The New York Times Current History - June, 1918 by NY Times

	PAGE
CURRENT HISTORY CHRONICLED	381
BATTLES IN PICARDY AND FLANDERS	389
THE GREATEST BATTLE OF THE WAR, By Philip Gibbs	398
America's Sacrifice, By Harold Begbie	410
AMERICAN SOLDIERS IN BATTLE	411
Overseas Forces More Than Half a Million	413
American Troops in Central France, By Laurence Jerrold	415
American Shipbuilders Break All Records	418
THIRD LIBERTY LOAN OVERSUBSCRIBED	419
Former War Loans of the United States	421
AMERICAN LABOR MISSION IN EUROPE	424
PROGRESS OF THE WAR	426
GERMAN LOSSES ON ALL FRONTS	431
GREAT BRITAIN'S FINANCES	432
TRADE AFTER THE WAR	434
FINLAND UNDER GERMAN CONTROL	438
Peace Treaty Between Finland and Germany	445
GERMAN AGGRESSION IN RUSSIA	449
MORE BOLSHEVIST LEGISLATION, By Abraham Yarmolinsky	455
LITHUANIA'S EFFORTS TOWARD AUTONOMY, By A. M. Martus	458
THE RAID ON ZEEBRUGGE AND OSTEND	460
GERMAN U-BOAT CLAIMS: Address by Admiral von Capelle	467
The Admiral's Statements Attacked	469
The Month's Submarine Record	470
A Secret Chapter of U-Boat History	471
SEA-RAIDER WOLF AND ITS VICTIMS	473
Career and Fate of the Raider Seeadler	476
TREATMENT OF BRITISH PRISONERS: Official Report	479
American Prisoners Exploited	484
THE TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF RHEIMS, By G. H. Perris	485
The Abomination of Desolation, By Dr. Norman Maclean	486
LLOYD GEORGE AND GENERAL MAURICE	488
THE NEW BRITISH SERVICE ACT	491
British Aid to Italy: General Plumer's Report	492
EMPEROR CHARLES'S "DEAR SIXTUS" LETTER	494
THE ISSUES IN IRELAND: Report of the Irish Convention	496
Greatest Gas Attack of the War	504
PLUCKY DUNKIRK By Anna Milo Upjohn	505
GERMANY'S ATTEMPT TO DIVIDE BELGIUM	511
STRIPPING BELGIAN INDUSTRIES: The Rathenau Plan	516
Spoliation of Belgian Churches: Cardinal Mercier's Protest	523
Belgium's Appeal to the Bolsheviki	525
SERBIA'S HOPES AND RUSSIA'S DEFECTION By Nicholas Pashitch	526
RUMANIA'S PEACE TREATY	529
Summary of the Peace of Bucharest	531
Bessarabia Voluntarily United to Rumania	535
THE WAR AND THE BAGDAD RAILWAY By Dr. Morris Jastrow	536
LICHNOWSKY'S MEMORANDUM	539
Full Text of von Jagow's Reply	541
German Comments on von Jagow's Views	545
Germany's Long Plotting for Domination By H. Charles Woods	548
THE EUROPEAN WAR AS SEEN BY CARTOONISTS: 31 Cartoons	551

Copyright 1918, by The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved. Entered at the Post Offices in New York and in Canada as Second Class Matter.

---

	PAGE
Viscount Milner	Frontis
General Sir W. R. Marshall	"
Charles M. Schwab	394
John D. Ryan	395
Staff Officers with Pershing	410
Leaders in War Activities	411
Baron Stephan Burian	426
Leaders in Irish Controversy	427
British War Leaders	458
French and American Tanks	459
American Regiment in France	474
French Chateau in Ruins	475
Marching to the Front	506
Harvard Regiment in Boston	507
Trafalgar Square in Wartime	522
Typical Scene in Flanders	523

---

[Period Ended May 19, 1918.]

Four weeks of comparative calm on the western front intervened after the furious fighting that had continued throughout the preceding month. The Germans made several desperate efforts to smash their way through the British lines to the channel ports, but they failed. The British and French lines stood firm as granite, and the enemy suffered frightful losses. The battle lines remained practically unchanged.

From the English Channel to the Adriatic there was complete union of the British, French, American, and Italian forces under a single command; these forces, including reserves, were estimated at 6,000,000 men. No military event of importance occurred on the other fronts, though the British made some further advances in Palestine and Mesopotamia.

In political matters the month brought events of more importance, chief of which was the renewal of an alliance between Germany and Austria; this was accomplished at a meeting of the Emperors.

The acceleration of troop movements from the United States to France was a feature of the month, the estimate for the four weeks running as high as 150,000; it was semi-officially stated that in April, 1918, more than 500,000 American soldiers were in France, and that by Jan. 1, 1919, there would be 1,500,000 of our fighting men at the front, with 500,000 more at transportation, supply, and civil work; the speeding up of shipbuilding and other war work was significant. The Third Liberty Loan aggregated more than $4,000,000,000, with 17,000,000 subscribers, proving a brilliant success. The President by proclamation extended enemy alien restrictions to women also. A bill was passed enabling the President to consolidate and co-ordinate executive bureaus, thus giving him extraordinary executive powers. The sedition law was strengthened. A new commercial agreement was made with Norway.

In Great Britain the chief event was the triumph of the Premier over a military group that tried to overthrow his Ministry. There was a recrudescence of the spirit of rebellion in Ireland. In France the conviction of the Bonnet Rouge editors on a charge of treason deepened confidence in the stability of the Government. The German penetration of Russia continued, and all the evidence indicated that the country was coming under Teutonic control, economically, industrially, and financially. The humiliating peace forced on Rumania was ratified, and the country passed practically under German and Austrian domination.

The month's record of enemy U-boat losses strengthened faith that this menace was being eliminated and that new allied tonnage would exceed losses in increasing ratio from May 1, 1918.

The chief naval event was the daring British raid on the German submarine bases at Zeebrugge and Ostend; the channel at the first named port was blocked, and the harbor entrance at Ostend, by means of a second raid, was partially blocked, resulting in a serious hampering of submarine operations. The Italians penetrated Pola Harbor, May 14, with a small torpedo boat and sank a 20,000-ton Austrian dreadnought.

During the night of May 18 the British authorities in Ireland suddenly arrested at their homes about 500 of the leading Sinn Feiners on the charge of having treasonable communication with the German enemy. Among those arrested were the Sinn Fein members of Parliament, also the conspicuous Irish agitators and irreconcilables, both men and women. A proclamation was issued by the Lord Lieutenant declaring that a conspiracy with Germany had been discovered, calling upon all loyal Irishmen to assist in suppressing it, and urging voluntary enlistments. It was believed that this prompt action had prevented a contemplated uprising, which was being aided by German spies. Comparative calm followed the arrests.

It seems certain that never in the world's history were so many different races, peoples, and tongues united under the command of a single man as are now gathered together in the army of Generalissimo Foch. If we divide the human races into White, Yellow, Red, and Black, all four are largely represented. Among the white races there are Frenchmen, Italians, Portuguese, English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Canadians, Australians, South Africans, (of both British and Dutch descent,) New Zealanders; in the American Army, probably every other European nation is represented, with additional contingents from those already named, so that every branch of the white race figures in the ethnological total. There are representatives of many Asiatic races, including not only the volunteers from the native States of India, but elements from the French colony in Cochin China, with Annam, Cambodia, Tonkin, Laos, and Kwang Chau Wan. England and France both contribute many African tribes, including Arabs from Algeria and Tunis, Senegalese, Saharans, and many of the South African races. The red races of North America are represented in the armies of both Canada and the United States, while the Maoris, Samoans, and other Polynesian races are likewise represented. And as, in the American Army, there are men of German, Austrian, and Hungarian descent, and, in all probability, contingents also of Bulgarian and Turkish blood, it may be said that Foch commands an army representing the whole human race, united in defense of the ideals of the Allies. The presence, among Foch's strategic reserves, of 250,000 Italian soldiers is peculiarly interesting, as no Italian force at all comparable to this in numbers seems ever to have operated on French soil, though French armies have again and again fought in Italy. During the early wars of Napoleon this was the case, and again in 1859, when the battles of Magenta and Solferino gave names to two new shades of red. In 1870 also there were French troops in Rome; their withdrawal, in the Summer of that year, opened the way for the final union of Italy.

The German and Austrian Emperors held a consultation at German Great Headquarters on May 12 to discuss future relations between the two empires. Emperor Karl was accompanied by Foreign Minister Burian, Field Marshal von Arz, Chief of the General Staff, and Prince Hohenlohe, Austrian Ambassador at Berlin. Germany was represented by Imperial Chancellor von Hertling, Field Marshal von Hindenburg, General Ludendorff, Foreign Secretary von Kuehlmann, and Count von Wedel, Ambassador at Vienna.

According to an official statement issued in Berlin, all the fundamental political, economic, and military questions affecting present and future relations were thoroughly discussed, and "there was complete accord on all these questions, tending to deepen the existing alliance." In many quarters the impression prevailed that the result of the meeting was to define and recognize formally the subservient relations of Austria-Hungary toward the German Empire. The State Department at Washington made public a report based upon indications given by the Berlin newspapers that the agreement made at the meeting concerned three points:

1. The duration of the alliance was fixed for twenty-five years.

2. Germany and Austria-Hungary are to sign a military convention imposing upon each much stricter military obligations than did the preceding treaty.

3. The economic relations will be regulated so as to realize the plan of Mitteleuropa.

A solution of the Polish question was also arrived at, according to a newspaper statement published in Berlin, on the lines of complete union between Austria-Hungary and Poland. Another message said that the German and Austrian Emperors had selected monarchs for Poland, Lithuania, Courland, and Esthonia. It was officially stated that no actual treaty was signed.

One of the most interesting subsequent revelations was that King Ludwig of Bavaria and King Frederick August of Saxony were also present at the meeting at German Great Headquarters. Some of the reports represented these two monarchs as having been present uninvited.

Arthur J. Balfour, British Secretary of Foreign Affairs, replying to inquiries in the House of Commons, May 16, stated that Emperor Karl's peace letter to Prince Sixtus, which had been received while Mr. Balfour was in America, was a private letter written by Emperor Charles to a relative (Prince Sixtus of Bourbon) and conveyed by him to President Poincaré and the French Premier under seal of the strictest secrecy, but with no permission to communicate it to any one except the Sovereign and Premier of this country, [Great Britain.] The letter was communicated to the French and English Premiers under these pledges.

He stated that he had no secrets from President Wilson, and added: "Every thought I have on the war or on the diplomacy connected with the war is as open to President Wilson as to any other human being." He declared that he regarded the Sixtus letter as not a peace effort, but a manoeuvre to divide the Allies. He declared that they were not fighting for "a bigger Alsace-Lorraine than in 1870," and added:

If any representative of any belligerent country desires seriously to lay before us any proposals we are ready to listen to them.

Lord Robert Cecil, Minister of Blockade, in the same debate, after indorsing the preceding statement of Mr. Balfour, added this reference to Russia:

We have no quarrel with Russia at all. On the contrary, with the Russian people we have always desired to be on the closest possible terms of friendship. We are anxious to do all we can to support and assist the Russian people to preserve Russia as a great country, not only now, but in the period after the war.

Lord Robert denied that Great Britain had any quarrel with the Bolsheviki over their domestic policy, saying:

That is a matter for Russia, and Russia alone; we have no other desire than to see Russia great, powerful, and non-German.

The British Admiralty issued an official announcement on May 1, stating that it was considered proved conclusively that the British hospital ship Guildford Castle was attacked by a German submarine in the Bristol Channel, March 10, and narrowly escaped destruction. At the time the Guildford Castle was carrying 438 wounded soldiers and flying a Red Cross flag of the largest size with distinguishing marks distinctly illuminated. The attack occurred at 5:35 P. M., in clear weather. Two torpedoes were fired. In evidence of attacks on hospital ships the British Admiralty quotes the following extracts from the German official message, sent through the German wireless stations on April 24, 1918:

With respect to the results of the submarine war for the month of march, the Deutsche Tageszeitung says: "Lloyd George and Geddes falsify the losses of ships plying in the military service (? ignoring) so-called naval losses, auxiliary cruisers, guard ships, hospital ships, and very probably also troop transports and munition steamers, that is to say, precisely that shipping space which is particularly exposed to and attacked by the U-boats.

On April 22, 1918, the National Assembly of Guatemala declared that that republic occupied the same position toward the European belligerents as did the United States. Guatemala had broken off diplomatic relations with Germany in April, 1917. On May 7 Nicaragua declared war against Germany and her allies. The declaration was in the form of a recommendation of President Chamorro, which the Nicaraguan Congress adopted with only four dissenting votes. A further declaration was adopted of solidarity with the United States and the other American republics at war with Germany and Austria-Hungary. Nicaragua was the twentieth nation to declare war against Germany. Uruguay remains a neutral at this writing. On April 12 the Government asked Berlin, through Switzerland, whether Germany considered that a state of war existed with Uruguay, as stated by the commander of a submarine who had captured a Uruguayan military commission bound for France. The German Government replied on May 16 that it did not consider that a state of war existed. Chile refused to ask free passage of Spain for a commission of Chileans who sought to reach Germany, thereby indicating partiality to the Germans. Argentina in the President's message, delivered May 18, 1918, reaffirmed its neutrality.

Duval, who was director of the suppressed Germanophile newspaper, Bonnet Rouge, was condemned to death May 15 by court-martial for treason, and six other defendants were sentenced to imprisonment: Marion, assistant manager, for ten years; Landau, a reporter, eight years; Goldsky, a reporter, eight years; Joucla, a reporter, five years; Vercasson, two years and $1,000 fine; Leymarie, former director of the Ministry of the Interior, two years' imprisonment and $200 fine.

The Bonnet Rouge was an evening paper of decided pacifist tendency, which lost no occasion of belittling the military and political leaders and policy, not only of France, but also of England. The attention of the Government was drawn to it early in 1917, and its editor, Almeyreda, and its manager, Duval, were under lock and key by August, 1917.

The police investigations showed that the Bonnet Rouge was to a great extent dependent for its capital upon men whose ardor in the allied cause had not been notable, and revealed the astonishing fact that M. Malvy, as Minister of the Interior, had thought fit to subsidize the paper to the extent of $1,200 a month and to encourage it in other ways. It also became known to the public that Almeyreda before the war had been in the closest contact with M. Caillaux and that he had received from that politician, at the moment when Mme. Caillaux was being tried for the murder of M. Calmette, the editor of the Figaro, the sum of $8,000.

Duval, whose journeys to Switzerland had aroused the misgivings of the Government, was detained at the French frontier station, searched, and found to be in possession of a check for $32,800 drawn to the order of a Mannheim banking firm, the business relations of which will appear in subsequent trials. This check was photographed and was handed back to Duval by some one of the French military or civil secret service officials.

Almeyreda had hardly reached prison when he fell seriously ill and was removed to the infirmary prison at Fresnes. There he died. The official doctors first of all declared that he had been strangled, and then gave it as their opinion that he had committed suicide.

Louis J. Malvy, who was at the time Under Secretary of the Interior, and was Minister of the Interior under Ribot, will be tried by a parliamentary court on the charge of having been in personal relations with Duval and of having delivered to the Germans the scheme of the abruptly ended French offensive in the Champagne in April, 1917.

Amiens, the old capital city of Picardy, goes far back into the military history of Europe. Probably deriving its name from the Belgic tribe of Ambiani, it was the centre of Julius Caesar's campaigns against those warlike tribes. Several Roman Emperors had military headquarters there, and it early gained importance as a bishopric. Evrard de Fouilloy, the forty-fifth Bishop, began the great Gothic cathedral of Amiens, one of the finest in the world, in the year 1220, the plans being made by René de Luzarches, while the work was completed by Thomas de Cormont and his son Renault in the year 1288, though the two great towers were not finished until a century later. Because it is intersected by eleven canals Louis XI. called Amiens "the little Venice."

Only second to the great cathedral in fame is the Hôtel de Ville, built between 1660 and 1760, in which, on May 25, 1802, was signed the famous treaty of Amiens, Napoleon's brother, Joseph Bonaparte, being plenipotentiary for France. The parties to the Peace of Amiens were France, England, Holland, and Spain. To Holland were restored the Cape of Good Hope, Guiana, and other colonies; France received Martinique and Guadeloupe; Spain received Minorca; Malta went to the Knights of Saint John of Jerusalem, while Egypt was restored to Turkey. England was secured in the control of India, and received Ceylon, (which had been first Portuguese and later Dutch,) and the island of Trinidad. But many of these dispositions were greatly modified thirteen years later, at the close of the Napoleonic wars.

In Amiens there is a famous Napoleonic Museum, which has many fine paintings by Puvis de Chavannes, including "War," "Peace," "Work," and "Rest." When, on Nov. 28, 1876, Amiens was captured by the army of the Prussians all religious monuments, including the cathedral, were scrupulously guarded against any possible damage, and the rights of private property were respected. Another of the titles of Amiens to fame is the fact that Peter the Hermit, leader of the First Crusade, was born there in 1050.

Of the Emperor Hadrian's colony of Roman veterans at the mouth of the Danube there remain many architectural monuments, including parts of two fine bridges across the great river, a largely Latin in substance, and the name Romania. The Roman colony spread through the Carpathians along the Roman road into Transylvania. It was in part submerged by Hun and Magyar waves of invasion, and the western part of the Rumanian people, west of the Carpathians, is still under Magyar rule, while a small number of Rumanians inhabit the Austrian crownland of Bukowina, once Rumanian soil. The Turks, following in the track of the Huns and Magyars, once more swept over Rumania and on toward Vienna and Russia, completely submerging the Balkan Peninsula, with the exception of the Black Mountain, Montenegro, held by Serbs.

In the nineteenth century the Balkan nations began to extricate themselves: Greece, with the aid of France, England, and Russia; Serbia, with the aid of Russia; and the two principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, which were later to become Rumania. In the wars of Catherine the Great and Suvoroff, which Byron has embodied in his comedy epic, making Don Juan take part in the siege of Ismail, Russia took from Turkey the Province of Bessarabia, named from an old Rumanian princely house and largely populated by Rumanians.

The western half of Bessarabia was taken back from Russia and restored to Turkey after the Crimean War, immediately after which, in 1861, the two principalities were united in the single principality of Rumania, under Colonel Cuza, a Rumanian, as Hospodar, or Lord, Turkish suzerainty being acknowledged. In this way the strip of Bessarabia which had been Russian for half a century became not Turkish, but Rumanian. When Russia declared war against Turkey in 1877 she announced to Rumania that she sought the restoration of her strip of Bessarabian land; and, knowing this, Rumania became Russia's ally in the war against Turkey, with Prince Carol as commander of her forces, he being of the Roman Catholic branch of the Hohenzollerns. In 1881 he took the title of King, to which his nephew Ferdinand succeeded in 1914.

Writing in 1818, Byron described Mazeppa as "the Ukraine Hetman, calm and bold," and it is to the period of Mazeppa and even earlier that this title and office goes back. The word Hetman is of uncertain origin, but is probably derived from the Bohemian Heitman, a modification of Hauptmann or Headman. When the Ukraine, the "borderland," was under Polish suzerainty, in the period from 1592 to 1654, the epoch of "Fire and Sword," "Pan Michael," and "The Deluge," the Hetman of the Cossacks, (a Tartar word, kazak, meaning warrior,) was a semi-independent viceroy.

After the acceptance of Russian suzerainty by the Ukraine under the great Hetman, Khmelnitski, in 1654, the title and authority of the Hetman were at first continued, but his power and privileges were gradually curtailed and finally abolished. It is not certain whether the word Ataman is a modification of Hetman or a Tartar title; at any rate, we find the title, "Ataman of all the Cossacks," coming into use as an appanage of the Czarevitch, or heir apparent of Russia, somewhat as the title of Prince of Wales is an appanage of the heir apparent of England. The Czarevitch was represented by Hetmans by delegation, for each division of the Cossacks, these divisions being military colonies westward as far as the Caspian, like that described by Tolstoy in his novel, "The Cossacks."

Writing in 1799, W. Tooke, in his "View of the Russian Empire," described the insignia of the Hetman as being the truncheon, the national standard, the horsetail, kettledrums and signet, a group of emblems strongly suggesting Tartar influence; the dress of the Cossacks was, likewise, borrowed from that of the Caucasus Mohammedan tribes, and in this Caucasian dress the new Hetman of the Ukraine, Skoropadski, took office at Kiev. His name indicates that he is not a Ruthenian, (Little Russian,) but a Pole. It has been a consistent element of Austrian policy to favor the Poles at the expense of the Ruthenians, with the result that many Poles are strongly pro-Austrian, and hold high office under the Austrian crown.

When the Dominion of Canada was formed by the British North America act of 1867, it included only four provinces, Upper and Lower Canada, (Ontario and Quebec,) Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Provision was made in the act for the voluntary admission of Prince Edward's Island, the Northwest Territories and Newfoundland into the Dominion. While the Northwest Territories took advantage of this provision, and are now organized as the Provinces of Manitoba, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Yukon and the Northwest Territories, Newfoundland, with Labrador, the latter 120,000 square miles in area, preferred to remain outside the Dominion of Canada, and has a wholly distinct Constitution and administration, as independent of Canada as is that, for example, of British Guiana. Compulsion was never suggested to bring Newfoundland and Labrador within the Dominion of Canada, though Labrador is geographically a part of the Canadian mainland.

In Australia likewise the union of the colonies was entirely voluntary. Five of these, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, and Tasmania, by legislative enactments, approved by the direct vote of the electors, declared their desire for a federal union, and the Imperial Parliament gave effect to this by the act of July 9, 1900. This act provided for the inclusion of Western Australia in the Australian Commonwealth, if that colony so desired; and Western Australia shortly expressed and carried out that desire.

The population of Ulster in 1911 was 1,581,696, (that of Belfast being 386,947;) the population of Newfoundland with Labrador in 1914 was 251,726; the population of Western Australia when it exercised the option of inclusion in the Commonwealth of Australia was 184,114; it has since nearly doubled. A similar case of separate treatment, this time within the United States, is that of West Virginia, which, in 1862, determined to remain within the Union when the rest of Virginia seceded. West Virginia became a State on Dec. 31, 1862, and was not re-integrated in the Old Dominion at the close of the civil war.

Four principal Directors of the Genoese Electrical Power Company, named Königsheim, Ampt, Martelli, and Hess, early in April were sentenced to death by court-martial at Milan by being "shot in the spine," and a decoy girl was doomed to twenty years' imprisonment, while three associates were relegated to the galleys for life. It was proved that the condemned men received from Germany wireless messages, to be forwarded to North and South America for the purposes of its underseas campaign, and incriminating letters of their treasonable acts were discovered. Ampt and his three co-Directors received a decoration from the Imperial Government, but were so successful in deceiving the Italian Government that they were subsequently decorated as Cavalieres of the Crown of Italy.

The signing of a general commercial agreement between the United States and Norway--the first agreement of the kind to be entered into by America with one of the North European neutrals--was announced by the War Trade Board on May 3, 1918. It was signed by Vance McCormick, Chairman of the War Trade Board, and Dr. Fridtjof Nansen, the famous explorer, who was sent to the United States at the head of a special mission.

Under the agreement Norway is assured of supplies to cover her estimated needs so far as they can be furnished without detriment to the war needs of the United States and its allies, and Norway, on her part, agrees to permit the exportation to America and its allies of all Norwegian products not needed for home consumption. It is provided that none of the supplies imported from the United States or its allies or forwarded with the aid of American bunker coal shall go directly or indirectly to the Central Powers or be used to replace commodities exported to those countries. This applies to anything produced by any auxiliaries to production obtained under the agreement. In consequence of the agreement the War Trade Board announced on May 9 that exports to Norway were about to be resumed.

Another result of the improved relations between the two countries was the chartering by the United States Shipping Board of 400,000 tons of Norwegian sailing ships, to be put in non-hazardous trades, thereby releasing other ships for traffic in the danger zones. This was one of the most substantial increases which the American-controlled merchant fleet has received since its inception.

In the May issue of the Fortnightly Review of London appears the following analysis of the gains and losses of the British merchant navy since the outbreak of the war:

1914 (August to December.)
	Tons.		Tons.
Built	675,010	Total losses	468,728
Captured from enemy	753,500	Total gains	1,429,110
	—————		—————
Total gains.	1,429,110	Balance	+960,382
1915.
Built	650,919	Total losses	1,103,379
Captured from enemy	11,500	Total gains	662,419
	—————		—————
Total gains.	662,419	Balance in 1915	-440,000
		Brought down from 1914	+960,382
			—————
		Balance at end of 1915	+519,422
1916.
Built	541,552	Total losses	1,497,848
Captured from enemy	3,500	Total gains	545,052
	—————		—————
Total gains.	545,052	Balance in 1916	-952,796
		Brought down from 1915	+519,422
			—————
		Balance at end of 1916	-433,374
1917.
Built	1,163,474	Total losses	4,000,537
Captured from enemy	11,500	Total gains	1,174,974
	—————		—————
Total gains	1,174,974	Balance in1917	-2,834,563
		Brought down from 1916	-433,374
			—————
		Balance at end of 1917	-3,267,937

During the first three months of 1918 the net losses were 367,296 tons; 320,280 tons were built and 687,576 were lost, bringing the adverse balance on April 1, 1918, to 3,635,233 tons.

The British Government has issued a White Paper estimating the cost of the war for Great Britain in the year ending March 31, 1919, at $12,750,000,000, of which $9,305,000,000 is allocated to navy, army, air service, munition and ordnance factories, $205,000,000 to pensions, $750,000 to National War Aims Committee; services not specified, (presumed to include shipping,) $500,000,000; Treasury loans, $1,750,000,000; Board of Trade, $265,000,000; wheat supplies, $230,000,000, of which $200,000,000 is the estimated loss on the sale of the 18-cent loaf of bread. Subsidies toward the sale of potatoes are estimated at $25,000,000; purchases of wool and other raw materials are put at $40,000,000, payment to railways at $175,000,000, and $25,000,000 for timber.

The implacable hatred which has developed between Italians and Austrians is illustrated by the following Italian communiqué, issued in Rome on Feb. 11, in reply to the Austrian Supreme Command's denial that the Austro-Germans were first to bombard cities from airplanes. It points out that the Austro-Germans first bombarded Udine, Treviso, Padua, Verona, Venice, Ravenna, &c., massacring defenseless and innocent populations and ruining valuable art treasures, and adds:

The Italians went to Trieste not to bombard citizens and private houses, but the hydroplane stations in which are sheltered the assassins of Venice, and the two vessels of the Monarch type which were kept by the Imperial and Royal Navy behind the dyke, in the hope that the Italian elements of the city would help to protect them and afterward enable them to set out on some heroic enterprise against the defenseless localities on the Adriatic Coast. Immediately the hydroplanes, yielding to the indignation of the whole world, ceased bombarding Venice, and immediately the two vessels of the Monarch type were removed from Trieste, our aerial raids ceased, since an understanding was proposed.

We wage war against the enemy's armed forces, and not against women, children, monuments, and hospitals. In spite of the most solemn denial issued by the Austrians of the acts which, after the first bombardments of Padua, Treviso, and Vicenza at the end of December and the beginning of January, they declared to be a question of reprisals for bombardments, carried out by Franco-British aviators on German towns, the Germans, in substance, gave to be understood what the Austrians hypocritically wished to hide, that is, that the pretext of reprisals enabled them to persevere with their nameless atrocities, which had been imposed upon them by some of their leaders having yielded to the impulses of a criminal mentality. Thus it happened that the Austrian Catholic command, bowing to the orders of the German Lutheran pastors, bombarded Catholic churches in the Italian cities. And so we see the Austro-Hungarian Government—so solicitous for peace and love between nations—sowing hatred which nothing can quench.

---

Perhaps some light may be shed on the internal divisions which make the solution of the Irish question so nearly impossible by a realization of the fact that the population of Ireland consists of an unassimilated congeries of races, every element of which except one represents foreign invasion and conquest.

The earliest race, short, round-headed, dark, appears to be akin to the Ligurian race of the Mediterranean; this race hunted the huge Irish elks with flint arrows and axes, and may claim to be the real indigenous stock, still surviving in the west. The second race, tall, dark, long-headed, was akin to the Iberians (Basques) of Spain, who also invaded Western France, and who probably built the cromlechs and stone circles, since these are also found in Iberian Spain and Western France, as at Carnac in Brittany. The third race, tall, golden-haired, blue-eyed, came from the Baltic, bringing amber beads, and building chambered pyramids, such as are also found in Denmark. The fourth race to arrive included the Gaels, tall, round-headed, with red hair and gray eyes; they came from Central Europe, probably by way of France.

Each new arrival was followed by wars of conquest, the Gaels finally making themselves predominant, but not exterminating the older races, examples of whom may still be found, with unchanged race characteristics. In 1169 Norman French and Welsh came, as mercenaries in the army of the King of Leinster. The Burkes are descended from the Normans, the Fitzgeralds from the Welsh.

---

In order to obtain a view of the situation of the German offensive on April 17, which forms a background for the events to be related in this review, it is necessary to point out a few controlling facts and conditions—some long obvious, some recently revealed.

Ludendorff's major plan, based on the assumed shortness of vision on the part of the Allies, to separate the British from the French and, by isolating the former in the north and driving the latter toward their bases in the south, thereby reach the mouth of the Somme, had failed. It had failed, just as did the plan of Napoleon at Charleroi in 1815 to separate the English from the Prussians. It failed because the military genius of the British General Carey and the French General Fayolle on two separate occasions had closed up gaps in the line of the Allies, and because the vast masses of German troops were incapable, on account of their demoralization, of making the fractures permanent.

It is now evident that the demoralization of General Gough's 5th Army, which began on March 23, not only threatened his junction with Byng's 3d Army, by forming an eight-mile gap between the two—into which, as has already been related, Carey moved his hastily gathered nondescript detachment—but as the 5th Army retreated another gap, gradually lengthening to nearly thirty miles, was opened between its right wing and the 6th French Army. Here General Fayolle, who had just appeared on the field from Italy, did with organized divisions what Carey had done with his scratch volunteers further north.

From statements made before the Reichstag Main Committee, but more especially from letters and diaries found on captured German officers, it appears that both Carey and Fayolle stopped an armed mob, utterly incapable of taking advantage of the situation it had created as a disciplined force. Regiments thrown together, officers separated from their commands, detachments without control, all due to the impetuous rush forward, could not recover in time to prevent Carey and Fayolle from completing their work.

But Ludendorff's major plan, having failed in the first month of his offensive, could not be repeated in the second. Since April 30 there has been no French, British, Belgian, Portuguese, or American front in Flanders or Picardy—only the front of the Allies, with the troops of their several nations used wherever needed by the supreme commander, Foch.

During the first month of the offensive two angles had been developed by Ludendorff: The first, the great one, in the south, from a base of sixty miles with a forty-mile perpendicular and its vertex near the Somme; the second in the north, from a base of twenty miles with a fifteen-mile perpendicular and its vertex on the edge of the Forest of Nieppe. Between these two angles the original front of Lens, from Bailleul north to Givenchy, still held, fifteen miles in length. There had been voluntary or forced changes made by the Allies east of Ypres and east of Arras.

---

The corollary in Flanders, unless it could be demonstrated, would be as great a failure as the main proposition in Picardy. And the still possible successful issue of the latter depended absolutely, as we shall see, on a complete demonstration of the former. Both have been so far handicapped by the augmenting mobility of the Allies, their growing numbers, their centralized command, and their successful insistence to control the air.

Such was the situation in Flanders and Picardy which confronted Ludendorff at the dawn of the second month of the German offensive. The whole problem to be solved was just as apparent to the Allies as it was to him—to gain the barriers which threatened his angles of penetration, in order again to utilize his preponderant forces of men and guns on a broad front. To attempt to extend the vertices without broadening the sides would mean to court danger, even destruction, at their weakest points.

His frontal attacks upon Ypres and Arras, respectively from the Passchendaele Ridge and against the Vimy Ridge, having failed, it became necessary to attempt to flank the Allies by the occupation of their defensive ridges. This explains his successful assaults upon Mont Kemmel, 325 feet high, and his desire to envelop Mont Rouge, 423 feet high, and his persistent attacks along the La Bassée Canal against the heights of Béthune, 141 feet, all preceded by diversions between the Somme and Avre, with concentrations at Villers-Bretonneux, Hangard, and elsewhere.

On April 18 the French made a feint on both banks of the Avre River south of Hangard, drove in a mile, and picked up some prisoners; simultaneously the Germans, with a force of 137,000, made a heavy assault upon the allied front lying across the La Bassée Canal, with a diversion on the Lys River near St. Venant.

---

---

Before the day was done they had switched their attack to the Kemmel sector. In all three places the Germans suffered repulse, with the loss of a few hundred prisoners. Four days later the British advanced their lines on the Lys, just as the French had on the Avre. Then on the 24th came the great enemy diversion at Villers-Bretonneux, nine miles southeast of Amiens. Here the Germans used tanks for the first time. The village, lost to the British on the first day, was recovered on the second, when just to the south the French and American troops were hotly contesting with the Germans the possession of Hangard. The sharp salient at this place made it difficult for the Allies to hold, while its retention, except as a site from which losses could be inflicted on the Germans, was unnecessary. Consequently it was evacuated, after the attacking detachment of the Prussian Guards had been annihilated.

Meanwhile the Germans had been preparing for a decisive assault against Mont Kemmel with ever-augmenting artillery fire and with the concentration of vast numbers of troops on the sidings of the railroad between the villages of Messines and Wytschaete. These troops numbered nine divisions, or about 120,000 men. From the 24th till the 27th they incessantly swung around Mont Kemmel in massed front and flank attacks, until the French and British were forced to give up the height, together with the village of the same name and the village of Dranoutre, retiring on La Clytte and Scherpenberg.

The occupation of Mont Kemmel, however, did not, as Ludendorff had anticipated, force the British out of the Ypres salient, for their voluntary retirement from part of the Passchendaele Ridge on April 17-19 had strengthened the salient, which could hold as long as the line of hills west of Kemmel held—Mont Rouge, Mont Diviagne, Mont des Cats, &c.

The Berlin publicity bureau advertised the fact that a direct thrust at Ypres had brought the Germans to within three miles of the town—an achievement of no particular military value—while it quite ignored the capture of Mont Kemmel, for the simple reason that its value was now discovered to repose in their ability to carry their occupation throughout the entire range.

This they have since been vainly, except for local advances, trying to do, often employing great forces of men in mass for two or three days at a time—striving vainly to broaden the salient in three places: between Dickebusch and Voormezeele, due south from Ypres; by an envelopment of Mont Rouge to the southwest; on the south by an advance in the direction of Béthune.

In the northern part of the salient the attacks reached their climax on Monday, April 29, when General Sixt von Arnim's army was hurled in wave after wave between Voormezeele and Scherpenberg and on the latter and Mont Rouge, only to end in a repulse, which, on account of the number of men believed to have been lost by the enemy, may be considered a disastrous defeat. All this time a heavy bombardment had been going on in the Béthune region in preparation for an infantry attack there; yet on account of the defeat further north, it could not be delivered.

Henceforth, until May 16, von Arnim was obviously placed on the defensive, whereas the Allies were locally on the offensive, either recovering lost strategic points or consolidating their lines. On May 5, between Locre and Dranoutre, the Franco-British forces advanced on a 1,000-yard front to the depth of 500 yards. On the 8th the Germans made a half-hearted attack on the sector south of Dickebusch Lake and entered British trenches, only to be repulsed with heavy loss. A similar attack the next day between La Clytte and Voormezeele not only met with a similar repulse, but was followed up by a strong British counterattack which won considerable ground. On the 12th the French captured Hill 44 on the north flank of Kemmel, between La Clytte and Vierstraat.

On May 13 renewed enemy artillery activity on the lines back of Béthune seemed to presage that an infantry attack was intended there. Nothing of this nature ensued, however. On the 15th the Germans made a sudden attack against Hill 44 but were hurled back by the French. On the 16th-17th they maintained a concentrated fire north of Kemmel.

All these operations on the German northern salient, which is gradually coming to be called the Lys salient, have shown no indication of being intended to pave the way for a renewal of the general offensive in Flanders. Their success might, and probably would, have forced the evacuation of Ypres and affected the Picardy salient with its vertex near Amiens, forcing the evacuation of Arras. But, as we have seen, the operations on the Lys salient, meeting with an overwhelming obstruction on April 29, did not achieve these results. Throughout the next three weeks the manoeuvres of the enemy in Picardy afforded excellent opportunities for counterattacks on the part of the Allies, whose object here has been to punish the enemy as much as possible and to consolidate every strategic position on a broad front in anticipation of a renewal of Germany's original scheme to isolate the allied armies north of the Somme by a dash to the mouth of that river via Amiens.

