :
By the last sunset touch that lay

Upon the hills when day was done :
By beauty lavishly outpoured,

And blessings carelessly received,

By all the days that I have lived,
Make me a soldier, Lord.

By all of all men's hopes and fears

By all the wonders poets sing,
The laughter of unclouded years,

And every sad and lovely thing :
By the romantic ages stored

With high endeavor that was his,

By all his mad catastrophes,
Make me a man, O Lord.

I, that on my familiar hill

Saw with uncomprehending eyes
A hundred of thy sunsets spill

Their fresh and sanguine sacrifice,
Ere the sun swings his noonday sword

May say good-bye to all of this : —

By all delights that I shall miss,
Help me to die, O Lord.

Such is the manliness of the songs that have come out
of the resolution and courage of youth. Such are the lives
that the winning of the war has cost us. The bravery of
men's minds and deeds is proved as great, if not greater,
than ever. And dreadful as the conditions and acts of
war are, we can well ^believe such fellows as these when
they say that the life of the spirit accompanying it has been
the best they have ever known.

The essential nobility and loving kindness of man have
triumphantly re-asserted themselves. These few poems
are but one expression of the spirit that has dominated
mankind and found expression in most diverse of ways.
The bettering of society for which these men fought and
which would be the only fit memorial to those who have
fallen it is for us to assure.

L. B. GILLET.

TO TWO UNKNOWN LADIES1

BY AMY LOWELL

LADIES, I do not know you, and I think

I do not want to. And a strange beginning

I make with that. Admitted; there's the odds.

You live between the covers of a book,

At least for me, but then IVe known a crowd

Of other people who do that. My mind

Is stuffed with phantoms out of poets' brains.

But you are out of nothing but the air,

Or were, rather, for one of you is dead.

Dead or alive, it is the same to me,

Since all our contact lies in printer's ink.

But even this, peculiar as it is,
Is but a thread of singularity.
Here is another, that I see you double,
Each one beheld in profile, as it were.
And yet the full-face view is not composite,
But shows two totally specific halves
Which do not blend and still are not distinct.
And again why should I perplex my eyes
With trying so hard to draw you both together
As though you were a lighted candle, split
Upon an oculist's dissecting spectacles?

You see the thing is really not so simple

As A. B. C., or Keats, or " Christabel,"

And that is where the plague comes in for me.

For here, sitting quite calmly in my chair,

Settled down comfortably to an evening's reading,

I open up the queerest possibility,

Namely: the visitation of a ghost.

Suppose I throw you down the glove at once

1 The " Unknown Ladies " are the Misses Somerville and Ross, whose writings on
Irish Life and Character have captivated many readers besides Miss Lowell. — EDITOR.

838 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

And say I'm haunted, does that bring the answer?
If so, it blurs beyond what I can grasp
And foggy answers leave us where we were.

If either of you much attracted me
We could fall back upon phenomena
And make a pretty story out of psychic
Balances, but not to be too broad
In my discourtesy, nor prudish neither
(Since, really, I can hardly quite suppose
With all your ghostliness you follow me),
I feel no such attraction. Or if one
Bows to my sympathy for the briefest space,
Snap — it is gone! And, worst of all to tell,
What broke it is not in the least dislike
But utter boredom.

Now I acknowledge you are sensible,

And so I put it squarely; is there not

A strange absurdity in being haunted

By ghosts who crack one's jaws upon a yawn?

If that were all of it! But nothing's all.

For just as I am oozing into sleep,

See-sawing gently out of consciousness,

A phrase of yours will laugh out loud and clang

Me broad awake. And still there's more to come:

Sometimes I catch the faintest whiff of flutes.

And that I hold to be a paradox.

Did ever ladies lead so dull a life

As you? At least according to my taste

(I'll be polite enough to put it so).

You wrote, but, Great Saint Peter, tell me how!

With half a destiny. Now we, poor devils,

Fill our ink-wells with entrails, pour our veins

To wet a pencil point, and end at last

As shrivelled as a pod of money-wort,

And (let me say this in a neat aside)

We hope as shining. So do artists live,

And skulls are best when turned to flower-pots.

Now your way: Half a year, or more, or less;
A book tossed off between two sets of tennis.

TO TWO UNKNOWN LADIES 839

Or jotted down some morning of hard frost

When the hounds could not run. Pale Jesus Christ,

Is this an effort worthy to be classed

Beyond the writing of cake recipes?

One of you painted. Well, you have no shame

To call such trash a picture. Years and years

You studied with the patient, stupid zeal

Of every amateur, and to this day

You never guess how badly you have done.

You speak of music, and my nerve-ends sting

Thinking of Chopin sentimentalized

By innocent young ladyhood ; of Liszt

Doted upon, his tinsel rhodomontade

Held for high romance. And the ghastly nights

On cracked hotel pianos ! It would be

Experience to read of washier stuff.

And yet — and yet — this clearly is not all.

Or why should I go back to you again,

Evening and evening, in a kind of thirst,

Surprising my tongue upon an almond taste.

A puzzling business. Everything comes back

And hooks upon a question. I suspect

Myself of cheating, stacking a full pack

With diamond Jacks extraordinary and Queens

Of Spades enough to make a declaration

Of quite superb inviolability.

But if the pack were dealt again, what then?

So what's the truth behind my set of it,

If I can keep my eyes clear long enough

To get a squint thereat? Almonds, I said,

Smooth, white, and bitter, wonderfully almonds.

Your fingers were unequal to the task
Of fashioning pictures, they were not enough.
For pictures take the whole and whip it round
To something out of you ; and this you could
Contrive, but not as artists, since this thing
Was not your making. You were pigment, line.
I will not split you up to parts and parts,
Suffice it that the pictures here are you.
Double and single, like chrysanthemums,

840 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Each of one family, but with just differences
Of color and habit and the arch of stem.

Two halves, I said, and here I patterned rightly.

A frail half and a virile, but both shoots

Of one straight mother tree. It is your nobleness

That shocks a fire across these photographs

And makes them a contentment for strained eyes

Hurt by the ugliness of crowds in streets,

Stumbling short-sighted in a group of gargoyles.

You might have posed for caryatides,

With wind-drawn garments sucking round your limbs.

Your beauty blushing through their flattened gauze,

Before a temple, on a sunny day.

I wonder I am Greek enough to feel
Such solace in mere outline. But again,
As always where I find you are concerned,
This does not finish your effect. For when
I write down Greek, it is inadequate.
Marble you are, but there's that jet of fire
Like a red sunset on a fall of snow.
I feel a wind blowing off heather hills,
Am vaguely conscious of the moan of waves,
And sea-weed fronds pulsating in a pool.
Now this, of course, is anything but Greek.

Horses and dogs! You say yourself that they
Are stuck with limpet-closeness to your life.
And there, I think, is more than parallel.
For dogs and horses have a wistfulness,
A pathos, in their bursts of gaiety
Which tears the heart, even when crinky-tail
Sets dogs in bundles racing round a lawn
Or snaps a horse's feet to jigging springs
Cat-dancing with a sudden twitch of ears.
And you are both like that, for your jokes bob
Under taut flags across a bay of tears.

That figure is so old, I feel a twinge
Of hot compunction at using it again.
But even artists stub their toes sometimes
Upon the fallen centuries, and Helen

TO TWO UNKNOWN LADIES 841

Was much considered by the youth of Troy.
I think perhaps your prototypes in Sparta
Called forth that metaphor. But let it pass.
It is a fact that my eyes itch and burn
At this of you on horseback. Foolish! Oh,
Shall you call folly at this time of day,
You, who tell tales of banshees in a park!

Again a facet. Like a lapidary

I cut and cut in microscopic flakes,

But never get the gem for all these sides.

There's more to you than single flesh and blood

Though these be fine and clear as new-stripped almonds.

And more than tears ; but what it is drifts out

Beyond the surf-line of my consciousness

And blurs in dazzle so I lose its edge.

The puzzle grows as I unravel it,

For all these feelings come out of a book

And you, who cannot write, have written it.

There's food for many solitary munchings,

And sticks to beat an artist's soul withal.

You cannot write and look what you have written:

Two lives which stare and twinkle on the page

So that I blind in looking. That's a glare

To put out farthing candles of professionals.

Had I not seen your drawings, I might almost

Have been bewitched by that hotel piano

And guessed you better understood your Chopin.

Now I am all at sea and clinging

To horses and a cat-leap at a fence.

Well, there it stands, and what I get is life,
And love held back and breaking up and out.
Your heart is never on your sleeve, you say;
But try your hardest, it is in your pen,
And death is nothing to vitality
Swinging across a second heart. At best
One sees a breeding like those draperies
Which cool my naked caryatides.
Why, I'm not dead, but merely gone in space
And that you slap away with easy hand
Drawing me closer much than you intend.

842 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

Perhaps the very queerest of these facts
Is that I feel apologies are due
For just this thing which wakes my admiration.
You do not want me crowding in behind
That carefully embroidered sleeve, and yet
What I behold mounts to a blazing altar,
And both are there before it, worshipping.
Will you forgive this little pinch of incense,
For one of you is dead and she will know,
Perhaps, at least, what magic brought me here.
And I will never seek to meet the other,
I only write to exorcise a ghost.

AMY LOWELL.

THE BOOK OF THE MONTH

ADAM, EVE, AND THE COSMOS l
BY LAWRENCE OILMAN

" MOST exquisite, most adorable, copper-crowned lily,
eyes soft as water and hard as steel, mouth that Cupid might
steal with which to make a bow, most exquisite, most ador
able ... I place in each of your palms a kiss so heavy
that you shall carry the stigmata of Eros . . ." Do man
agers of munition factories make love like that? To be
sure, this was no ordinary munition-maker. Cottenham,
owner and manager of the Cottenham Works, had bril
liant blue eyes, close-cropped curly brown hair that exhaled
masculinity and taste for good living, and in moments
of balked desire he rushed to the piano and sought to
massage his complex by playing Debussy, having found
Bach too much like a Cambridge don to suit his
need. It is surprising to learn that he finally took refuge
in a piano piece of Maurice Ravel's called Gal
lows. We know that piece. It is no piece for an
erotic munition-maker, with its tonal evocations of
cold winds sporting with dead men's locks, and
staring eyes that the crows have pecked. But no doubt
there was a lurking Freudian nigger in Cottenham's psychic
wood-pile who could not have been placated by so obviously
appropriate a piece as the Prelude to Tristan and Isolde—
besides, Wagner does not come out well on the piano, and
Cottenham, being a munition-maker of fine aesthetic re
sponsiveness, knew enough not to put musical cordite into
an ivory container.

A strange fellow, this amorous munitionist! But very
deadly — a masculine " vamp." His erotic history had
begun when he was fifteen, and now, within marching dis-

1 Blind Alley, by W. L. George. Boston : Little, Brown & Co., 1919.

844 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

tance of middle age, we find him still exerting the lethal
charm of his close-cropped curls upon the undisciplined
hearts of the girl workers in his plant. Monica, who did
her bit as an upper-class Englishwoman by staining her
hands with TNT in Cottenham's factory, yielded with
amazing precipitateness when she met her boss strolling in
the byways wearing a brown suit and smoking a pipe. Then
it was that M. Bergson's justly celebrated Life Force
awoke in Monica's breast and began to clamor for exercise.

We must confess that our heart sank when we learned
that Monica was " passionately unawakened." We have
known these unawakened ladies in the febrile pages of Mrs.
Glyn — they walk in their sleep, and one must keep an eye
on them, and a restraining hand on their fugacious nighties.
True to type, Monica lost no time. Though unawak
ened, she not only walked in her sleep — she ran. This was
made easy, first, by the fact that she was (as the fanciful
Cottenham justly viewed her) a wood-nymph, tall and very
slim, and enjoying, in the words of his poetizing imagina
tion, a scamper through the thickets of birch, where a
watcher might have glimpsed the flashing of a white flank
among the shadowy tree trunks. She lost, we have said, no
time: for though, on page 161 of Mr. George's veracious
chronicle of contemporary England, she is still unawak
ened, it is only three pages further on that we find her
" overwhelmed by a feeling of sweetest sin " and telling
herself that she is " not moral."

She spoke quite sternly to herself : " Look here, my dear
girl, do try and realize he's married to a woman who's
much better looking than you. . . . He adores his chil
dren. That settles marriage, quite apart from the fact that
he hasn't suggested it, but anyhow — it's unthinkable." She
was facing something, she realized, " that was not done " —
no indeed — but between which and herself stood only a
traditional code without precise moral penalties. But
what can you do with a blue-eyed munition-maker whose
hair curls crisply and who makes love like an Old Testa
ment amorist? Unawakened on page 161, it is disconcert
ing to be told on page 168 that " You are tall and slim like
an ear of wheat in the moonlight." On page 171 it becomes
crystal-clear that this rhapsodic munition-maker with the
crisp curls Means No Good to Our Nellie. For at that
point he takes her hand, — a hand that trembles, — turns

THE BOOK OF THE MONTH 845

it palm upward, and presses into its hollow the "heavy
kiss " described in our opening paragraph.

Thereafter, " as easily as one thing leads to another " (in
Mr. Kipling's phrase) we find him sending her an enve
lope containing a Key and a note that reads as follows :

This key will let you into Bull's Field as they call it, into the
Garden of Eden if you like.

This delicate symbolism turns the trick, and in a deserted
shanty, in a field shut away from the world by high palings
and carpeted by shy blue speedwell and stitchwort, Monica
and the munition-maker pass a pleasant evening — marred
for the fastidious student of erotic processes, in the recount
ing, only by the fact that Cottenham's crisp locks were
"rebellious" as Monica stroked them. We had thought
that Mr. Robert W. Chambers held the international copy
right on Rebellious Hair.

But it is, we are happy to say, nothing more consequen
tial than this copyright that is violated. Mr. Chambers7
other celebrated copyrights are left uninf ringed. The most
important of them all — the copyright on the Deciduous
Kimona — is untouched. For Cottenham, after carefully
examining the historic Apple and savoring its fragrance,
decides to preserve it instead of eating it. In other words,
by a graceful transit from the third to the thirty-ninth
chapter of Genesis, this heedful Adam and his Eve are
metamorphosed before our eyes into Joseph and the spouse
of Potiphar.

And meanwhile, the war goes on. Cottenham " crushed
her to him" (Mr. George's erotic vocabulary, as we have
uneasily indicated, is strangely Chamberian) while the
gallant Roumanians retreated before Mackensen; he makes
love to Monica over the telephone in the same breath with
which he tells her that the Somme offensive has begun.
Venus cuddles in the lap of Mars.

# * * * *

Mr. George in this novel has grappled very ener
getically with his heart-breaking task — an attempt
to transfix the England of 1916-1919. It is a brave
attempt; but the canvas, for all its desperate con
temporaneity, is curiously lifeless. There is no royal
road to imaginative re-creation. Certainly Mr. George
has not achieved actuality by the simple process of

846 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

sprinkling his pages with the names of Lloyd George,
Trotzky and Lenine, the British Labor Party, Wilson, Car
son, Raemakers, Clemenceau, Ian Hay, Kitchener, Gom-
pers, and turning the reflections of his protagonists into ad
mirably written leaders from the Manchester Guardian.
The process by which Sir Hugh slides from the Spectator
and the upper-class traditions of English country life, to
the London Nation and radical speculations, has not been
made credible merely by identifying Sir Hugh's medita
tions with the progressive pamphleteering of the war. The
imaginative capture of an epoch involves a subtler and
more difficult process than that.