In these circumstances, the enemy on April 30 launched heavy attacks on the French lines in the region of Hangard and Noyon. These fell down, and on May 2 the French made distinct gains in Hangard Wood and near Mailly-Raineval. The next day the French advanced their lines between Hailles and Castel, south of the Avre, and captured Hill 82. On the 6th the British advanced their lines between the Somme and the Ancre, southwest of Morlancourt, and in the neighborhood of Locon and the Lawe River, taking prisoners in both places. On the 11th skirmishes southwest of Mailly-Raineval, between Hangard and Montdidier, developed into a pitched battle, in which the French at first lost ground and then recovered it. On May 14 the Germans, after an intense local bombardment, delivered a spirited attack on a mile front of the British southwest of Morlancourt, gaining a footing in their first trenches. Instantly some Australian troops counterattacked and completely re-established the British positions. On the 16th and 17th the enemy showed impressive and portentous artillery activity along the Avre and at Rollott, on the Abbéville road, south of Montdidier, similar in character to that observed north of Kemmel, on the Lys salient.

There are now believed to be over half a million American rifles on the western front, either at definite places or available as reserves. On April 20 a battalion of Germans made a raid on our eight-mile sector south of the Woeuvre, and succeeded in reaching the front-line trenches and taking the village of Seicheprey. Our losses were between 200 and 300; 300 German dead were counted. A detachment of our army, principally artillery, holds a sector of five miles with the French infantry east of Montdidier, on the Picardy front, protecting the Beauvais-Amiens road. Here their fire is principally employed in breaking up German concentrations and transport in and around Montdidier.

The German submarine bases at Zeebrugge and Ostend on the Belgian coast have been repeatedly bombed from the sea and shelled by British monitors with indifferent results. With the adding of super-U-boats to the German submarine fleet and the increased transatlantic traffic of the Allies the necessity for effectually sealing these bases has long been apparent. Theoretically the nature of the entrance to the harbors of both places, resembling the neck of a bottle, about 250 feet wide, made such a task easy by the sinking of block ships. Practically it was most difficult, on account of both sea obstructions and the shore batteries.

On the night of April 22-23 British naval forces, commanded by Vice Admiral Keyes, with the co-operation of French destroyers, and hidden by a newly devised smoke-screen, invented and here employed by Wing-Commander Brock, attempted to seal up the harbors. At Zeebrugge the enterprise was entirely successful. The Intrepid and Iphigenia were sunk well within and across the narrow channel, the Thetis at the entrance. All three were loaded with cement, which became solid concrete after contact with the water and can be removed only by submarine blasting. A detachment of troops was also landed on the mole from the Vindictive and engaged the crews of the German machine gun batteries stationed there. An old submarine was placed under the bridge of the mole and detonated. A German destroyer and some small craft were sunk. Before the blockships were placed a torpedo had been driven against the lock gates which lead from the channel into the inner harbors. The expedition retired with the loss of fifty officers and 538 men, of whom sixteen officers and 144 men had been killed.

At Ostend, the entrance to whose harbor is protected by no mole, the block ships Sirius and Brilliant were not effectively placed. Against this port the experiment was, therefore, repeated on the night of May 9-10. The Vindictive, with a cargo of concrete, was planted and sunk at the entrance to the channel, but not entirely blocking it.

Another naval exploit of the month worthy of record was the sinking in the Austrian Harbor of Pola of a dreadnought of the Viribus Unitis class (20,000 tons) by Italian naval forces, in the morning of May 15. The achievement was similar to that performed by the Italians on the night of Dec. 9-10, when a destroyer sawed her way through the steel net protecting the Harbor of Trieste and torpedoed the predreadnoughts Wien and Monarch, (5,000 tons each,) sinking the former. The Harbor of Pola, however, is much more difficult to penetrate. It is three miles deep and entered by a two-mile channel, at certain places less than half a mile wide, and protected along its entire course by strong defenses. A mole covers its mouth, making the channel here less than 1,000 yards wide. Forts Cristo and Musil guard the entrance.

---

---

---

Save for the reports which have come to hand denoting the steady progress of the British forces in Palestine and Mesopotamia, little of importance has occurred in the Near East. Still the Teutonizing of the Black Sea goes steadily on. On May 2 it was announced that a German force had occupied the great Russian fortress of Sebastopol, famous for its protracted siege by the British and French in 1855, and until then considered impregnable. On May 12 part of the Russian Black Sea fleet was taken possession of by the Germans at that place, while the remainder escaped to Novorossysk. Among the captured vessels only the battleship Volga and the protected cruiser Pamiat Merkuria were in serviceable condition. At Odessa a new dreadnought and two protected cruisers had already been seized by the Germans as they lay in their slips.

In Macedonia the huge allied forces under the French General, Guillaumat, are still waiting on events. The Greek Army is still in process of reconstruction under the Venizelos Administration. The month, however, has not been barren of engagements on this battleline. On April 28 the Serbians beat back attempts of the Bulgars to capture fortified positions in the Vetrenik region; the French and British did the same in regard to German attacks aimed at points west of Makovo and south of Lake Doiran. So it has been all the month, the monotony only varied on April 27, when there was intense artillery fire by the allied guns in the neighborhood of Monastir, on the Cerna, and, in the Vetrenik region, a Serbian assault annihilated a Bulgar section.

There has been no serious attempt on the part of the Turks during the month to oppose the expansion of General Allenby's front beyond Jerusalem or the triumphant march of General Marshall up the Euphrates and the Tigris—on the latter river now sixty miles below Mosul, Marshall's obvious objective. The objective of Allenby is Aleppo, where there is said to be a single division of German troops in addition to the Turks, who have been forced north from Jerusalem. Allenby and Marshall are advancing along parallel lines with a desert space of about 400 miles between. The Turks and their ally still have possession of the caravan trail and the partly built and entirely surveyed Bagdad Railway, which intersect the prospective parallel paths of Allenby and Marshall, whose lines of communication already reach hundreds of miles to the rear. But while Allenby has a lateral sea communication with Syrian ports, no such advantage is enjoyed by Marshall, who must get all his supplies from the head of the Persian Gulf, 450 miles to the south. Whatever be the force at the disposition of the enemy, it is evident that he will continue to possess a predominating tactical and strategic advantage until he has been decisively defeated at both Aleppo and Mosul or a junction has been established between Allenby and Marshall, or both.

The former's line, which is a sixty-mile front, extending from Arsuf el Haram on the Mediterranean east to the Jordan, took Es-Salt with thirty-three German and 317 Turkish prisoners on May 1—twenty miles north of Jerusalem—which was first occupied by Allenby early in December.

Marshall's advance has been much more rapid. In the week of May 1 his cavalry, in pursuit of the fleeing Turks, advanced twenty miles and captured 1,000 prisoners. On May 7 he was 80 miles from Mosul; on May 10 he was within 60 miles. Allenby is 300 miles from Aleppo and 110 miles from Damascus.

Without any large movements of troops taking place, several things have occurred since April 18 to invite attention to the Italian front, and much speculation by military men has been indulged in as to whether the resumption of the Teutonic offensive would be from the Piave or south from the Astico-Piave line lying across the Sette Comuni and the Brenta, or from the west of the Adige and the Lago di Garda, in an attempt to reach Brescia and the metallurgic centre of Italy.

And most of the things in question which have occurred have served to restore and augment the confidence of the Italians in their position. A new 2d Army has taken the place of the old, annihilated in the Capporetto campaign. All the lost guns have been replaced and new heavies added. Revolution is, at any moment, expected to break out in Austria-Hungary, while the Congress of Jugoslavs in Rome on April 9-11 has secured the adhesion to the Allies of the subjects of the Hapsburgs and enabled the Italian Government to make use of them as a fighting force. There are now believed to be no German divisions on the Italian front, where the entire enemy strength, not measurably increased since the snows have disappeared in the north, consists of 800 Austro-Hungarian battalions, or less than 1,000,000 men.

But what has promoted most satisfaction in the Italian Government and people was the decree issued by the Interallied Supreme Council of War at Abbéville on May 3, giving General Foch authority to include the Italian front under his supreme command, that front thereby becoming the right wing of the allied battle line in Europe—now "one army, one front, and one supreme command."

That is the way Bonaparte fought his victorious battles in the days of the First Republic, alternately on the Rhine and the Adige. Moreau could not win without Bonaparte, nor Bonaparte without Moreau, while Carnot, in the centre, was the vehicle of transit.

Before the snows made manoeuvres impossible the Italians had closed two gates which threatened the plains of Veneto from the north—one at the junction of the front with the Piave, one at the angle of the Frenzela Torrent and the Brenta River.

Gunfire had been steadily augmenting on the front when, on May 10, they closed another, and on May 15 still another. The first of these was the capture of Monte Corno, which commanded the part up the Vallarsa, the second was a partial recovery of Monte Asolone, between the Brenta and the Piave, sufficient to cover the path up the Val San Lorenzo. Both mountains are really plateaus of about two square miles area each, whose irregular summits the enemy had strongly fortified in order to clear the valleys below. In both places subsequent Austrian counterattacks were broken up.

Meanwhile, Italian aircraft dominate from above. On May 14 the enemy lost eleven airplanes with no losses to the Italians and the British, who were assisting them.

Premier Lloyd George wrote the following preface for a volume containing extracts from speeches he delivered during the war:

I have never believed that the war would be a short war, or that in some mysterious way, by negotiation or compromise, we would free Europe from the malignant military autocracy which is endeavoring to trample it into submission and moral death. I have always believed that the machine which has established its despotic control over the minds and the bodies of its victims and then organized and driven them to slaughter in order to extend that control over the rest of the world, would only be destroyed if the free peoples proved themselves strong and steadfast enough to defeat its attempt in arms. The events of the last few weeks must have made it plain to every thinking man that there is no longer room for compromise between the ideals for which we and our enemies stood. Democracy and autocracy have come to death grips. One or the other will fasten its hold on mankind. It is a clear realization of this issue which will be our strength in the trials to come. I have no doubt that freedom will triumph. But whether it will triumph soon or late, after a final supreme effort in the next few months or a long-drawn agony, depends on the vigor and self-sacrifice with which the children of liberty, and especially those behind the lines, dedicate themselves to the struggle. There is no time for ease or delay or debate. The call is imperative. The choice is clear. It is for each free citizen to do his part.

---

Special Correspondent With the British Armies [Copyrighted in United States of America]

The May issue of Current History Magazine contained Philip Gibbs's story of the great German offensive up to April 18, 1918. At that time the Germans were seeking to break the British lines in front of Ypres, as part of their drive for Amiens and the British Channel ports, generally known as the battle of Picardy. The pages here presented are a continuation of his eyewitness narrative of the most sanguinary battle in history.

April 18.—The arrival of French troops on our northern front is the most important act that has happened during the last three or four days, and it was with deep satisfaction that we met these troops on the roads and knew that at last our poor, tired men would get support and help against their overwhelming odds.

Beside the khaki army of the British has grown very quickly an army in blue, the cornflower blue of the French poilus. They are splendid men, hard and solid fellows, who have been war-worn and weather-worn during these three and a half years past, and look the great fighting men who have gone many times into battle and know all that war can teach them in endurance and cunning and quick attack.

As they came marching up the roads to the front they were like a streaming river of blue—blue helmets and coats and blue carts and blue lorries, all blending into one tone through these April mists as they went winding over the countryside and through French market towns, where their own people waved to them, and then through the villages on the edge of the Flanders battlefields, where they waited to go into action under shell-broken walls or under hedges above which British shellfire traveled, or in fields where they made their bivouacs, and fragrant steams arose to one's nostrils as cuistots lifted the lids of stewpans and hungry men gathered around after a long march.

The attack this morning from Robecq, below St. Venant, down to Givenchy, is a serious effort to gain La Bassée Canal and form a strong defensive flank for the enemy while he proceeds with his battles further north and also to get more elbow room from the salient in which he is narrowly wedged below Merville.

For this purpose he brought up several more divisions, including the 239th, which was in the Somme fighting of March, but not heavily engaged. This one attacked the British at Robecq and was repulsed with heavy losses. It was at a place called La Bacquerolles Farm, near Robecq, where after heavy shelling last night the enemy rushed one of the outposts at 10 o'clock. In order to facilitate the attack this morning of German divisions north and south at 4 o'clock the German guns began a heavy bombardment of the British lines as far down as Givenchy and maintained it for five hours, using large numbers of gas shells, on account of the east wind, which was in their favor.

His guns shelled the bridges across the canal in the hope of preventing the British supports going up. Then his troops came forward in waves on a wide front. They were in immense numbers as usual, with many mixed battalions. One of the British units today took prisoners from ten different regiments. There were some ten German divisions facing four British ones north of Béthune, and all along the line the troops were much outnumbered; nevertheless, the enemy was repulsed at all but a few points of attack and beaten back bloodily.

In this battle one regiment of the 42d German Division has lost over 50 per cent. of its strength, and other losses are on a similar scale. These ghastly casualties have been piling up along this line between Merville and Béthune since the 13th of this month, when the Germans made a series of small attacks as a prelude to today's battle, owing, it seems, to battalion officers taking the initiative without orders from the High Command, in order to push forward and break the British lines if they could find weakness there.

On the 13th and 14th some of the South Country troops were attacked by strong forces repeatedly, and on the second day for five hours at a stretch the enemy endeavored to come across from houses and inclosures west of Merville toward St. Venant. For those five hours the South Country lads fired with rifles, Lewis guns, and machine guns into solid bodies of Germans, and their field guns tore gaps in the enemy's formations and broke up their assemblies before the attacks could proceed. One advance in five waves was mown down before it could make any progress, and others were dealt with in the same way.

Mr. Gibbs describes the German repulse between Robecq and Givenchy as a "black day for the enemy," and continues:

April 19.—At the end of the day all the enemy's efforts ended in bloody failure, in spite of the daring and courage of his troops, who sacrificed themselves under the British fire, but were only able to gain a few bits of trench work and one or two outposts below the fortified works at Givenchy, which are quite useless to them for immediate or future use.

It was a big attack, for which they had prepared in a formidable way. After the shock of their repulse by the Lancashire men of the 55th Division they increased their strength of heavy artillery by three times bringing up large numbers of howitzers, including eleven-inch monsters. They were massed in divisions in front of us and determined to smash through in the wake of a tremendous bombardment.

For five hours, as I said, this storm went on with high explosives and gas, and the devoted British had to suffer this infernal thing, the worst ordeal human beings may be called upon to bear, this standing to while all the earth upheaved and the air was thick with shell splinters.

But when the bombardment had passed and the German infantry came forward the British received them with blasts of machine-gun fire, incessant volleys of rifle fire, and a trench mortar bombardment that burst with the deadliest effect among the attacking troops.

This trench mortar barrage of the British was one of the most awful means of slaughter yesterday, especially when the enemy tried to cross La Bassée Canal further north, and in that sector the infantry and gunner officers say more Germans were killed yesterday along the canal bank than on any other day since the fighting in this neighborhood. One battery of trench mortars did most deadly execution until their pits were surrounded, and only two of their crews were able to escape.

The machine gunners fought out in the open after some of their positions had been wiped out by gunfire, caught the enemy waves at fifty yards' range, and mowed them down; but the enemy was not checked for a long time, despite his losses, and when one body fell another came up to fill its place and press on into any gap that had been made by their artillery or their own machine-gun sections.

There was one such momentary gap between a body of the Black Watch, who had been weakened by shellfire, and some of their comrades further north, and into this the enemy tried to force a way. Other Scottish troops were in reserve, and when it became clear that a portion of the line was endangered by this turning movement they came forward with grim intent, and by a fierce counterattack swept through the gap and flung back the enemy, so that the position was restored.

Further north some Gloucesters were fighting the enemy both ways, as once before in history, when they fought back to back, thereby winning the honor of wearing their cap badge back and front, which they do to this day. The Germans had worked behind them as well as in front of them, and they were in a tight corner, but did not yield, and finally, after hard fighting, cleared the ground about them.

Meanwhile further south some Lancashire troops on the canal lost some parts of their front line under an intense bombardment, but still fought on in the open, repulsing every effort to drive them back and smashing the enemy out of their positions, so that only remnants of the German outposts clung on until late last night, up to which time there was savage strife on both sides.

Extraordinary scenes took place on the canal bank when the enemy tried to cross. In the twilight of early dawn a party came out of a wood and tried to get across the water, but was seen by the British machine gunners and shot down.

Then another body of men advanced and carried with them a floating bridge, but when those who were not hit reached the water's edge they found the bridge as fixed did not reach to the other side. Some of them walked on it, expecting perhaps to jump the gap, but were shot off, and other men on the bank also were caught under British fire.

A Corporal went down to the canal edge and flung hand grenades at the Germans still struggling to fix the bridge, and then a Lieutenant and a few men rushed down and pulled the bridge on to their side of the bank.

Later this young officer saw one of the British pontoons drifting down and swam to it and made it fast beyond the enemy's reach, but in a position so that some of his men ran across and caught the enemy under their fire on his side of the canal.

At 7 o'clock yesterday morning, while a handkerchief was hoisted by the enemy, three hundred of them made signs of surrender. Some of them changed their minds at the last moment and ran away, but 150 gave themselves up, and some of them swam the canal in order to reach our side for this purpose. They were shivering in their wet clothes and in the northeast wind, which lashed over the battle lines yesterday, and they were very miserable men.

Mr. Gibbs declares that had the Germans been able to pass Givenchy or cross the canal north of Béthune on the 18th and 19th the result would have proved disastrous. He gives credit for the repulse to the British and French combined lines. He thus describes the achievement of the Belgians on April 17:

The Germans on the 17th pressed the attack in force against the Belgians. Besides three regiments of the 1st Landwehr Division usually holding this sector, between the Ypres-Staden railway and Kippe, they brought up from Dixmude—poor Dixmude, into whose flaming ruins I went when it was first bombarded in October, 1914—two regiments of the 6th Bavarian Division, and from the coast the 5th Matrosen Regiment of the 2d Naval Division, with a regiment of the 58th Saxons. It was a heavy force, and they hoped to surprise and annihilate the Belgian resistance by their weight and quickness of attack.

The Belgians were waiting for them, standing, too, in those swampy fields which they have held against the enemy for three and a half years, always shelled, always paying daily a toll of life and limb, not getting much glory or recognition because of the great battles elsewhere, but patient and enduring as when I knew them on the Yser in the first dreadful Winter of the war, and their little regular army fought to a finish.

Even before the battle the German marines, Saxon troops, and Landwehr suffered misery and lost many men. They lay out in the flat, wet fields two nights previously, and were very cold, and scared by the Belgian gunfire which burst among them. They had no great artillery behind them, and the Saxons and German sailors now prisoners of the Belgians curse bitterly because they were expected to get through easily in spite of this.

The enemy's intention was to take Bixschoote and advance across the Yser Canal, driving south to Poperinghe. What they did by their massed attacks was to penetrate to a point near Hoekske, southeast of Merckem, the main weight of their pressure being directed along the Bixschoote road. The Belgians delivered a quick counterattack, with wonderful enthusiasm among officers and men. They had perfect knowledge of the country, and used this fully by striking up from a place called Luyghem in such a way that the enemy was driven toward the swamp, where any who went in sank up to his neck in the ice-cold water.

The Germans were cut off from their own lines and trapped. Seven hundred of them surrendered, men of all the regiments I have mentioned, and they seemed to think themselves lucky at getting off so cheaply, though they quailed when they were brought back through the towns behind the lines, and the Belgian women, remembering many things, raised a cry as these men passed. It was not a pleasant sound. I heard it once in France when a German officer passed through with an escort. It was a cry which made my blood run cold. But there is gladness among the Belgian troops, for they had long waited for their chance of striking, and made good.

As heroic a story as anything in all this history of the last four weeks is that of the medical officers, nurses, orderlies, and ambulance men belonging to these casualty clearing stations, who were not far behind the fighting lines when the battle began on March 21.

And then in a few hours they were on the very edge of the enemy's advancing tide, so that they were almost caught by it and had to make brave efforts to rescue the wounded, save their equipment, and get away to a place where for a little while again they could go on with their noble work until the red edge of war swept up with its fire again and they had to retreat still further.

I used to pass very often the outer ring of those casualty clearing stations on the right of the British line beyond Bapaume, in the Cambrai salient, and away toward St. Quentin.

They were almost caught on that day of March 21 when the infernal bombardment was flung over a wide belt of the British lines, and the enemy stormed the defenses and the British fought back in heroic rearguard actions. It became a question of only a few hours, sometimes of the last quarter of an hour, when these brave medical officers with the nurses and orderlies could get away.

It is always the rule of patients first, and at Ham there were 1,200 wounded, and many others in other places. The railways were choked with military transport or destroyed by shellfire. On the roads refugees were mixed up with the transport and guns and troops. It was a frightful problem, but the medical staffs did not lose their nerve, and set about the business of removal with fine skill and discipline.

What wounded could walk were gathered together and sent on to the roads to make their way back as far as their strength would carry them. The badly wounded were packed into all the available ambulances and sent away. The equipment had sometimes to be put on any train, regardless of its destination. It was gathered in afterward from whatever place it went to.

A casualty clearing station of 1,000 beds needs 100 lorries to move it, but nine lorries take a full kit for 200 beds, and always nine lorries moved off first after the wounded to take up a new station further back and carry on. The medical officers looked after the surgical instruments and trundled them along the roads on wheeled stretchers. One officer went twenty-five miles this way and another seventeen miles. The sisters, after the wounded had left, were put on any vehicle going back from the battleline.

During these days I saw them squeezed between drivers and men on motor lorries, sitting among the Tommies in transport wagons, one at least on a gun limber, and others perched on top of forage, still merry and bright in spite of all the tragedy about them, because that is their training and their faith.

In this retreat one poor sister was killed and another wounded. Many of them, with the medical officers, lost their kits. At Achiet le Grand, on March 21, a shell killed eight orderlies and blew out the back of the operating theatre, and at another village on a second night, three ambulances were smashed up by bombs. Two drivers, with some of their patients, were killed, but all the wounded were brought away from the outer ring of casualty clearing stations safely, and then from the second ring through Roye and Marincourt, Dernacourt, and Aveluy.

At Roye there was no time to spare, owing to the enemy's rapid advance, and seventy patients remained with a medical officer and twelve orderlies until they could be rescued, if there was any possible chance. There seemed at first no chance, but on the way back to Villers-Bretonneux the medical officer in command of the first convoy met some motor ambulances and begged the drivers to go into Roye and rescue those who had been left behind. They went bravely and brought away all the wounded and the staff, and had no time to spare, because the last ambulance came under the German rifle fire.

It is a strange and wonderful thing that the patients do not seem to be harmed in any way by this excitement and fatigue, and one of the chiefs who made a tour of inspection of all his clearing stations at this time tells us he found all the wounded in good condition and apparently no worse for their experience.

On April 24 the Germans attacked the important village of Villers-Bretonneux, near Amiens; it is on a hill above the Somme, and was used as a corps headquarters and administrative office by the British. The attack was in great force, including tanks, the first time they had been used by the Germans.

The initial assault was a success and the Germans took the village and advanced nearly a mile beyond—but let Mr. Gibbs tell the rest:

During the night they were driven out by Australian troops, who, by a most skillful and daring piece of generalship, were sent forward in the darkness without preliminary artillery preparation, and, relying absolutely on the weapons they carried to regain this important portion, which gave the enemy full observation of the British positions on both sides of the Somme Valley beyond Amiens.

The splendid courage of the Australian troops, the cunning of their machine gunners, and the fine leadership of their officers achieved success, and, in conjunction with English battalions, they spent the night clearing out the enemy from the village, where he made a desperate resistance, and brought back altogether something like 700 or 800 prisoners.

It was a complete reversal of fortune for the enemy, and in this twenty-four hours of fighting he has lost great numbers of men, whose bodies lie in heaps between Villers-Bretonneux and Warfusee and all about the ruins and fields in that neighborhood.

The attack on Villers-Bretonneux was made by four divisions. They were the 4th Guards, the 77th, quite new to this phase of the war, the 228th, and the 243d. They were in the full strength of divisions, twelve regiments in each, and a great weight of men on such a narrow front against one British division, whose men had already been under frightful fire and had been living in clouds of poison gas with masks on.

An officer of the Middlesex was in a bit of a trench when the first German tank attacked his men on the east side of the village, and it went right over him as he lay crouched, and traveled on, accompanied by bodies of troops.

The Middlesex and West Yorks put up a great fight but had to give ground to superior numbers. The East Lancashires, who were the garrison of Villers-Bretonneux, were also attacked with great odds, and after a brave resistance fell back with the general line, which took up a position toward the end of this first phase of the battle west of Villers-Bretonneux and in the edge of Bois Abbé to the left of it. Into this wood in the course of the day a German patrol of one officer and forty men made their way and stayed there out of touch with their own men, and were taken prisoners last night.

The attack by the Australians was made after 10 o'clock at night. It was difficult to attack suddenly like this. There was no artillery preparation. There should have been a moon, but by bad luck it was veiled in a thick, wet mist.

It was decided by the Australian General that his men should go straight into the attack with bayonet and machine gun, not waiting for artillery protection which would tell the enemy what was coming.

The plan of attack was to push forward in two bodies and to encircle Villers-Bretonneux, while some Northamptons and others were in the centre with the order to fight through the village from the north. This manoeuvre was carried out owing to the magnificent courage of each Australian soldier and the gallantry of the officers.

The Germans fought desperately when they found themselves in danger of being trapped. They had nests of machine guns along the railway embankment below the village, and these fired fiercely, sweeping the attackers who tried to advance upon them.

Those who worked around north and east of the village also came under a burst of machine-gun fire from weapons hidden among the ruins and trenches, but they rounded up the enemy and fought him from one bit of ruin to another in streets which used to be filled with civilian life only a few weeks ago and crowded with staff officers and staff cars, but now were littered with dead bodies and raked by bullets.

The Australians captured two light field guns, which the enemy had brought up in the morning, according to his present habit of advancing guns behind his third wave of men, and several minenwerfer and many machine guns.

During the night they and the English troops seized over 500 men as prisoners and sent them back, and several hundred seem to have been routed out. Today, [the 25th,] judging from these I saw myself, the living were not so many as the dead.

It was fierce fighting in Villers-Bretonneux and around it last night and this morning the enemy fought until put out by bayonet, rifle bullet, or machine gun. The Australian officers say that they have never seen such piles of dead, not even outside of Bullecourt or Lagnicourt last year, as those who lie about this village of frightful strife.

The German tanks, which were first seen in this battle, though heavier than the British, with bigger guns, have now beaten a retreat, leaving one of their type in No Man's Land. The tank has a high turret and thick armor plates, and is steered and worked on a different system from the British. One of them was "killed" by a tank of the old British class, and then the British put in some of the newer, faster, and smaller types, which can steer almost as easily as a motor car, as I know, because I have traveled in one at great pace over rough ground.

These set out to attack bodies of German infantry of the 77th Division forming up near Cachy. It was a terrible encounter, and when they returned this morning their flanks were red with blood. They slew Germans not by dozens nor by scores, but by platoons and companies. They got right among the masses of men and swept them with fire, and those they did not kill with their guns they crushed beneath them, manoeuvring about and trampling them down as they fell. It seems to have been as bloody a slaughter as anything in this war.

The furious battle for the possession of Kemmel Hill, an eminence of strategic importance in the Ypres region, occurred April 25, 26, and 27, and was as sanguinary as any in Flanders. Although the Germans won the hill, their victory involved such colossal sacrifices that this deadly thrust ended their serious offensive for the time. Mr. Gibbs's description of this battle in part follows:

After several attempts against Kemmel had been frustrated the enemy all went out, April 25, to capture this position. Four divisions at least, including the Alpine Corps, the 11th Bavarians, and the 5th, 6th, and 107th, were moved against Kemmel in the early morning fog after a tremendous bombardment of the Franco-British positions. It was a bombardment that begun before the first glimmer of dawn, like one of those which the British used to arrange in the days of their great Flanders battles last year. It came down swamping Kemmel Hill so that it was like a volcano, and stretched away on to the British lines on the left of the French by Maedelstede Farm and Grand Bois down to Vierstraat.

Then the German infantry attacked in depth, battalion behind battalion, division behind division, and their mountain troops of Alpine Corps and Jägers and Bavarians came on first in the assault of Kemmel Hill, which was not much more than a hillock, though it looms large in Flanders, and in this war. The French had suffered a terrible ordeal of fire, and the main thrust of the German strength was against them.

The enemy struck in two directions to encircle the hill and village of Kemmel, one arrowhead striking to Dranoutre and the other at the point of junction between the French and British northward.

In each case they were favored by fog and the effect of their gunfire. They were able to drive in a wedge which they pushed forward until they had caused gaps. The French on Kemmel Hill became isolated and there was a gulf between the British and the French and between the French left and right.

On the hill the French garrison fought with splendid heroism. These men, when quite surrounded, would not yield, but served their machine guns and rifles for many hours, determined to hold their positions at all costs, and to the death. Small parties of them on the west of the hill held out until midday or beyond, according to the reports of the airmen, who flew low over them, but by 9 o'clock this morning, owing to the gaps made by the enemy, the French main line was compelled to draw back from Kemmel.

They inflicted severe losses on the enemy as they fell back and thwarted his efforts to break their line on the new defensive positions. Meanwhile a body of Scottish troops were seriously involved. Some of their officers whom I saw today tell me the fog was so thick, as on March 21, that after a terrific bombardment the first thing known at some points a little way behind the line was when the Germans were all around them.

The German army of assault upon Kemmel and the surrounding country was under command of General Sixt von Arnim, who was the leading opponent of the Allies in the long struggle of the first Somme battles, and whose clear and ruthless intelligence was revealed in the famous document summing up the first phase of that fighting, when he frankly confessed to many failures of organization and supply, but with acute criticism which was not that of a weak or indecisive man.

Under his command as corps commanders were Generals Seiger and von Eberhardt, and they had picked troops, including the Alpine Corps and strong Bavarian and Prussian divisions specially trained for assault in such country as that of Kemmel. Their plan of attack to strike at the points of junction between the French and British east of Kemmel, and also at the French troops south of it, near Dranoutre, proved for the time successful, and by driving in wedges they were able to make the Allies fall back on the flanks and encircle Kemmel Hill after furious and heroic fighting by the French and British troops.

The British now were in weak numbers compared with the strength brought against them. Their withdrawal to the new lines of defense by Vierstraat and the furious attacks across the Ypres-Comines Canal gave the enemy some ground in the region of St. Eloi and the bluff and the spoil bank of the canal itself. It is villainous ground there, foul with wreckage of the old fighting.

British troops and Canadian troops were put to the supreme test of courage to take and hold these places. The glorious old 3d Division, commanded in those days of 1915 and 1916 by General Haldane, fought from St. Eloi to the bluff, month in and month out, and lost many gallant officers and men there after acts of courage which belong to history.

German storm troops made three violent attacks on Locre, which were flung back by the French, with heavy casualties among the enemy, and it was only at the fourth attempt with fresh reserves that they were able to enter the ruins of the village, from which the French then fell back in order to reorganize for a counterattack. This they launched today at an early hour, and now Locre is in their hands after close fighting, in which they slew numbers of the enemy.

After their success on April 25, when they captured Kemmel, the Germans have made little progress, and, though there was fierce fighting all day yesterday, they failed to gain their objectives, and were raked by fire hour after hour, so that large numbers of their dead lie on the field of battle. At 4 in the afternoon they engaged in fresh assaults upon the positions near Ridge Wood, to which the line had fallen back, but English and Scottish troops repulsed them and scattered their waves. It was a bad day for them because of their great losses. The British have broken the fighting quality of some of the enemy's most renowned regiments.

All the roads and camps around Ypres are under a heavy, harassing fire once more, Ypres itself being savagely bombarded by high-explosive and gas shells, so that after some months of respite those poor ruins are again under that black spell which makes them the most sinister place in the world. Suicide Corner has come into its own again, and the old unhealthy plague spots up by the canal are under fire.

The enemy's guns are reaching out to fields and villages hitherto untouched by fire, and these harassing shots, intended, perhaps, to catch traffic on the roads or soldiers' camps, often serve the enemy no more than by the death of innocent women and children. A day or two ago a monstrous shell fell just outside a little Flemish cottage tucked away in an angle of a road which I often pass. It scooped out a deep pit in the garden without even scarring the cottage walls, but two children were playing in the garden and were laid dead beside a flower bed.

Yesterday a small boy I know went grubbing about this plot of earth and brought back a great chunk of shell bigger than his head. Those are the games children play in this merry century of ours. They are astoundingly indifferent to the perils about them, and sleep o' nights to the thunder of gunfire not very far away, or slip their heads under the bedclothes when bombs fall near.

But older folk find this gradual creeping up of the war a nervous strain and a mental agony which keeps them on the rack. It is pitiful to watch their doubts and perplexities and their clinging on to their homes and property. Shells smash outlying cottages to dust with their people inside them, but still the people in the village itself stay on, hoping against hope that the Germans' guns have reached their furthest range.

"I shall not go till the first shell falls in the middle of the square," said a girl.

Another woman said:

"If I go I lose all I have in life, so I will risk another day."

They take extraordinary risks, and our officers and men find some of them on the very battlefields and in farmyards where they unlimber their guns.

The enemy's losses in this continual fighting have been severe. We have been able to get actual figures of some of their casualties, which are typical of the more general effect of the British fire. Of one company of the 7th German Division which fought at St. Eloi on Friday only 40 men remained out of its full strength of 120.

The 4th Ersatz Division lost most heavily, and a prisoner of the 279th Pioneer Company, which relieved the 360th Regiment of that division, says the average company strength was fifteen men.

The entire regimental staff was killed by a direct hit of a British shell on their headquarters dugout near Cantieux. The same thing happened to the battalion headquarters of the 223d Regiment, which is now in a state of low morale, having been fearfully cut up.

The 1st Guards Reserve Regiment of the 1st Guards Division, which was much weakened in the fighting on the Somme and afterward was sent to La Bassée, lost thirty-six officers, including a regimental commander and one battalion commander. These losses are affecting inevitably the outlook of the German troops on the prospects of their continued offensive.

Prisoners from divisions which suffered most confess they have no further enthusiasm for fighting, and that their regiments can only be made to attack by stern discipline and the knowledge that they must fight on or be shot for desertion.

On the other hand, the best German troops, especially those now attacking in Flanders, like the Alpine Corps and 11th Bavarian Division, are elated and full of warlike spirit.

Even their prisoners profess to believe they are winning the war and will have a German peace before the year is out.

The Germans vainly launched desperate attacks of unexampled fury against the British and French lines in the Ypres region on April 29. Mr. Gibbs in his cable dispatch of that date thus refers to these assaults:

It becomes clearer every hour that the enemy suffered a disastrous defeat today. Attack after attack was smashed up by the British artillery and infantry, and he has not made a foot of ground on the British front.

The Border Regiment this morning repulsed four heavy assaults on the Kemmel-La Clytte road, where there was extremely hard fighting, and destroyed the enemy each time.

One of the enemy's main thrusts was between Scherpenberg and Mont Rouge, where they made a wedge for a time and captured the crossroads, and it was here that a gallant French counterattack swept them back.

The British had no more than a post or two in Voormezeele this morning, and the enemy was there in greater strength, and sent his storm troops through this place, but was never able to advance against the fire of the British battalions.

His losses began yesterday, when his troops were seen massing on the road between Zillebeke and Ypres in a dense fog, through which he attempted to make a surprise attack. This was observed by low-flying planes, and his assembly was shattered by gunfire. After a fierce shelling all night, so tremendous along the whole northern front that the countryside was shaken by its tumult, German troops again assembled in the early morning mist, but were caught once more in the British bombardment.

At 3 o'clock a tremendous barrage was flung down by the German gunners from Ypres to Bailleul, and later they began the battle by launching first an attack between Zillebeke Lake and Meteren. South of Ypres they crossed the Yser Canal by Lock 8, near Voormezeele, which was their direction of attack against the British, while they tried to drive up past Locre against the French on the three hills.

The successful defense has made the day most bloody for many German regiments.

In order to turn them if frontal attacks failed against the French, German storm troops—they are now called grosskampf, or great offensive troops—were to break the British lines on the French left between Locre and Voormezeele and on the French right near Merris and Meteren. That obviously was the intention of the German High Command this morning, judging from their direction of assault.