Mr. George has not pulled off an artistic success. Mon
ica and her abstemious lover; the woodland adulteries of
Sylvia and other ladies; Cradoc the "C. O. ;" the ferocities
of Lady Oakley, — these are like the typical personifications
of a cartoonist; if it were not for their labels, their sig
nificance would be lost. And it is amazing that so shrewd
an observer, so excellent a realist as Mr. George (the
George of A Bed of Roses and The Second Blooming)
should be willing to stand for the absurdities of such manni-
kins as Cottenham and Monica. If Mr. George had been
less anxious to put over his "cosmic attempt" (as he calls
it) "to show a world society in the midst of a world move
ment," and had looked a bit more steadily and curiously
into the hearts of his creatures, he would have written a
better book. It is so easy not to be cosmic.

LAWRENCE OILMAN.

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED

THE HISTORY OF HENRY FIELDING. By Wilbur L. Cross. New
Haven : Yale University Press.

Mr. Cross's three- volume biography of Fielding — a work by no
means too extensive in view of the historic importance and the
permanent human interest of its subject — is an attempt to get at the
real man in the only possible way. That way implies not only
intensive study, but comprehensive research. The character of the
genius who wrote Tom Jones cannot be adequately epitomized, any
more than can that of his hero: in fact, The History of Tom Jones
and The History of Henry Fielding contain about the same number of
words. Author and hero alike are, indeed, especially liable to un
conscious misrepresentation not only by hostile critics but by admiring
friends. It is an open question, whether Henley, for example, did not
do Fielding and Tom Jones almost as much harm as good by his brilliant
comments on that "buxom" book and his peppery defense of the author.
But such one-sided interpretation is entirely natural. In judging a man
of a nature so large, of a personality so strong, and of an adaptability
so manifold as Fielding's, the temptation is great to accept a partial
for a complete view. In the case of some men of genius, the two
views are not, to be sure, far apart. The real Wordsworth, the real
Coleridge, are not distinctly different men from the Wordsworth and
the Coleridge of tradition; boil down the anecdotes, and you have
something like the truth. Both these men had traits that may be
caricatured but scarcely exaggerated, and these traits lay close to their
inner natures. But the complete Fielding, as revealed by responsible
biography, is a totally different man from the incomplete Fielding of
anecdote and tradition; and this would remain true even if anecdote
and tradition did not in regard to so many matters simply lie.

Fielding was unfortunate in his first biographer. Arthur Murphy
was a man of moderate talents and of weak good will who rapidly — as
such men sometimes do under stress of a hard life — went to seed. A
sincere admirer of Fielding, he transferred his allegiance after the
novelist's death to Dr. Johnson, whom he flattered. Ultimately, it is
said, he "ate himself out of every tavern from the other side of Temple-
Bar to the west side of the town." When " not yet in his full moral
decline," he was employed by the publisher Millar, to select and edit
the work of Fielding, with a memoir. Murphy, of course, botched the
business. Puzzle-headed, a typical hack-writer in his willingness to
use such materials as would seem most effective, he could not be
expected to do otherwise. " It is to his honor," says Mr. Cross, " that

848 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

he removed several imputations against the character of Fielding.
But by that peculiar psychology which, with rare exceptions, has
always been applied to Fielding, he eventually turned most of his
virtues into imperfections, follies, and vices."

Thus the Fielding legend — a legend that has always appealed
to lovers of sensational biography, as to innocent-minded persons and
to prudes — got its start. To give the proper touch of journalistic
sympathy to the character of the penitent rake, Fielding had to be
represented as chronically hard-up; though whenever we get a real
glimpse into his household affairs, we find him living like a gentleman !
The story about his writing a whole play on the wrappings of tobacco
consumed in a single night has been repeated for the reason, doubtless,
that anecdotes of this sort have to be attached to a man of note; other
wise they are in their gross exaggeration lamentably pointless.

Critics and biographers, while for the most part they acknowledged
Fielding's greatness as a novelist, for a long time accepted and
perpetuated the Fielding Paradox, because few materials for its
solution lay ready to hand. Thackeray meant no harm to Fielding and
touched the novelist's supposed vices lightly and humorously. Later
and lesser critics did not in this respect altogether follow suit. E. P.
Whipple in the NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW for January 1849 did indeed
justly estimate not only the scope and power of Fielding's mind but
also its " healthiness." He found a stumbling block, however, in
Fielding's temperament, which he supposed to be that of " a rowdy."
George Gilfillan in his Literary Portraits (1854) could write of the
author of Tom Jones as a " sad scamp." The next year, the Reverend
Whitwell Elwin, in the Quarterly Review, confessed his inability to
understand how so great a novel could have been written by a " haunter
of Taverns and squanderer of thousands," and referred to Fielding's
study of the law as " profitless " ! Southey, who might have done much
to correct false impressions, left Fielding untouched, probably because,
he could find no large body of the novelist's intimate correspondence,
and because he shrank, like others, from the lengthy and difficult task
of collecting the scattered materials on which a real life of Fielding
would have to be based. The first life founded on thorough research
was that written by Frederick Laurence in 1855. Laurence went over
the whole of Fielding's career, corrected Murphy in many ways, and
added some new details ; he gave due attention to the literary and social
background; but he was notably deficient in critical insight, and he
was hypnotized by the view of Fielding's character set forth by Murphy
and by Thackeray. A sane and searching examination of Laurence's
work was published by Thomas Keightley in 1858, but Keightley's
articles, hidden away in a magazine, attracted little attention, and in
the following years " the old dissipated profligate was again and again
tricked out anew by critics and reviewers." Leslie Stephen wrote
wisely of Fielding's character on two occasions — in 1876 and in 1879 —
but in the biographical introduction which he composed for that edition
of Fielding's works (published in 1882) which bears his name, he
unfortunately fell into many of the old errors. The mischievous evil —
lack of adequate research — which had blasted Fielding's character for a
century and a half, did not begin to be cured until Austin Dobson took
up the elucidation of the novelist's life in 1883.

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED 849

Dobson's monograph in the " English Men of Letters " series has
been until recently the best account of Fielding in existence. But
scholars, stimulated by his example, have gone far deeper than he
went into the details of Fielding's life. New facts have been dis
covered; new problems have been raised. The true Fielding has
gradually been brought into a fuller light. Even Dobson adopted a
sort of Jekyll-and-Hyde theory of Fielding's personality — a theory
not applicable to Fielding more than to other men, and partaking some
what of the error of the old legend.

Without disparagement of Dobson's work it may be said that Mr.
Cross was fully justified in undertaking a work on a larger scale; and
that the History of Henry Fielding is not only longer and more
comprehensive than any previous work on the same subject, but by
the same token and in something like the same degree, juster and
better balanced.

The background which the author has supplied for the story of
Fielding's life is wonderfully complete. And it is needed. In order
really to understand not only Fielding the novelist, but Fielding the
playwright and theatrical manager, Fielding the journalist, Fielding
the magistrate, it is necessary to get thoroughly in touch with the life
of Eighteenth Century London. This is no easy task. The problem
of description and analysis is complicated; generalities will not do;
great frankness is called for and great common sense. The reader
must not be misled into regarding the journalism of the time, for
example, as merely such a carnival of mud-slinging as no self-respecting
man could for a moment take part in. He must see in it all at least
the possibility of honesty and of humor. Yet facts must not be con
cealed. Mr. Cross succeeds in giving his readers the right attitude.
In his pages Fielding stands forth from the welter of political and
personal bickerings, and against the background of low moral standards,
quite a man of his time, but triumphantly human and triumphantly
honest. Nothing is passed over in silence. Every farce of Fielding's
is described, every pamphlet is noticed, every journalistic or literary
quarrel is followed up. And Fielding stands every test. This is his
truest vindication. Not one of his writings is negligible; not one is
discreditable ; all teach us something worth knowing about the forceful,
right-minded, if impulsive, man who played the game of political
journalism and semi-political play-writing, as understood in his day,
with all his might, and with a better heart and a livelier genius than
his rivals.