So far they have failed utterly. They failed to break or bend the British wings on the French centre, and they failed to capture the hills, or any one of them, defended by the French divisions.

They have attacked again and again since this morning's dawn, heavy forces of German infantry being sent forward after their first waves against Scherpenberg and Voormezeele, which lies to the east of Dickebusch Lake, but these men have been slaughtered by the French and British fire and made no important progress at any point.

For a time the situation seemed critical at one or two points, and it was reported that the Germans had been storming the slopes of Mont Rouge and Mont Noir, but one of the British airmen flew over these hills at 200 feet above their crests, and could see no German infantry near them.

Round about Voormezeele, North Country and other English battalions had to sustain determined and furious efforts of Alpine and Bavarian troops to drive through them by weight of numbers, after hours of intense bombardment, but the men held their ground and inflicted severe punishment upon the enemy.

All through the day the German losses have been heavy under field-gun and machine-gun fire, and the British batteries, alongside the French seventy-fives, swept down the enemy's advancing waves and his masses assembled in support at short range.

There is no doubt that the French guarding the three hills have fought with extreme valor and skill. For a brief period the Germans apparently were able to draw near and take some of the ground near Locre, but an immediate counterattack was organized by the French General, and the line of French troops swung forward and swept the enemy back. Further attacks by the Germans north of Ypres and on the Belgian front were repulsed easily, and again the enemy lost many men.

On April 30 Mr. Gibbs confirmed the details of the disastrous German defeats on the two preceding days and gave these further particulars:

It was the valor of Frenchmen as well as Englishmen which yesterday inflicted defeat upon many German divisions, and the Allies fought side by side, and their batteries fired from the same fields and their wounded came back along the same roads, and the khaki and blue lay out upon the same brown earth.

I have already given an outline of yesterday's battle, how, after a colossal bombardment, the German attack early in the morning from north of Ypres to south of Voormezeele, where English battalions held the lines, and from La Clytte past the three hills of Scherpenberg, Mont Rouge, and Mont Noir, which French troops held to the north of Meteren, where the English joined them; again, how the English Tommies held firm against desperate assaults until late in the evening; how the enemy made a great thrust against the French, driving in for a time between Scherpenberg and Mont Noir until they were flung back by a French counterattack.

In the night the French, who had now regained all the ground that had been temporarily in the enemy's hands, made a general counterattack and succeeded in advancing their line to a depth of about fifteen hundred yards beyond the line of the three hills, which thereby was made more secure against future assaults.

Meanwhile throughout the day the English battalions had been sustaining heavy assaults, breaking the enemy against their front. The Leicesters, especially, had fierce fighting about Voormezeele, where, as I told yesterday, the enemy was in the centre of the village. German storm troops advanced against our men here and along other parts of the line with fixed bayonets, but in most places, except Voormezeele, where there was close fighting, they were mowed down by Lewis-gun fire before they could get near. Line after line of them came on, but lost heavily and fell back.

Over the ground east of Dickebusch Lake some Yorkshire troops saw these groups of field gray men advancing upon them, and the glint of their bayonets, wet in the morning mist, and swept them with bullets from the Lewis guns and rifles until heaps of bodies were lying out there on the mud flats in the old Ypres salient. The most determined assaults were concentrated upon the 25th Division, but it held firm and would not budge, though the men had been under fearful fire in the night bombardment, and their machine gunners kept their triggers pressed, and bullets played upon the advancing Germans like a stream from a garden hose.

The troops in the whole division yielded no yard of ground and they hold that they killed as many Germans as any battalion in this battle. It was a black day for Germany. More than ten German divisions, probably thirteen, seem to have been engaged in this attempt to smash our lines and encircle the three hills. They included some of the enemy's finest divisions, so they lost quality as well as quantity in this futile sacrifice of man-power—man-power which seems to mean nothing in flesh and blood and heart and soul to men like Ludendorff, but is treated as a material force like guns and ammunition and used as cannon fodder.

Referring to the French troops in this battle, Mr. Gibbs wrote:

Today again I have been among the thousands of French soldiers. It is splendid to see them because of their fine bearing. They are men in the prime of life, not so young as some of the British and with a graver look than one sees on British faces, when they have not yet reached the zone of fire. They are men who have seen all that war means during these years of agony and hope and boredom and death. They have no illusions. They stare into the face of death unflinchingly and shrug their shoulders at its worst menace and still have faith in victory.

So I read them, if any man may read the thoughts that lie behind those bronzed faces with the dark eyes and upturned mustaches under the blue painted helmets or the black Tam o' Shanters.

They are not gay or boisterous in their humor, and they do not sing like the British as they march, but they seem to have been born to this war, and its life is their life, and they are professionals.

The Tricolor passes along the roads of France and Flanders, and French trumpets ring out across the flat fields below Scherpenberg, and all the spirit of the French fighting men, who have proved themselves great soldiers in this war, as for thousands of years of history, is mingled with our own battalions. Together yesterday they gave the German Army a hard knock.

In his cable of May 1 Mr. Gibbs gave details of the extraordinary heroism of the British Guards. He related incidents which had occurred April 11 to 14, after the Germans had broken through the Portuguese in their efforts to widen the gap between Armentières and Merville by gaining the crossings of the Lys.

The Grenadier, Irish, and Coldstream Guards were sent forward along the Hazebrouck-Estaires road when the situation was at its worst, when the men of the 15th Division and other units had fought themselves out in continual rearguard and holding actions, so that some of those still in the line could hardly walk or stand, and when it was utterly necessary to keep the Germans in check until a body of Australian troops had time to arrive. The Guards were asked to hold back the enemy until those Australians came and to fight at all costs for forty-eight hours against the German tide of men and guns which was attempting to flow around the other hard pressed men, and that is what the Guards did, fighting in separate bodies with the enemy pressing in on both flanks.

Greatly outnumbered, they beat back attack after attack, and gained precious hours, vital hours, by the most noble self-sacrifice. A party of Grenadiers were so closely surrounded that their officer sent back a message saying:

"My men are standing back to back and shooting on all sides."

The Germans swung around them, circling them with machine guns and rifles and pouring a fire into them until only eighteen men were left. Those eighteen, standing among their wounded and their dead, did not surrender. The army wanted forty-eight hours. They fixed bayonets and went out against the enemy and drove through him. A wounded Corporal of Grenadiers, who afterward got back to the British lines, lay in a ditch, and the last he saw of his comrades was when fourteen men of them were still fighting in a swarm of Germans.

The Coldstream Guards were surrounded in the same way and fought in the same way. The army had asked for forty-eight hours until the Australians could come, and many of the Coldstreamers eked out the time with their lives. The enemy filtered in on their flanks, came crawling around them with machine guns, sniped them from short range and raked them from ditches and upheaved earth.

The Coldstream Guards had to fall back, but they fought back in small groups, facing all ways and making gaps in the enemy's ranks, not firing wildly, but using every round of small-arms ammunition to keep a German back and gain a little more time.

Forty-eight hours is a long time in a war like this. For two days and nights the Irish Guards, who had come up to support the Grenadiers and Coldstreamers, tried to make a defensive flank, but the enemy worked past their right and attacked them on two sides. The Irish Guards were gaining time. They knew that was all they could do, just drag out the hours by buying each minute with their blood. One man fell and then another; but minutes were gained, and quarters of hours and hours.

Small parties of them lowered their bayonets and went out among the gray wolves swarming around them, and killed a number of them until they also fell. First one party and then another of these Irish Guards made those bayonet charges against men with machine guns and volleys of rifle fire. They bought time at a high price, but they did not stint themselves nor stop their bidding because of its costliness.

The brigade of Guards here and near Vieux Berquin held out for those forty-eight hours, and some of them were fighting still when the Australians arrived, according to the timetable.

Mr. Gibbs, in a dispatch dated May 3, gave these vivid descriptions of the fighting in the Locre-Dranoutre-Kemmel region:

On April 24 the German bombardment was intensified and spread over a deep area, destroying villages, tearing up roads, and making a black vomit of the harrowed fields. Dranoutre, Locre, Westoutre, and other small towns were violently bombarded. That night the French discovered that the Germans were preparing an attack for the next morning, to be preceded by a gas bombardment. The officers warned all their men, and they stood on the alert with gas masks when at 3:30 in the morning thousands of gas shells fell over them, mixed with high explosives of all calibres up to the monster twelve-inch, which burst like volcanic eruptions.

In the intensity of bombardment several officers who fought at Fleury said: "This is the most frightful thing we have seen. Verdun was nothing to it."

All the French troops jammed on gas masks, and on one day put them on fifty times, only removing them when the wind, which was fairly strong, blew away the poison fumes until other storms of shells came. For nearly a week they wore them constantly, sleeping in them, officers giving orders in them, and the men fighting and dying in them and charging with the bayonet in them. It was worth the trouble and suffering, for this French regiment between Locre and Dranoutre had only twelve gas casualties.

That morning the German attack fell first on Kemmel Hill, which they turned from the north, and two hours later, the bombardment continuing all along the line, they developed a strong attack against Dranoutre in the south in order to take Locre and turn the French right. Until evening the troops on Kemmel Hill, with a small body of British, still held out with great devotion in isolated positions, but by 8 o'clock that morning Kemmel Hill was entirely cut off.

This was a severe menace to their comrades at Locre and southward, because both their flanks were threatened. They did heroic things to safeguard their right and left, which again and again the enemy tried to pass. I have already told in a previous message how a gallant French officer and a small company of men made a counterattack at Dranoutre and held the post there against all odds.

Up by Locre the commandant of the left battalion found machine-gun fire sweeping his left flank, and his men had to face left to defend their line. Small parties of Germans with machine guns kept filtering down from the north and established themselves on the railway in order to rake the French with an enfilade fire.

One French company, led by devoted officers, counterattacked there five times with the bayonet into the sweep of those bullets, and by this sacrifice saved their flank. Another company advanced to hold the hospice. There was desperate fighting day after day, so that its ruins, if any bits of wall are left, will be as historic as the château at Vermelles, or other famous houses of the battlefields.

French and Germans took it turn and turn about, and although the enemy sent great numbers of men to garrison this place they never were able to hold it long, because always some young French Lieutenant and a handful of men stormed it again and routed the enemy. When it was taken last on April 29, the day of the enemy's severe defeat, the French captured 100 prisoners in the cellars there, and they belonged to fourteen battalions of four regiments of three divisions, showing the amazing way in which the enemy's divisions have been flung into confusion by the French fire.

On the morning of April 26 French companies made six attacks, and in the afternoon two more, and though their losses were heavy, that evening both the village and hospice of Locre stayed in their hands. That night, their men being exhausted for a time after so many hours under fire, they withdrew their line a little to the Locre-Bailleul road by the Château of Locre and west of Dranoutre in order to reorganize a stronger defense. The German bombardment slackened on the morning of April 28 owing to fog, and those few hours on that day and one other were the only respite these French troops had from the incessant and infernal gunfire when, owing to open warfare, "en rase campagne," as the French call it, as in 1914, without a complete system of trenches or dugouts or other artificial cover, they were much exposed.

"There were ten big shells a second," one of these officers told me, "and that lasted, with only two short pauses, for six days all through the battle, and other shells were uncountable."

The enemy had brought up light artillery and trench mortars almost to his front lines in Dranoutre Wood and other places and attempted to take the French in an enfilade fire from Kemmel, but by this time many French guns were in position, reinforcing the British artillery, and on the 28th they opened up and killed great numbers of the enemy.

Allied aviators saw long columns of Germans on the roads by Neuve Eglise and in Dranoutre Wood, and signaled to the guns to range on these human targets. The guns answered. Masses of Germans were smashed by the fire and panicstricken groups were seen running out of Dranoutre Wood.

That night the Germans seemed to be relieving their troops, and again the French and British guns flung shells into them, and for the enemy it was a night of death and horror; but the next day, the 29th, the enemy made reply by a prolonged bombardment, more intense even than before, and then attacked with new troops all along the line. But the French also had many fresh troops in line—not those I met yesterday—who at 2 o'clock in the morning went forward into attack and took back the village. This defeated the enemy's plan of turning the French left.

All through that day the enemy's desperate efforts to break through were shattered, and that night the French held exactly the same ground as before and had caused enormous losses to the German divisions, at least 40 per cent. of their strength, as it is reckoned on close evidence.

That night even the German guns stopped their drumfire, as though Sixt von Arnim's army was in mourning for its dead. It was a night of strange and uncanny silence after the stupendous tumult, but for those French regiments who had been holding the line for nearly a week it had been a day of supreme ordeal.

There were no general engagements during the preceding five days nor up to May 18, but incessant artillery fire was kept up and raids were constantly made. On May 5 Mr. Gibbs described the difficulties encountered by the Germans in preparing for a new advance:

The enemy has many divisions, both up in the Flemish fields and on the Somme, divisions in line and divisions in reserve—divisions crowded in reserve—and there are few roads for them down which to march. There is not much elbow room for such masses to assemble, and not much cover in trenches or dugouts from high explosives or shrapnel. So we pound them to death, many of them to death and many of them to stretcher cases, and relief comes up, gets wildly mixed with the divisions coming down, and at night there is mad confusion in the ranks of marching men and transport columns, which gallop past dead horses and splintered wagons and wrecks of transport columns, and among the regimental and divisional staffs, trying to keep order in the German way when things are being smashed into chaos, while the Red Cross convoys are over-loaded with wounded and unable to cope with all the bodies that lie about.

This is what is happening behind the German lines—I have not overdrawn the picture, believe me—and it is upsetting somewhat the plans of the high German officers who are arranging things from afar through telephones, down which they shout their orders.

In his dispatch of May 9 the following was written to describe the difficulties of the Germans in reorganizing their battered forces:

From many points the British have complete observation of the enemy's positions there, as he has of theirs from the other side of the way, and, needless to say, they are making use of this direct view by flinging over storms of shells whenever his transport is seen crawling along the tracks of the old Somme battlefields or his troops are seen massing among their shell craters.

The town of Albert itself, where once until recent history the golden Virgin used to lean downward with her babe outstretched above the ruins, is now a death trap for the German garrisons there and for any German gunners who try to hide their batteries among the red brick houses. By day and night their positions are pounded with high explosives and soaked in asphyxiating gas.

I went within 2,000 yards of it yesterday, and saw the heaviest work of the British upon it. It was a wonderful May day, as today is, and the sun shone through a golden haze upon the town. As I looked into Albert and saw the shells smashing through, and then away up the Albert-Bapaume road, past the white rim of the great mine crater of La Boiselle to the treeless slopes of Posières, and over all that ground of hills and ditches to the high, wooded distant right, with its few dead stumps of trees, it was hard to believe that all this was in the area of the German Army, that the white, winding lines freshly marked upon this bleak landscape were new German trenches, and that the enemy's outposts were less than 2,000 yards from where I stood.

Some siege gunners were lying on their stomachs and observing the enemy's lines for some monsters I had seen on my way up, monsters that raised their snouts slowly, like elephants' trunks, before bellowing out with an earthquake roar, annihilating all one's senses for a second. Some of the men passed the remark to me that "Albert isn't the town it was" and that "Fritz must be having a thin time there." They also expressed the opinion that the Albert-Bapaume road was not a pleasant walk for Germans on a sunny afternoon.

I did not dispute these points with them, for they were beyond argument. Big shells were smashing into Albert and its neighborhood from many heavy batteries, raising volcanic explosions there, and shrapnel was bursting over the tracks in white splashes.

In describing the artillery fire which broke up a threatened assault on May 5, Mr. Gibbs wrote:

A new German division, the 52d Reserve, and the 56th German Division prepared an assault on Ridge Wood. All these men were crowded into narrow assembly grounds and did not have quiet hours before the moment of attack. They had hours of carnage in the darkness. British and French guns were answering back the German bombardment with their heaviest fire. French howitzers, long-muzzled fellows, which during recent weeks I had seen crawling through Flanders with the cornflowers, as the French soldiers call themselves, crowded about them on the gun limbers and transport wagons and muddy horses, and which had traveled long kilometers, were now in action from their emplacements between the ruined villages of the Flemish war zone, and with their little brothers, the soixante-quinzes, their blood-thirsty little brothers, were savage in their destruction and harassing fire.

I have seen the soixante-quinze at work and have heard the rafale des tambours de la mort—the ruffle of the drums of death—as the sound of their fire is described by all soldier writers of France. It was that fire, that slashing and sweeping fire, which helped to break up any big plan of attack against the French troops yesterday morning, and from those assembly places a great part of the German infantry never moved all day, but spent their time, it seems, in carrying back their wounded.

Mr. Gibbs on May 11 described a visit to Arras, as follows:

Since the beginning of these great battles in bleak, cold weather Spring has come, and almost Summer, changing all the aspect of the old battlefields and of the woods behind craterland and of the cities under fire.

I went into one of those cities the other day, Arras, which to me and to many of us out here is a queerly enchanted place because of its beauty, which survives even three years of bombardment, and because of the many great memories which it holds in its old houses and streets and the sense of romance which lurks in its courtyards and squares, reaching back to ancient history before its death. For Arras is dead and but the beautiful corpse of the city that was once very fair and noble.

During the recent weeks the enemy has flung many big explosive shells into it, so that its ruins have become more ruined and many houses hardly touched before have now been destroyed. It was sad to see this change, the fresh mangling of stones that had already been scarred, the heaps of masonry that lay piled about these streets that were utterly deserted. I walked down many of them and saw no living soul, only a few lean cats which prowled about, slinking close to the walls and crouching when a German shell came over with a rending noise.

Bright sunlight shone down these streets, putting a lazy glamour upon their broken frontages and flinging back shadows from high walls, except where shell holes let in the light. The cathedral and the great Palace of the Bishops were unroofed, with tall pillars broken off below the vaulting and an avalanche of white masonry about them. They were clear-cut and dazzling under the blue sky, and one was hushed by the tragic grandeur of these ruins.

One of the British airplanes flew low over the city, and its engine sang loudly with a vibrant humming, and now and again the crash of a gun or a shell loosened some stones or plaster below its wings. Other birds were singing. Spring birds, who are not out for war but sweethearting in the gardens of Arras.

---

[By arrangement with The London Chronicle.]

One of the finest moral actions in this war has been done by America. It is action on a gigantic scale, and yet of a directly personal character. Insufficient publicity, I think, has been given to this action.

Is it realized by the people of this country that America has already saved us from capitulating to the enemy? Either we should have been forced into this surrender (with our armies unbroken and our munitions of war unexhausted) or we should at this moment be struggling to live and work and fight on one-third of our present rations.

America is sending to these islands almost two-thirds of our food supplies. Sixty-five per cent. of the essential foodstuffs eaten by the British citizen comes to him from the American Continent. This in itself is something which calls for our lively gratitude. But there is a quality in the action of America which should intensify our gratitude. For these American supplies, essential to our health and safety, represent in very large measure the personal and voluntary self-sacrifice of the individual American citizen. They are not crumbs from the table of Dives. They are not the commandeered supplies of an autocratic Government. They represent, rather, the kindly, difficult, and entirely willing self-sacrifice of a whole nation, the vast majority of whom are working people.

There is only one altar for this act of sacrifice—it is the table of the American working classes. And the rite is performed by men, women, and children, at every meal of the day, day after day, week after week.

This act of self-sacrifice, let us remember, is made in the midst of plenty. Well might the American housewife ask why she should deprive her children of food, why she should institute wheatless and meatless days, when all about her there is a visible superabundance of these things. Questions such as this are natural enough on the other side of the Atlantic, and on the other side of the American continent, 5,000 miles away from the battlefields of France.

But the citizens of America do not ask such questions. With a cheerfulness and a courage which are as vigorous as their industry, and with a moral earnestness which is by far the greatest demonstration America has yet given to the world of American character, these people so far away from us on the other side of the Atlantic have willingly and with no coercion by the State denied themselves for the sake of the Entente. They are going short, they are going hungry, for our sakes. They are practicing an intimate self-sacrifice in order that we may hold our own till their sons come to fight at our side. All over America the individual American citizen is making this self-sacrifice, and making it without a murmur. He is feeding, by his personal self-sacrifice, not only these islands, but France, Italy, and many of the neutrals.

This great demonstration of character has had no other impetus than the simple declaration of the facts by Herbert Hoover, the man who fed Belgium. Hoover has told his countrymen how things stand. That is all. The Winter of 1918, he declared to them, will prove to mankind whether or not the American Nation "is capable of individual self-sacrifice to save the world." His propaganda has never descended to unworthy levels. He has appealed always to the conscience of his countrymen. He has spoken of "a personal obligation upon every one of us toward some individual abroad who will suffer privation to the extent of our own individual negligence."

America has answered this appeal in a manner which marks her out as one of the greatest moral forces in the world. It should be known out there, in the farmhouses and cottages of the American Continent, that the people of this country are mindful of America's self-sacrifice, and are grateful.

---

---

---

---

---

[Month ended May 20, 1918]

Seicheprey, in the Toul sector, was the scene on April 20, 1918, of the most determined attack launched against the American forces in France up to that time. A German regiment, reinforced by storm troops, a total of 1,500, was hurled against the American positions on a one-mile front west of Remières Forest, northwest of Toul, after a severe bombardment of gas and high explosive shells. The Germans succeeded in penetrating the front-line trenches and taking the village of Seicheprey, but after furious hand-to-hand fighting the American troops recaptured the village and most of the ground lost in the early fighting.

Next morning, after a brief bombardment, the Americans attacked and drove the enemy out of the old outposts, which they had gained, and thus broke down an offensive which, it was believed, was intended as the beginning of a German plan to separate the Americans and the French. The French lines also were attacked, but the Germans were repulsed and the lines re-established.

The losses were the heaviest sustained by Americans since they began active warfare in France. In a dispatch to the War Department General Pershing indicated that the losses among his men were between 200 and 300. According to the German official statement 183 Americans were taken prisoner, so that the American casualties apparently came mostly under the heading of captured. Official reports of the German losses, according to a prisoner captured later, gave 600 killed, wounded, and missing.

"Franco-American positions south of the Somme and on the Avre" were officially mentioned for the first time in the French War Office report of April 24, indicating that forces of the United States were there on the battlefront resisting the great German offensive. The report stated that an intense bombardment of the positions all along this front was followed by an attack directed against Hangard-en-Santerre, the region of Hailles, and Senecat Wood. The Germans were repulsed almost everywhere.

Formal announcement that American troops sent to reinforce the allied armies had taken part in the fighting was made by the War Department in its weekly review of the situation issued on April 29. "Our own forces," the statement read, "have taken part in the battle. American units are in the area east of Amiens. During the engagements which have raged in this area they have acquitted themselves well."

Another heavy attack was launched by the Germans against the Americans in the vicinity of Villers-Bretonneux on April 30. It was repulsed with heavy losses for the enemy. The German bombardment opened at 5 o'clock in the afternoon and was directed especially against the Americans, who were supported on the north and south by the French. The fire was intense, and at the end of two hours the German commander sent forward three battalions of infantry. There was hand-to-hand fighting all along the line, as a result of which the enemy was thrust back, his dead and wounded lying on the ground in all directions. The French troops were full of praise for the manner in which the Americans conducted themselves under trying circumstances, especially in view of the fact that they are fighting at one of the most difficult points on the battlefront. The American losses were rather severe.

The gallantry of the 300 American engineers who were caught in the opening of the German offensive on March 21 was the subject of a dispatch from General Pershing made public by the War Department on April 19. The engineers were among the forces hastily gathered by Major Gen. Sanderson Carey, the British commander, who stopped the gap in the line when General Gough's army was driven back. [See diagram on Page 389.] During the period of thirteen days covered by General Pershing's report, the engineers were almost continuously in action. They were in the very thick of the hardest days of the great German drive in Picardy.

General Pershing embodied in his report a communication from General Rawlinson, commander of the British 5th Army, in which the latter declared that "it has been largely due to your assistance that the enemy is checked." The report covered the fighting period from March 21 to April 3. The former date marked the beginning of the Ludendorff offensive along the whole front from La Fère to Croisilles. It showed that while under shellfire the American engineers destroyed material dumps at Chaulnes, that they fell back with the British forces to Moreuil, where the commands laid out trench work, and were then assigned to a sector of the defensive line at Demuin, and to a position near Warfusee-Abancourt.

During the period of thirteen days covered by the report the American engineers had two officers killed and three wounded, while twenty men were killed, fifty-two wounded, and forty-five reported missing.

A correspondent of The Associated Press at the front gave this account of the part played by Americans in the historic episode under General Carey:

A disastrous-looking gap appeared In the 5th Army south of Hamel in the later stages of the opening battle. The Germans had crossed the Somme at Hamel and had a clear path for a sweep southwestward.

No troops were available to throw into the opening. A certain Brigadier General was commissioned by Major Gen. Gough, commander of the 5th Army, to gather up every man he could find and to "hold the gap at any cost." The General called upon the American and Canadian engineers, cooks, chauffeurs, road workmen, anybody he could find; gave them guns, pistols, any available weapon, and rushed them into the gap in trucks, on horseback, or on mule-drawn limbers.

A large number of machine guns from a machine-gun school near by were confiscated. Only a few men, however, knew how to operate the weapons, and they had to be worked by amateurs with one "instructor" for every ten or twelve guns. The Americans did especially well in handling this arm.

For two days the detachment held the mile and a half gap. At the end of the second day the commander, having gone forty-eight hours without sleep, collapsed. The situation of the detachment looked desperate.

While all were wondering what would happen next, a dusty automobile came bounding along the road from the north. It contained Brig. Gen. Carey, who had been home on leave and who was trying to find his headquarters.

The General was commandeered by the detachment and he was found to be just the commander needed. He is an old South African soldier of the daredevil type. He is famous among his men for the scrapes and escapades of his school-boy life as well as for his daring exploits in South Africa.

Carey took the detachment in hand and led it in a series of attacks and counterattacks which left no time for sleeping and little for eating. He gave neither his men nor the enemy a rest, attacking first on the north, then in the centre, then on the south—harassing the enemy unceasingly with the idea of convincing the Germans that a large force opposed them.

Whenever the Germans tried to feel him out with an attack at one point, Carey parried with a thrust somewhere else, even if it took his last available man, and threw the Germans on the defensive.

The spirit of Carey's troops was wonderful. The work they did was almost super-natural. It would have been impossible with any body of men not physical giants, but the Americans and Canadians gloried in it. They crammed every hour of the day full of fighting. It was a constantly changing battle, kaleidoscopic, free-for-all, catch-as-catch-can. The Germans gained ground. Carey and his men were back at them, hungry for more punishment. At the end of the sixth day, dog-tired and battle-worn, but still full of fight, the detachment was relieved by a fresh battalion which had come up from the rear.

Major Gen. James W. McAndrew, it was announced on May 3, was appointed Chief of Staff of the American expeditionary force in succession to Brig. Gen. James G. Harbord, who was assigned to a command in the field. Other changes on General Pershing's staff included the appointment of Lieut. Col. Robert C. Davis as Adjutant General, and Colonel Merritte W. Ireland as Surgeon General.

The General Staff of the American expeditionary forces in France, as the result of several changes in personnel, consisted on May 14, 1918, of the following:

Commander:	General John J. Pershing
Aid de Camp:	Colonel James L. Collins
Aid de Camp:	Colonel Carl Boyd
Aid de Camp:	Colonel M. C. Shallenberger
Chief of Staff:	Major Gen. J. W. McAndrew
Adjutant:	Lieut. Col. Robert C. Davis
Inspector:	Brig. Gen. Andre W. Brewster
Judge Advocate:	Brig. Gen. Walter A. Bethel
Quartermaster:	Brig. Gen. Harry L. Rogers
Surgeon:	Colonel Merritte W. Ireland
Engineer:	Brig. Gen. Harry Taylor
Ordnance Officer:	Brig. Gen. C. B. Wheeler
Signal Officer: Brig.	Gen. Edgar Russell
Aviation Officer:	Brig. Gen. B. D. Foulois

President Wilson on May 4 pardoned two soldiers of the American expeditionary force who had been condemned to death by a military court-martial in France for sleeping on sentry duty and commuted to nominal prison terms the death sentences imposed on two others for disobeying orders.

Major Hugh H. Young, director of the work of dealing with communicable blood diseases in our army in France, made this striking statement on May 12 regarding the freedom of the American expeditionary force from such diseases:

In making plans for this department of medical work in France it had been calculated by the medical authorities in Washington to have ten 1,000-bed hospitals, in which a million men could receive treatment, but with 500,000 Americans in France there is not one of the five allotted Americans in any of the hospitals now running, and only 500 cases of this type of disease needing hospital treatment, instead of the expected 5,000.

In other words, instead of having 1 per cent. of our soldiers in hospitals from social diseases, as had been expected, the actual number is only one-tenth of 1 per cent. There is no reason to doubt that this record will be maintained. The hospitals prepared for this special treatment are to be used for other cases.

This means that the American Army is the cleanest in the world. The results, according to Major Young, have been achieved by preventive steps taken by the American medical directors, coupled with the co-operation of the men.

---

The overseas fighting forces of the United States have been increasing at a much more rapid rate than the public was aware of. Early in May the number of our men in France was in excess of 500,000. A great increase in the ultimate size of the army was further indicated when the War Department asked the House Military Affairs Committee for a new appropriation of $15,000,000,000.

Mr. Baker, Secretary of War, appeared before the committee on April 23 and, after describing the results of his inspection of the army in France, said that the size of the army that the United States would send abroad was entirely dependent upon the shipping situation. Troops were already moving to France at an accelerated rate.

President Wilson, through Mr. Baker, presented the House Military Affairs Committee on May 2 with proposals for increasing the army. The President asked that all limits be removed on the number of men to be drafted for service. Mr. Baker said that he declined to discuss the numbers of the proposed army "for the double reason that any number implies a limit, and the only possible limit is our ability to equip and transport men, which is constantly on the increase."

The Administration's plans were submitted in detail on May 3, when the committee began the preparation of the army appropriation bill carrying $15,000,000,000 to finance the army during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1919. Mr. Baker again refused to go into the question of figures, but it became known at the Capitol that the estimates he submitted were based on a force of not fewer than 3,000,000 men and 160,000 officers in the field by July 1, 1919. The plan contemplated having 130,000 officers and 2,168,000 men, or a total of 2,298,000, in the field and in camps by July 1, 1918, and approximately an additional million in the field before June 30, 1919.

Mr. Baker said that all the army camps and cantonments were to be materially enlarged, to take care of the training of the men to be raised in the next twelve months. The General Staff had this question under careful consideration, and the idea was to increase the size of existing training camps rather than to establish new camps. These camps, it was estimated, already had facilities for training close to a million men at one time.

The Secretary of War also made it clear that the total of $15,000,000,000 involved in the estimates as revised for the new army bill did not cover the whole cost of the army for the next fiscal year. The $15,000,000,000, he explained, was in addition to the large sums that would be carried in the Fortifications Appropriation bill, which covers the cost of heavy ordnance both in the United States and overseas. Nor did it include the Military Academy bill. It was emphasized that, although estimates were submitted on the basis of an army of a certain size, Congress was being asked for blanket authority for the President to raise all the men needed, and the approximate figures of $15,000,000,000 could be increased by deficiency appropriations.

It was brought out in the committee that the transportation service had improved and that the War Department was able to send more men to France each month. It was estimated that if transport facilities continued to improve, close to 1,500,000 fighting men would be on the western front by Dec. 31, 1918. The United States had now in camp and in the field, it was explained to the committee, the following enlisted men and officers:

Enlisted men	1,765,000
Officers	120,000
	——
Total	1,885,000

Provost Marshal General Crowder announced on May 8 that 1,227,000 Americans had been called to the colors under the Selective Draft act, thereby indicating approximately the strength of the national army. Additional calls during May for men to be in camp by June 2 affected something like 366,600 registrants under the draft law. These men were largely intended to fill up the camps at home, replacing the seasoned personnel from the divisions previously training there. With the increase of the number of divisions in France, the flow of replacement troops was increasing proportionately.

In regard to the number of men in France, Mr. Baker on May 8 made the following important announcement:

In January I told the Senate committee that there was strong likelihood that early in the present year 500,000 American troops would be dispatched to France. I cannot either now or perhaps later discuss the number of American troops in France, but I am glad to be able to say that the forecast I made in January has been surpassed.

This was the first official utterance indicating even indirectly the number of men sent abroad. The first force to go was never described except as a division, although as a matter of fact it was constituted into two divisions soon after its arrival in France.

An Associated Press dispatch dated May 17 announced that troops of the new American Army had arrived within the zone of the British forces in Northern France and were completing their training in the area occupied by the armies which were blocking the path of the Germans to the Channel ports. The British officers who were training the Americans stated that the men from overseas were of the finest material. The newcomers were warmly greeted by the British troops and were reported to be full of enthusiasm.

---

This friendly British view of our soldiers in France is from the pen of a noted war
correspondent of The London Morning Post

I have recently visited the miniature America now installed in France, and installed in the most French part of Central France. There is nothing more French than these ancient towns with historic castles, moats, dungeons, and torture chambers, these old villages, where farms are sometimes still battlemented like small castles, and this countryside where living is easy and pleasant. On to this heart of France has descended a whole people from across the ocean, a people that hails from New England and California, from Virginia and Illinois. The American Army has taken over this heart of France, and is teaching it to "go some". Townsfolk and villagers enjoy being taught. The arrival of the American Army is a revelation to them.

I was surprised at first to find how fresh a novelty an allied army was in this part of France. Then I remembered that these little towns and villages have in the last few months for the first time seen allies of France. The ports where the American troops land have seen many other allies; they saw, indeed, in August, 1914, some of the first British troops land, whose reception remains in the recollection of the inhabitants as a scene of such fervor and loving enthusiasm as had never been known before and probably will not be known again. In fact, to put it brutally, French ports are blasé. But this Central France for the first time welcomes allied troops. It is true they had seen some Russians, but the least said of them now the better. Some of the Russians are still there, hewing wood for three francs a day per head, and behaving quite peaceably.

These old towns and villages look upon the American Army in their midst as the greatest miracle they have ever known, and a greater one than they ever could have dreamed of. One motors through scores of little towns and villages where the American soldier, in his khaki, his soft hat, (which I am told is soon to be abolished,) and his white gaiters, swarms. The villagers put up bunting, calico signs, flags, and have stocks of American "canned goods" to show in their shop windows. The children, when bold, play with the American soldiers, and the children that are more shy just venture to go up and touch an American soldier's leg. Very old peasant ladies put on their Sunday black and go out walking and in some mysterious way talking with American soldiers. The village Mayor turns out and makes a speech utterly incomprehensible to the American soldier, whenever a fresh contingent of the latter arrives. The 1919 class, just called up, plays bugles and shouts "Good morning" when an American car comes by.

Vice versa, this Central France is perhaps even more of a miracle to the American troops than the American troops are to it. To watch the American trooper from Arkansas or Chicago being shown over a castle which is not only older than the United States, but was in its prime under Louis XII., and dates back to a Roman fortress now beneath it, is a wonderful sight. Here the American soldier shows himself a charming child. There is nothing of the "Innocents Abroad" about him. I heard scarcely anything (except about telephones and railways) of any American brag of modernism in this ancient part of France. On the contrary, the soldier is learning with open eyes, and trying to learn with open ears, all these wonders of the past among which he has been suddenly put. The officer, too, even the educated officer, is beautifully astonished at all this past, which he had read about, but which, quite possibly, he didn't really believe to exist. The American officers who speak French—and there are some of them, coming chiefly from the Southern States—are, of course, heroes in every town, and sought after in cafés at recreation hours by every French officer and man. Those who do not know French are learning it, and I remember a picturesque sight, that of a very elderly, prim French governess in black, teaching French to American subalterns in a Y.M.C.A. canteen.

A great French preacher the other day, in his sermon in a Paris church, said that this coming to France of millions of English troops and future millions of American troops may mean eventually one of the greatest changes in Continental Europe the world has ever known. His words never seemed to me so full of meaning as they did when I was among the Americans in the heart of France. There, of course, the contrast is infinitely greater than it can be in the France which our own troops are occupying and defending. These young, fresh, hustling, keen Americans, building up numerous works of all kinds to prepare for defending France, have brought with them Chinese labor and negro labor; and Chinese and negroes and German and Austrian prisoners all work in these American camps under American officers' orders. Imagine what an experience, what a miracle, indeed, this spectacle seems to the country-folk of this old French soil, who have always lived very quietly, who never wanted to go anywhere else, and who knew, indeed, that France had allies fighting and working for her, but had never seen any of them until these Americans came across three thousand miles of ocean.

Something of a miracle, also, is what our new allies are accomplishing. They are doing everything on a huge scale. I saw aviation camps, training camps, aviation schools, vast tracts where barracks were being put up, railways built, telegraphs and telephones installed by Chinese labor, negro labor, German prisoners' labor, under the direction of American skilled workmen, who are in France by the thousand. There are Y.M.C.A. canteens, Red Cross canteens, clubs for officers and for men, theatres and cinemas for the army, and a prodigious amount of food—all come from America. The hams alone I saw strung up in one canteen would astonish the boches. American canned goods, meat, fruit, condensed milk, meal, &c., have arrived in France in stupendous quantities. No body of American troops land in France until what is required for their sustenance several weeks ahead is already stored in France. Only the smallest necessaries are bought on the spot, and troops passing through England on their way to France are strictly forbidden, both officers and men, to buy any article of food whatsoever in England. As for the quality, the American has nothing to complain of, so far as I could see. All pastry, cakes, sweets are henceforth prohibited throughout civilian France, but the American troops rightly have all these things in plenty. I saw marvelous cakes and tarts, which would create a run on any Paris or London teashop, and the lady who manages one American Red Cross canteen (by the way, she is an Englishwoman, and is looked up to by the American military authorities as one of the best organizers they have met) explained to me wonderful recipes they have for making jam with honey and preserved fruit. The bread, of course, they make themselves, and, as is right, it is pure white flour bread, such as no civilian knows nowadays.

One motors through scores of villages and more, and every little old French spot swarms with American Tommies billeted in cottages and farmhouses. Many of them marched straight to their billets from their landing port, and the experience is as wonderful for them, just spirited over from the wilds of America, as it is for the villagers who welcome these almost fabulous allies. But it is the engineering, building, and machinery works the Americans are putting up which are the most astonishing. Gangs of workers have come over in thousands. Many of these young chaps are college men, Harvard or Princeton graduates. They dig and toil as efficiently as any laborer, and perhaps with more zeal. One American Major told me with glee how a party of these young workers arrived straight from America at 3:30 P. M., and started digging at 5 A. M. next morning. "And they liked it; it tickled them to death." Many of these drafts, in fact, were sick and tired of inaction in ports before their departure from America, and they welcomed work in France as if it were some great game.

Perhaps the biggest work of all the Americans are doing is a certain aviation camp and school. In a few months it has neared completion, and when it is finished it will, I believe, be the biggest of its kind in the world. There pilots are trained, and trained in numbers which I may not say, but which are comforting. The number of airplanes they use merely for training, which also I must not state, is in itself remarkable. "Training pilots is the one essential thing," I was told by the C.O. These flying men—or boys—who have, of course, already been broken in in America, do an additional course in France, and when they leave the aviation camp I saw they are absolutely ready for air fighting at the front. This is the finishing school. The aviators go through eight distinct courses in this school. They are perfected in flying, in observation, in bombing, in machine-gun firing. On even a cloudy and windy day the air overhead buzzes with these young American fliers, all getting into the pink of condition to do their stunts at the front. They seemed to me as keen as our own flying men, and as well disciplined. They live in the camp, and it requires moving heaven and earth for one of them to get leave to go even to the nearest little quiet old town.

The impression is the same of the American bases in France as of the American front in France. I found there and here one distinctive characteristic, the total absence of bluff. I was never once told that we were going to be shown how to win the war. I was never once told that America is going to win the war. I never heard that American men and machines are better than ours, but I did hear almost apologies from American soldiers because they had not come into the war sooner. They are, I believe, spending now more money than we are—indeed, the pay of their officers is about double that of ours. I said something about the cost. "Yes, but you see we must make up for lost time," was all the American General said. And he told me about the splendid training work that is being done now in the States by British and French officers who have gone out there knowing what war is, and who teach American officers and men from first-hand experience. This particular General hoped that by this means in a very short time American troops arriving in France may be sent much more quickly to the front than is now the case.

An impression of complete, businesslike determination is what one gets when visiting the Americans in France. A discipline even stricter than that which applies in British and French troops is enforced. In towns, officers, for instance, are not allowed out after 9 P. M. Some towns where subalterns discovered the wine of the country have instantly been put "out of bounds." No officer, on any pretext whatsoever, is allowed to go to Paris, except on official business. From the camps they are not even allowed to go to the neighboring towns. They have, to put it quite frankly, a reputation of wild Americanism to live down, and they sometimes surprise the French by their seriousness. It is a striking sight to see American officers and men flocking into tiny little French Protestant churches on Sundays in this Catholic heart of France. The congregation is a handful of old French Huguenots, and the ancient, rigid French pasteur never in his life preached to so many, and certainly never to soldiers from so far. They come from so far, and from such various parts, these Americans, and for France, as well as for themselves, it is a wonderful experience. I was told that the postal censors who read the letters of the American expeditionary force are required to know forty-seven languages. Of these languages the two least used are Chinese and German.

---

[Month Ended May 15, 1918]

All shipbuilding records have been broken by American builders in the last month. On May 14 it was announced that the first million tons of ships had been completed and delivered to the United States Government under the direction of the Shipping Board. The actual figures on May 11 showed the number of ships to be 159, aggregating 1,108,621 tons. More than half of this tonnage was delivered since Jan. 1, 1918. Most of these ships were requisitioned on the ways or in contract form when the United States entered the war. This result had been anticipated in the monthly records, which showed a steady increase in the tonnage launched:

Month.	Number of Ships Launched.	Aggregate Tonnage.
January	11	91,541
February	16	123,100
March	21	166,700

The rapidity with which ships are being produced was shown by the breaking of the world's record on April 20 and in turn the breaking of this record on May 5. On the former date the 8,800-ton steel steamship West Lianga was launched at Seattle, Wash., fifty-five working days from the date the keel was laid. This was then the world's record. But on May 5 at Camden, N. J., the steel freight steamship Tuckahoe, of 5,548 tons, was launched twenty-seven days after the keel was laid.

Ten days after this extraordinary achievement the Tuckahoe was finished and furnished and ready for sea—another record feat.

Charles M. Schwab, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, was on April 16, 1918, appointed Director General of the Emergency Fleet Corporation to speed up the Government's shipbuilding program. He was invested with practically unlimited powers over all construction work in shipyards producing vessels for the Emergency Fleet Corporation. Charles Piez in consequence ceased to be General Manager of the Corporation, remaining, however, as Vice President to supervise administrative details of construction and placing contracts.

Mr. Schwab, who was the fifth man to be put in charge of the shipbuilding program, was not desirous of accepting the position when first approached because he considered his work in producing steel of first importance in the carrying out of the nation's war program. But after a conference with President Wilson, Edward N. Hurley, Chairman of the Shipping Board; Bainbridge Colby, another member of the board, and Charles Piez, he decided to accept the new position.

Almost the first thing Mr. Schwab did was to move his headquarters to Philadelphia as the centre of the steel-shipbuilding region, taking with him all the division chiefs of the Fleet Corporation directly connected with construction work and about 2,000 employes. The Shipping Board and Mr. Piez retained their offices in Washington with 1,500 subordinates and employes. As a further step toward decentralization it was arranged to move the operating department, including agencies such as the Interallied Ship Control Committee, headed by P. A. S. Franklin, to New York City.

The original "cost-plus" contract under which the Submarine Boat Corporation of Newark was to build 160 ships of 5,000 tons for the Government was canceled by Mr. Schwab as an experiment to determine whether shipyards operating under lump-sum contracts and accepting all responsibility for providing materials could make greater speed in construction than those operating with Government money, such as the Hog Island yards. The result was to increase the cost of each of the 160 ships from $787,500 to $960,000.

A request for an appropriation of $2,223,835,000 for the 1919 program was presented by Mr. Hurley and Mr. Schwab to the House Appropriations Committee on May 8.

Of this total $1,386,100,000 was for construction of ships and $652,000,000 for the purchasing and requisitioning of plants and material in connection with the building program.

---

When the Third Liberty Loan, raised to finance America's war needs, closed on May 4, 1918, the subscriptions were well over $4,000,000,000, a billion in excess of the amount called for. The total was announced on May 17 as $4,170,019,650. Secretary McAdoo stated that he would allot bonds in full on all subscriptions.

The loan was regarded as the most successful ever floated by any nation, not so much because of the volume of sales, but because of the wide distribution of the loan. Approximately 17,000,000 individuals subscribed, that is, about one person in every six in the United States. The number of buyers in the Third Loan exceeded those in the Second by 7,000,000 and those in the First by 12,500,000.

The campaign throughout the country was conducted with all the thoroughness of a great political struggle, with the difference that there were no contending parties and all forces were marshaled to make the loan a success. Nor was the campaign merely a display of efficient organization and vigorous propaganda. It had many features of dramatic and picturesque interest, not only in the large cities, but in almost every smaller centre of the nation. A noonday rally of 50,000 men and women in Wall Street, New York, on the closing day, was typical. An eyewitness described it thus:

The Police Department Band appeared and the band of the 15th Coast Artillery from Fort Hamilton. Taking advantage of the occasion, James Montgomery Flagg now appeared in his studio van on the southern fringe of the Broad Street crowd. A girl with him played something on the cornet. It was a good deal like a show on the Midway at a Western county fair. But this was no faker—one of the most famous artists in America, throwing in a signed sketch of whoever bought Liberty bonds. Those near him began pushing and crowding to take advantage of the offer.

And now, suddenly, a tremendous racket up the street toward Broadway. Who comes?

Cheer on cheer, now. It is the "Anzacs." Twelve long, rangy fellows, officers all, six or seven of them with the little brass "A" on the shoulder, which signifies service at Gallipoli and in Flanders. They are members of the contingent of 500 which arrived here yesterday on its way to the battlefields of France. They run lightly up the Sub-Treasury steps and take their stand in a group beside the soldier band.

And now they all come—all the actors in the drama of the day. Governor Whitman, bareheaded, solemn-faced; Rabbi Stephen Wise, with his rugged face and his shock of blue-black hair; Mme. Schumann-Heink, panting a little with excitement; Auguste Bouilliz, baritone of the Royal Opera of Brussels, who later is to thrill them all with his singing of the "Marseillaise"; Cecil Arden, in a shining helmet and draped in the Union Jack, come to sing "God Save the King," while the sunburned Australian officers stand like statues at salute; Oscar Straus, and then—

"Yee-ee-ee-eee."

Oh, how they cheered! For the "Blue Devils" of France had poured out of the door of the Sub-Treasury and, with the fitful sun shining once more and gleaming on their bayonets, were running down the steps in two lines, past the "Anzacs," past the soldier band, to draw up in ranks at the bottom.

Lieutenant de Moal speaks. What does he say? Who knows? But he is widely cheered, just the same, as he gives way to Governor Whitman.

"There are gatherings like this, though not so large, all over our land today," cries the Governor. "In every town and city we Americans are gathered together at this moment to demonstrate that we are behind our army, behind our navy, behind our President."

The cheers that acclaimed his mention of the President drowned his voice for several moments.

"Here are the Australians," he cries, pointing to the "Anzac" officers. "They have brought us a message, but we are going to give them a message, too."

As the Governor stepped back to cheers that rocked the street, Lieutenant de Moal barked a sharp order, and the "Blue Devils" shouldered their guns with fixed bayonets, the six trumpeters ta-ra-ta-raed, and the soldiers of France moved off up the sidewalk lane to the side door of the Stock Exchange, where all business was suspended during the fifteen minutes of their visit on the floor.

Four of the "Anzacs" meanwhile were taken from their ranks on the steps of the building up to the pedestal of the statue of Washington, which was used as speaker's platform, and Captain Frank McCallam made a brief address.

"We haven't many men left," he said simply. "And it is up to you people to help us out to the best of your ability."

More cheers, and then Cecil Arden sang "God Save the King." The American regular fired a blank volley over the heads of the crowd, and the kids scrambled for the empty shells.

Following Wise and Straus, Bouilliz, the Belgian baritone, sang the "Marseillaise," and then, after the soldier band had played "Where Do We Go from Here, Boys?" Mme. Schumann-Heink advanced and sang the national anthem, following it up with an appeal that was the climax to the play.

Less exciting but more impressive was the parade on April 26, when thousands of mothers who had sent their sons to the front marched in a column of 35,000 men and women in the Liberty Day parade in New York City. This day had been proclaimed as such by President Wilson for "the people of the United States to assemble in their respective communities and liberally pledge anew their financial support to sustain the nation's cause, and to hold patriotic demonstrations in every city, town, and hamlet throughout the land."

The challenge of the mothers was inscribed on one of the banners they carried: "We give our sons—they give their lives—what do you give?"

Remarkable as was the appearance of these mothers with the little service flags over their shoulders, many of them so old that they marched with difficulty, the spectators who flanked the line of march along Fifth Avenue from Washington Square to Fifty-ninth Street found it even more thrilling to note that so very many of them, whether they were mothers or young wives, or just young girls proud of the brothers that had gone forth to service—so very many of them carried service flags with three and four and five and even six stars, and occasionally a glint of the sun would even carry the eye to a gold star, which meant, whenever it appeared, a veil of mourning for a wooden cross somewhere in France.

Among the minor but ingenious forms of publicity was the Liberty Loan ball which was rolled from Buffalo to New York, a distance of 470 miles, and which ended its journey of three weeks on May 4 at the City Hall. The ball was a large steel shell covered with canvas.

Every community that reached or exceeded its quota to the loan was entitled to raise a flag of honor specially designed for the purpose. At least 32,000 communities gained the honor and raised the flag.

To strengthen the financial basis of the nation's war industries and use monetary resources to the best advantage the War Finance Corporation bill was passed by Congress and approved by President Wilson on April 5, 1918. The two main purposes of the act are to provide credits for industries and enterprises necessary or contributory to the prosecution of the war and to supervise new issues of capital. The act creates the War Finance Corporation, consisting of the Secretary and four additional persons, with $500,000,000 capital stock, all subscribed by the United States. Banks and trust companies financing war industries or enterprises may receive advances from the corporation.

---

The United States Government asked for $2,000,000,000 on the First Liberty Loan in the Spring of 1917, and $3,034,000,000 was subscribed by over 4,000,000 subscribers. For the Second Loan, near the end of 1917, $3,000,000,000 was sought, and $4,617,532,300 was subscribed by 9,420,000 subscribers.

The Guaranty Trust Company of New York in a recent brochure reviewed the history of the various war loans of the United States, beginning with the Revolutionary loans, as follows:

When the patriots at Lexington "fired the shot heard 'round the world," the thirteen Colonies found themselves suddenly in the midst of war, but with practically no funds in their Treasuries. The Continental Congress was without power to raise money by taxation, and had to depend upon credit bills and requisitions drawn against the several Colonies. France was the first foreign country to come to the aid of struggling America, the King of France himself advancing us our first loan. All told, France's loan was $6,352,500; Holland loaned us $1,304,000; and Spain assisted us with $174,017. Our loan from France was repaid between 1791 and 1795 to the Revolutionary Government of France; the Holland loan during the same period in five annual installments, and the Spanish loan in 1792-3.

Our first domestic war loan of £6,000 was made in 1775, and the loan was taken at par. A year and a half later found Congress laboring under unusual difficulties. Boston and New York were held by the enemy, the patriot forces were retreating, and the people were as little inclined to submit to domestic taxation as they had formerly been to "taxation without representation." To raise funds even a lottery was attempted. In October, 1776, Congress authorized a second loan for $5,000,000. It was not a pronounced success, only $3,787,000 being raised in twelve months. In 1778 fourteen issues of paper money were authorized as the only way to meet the expenses of the army. By the end of the year 1779 Congress had issued $200,000,000 in paper money, while a like amount had been issued by the several States. In 1781, as a result of this financing and of the general situation, Continental bills of credit had fallen 99 per cent.

Then came Robert Morris, that genius of finance, who found ways to raise the money which assured the triumph of the American cause. By straining his personal credit, which was higher than that of the Government, he borrowed upon his own individual security on every hand. On one occasion he borrowed from the commander of the French fleet, securing the latter with his personal obligation. If Morris and other patriotic citizens had not rendered such assistance to the Government, some of the most important campaigns of the Revolutionary War would have been impossible. Following came the Bank of Pennsylvania, which issued its notes—in effect, loans—to provide rations and equipment for Washington's army at Valley Forge. These notes were secured by bills of exchange drawn against our envoys abroad, but it was never seriously intended that they should be presented for payment. The bank was a tremendous success in securing the money necessary to carry out its patriotic purposes, and was practically the first bank of issue in this country.

With the actual establishment of the United States and the adoption of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton came forward with a funding scheme by which the various debts owed to foreign countries, to private creditors, and to the several States were combined. In 1791, on a specie basis, our total debt was $75,000,000. The paper dollar was practically valueless and the people were forced to give the Government adequate powers to raise money and to impose taxes. Between that date and 1812 thirteen tariff bills were passed to raise money to meet public expenditures and pay off the national debt.

For some time previous to the actual outbreak of the War of 1812 hostilities had been predicted. In a measure, this enabled Congress to prepare for it. And although the war did not begin until June of 1812, as early as March of that year a loan of $11,000,000, bearing 6 per cent. at par, to be paid off within 12 years from the beginning of 1813, was authorized. Of this, however, only $2,150,000 was issued, and all was redeemed by 1817. The next year a loan of $16,000,000 was authorized and subscribed. This was followed, in August, by a loan of $7,500,000 which sold at 88-1/4 per cent.

At the end of the war the total loans negotiated by the Government aggregated $88,000,000. The nation's public debt, as a result of this war, was increased to $127,334,933 in 1816. By 1835, either by redemptions or maturity, it was all paid.

The Mexican War net debt incurred by the United States was approximately $49,000,000 and was financed by loans in the form of Treasury notes and Government stock. The Treasury notes, under the act of 1846, totaled $7,687,800 and the stock $4,999,149. The latter paid 6 per cent. interest. By act of 1847 Treasury notes to the amount of $26,122,100 were issued, bearing interest in the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury, reimbursable one and two years after date, and convertible into United States stock at 6 per cent. They were redeemable after Dec. 31, 1867. Economic developments following this war led to a period of extraordinary industrial prosperity which lasted for several years. A change in the fiscal policy of the Government, with overexpansion of industry, however, resulted in a panic in 1857 and a Treasury deficit in 1858. The debt contracted in consequence of the Mexican War was redeemed in full by 1874.

The situation had not improved to any great extent when Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861, and by mid-November of that year a panic was in full swing. The outbreak of the civil war found the Treasury empty and the financial machinery of the Government seriously disorganized. Public credit was low, the public mind was disturbed, and raising money was difficult. In 1862 the Legal Tender act was passed, authorizing an issue of $150,000,000 of legal-tender notes, and an issue of bonds in the amount of $500,000,000 was authorized.

This proved to be a most popular loan. The bonds were subject to redemption after five years and were payable in twenty years. They bore interest at 6 per cent., payable semi-annually, and were issued in denominations of $50, $100, $500, and $1,000. Through one agent, Jay Cooke, a genius at distribution, who employed 2,850 sub-agents and advertised extensively, this loan was placed directly with the people at par in currency. Altogether the aggregate of this loan was $514,771,600. Later in that year Congress authorized a second issue of Treasury notes in the amount of $150,000,000 at par, with interest at 6 per cent.; in January, 1863, a third issue of $100,000,000 was authorized, which was increased in March to $150,000,000, at 5 per cent. interest. These issues were referred to as the "one and two year issues of 1863."

In December, 1862, Congress had to face a deficit of $277,000,000 and unpaid requisitions amounting to $47,000,000. By the close of 1863 nearly $400,000,000 had been raised by bond sales. A further loan act, passed March 3, 1864, provided for an issue of $200,000,000 of 5 per cent. bonds known as "ten-fortys," but of this total only $73,337,000 was disposed of. Subsequently, on June 30, 1864, a great public loan of $200,000,000 was authorized. This was an issue of Treasury notes, payable at any time not exceeding three years, and bearing interest at 7-3/10 per cent. Notes amounting to $828,800,000 were sold. The aggregate of Government loans during the civil war footed up a total of $2,600,700,000; and on Sept. 1, 1865, the public debt closely approached $3,000,000,000, less than one-half of which was funded.

Civil war loans, with one exception, which sold at 89-3/10, were all placed at par in currency, subject to commissions ranging from an eighth to one per cent. to distributing bankers. The average interest nominally paid by the Government on its bonds during the war was slightly under 6 per cent. Owing to payment being made in currency, however, the rate was, in reality, much higher. With the conclusion of the war, the reduction of the public debt was undertaken, and it has continued with but two interruptions to date.

Heavy tax receipts for several years after the close of the war potentially enabled the Government to reduce its debt. Indeed, from 1866 to 1891, each year's ordinary receipts exceeded disbursements, and enabled the Government to lighten its financial burdens. In 1866 the decrease in the net debt was $120,395,408; in 1867, $127,884,952; in 1868, $27,297,798; in 1869, $48,081,540; in 1870, $101,601,917; in 1871, $84,175,888; in 1872, $97,213,538, and in 1873, $44,318,470.

Through refunding operations—in addition to bonds and short-time obligations redeemed with surplus revenues—the Government paid off, up to 1879, $535,000,000 bonds bearing interest at from 5 to 6 per cent. In this year the credit of the Government was on a 4 per cent. basis, and a year later on a 3-1/4 per cent. basis, against a maximum basis of 15-1/2 per cent. in 1864.

Between 1881 and 1887 the Government paid off, either with surplus revenues or by conversion, $618,000,000 of interest-bearing debt. In 1891 all bonds then redeemable were retired, and on July 1, 1893, the public debt amounted to less than one-third of the maximum outstanding in 1865. In 1900 the Government converted $445,900,000 bonds out of an aggregate of $839,000,000 convertible under the refunding act passed by Congress in that year. And further conversions in 1903, 1905, and 1907 brought the grand total up to $647,250,150—a result which earned for the Government a net annual saving in interest account of $16,551,037.

The United States is a debt-paying nation. Hence, America's credit, despite occasional fluctuations, has steadily risen, and our national debt has sold on a lower income basis than that of any other nation in the world.

Following the sinking of the Maine in Havana Harbor, in 1898, Congress authorized an issue of $200,000,000 3 per cent. ten-twenty-year bonds. Of this aggregate $198,792,660 were sold by the Government at par. So popular was this loan, it was oversubscribed seven times. During the year 1898, following the allotment to the public, this issue sold at a premium, the price going to 107-3/4, and, during the next year, to 110-3/4. After the war ended, the Government, in accordance with its unvarying custom, began to pay off this debt; but, despite the Secretary of the Treasury's offer to buy these bonds, he succeeded in purchasing only about $20,000,000 of them.

---

An American Labor Mission visited England and France in April, 1918, to present the views of American workingmen regarding the war. The delegation numbered eighteen, headed by James Wilson, President of the Patternmakers' League of North America. In his first address at London, April 28, before the British and Foreign Press Association, Mr. Wilson said:

We recognize as a fundamental truth that there can be no democracy with the triumph of the Imperial German Government. The principle of democracy or the principle of Prussian military autocracy will prevail as a result of the world war. There can be no middle course nor compromise. The contest must be carried on to its finality.

The Central Powers have staked everything on the result of this struggle. Their defeat means the destruction of a machine which has been built with remarkable efficiency and embodies the very life of the German race.

On the other hand, every free man instinctively appreciates that if we are to maintain the standard of civilization as worked out by the free men of the world, and if posterity is to be guaranteed political and industrial freedom, the war must be won by the allied countries. Peace now would be the fulfillment of the Prussian dream, for they have within their grasp the very heart of Continental Europe and resources which would make sure further conquest upon the other nations of the world.

The American labor movement, in whose behalf my colleagues and myself have been authorized to speak, declare most emphatically that they will not agree to a peace conference with the enemies of civilization, irrespective of what cloak they wear, until Prussian militarism has withdrawn within its own boundaries, and then not until the Germans have, through proper representatives, proved to our satisfaction that they recognize the right of peoples and civilized nations to determine for themselves what shall be their standard.

Unless reconstruction shall soon come from the German workers within that country, it is now plain that the opportunity to uproot the agencies of force will only come when democracy has defeated autocracy in the military field and wins the right to reconstruct the relations between nations and men.

German freedom is ultimately the problem of the German people, but the defeat of Prussian autocracy in the field will bring the opportunity for German liberty at home.

J. Havelock Wilson, President of the British Seamen's Union, conferred with the American Mission at London, April 30, and informed it of the decision of his union to transport no pacifists to any peace conference. He made the following statement:

On Sept. 21, 1917, we formed what we called a Merchant Seamen's League, and declared that if German terrorism on the sea continued we would enforce a boycott against Germany for two years after the war, and that for every new crime from that time on we would add one month to the length of the boycott. The length of the boycott now stands at five years seven months. We have reliable information that this action is making a very profound impression on German manufacturers and shippers.

The British seamen got their first intimation of German treachery when the international transport strike was first proposed by German delegates ostensibly to pledge support. But the British learned later that the German delegates had in their pockets as they talked contracts signed with employers.

After that we watched the German Social Democrats in the Socialists' international. But we never could get the Germans to face the issue. Always they had excuses and evasions. We never had confidence in them. When war came we felt it our duty to take care of the men on our ships who could no longer sail, and also to set a good example.

Here were Germans on our ships who had been in England so long that they had forgotten their language. On Aug. 20, 1914—you see we acted quickly—we bought an estate of thirty-nine acres and built the model internment camp of Great Britain. We asked the Government to give us charge of all interned German sailors, and, let it be known to the credit of Great Britain, that was done. The Government allowed us all 10s. per week per man for upkeep. The camp became a great success. There were 1,000 German sailors interned in it.

Until May, 1915, all went well. On May 1 the interned men celebrated May Day, their international revolutionary holiday. They had their banners, "Workers of the World, Unite," "World Brotherhood," and so on. We had planned a great fête to be held later and I had secured the consent of several well-known persons to attend and help make it a success. On May 7 the Lusitania was sunk. I called the Germans in camp together and told them the terrible thing that had happened. I told them they were not to blame, but that the celebration could not be held. And they made no protest to me.

Now here were 1,000 Germans not under control of the Kaiser. Some of them had been among us twenty or thirty years. As soon as I had got out of the place they sang and cheered and rejoiced over the Lusitania disaster. They kept this up for four hours. They made me conclude that the camp must be handed over to the military as soon as possible, and this was done. Six months after that came the U-boat campaign, and, what made that worse, the fact that the U-boats always turned their guns on open boats.

I have got hundreds of cases of boys whose arms and legs have been blown off by U-boat guns while trying to get away from sinking ships in open boats. I wrote the Secretary of the International Transport Workers' Union protesting against these crimes. His reply attempted to justify every crime. That showed us that not only was the Kaiser responsible, but that the organized trade union movement of Germany was also responsible.

On June 1, 1917, a Socialist congress was convened at Leeds. It was advertised as the greatest conference ever held. We sent two men there to tell our story. Our men found that small bodies of only a handful of members had been delegated, who got the floor easily for the pacifist cause. Our men could not secure anything like a fair chance.

In this conference MacDonald, Fairchild, and Jowett were elected delegates to Stockholm. We at once resolved that no delegates should leave this country. And none did.

That is the history of the seamen's determination to bottle up such British pacifists as may desire to go abroad spreading their doctrine. Mingled with it is the grim, sad story of 12,000 members of the Seamen's Union who have lost their lives on merchant ships through Germany's criminal conduct on the seas.

And while there is here and there one in England who resembles a leader of labor who is a pacifist, the determination of the British seamen to go through with the war to the finish is scarcely more than a reflection of the rank-and-file spirit that is to be found throughout the whole of British labor.

The American delegates met the representatives of labor in London and in Paris. In England they found the sentiment almost unanimous in approval of their decision to favor no conferences with German labor representatives until a victory had been achieved. In France, however, they encountered a group that favored contact with the German and Austrian Socialists. On May 6 there was a conference in Paris between the American labor delegates and the members of the Confederation Générale de Travail, the great French revolutionary labor organization. M. Jouhaux, General Secretary of the confederation, made the proposed international conference practically the sole note of his speech. France, he asserted, had no hatred for the German workers themselves, and he pointed out that if the conference took place it could have only one of two results. Either the workers in the enemy countries would refuse to join in the efforts of the workers of the allied countries for the liberation of the world's peoples, in which case the war must continue, or they would accept the allied view of what was right and would act with the allied peoples for the good of humanity.

The American reply was in these definite words:

"We don't hate the German workers any more than you do, but to give them our hand now would be looked upon by them only as a sign of weakness."

After reminding the congress of the hypocritical professions of the German Socialist Party before the war, the delegation declared itself in entire agreement with Samuel Gompers that American labor men would refuse to meet the German delegates under any circumstances so long as Germany was ruled by an Imperialistic Government. This declaration left Albert Thomas, former Cabinet officer and leader of the group, practically without a word to say. M. Thomas urged the same arguments as Jouhaux, but all the satisfaction the French labor men got was a promise from James Wilson, President of the American delegation, to report the matter to the American workers when he returned home.

Chairman Wilson reaffirmed at a luncheon given at the Foreign Office May 10 that American labor would not discuss the war with representatives of German labor until victory was won, because German labor, which was permitting the war, must do something itself in its own country toward ending the conflict justly before it could debate with labor representatives of the allied countries on what ought to be.

The luncheon was given by Stephen Pichon, Foreign Minister, on behalf of the French Government. With the exception of Premier Clemenceau, all the members of the Cabinet were present as well as other men notable in French public life. Ambassador Sharp was also in attendance.

The mission visited the fighting front and returned to London May 11 to hold mass meetings at English industrial centres. The members were received by the King and dined by the London Chamber of Commerce May 15.

---

UNITED STATES

The campaign for the Third Liberty Loan of $3,000,000,000 ended on May 4. The total subscription was $4,170,019,650, as announced by the Treasury Department on May 17.

On April 20 President Wilson issued a proclamation extending to women enemy aliens the restrictions imposed on men.

The Overman bill, giving the President power to consolidate and co-ordinate executive bureaus and agencies as a war emergency measure, was passed by the Senate on April 28 and by the House on May 14.

The War Trade Board announced on May 3 that a general commercial agreement with Norway had been signed. On May 12 it announced that in order to conserve materials and labor and to add tonnage to the fleet carrying men and munitions to Europe, arrangements had been made to have Great Britain, France, Italy, and Belgium pass upon the advisability of releasing proposed exports before granting licenses to shippers. On May 14 an agreement was reached between the United States and the allied nations providing that all imports to the United States should be forbidden unless sanctioned by the War Trade Board.

A conference report on the Sedition bill, giving the Government broad new powers to punish disloyal acts and utterances, was adopted by the Senate on May 4, and by the House of Representatives on May 7, and sent to the President for his signature.

As a result of charges of graft, inefficiency, and pro-German tendencies directed against the military aircraft administration by Gutzon Borglum, President Wilson, on May 15, asked Charles Evans Hughes to aid Attorney General Gregory in making a thorough investigation. Mr. Hughes accepted the invitation. The President also wrote a letter to Senator Martin denouncing the Chamberlain resolution for an investigation of the conduct of the war by the Committee on Military Affairs of the Senate, and on the same day the Senate Committee on Audit and Expenses, to which the resolution had been referred, ordered a favorable report on it, modifying it so as to provide for a limited inquiry.

The American steamship Lake Moor was reported sunk on April 11.

Forty-four Americans were killed when the Old Dominion liner Tyler was sunk off the French coast on May 2.

The British liner Oronsa was sunk on April 28. All on board except three members of the crew were saved. The British sloop Cowslip was torpedoed on April 25. Five officers and one man were missing.

The British Admiralty announced on April 24 the cessation of the weekly return of shipping losses and the substitution of a monthly report.

In a statement made in the Chamber of Deputies on May 11, Georges Leygues, the French Minister of Marine, declared that the total of allied tonnage sunk by German submarines in five months was 1,648,622, less than half the amount alleged by Germany to have been destroyed. He announced that the number of submarines sunk by the Allies was greater than Germany's output.

---

---

---

---

Twelve German submarines were officially reported captured or sunk in British waters by American or British destroyers during the month of April, and two others were known to have been destroyed.

Ten passengers were killed when the French steamship Atlantique was torpedoed in the Mediterranean early in May. The ship managed to reach port.

April 18—French advance on both banks of the Avre River between Thanne and Mailly-Raineval; Germans deliver terrific assaults upon the British front from Givenchy to the neighborhood of St. Venant.

April 19—Italian troops reach France; British beat off assaults on Mont Kemmel and recover ground west of Robecq; bombardment of Paris resumed.

April 20—Germans hurl force against American and French troops at Seicheprey and get a grip on the town, but are driven out; Belgians give ground temporarily near the Passchendaele Canal, but regain it; British re-establish their positions in Givenchy-Festubert region.

April 21—British drive Germans from some of their advanced positions near Robecq; Americans retake Seicheprey outposts.

April 23—British gain ground east of Robecq and in the neighborhood of Meteren.

April 24—Germans take Villers-Bretonneux, but are repulsed at other places south of the Somme; Franco-American positions at Hangard shelled.

April 25—British recover Villers-Bretonneux; French and British lose ground in the Lys salient before terrific German assaults from Wytschaete to Bailleul, aiming at Mont Kemmel; Germans take Hangard.

April 26—Germans take Mont Kemmel and the villages of Kemmel and Dranoutre and push on to St. Eloi; French recover part of Hangard.

April 27—British and French troops recover some of the ground lost in the Bailleul-Wytschaete sector; Germans repulsed at Voormezeele after hard fight.

April 28—Germans take Voormezeele, but are driven out by counterattack; Locre changes hands five times.

April 29—Germans make heavy attacks upon the entire Franco-British front from Zillebeke Lake to Meteren; British hold their line intact; French yield some ground around Scherpenberg and Mont Rouge, but later regain it; Belgians repulse attacks north of Ypres; Americans take over a sector of the French line at the tip of the Somme salient.

April 30—French recover ground on the slope of Scherpenberg and advance their line astride the Dranoutre road; positions of the allied forces push forward between La Clytte and Kemmel.

May 1—Americans repulse attacks in the Villers-Bretonneux region; Béthune region bombarded.

May 3—French and British improve their positions along the Somme River southward to below the Avre; French take Hill 82, near Castel, and the wood near by.

May 4—Germans repulsed at Locon; French make progress near Locre, and British advance near Meteren; Americans in the Lorraine sector raid German positions south of Halloville and penetrate to third line; French shell disables last of German guns that have been bombarding Paris.

May 5—Franco-British forces, in operation between Locre and Dranoutre, advance their positions on a 1,000-yard front to an average depth of 500 yards; Germans foiled in attempt to occupy former American trenches in the Bois Brûlé.

May 6—Germans launch heavy gas attacks against American troops on the Picardy front.

May 8—Germans gain a foothold at several points midway between La Clytte and Voormezeele, but are repulsed at other points along the line; Australians advance 500 yards near Sailly and 300 yards west of Morlancourt.

May 9—British re-establish their lines and drive Germans out of British trenches between La Clytte and Voormezeele; Germans occupy British advanced positions at Albert on a front of about 150 yards.

May 10—British restore their line at Albert; German artillery fire active in the Vimy and Robecq sectors of the British front, and south of Dickebusch.

May 11—Berlin reports heavy losses inflicted on American troops southwest of Apremont; Germans gain small portion of territory southwest of Mailly-Raineval, but are driven out by French; French gain ground in Mareuil Wood.

May 12—French troops north of Kemmel capture Hill 44 and an adjoining farm; Germans bombard Albert, Loos, and Ypres sectors, and lines southeast of Amiens, but are repulsed by the French near Orvillers-Sorel.

May 13—Americans blow up enemy ammunition dump and start fires in Cantigny, with explosions; Germans resume firing north of Kemmel.

May 14—Hill 44, north of Kemmel, changes hands several times; French advance in Hangard region; British carry out successful raid near Robecq.

May 15—Germans repulsed by the British southwest of Morlancourt and by the French north of Kemmel. May 16—Heavy gunfire in the Lys and Avre areas.

May 17—Official announcement that American troops have taken their place in the British war zone in Northern France; German gunfire increases in the Lys and Hailles region.

May 3—Heavy fighting reported along the entire front between the Adriatic and the Giudicaria Valley.

May 5—Increase in artillery fire, notably in the Lagarina and Astico Valleys.

May 11—Italians penetrate advanced Austrian positions on Monte Carno.

May 12—Italians wipe out a Coll dell' Orso garrison.

May 14—Austrian attempts to renew attacks on Monte Carno and to approach Italian lines at Dosso Casina and in the Balcino and Ornic Valleys fail.

May 16—Italians enter Austrian lines at two points on Monte Asolone; British make successful raid at Canove.

April 21—Armenians retake Van.

April 27—British in Mesopotamia advance north of Bagdad and Kifra.