In comparison with this fulness and realism of the background,
Mr. Cross's accuracy in matters of detail seems almost a minor
virtue. Yet no small importance, surely, is to be attached to such
matters as the identity of Fielding's contributions to The Champion
(a point never before accurately determined) and the authorship of the
numerous stray papers ascribed to Fielding. Among these latter is
Shamela, in which, if Mr. Cross be right, Fielding first came into
collision with Richardson. Such work as Mr. Cross has done in
determining the minutest details and in contributing to the solution of
disputed points entitles his work to be called for all practical purposes
definitive.

VOL. ccix.— NO. 763 54

850 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

But despite frequent preoccupation with details, the biographer is
ever alert to show the continuity of Fielding's development and to
emphasize the real character of his art. He shows for example the
importance of The Champion as a link between Fielding's plays and
his approaching work in prose fiction, pointing out that " in his contri
butions to this periodical lie imbedded the first draft of A Journey
from this World to the Next, indications of the ironic point of view
elaborated in Jonathan Wild, the first sketches, though lacking in
narrative, for a Parson Adams and a Parson Trulliber, and the ethics
on which was built the young man named Tom Jones." Just so one
finds that the attitude assumed by Fielding in his Jacobite's Journal
is " the irony of Jonathan Wild applied to the newspapers." And in the
novels, Mr. Cross points out the nature of Fielding's realism in a
manner that shows in a similar way the working of the novelist's
mind.

Just as we see Fielding utilizing old ideas — but always with novel
touches — as he passes from one form of literary activity to another,
so we see him drawing upon old impressions and experiences. Mr.
Cross here as elsewhere, is not content with probabilities; he follows
things up as far as possible ; and he speaks by the card when he says :
" Test Joseph Andrews wherever you will, and you come face to face
with real life."

But perhaps the most remarkable feature of the whole work is
the narrative of the war that Fielding as a Bow Street justice waged
against robbery and murder in London and its environs — a story never
before half told. That Fielding was an energetic J. P., every one
knows. The value of his recommendations, the effectiveness of his
reforms, it is surprising to learn. Of Fielding's pamphlet, An Enquiry
into the Causes of the Late Increase of Robbers, Mr. Cross says truly
that " one is uncertain which to admire most — Fielding's knowledge
of the law, his common sense, or that lofty idealism and faith in
human nature which led him to believe that crime might some day
have an end." Had Fielding's plans for building county houses
throughout England been accepted by Parliament, a reform would
have been achieved in 1753 which did not come, in fact, until nearly a
century later.

Again, it was Fielding who organized the first detective force
in English history. Altogether, so important appear the services
to civilization which the Father of the English Novel rendered as a
humble justice, that one really doubts which is most worthy of honor,
the writer or the magistrate.

An all-around man, Fielding needs a full and detailed biography ;
an eminently sincere, manly man, he asks of his biographer like
qualities; a man of the world, well versed in the life of his time, he
requires the sensible judgment of a well-balanced, well-informed mind,
rather than the apology of an enthusiast in love with his character;
a man of fine nature, valuing virtue, no mere scoffer, though a slashing
satirist, he can not be understood from the point of view of worldly
wisdom alone. In no respect is Mr. Cross, his latest biographer, found
wanting.

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED 851

THE LETTERS OF ALGERNON CHARLES SWINBURNE. Edited by
Edmund Gosse, C. B. and Thomas James Wise. New York: John
Lane Company.

One of Swinburne's chief interests, as every one knows, was
Elizabethan drama. On this subject he talked and wrote with
enthusiasm that often seemed unmeasured and in a manner that usually
seemed somewhat esoteric. In very minor playwrights he was accus
tomed to find marks of the highest inspiration, and for praise of the
major dramatists he seemed to find the English language scarcely
adequate. In some cases his judgments have appeared capricious, not
to say inexplicable. In others the value of his " penetrating admira
tions " is obvious to all. Swinburne could, of course, find in a play
for the most part poor and crude some real merit of a sort kindred to
his own genius, where another could see little or nothing: it might
sometimes happen indeed that the amount was microscopic. It is of
no use to enter into the subtleties of purely subjective criticism — and
Swinburne's criticism was almost wholly subjective. One can say only
that to an uninspired reader, Swinburne appears to pour out his own
personality lavishly over the plays that he loves.

It is this interest of Swinburne's that is chiefly emphasized in his
recently published correspondence. Remarkably well informed,
capable of discussing the minutest points with the greatest eagerness,
the poet, when he gives up his mind to such matters, lives in a world
much narrower than that of his poetry — a world into which few will
ever fully enter. Those parts of the letters that deal with Elizabethan
plays are for the reader with a special flair for that subject, and for
no one else. They are not of a sort to awaken enthusiasm ; rather they
discourage honest zeal by causing the reader to suspect himself of truly
pitiable ignorance and want of appreciation. It is to less esoteric
matter that the general reader will turn, and he will be rewarded.

To begin with, the letters, while they are not remarkably self-
revealing, do bring one more convincingly in contact with the everyday
working mood of the man, than do previously published letters of his,
or than does most that has been written about him. One gets from
them a sense, not so clearly apprehended before, of an essentially
clear, logical mind and a simple straightforward personality. The
letters are in general less controversial than one might fear that they
would be : except occasionally, the controversial tone when it occurs is
more moderate than might have been expected. The letters are friendly
letters, unguarded letters — in the main, one would think, very repre
sentative letters.

It is refreshing to find that Swinburne in a chaffing mood could
write a letter to Lady Trevelyan in (very bad) Yankee dialect. That
Yankee dialect is intended, seems to be placed beyond doubt by the use
of the word " Wai." Indulgence in this humble form of mental
relaxation certainly seems to make an ecstatic poet seem more human.
Nor is even Swinburne's chaff very reckless. To be sure, his malicious
delight in something to inflame the wrath of the Philistine comes out
in his plan for " a sort of etude a la Balzac plus the poetry, which I
flatter myself will be more offensive and objectionable to Britannia than
anything I have yet done." But on the other hand his remark d propos

852 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

of Carlyle — " A ' God-intoxicated man ' of course can fight but I
prefer a man who fights sober " — is little more than the irony of
common sense opposed to the bluster of religiosity.

Whenever Swinburne refers to his own work, one senses in him
an honest delight in craftsmanship not at all of the nature of esoteric
rapture. Nothing could be simpler and more comprehensive or sounder,
than his dictum, expressed in a letter to Stedman, that " nothing which
can possibly be as well said in prose ought ever to be said in verse."
Again in a letter to the same friend he confesses quite simply the
delight he takes " in the metrical forms of any language of which I
know anything whatever, simply for the metre's sake, as a new musical
instrument." Here are no secrets of art or criticism to be sure, but
valuable confidences as to the attitude toward his art of a great artist.
That the poet knew the possibility of faults of which he was sometimes
supposed to be unconscious, is shown more than once. Of his poem
on Gautier he wrote : " The metrical effect is, I think, not bad, but
the danger of such metres is diffuseness and flaccidity ; I perceive this
one to have a tendency to the dulcet and luscious form of verbosity,
which was to be guarded against, lest the poem should lose its foothold
and be swept off its legs, sense and all, down a flood of effeminate and
monotonous music ; or lost and split in a maze of what I call draggle-
tailed melody."