April 28—British cavalry forces a passage of the Aqsu at a point southwest of Tuzhurmatl.

April 29—British take Tuzhurmatl.

April 30—British advance as far as the Tauk River, and occupy Mezreh.

May 1—Es-Salt taken by the British.

May 7—British enter Kerkuk.

May 12—Arabs of Hedjaz raid Jadi Jerdun station and a post on the Hedjaz Railway, taking many prisoners and destroying tracks and bridges.

Trent, Trieste, and Pola were raided by Italian scouts on May 10.

Carlshutte, Germany, was bombed by the British May 3. Saarbrucken was bombed on May 16, and five German machines were brought down.

British aviators raided the aviation grounds at Campo Maggiore on May 4 and brought down fourteen Austrian planes.

German airmen attacked Dutch fishing vessels in the North Sea May 5.

Ostend, Westende, and Zeebrugge were attacked by British seaplanes on May 6.

Many notable air battles occurred on the western front in connection with the fighting in Picardy and Flanders. In one day, May 15, fifty-five German airplanes were brought down by British and French aviators, and on May 16 forty-six German machines were brought down by the British.

Early in the morning of April 23 British naval forces, in co-operation with French destroyers, carried out a raid against Zeebrugge and Ostend, with the object of bottling up German submarine bases. Five obsolete British cruisers, which had been filled with concrete, were run aground, blown up, and abandoned by their crews, and two old submarines were loaded with explosives for the destruction of the Zeebrugge mole. A German destroyer was sunk and other ships were shelled. Twenty yards of the Zeebrugge mole were blown up, and the harbor was blocked completely. On May 10 the obsolete cruiser Vindictive was sunk at the entrance to Ostend Harbor, practically completing the work.

An Austrian dreadnought of the Viribus Unitis type was torpedoed by Italian naval forces in Pola Harbor on the morning of May 14.

On April 20, Japan ordered reinforcements sent to Vladivostok, as the Bolsheviki had directed the removal of munitions westward. On the same day diplomatic representatives of the allied powers were formally informed by the Siberian Provincial Duma of the formation—by representatives of the Zemstvos and other public organizations—of the Government of Autonomous Siberia.

The Bolshevist Foreign Minister, George Tchitcherin, on April 26, addressed representatives in Moscow of the United States, England, and France, requesting the speedy recall of their Consuls from Vladivostok and the investigation of their alleged participation in negotiations said to have been conducted between their Peking embassies and the Siberian Autonomous Government. He also asked them to explain their attitude toward the Soviet Government and the alleged attempts of their representatives to interfere with the internal life of Russia. Japan was asked to explain the participation of Japanese officials in the counter-revolutionary movement. An official report of the demand for the removal of John K. Caldwell, the American Consul at Vladivostok, was received by the American State Department on May 6, from Ambassador Francis. The State Department announced that Mr. Caldwell had done nothing wrong and that he would not be removed. On the same day a report was received that the Russian authorities at Irkutsk had arrested the Japanese Vice Consul and the President of the Japanese Association on the charge of being military spies.

At a meeting of several thousand peasants of the Ukraine, held on April 29, a resolution was passed calling for the overthrow of the Government, the closing of the Central Rada, the cancellation of the Constituent Assembly convoked for May 12, and the abandonment of land socialization. General Skoropauski was proclaimed Hetman and was recognized by Germany.

The German advance into the Ukraine continued, military rule was established in Kiev, and several members of the Government, including the Minister of War, were removed on the ground that the Government had proved too weak to maintain law and order. Vice Chancellor von Payer, speaking before the Main Committee of the German Reichstag on May 4, attempted to justify Germany's use of the iron hand by declaring that grain had been withheld and that prominent Ukrainians, members of the Committee of Safety, had been caught planning the assassination of German officers.

Rostov-on-the-Don was occupied by Germans on May 9, but was recaptured by the Russians the next day.

M. Tchitcherin, on May 12, sent a wireless message to Ambassador Joffe, at Berlin, instructing him to try to obtain from Berlin cessation of every kind of hostility, and declared that captures of Russian territory violated the terms of the treaty of peace. He also gave assurances that the Black Sea Fleet would not attack the port of Novorossysk, which the Germans threatened to capture. In an evasive reply the Commander in Chief of the German troops in the East said he could only agree to the cessation of naval operations against the Black Sea Fleet, provided that all ships returned to Sebastopol and were retained there, thus leaving the port of Novorossysk free for navigation.

A Swedish report of May 14 told of a German ultimatum to the Bolshevist Government demanding the occupation of Moscow and other Russian cities, the abolishment of armaments, and the effecting of certain financial measures which would practically make Russia a German colony.

Professor H. C. Emery, the American who was seized when the Germans landed in the Aland Islands, was freed from prison, but was still detained in Germany, according to a report received on May 5.

The British Foreign Minister, A. J. Balfour, announced in Commons on May 5 that Great Britain was ready to grant temporary recognition to the Esthonian National Council.

Transcaucasia proclaimed its independence on April 26, and a conservative Government was formed, headed by M. Chkemkeli.

Ciscaucasia proclaimed itself an independent State on May 14.

The Caucasus proposed peace negotiations with Turkey May 10.

Russian Bolshevist troops crossed the Caspian Sea in gunboats and recaptured Baku from the Mussulmans May 17.

Emperor William issued a proclamation, May 14, recognizing the independence of Lithuania, allied with the German Empire, and saying that it was assumed that Lithuania would participate in the war burdens of Germany.

Hostilities between the Finnish White Guards and the Germans and the Red Guards continued. Germany protested to the Bolshevist Foreign Minister on April 23 against the landing of allied troops at Murmansk, declaring that such landing was a violation of the Brest-Litovsk treaty. Germany also denied that Germans had participated in the raid of the Finnish White Guards upon Kem.

The White Guards, on April 26, demanded the surrender of a fort on the Finnish coast ceded to Russia by the Finnish Bolshevist Government, constituting part of the Kronstadt defenses. The Kronstadt Council of Workmen's and Soldiers' Delegates refused to comply with the demand, and organized resistance.

Viborg was taken by the White Guards on April 30. On May 3, the Germans in the southwest defeated the Red Guards after a five days' battle near Lakhti and Tevastus. The Finnish flag was raised on the fortress of Sveaborg on May 13. On May 15 the White Guards entered Helsingfors, and on May 17 they seized Boris-Gleb on the Norwegian border from the Russian troops, thus gaining access to the Arctic Ocean.

A peace treaty between Rumania and the Central Powers was signed May 6, and supplementary legal, economic, and political treaties were later concluded.

The Rumanian Parliament was dissolved on May 10 by royal decree and new elections were ordered.

The Lausanne Gazette announced on May 12 that Poland was handed over to Germany economically, politically, and militarily, according to a secret treaty arranged at Brest-Litovsk between a Russian delegation, headed by Trotzky, and German representatives. At a conference between the Emperors of Germany and Austria-Hungary, Germany agreed to the solution of the Polish question desired by Austria, in return for certain concessions from Austria.

The Guatemalan Assembly, on April 22, declared the country to be in the same position as the United States in the war, and the following day the Guatemalan Minister at Washington announced that the declaration was meant as a declaration of war against Germany and her allies.

In response to a request from Uruguay for a definition of the relations between the two countries, Germany replied, according to an announcement made public May 16, that she did not consider that a state of war existed.

Nicaragua declared war on Germany and her allies on May 7.

Royal assent to the British man-power bill, providing for conscription in Ireland, was given on April 18. An Order in Council was issued on May 1 postponing the Conscription act.

Lord Wimborne, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and Henry E. Duke, Chief Secretary, resigned on April 24. Edward Shortt was appointed Chief Secretary and Viscount French succeeded Lord Wimborne as Lord Lieutenant.

James Ian MacPherson announced in the House of Commons on May 9 that a German submarine had recently landed an associate of Sir Roger Casement on the Irish coast, where he was arrested by Government officials, and that he was now in the Tower of London and would be tried by court-martial. A dispatch dated May 15 revealed that two Germans accompanied him, and that all three were imprisoned.

All the Sinn Fein leaders, including De Valera and the Countess Markievicz, were arrested in Belfast, Dublin, and other cities, on May 17, as the result of the discovery of treasonable relations with Germany. Lord Lieutenant French issued a proclamation dealing with the situation, calling on all loyalists to aid in blocking the German plans and asking for volunteers to provide Ireland's share of the army.

Sir Arthur Roberts, financial adviser to the British Air Minister, resigned on April 24 as a result of a disagreement with Lord Rothermere. The next day Lord Rothermere resigned. He was succeeded by Sir William Weir. Baron Rhondda resigned as Food Controller and Lord Northcliffe resigned as Chairman of London headquarters of the British Mission to the United States and Director of Propaganda in Enemy Countries.

Representatives of the allied nations met at Versailles on May 1 and May 2.

On May 6 Major Gen. Frederick Barton Maurice, formerly Director General of British Military Operations, addressed a letter to The London Daily Chronicle challenging the statements made in the House of Commons by Premier Lloyd George and Andrew Bonar Law with regard to the military situation and demanding a Parliamentary investigation. On May 7 ex-Premier Asquith moved for an inquiry in Commons. After a speech by Lloyd George in Commons in his own defense, May 9, the House, by a vote of 293 to 106, upheld him and the Government and rejected Mr. Asquith's motion.

The Austrian Premier was empowered by Emperor Charles, on May 4, to adjourn Parliament and to inaugurate measures to render impossible the resumption of its activities.

A growing resentment against the domination of Austria-Hungary by Germany was manifested by Austria's Slavic peoples. A dispatch from Switzerland dated May 8 told of serious disturbances in the fleet, caused by seamen of Slavic and Italian stock, which resulted in several changes in the high command. A new Hungarian Cabinet, headed by Dr. Wekerle, was formed on May 10. On May 13 Vienna papers published a declaration by the Czech members of the Austrian House of Lords in which an independent State was demanded.

As a result of a conference between Emperor William and Emperor Charles at German Headquarters on May 10, Austria-Hungary concluded a new convention with Germany.

M. Duval, manager of the Bonnet Rouge, and his associates, Leymarie and Marion, directors of the paper; Goldsky and Landau, journalists, and two minor men named Joucla and Vercasson, were placed on trial in Paris on charges of treason and espionage, on April 29. On May 15, Duval was sentenced to death for treason, and the six other defendants were sentenced to imprisonment for terms ranging from two to ten years.

The British Government replied to the note of the Netherlands Government concerning the taking over of Dutch ships on May 1, and asserted the full legality of the seizure.

A London dispatch, dated April 24, announced that Germany had sent an ultimatum to Holland demanding the right of transit for civilian supplies and sand and gravel. Holland yielded to these demands on April 28, with the stipulation that the sand and gravel should not be used for war purposes. On May 5, Foreign Minister Loudon announced in the Dutch Chamber that Germany had promised to transport no troops or military supplies and to limit the amount of sand and gravel.

Persia informed Holland, on May 3, that it regarded as null and void all treaties imposed upon Persia in recent years, and especially the Russo-British treaty of 1907 regarding the spheres of influence.

---

Karl Bleibtreu, the German military statistician, writing in Das Neue Europa of April 22, gives the German losses from Aug. 2, 1914, to Jan. 31, 1918, as 4,456,961 men. His figures deal exclusively with those killed in action or taken prisoner. They are official from Aug. 2, 1914, till July 31, 1917, and are then estimated to Jan. 31, 1918. His figures and comment read:

1914
August	172,500
September	214,500
October	139,600
November	93,000
December	50,200
	————
Total	669,800
1915
Jan. and Feb	66,000
March	(?)61
April	42,500
May	112,500
June and July	152,300
August	105,400
Sept. and Oct	119,450
November	57,500
December	57,750
	————
Total	713,461
1916
January	18,100
February	17,800
March	51,300
April	72,650
May	64,000
June	54,850
July	86,650
August	148,000
September	119,800
October	125,000
November	87,100
December	56,000
	————
Total	901,250
1917
January	48,000
February	39,000
March	39,600
April	59,000
May, June and July	134,850
	————
Total, (7 months)	320,450

These figures give, on the western front, from Aug. 2, 1914, to July 31, 1917, an aggregate of 2,604,961 casualties.

EASTERN FRONT
1914	163,900
1915	699,600
1916	359,800
1917	261,200

This gives a total from Aug. 2, 1914, to July 31, 1917, of 1,484,550, and for the two fronts combined of 4,089,511.

From Aug. 1, 1917, to Jan. 31, 1918, Herr Bleibtreu estimates the total losses on both fronts at 367,450, making in all 4,456,961 men.

In adding those who died from illness or wounds, the losses resulting from the colonial and maritime fighting, as well as in the noncombatant and auxiliary services, not comprised in the preceding enumeration, the grand total considerably exceeds 5,000,000.

Estimates of German losses from Jan. 31, 1918, to May 20, 1918, range from 400,000 to 600,000. If the above figures are correct, the total German loss in the forty-six months of the war exceeds 5,600,000. The London Telegraph, in analyzing these figures, said:

With regard to the figures given by Herr Bleibtreu, it may be remarked that they are enormously in excess over those compiled in well-informed quarters from the official casualty lists published by the German Government, and issued periodically. Down to July 31, 1918, these lists had contained a grand total of 4,624,256 names, but did not include naval or Colonial troop losses. Of the above figure the following are the permanent losses:

Killed and died of wounds	1,056,975
Died of sickness	75,988
Prisoners	335,269
Missing	267,237
	————-
Total	1,735,469

These statistics are merely the names published down to July 31, 1917, and are not to be taken as the actual total casualties, as the lists are always at least several weeks behindhand. But even allowing for this fact, Bleibtreu's estimate for the killed in action and prisoners alone is considerably more than double those officially acknowledged by Berlin, and nearly equal to the total casualties admitted in the official lists from all causes. Of this remarkable discrepancy there can be only two possible explanations. Either the German Government has throughout the war systematically falsified its casualty lists—and there is good reason to believe that this is the case—or else Bleibtreu has been put up by the German Staff to publish a set of statistics intended deliberately to mislead the Allies.

---

The new British budget for 1918-19 was introduced in the House of Commons April 23. It included some sweeping changes in taxes and gave important data of expenses. The estimate for 1918 in round numbers is $15,000,000,000; the estimated revenue is $4,200,000,000, leaving a balance to be covered by loans of $10,800,000,000. The actual expenditures in 1917-18 were $13,481,105,000; the revenue was $3,536,175,000; the deficit met by loans was $9,944,930,000.

Under the new budget the tax on incomes is increased from $1.25 in $5 to $1.50 in $5. Under the new rate the increased tax begins at an income of $2,500 a year. On an income that is wholly earned—such as a salary—the tax is as follows:

Income.	Tax.
$2,000 a year	$157
2,500 a year	225
3,000 a year	375
4,000 a year	600
5,000 a year	750
10,000 a year	2,250

Where the income is wholly unearned the tax is as follows:

Income.	Tax.
$2,000 a year	$210
2,500 a year	300
3,000 a year	455
5,000 a year	947
10,000 a year	2,635

The super tax in the new law begins at an income of $13,750, and the total taxes paid on the following incomes, including income tax and super tax, are as follows:

Income.	Tax.
$15,000 a year	$4,802
20,000 a year	6,812
25,000 a year	8,937
30,000 a year	11,187
40,000 a year	15,937
50,000 a year	20,937
100,000 a year	47,187
500,000 a year	255,187

The tax on $500,000 incomes is a little over 50 per cent. In the case of a tax-payer whose total income does not exceed $4,000 an allowance of $125 is granted in respect of his wife and an allowance of a like amount in respect of any dependent relatives whom he maintains; also an allowance of $125 in respect of children under 16 years of age.

Checks require a stamp of 4 cents, also promissory notes. The excess-profit rate remains at 80 per cent. The tax on spirits is raised to $7.50 a gallon; on beer to $12.50 a barrel; on tobacco to $2.04 a pound, the effect of which will increase the price 4 cents an ounce, while the cheapest cigarette, now 6 cents for ten, will be 7 cents for ten. The tax on matches is increased so that they will be sold at 2 cents a box instead of 1-1/2 cents. An additional duty of $3 a hundredweight is levied on sugar, so that sugar heretofore selling at 11-1/2 cents a pound will now have to be sold at 14 cents a pound.

A tax of 16-2/3 per cent, is levied on the sale of luxuries, including jewelry, and of articles above a certain price when they become articles of luxury; also on hotel and restaurant bills. This tax will be collected by means of stamps. The new postage rate is raised to 3 cents an ounce; on book packages exceeding one ounce an extra charge of 1 cent will be levied. Letters to the United States will cost 3 cents instead of 2 cents. Post-cards in England will be 2 cents instead of 1 cent, and the parcel rate, under seven pounds, 18 cents, and between seven and eleven pounds, 25 cents.

The tax on luxuries is a new tax in England, and is following the method adopted in France Dec. 31, 1917. The tax on luxuries in France is levied at the rate of 10 per cent. on the retail selling price of the scheduled articles. All payments of less than 20 cents are exempted. The schedule consists of two lists, one comprising articles taxed irrespective of price at 10 per cent., and the other, articles taxed when the retail price exceeds certain specified amounts, as follows:

Taxed Irrespective of Price.—Photographic appliances, gold or platinum jewelry, billiard tables, silk hosiery and underwear, artistic bronze and iron work, horses and ponies for pleasure purposes, curiosities and antiques, sporting guns, books, servants' liveries, gold watches, perfumery, soaps and dentifrices, paintings and sculpture, pianos, (other than cottage pianos,) tapestry, truffles, pleasure boats, and yachts.

Taxed Above Specified Prices, (approximately shown in U.S. money.)—Pet dogs, $8; other pets, $2; smokers' requisites, $2; bicycles, $50; silver jewelry, $2; picture frames, $2; walking sticks, $2; chinaware table service, $40; single pieces, 39c to $3; men's headwear, $4; women's hats, $8; women's footwear, $8; men's footwear, $10; chocolates, 75c per pound; corsets, $10; men's suits, $35; women's costumes or mantles, $50; scissors, $2; lace and embroidery machine made, 35c per yard; handmade, $1.83 per yard; artificial flowers, $2; furs, $20; gloves, $1.58; furniture, $300 per suite; mirrors, $4; motor cycles, $400; watches, $10; handkerchiefs, $3.66 per dozen; umbrellas, $5; feathers, $5; clocks, $20; photographs, $8 per dozen; cottage pianos, $240; curtains, $20; carpets, $3.62 per yard; pajamas and dressing gowns, $16; horse carriages, $200; bird cages, $2.

Payments for goods bought before Jan. 1, 1918, are exempt from the tax.

In presenting the budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the expenditures in the past year exceeded the estimate by $2,030,000,000. He referred to America's assistance as follows:

The extent of the assistance of the United States and our advances to the Allies last year amounted to $2,525,000,000. In addition to this the United States have advanced to all the Allies no less a sum during the year than $4,750,000,000. Of this sum approximately $2,500,000,000 was advanced to us and $2,250,000,000 to the Allies.

The House will see, therefore, that, whereas this year we advanced to the Allies approximately the same amount as last year, $2,525,000,000 as against $2,700,000,000, the United States advanced in addition $2,250,000,000; that is to say, the total advances by us and by the Government of the United States are $4,775,000,000, as against $2,700,000,000 by us alone last year.

The House would notice that our advances to the Allies are approximately the same amount as the advances made to us by the Government of the United States. This is satisfactory. It means that it is only necessary for us to lean on the United States to the extent that the other Allies lean upon us, or that, in other words, after nearly four years of war we are self-supporting.

But it is almost absurd that we should be borrowing with one hand while we are lending with the other. The result is that our accounts are inflated apparently, and in fact to that extent our credit is weakened. I have therefore been in communication with Mr. McAdoo, the Financial Minister of America, and Mr. Crossley, the head of the United States Financial Mission, and I suggested as regards advances to the Allies a course which, if adopted, will have the effect of lessening to a considerable extent our burden, while in no way increasing the total obligations of the United States.

In referring to the total debt the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the following statement:

The national debt, on the estimates which I have submitted to the House, will at the end of the present year, (March 31, 1919,) amount to $39,900,000,000. Previously, in counting our liabilities, I have deducted altogether advances to Allies and Dominions. I do not propose to adopt that course today. We cannot ignore what is happening in Russia; though, even yet, I do not admit—I do not believe—that we should regard the debt of Russia as a bad debt, because, sooner or later, in spite of what is happening now, there will be an ordered Government in that country.

By the end of this year the total amount due by the Allies to us will be $8,110,000,000, and I should hope that we should be able to deduct Dominion and obligation debts, making a total of $5,920,000,000. The amount of our national debt at the end of last year was $29,250,000,000. The amount of our liability on the basis I have stated is $34,280,000,000, and, taking 5 per cent. on this amount as the rate of interest, the total comes to $1,900,000,000. This, added to the normal expenditure, makes a total amount of $3,400,000,000.

Now, how is that to be met? Taking the Inland Revenue taxation alone, it amounts to $2,700,000,000. The Inland Revenue officials have assured me that they have made a very careful and a very conservative estimate. Taking this estimate, there remains a deficit on the full year of $550,000,000.

To make good this $550,000,000 I shall impose new taxation which, on the full year, will bring in $570,000,000. The Inland Revenue, in their estimate of result of existing taxation, take no account whatever of the excess profits duty, but that duty, as I have pointed out, is expected to yield $1,500,000,000.

Assuming—an assumption that may last for half an hour [laughter]—that the income tax remains at 5s, that should reach $375,000,000. Of course, that must be supplemented. It depends upon the state of trade and credit, but I think I am quite safe in saying that this amount, which they have left out of their reckoning, is more than sufficient to counter-balance any error made with regard to existing taxation.

He followed this with a statement contrasting the financial condition of Great Britain with that of Germany, as follows:

Up to June, 1916, according to the statement of the German Financial Minister, the monthly German expenditure was $500,000,000; it is now admitted to be $937,500,000, which means a daily expenditure of $31,250,000, which is almost the same as ours. But it does not include such matters as separation allowances. As to the war debt, the German votes of credit up to July amounted to $31,000,000,000. Up to 1916 they imposed no new taxation at all, and in that year they proposed a war increment levy. Assuming that their estimates were realized, the total amount of taxation levied by the German Government was $1,825,000,000, as against our own amount.

This amount is not enough to pay the interest of the war debt which Germany has accumulated up to the end of the year. The German balance sheet, reckoned on the same basis as ours, will, with interest, sinking fund, pensions, and pre-war expenditures, be a year hence $3,600,000,000; and with additional permanent imperial revenue of $600,000,000 they will make their total additional revenue $925,000,000 per annum, and this amount, added to the pre-war revenue, makes a total of $1,675,000,000, showing a deficit at the end of the year of $1,925,000,000.

If that were our position I should say that bankruptcy was not far from the British Nation.

The German taxes have been almost exclusively indirect, imposed on commodities paid for by the mass of the people and not upon the wealthier classes, who control the Government and on whom the Government is afraid to put extra taxation.

---

Great Britain's policy with reference to future trade is outlined in the final report of the Committee on Commercial and Industrial Policy After the War, of which Lord Balfour of Burleigh was Chairman, and which included in its membership Arthur Balfour, (ex-Master Cutler of Sheffield,) also the heads of the various Boards of Trade, the textile trades, with representatives of the shipping and shipbuilding industries, finance, engineering, metal trades, coal, electrical, iron and steel associations, national transport workers, and distinguished economists.

Shipping policy after the war is not dealt with in the report, but, in view of the world shortage of tonnage, the committee express the opinion that, while it may be desirable to impose for a limited period some restriction on the use of British ports by enemy vessels, any policy which might tend to check the use of English ports by foreign shipping generally would be inexpedient. They, however, urge that, in accordance with the Paris Conference resolutions, the exaction of reparation in kind from enemy countries should, in the interests of the reconstruction of industry and the mercantile marine, be carried out as fully as may be practicable.

In a general survey of the position of British industry and overseas trade in 1913, prior to the war, the committee found that the United Kingdom had taken only a limited share in the more modern branches of industrial production, and that certain branches had come to be entirely, or very largely, under German control, and in numerous branches foreign manufacturers had secured a "strong, or even predominant, position." They found that British merchants and manufacturers had also been encountering successful competition in overseas trade. They believe that the knowledge gained during the war will be a valuable asset in the development of British industry.

As to the measures which should be adopted during the transitional period, the committee reaffirm the main recommendations of their interim report, namely:

(a) The prohibition of the importation of goods from enemy origin should be continued, subject to license in exceptional cases, for at least twelve months after the conclusion of the war, and subsequently for such further period as may be deemed expedient.

(b) The Paris resolutions relating to the supply of the Allies for the restoration of their industries can be carried into effect if a policy of joint control of certain important commodities can be agreed upon between the British Empire and the Allies. Any measures should aim at securing to the British Empire and the allied countries priority for their requirements, and should be applied only to materials which are mainly derived from those countries and will be required by them. This policy should be applied as regards the United Kingdom by legislation empowering the Government to prohibit the export, except under license, of such articles as may be deemed expedient, and, as regards the British Empire and the allied countries, the Government should, without delay, enter into negotiations with the various Governments concerned, with a view to the adoption of suitable joint measures in the case of selected commodities of importance.

The Government should consider, in consultation with the Allies, the expediency of establishing after the war a joint organization on the lines of Commission Internationale de Ravitaillement for dealing with the orders of the allied Governments for reconstruction purposes, and with such private orders as they may find it expedient to centralize.

It is pointed out that the prolongation of the war and the entry into it of the United States have increased the importance of a considered policy directed toward assuring to the British Empire and the Allies adequate supplies of essential raw materials during the period immediately following the conclusion of peace, and that the extent to which the Paris resolutions which bear upon this vital question can be carried into effect depends upon the co-operation of the Governments concerned.

The committee reports that it will be necessary to continue for a considerable period after the war some portion of the control of home and foreign trade in order to secure adequate supplies of foodstuffs and raw material. It does not regard it as practical to attempt to make the empire self-supporting in respect of numerous raw materials. It notes that the Board of Trade already has set up a committee to investigate the question of the supply of cotton and it recommends special inquiries as regards each commodity. "The object to be kept in view should be that the empire may be capable in an emergency of being independent in respect of the supply of every essential commodity of any single foreign country."

The committee advises against the exclusion of foreign (other than present enemy) capital from sharing in the development of the empire's resources, but recommends:

(a) Complete disclosure, as far as is practicable, of the extent of foreign holdings in any particular case.

(b) That mineral and other properties are not secured by foreign concerns in order to prevent the development of those properties, and to check competition in supply; and

(c) That in the case of commodities of great imperial importance, the local Government concerned should have some measure of control over the working of the properties.

These principles, if accepted, should be brought to the notice of the Governments of other parts of the empire, with a view to the adoption of a uniform policy.

The committee expresses the opinion that it would not be desirable to impose special restrictions against the participation of aliens in commercial and industrial occupations. It recommends, however, that such occupations as pilot and patent agent should be confined to British-born subjects, and suggests that foreign commercial travelers operating in the United Kingdom should be registered and hold licenses, that the registration of title to property should be compulsory, and that such registration should involve a declaration of the nationality of the owner.

The committee deems it unwise to restrain the establishment or the continuance of agencies or branches of foreign banks or insurance companies in the United Kingdom, but foreign insurance companies should be required to make a deposit proportionate to the business done. Foreign banks should be required to pay the income tax.

The committee considers it necessary to impose special restrictions on the subjects of enemy countries, and that this can best be done by means of stringent permit and police regulations, but it does not believe that attempts should be made to prevent enemy subjects from establishing agencies or holding interests in commercial or industrial undertakings.

A plan for the maintenance and development of industries essential to national safety, called "Key Industries," is proposed, as follows:

Synthetic dyes, spelter, tungsten, magnetos, optical and chemical glass, hosiery needles, thorium nitrate, limit and screw gauges, and certain drugs.

The committee recommends the creation of a permanent special industries board, charged with the duty of watching the course of industrial development and recommending plans for the promotion and assistance of the industries enumerated above. With reference to industries generally the committee thinks that the individualist methods hitherto adopted should be supplemented by co-operation and co-ordination of effort in respect of

1. The securing of supplies of materials.

2. Production, in which we include standardization and scientific and industrial research; and

3. Marketing.

The report recommends the formation of combinations of manufacturers, strong, well organized associations and combinations, to secure supplies of materials, especially the control of mineral deposits in foreign countries. In order to facilitate increased production it recommends:

That an authority should be set up which should have the right, after inquiry, to grant compulsory powers for the acquisition of land for industrial purposes and the diversion or abolition of roads or footpaths.

That there should be a judicial body with compulsory powers to deal with the question of wayleaves required for the development of mineral royalties and the economical working of collieries and mines.

The committee believes in the formation of organizations for marketing the manufactured products of the country and deems it inexpedient for the Government to enter into any policy aiming at positive control of combinations (trusts) in the United Kingdom. It recommends that combinations be legalized, so as to be enforceable between members. It welcomes the establishment of the British Trade Corporation to co-ordinate and supplement existing financial facilities for trading purposes. As a general rule the members think it would be undesirable that the State should attempt to provide capital for industrial purposes, but as the re-establishment of industry on a peace basis will be profoundly affected by taxation, currency, and foreign exchanges, they recommend that these matters be taken up by the Treasury, in consultation with the banking and commercial interests.

With reference to tariff the committee recommends a protective tariff only on industries "which can show that, in spite of the adoption of the most efficient technical methods and business organization, they cannot maintain themselves against foreign competition, or that they are hindered from adopting these methods by such competition."

The general fiscal policy as finally adopted by the committee is as follows:

1. The producers of this country are entitled to require from the Government that they should be protected in their home market against "dumping" and against the introduction of "sweated" goods, by which term we understand goods produced by labor which is not paid at trade union rates of wages, where such rates exist in the country of origin of the goods, or the current rates of that country where there are no trade union rates. We recommend that action be taken in regard to "dumping" on the lines (though not necessarily in the precise form) adopted in Canada.

2. Those industries which we have described as "key" or "pivotal" should be maintained in this country at all hazards and at any expense.

3. As regards other industries, protection by means of customs duties or Government assistance in other forms should be afforded only to carefully selected branches of industry, which must be maintained either for reasons of national safety or on the general ground that it is undesirable that any industry of real importance to our economic strength and well-being should be allowed to be weakened by foreign competition or brought to any serious extent under alien domination or control.

4. Preferential treatment should be accorded to the British oversea dominions and possessions in respect of any customs duties now or hereafter to be imposed in the United Kingdom, and consideration should be given to other forms of imperial preference.

5. As regards our commercial relations with our present allies and neutrals, the denunciation of existing commercial treaties is unnecessary and inexpedient, but the present opportunity should be taken to endeavor to promote our trade with our allies, and consideration should be given to the possibility of utilizing for purposes of negotiation with them and present neutrals any duties which may be imposed in accordance with the principles laid down above.

In view of the danger that the admission of the principle of protection, even to a limited extent, may give rise to a widespread demand for similar assistance from other industries, and consequently to an amount of political pressure which it may be very difficult to resist, the committee further recommends:

That a strong and competent board, with an independent status, should be established to examine into all applications from industries for State assistance, to advise his Majesty's Government upon such applications, and, where a case is made out, to frame proposals as to the precise nature and extent of the assistance to be given.

Before recommending tariff protection for any particular industry it should be the duty of the board to consider forms of State assistance other than, or concurrent with, protective duties, such as bounties on production, preferential treatment (subject to an adequate standard of quality and security against price rings) in respect of Government and other public authority contracts, State financial assistance, and also whether the position of the industry could not be improved by internal reorganization.

The board should also have constantly in mind the safeguarding of the interests of consumers and of labor, and should make recommendations as to the conditions which for these purposes should be attached to any form of Government assistance, whether by means of a tariff or otherwise.

The committee reports adversely on the changing of weights, measures, and coinage to the metric system.

---

Civil war, later complicated by the German invasion, has been the central fact in the history of Finland since the declaration of its independence in December, 1917. The internecine strife was precipitated by the coup d'état which the Finnish Socialists effected in January, 1918. It so happened that the representatives of the propertied classes had the majority in the Diet which severed the century-old connection between Finland and Russia. As for the Government which this Diet has set up to rule the independent republic, all its members belong to middle-class parties. Headed by Mr. Svinhufud, a Young-Finn leader, it includes one Svekoman, two Agrarians, three Old-Finns, and six Young-Finns.

The dissatisfaction of the Socialist elements, which are very strong in Finland, with this régime soon grew so intense that they decided to overthrow it by armed force. The Red Guard, that is, detachments of armed workmen organized by the Finnish Labor Party, seized Helsingfors, dissolved the "bourgeois" Government, and formed a Socialist Cabinet under the leadership of Senator Kullervo Manner. The revolutionists did not, however, succeed in capturing Mr. Svinhufud and his associates. These fled north and established their headquarters at Vasa, (Nikolaystadt,) on the Gulf of Bothnia. Since then the half-starved country has been the arena of bloody clashes between the Red troops and the forces supporting the Vasa Government, which consist largely of middle-class elements and are known as the White Guards.

It is an open secret that Russia rendered substantial assistance to the Finnish revolutionists. Most of the weapons in their possession are from Russian arsenals, and Russian soldiers who lingered on in Finland even after the Bolsheviki had agreed to withdraw the Russian troops stationed there have been fighting shoulder to shoulder with the Finnish Red Guards. It is reported that on several occasions the Finnish Red Guards were reinforced by Red Guards from Petrograd. Moreover, in its organization the Finnish Socialist Workmen's Republic is a copy of the Russian Soviet Republic. The Red Finns have the same hierarchy of Soviets, and they affect the administrative terminology of the Bolsheviki.

The Finnish Socialists should not, however, be treated as identical with the Russian Bolsheviki. The difference between them is probably due to a difference of civilization, for culturally the dissimilarity between a Russian and a Finn is as great as it is linguistically and ethnically. It is noteworthy that unlike the Bolsheviki they regard their own rule as a transitional, provisional régime. Speaking on Feb. 14, 1918, at the first meeting of the Finnish Central Soviet, Kullervo Manner, President of the Commissariat of the People of Finland, said among other things:

One of the foremost aims of the great revolution of Finland's workers is to build the proud edifice of a political democracy on the ruins of the fallen power of the Junkers. * * * As soon as the enemy of the people has been defeated throughout the country shall the people of Finland be given an opportunity through referendum to accept a new Constitution. The People's Commissariat intends shortly to put before the Central Soviet a proposal for a fundamental law through which will be laid the ground for a real representation by the people and a firm foundation for the future of the working class.

Although the Finnish Socialists are united with Russia by co-operation and common aspirations, they do not desire to join the Russian Federation. Finnish socialism identifies itself with the cause of Finnish nationalism. It was the Socialists that were the stanchest advocates of Finland's secession from Russia, and it was they that, by calling a general strike, forced the Diet to adopt immediately the Independence bill in November, 1917.

The notion of Finland's complete sovereignty forms the basis of the peace concluded early in March, 1918, between the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic and the Finnish Socialist Workmen's Republic, "in order to strengthen the friendship and fraternity between the above-mentioned free republics." According to this pact, published on March 10, Russia hands over to the Independent Finnish Socialist Republic all its possessions in Finland, including real estate, telegraphs, railways, fortresses, lighthouses, and also Finnish ships which had been requisitioned by the Russian Government before or during the war. Article IX. provides for "free and unimpeded access for the merchant ships of the Russian and Finnish Socialist Republics to all seas, lakes and rivers, harbors, anchoring places, and channels" within their territories. The next article establishes uninterrupted communication, without trans-shipment, between the Russian and Finnish railways. Article XIII. contains the provision that "Finnish citizens in Russia as well as Russian citizens in Finland shall enjoy the same rights as the citizens of the respective countries."

If "Red" Finland has had the support of the Russian Bolsheviki, "White" Finland has found a most enterprising ally in Germany. The Vasa Government has been working in direct and now open contact with Berlin. It is overwhelmingly pro-German. The relation between the two Governments early assumed the character of vassalage on the part of the Finns. This is evidenced by the peace agreement which official Finland concluded with Germany on March 7. Its full text will be found elsewhere in this issue.

---

Since the beginning of the war the Germans have been conducting in Finland an active campaign of espionage and propaganda through a host of agents and sympathizers. The propaganda found a favorable soil among the propertied classes, and especially among the landed gentry of Swedish extraction. On the other hand, the persecutions which the Czar's bureaucracy inflicted upon the nation, and against which neither the French nor the British press uttered any adequate protest, drove some of the patriotic Finns into the arms of Russia's enemies. A number of Finnish youths escaped to Germany and entered the ranks of the German Army. The University of Helsingfors played a prominent part in this movement. In 1915 an entire battalion made up exclusively of Finns fought under the German colors, while no Finns served in the Russian Army, exemption from military service being one of the ancient Finnish privileges respected by the Imperial Russian Government.

After the March revolution, and especially after the fall of Riga, the efforts of the German agents, with whom Finland now fairly swarmed, were directed toward fomenting Finnish separatism. In fact, the Swedish press asserted that from the very beginning of the war the Germans had spent large sums of money in trying to fan the Finns' smoldering discontent with Russia. At the same time Germany endeavored to enlist the sympathies of the White Guards, (skudshär,) which the middle classes were hastily organizing, ostensibly for the purpose of assisting the militia and protecting the population from robbers. Berlin was so successful in its task that as early as October, 1917, the head of the Russian Bureau of Counterespionage in Finland spoke of the skudshär as "the vanguard of the German Army." The Finns who served in Wilhelm's army and were thoroughly indoctrinated with German military science and German ideals were returned to their native country, and it was they that took upon themselves to officer the White Guards. Some of the weapons and munitions used by the latter were secured from Sweden, but most of them came from Germany and were probably a part of the Russian booty. The above-mentioned Russian official declared, in an interview published in a Petrograd daily in October, 1917, that German submarines appeared regularly off the Finnish coast and delivered arms and ammunition to Finnish vessels.

The White Guards, commanded by General Mannerheim, fought the revolutionists with varying success but without achieving a decisive victory. Several towns in the south were the scene of prolonged battles in which many lives were lost, notably Tammerfors, the important industrial centre, where fierce fighting raged throughout the second half of March. The factory districts in the north were also the scene of stubborn fighting. A number of women were seen in the ranks of the Red Guards.

The two warring factions created a reign of "Red" and "White" terror in the country. Both committed frightful atrocities. On April 17, Oskari Tokoi, the Commissionary for Foreign Affairs in the Socialist Cabinet, protested to all the powers against the manner in which General Mannerheim treated his Red Guard prisoners. He pointed out that, while the Red Guards regarded the captured White Guards as prisoners of war, the Government troops, having taken a number of prisoners, shot all the officers and every fifteenth man of the rank and file. On the other hand, the corpses of many White Guards were found unspeakably mutilated.

Immediately after the outbreak of the Socialist rebellion, the official Government conceived the idea of appealing for foreign military aid against the revolutionists. On Jan. 30 such an appeal was reported to have been sent to Sweden. The cause of White Finland had many sympathizers in that country. The Finnish White Guards had a recruiting office in Stockholm, and a number of Swedish volunteers fought in their ranks. A considerable portion (12 per cent.) of the Finnish population are Swedes, mostly members of the higher classes. In addition, the two countries have common historical memories, for Finland was a Swedish province for six centuries, from the time of Erik VIII., King of Sweden, till the Russian annexation in 1809.

The Swedish Government did not, however, elect to intervene. It is not certain whether Stockholm refused its assistance because Finland refused to cede the Aland Islands to the Swedes as a compensation for their services, or because, as Mr. Branting asserts, Sweden was to intervene "as the creature and ally of Germany." The only step the Swedes took was to send a military expedition to the Aland Islands, in response to several appeals from their population, which is mostly Swedish. This measure was decided upon by the Swedish Parliament on Feb. 16 and was effected two or three days later.

The Aland Archipelago, consisting of about ninety inhabited islets and situated between Abo on the Finnish coast and Stockholm, belongs to Finland. Its strategic importance for Sweden is aptly characterized by an old phrase which describes it as "a revolver aimed at the heart of Sweden." The mission of Sweden's troops was to clear the islands, by moral suasion if possible, from the bands of Russian soldiers and Finnish White and Red Guards which for some time had been terrorizing the population. The Bolshevist garrison offered stubborn resistance to the landing of the Swedish forces.

At noon on March 2 a German detachment occupied the Aland Islands. The next day the German Minister at Stockholm informed the Swedish Government that Germany intended to use these islands as a halting place for the German military expedition into Finland, undertaken at the request of the Finnish Government for the purpose of suppressing the revolution. He gave assurances that Germany sought no territorial gains in effecting the occupation and would not hinder the humanitarian work of the Swedish Supervision Corps in the islands. On March 22 the Main Committee of the Reichstag rejected, by 12 votes against 10, the motion of the Independent Social Democrats to evacuate the Aland Islands and cease interfering with the internal affairs of Finland.

---

Mr. Branting, the Swedish political leader, denounced the talk that Finland, deserted by Sweden, turned to Germany in despair, as "gross hypocrisy." He is convinced that a secret agreement existed between Finland and Germany long before the outbreak of the civil war, and that Finland wants to be a dependency under Germany rather than a member of a Scandinavian federation of States. Some members of the Diplomatic Corps in Washington were also reported to believe that the civil war was merely a specious pretext for inviting Germany to restore order in the country, and that the negotiations which brought about the German intervention had been going on secretly for months.

March passed in preparations for the expedition. On the morning of April 3 the Russian icebreaker Volinetz, which had been captured by the White Guards, piloted a German naval squadron, consisting of thirty-six ships, into the Finnish waters of Hangö, which is the extreme southwestern point of the Finnish coast, within a few hours of Helsingfors. During the afternoon the Germans landed on the peninsula of Hangö a force which, according to an official German statement, comprised 40,000 men under General Sasnitz, 300 guns, and 2,000 machine guns. The next day the Berlin War Office issued the following statement: "Eastern Theatre—In agreement with the Finnish Government, German troops have landed on the Finnish mainland." Later more German detachments were landed at Abo.

According to one report, the Germans, upon their landing, opened negotiations with the Finnish Socialists, but their overtures were apparently rejected. The Russian Government immediately protested to Germany against the landing in Finland. The German Government replied by demanding that the Russian war vessels in Finnish territorial waters should either leave for Russian ports or disarm, according to Article 5 of the Brest-Litovsk treaty, on or before midday, April 12. The Bolsheviki ordered the commander of the Baltic fleet to carry out this demand. Four Russian submarines were fired upon and sunk by the Germans at Hangö during the landing and several other Russian warships were blown up by their own crews for fear of being captured by the Germans.

On April 13 the Finnish Official News Bureau gave out a statement to the effect that all German troops landed in Finland had been dispatched at the request of the Finnish Government. On April 17 the Germans landed 40,000 men at Helsingfors. Their naval squadron stationed in the harbor of the Finnish capital consisted of twelve vessels.

The Red Guards offered a stubborn resistance to the invaders, but it soon became apparent that their cause was lost. Upon the landing of the Germans, the Socialist Government escaped from Helsingfors and established itself at Viborg, seventy-five miles northwest of Petrograd. On April 13 the German troops, aided by naval detachments, entered Helsingfors, "after a vigorous encounter with armed bands," as the German official announcements read. According to a Reuter dispatch, a three days' battle preceded the capture of the Finnish capital. It was taken by storm after fierce fighting in the streets. About the same time the City of Abo was taken by the White Guards. The Germans then proceeded to move on Viborg. On April 23 the Finnish Socialist Government protested to the allied representatives, including the American Ambassador to Russia, against the German interference. It declared that the Finnish Socialists would continue for the cause of freedom, with "a profound hatred and contempt for the executioners of nations and of the labor movement."

Viborg fell into the hands of the White Guards on April 30, after nearly all its defenders, 6,000 in all, were slaughtered. Among the prisoners taken was Kullerwo Manner, the President of the Socialist Government. On May 4 Berlin was able to announce complete victory in Finland. The official report follows:

Finland has been cleared of the enemy. German troops, in co-operation with Finnish battalions, attacked the enemy between Lakhti and Tevasthus in an encircling movement, and in a five days' battle, in spite of a bitter defense and desperate attempts to break through, we have overwhelmingly defeated him. The Finnish forces cut off his retreat in a northerly direction. The enemy is closed in on every side, and, after the heaviest losses, is laying down his arms. We took 20,000 prisoners. Thousands of vehicles and horses were captured.

A dispatch dated May 8 reported, however, that the country was far from pacified, and that the Red Guards continued to offer resistance at many points.

Speaking before the Main Committee of the Reichstag, on May 8, Friedrich von Payer, the German Imperial Vice Chancellor, defended Germany's intervention in Finland. The fundamental aim of this step was "to create in North Finland a final condition of peace, both military and political." He stated that the entire staff of the 43d Russian Army Corps was recently captured in Finland. He denied that Germany intended further to interfere in the inner affairs of Finland, and added that Germany had concluded economic and political treaties with Finland whereby both parties would profit.

While these military operations were being carried on, Finland was becoming a German province. Late in March an American and an English officer, visiting General Mannerheim at Vasa upon orders from their legations, were threatened by Finnish White Guard officers with personal violence and turned out of the dining room of the chief hotel. This incident was described as characteristic of the feeling existing among the majority of Finns. On April 1 Vasabladet, the chief Vasa newspaper, wrote: "No military or other similar persons from any of the countries at war with Germany ought to be allowed to stay within the borders of our country so long as we, with the help of God and Germany, are fighting our hard fight for liberty, order, and justice against the barbarous ally of the western powers." It appears from a case reported on April 26 that the viséing of foreign passports by Finnish officials depends now upon the consent of the Berlin authorities.

Finland was proclaimed a republic in December, 1917. It has always been one of the most democratic countries in Europe. It is asserted, nevertheless, that the experiences through which the former grand duchy has passed in the last six months have converted many classes of the population to monarchism. A Stockholm dispatch dated May 8 declared that a monarchy would probably be proclaimed in Finland, and that Duke Adolph Frederick of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, uncle of the Crown Princess of Germany, would be appointed King.

In the middle of April it became known that the Finnish statesmen had an ambitious plan for the territorial aggrandizement and political expansion of their country at the expense of Russia, and possibly also of Norway. A Stockholm paper published a statement that Germany had agreed to the establishment of a Greater Finland, to include the territory of the Petrograd-Murman railway to the arctic. The newspaper added that the Finnish railway system was to be enlarged with a view to establishing direct connection from North Cape to Budapest and Constantinople. Thus Finland would become the cornerstone of a "Mitteleuropa" stretching from the arctic coast to Asia Minor and beyond. A well-known Finnish painter stated in an interview that the Finnish troops, co-operating with the Germans, would take Petrograd as well as the south coast of the Gulf of Finland, which is ethnically Finnish. An announcement was made on May 8, before the Main Committee of the Reichstag, that no Germans were participating or would participate in the advance of Finnish troops on Petrograd.

A movement has been set afoot among Karelians, presumably by Finns, in favor of the Finnish annexation of Russian Karelia, on the basis of the principle of self-determination. Karelia includes parts of the Governments of Petrograd, Olonetz, and Archangel; its aboriginal population belongs to the Finnish race.

---

The Imperial Government of Berlin announced on March 7, 1918, that a treaty of peace between Germany and Finland had been signed. Two days later the full text was transmitted from Berlin to London through the wireless stations of the German Government. This treaty with Germany was made by the element in the Republic of Finland represented in a military way by the White Guards, who were pro-German and co-operated with the German army sent immediately afterward to make war in Finland against the Red Guards, who represented the Bolshevist element of the Finnish population. During April an armed conflict between the Reds and the Germans raged around Helsingfors, where the Bolshevist forces fought to annul this treaty, though with steadily diminishing prospects of success.

The full text of the treaty follows:

The Royal German Government and the Finnish Government, inspired by the wish, after the declaration of the independence of Finland and its recognition through Germany, to bring about a condition of peace and friendship between both countries on a lasting basis, have resolved to conclude a peace, and for this purpose they have appointed the following plenipotentiaries: For the Royal German Government, the Chancellor of the German Empire, Dr. Count von Hertling; for the Finnish Government, Dr. Phil Edvard Immanuel Hjelt, State Adviser, Vice Councilor of the University of Helsingfors, and Rafael Waldemar Erich, LL.D., Professor of State Law and of the Law of Nations at the University of Helsingfors, who, after the mutual setting forth in good order and form of their plenipotentiary powers, have come to an agreement on the following provisions:

CHAPTER I.—Friendship Between Germany and Finland and the Assuring of the Independence of Finland

Article 1. The contracting parties declare that between Germany and Finland no state of war exists and that they are resolved henceforth to live in peace and friendship with each other. Germany will do what she can to bring about the recognition of the independence of Finland by all the powers. On the other hand, Finland will not cede any part of her possessions to any foreign power nor constitute a charge on her sovereign territory to any such power before first having come to an understanding with Germany on the matter.

Article 2. Diplomatic and consular relations between the contracting parties will be resumed immediately after the confirmation of the peace treaty. The freest possible admission of Consuls on both sides is to be provided for by arrangements in special treaties.

Article 3. Each of the contracting parties will replace the damage which has been caused in its own territory by the war, or which the States or populations have brought about by actions contrary to international law, or which has been caused by the consular officials of the other party either to life, liberty, health, or property.

CHAPTER II.—War Indemnities

Article 4. The contracting parties renounce mutually the making good of war costs; that is to say, State expenses for the carrying on of the war as well as the payment of war indemnities; that is to say, of those prejudices which have arisen for them and their subjects in the war zones by reason of the military measures connected with all the requisitions undertaken in enemy country.

CHAPTER III.—The Re-entry Into Force of State Treaties

Article 5. The treaties which lapsed as a consequence of the war between Germany and Russia shall be replaced as soon as possible by new treaties for relations between the contracting parties, and they shall be made to correspond to the new outlook and conditions which have now arisen. Especially the contracting parties shall at once enter into negotiations in order to draw up a treaty for the settlement of trade and shipping relations between the two countries, to be signed at the same time as the peace treaty.

Article 6. Treaties in which, apart from Germany and Russia, also a third power takes part, and in which Finland appears together with Russia or in the place of the latter, come into force between the contracting parties on the ratification of peace treaty or, in case the entry takes place later, at that moment. In connection with collective treaties of political contents, in which other belligerent powers are also involved, the two parties reserve their attitude until after the conclusion of a general peace.

CHAPTER IV.—Re-establishment of Private Rights

Article 7. All stipulations existing in the territory of either of the contracting parties, according to which, in view of the state of war, subjects of the other party are subjected to any special regulation whatever in the observation of their private rights, cease to be of force on the confirmation of this treaty. Subjects of either of the contracting parties are such legal persons and societies as have their domicile in the respective territories. Furthermore, subjects of either of the parties, legal persons and societies which do not have their domicile in the territory, must be regarded as on the same level in so far as in the territory of the other party they were submitted to the stipulations applying to such subjects.

Article 8. With regard to the civil debt conditions which have been influenced by war laws, the following has been agreed:

1. The debt conditions will be re-established in so far as the stipulations in Articles 8 to 12 do not decide otherwise.

2. The stipulation in Paragraph 1 does not prejudice the question as to what extent the conditions created by the war (especially the impossibility of settlement of debt owing to the obstacles in traffic or commercial prohibitions in the territory of either of the contracting parties) shall be taken into account in the determination of claims of subjects of either party in accordance with the laws applying thereto in the respective territories. In this connection subjects of the other party who have been prevented by the measures of that party, are not to be dealt with more unfavorably than the subjects of their own State, who have been prevented by the measures of that State.

A person who by the war has been prevented from carrying out in good time a payment shall not be obliged to make good the damage which has occurred owing thereto.

3. Demands of money, whose payment could be refused during the war on the strength of war laws, need not be paid until after the expiration of three months after the confirmation of the peace treaty. In so far as nothing else has been stipulated in the supplementary treaty, an interest of 5 per cent. per annum must be paid on such debts from the original date on which they were due, for the duration of the war and the further three months, regardless of moratoriums. Up to the day on which they were originally due, the interests agreed upon, if any, must be paid. In the case of bills or checks submission for payment as well as protests against nonpayment must take place within the fourth month after the confirmation of this treaty.

4. For the settlement of outstanding affairs and other civil obligations, officially recognized unions for the protection of debtors and for the examination of claims of lay and legal persons belonging to the union, as well as their plenipotentiaries, are to be mutually recognized and permitted.

Article 9. Each contracting party will immediately after the confirmation of the peace treaty resume payment of its obligations, especially the public debt duties to subjects of the other party. The obligations which became due before the confirmation of the treaty will be paid within three months after the confirmation.

Article 10. Copyrights, trade protective rights, concessions and privileges, as well as similar claims on public legal foundations, which have been influenced by war laws, shall be re-established, in so far as nothing else has been stipulated in Article 12.

Each contracting party will grant subjects of the other party who on account of the war have neglected the legal period in which to undertake an action necessary for the establishment or maintenance of a trade protective right, without prejudice to the justly obtained rights of third parties, a period of at least one year in which to recover the action. Trade protective rights of subjects of one party which were in force on the outbreak of war, shall not expire in the territory of the other party, owing to their non-application, till after the termination of four years from the confirmation of this treaty. If in the territory of one of the contracting parties a trade protective right, which in accordance with the war laws could not be applied for, is applied for by an agent who during the war has taken protective measures in the territory of the other party in accordance with the rules, such right, if claimed within six months after the confirmation of the treaty, shall, with the reservation of the rights of third parties, have priority over all applications submitted in the meantime, and cannot be made ineffective by facts which have arisen in the meantime.

Article 11. Periods for the superannuation of rights shall, in the territory of each of the contracting parties, toward subjects of the other party, expire at the earliest one year after the confirmation of the peace treaty in so far as they had not expired at the time of the outbreak of war. The same applies to periods for the submission of dividend-warrants or warrants for shares in profit, as well as to bills which have become redeemable or have become otherwise payable.

Article 12. The activities of authorities who on the strength of war laws have become occupied with the supervision, custody, administration, or liquidation of property or with the receiving of payments, are without prejudice to the stipulations of Article 13, to be wound up in accordance with the following principles:

1. Properties under supervision, in custody or under administration, are to be set free immediately on the demand of the parties entitled to them. Until the moment of transfer to the entitled party care must be taken for the safeguarding of his interests.

2. The provisions of Paragraph 1 shall not modify the properly acquired right of a third party. Payments and other obligations of a debtor which, as mentioned at the beginning of the article, have been received or caused to be received at the places mentioned, shall, in the territories of the contracting parties, have the same effect as if the creditor himself had received them.

Civil dispositions which have been made at the places mentioned at the instigation of the parties or by them will have full effect and are to be maintained by the parties.

3. Regarding the operations of the places mentioned at the beginning of this article, especially those for receipts and payments, details shall at once be given to the authorized parties immediately upon demand. Claims which have been lodged to be dealt with at these places can only be dealt with in accordance with the stipulations of Article 14.

Article 13. Land or rights in land or in mines as well as rights in the use or exploitation of lands, or undertakings, or claims for participation in an undertaking, especially those represented by shares, which have been forcibly alienated from the persons entitled to them by reason of war laws, shall be transferred to the former owner within a period of one year after the confirmation of the peace treaty, and there shall be returned to him any profits which have accrued on such property during the alienation or deprivation, and this shall be done free from all rights of third parties which may have arisen in the meantime.

CHAPTER VI.—Indemnity for Civil Damages

Article 14. Subjects of one of the contracting parties resident in the territory of the other contracting party who, by reason of war laws, have suffered damage either by the temporary or lasting privation of concessions, privileges, and similar claims, or by the supervision, trusteeship, administration or alienation of property, are to be appropriately indemnified so far as the damage by the war cannot be replaced by the actual re-establishment of their former conditions. This also applies to shareholders who, on account of their character as foreign enemies, are excluded from certain rights.

Article 15. Each of the contracting parties will indemnify the civilian subjects of the other party for damages which have been caused to them in its territory during the war by the State officials or the population there through breaches of international law and acts of violence against life, health, or property.

Article 16. Each of the contracting parties will at once pay to the subjects of the other party their just claims so far as this has not already been done.

Article 17. For the fixing of the damages, according to Articles 14 and 15, there shall meet in Berlin a commission immediately after the confirmation of this treaty which shall consist of one-third of each of the contracting parties and one-third of neutrals. The President of the Swiss Bundesrat shall be asked to nominate the neutral members, from whom the Chairman shall be chosen. The commission shall fix the principles, on which it is to work, and it shall decide as to what procedure it shall follow. Its decisions shall be carried out by sub-commissions, which shall consist of one representative from each of the contracting parties and a neutral umpire. The amounts fixed by the sub-commissions are to be paid within one month of the decision being made.

CHAPTER VII.—The Exchange of Prisoners of War and Interned Civilians

Article 18. Finnish prisoners of war in Germany and German prisoners of war in Finland shall, as soon as practicable, be exchanged within the times fixed by a German-Finnish Commission, and subject to the payment of the costs entailed in such exchange in so far as those prisoners do not wish to stay in the country where they happen to be, with its consent, or to go to another country. The commission will also have to settle the further details of such exchange and to supervise their execution.

Article 19. The deported or interned civilians on both sides will be sent home as soon as practicable free of charge so far as, subject to the consent of the country on whose territory they are staying, they do not wish to remain there or wish to go to another country. The settlement of the details and the supervision of their execution shall be carried out by the commission mentioned in Article 18. The Finnish Government will endeavor to obtain from the Russian Government the release of those Germans who were captured in Finnish territory and who at the present time are outside Finnish on Russian territory.

Article 20. Subjects of one party who at the outbreak of war had their domicile or commercial establishments in the territory of the other party and who did not remain in that territory may return there as soon as the other party is not in a state of war. Their return can only be refused on the ground of the endangering of the internal or foreign safety of the State. It would suffice that a pass be made out by the authorities of the home Government in which it is to be stated that the bearer is one of those persons as stipulated in Item 1. No visé is to be necessary on these passes.

Article 21. Each of the Contracting Parties undertakes to respect and to tend the several burial places of subjects of the other party who fell in the war as well as those who died during internment or deportation and the persons intrusted by each party with care and proper decoration of the burial places may attend to these duties in accord with the authorities of each country. Questions connected with the care of such burial places are reserved for further agreements.

CHAPTER VIII.—Amnesty.

Article 22. Each of the contracting parties concedes amnesty from penalties to the subjects of the other party who are prisoners of war for all criminal acts committed by them and further to all civilian interned or deported subjects of the other party for all punishable acts committed by them during their internment or deportation period, and lastly to all subjects of the other party for crimes against all exceptional laws made to the disadvantage of enemy foreigners. The amnesty will not apply to actions committed after the confirmation of the peace treaty.

Article 23. Each party concedes complete amnesty to all its own subjects in view of the work which they have done in the territory of the other party as prisoners of war, interned civilians, or deported civilians.

Article 24. The contracting parties reserve to themselves the right to make further agreements according to which each party may grant an amnesty of penalties decreed on account of actions committed to its disadvantage.

CHAPTER IX.—The Treatment of Mercantile Vessels and Cargoes Which Have Fallen Into the Hands of the Enemy.

Article 25. Mercantile ships of one contracting party which lay in the ports of the other contracting party on the outbreak of the war, as well as their cargoes, are to be given back to their owners, or in so far as this is not possible they are to be paid for in money. For the use of such embargoed vessels during the war the usual daily freight is to be paid.

Article 26. German mercantile ships and their cargoes which are in the power of Finland, except in cases foreseen in Article 25 at the signing of this treaty or which may arrive there later, are to be given back if on the outbreak of war they were in an enemy port or were interned in neutral waters by enemy forces.

Article 27. The mercantile vessels of either of the contracting parties captured as prizes in the zone of power of the other party shall be regarded as definitely confiscated if they have been legally condemned as prizes, and if they do not come under the provisions of Articles 25 and 26. Otherwise they are to be given back, or, in so far as they are no longer available, they are to be paid for. The provisions of Paragraph 1 are to apply also to ships' cargoes taken as prizes belonging to subjects of the contracting parties, but goods belonging to subjects of one of the contracting parties on board ships flying enemy flags which have fallen into the hands of the other contracting party are in all cases to be handed over to their rightful owners, or, so far as this is not possible, they are to be paid for.

Article 28. The carrying out of the provisions contained in Articles 25 to 27, especially the fixing of the damages to be paid, shall be decided by a mixed commission, which shall consist of one representative from each of the contracting parties with a neutral umpire, and shall sit in Stettin within three months after the date of confirmation of the peace treaty. The President of the Swiss Bundesrat shall be requested to nominate the umpire.

Article 29. The contracting parties will do all in their power to facilitate the free return of the mercantile ships and their cargoes to their homes as set forth in Articles 25 to 27. The contracting parties will also give their support to each other in the re-establishment of the mutual commercial intercourse, after the assuring of safe shipping routes, which had been disturbed by the war.

CHAPTER X.—Adjustment of the Aland Question.

Article 30. The contracting parties are agreed that the Forts put upon the Aland Islands are to be removed as soon as possible, and that the lasting non-fortified character of these Islands and also their treatment in a military and technical sense for purposes of shipping, shall be settled by agreement between Germany, Finland, Russia and Sweden; and to these agreements, at the wish of Germany, the other States lying in the Baltic Sea shall be invited to assent.

CHAPTER XI.—Final Provisions.

Article 31. The Peace Treaty shall be confirmed. The confirmatory documents shall be exchanged as soon as practicable in Berlin.

Article 32. The Peace Treaty, so far as is not otherwise stipulated, shall come into force with its confirmation. For the making of supplementary additions to the Treaty the representatives of the contracting parties shall meet in Berlin within four months of its confirmation.

---

During the month ended May 15, 1918, the German advance in the territory of the former Russian Empire continued uninterruptedly. While minor military operations were conducted in the Province of Kursk, in Russia proper, the main body of the invading army occupied the Crimea and penetrated into the Donetz coal basin. On April 24 the German troops, under General Kosch, reached the City of Simferopol, in the Crimea. A week later they occupied Sebastopol, the great military and commercial seaport, famous in Russian history. A portion of the Russian Black Sea fleet fell into the hands of the Germans. On May 3 the invaders seized Taganrog, on the Sea of Azov. On May 9 they took Rostov, at the mouth of the River Don, but two days later the city was again in Russian hands. The Germans are apparently intent on occupying the seacoast from Bessarabia, on the west, to the Caucasus, on the east.

The Bolshevist régime gave signs of undergoing a process of reorganization. It sought to enlist the services of officials who had served under the Provisional Government and of Generals of the old army. A new War Department was formed. Trotzky, the Minister of War and Marine, advocated universal conscription of labor. The Central Executive Committee, at his suggestion, decreed compulsory military service. Workmen and peasants from 18 to 40 years old were to be trained for eight consecutive weeks, for a weekly minimum of eight hours. Women were accepted into the army as volunteers.

The Bolshevist authorities made several attempts to suppress rioting and street looting. Early in May the Red Guards fought a pitched battle with the Moscow anarchists, who refused to surrender their munitions, and stamped out their organization. The Soviets passed resolutions and took measures against the anti-Jewish massacres which occurred in numerous cities. Disorder and mob rule, however, continued to prevail in Russia, while hunger and unemployment were daily increasing.

On April 16 M. Gukovsky, the Commissary for Finance, reported to the Central Executive Committee of the Soviets on Russia's financial and industrial condition. He said that the semi-yearly expenditure would amount to 4,000,000,000 rubles, while the income expected was only 3,300,000,000 rubles. The railroads had lost 70 per cent. of their freight capacity, and the cost of operation had increased ten times, (120,000 against 11,600 rubles per versta.) The Central Government, he stated, derived no revenue from taxes, as the local Soviets used the sums they collected for their own purposes. To illustrate the industrial conditions the Commissary cited the example of the Sormov locomotive works, whose daily output is two locomotives, instead of eighteen as formerly. M. Gukovsky recommended strict economy in expenditures and urged the necessity of securing the services of financial and industrial experts for the purpose of organizing an efficient State machinery.

Among the recent legislative measures of the Moscow Government must be mentioned the nationalization of foreign trade, which is a part of the general Bolshevist scheme of Socialist reforms. A special board has been created to regulate the prices of all exports and imports.

In the middle of April hostilities were reopened between the newly collected troops of General Korniloff, former Russian Commander in Chief, and the Bolshevist forces. It was reported that the Bolsheviki heavily defeated the anti-Soviet troops, capturing Novocherkask and wounding the Cossack General. It was also stated that General Dutoff, another anti-Bolshevist leader, was captured by the Soviet troops, and that General Semyonov, the leader of the Cossack movement against the Bolsheviki in Siberia, was killed.

The incident of the Japanese landing at Vladivostok was near closing, when further interest in the Far Eastern situation was aroused in Russia by a number of documents seized on the person of a member of the anti-Soviet "Siberian Government." According to a note addressed on April 26 by M. Chicherin to diplomatic representatives in Moscow, these documents proved that the Consuls of Great Britain, France, and America—and the diplomatic representatives of these powers in Peking—sought to interfere in the internal affairs of Russia by participating in the counter-revolutionary movement for an autonomous Government in Siberia. A similar charge was laid to the Japanese officials. The Russian Government, therefore, demanded the recall of the allied Consular officers at Vladivostok, also asking the Allies to define their attitude toward the Soviet Government. Neither Ambassador Francis nor the French Ambassador, M. Noulens, made any official reply to the Russian charges. M. Noulens had previously drawn upon himself the wrath of the Bolsheviki by declaring that the armed intervention of the Allies in Russia would be an act of friendly assistance. Mr. Francis informally notified the Moscow Government that, in his opinion, the documents failed to involve the American officials. On May 9 Secretary Lansing instructed him to present informally to the Russian Foreign Office a denial of its charge against the American Consul at Vladivostok.

In a speech on April 27 Baron Shimpei Goto, the new Japanese Foreign Minister, referred to the malevolent propaganda which is being conducted in Russia with a view to creating an estrangement between Japan and Russia. He expressed the view that "Russia is a power endeavoring to reorganize a machine temporarily out of order," adding: "Japan must give encouragement, assistance, and support to the work of reorganization in Russia. We trust the sound sense of the Russian people will not be misled by reports calculated to keep the two neighbors apart."

Shortly after the capture of Sebastopol the Russian Government protested to Germany against the seizure of the Black Sea fleet and the invasion of the Crimea. The Russian note pointed out that these acts were in contravention of the Brest treaty and that they might endanger the peaceful relations between the two countries. The Germans did not seem to be concerned to maintain these relations. They treated the population of the occupied territories with harshness. Starving refugees were not admitted into the regions under their domination. It was reported that in the Government of Minsk able-bodied persons were seized in the streets and sent to Germany in locked cars. Constant food requisitioning was another feature of the German rule in Russia.

On April 15 M. Chicherin, Russian Commissary for Foreign Affairs, protested to Berlin against the outrages committed by the German troops in Russia. The text of the note follows:

The Central Soviet institutions receive many complaints with regard to German troops burning Russian villages and using violence against Russian inhabitants. An eyewitness well known to us and absolutely trustworthy states that at Lepel, northwest of Mogileff, German soldiers killed a whole family, not sparing women and children, on the plea that one of the family belonged to a partisan detachment. The local military authorities state that at the village of Novoselki, Mogileff, on April 5, there appeared an officer and soldiers of the 346th Regiment and took oats from the inhabitants by force. The officer was killed by the peasants, and the soldiers fled. After this the village was surrounded by the soldiers, fired on by machine guns, and burned.

The following day the German commander sent a notice to the Russian military authorities at Orsha saying that the inhabitants of Novoselki had been ejected, and the village burned owing to a German officer's being killed.

Observers of Russian life agree that feelings of resentment and animosity on the part of the Russian population for the German oppressor are steadily growing throughout the country. At the same time good feeling between the Russians and the Allies, especially the Americans, is on the increase. British and French troops are co-operating with Bolshevist forces in defending against Finns and Germans the Murman seacoast and the railway from the interior of Russia to the arctic ports of Alexandrovsk and Archangel, where large supplies of valuable war materials are stored up. The War Council attached to the Murman local Soviet consists of one Russian, one Englishman, and one Frenchman. The landing of the allied troops at Alexandrovsk the Germans regarded as a violation of the Brest treaty, which provides for peace with Finland, and protested to the Moscow Government against the act.

The constant exchange of protests between Berlin and Moscow is partly caused by the ambiguous wording of the Brest treaty. On April 24 Adolf Joffe, the Bolshevist Ambassador in Berlin, telegraphed to Moscow that the Russian translation of the treaty was considered by the German authorities incorrect, and that the publication of the final draft of the document was postponed until the receipt of an authentic version.

It appears that Germany has been making further attempts to encourage the separatist tendency in Russia, in contravention of the Brest treaty. The German Government is reported to have inquired of the local Crimean authorities concerning the nationalization of their flag. The Bolsheviki interpreted this step as indicative of the German desire to separate the Taurida Republic from the Russian Federation.

According to a communication issued by the Rumanian Chargé d'Affaires, the National Assembly of Bessarabia voted, on April 9, the union of the province to Rumania by 86 against 3. Thereupon, the Rumanian Premier, amid enthusiastic acclamation, proclaimed the union to be "definitive and indissoluble," and a delegation was sent to Jassy to present the homage of the people of Bessarabia to the King. Rumania seems to have acted at the suggestion of Germany. It is known that the latter proposed to Rumania to annex a part of Bessarabia and thus compensate herself for Rumanian territory taken by Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria. It is also known that (on March 22?) Russia signed a treaty with Rumania regarding Bessarabia. The province was to be evacuated by the Rumanian troops, which had occupied it at the request of the population, and the guarding of Bessarabia was to pass into the hands of local militia, while all evacuated places were to be immediately occupied by Russian troops. Russia undertook to leave Rumania the surplus of Bessarabian grain remaining after the local population and Russian troops had been provided for. The Ukrainian Government refused to recognize the step taken by Bessarabia.

According to the terms of the Brest treaty the Baltic Provinces Esthonia and Livonia were to remain under Russian sovereignty, but three weeks later Germany began intriguing for a union of these countries with the Kingdom of Russia. The falsity of the assertion that the people of Esthonia favored a Baltic monarchy was exposed by the following protest of the Esthonian Provisional Government, published April 22:

Regarding the communication from Berlin that the joint Landtag of Esthonia, Livonia, Riga, and Oesel has decided upon the separation of Baltic provinces from Russia and the creation of a Baltic monarchy in personal union with Prussia, I declare, as representative of the Esthonian Republic, that this resolution does not constitute an expression of opinion of the Esthonian people, but only that of a German nobility minority and its adherents.

On May 5 the British Government informally recognized the Esthonian Provisional Government and, in the words of Mr. Balfour's communication, reaffirmed their readiness to grant provisional recognition to the Esthonian National Council as a de facto independent body until the peace conference, when the future status of Esthonia ought to be settled as far as possible in accordance with the wishes of the population."

On April 26 Transcaucasia declared its independence under a conservative Government, headed by M. Chkhemkeli.

Count von Mirbach, the Royal German Ambassador to Russia, accompanied by a Turkish representative, arrived in Moscow on April 23. He was welcomed by the Chairman of the Central Executive Committee as "a representative of a power with which a peace treaty has been concluded at Brest-Litovsk, as a result of which peace, so needed by the people, was established between the two States." Pravda, the official Bolshevist daily, greeted the Royal German Ambassador as "the plenipotentiary of an armed band which with limitless audacity oppresses and robs wherever it is able to thrust in with a bloody imperialistic bayonet."

Germany has shown eagerness to obtain the release and the use of the able-bodied German prisoners who are now in Russia. It is believed that there are at present upward of 1,000,000 German prisoners of war in European Russia and Siberia. It was reported on April 27 that a special German commission had arrived in Moscow to take charge of the exchange of prisoners with Russia, and that exchanges of invalids had already begun. The number of Russians in German hands is estimated at 3,000,000. An earlier official German communication explained the delay in repatriating Russians by the lack of transportation facilities. On April 29 the State Department at Washington gave out the following statement:

The Department of State has learned that there will shortly leave for Russia a German commission, consisting of 115 members, which will take up the question of the exchange of Russian and German prisoners. It is reported that it is the purpose of the commission merely to present to the Russian authorities an ultimatum from Germany requiring, first, the immediate release of all German prisoners who are in good health; second, that those who are ill will remain in Russia under the care of neutral physicians, and, third, that the Germans on their side will release only those Russian prisoners in Germany who are invalids or who are incapacitated. In the event of a refusal on the part of Russia, Germany will order that Petrograd be taken.

Upon the heels of this ultimatum came another one, served on the Council of the People's Commissaries by the German Ambassador, Count von Mirbach. According to a dispatch, the new ultimatum, too, dated May 10, had a bearing on the prisoner question, but in addition demanded complete cessation of arming troops and the disbandment of units already formed. This demand produced an unusual stir in Russia. The Commissaries held an extraordinary session at which the situation created by the ultimatum was discussed. The Bolsheviki showed no intention of complying with the German ultimatum.