Swinburne's prose has been much criticized. " At least," he said
in 1875, "I can write better prose than I could at twenty or so!"
What he really required of a poet, is clearly expressed in his estimate
of Poe — "the complete man of genius (however flawed and clouded
at time) who always worked out his ideas thoroughly, and made some
thing solid, rounded, and durable of them — not a mist- wreath or a
waterfall."

In general it may be said that Swinburne's criticisms of other
poets — and there are many of them in these letters — are shrewd and
sensible, the honest comments of a fellow-craftsman, not the superior
dicta of a man with an exclusive, personal ideal of poetry. To some of
Swinburne's admirers it would seem absurd to mention Whitman in
the same breath with him as a melodist. But Swinburne praised Whit
man's melody — though he distinguished between Walt at his best
and at his worst.

As one reads these letters, not only does one feel more and more
the integrity of Swinburne's workmanship, but one is continually
more impressed with the simplicity and honesty of his beliefs. If he
was pagan, if he was anti-Christian, this mental attitude represented
no mere prostration of the mind before artistic idols. There was a great
moral fervor and a great simplicity in his rebellion.

For the rest, his personal traits — his sensitive chivalry, his hero-
worship, his warm friendship, his almost fantastic idolatry of babies,
above all his resplendent candor — are in these letters agreeably and
convincingly expressed. The effect of a consistent, vigorous person
ality is strong.

CLEMENCEAU, THE MAN AND His TIME. By H. M. Hyndman.
New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company.

It is seldom that so good a biography is written of a man during

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED 853

his own lifetime as is that of the Tiger of France by H. M. Hyndman.
By no means a mere eulogy, or journalistic sketch, but the careful work
of a student of European history, a man singularly well informed
about the inner political history of France since 1870, a friend of
Clemenceau, sharing his confidence though not always agreeing with
him, a foreigner, sympathetic but not actually involved in French party
struggles, the biography gives a view of Clemenceau's career that
seems remarkably unbiased, critical, and historic.

Mr. Hyndman is an old and convinced Socialist, but he is not an
extremist. Nor is he by any means a pacifist. " A so^nd, sober and
constructive Socialist policy " is what he has hoped for and worked for ;
and he recognizes that " Pacifism and Bolshevism together — that is to
say, an unholy combination between anti-nationalism and anarchism —
have shaken the influence of democratic socialism to its foundations."
As a Socialist, Mr. Hyndman has been in general sympathy, all along,
with Clemenceau, the radical; but as a Socialist he has differed from
the French statesman on many points — notably in regard to the treat
ment of striking workmen, — and his disagreement has helped to give
him a sharply defined point of view. In the biography, whenever he
disagrees, he states his views, and the grounds for them, frankly and
moderately; and one feels that the same honest, straightforward, and
critical way of thinking is applied even in those cases in which no
difference of doctrine exists between Clemenceau and his biographer.

The author's account of Clemenceau's early life is thoughtful and
lively. Georges Benjamin Clemenceau was born in 1841 at the village
of Mouilleron-en-Pareds, in La Vendee. His father belonged to an
old land-owning family of the region. The elder Clemenceau was a
convinced Republican, a leader of the local extreme Radicals, a
thorough-going materialist, and, even before the publication of The
Origin of Species, an Evolutionist. His son had the advantage of
country life — no small asset to a man who is to subject his constitution
to great strains in the course of an active career, — and what is more he
grew up in an atmosphere of free thought and of practical humanity.
Clemenceau pere was a physician as well as a landowner, and used to
practice gratuitously among the peasants. Later Georges Clemenceau
did as much for the poor of Paris. After studying medicine, the young
man went to Paris, when he was nineteen years old, to " walk the
hospitals." Under Napoleon III he was imprisoned for two months
for the crime of celebrating in speech and writing the date " February
24." In 1865 he obtained his M. D. and in the following year he
visited America, where he was for some time a Professor of French in
a young ladies' college at Stamford, Connecticut.

On his return Clemenceau practised medicine in the working-class
district of Montmartre, where by his charity and his democratic prin
ciples he gained considerable influence. After the collapse of the
Second Empire following Sedan, and after the proclamation of the
Republic in Paris, he was elected Mayor of Montmartre, becoming a
sort of municipal dictator. Thus upon the conclusion of the armistice
in 1871 he was sent by the voters of his district to represent them in
the assembly at Bordeaux. At a stirring time, at the age of thirty, with

854 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

already a considerable experience of men and affairs, he was drawn
into national politics.

In Mr. Hyndman's narrative, Clemenceau's public life is made a
part of the history of the times in which it has lain, and the author's
account of the political events possesses an independent interest.
Almost always Mr. Hyndman has something original to say. He
throws new light on the Commune. He gives freshly interesting
accounts of such episodes as the rise and fall of Boulanger, the Panama
scandals that wrecked so many political careers, the Dreyfus case, the
Caillaux affair. His description of conditions in France during the
war, showing the extent of the menace from " the enemy within," is
eye-opening.

Throughout, the man who between 1877 and 1893 destroyed no
fewer than eighteen more or less reactionary administrations, who
" more than any other man prevented the Republic from altogether
deteriorating and kept alive the spirit of the great French Revolution
in the minds and hearts of men ;" who, when nearly eighty years of age,
" became democratic dictator of France as no man has been for more
than a century," — this great fighter and leader is portrayed mostly by
his acts, with a minimum of analysis. Mr. Hyndman's remarks, how
ever, supply just the needed interpretations. They enable one to see,
for example, just what Clemenceau's position was when he opposed
Thiers in the national assembly ; how well he understood both sides of
the problem on that occasion — the attitude of the country people and
that of the Parisians. His comments make evident the disinterested
courage that led Clemenceau to speak in favor of the release of the
indefatigable Communist Blanqui in 1879. They reveal the nature
and extent of Clemenceau's labors in procuring a retrial for Dreyfus.
The man's acts, properly emphasized, placed in their setting, and just
sufficiently explained, give one a convincing picture of him.

In this book of Mr. Hyndman's there is not a single perfunctory
word. Nor is there any reason to think that sympathy with radical
opinions has biased the author's opinion. All is told from a radical point
of view, but all is told truly; and whatever difference of emphasis
might be given to the narrative by another historian in another time,
the essential facts, the elements of greatness, here so vigorously set
forth, cannot be other than Mr. Hyndham has represented them to be.

DRAMATIC TECHNIQUE. By George Pierce Baker. New York:
Houghton Miflflin Company.

A statement of Dr. Baker's in the preface to his work so well
defines the proper limitations of a book on dramatic technique that one
can not better indicate the essentially sound character of the author's
treatment of this subject than by quoting his words. " I have written,"
says Professor Baker, " for persons who cannot be content except
when writing plays. I wish it distinctly understood that I have not
written for the person seeking methods of conducting a course in
dramatic technique. I view with some alarm the recent mushroom
growth of such courses throughout the country. I gravely doubt the
advisability of such courses. Dramatic technique is the means of
expressing, for the stage, one's ideas and emotions. Except in rare

NEW BOOKS REVIEWED 865

instances, undergraduates are better employed in filling their minds
with general knowledge than in trying to phrase for the stage thoughts
or emotions not yet mature."

So sane a pronouncement is reassuring in this day of pretentious
courses, and of text-books that profess to do everything, even to supply
ing the undergraduate with a substitute for experience of life. And,
coming from the head of the very successful " 47 Workshop " the
words have an authority that should carry weight.

To have a correct conception of one's purpose is half the battle
always. That Professor Baker knows how to carry on the task to
a practical end, no one who is familiar with the productions of the
"47 Workshop," can doubt. A teacher under whose direction so
original and entertaining a farce as Free Speech — to name but one out
of a number of real plays — was written, ought to know what it is
good for the budding dramatist to study.