On May 12 Foreign Minister Chicherin instructed the Russian Ambassador, M. Joffe, at Berlin to "try to obtain from Berlin cessation of every kind of hostility." The Germans had announced their intention to capture Novorossiysk, on the Caucasian coast of the Black Sea, under the pretext that the Russian warships, which had escaped seizure at Sebastopol and which are stationed at Novorossiysk, constituted a danger for the German vessels. The instruction added that the German invasion of Russian territory was causing much unrest in the country.

On April 18 the State Department at Washington announced that, according to an authentic report, the Teutons intended to dissolve the Ukrainian Rada and set up a Government of their own. On April 24 a Ukrainian financier prominent in aiding the Germans was arrested in the name of "the Committee of Ukrainian Safety." The German Vice Chancellor, Friedrich von Payer, in his speech before the Main Committee of the Reichstag, said that this secret organization aimed at driving the Germans out of the country and was even planning the assassination of all German officers. It included a number of prominent Ukrainians, several Ministers of State among them, and held its meetings at the house of the Minister of War. An investigation was demanded by the German Ambassador, but the Rada took no action.

Two days later General von Eichhorn, Commander of the German Army in the Ukraine, proclaimed "a state of enhanced protection," making all offenders of order subject to the jurisdiction of German court-martial. He had previously issued a field-sowing decree, necessitated, as the Germans explained, by the fact that the Rada had taken no measures concerning the field sowing, without which the country could not meet its treaty obligations relative to the delivery of grain to Germany. On April 28, while the Rada was in session, German troops entered the hall and arrested a number of its members, the Minister of War among them. The next day a number of landowners and rich peasants who were holding a convention in Kiev declared its sessions permanent, voted the dissolution of the Rada as well as the cancellation of the order convoking the Constituent Assembly on May 12, and proclaimed General Skoropadsky Hetman (Supreme Military Chief) of the Ukraine.

The Rada ceased to exist. It had but scant support in the country. A creature of the Teutons, it was supported by their armed forces. It proved unable to secure the delivery of the promised foodstuffs to the Central Powers. Owing to the resistance of the population only 3,000,000 poods (pood, 36 pounds) were delivered to the Teutons, instead of 30,000,000 poods, which the Rada undertook to supply. The Germans then withdrew their support. According to various reports, the German agents took an active part in the overthrowing of the Rada.

Speaking of the fall of the Rada, the German Vice Chancellor said that "stubborn adherence to communistic theories that have gained no sympathy among the peasant population, which is attached to the soil, seems to have been principally responsible for bringing about its end." One of the first acts of the new Government was the restoration of private ownership of land. The new régime has many features of an autocratic rule. The following information regarding the extent of the Hetman's powers is furnished by the German Service of Propaganda:

The Government power in its entire capacity belongs to the Hetman for all the territory of the State. The Hetman ratifies the laws, he appoints the President of the Council of Ministers, he is chief director of the relations of foreign affairs of the Ukrainian State, he is Generalissimo of the army and of the navy, he declares war, proclaims martial law and exceptional laws. In the administration of justice he has the right of pardon and commutation of sentence.

It has been pointed out that, while the reconstructed Ukrainian Government is emphatically and avowedly pro-German, some of its leading spirits are Russian patriots and advocates of a union with Russia. Grand Duke Dmitry Pavlovich is said to have taken an active part in the coup d'état. A dispatch, dated May 10, announced the beginning of peace negotiations between Russia and the Ukraine.

United States Minister Morris at Stockholm cabled to the State Department on May 14:

Swedish press reports from Moscow state that Count von Mirbach recently transmitted to the Commissariat of the People a note formulated as an ultimatum and demanding the immediate effecting of certain financial measures which would practically make Russia a German colony. The chief points of the note were the immediate solution of the question regarding the exchange of prisoners, the complete abolishment of armaments, and the dissolution of units formed recently; also the occupation of Moscow and some other large Russian cities.

On the same date it was reported from Moscow that the Germans had captured Rostov-on-Don, thus gaining control of the Caucasus, the grain districts in the Donnetz Basin, and the coal, iron, and oil fields. Northern Russia was thus cut off from the Caucasus, excepting for a single railroad running through Tsaritsin, in the southern part of the Government of Saratov, which the Germans were threatening.

The dispatch continued as follows:

The Governmental power in its entire Government, with which it had made peace, is regarded by North Russia as a step toward its occupation. Within a few weeks the future of Petrograd and Moscow probably will be determined, as it is considered that the Soviet Government either must submit to German domination or retreat eastward and prepare for a defense against the invaders. Effective resistance will be difficult without outside assistance, because of the lack of technical experts and supplies. The bitter feeling against Germany is intensified by the ruthless seizures in Ukraine, and a growing disposition to accept allied aid if the Entente Allies will recognize the Bolshevist Government is evident.

The Commissariat of Commerce on April 10 gave the following summary of what Russia lost by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk:

Inhabitants	56,000,000
(About one-third total European Russia.)
Territory	300,000	square miles
(About one-sixth total European area.)
Railways	13,000	miles
(About one-third total mileage.)
Coal	89	per cent.
Iron	73	per cent.
Machinery	1,073	factories.
Textiles	918	factories.
Paper	615	factories.
Chemicals	244	factories.
Tobacco	133	factories.
Spirits	1,685	distilleries.
Beer	574	breweries.
Sugar	268	refineries.

The lost territories used to yield an annual revenue of nearly $425,000,000 and boasted 1,800 savings banks.

---

Speaking on Dec. 5, 1917, before the Central Executive Committee of the Soviets on the subject of the right of constituents to recall their representatives, Nikolai Lenine, the head of the proletarian Government of Russia, made the following remark: "The State is an institution for coercion. Formerly it was a handful of money-bags that outraged the whole nation. We, on the contrary, wish to transform the State into an institution of coercion which must do the will of the people. We desire to organize violence in the name of the interests of the toilers." The April issue of Current History Magazine contained a general outline of the manner in which the makers of the social revolution applied this principle of Statehood to the solution of various problems of home government. The present article will deal more in detail with some of the acts of the Bolshevist legislators. There is no better way of gaining an insight into the views and intentions of the present rulers of Russia than to study the abundant output of their legislative machinery.

Lenine's Government has worked out an elaborate scheme of State control over national production and distribution as a preliminary step toward the complete socialization of the country's industry and commerce. The semi-legislative, semi-executive organs created for that purpose form an intricate hierarchy of affiliated elective bodies and corporations of a large and ill-defined jurisdiction.

In the first place, there have been instituted so-called Soviets of Workmen's Control, (decree of Nov. 27, 1917.) These are made up of representatives of trade unions, factory committees, and productive co-operatives, and aim at regulating the economic life of industrial plants using hired labor, the control in each enterprise being effected through the elective bodies of the workmen, together with the representatives of the salaried employes. The executive organs of the Soviets of Workmen's Control have the right to fix the minimum output of a given firm, to determine the cost of the articles produced, to inspect the books and accounts, and, in general, to supervise the production and the various business transactions. Commercial secrecy, like diplomatic secrecy, is abolished. The owners and controlling agencies are responsible to the State for the safety of the property and for the strictest order and discipline within the precincts of the establishments. The local Soviets are subordinated to provincial Soviets of Workmen's Control, which issue local regulations, take up the complaints of the owners against the controlling agencies, and settle the conflicts between the latter.

The Central All-Russian Soviet of Workmen's Control issues general instructions and co-ordinates the activities of this controlling system with the efforts of the other administrative organs regulating the economic life of the country.

The members of this central institution of control, together with representatives from each Commissariat (Ministry of State) and also expert advisers, form the Supreme Soviet (Council) of National Economy, instituted by the decree of Dec. 18, 1917. This body directs and unifies the work of regulating the national economy and the State finances. It is empowered to confiscate, requisition, sequestrate, and syndicate various establishments in the field of production, distribution, and State finances. The Supreme Council is divided into several sections, each of which deals with a separate economic phase. Among other tasks devolving upon these sections is the drafting of the law projects for the respective Commissariats. Bills affecting national economy in its entirety are brought before the Council of the People's Commissaries through the Supreme Council of National Economy.

On Jan. 5, 1918, the Institute of Local Soviets of National Economy was created, "for the purpose of organizing and regulating the economic life of each industrial section in accordance with the national and local interests." Affiliated with the local Soviets of Workmen's and Soldiers' Delegates, they are subject to the authority of the Supreme Council of National Economy. They are made up of representatives from trade unions, factory committees, workmen's co-operatives, land committees, and the technical personnel of industrial and commercial establishments. The inner organization of these bodies is elaborate. There are sections, divisions, (of organization, supply and distribution, labor, and statistics,) and business offices.

Here are some of the functions of these Soviets. They must:

1. Manage the private enterprises confiscated by the State and given over to the workmen, such as, for instance, a number of factories in the Ural mining district.

2. Determine the amount of fuel, raw materials, machinery, means of transportation, labor, &c., needed by the given industrial section, and the amount available in it.

3. Provide for the economic needs of the section.

4. Distribute the orders for goods among the individual enterprises and work out the basis for the distribution of labor, raw material, machinery, &c.

5. Regulate transportation in the section.

6. See to it that all the productive forces should be fully utilized both in industry and agriculture.

7. Improve the sanitary conditions of labor.

The activity of the Soviets of National Economy is restricted to the field of industry. Their counterpart in agriculture are the so-called land committees.

The decree relating to agrarian socialization, voted by the Bolsheviki at 2 A. M., Nov. 8, 1917, recommends the use of a certain nakaz, (mandate,) based on 242 resolutions passed by village communities, as a guide in putting the land reform into practice. Article 8 of this nakaz, which is a paraphrase of the agrarian program of the Social Revolutionists, reads thus: "All the land, upon confiscation, forms a national agrarian fund. The distribution of the land among the toilers is taken care of by local and central self-governing bodies. * * * The land is periodically redistributed, with the growth of population and the rise of the productivity of agricultural labor."

For the purpose of putting this program into operation and regulating the economic life of the village generally there have been instituted land committees, (decree of Nov. 16,) one for each volost, (rural district including several villages.) They are to be elected by the population of the district and exist as separate institutions, or function as an organ of the volost zemstvo, wherever this is found. The duties of a land committee are many and complex. It takes inventory of all the land in the district and allots to each village its share of plow land, meadows, and pastures, seeing to it that the land should be equitably distributed among the individual toilers and correctly tilled. It grants lease of lands and waters, not subject to distribution, receives the rent and turns it over to the national fund. It regulates the supply and demand of agricultural labor, takes charge of the forests, fixes prices of timber, receives and fills orders for fuel from the State, and takes the necessary measures to preserve the large, scientifically conducted agricultural establishments.

The delegates of a number of volost land committees, together with representatives of the local zemstvo and the Soviet of Workmen's and Soldier's Delegates, form a county committee. The latter, in its turn, sends a delegate to the Provincial Land Committee. The Main Land Committee, which heads the whole system, is an independent institution on a par with the central State organizations. It is a large group of people, consisting of the Commissariat of Agriculture, together with representatives from the following bodies: The Commissariats of Finance, Justice, and Internal Affairs, the provincial Land Committees, the All-Russian Soviet of Peasants' Deputies, the All-Russian Soviet of Workmen's and Soldiers' Delegates, and the political parties.

The Bolsheviki have been careful to extend the abolition of private land ownership to city real estate. By a special decree they abrogated the property rights in city land and in those of the city buildings whose value, together with that of the ground they occupy, exceeds a certain minimum, fixed in each municipality by the local authorities, or which are regularly let for rent, although their value does not exceed the minimum. The land and the buildings are declared public property. The dispossessed owners retain the right to use the apartment they occupy in their former property, provided the apartment is worth no more than 800 rubles of rent per annum. In case the value of the apartment exceeds this maximum the former owner pays the difference to the local Soviet of Workmen's and Soldiers' Delegates. All the rent which formerly went to the landlord is now paid to that institution or to the Municipal Council. Not more than one-third of the sum thus collected is to be used to meet the various needs of the community; 10 per cent. of it goes to the national housing fund; the rest forms the local housing fund for erecting new buildings, laying out streets, and making other improvements.

Municipal socialization of land values, while manifestly intended to benefit the poorer classes, directly affects all the elements of the city population. Other measures enacted by the Bolsheviki are restricted to the proletariat, and properly belong to the field of specific labor legislation. Thus, a law has been passed limiting the working day in both industrial and commercial establishments to eight hours, and further regulating the work of women and children. Furthermore, a minimum wage of the hired workers has been fixed in each section of the country. But by far the most radical and characteristic innovations launched by the Bolshevist Government in this line of legislation are those relating to compulsory insurance of workmen.

On Dec. 29 there was created the Institute of Insurance Soviets, with an executive organ in the form of a Chamber of Insurance. It is the intention of the Government to introduce compulsory insurance for laborers against sickness, unemployment, invalidism, and accidents. The regulations published so far relate only to the first two forms of insurance. The respective decrees rule that throughout the territory of the Russian Republic all hired workers, without distinction of sex, age, religion, nationality, race, and allegiance, are to be insured against sickness and unemployment, irrespective of the character and duration of their work. Salaried employes and members of liberal professions are not subject to this regulation.

At the moment the workman is hired by the employer he automatically becomes a member of two fraternities. In the event of his illness, one furnishes him free medical aid and a weekly allowance equal to his wages; the other assures him the equivalent of his wages if he loses his employment and becomes an unemployed workman. The latter term the law defines as "any able-bodied person depending for subsistence chiefly upon the wages of his (or her) labor, who is unable to find work at the normal rate of remuneration fixed by the proper trade union, and who is registered in a local labor exchange or trade union." The workmen contribute no dues to the fraternities. The income of the latter consists mainly of the payments made by the employers. The owner of an establishment using hired labor must contribute each week to the health insurance fraternity 10 per cent. of the sum he pays out as wages, and at least 3 per cent. of the same sum to the unemployment insurance fraternity. The administrative machinery of this novel form of insurance is worked out with much detail.

It is natural to ask how the various institutions described above are working, if they are functioning at all. It is clear that the smooth working of a great number of cumbersome and wholly novel administrative agencies in a body politic torn by an unprecedented social upheaval amid the horrors of a twofold war would be little short of a miracle. Moreover, it appears that the Bolsheviki have already grown disappointed in some of their political dogmas, notably in the unrestrained and ubiquitous application of the elective principle. Nevertheless, the query, in its entirety, can hardly be adequately answered at present. The time is not far off, however, when it will be possible to say whether the measures decreed in the name of the dictatorial will of the Russian proletariat have taken root or—and this alternative is more probable—whether they have remained merely codified day-dreams.

---

In the press of the United States on May 4, 1918, there appeared a notice that President Wilson had given audience to the Lithuanian delegation, recognizing the Lithuanians as a distinctively separate race having rights of self-determination.

At the time of the upheavals in Russia, during the Russo-Japanese war in 1905, Lithuanians, irrespective of political affiliations, held a convention in their capital, Vilna, over 2,000 delegates participating, where they unanimously asserted their right of self-government; also expressing a strong desire to form one political body with their half-brothers, the Letts.

Again in October, 1917, a convention was held in Vilna with about 250 delegates from those parts of Lithuania occupied by German forces, to press their claim of independence for Lithuania. In January, 1918, representative Lithuanians assembled in the same city proclaimed independent Lithuania. Another convention of Lithuanian representatives from Russia and from Lithuanian communities in the United States, England, and Argentina, held in the same month in Stockholm, Sweden, approved the act of their countrymen under German domination. On March 13 and 14 American Lithuanians held a convention in New York City, giving their unanimous approval to the proclaiming of an Independent Lithuanian Republic; here a unanimous resolution was passed protesting against any Polish aspirations or claims to Lithuania, and demanding the inclusion of the Lithuanian part of East Prussia, with the old Lithuanian city of Karaliauchus (Königsberg,) in the Lithuanian Republic.

Lithuanians claim those parts of the neighboring provinces where their language is spoken and where the inhabitants consider themselves Lithuanians. They claim the eastern part of East Prussia—about 13,500 square miles, with 700,000 or 800,000 inhabitants—and parts of the provinces of Minsk and Vitebsk; thus the Lithuanian-Lettish Republic would stretch over 131,000 square miles and have a population of over 11,500,000, inhabiting five centres—Karaliauchus, (Königsberg,) Klaipeda, (Memel,) Libau, Windau, and Riga.

The country is very rich for agriculture, though it contains much undeveloped land, with many rivers, lakes, and large forests. Along the River Nieman in Druskeniki, Government of Goodns, and in Birchtany, Government of Vilna, there are salt springs of high healing qualities, but on account of a corrupt Russian Government they remain undeveloped and unexploited. The seabeach around Palanga, a little distance above Germany's border on the Baltic, could be turned into another Atlantic City, according to the opinion of experts, but the place remains neglected. Lithuania's soil is very rich in aluminium and in material for manufacturing glass. During my last visit to Lithuania, in 1914, the discovery of radium was reported in the vicinity of the mineral springs at Birchtany, but the war came on very soon and nothing further was heard of it.

BRITISH LEADERS ON LAND AND SEA

---

---

---

---

In March, 1918, Lithuanians demanded that Germany recognize their Provisional Government. The Tevyne of New York, official organ of the Lithuanian Alliance of America, received the following from its correspondent in Russia, relayed from Yokohama, March 26:

In Lithuania there has been formed a Provisional Government consisting of the following: A. Smetona, Premier; P. Dovydailis, Minister of Education; J. Shaulys, Minister of Foreign Affairs; M. Smilgevichus, Minister of Finances; M. Birzhishka, Minister of Justice; J. Vileishis, Minister of Public Works; D. Malinauskas, Minister of Public Safety. Dr. J. Shlupas, well known among American Lithuanians, has been appointed Envoy Plenipotentiary to the United States; J. Aukshtuolis, President of the Lithuanian Committee in Stockholm, is made Ambassador to the Scandinavian countries; M. Ychas, member of the last Russian Duma, Ambassador to England and France; J. Gabrys, manager of the Lithuanian Information Bureau in Switzerland, Ambassador to the Central Powers. A national army is being organized. Lithuania's absolute neutrality was proclaimed. Drafted a political and economic treaty with Sweden.

Lithuanians fought in the Russian Army against the Germans, and now large numbers of them are joining the military and naval forces of the United States to fight the common foe; some are already in the English Army. Lithuania has suffered not for her own faults, but because she was situated between two belligerents. In the Government of Suvalki the German and Russian Armies chased each other nine times backward and forward; one may imagine how much is left there. Nothing but excavations, trenches, heaps of ruins, crumbling chimneys indicate where previously were large and prosperous villages. The world is yet to hear more about German requisitions, German devastations, and German rapine in Lithuania. Not only forests were denuded, but even fruit trees on the farms were cut down and shipped to Germany. The remaining inhabitants are forced to raise crops for the invaders, and for their various products they must accept, under penalty, specially printed money for local use—money that Germans themselves would not accept.

Notwithstanding reports to the contrary, the Lithuanians were with the Allies all the time, and will stand by them to the end. They have faith that the Allies, when the proper time comes, will recognize their just claims.

---

Emperor William on May 12, 1918, issued the following proclamation regarding Lithuania:

We, Wilhelm, by God's grace German Emperor, King of Prussia, &c., hereby make known that, whereas the Lithuanian Landsrat, as the recognized representative of the Lithuanian people, on Dec. 12 announced the restoration of Lithuania as an independent State allied to the German Empire by an eternal, steadfast alliance, and by conventions chiefly regarding military matters, traffic, customs, and coinage, and solicited the help of the German Empire; and,

Whereas, further, Previous political connections in Lithuania are dissolved, we command our Imperial Chancellor to declare Lithuania on the basis of the aforementioned declarations of the Lithuanian Landsrat, in the name of the German Empire, as a free and independent State, and we are prepared to accord the Lithuanian State the solicited help and assistance in its restoration.

We assume that the conventions to be concluded will take the interests of the German Empire into account equally with those of Lithuania, and that Lithuania will participate in the war burdens of Germany, which secured her liberation.

The Lithuanian National Council, with headquarters at Washington, replied to the foregoing proclamation on May 14 as follows:

The assumption that Lithuania "will participate in the war burdens of Germany" means a contribution of three things: Money, munitions, and men. The first we have not, as Germany has already impoverished us; the second, we have no means of supplying, because we lack the first. Therefore, Germany can have reference only to men. Men from a self-declared democracy to fight in the ranks of autocracy? Unthinkable. Lithuania would not consent. Are her citizens to be dragooned into the ranks of the Kaiser? This would be an abridgment of the sovereignty which Germany has already recognized, for Chancellor von Hertling's reply stated, "We hereby recognize Lithuania as free and independent."

Germany knows that ultimate defeat is unavoidable, but she would compensate losses in the west with gains in the east, among which Lithuania is gambled on as an asset. No recognition of Lithuanian independence can be sincere when coupled with the von Hertling terms, but if this sop will add to Prussian man power it may postpone somewhat the inevitable day of reckoning and give her more time to Germanize in the east with a view of confederating the new republics under Junker rule.

---

The little Belgian port of Zeebrugge fell into German hands in the Autumn of 1914, and, with the neighboring port of Ostend, became a thorn in the side of the Entente by reason of its increasing use as a base for enemy destroyers, submarines, and aircraft. The Germans, having seized the shipbuilding plants at Antwerp, began building submarines and small war craft, which could be sent by way of Bruges down the canals that connect the latter city with Zeebrugge and Ostend. Especially useful to them was the maritime canal whose mouth at Zeebrugge was protected by a crescent-shaped mole, thirty feet high, inclosing the harbor.

On the night of April 22-23, 1918, a British naval expedition under Vice Admiral Sir Roger Keyes, commanding at Dover, aided by French destroyers, undertook to wreck the stone mole at Zeebrugge and to block the entrances to the canals both at Zeebrugge and at Ostend by sinking the hulks of old ships in the channels. The episode, marked as it was by heroic fighting, proved to be one of the most thrilling and picturesque in the naval operations of the war. To Americans it recalled Hobson's exploit with the Merrimac at Santiago, while to Englishmen it brought back memories of Sir Francis Drake and his fireships in the Harbor of Cadiz.

Though the fighting at Zeebrugge lasted only an hour, the British lost 588 men, officially reported as follows: Officers—Killed, 16; died of wounds, 3; missing, 2; wounded, 29. Men—Killed, 144; died of wounds, 25; missing, 14; wounded, 355.

Six obsolete British cruisers took part in the attack. They were the Brilliant, Iphigenia, Sirius, Intrepid, Thetis, and Vindictive. The first five of these were filled with concrete and were to be sunk in the entrances of the two ports. The Vindictive, working with the two Mersey ferryboats Daffodil and Iris, carried storming and demolition parties to the Zeebrugge mole. The object was to attack the enemy forces and guns on the mole, along with the destroyer and submarine depots and the large seaplane base upon it, and thus to divert the enemy's attention from the work of the block ships. As the attack on the mole accomplished this, the main object of the operation was successful.

The attacking forces were composed of bluejackets and Royal Marines picked from the Grand Fleet and from naval and marine depots. Sir Eric Geddes stated in Parliament the next morning that light forces belonging to the Dover command and Harwich forces under Admiral Tyrwhitte covered the operation from the south. A large force of monitors, together with many motor launches and small, fast craft took part. One of the essentials of success was the creation of a heavy veil of artificial fog or smoke. The officer who developed this phase of the attack was killed in action. The general plan was to attack the guns and works on the Zeebrugge mole with storming parties, while the concrete-laden cruisers were being sunk in the channel. Two old and valueless submarines filled with explosives were to be blown up against the viaduct connecting the mole with the shore.

A detailed narrative of the affair was issued by the British Admiralty on the 25th, the essential passages of which are as follows:

The night was overcast and there was a drifting haze. Down the coast a great searchlight swung its beam to and fro in the small wind and short sea. From the Vindictive's bridge, as she headed in toward the mole, with the faithful ferryboats at her heels, there was scarcely a glimmer of light to be seen shoreward. Ahead, as she drove through the water, rolled the smoke screen, her cloak of invisibility, wrapped about her by small craft. This was the device of Wing Commander Brock, without which, acknowledges the Admiral in command, the operation could not have been conducted.

A northeast wind moved the volume of it shoreward ahead of the ships. Beyond it was the distant town, its defenders unsuspicious. It was not until the Vindictive, with bluejackets and marines standing ready for landing, was close upon the mole that the wind lulled and came away again from the southeast, sweeping back the smoke screen and laying her bare to eyes that looked seaward.

There was a moment immediately afterward when it seemed to those on the ships as if the dim, coast-hidden harbor exploded into light. A star shell soared aloft, then a score of star shells. The wavering beams of the searchlights swung around and settled into a glare. A wild fire of gun flashes leaped against the sky, strings of luminous green beads shot aloft, hung and sank. The darkness of the night was supplemented by a nightmare daylight of battle-fired guns and machine guns along the mole. The batteries ashore awoke to life.

It was in a gale of shelling that the Vindictive laid her nose against the thirty-foot high concrete side of the mole, let go her anchor and signaled to the Daffodil to shove her stern in.

The Iris went ahead and endeavored to get alongside likewise. The fire was intense, while the ships plunged and rolled beside the mole in the seas, the Vindictive with her greater draught jarring against the foundations of the mole with every lunge. They were swept diagonally by machine-gun fire from both ends of the mole and by the heavy batteries on shore.

Commander (now Captain) Carpenter conned the Vindictive from the open bridge until her stern was laid in, when he took up his position in the flame thrower hut on the port side. It is marvelous that any occupant should have survived a minute in this hut, so riddled and shattered is it.

The officers of the Iris, which was in trouble ahead of the Vindictive, describe Captain Carpenter as handling her like a picket boat. The Vindictive was fitted along her port side with a high false deck, from which ran eighteen brows or gangways by which the storming and demolition parties were to land.

The men gathered in readiness on the main lower decks, while Colonel Elliott, who was to lead the marines, waited on the false deck just abaft the bridge. Captain Halahan, who commanded the bluejackets, was amidships. The gangways were lowered, and they scraped and rebounded upon the high parapet of the mole as the Vindictive rolled in the sea-way.

The word for the assault had not yet been given when both leaders were killed, Colonel Elliott by a shell and Captain Halahan by machine-gun fire which swept the decks. The same shell that killed Colonel Elliott also did fearful execution in the forward Stokes mortar battery. The men were magnificent; every officer bears the same testimony.

The mere landing on the mole was a perilous business. It involved a passage across the crashing and splintering gangways, a drop over the parapet into the field of fire of the German machine guns which swept its length, and a further drop of some sixteen feet to the surface of the mole itself. Many were killed and more wounded as they crowded up the gangways, but nothing hindered the orderly and speedy landing by every gangway.

Lieutenant H. T. C. Walker had his arm shot away by shell on the upper deck, and lay in darkness while the storming parties trod him under. He was recognized and dragged aside by the commander. He raised his remaining arm in greetings. "Good luck to you," he called as the rest of the stormers hastened by. "Good luck."

The lower deck was a shambles as the commander made the rounds of the ship, yet those wounded and dying raised themselves to cheer as he made his tour. * * *

The Iris had troubles of her own. Her first attempts to make fast to the mole ahead of the Vindictive failed, as her grapnels were not large enough to span the parapet. Two officers, Lieut. Commander Bradford and Lieutenant Hawkins, climbed ashore and sat astride the parapet trying to make the grapnels fast till each was killed and fell down between the ship and the wall. Commander Valentine Gibbs had both legs shot away and died next morning. Lieutenant Spencer, though wounded, took command and refused to be relieved.

The Iris was obliged at last to change her position and fall in astern of the Vindictive, and suffered very heavily from fire. A single big shell plunged through the upper deck and burst below at a point where fifty-six marines were waiting for the order to go to the gangways. Forty-nine were killed. The remaining seven were wounded. Another shell in the ward-room, which was serving as a sick bay, killed four officers and twenty-six men. Her total casualties were eight officers and sixty-nine men killed and three officers and 103 men wounded.

Storming and demolition parties upon the mole met with no resistance from the Germans other than intense and unremitting fire. One after another buildings burst into flame or split and crumbled as dynamite went off. A bombing party working up toward the mole extension in search of the enemy destroyed several machine-gun emplacements, but not a single prisoner rewarded them. It appears that upon the approach of the ships and with the opening of fire the enemy simply retired and contented themselves with bringing machine guns to the short end of the mole.

Describing operations of the three block ships, the official narrative says:

The Thetis came first, steaming into a tornado of shells from great batteries ashore. All her crew, save a remnant who remained to steam her in and sink her, already had been taken off her by a ubiquitous motor launch, but the remnant spared hands enough to keep her four guns going. It was hers to show the road to the Intrepid and the Iphigenia, which followed. She cleared a string of armed barges which defends the channel from the tip of the mole, but had the ill-fortune to foul one of her propellers upon a net defense which flanks it on the shore side.

The propeller gathered in the net, and it rendered her practically unmanageable. Shore batteries found her and pounded her unremittingly. She bumped into the bank, edged off, and found herself in the channel again still some hundreds of yards from the mouth of the canal in practically a sinking condition. As she lay she signaled invaluable directions to others, and her commander, R. S. Sneyd, also accordingly blew charges and sank her. Motor launches under Lieutenant H. Littleton raced alongside and took off her crew. Her losses were five killed and five wounded.

The Intrepid, smoking like a volcano and with all her guns blazing, followed. Her motor launch had failed to get alongside outside the harbor, and she had men enough for anything. Straight into the canal she steered, her smoke blowing back from her into the Iphigenia's eyes, so that the latter was blinded, and, going a little wild, rammed a dredger, with her barge moored beside it, which lay at the western arm of the canal. She was not clear, though, and entered the canal pushing the barge before her. It was then that a shell hit the steam connections of her whistle, and the escape of steam which followed drove off some of the smoke and let her see what she was doing.

Lieutenant Stuart Bonham Carter, commanding the Intrepid, placed the nose of his ship neatly on the mud of the western bank, ordered his crew away, and blew up his ship by switches in the chart room. Four dull bumps were all that could be heard, and immediately afterward there arrived on deck the engineer, who had been in the engine room during the explosion, and reported that all was as it should be.

Lieutenant E. W. Bullyard Leake, commanding the Iphigenia, beached her according to arrangement on the eastern side, blew her up, saw her drop nicely across the canal, and left her with her engines still going, to hold her in position till she should have bedded well down on the bottom. According to the latest reports from air observation, two old ships, with their holds full of concrete, are lying across the canal in a V position, and it is probable that the work they set out to do has been accomplished and that the canal is effectively blocked. A motor launch, under Lieutenant P. T. Deane, had followed them in to bring away the crews and waited further up the canal toward the mouth against the western bank.

Lieutenant Bonham Carter, having sent away his boats, was reduced to a Carley float, an apparatus like an exaggerated lifebuoy with the floor of a grating. Upon contact with the water it ignited a calcium flare and he was adrift in the uncanny illumination with a German machine gun a few hundred yards away giving him its undivided attention. What saved him was possibly the fact that the defunct Intrepid still was emitting huge clouds of smoke which it had been worth nobody's while to turn. He managed to catch a rope, as the motor launch started, and was towed for awhile till he was observed and taken on board.

Commander Alfred F. B. Carpenter, who commanded the Vindictive and who was made Captain for his successful work, gave an Associated Press correspondent an interesting description of the episode. During the attack he was at the end of the bridge in a small steel box or cabin which had been specially constructed to house a flame thrower. The Captain, with his arm in a sling, standing on the shell-battered deck of the Vindictive, said:

Exactly according to plan we ran alongside the mole, approached it on the port side, where we were equipped with specially built buffers of wood two feet wide. As there was nothing for us to tie up to, we merely dropped anchor there, while the Daffodil kept us against the mole with her nose against the opposite side of our ship. In the fairly heavy sea two of our three gangways were smashed, but the third held, and 500 men swarmed up this on to the mole. This gangway was two feet wide and thirty feet long. The men who went up it included 300 marines and 150 storming seamen from the Vindictive, and fifty or so from the Daffodil. They swarmed up the steel gangway, carrying hand grenades and Lewis guns. No Germans succeeded in approaching the gangway, but a hard hand-to-hand fight took place about 200 yards up the mole toward the shore.

The Vindictive's bow was pointed toward the shore, so the bridge got the full effect of enemy fire from the shore batteries. One shell exploded against the pilot house, killing nearly all its ten occupants. Another burst in the fighting top, killing a Lieutenant and eight men, who were doing excellent work with two pompoms and four machine guns.

The battery of eleven-inch guns at the end of the mole was only 300 yards away, and it kept trying to reach us. The shore batteries also were diligent. Only a few German shells hit our hull, because it was well protected by the wall of the mole, but the upper structure, mast, stacks, and ventilators showed above the wall and were riddled. A considerable proportion of our casualties were caused by splinters from these upper works.

Meanwhile the Daffodil continued to push us against the wall as if no battle was on, and if she had failed to do this none of the members of the landing party would have been able to return to the ship.

Twenty-five minutes after the Vindictive had reached the wall the first block ship passed in and headed for the canal. Two others followed in leisurely fashion while we kept up the fight on the mole. One of the block ships stranded outside of the canal, but the two others got two or three hundred yards inside, where they were successfully sunk across the entrance.

Fifteen minutes after the Vindictive arrived alongside the mole our submarine exploded under the viaduct connecting the mole with the mainland. The Germans had sent a considerable force to this viaduct as soon as the submarine arrived, and these men were gathered on the viaduct, attacking our submersible with machine guns. When the explosion occurred the viaduct and Germans were blown up together. The crew of the submarine, consisting of six men, escaped on board a dinghy to a motor launch.

Early in the fighting a German shell knocked out our howitzer, which had been getting in some good shots on a big German seaplane station on the mole half a mile away. This is the largest seaplane station in Belgium. Unfortunately, our other guns could not be brought to bear effectively upon it. The shell which disabled the howitzer killed all the members of the gun crew. Many men were also killed by a German shell which hit the mole close to our ship and scattered fragments of steel and stone among the marines assembling on the deck around the gangway.

Half an hour after the block ships went in, we received the signal to withdraw. The Vindictive's siren was blown, and the men returned from all parts of the mole and thronged down the gangway. We put off after having lain alongside just about an hour. The Germans made no effort to interfere with our getaway other than to continue their heavy firing.

One of the most thrilling incidents was the rescue by two American-built motor launches of nearly 200 members of the crews of two block ships sunk at the entrance to the Bruges Canal. The feat was accomplished under a heavy fire and the actual transfer was made in less than five minutes. One launch delivered ninety-nine men to the destroyer.

The dead and wounded could not all be brought away, but the loss of personnel in this way was declared to be remarkably small.

Stoker Bendall of the submarine which blew up the Zeebrugge mole said:

It was silent and heavy business. We were going full tilt when we hit the viaduct. It was a good jolt, and we ran right into the middle of the viaduct and stuck there, as we intended to do. I don't think anybody said anything except, "Well, we are here all right."

We lowered a skiff and stood by while the commander touched off the fuse and then tumbled into the skiff and pushed off. By bad luck the propeller fouled the exhaust pipe and left us with only two oars and two minutes to get away. The enemy lights were on us, and the machine guns were firing from the shore.

Before we made 200 yards the submarine went up, and there was a tremendous flash and roar, and lots of concrete from the mole fell around us. Luckily, we were not struck.

Photographs taken from an airplane a few days later showed that the effort to block the canal entrance had been successful. The Intrepid and Iphigenia had reached the precise positions in which they were intended to be sunk, while the exploded submarine had blown a gap of sixty to a hundred feet in the shore end of the mole. The Frankfurter Zeitung, in commenting on the affair, said: "It would be foolish to deny that the British fleet scored a great success through a fantastically audacious stroke in penetrating into one of the most important strongholds over which the German flag floats."

At Ostend the operations on the same night were unsuccessful, largely owing to a shift of wind. Small craft with smoke apparatus ran in according to program, set up a screen, and lit two large flares to mark the entrance to the harbor for the two concrete-laden cruisers that were to be sunk in the channel. Before the cruisers could arrive, however, the wind shifted and blew away the smoke screen, after which the German gunfire quickly destroyed the flares. The cruisers tried to proceed by guesswork under heavy fire, but their efforts were in vain. One of the block ships was sunk, but not in a position to obstruct the channel.

A second attempt to close the Ostend harbor was made on the night of May 9-10, when the battered old Vindictive, which had borne the brunt of the shellfire at the Zeebrugge mole, was sunk in the channel with her inside full of concrete. A member of the expedition gave this account:

As the Vindictive neared Ostend it became apparent that the Germans had got wind of our presence, for suddenly there was a regular pyrotechnic display of star shells. The effect was brilliant, but quite undesirable from our point of view. Immediately guns of all sizes opened fire on us, and there was a terrific din.