In method of presentation, the author has not striven for new
theory or for undue simplification of the old. He has stuck to the
organic processes of play-writing — to the processes that the masters
of the craft really pursue. He has formulated the problems as they
actually present themselves to the worker. Notably he is not content
with the mere analysis that so often seems the all in all to the pedagogic
mind. As revealing his point of view, his chapter headings are illum
inating: " From Subject to Plot — Clearing the Way;" " From Subject
through Story to Plot"; "From Subject to Plot: Proportioning the
Material." In each, the dynamic character of the process is emphasized :
it is made plain that the dramatist must get somewhere. This thinking
in dramatic terms, this adapting of means to end before a line of
dialogue is written, is, of course, the heart of the subject. Four chapters
are given to these organic processes, one to dialogue, and one to
characterization.

A book constructed on the broadest lines, which are, when all is
said, the most practical, yet a book exceedingly clear in definition and
exceedingly definite as to rules established by long experience, Pro
fessor Baker's treatise throws the burden of play-writing, at last, where
it belongs, and where every one truly interested in the art would wish to
have it, upon the inventiveness, the patience, and the experimental skill
of the playwright.

So excellent are the varied materials used by the author for illus
tration, so effective are often his comments in the way of arousing
interest, that his book is well worth reading even by those who have no
designs on the stage.

SOCIALISM AND AMERICAN IDEALS. By William Starr Meyers,
Ph. D., Professor of Politics in Princeton University. Princeton:
Princeton University Press,,

Is Socialism the name of a definite, hidebound system or the name
of a tendency? As John Spargo has pointed out, the classic socialism
has never taken any deep hold upon America. Indeed, before Marxian
socialism got far along the road of its professed aims in any country,
Bolshevism — the rule of the under-dog — raised its head. What we
have to deal with in America seems to be not so much socialism as a
socialistic tendency that seems to threaten a gradual undermining of

856 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

democracy. A certain body of socialists have already realized that
the old dogmas — including that of the inevitable class war — will not
easily take root in America. They are abandoning doctrinaire principles
and aiming at measures. Here the danger, if danger it is, would seem
to lie.

Against the simple socialistic argument, Professor Meyers brings
the old convincing refutations very effectively. But one could wish
that in putting the case vigorously for unalloyed Americanism he had
been able, even in a very brief and essentially popular treatise, to devote
more attention to the subtler phases of the question. To say that " noth
ing could be more inconsistent with a sound democracy than the dis
tribution of the material results of productive activity applied to the
resources of nature regardless of the merits or just claims of those
engaged in the work," is to state a self-evident truth. But is it just
this that socialists — most socialists — really intend? If so, it is difficult
to pin them down to the admission, and the pinning down is what
most needs to be done in order to counteract socialistic influence. Again,
it seems almost a waste of time to prove that socialism is not, as some
of its defenders assert it to be, a doctrine taught in the Bible. Obvi
ously it is not. But no less obviously, socialism would be Christian
enough if it would really accomplish what its advocates claim for it.
The mere refutation of the baseless assumption does not much advance
the argument The only practical application of socialism to which
Professor Meyers devotes much space is government ownership of
railroads, and this he treats rather summarily, conveying perhaps too
much the impression that this complicated question may be decided on
very few and simple grounds.

Professor Meyers' treatise is good polemically, and it has essential
truths to support it; but query — does it quite hit the mark? Has not
the author perhaps slightly underrated the enemy ?

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

IN DEFENSE OF LINCOLN
SIR,—

That genial philosopher, Josh Billings, once said that it is " better
not to know so many things than to know so many things that ain't
not so."

One is reminded of this bit of wisdom on reading John Jay Chap
man's paper on "Lincoln and Hamlet" in the March REVIEW.
According to Mr. Chapman, Lincoln lived in a most "benighted age,"
and while " he threw into political life as much as that life could carry
of liberal thought," he was not profound, and was unable to see the
deeper issues behind the politics of his time. Instead of being a clear-
eyed, prophetic minded statesman, he was a mere builder of a political
machine, and even as a politician he was only able to " see a political
idea when it was above the political horizon — or was just nearly about
to rise " ; " he was caged and controlled by the conviction that there
must be a United States " ; an honest, painstaking plodder, he reminds
the author of a " very knowing mountain mule " ; " caged in his prob
lems of tangible politics, he was obtuse to the meaning of John Brown's
Raid." He " never understood the slavery question." " He was always
bent on preserving the Union, with or without slavery," because the
Constitution accorded slavery certain rights, but " the notion of pre
serving slavery because it was provided for in the Constitution of the
United States was the thought of illiterate men." Lincoln never saw
" the problem in the larger light " ; never saw " that slavery was
doomed " ; and employed " his enormous mental powers in bolstering
up a thesis that was essentially false." His brain was so cramped
by the poison of slavery, that " he could not see that the Constitution
of the United States was a fetish and that he himself was like a super
stitious woman who was clinging to a rag doll during a tempest at sea."
He " had moments of illumination," but " his habits of self-suppression
and his belief in his doctrine besieged him, and the light would nicker
and go out." Mr. Chapman deplores the fact that " Lincoln's timidity
has had an evil influence upon American character from his day to
our own " ; that it has been a deterrent force operating against every
" American reform movement " ; and he even gravely informs us that
" it is quite certain that the precedent of 1860 had a powerful influence
in preventing our administration from preparing for war in 1914."
From which it would seem that Mr. Lincoln is in some way held
accountable for the timidity and inefficiency of his predecessor, James
Buchanan, who was President in 1860, and it doubtless led to the re-

858 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

election of Mr. Wilson in 1916, because his timidity had " kept us out
of war." As an evidence of Mr. Lincoln's " inability to see the deeper
issues behind the politics of his time," Mr. Chapman misstates his posi
tion concerning a Constitutional amendment referred to in the First
Inaugural, which Mr. Lincoln had never seen, and as a conclusive
evidence of his inefficiency as an executive he quotes the closing lines
of the First Inaugural, which he characterizes as " flat " if intended as
a call to patriotism, as "ludicrous" if intended as a threat, and as
" tending to incite any manly revolutionist to unusual activity."

Hamlet is an inconspicuous figure in this indictment. He simply
serves as a screen upon which Mr. Chapman would have us see pictures
of a man who, as he patronizingly concedes, might have been great — a
man of " enormous mental powers," a man of such " gigantic natural
powers " that he could single-handed and alone " have brought the
brains of Europe to our rescue," and with Europe's brains (and
war?) would have settled the slavery question in short order; but
who, instead, wasted his powers and sunk to the level of a mere
" John A-Dreams," without ability to comprehend the great issues of
his day. Just what use Mr. Lincoln could have made of Europe's
brains in this summary suppression of rebellion and extinction of
slavery, Mr. Chapman does not explain.

I do not write this in defense of Lincoln. He needs none. But,
as one of the illiterates who lived in that " benighted age," and had the
honor to serve as a member of his Body Guard or mounted escort from
1863 until his assassination, and bore a very humble part in that struggle
for national life, I write only to give some faint expression to my
indignation. To one who lived through the period of the Civil War,
and was also in touch with the events of the ten years which preceded
it, Mr. Chapman's superficial interpretation, or misinterpretation, of
Mr. Lincoln's character and of his course as President, is unpleasant
reading.

It is in a way curious, as well as exasperating, in this day and in
the light of events, when the whole world knows that our great Republic
was saved from destruction by the wisdom of Mr. Lincoln and the
valor of its loyal sons who answered his call, to see this recrudescence
of discredited ideas of ante bellum days. Who's Who tells us
that Mr. Chapman was born in 1862. His information concerning the
events of that " illiterate " and " benighted " time is necessarily second
hand. Where did he get it, and upon what intellectual provender has
he fed, to give rise to this product of mental dyspepsia? In what
school was he taught, that the Constitution of the United States is to
him a mere "fetish" for which a superstitious woman's rag doll is a
fitting simile? He tells us that his paper was inspired by "reading
all one day about Lincoln, and going to see Hamlet on the next." It
is a fairly good guess that his day's reading must have been devoted
to the products of those zealous, brilliant and honest, but intemperate
and impractical reformers of that day, who had adopted as their
motto — " The Constitution of the United States is a covenant with
death and an agreement with Hell " ; who, in 1845, nad seriously pro
posed that Massachusetts should secede from the Union because of
slavery, and whose statesmanship suggests the physician who, when
called to treat a sick man, instead of trying to save the patient would

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 859

advise putting him to death, because some of his children had the seven-
year itch.

It is true that Mr. Lincoln was a politician, — but a politician in
the highest and best sense of that term. He was also a statesman, in
the highest and best sense of that term. When he succeeded to the
Presidency, while several of the States had attempted to secede, from
his point of view (which was the only logical point of view) they could
not secede. By the adoption of the Constitution, a nation had been
created — the States had been merged into an indissoluble Union, and
the Constitution was that which bound them together. Therefore, while
the Constitution stood unchanged, the attempted secession was in
effectual. Those States were not out of the Union, they were still
integral parts of it, but were in a state of insurrection. The only logical
course was to stand by the Constitution and maintain the Union thus
created. It is well for the world that Mr. Lincoln held to his convic
tion that there must be a United States — well for the world was his
determination that the Union should be preserved even if in saving it
slavery survived for a time — well for the world that Mr. Lincoln was
wise enough to see that the Constitution was the one and only thing
which held the States bound in an indivisible unity, and that instead
of being a mere fetish it was rather the stanch bulkhead that saved the
ship of state from sinking when it was torpedoed by a slaveholders' in
surrection. Mr. Lincoln was called to serve the nation at a time when
it was suffering from grave internal disorder. As the humane physician
knows that the ethics of his profession make it his duty to save the
life and restore the health of his patient if possible, so Mr. Lincoln
knew that his oath of office bound him to save the Union which made
us a nation, if that were possible. The 1,866,000 who had voted for
him for President, had by that act declared their opposition to the
extension of slavery into the territories, as that was the issue upon
which he was elected; but 1,375,000 other voters who had voted for
Mr. Douglas, had thereby declared their indifference as to that issue,
and were willing that slavery should be thus extended; while 845,000
who voted for Mr. Breckinridge had declared with equal emphasis in
favor of giving the slaveholders everything they asked for. Only
589,000 who voted for Mr. Bell, had indicated their wish to see slavery
abolished. The nation was hopelessly divided on the slavery question.
If the nation was to be saved, it was necessary to find a common ground
upon which its friends could stand, and a rallying cry to which enough
would respond to defeat the insurrection. That rallying cry was Union,
and that common ground was its maintenance. Thousands, even of
those who had voted for Mr. Breckinridge, stood firmly for the main
tenance of the Union, and the closing lines of that First Inaugural made
the most subtle and effective appeal to tens of thousands who would
have been deaf to an appeal to take up arms for the abolition of slavery.

Mr. Lincoln's stand, without doubt, held the border States. Pre
mature action for the abolition of slavery would have caused them to
join the secession movement, and as Mr. Lincoln suggested to a delega
tion from Chicago in 1862, there were fifty thousand bayonets from
those States in our armies, which would be turned against us by acting
too soon. In addition, such action would have greatly augmented the
ranks of the Knights of the Golden Circle, the Sons of Liberty, and

860 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

other disloyal organizations in Indiana, Ohio and Illinois, and thus have
caused serious embarrassment, and would have rendered the outcome
uncertain.

Mr. Lincoln was as much opposed to slavery as William Lloyd
Garrison, Wendell Phillips, or Horace Greeley. He believed in its
eventual extirpation, and his method of dealing with it was the clear
headed method of a statesman, who could see beyond the immediate
present and visualize something of the great and entirely free nation
that was to be. He believed in government of the people and by the
people. The end of slavery must come through action by the people,
changing the fundamental law. With slavery excluded from the ter
ritories, and with those territories growing up into free States, the time
was not far distant when the people who were opposed to it would be
strong enough to end it by the methods prescribed by the Constitution.
That end could be accomplished only by saving the Union. Hence,
whether the Union was saved either with or without slavery, was
secondary. In fact, it was saved with slavery, for the emancipation
proclamation being solely a war measure, was effectual only in the
revolting States, and was by its terms expressly thus limited. The
Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution only became effective as a
part of that instrument with the Proclamation of December 18, 1865, —
after the war was ended.

Mr. Lincoln's so-called timidity was only that calm, clear-headed
deliberation which prevents premature and ill-considered action; that
saving grace of combined coolness and common sense, that enabled him
to steer safely between the Scylla of extreme pro-slaveryism and the
Charybdis of extreme abolitionism; that saving grace which has on
still other occasions preserved us from grave and disastrous blunders,
— such as, the repudiation of our national debt, — the twin crazes of
greenbackism and free silverism, and has thus far stayed the hands of
those who in the name of reform through the overruling or recall of
judicial decisions by popular vote, would have destroyed the one thing
which distinguishes our Government from all others and makes it
indeed a government for all the people, in the protection it affords to
the individual and to the minority, as against an intolerant and passion-
ruled majority. That so-called timidity furnishes no precedent for the
pusillanimity which denied and still denies to our citizens protection
from and reparation for Mexican outrages, and which held the man
hood of our country in leash for two years while German barbarism
insolently raged in its ghastly riot.

ROBERT W. MCBRIDE.

Indianapolis, Ind.

INVESTING IN THE PHILIPPINES

SIR, — One thing which the members of the Philippine Mission
now visiting America are not saying much about, but which is very
near their hearts and perhaps the paramount reason for their visit, is
the Philippine Land Title Act.

This is a measure recently passed by the Philippine Legislature,
but which President Wilson has not approved. The President deeply
disappointed the Filipinos and sacrificed much of the halo of high

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 861

opinion in which they had held him. Briefly, the act in question
sought to provide that title to real estate in the Philippine Islands
could be acquired only by Americans and Filipinos, and that real estate
now held under title by others than Americans or Filipinos could not be
bequeathed, save to heirs acknowledging American sovereignty.

Naturally the proposal stirred foreigners in the Islands to hasty
appeal to diplomatic influence, with results as noted above.

There are still many Spanish subjects in the Philippine Islands.
Many of them own real estate and quite a number are wealthy — as
wealth goes in the Archipelago. These made vehement protest against
what they deemed, or declared they deemed, practical confiscation of
their property. They said that the law if approved would be a clear
violation of moral principle and an abrogation of their fundamental
and treaty rights ; and that under forced sale — which the provisions of
the law would naturally entail — their holdings would go at ruinous fig
ures, — only Filipinos and Americans, of course, being possible bidders.

The tacit answer of the Filipinos to all this is, that if the Spaniards
living in the Islands are truly interested in the welfare of the country
and truly loyal to the principles of democracy upon which the Philip
pine state is to be erected, they can foreswear their allegiance to mon-
archial Spain and swear allegiance to America and the Philippine gov
ernment — a thing many Spanish nationals did dp at the inception of
American rule in the Islands, when the opportunity was offered them.
The majority, however, renewed their allegiance to Spain. Not a
small number showed a decided German leaning during the recent war.

Englishmen in the Philippine Islands do not own a great deal of
real estate, but German nationals held considerable property before the
war, and they were rapidly acquiring more. The Japanese are acquir
ing more from day to day, even against certain obstacles which it is
possible under the law to place in their way. (For instance, " reserva
tions "of public lands may be made, at points cutting into a region
over which the Mikado's subjects are extending their interests; and it
is possible to do something along the same line in the classification of
public lands — agricultural, forest, mining, etc.)

What alarms Filipino statesmen in the acquistion of real holdings
by the subjects of foreign Powers is, obviously, the menace such a con
dition creates against their national development.

The whole policy of America in the Philippine Islands looks
toward the ultimate independence of the Archipelago, a thing expected
to come within a period of thirty years. The policy of none of the
other countries mentioned, concerning colonies, accords with our own.
Our exploitation of Philippine resources is and has been from the first
mutually beneficial to Filipinos and Americans, and the policy of the
Government has placed Filipino interests first. Filipinos see no danger
in citizens of the United States acquiring large interests in real prop
erty, or in other things, in the Islands ; but they can not, naturally, hold
the same view toward the subjects of certain other Powers.

There is a movement in the Philippine Islands toward the manu
facture of raw materials. This is a part of the new nationalism and
flourishes under our policy, where once the sole expectation was that
the Islands should produce hemp, sugar, tobacco, copra, and the like —
for factories established elsewhere. The battle is now on, in a manner

862 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

of speaking, between the representatives of the older interests and
those accepting the newer order of things. Americans are finding it
more and more to their advantage to establish manufactures in the
Islands, where materials may be selected and where labor, though bet
ter remunerated than any other Oriental labor, is still cheap and cer
tainly very dependable.

The proposed land-title law will without doubt come up in the next
session of the Philippine Legislature, for amendment. The session will
open in October. The effort will be to frame the law in such a way as
will quiet all reasonable objections from foreigners — it may very prob
ably provide for naturalization — i. e.f acquisition of Philippine, not
American, citizenship — while at the same time insuring that the fifteen
million acres of first-class agricultural public lands still lying fallow,
and the 40,000 square miles of forest lands, to say nothing of promising
mine projects in copper, iron and gold, shall not fall to the ownership
of those whose sympathies are imperialistic rather than democratic.

Far more than Filipino appeal for independence, the next Ameri
can Administration will have to face this issue, which the present Ad
ministration, because of President Wilson's disapproval of the land-title
Act, has for the moment evaded. Filipinos realize that to be politically
independent they must be economically independent, and that for this
end they must own, and continue to own, the bulk of Philippine lands.

The point lies in the fact that the greater portion of the Islands,
extremely fertile and potentially rich in harvests, is still undeveloped,
while every one— every one, apparently, but the general American
public, the investing element of which should concern itself — realizes
the profits to be taken in acquiring this land and bringing it under
cultivation. If the proposed land-title law might be approved, the
opportunity would await development by Filipino-American interests,
which are felt not to be incompatible with Philippine national life.

WALTER ROBB.

Philippine Islands.

INSTRUCTION FOR GERMANS

SIR, — Your editorial, " The Spots of the Leopard," in the April
issue, interested me greatly, as it sounded the warning note against
that most insidious danger, the lack of signs of contrition in Germany.

What is needed is a constructive plan to bring home to the average
German just why he is held in abhorrence by the rest of the world,
and I believe that the Germans have unwittingly shown us the way
to accomplish this.

Germany put great faith in propaganda. Therefore I think that
it is a fair assumption that she is peculiarly susceptible to its influence.
In consequence, I would suggest the following: that pamphlets be
published in the German language and distributed widely throughout
Germany (couched in simple language so that the man in the street
can understand) to prove the following : —

First. That Germany deliberately brought on the war. Quotations
from Lichnowsky, Muehlon and Harden would be invaluable.

Second. That the German atrocities were facts, and not mere
figments of their enemy's imagination, and that they were enacted in

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 863

pursuance of an avowed plan of Frightfulness. Quotations from the
Bryce report giving chapter and verse would aid greatly.

Third. That the German people have been consistently lied to by
their leaders. Their present loss of faith in the invincibility of their
leaders may make the soil fertile for this.

Fourth. Quotations from Heine, who is really beloved in Germany,
showing the true character of the German leaders. Even Nietzsche
might be quoted.

I fully realize the difficulty of such a scheme of re-education of
the German, but I believe the difficulties could be overcome. I also
realize that all this would cost a great deal of money, but if even
moderately successful, it would pay huge dividends in eradicating the
revenge idea which must be universally held in Germany. In the last
analysis, the peace terms rest on force for their execution. A real
change of heart in Germany would make the world breathe easier.

ARTHUR H. SHORE.

New York City.

FROM A FRIEND. April 2, 1919.

SIR. — Permit a word of commendation from a reader who can
not remember when she first became acquainted with the NORTH
AMERICAN REVIEW. Under the tutorship of a wise father, I was
reading it regularly and appreciatively before I was twelve years old.
As it was the first periodical of my acquaintance, it is now, and always
has been, first in my regard. It is easily the premier among American
periodical publications. Should the time ever come to me — as it came
to my father — when I can afford only one periodical, his choice shall
be my choice. Thanks to his correct sense of values, he continued to
take the NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW even during those lean years of
Reconstruction when its subscription price represented a real sacrifice
in a Southern home. The enforced economies of those days, in our
home, at least were not permitted to circumscribe the intellectual
outlook of its inmates.

As I remember it the REVIEW was then, as it still is, a keen and
discerning interpreter of the mighty currents of world-thought. But
never has it performed that function more ably, efficiently and
patriotically than in the present world crisis, into which our country
has been swept by the recent war. Its editorials seem all but prophetic
in their timely utterances so full of wisdom and warning. I wish
they might be proclaimed from some mountain-top, in tones so loud,
so far-reaching and convincing that not a hamlet nor rural community
in the ]Jnited States, be it never so remote, could remain asleep or
indifferent to the tremendous issues now at stake. Issues profoundly
affecting, if not changing forever, the destiny of our beloved Republic,
are trembling in the balance of Internationalism at the Paris Peace Con
ference. God has given you the wisdom to see the hidden import, the
full significance of these* issues, Mr. Editor; as He has also given
you extraordinary powers of language and logic with which to explain
and set them forth. Continue to r „ these gifts as did the seers of old
to warn and save the people from imminent, but often unseen perils.
Break, if possi^1*:, tire spell of hypnotism which seems to possess our

864 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

countrymen, body, mind and soul. Cause them to see the real dangers
which a blindly partisan press is either concealing or minimizing. Keep
up your splendid defence of American interests, traditions and institu
tions. Thousands of us are looking to you to arouse the public to
lead men to think for themselves and to weigh well the possible
consequences of sacrificing American independence, even in answer
to " the voice of humanity," as our idealist President seems bent upon
doing. Can we not best serve humanity, in the future, as in the past,
by keeping our independence inviolable? In the light of past history
and the present world situation, how can any one urge so radical a
ange of our national policy, without the fullest, frankest discussion
and investigation; not only by the treaty-making powers of our Gov
ernment, but by the people at large?

Continue to turn on the white light of " pitiless publicity/' Mr.
Editor. Thousands of patriotic Americans are bidding you "God-

sPeed '" M. G. W.

Shelby, Mississippi.

LOST— AN AMERICAN SOUL.

SIR, — Many of us who can say " Thank God, I — I also — am an
American," believe that our birthrights and privileges can be preserved
only through the courageous utterances of patriots like yourself. Most
of us are sadly confused by the attitude of our self-appointed leader
who, tempted by the lure of gaining the applause of the whole foreign
world, seems to have lost his American soul. We thank you, Colonel
E ~vey, for your clearness of vision and fixedness of purpose, which
will yet save America for Americans. May God speed the day !

C. H. BAYLESS.

Tucson, Ariz.