The Vindictive and one or two other vessels received hits, and a few casualties were caused by this gunfire. The firing was heavily returned by our ships. Most of the crew of the Vindictive were taken off when the ship was at a little distance from the Ostend piers, only a few officers and men being left to navigate her between the piers and sink her there. A motor launch which was assisting in picking up the crew was hit several times by shellfire, and was in a sinking condition when it came alongside the Admiral's vessel, the destroyer Warwick, to which they were transferred. The motor launch had extensive damage in the fore part, and by order of the Admiral was sunk, as it was apparent that it could not get back to Dover. There was a heavy explosion when the Vindictive sank between the piers.

The casualties in the second Ostend raid were forty-seven, of whom eighteen were killed or missing, the rest wounded.

---

The British Admiralty, in its official report of the second Ostend action, issued May 14, stated that the Vindictive was "lying at an angle of about 40 degrees to the pier, and seemed to be hard fast." Commander Godsal, who was on deck during the critical moments, was missing and was believed to have been killed; Lieutenant Crutchley blew up the auxiliary charges in the forward 6-inch magazine from the conning tower. Lieut. Commander William A. Bury, who blew up the main charges by a switch installed aft, was severely wounded. The Admiralty reported that the sunken ship would make the harbor impracticable for any but small craft and difficult for dredging operations.

---

German Naval Secretary

Admiral Von Capelle, the German Secretary of the Navy, delivered an address before the Reichstag, April 17, 1918, in which he asserted that the submarine warfare of Germany was a success. In the course of his speech he said:

"The main question is, What do the western powers need for the carrying on of the war and the supply of their homelands, and what amount of tonnage is still at their disposal for that purpose? All statistical calculations regarding tonnage are today almost superfluous, as the visible successes of the U-boat war speak clearly enough. The robbery of Dutch tonnage, by which the Anglo-Saxons have incurred odium of the worst kind for decades to come, is the best proof of how far the shipping shortage has already been felt by our opponents. In addition to the sinkings there must be added a great amount of wear and tear of ships and an enormous increase of marine accidents, which Sir J. Ellerman, speaking in the Chamber of Shipping recently, calculated at three times the peace losses. Will the position of the western powers improve or deteriorate? That depends upon their military achievements and the replacing of sunken ships by new construction."

Dealing briefly with Sir Eric Geddes's recent speech on the occasion of the debate on the naval estimates, Admiral von Capelle declared:

"The assertion of the First Lord of the Admiralty that an unwillingness to put to sea prevailed among the German U-boat crews is a base calumny."

As regards the assertions of British statesmen concerning the extraordinarily great losses of U-boats, Admiral von Capelle said:

"The statements in the foreign press are very greatly exaggerated. Now, as before, our new construction surpasses our losses. The number of U-boats, both from the point of view of quality and quantity, is constantly rising. We can also continue absolutely to reckon on our military achievements hitherto attained. Whether Lloyd George can continue the naval war with prospects of success depends, not upon his will but upon the position of the U-boats as against shipbuilding. According to Lloyd's Register, something over 22,000,000 gross register tons were built in the last ten years before the war in the whole world—that is, inclusive of the construction of ourselves, our allies, and foreign countries. The entire output today can in no case be more, for difficulties of all kinds and the shortage of workmen and material have grown during the war. In the last ten years—that is, in peace time—800,000 gross register tons of the world's shipping was destroyed annually by natural causes. Now in wartime the losses, as already mentioned, are considerably greater. Thus, 1,400,000 gross register tons was the annual net increase for the entire world. That gives, at any rate, a standard for the present position. America's and Japan's new construction is to a certain extent destined for the necessities of these countries.

"In the main, therefore, only the figures of British shipbuilding come into question. About the middle of 1917 there was talk of 3,000,000 tons in official quarters in Great Britain. Then Lloyd George dropped to 2,000,000, and now, according to Bonar Law's statement, the output is 1,160,000 tons. As against, therefore, about 100,000 tons monthly put into service there are sinkings amounting to 600,000 tons, or six times as much. In brief, if the figures given are regarded as too favorable and new construction at the rate of 150,000 tons monthly—that is, 50 per cent. higher—be assumed, and the sinkings be reduced to 450,000 tons, then the sinkings are still three times as large as the amount of new construction.

"One other thing must especially be taken into consideration for the coming months. Today every ship sunk strikes at the vital nerve of our opponents. Today, when only the absolutely necessary cargoes of foodstuffs and war necessities can still be transported, the sinking of even one small ship has quite a different significance as compared with the beginning of the U-boat war. Moreover, the loss of one ship means a falling out of four to five cargoes. In these circumstances even the greatest pessimist must say that the position of our opponents is deteriorating in a considerably increasing extent and with rapid strides, and that any doubt regarding the final success of the U-boat war is unjustified."

Replying to a question of the reporter, Admiral von Capelle said:

"Our opponents have been busily endeavoring to strengthen their anti-submarine measures by all the means at their disposal, and, naturally, they have attained a certain success. But they have at no time had any decisive influence on the U-boat war, and, according to human reckoning, they will not do so in the future. The American submarine destroyers which have been so much talked about have failed. The convoy system, which, it is true, offers ships a certain measure of protection, has, on the other hand, also the great disadvantage of reducing their transport capabilities. The statements oscillate from 25 to 60 per cent.

"For the rest, our commanders are specially trained for attacks on convoys, and no day goes by when one or more ships are not struck out of convoys. Experienced commanders manage to sink three to four ships in succession belonging to the same convoy."

Admiral von Capelle then dealt with the steel question as regards shipbuilding, which, he said, "is practically the determinative factor for shipbuilding." He continued:

"Great Britain's steel imports in 1916 amounted to 763,000 tons, and in 1917 only amounted to 497,000 tons. That means that already a reduction of 37 per cent. has been effected, a reduction which will presumably be further considerably increased during 1918. Restriction of imports of ore from other countries, such as America, caused by the U-boat war will also have a hampering effect on shipbuilding in Great Britain. It is true that Sir Eric Geddes denied that there was a lack of material, but expert circles in England give the scarcity of steel as the main reason for the small shipbuilding output.

"American help in men and airplanes and American participation in the war are comparatively small. If later on America wants to maintain 500,000 troops in France, shipping to the amount of about 2,000,000 tons would be permanently needed. This shipping would have to be withdrawn from the supply service of the Allies.

"Moreover, according to statements made in the United States and Great Britain, the intervention in the present campaign of such a big army no longer comes into consideration. After America's entry into the war material help for the Entente has not only not increased, but has even decreased considerably. President Wilson's gigantic armament program has brought about such economic difficulties that America, the export country, must now begin to ration instead of, as it was hoped, increasingly to help the Entente. To sum up, it can be stated that the economic difficulties of our enemies have been increased by America's entry into the war."

Later in the debate Admiral von Capelle said: "The salient point of the discussion is the economic internal and political results of the U-boat war during the coming months. The danger point for England has already been reached, and the situation of the western powers grows worse from day to day."

Admiral von Capelle then briefly dealt with that calculation of the world tonnage made by a Deputy which received some attention in the Summer of last year. "This calculation," he said, "shows a difference of 9,000,000 tons from the calculation of the Admiralty Staff. In my opinion, the calculation of the Admiralty Staff is correct. Whence otherwise comes the Entente's lack of tonnage, which, in view of the facts, cannot be argued away? The Admiralty Staff in its calculation adapted itself to the fluctuating situation of the world shipping. At first each of the enemy States looked after itself. Later, under Great Britain's leadership, common control of tonnage was established."

Admiral von Capelle quoted the calculation of the American Shipping Department, according to which the world tonnage in the Autumn of 1917 amounted to 32,000,000, of which 21,000,000 were given as transoceanic. He insisted, however, that so much attention must not be paid to all these calculations, but exhorted the people rather to dwell on the joyful fact that the danger point for the western powers had been reached.

At the close of the sitting Admiral von Capelle stated that all orders for the construction of U-boats had been given independently by the Naval Department and that the Naval Administration had never been instructed to give orders for more U-boats by the Chancellor or the Supreme Army Command. Every possible means, he said, for the development of U-boat warfare had been done by the Naval Department.

Admiral von Capelle in a supplemental statement before the Reichstag, May 11, in discussing the naval estimates, said:

The reports for April are favorable. Naturally, losses occur, but the main thing is that the increase in submarines exceeds the losses. Our naval offensive is stronger today than at the beginning of unrestricted submarine warfare. That gives us an assured prospect of final success.

The submarine war is developing more and more into a struggle between U-boat action and new construction of ships. Thus far the monthly figures of destruction have continued to be several times as large as those of new construction. Even the British Ministry and the entire British press admit that.

The latest appeal to British shipyard workers appears to be especially significant. For the present the appeal does not appear to have had great success. According to the latest statements British shipbuilding fell from 192,000 tons in March to 112,000 in April; or, reckoned in ships, from 32 to 22. That means a decline of 80,000 tons, or about 40 per cent. [The British Admiralty stated that the April new tonnage was reduced on account of the vast amount of repairing to merchantmen.—Editor.]

America thus far has built little, and has fallen far below expectations. Even if an increase is to be reckoned with in the future, it will be used up completely by America herself.

In addition to the sinkings by U-boats, there is a large decline in cargo space owing to marine losses and to ships becoming unserviceable. One of the best-known big British ship owners declared at a meeting of shipping men that the losses of the British merchant fleet through marine accidents, owing to conditions created by the war, were three times as large as in peace.

The British authorities asserted that Admiral von Capelle's figures were misleading and untrue. The losses published in the White Paper include marine risk and all losses by enemy action. They include all losses, and not merely the losses of food ships, as suggested in the German wireless message dated April 16. Even in the figures of the world's output of shipbuilding von Capelle seems to have been misled. He states that "something over 2,000,000 gross tons were built annually in the last ten years, including allied and enemy countries." The actual figures are 2,530,351 gross tons. He further states that the entire output today can in no case be more, owing to difficulties in regard to labor and material. The actual world's output, as shown in the Parliamentary White Paper, excluding enemy countries, amounted to 2,703,000 gross tons, and the output is rapidly rising. Von Capelle tried to raise confusion with regard to the figures 3,000,000 and 2,000,000 tons and the actual output for 1917. The Admiralty says no forecast was ever given that 3,000,000 tons, or even 2,000,000 tons, would be completed in that year. Three million tons is the ultimate rate of production, which, as the First Lord stated in the House of Commons, is well within the present and prospective capacity of United Kingdom shipyards and marine engineering works. The exaggerated figures of losses are still relied on by the enemy. The average loss per month of British ships during 1917, including marine risk, was 333,000 gross tons, whereas Secretary von Capelle in his statement bases his argument on an average loss from submarine attacks alone of 600,000 tons per month. The figures for the quarter ended March 31, 1918, showed British losses to be 687,576 tons, and for the month of March 216,003 tons, the lowest during any month, with one exception, since January, 1917. With regard to steel, the First Lord has already assured the House of Commons that arrangements have been made for the supply of steel to give the output aimed at, and at the present time the shipyards are in every case fully supplied with the material.

The American production of new tonnage reached its stride in May, and the estimate of over 4,000,000 tons per annum was regarded as conservative. It was estimated that the total British and American new tonnage in the year ending May, 1919, would exceed 6,000,000, as against total U-boat sinkings, based on the record of the first quarter of 1918, of 4,500,000.

The following was the official report of losses of British, allied, and neutral merchant tonnage due to enemy action and marine risk:

Period.	British.	Allied and Neutral.	Total.
1917.	Month.	Month.	Month.
January	193,045	216,787	409,832
February	343,486	231,370	574,856
March	375,309	259,376	634,685
	————	————	—————
Quarter	911,840	707,533	1,619,373
April	555,056	338,821	893,877
May	374,419	255,917	630,336
June	432,395	280,326	712,721
	————	————	—————
Quarter	1,361,870	875,064	2,236,934
July	383,430	192,519	575,949
August	360,296	189,067	519,363
September	209,212	159,949	369,161
	————	————	————
Quarter	952,938	541,535	1,494,473
October	289,973	197,364	487,337
November	196,560	136,883	333,443
December	296,356	155,707	452,063
	————	————	————
Quarter	782,889	489,954	1,272,843
1918.
January	217,270	136,187	353,457
February	254,303	134,119	388,422
March	216,003	165,628	381,631
	————	————	————
Quarter	687,576	435,934	1,123,510

The Secretary of the Ministry of Shipping stated that the tonnage of steamships of 500 gross tons and over entering and clearing United Kingdom ports from and to ports overseas was as under:

Period.
1917.	Gross Tons.
October	6,908,189
November	6,818,564
December	6,665,413

Period.
1918.	Gross Tons.
January	6,336,663
February	6,326,965
March	7,295,620

This statement embraces all United Kingdom seaborne traffic other than coastwise and cross Channel.

The British Admiralty, in April, 1918, discontinued its weekly report of merchant ships destroyed by submarines or mines, and announced that it would publish a monthly report in terms of tonnage. These figures are shown in the table above. The last weekly report was for the period ended April 14, and showed that eleven merchantmen over 1,600 tons, four under 1,600 tons, and one fishing vessel had been sunk.

In regard to the sinkings in April, French official figures showed that the total losses of allied and neutral ships, including those from accidents at sea during the month, aggregated 381,631 tons.

Norway's losses from the beginning of the war to the end of April, 1918, amounted to 755 vessels, aggregating 1,115,519 tons, and the lives of 1,006 seamen, in addition to about 700 men on fifty-three vessels missing, two-thirds of which were declared to be war losses.

The American steamship Lake Moor, manned by naval reserves, was sunk by a German submarine in European waters about midnight on April 11, with a loss of five officers and thirty-nine men. Five officers and twelve enlisted men were landed at an English port. Eleven men, including five navy gunners, were lost when the Old Dominion liner Tyler was sunk off the French coast on May 3. The Canadian Pacific Company's steamer Medora also was sunk off the French coast. The Florence H. was wrecked in a French port by an internal explosion on the night of April 17. Out of the crew of fifty-six men, twenty-nine were listed as dead or missing, twelve were sent to hospital badly burned, two were slightly injured, and only thirteen escaped injury. Of the twenty-three men of the naval guard only six were reported as survivors.

Six officers and thirteen men were reported missing as the result of two naval disasters reported on May 1 by the British Admiralty. They formed part of the crews of the sloop Cowslip, which was torpedoed and sunk on April 25, and of Torpedo Boat 90, which foundered.

According to Archibald Hurd, a British authority on naval matters, the area in the North Sea which was proclaimed by the British Government as dangerous to shipping and therefore prohibited after May 15 is the greatest mine field ever laid for the special purpose of foiling submarines. It embraces 121,782 square miles, the base forming a line between Norway and Scotland, and the peak extending northward into the Arctic Circle.

---

The causes that led to Germany's adoption of the policy of unrestricted submarine warfare on Feb. 1, 1917, were revealed a year later by the Handelsblad, an Amsterdam newspaper, whose correspondent had secured secret access to "a number of highly interesting and important documents" long enough to read them and make notes of their contents. The Dutch paper vouched for the accuracy of the following information:

At the close of the year 1915 the German Admiralty Staff prepared a semi-official memorandum to prove that an unrestricted submarine campaign would compel Great Britain to sue for peace "in six months at the most." The character of the argument conveys the impression that the chiefs of the German Admiralty Staff had already made up their minds to adopt the most drastic measures in regard to submarine warfare, but that they wished to convince the Kaiser, the Imperial Chancellor, and the German diplomatists of the certainty of good results on economic and general, rather than merely military, grounds. To this end the memorandum based its arguments on statistics of food prices, freight, and insurance rates in Great Britain. It pointed out that the effects on the prices of essential commodities, on the balance of trade, and, above all, on the morale of the chief enemy, had been such, even with the restricted submarine campaign of 1915, that, if an unrestricted submarine war were decided upon, England could not possibly hold out for more than a short period.

The memorandum was submitted to the Imperial Chancellor, who passed it on to Dr. Helfferich, the Secretary of State for Finance. He, however, rejected the document on the ground that, in the absence of authentic estimates of stocks, it was impossible to set a time-limit to England's staying power, and also that he was exceedingly doubtful as to what line would be taken by neutrals, especially the United States. Dr. Helfferich maintained that so desperate a remedy should only be employed as a last resource. The authors of the memorandum then sent a reply, in which they developed their former arguments, and pointed to the gravity of the internal situation in Germany. They emphasized the importance of using the nearest and sharpest weapons of offense if a national collapse was to be avoided. They reinforced their argument by adducing the evidence of ten experts, representing finance, commerce, the mining industry, and agriculture. They were Herr Waldemar Müller, the President of the Dresdner Bank; Dr. Salomonsohn of the Disconto Gesellschaft; Dr. Paul Reusch of Oberhausen, Royal Prussian Councilor of Commerce; Dr. Springorum of Dortmund, Chancellor of Commerce, member of the Prussian Upper House, (Herren Haus,) General Director of Railways and Tramways at Hoesch, an ironmaster, and a great expert in railways; Herr Max Schinkel of Hamburg, President of the Norddeutsche Bank in Hamburg and of the Disconto Gesellschaft in Berlin; Herr Zuckschwerdt of Madgeburg, Councilor of Commerce, late member of the Prussian Upper House; Herr Wilhelm von Finck of Munich, Privy Councilor, chief of the banking house of Merck, Finck & Co., Munich; Councilor of Economics R. Schmidt of Platzhof, member of the Württemberg Upper Chamber and of the German Agricultural Council; Herr Engelhard of Mannheim, Councilor of Commerce, President of the Chamber of Commerce and member of the Baden Upper Chamber.

These experts were invited to send answers in writing to the three following questions: (1) What would be the effect on England of unrestricted submarine warfare? (2) What would be its effect on Germany's relations with the United States and other neutrals? (3) To what extent does the internal situation in Germany demand the use of this drastic weapon?

The reader will do well to remember that the replies were written in February, 1916—nearly two years ago. All agreed on the first point—the effect on Great Britain. The effect of unrestricted submarine warfare on England would be that she would have to sue for peace in six months at the most. Herr Müller, who seemed to be in a position to confirm the statistics given in the memorandum, pointed out that the supply of indispensable foodstuffs was, at the time of writing, less than the normal supply in peace time. He held that the submarine war, if relentlessly and vigorously pursued, would accomplish its purpose in less time than calculated in the memorandum—in fact, three months should do it. Dr. Salomonsohn also thought that six months was an excessive estimate, and that less time would suffice.

On the question of the effect on neutrals the experts were divided. Dr. Reusch suggested that the neutrals despised the restricted submarine warfare of 1915, and held that every ship in British waters, whether enemy or neutral, should be torpedoed without warning. According to him, the world only respects those who, in a great crisis, know how to make the most unscrupulous use of their power.

Herr Müller predicted that ruthless submarine war would cause a wholesale flight of neutrals from the war zone. Their newspapers might abuse Germany at first, but they would soon get tired. The danger was from the United States, but that would become less in proportion as Germany operated more decisively and ruthlessly. Dr. Salomonsohn adopted the same attitude. He recognized the possibility of war with the United States, but was loath to throw away so desirable a weapon on that account.

As to the third point, all the experts agreed that the internal situation in Germany demanded that the most drastic methods of submarine warfare should be employed. Herr Zuckschwerdt urged the advisability of the most drastic measures owing to the feeling of the nation. The nation would stand by the Government, but not if it yielded to threats from America. Such weakness would lead to serious consequences. Herr Schmidt admitted the possibility of Germany not being able to hold out, and emphasized the importance of taking drastic steps before disorder and unrest arose in the agricultural districts.

---

A third chapter of sea-raider history similar to those of the Möwe and Seeadler was revealed when the Spanish steamship Igotz Mendi, navigated by a German prize crew, ran aground on the Danish coast, Feb. 24, 1918, while trying to reach the Kiel Canal with a cargo of prisoners and booty. The next day the German Government announced that the sea-raider Wolf, which had captured the Igotz Mendi and ten other merchant vessels, with 400 prisoners, had successfully returned after fifteen months in the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans. The story of the Wolf's operations, as gleaned by Danish and English correspondents from the narratives of released prisoners, is told below. Some of the most interesting passages were furnished by Australian medical officers who had been captured on the British steamer Matunga:

The Wolf, a vessel of about 6,000 gross tonnage, armed with several guns and torpedo tubes, carried a seaplane, known as the Wolfchen, which was frequently used in the operations of the sea raider. On some days the seaplane made as many as three flights. The Wolf, apparently, proceeded from Germany to the Indian Ocean, laying minefields off the Cape, Bombay, and Colombo. Early in February, 1917, she captured the British steamship Turritella, taking off all the officers and putting on board a prize crew which worked the vessel with her own men. In every case of capture, when the vessel was not sunk at once, this procedure was adopted.

The Wolf transferred a number of mines to the Turritella, with instructions that they should be laid off Aden. A few days later the Turritella encountered a British warship, whereupon the prize crew, numbering twenty-seven, sank the Turritella, and were themselves taken prisoner.

Three weeks later the Wolf overhauled the British steamer Jumna. The Wolf thought that the British vessel was about to ram her, and the port after-gun was fired before it was properly trained, killing five of the raider's crew and wounding about twenty-three others. The Jumna remained with the Wolf for several days, after which her coal and stores were transferred to the raider, and she was sunk with bombs. The next vessels to be captured and sunk were the British steamships Wordsworth and Dee.

Early in June the Wolf, while at anchor under the lee of an island in the Pacific, sighted the British steamship Wairuna, bound from Auckland, N. Z., to San Francisco with coal, Kauri gum, pelts, and copra. The Wolf sent over the seaplane which, flying low, dropped a canvas bag on the Wairuna's deck, containing the message, "Stop immediately; take orders from German cruiser. Do not use your wireless or I will bomb you." The Wairuna eased down, but did not stop until the seaplane dropped a bomb just ahead of her. By this time the Wolf had weighed anchor and proceeded to head off the Wairuna. A prize crew was put on board with orders to bring the ship under the lee of the island and anchor. All the officers, except the master, were sent on board the Wolf. The following day possibly a thousand tons of cargo were transferred.

While the two vessels were anchored, the chief officer and second engineer of the Turritella let themselves over the side of the Wolf with the intention of swimming ashore. Later, the Wairuna was taken out and sunk by gunfire, the bombs which had been placed on board having failed to accomplish their purpose. The next captures were the American vessels, Winslow, Beluga, and Encore, which were either burned or sunk.

For nearly a week following this the Wolf hove to, sending the seaplane up several times each day for scouting purposes. Apparently she had picked up some information by her wireless apparatus and was on the lookout for a vessel. On the third day the Wolfchen went up three times, and, on returning from its last flight, dropped lights. Early the next morning none of the prisoners was allowed on deck. A gun was fired by the Wolf, and it was afterward found that it was to stop the British steamer Matunga, with general cargo and passengers, including a number of military officers and men.

It was on the morning of Aug. 5, when the Matunga was nearing the coast of the territory formerly known as German New Guinea, that she fell in with the Wolf, which was mistaken for an ordinary tramp steamer, as the two vessels ran parallel to each other for about two miles. Then the Wolf suddenly revealed her true character by running up the German flag, dropping a portion of her forward bulwarks, exposing the muzzles of her guns, and firing a shot across the bows of the Matunga. At the same time the Wolf sent a seaplane to circle over the Matunga at a low altitude for the obvious purpose of ascertaining whether the latter was armed. Apparently satisfied with the seaplane's report, the German Captain sent a prize crew, armed with bayonets and pistols, to take possession of the British ship. Before their arrival, however, all the Matunga's code books, log books, and other papers were thrown overboard. During the time the prize crew, all of whom spoke English well, were overhauling the Matunga, it was learned that the Germans had been lying in wait for her for five days, as they had somehow learned that she was carrying 500 tons of coal, which they needed badly, and that the German wireless operator had been following her course from the time of her departure from Sydney toward the end of July.

The two ships, now both under German command, proceeded together to a very secluded natural harbor on the north coast of Dutch New Guinea, the entrance to which was watched by two German guard boats, while a wireless plant was set up on a neighboring hill and the Wolf's seaplane patrolled the sea around for about 100 miles on the lookout for any threatened danger. The two ships remained in the Dutch harbor for nearly a fortnight, during which time the Wolf was careened and her hull scraped of barnacles and weeds in the most thorough and methodical manner, after which the coal was transferred from the Matunga's bunkers. The latter vessel was then taken ten miles out to sea, where everything lying loose was thrown into the hold and the hatches battened down to obviate the possibility of any floating wreckage remaining after she was sunk. Bombs were then placed on board and exploded, and the Matunga went down in five or six minutes without leaving a trace.

Before the Matunga was sunk all her crew and passengers were transferred to the Wolf, which then pursued a zigzag course across the Pacific Ocean and through the China Sea to the vicinity of Singapore, where she sowed her last remaining mines. According to stories told by the crew, they had sown most of their mines off Cape Town, Bombay, Colombo, the Australian coast, and in the Tasman Sea, between Australia and New Zealand. They also boasted that on one occasion, when off the coast of New South Wales, their seaplane made an early morning expedition over Sydney Harbor (the headquarters of the British Navy in the Pacific) and noted the disposition of the shipping in that port. They also claimed that the seaplane was the means of saving the Wolf from capture off the Australian coast on one occasion, when she was successful in sighting a warship in sufficient time to enable the Wolf to make good her escape.

A week or more was spent by the Wolf in the China Sea and off Singapore, whence she worked her way to the Indian Ocean for the supposed purpose of picking up wireless instructions from Berlin and Constantinople.

---

---

On Sept. 26, while still dodging about in the Indian Ocean, the Wolf met and captured a Japanese ship, the Hitachi-maru, with thirty passengers, a crew of about 100, and a valuable cargo of silk, copper, rubber, and other goods, for Colombo. During the previous day the Germans had been boasting that they were about to take a big prize, and it afterward transpired that they based their anticipations on the terms of a wireless message which they had intercepted on that day. When first called upon by signal to stop, the Japanese commander took no notice of the order, and held on his way even after a shot had been fired across his ship's bow. Thereupon the Wolf deliberately shelled her, destroying the wireless apparatus, which had been sending out S O S signals, and killing several members of the crew. While the shelling was going on, a rush was made by the Japanese to lower the boats, and a number of both crew and passengers jumped into the sea to escape the gunfire. The Germans afterward admitted to the slaughter of fifteen, but the Matunga people assert that the death roll must have been much heavier. The steamer's funnels were shot away, the poop was riddled with shot, and the decks were like a shambles. All this time the Wolf's seaplane hovered over the Japanese ship ready to drop bombs upon her and sink her in the event of any hostile ship coming in sight.

After transferring the passengers and crew and as much of the cargo as they could conveniently remove from the Hitachi-maru to the Wolf, her decks were cleared of the wreckage their gunfire had caused, and a prize crew was put in charge of her with a view of taking her to Germany. Some weeks later, however, that intention was abandoned for reasons known only to the Germans themselves, and on Nov. 5 the Hitachi-maru was sunk.

The Wolf then proceeded on her voyage, and on Nov. 10 captured the Spanish steamship Igotz Mendi, with a cargo of 5,500 tons of coal, of which the Wolf was in sore need. The raider returned with this steamer to the island off which the Hitachi-maru had been sunk, and one evening all the married people, a few neutrals and others, and some sick men were transferred from the Wolf to the Igotz Mendi. The raider took aboard a large quantity of coal, and, after the Spanish vessel had been painted gray, the two vessels parted company. The Wolf reappeared on several occasions and reported that she had captured and sunk the American sailing vessel John H. Kirby and the French sailing vessel Maréchal Davout. On Boxing Day the Wolf attempted to coal from the Igotz Mendi in mid-Atlantic, but, owing to a heavy swell, the vessels bumped badly. It was afterward stated that the Wolf had been so badly damaged that she was making water.

A few days later two large steamships were sighted, and both the Wolf and the Igotz Mendi hastily made preparations to escape. The officers and crew changed their clothes to ordinary seamen's attire, packed up their kitbags, and sent all the prisoners below.

Among the latter was the first officer of the Spanish ship, who saw a German lay a number of bombs between the decks of the Igotz Mendi ready to be exploded if it became necessary to sink that ship with all her prisoners while the Wolf looked after her own safety. These bombs were temporarily left in the charge of the German wireless operator to whom the Spanish officer found an opportunity of communicating a message to the effect that he was wanted immediately on the bridge. The ruse was successful, for the operator promptly obeyed the instruction, and in his temporary absence all the bombs were thrown overboard. The German commander, Lieutenant Rose, was furious. He held an investigation next day and asked each prisoner if he knew anything about the bombs. When the Spanish Chief Officer's turn came he answered:

"Yes; I threw them overboard. I'll tell you why. It was not for me, Captain Rose, but for the women and little children. I am not afraid of you. You can shoot me if you want to, but you can't drown the little children."

Rose confined him to his room, and the next time the Igotz Mendi met the Wolf, Commander Nerger sentenced him to three years in a German military prison.

Coaling having finished, the vessels proceeded north in company. During the first week of January the Wolf sank the Norwegian bark Storkbror, on the ground that the vessel had been British-owned before the war. This was the Wolf's last prize. The last time the two raiders were together was on Feb. 6, when the Wolf was supplied with coal and other requirements from the Igotz Mendi. Thereafter, each pursued her own course to Germany.

About Feb. 7 the Igotz Mendi crossed the Arctic Circle, and, encountering much ice, was forced back. Two attempts were made at the Northern Passage, but as the ship was bumping badly against the ice floes a course was shaped between Iceland and the Faroes for the Norwegian coast. On the night of the 18th a wireless from Berlin announced that the Wolf had arrived safely. At 3:30 P. M. on Feb. 24 the Igotz Mendi ran aground near the Skaw, having mistaken the lighthouse for the lightship in the foggy weather. Three hours later a boat came off from the shore. The Igotz Mendi was boarded at 8 o'clock by the commander of a Danish gunboat, who discovered the true character of the ship, which the Germans were endeavoring to conceal.

Next day twenty-two persons, including nine women, two children, and two Americans, were landed in lifeboats and were cared for by the British Consul. Many of them had suffered from inadequate nourishment in the last five weeks. There had been an epidemic of beri-beri and scurvy on board the vessel.

The Danish authorities interned the German commander of the Igotz Mendi. The German prize crew refused to leave the ship.

The Berlin authorities on Feb. 25, 1918, issued an official announcement containing these statements:

The auxiliary cruiser Wolf has returned home after fifteen months in the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans. The Kaiser has telegraphed his welcome to the commander and conferred the Order Pour le Mérite, together with a number of iron crosses, on the officers and crew. The Wolf was commanded by Frigate Captain Nerger and inflicted the greatest damage on the enemy's shipping by the destruction of cargo space and cargo. She brought home more than four hundred members of crews of sunken ships of various nationalities, especially numerous colored and white British soldiers, besides several guns captured from armed steamers and great quantities of valuable raw materials, including rubber, copper, brass, zinc, cocoa beans, copra, &c., to the value of many million marks.

---

Fitted out as a motor schooner under command of Count von Luckner, with a crew of sixty-eight men, half of whom spoke Norwegian, the German commerce raider Seeadler (Sea Eagle) slipped out from Bremerhaven in December, 1916, encountered a British cruiser, passed inspection, and later proceeded, with the aid of two four-inch guns that had been hidden under a cargo of lumber, to capture and destroy thirteen merchant vessels in the Atlantic before rounding the Horn into the Pacific and there sinking three American schooners before meeting a picturesque fate in the South Sea Islands. The narrative of the Seeadler's career as here told by Current History Magazine is believed to be the most complete yet published.

On Christmas Day, 1916, the British patrol vessel Highland Scot met and hailed a sailing vessel which declared itself without ceremony to be the three-masted Norwegian schooner Irma, bound from Christiania to Sydney with a cargo of lumber. As nothing was more natural, the vessel was allowed to pass, and soon disappeared on the horizon.

A few days later, in the Atlantic, running before a northerly gale, this neatlooking, long-distance freighter threw its deck load of planks and beams into the ocean, brought from their hiding places two four-inch guns, six machine guns, two gasoline launches, and a motor powerful enough to propel the vessel without the use of sails on occasion. Then a wireless dispatch sent in cipher from aerials concealed in the rigging announced that the German raider Seeadler was ready for business. On the bow the legend, "Irma, Christiania," and at the masthead the flag of Norway remained to lure the raider's victims to destruction.

The Seeadler had formerly been the American ship Pass of Balmaha, 2,800 tons, belonging to the Boston Lumber Company. In August, 1915, while on its way from New York to Archangel, it was captured by a German submarine and sent to Bremen, where it was fitted out as a raider. Under the name of the Seeadler it left Bremerhaven on Dec. 21, 1916, in company with the Möwe, ran the British blockade by the ruse indicated above, and began its career of destruction on two oceans. While the Möwe waylaid its twenty-two victims along the African coast, the Seeadler turned southwest and preyed on South American trade.

One by one the Seeadler sent to the bottom the British ships Gladis Royle, Lady Island, British Yeoman, Pinmore, Perse, Horngarth; the French vessels Dupleix, Antonin, La Rochefoucauld, Charles Gounod, and the Italian ship Buenos Aires. On March 7, 1917, it encountered the French bark Cambronne two-thirds of the way between Rio de Janeiro and the African coast and forced it to take on board 277 men from the crews of the eleven vessels previously captured. The Cambronne was compelled to carry these to Rio de Janeiro, where it landed them on March 20, thus first revealing the work of the Seeadler to the world. On March 22 the German Government announced the safe completion of the second voyage of the Möwe. (See Current History Magazine for May, 1917, p. 298.)

Having thus ended its operations in the Atlantic, the Seeadler rounded Cape Horn with the intention of scouring the Pacific. In June it sank two American schooners in that ocean, the A. B. Johnson and R. C. Slade, adding another, the Manila, on July 8, and making prisoners of all the crews. Captain Smith of the Slade afterward told the story of his experiences. His ship had been attacked on June 17, and he had at first tried to escape by outsailing the raider; but after the ninth shell dropped near his ship he surrendered. He continued:

They took all our men aboard the raider except the cook. Next morning I went back on board with all my men and packed up. We left the ship with our belongings June 18. We were put on board the raider again. Shortly after I saw from the raider that they cut holes in the masts and placed dynamite bombs in each mast, and put fire to both ends of the ship and left her. I saw the masts go over the side and the ship was burning from end to end, and the raider steamed away.

After six months of hard life at sea the raider was in need of repairs and the crew longed for a rest on solid land. Casting about for an island sufficiently isolated for his purpose, the Captain, Count von Luckner, decided upon the French atoll of Mopeha, 265 miles west of Tahiti; he believed the little island to be uninhabited. The Seeadler dropped anchor near its jagged coral reefs July 31, 1917. On Aug. 1 Captain von Luckner took possession of the islet and raised the German flag over what he called the Kaiser's last colony. But the next day, during a picnic which he had organized "to entertain his crew and prisoners," leaving only a few men on board the Seeadler, a heavy swell dropped the ship across an uncharted blade of the reef, breaking the vessel's back. The Germans were prisoners themselves on their own conquered islet!

Von Luckner had been incorrect in believing the island entirely uninhabited. Three Tahitians lived there to make copra (dried cocoanut) and to raise pigs and chickens for the firm of Grand, Miller & Co. of Papeete; this firm was shortly to send a vessel to take away its employes, a fact which the Germans learned with mixed emotions.

They brought ashore everything they could from their wrecked ship, including planks and beams, of which they constructed barracks; also provisions, machine guns, and wireless apparatus. The heavy guns were put out of commission—likewise the ship's motor. The wireless plant, a very powerful one, was set up between two cocoanut trees. It was equipped with sending and receiving apparatus, and without difficulty its operator could hear Pago-Pago, Tahiti, and Honolulu.

On Aug. 23 Count von Luckner and five men set out in an armed motor sloop for the Cook Islands, which they reached in seven days. There they succeeded in deceiving the local authorities, but a few days later they and their boat were captured in the Fiji Islands by the local constabulary and handed over to the British authorities. Thus ended the Captain's hope of seizing an American ship and returning to Mopeha for his crew.

On Sept. 5 the French schooner Lutece from Papeete arrived at Mopeha to get the three Tahitians and their crops. First Lieutenant Kling took a motor boat and a machine gun and captured the schooner, which had a large cargo of flour, salmon, and beef, with a supply of fresh water. Kling and the rest of the Germans, after dismantling the wireless, left the island that night, abandoning forty-eight prisoners, including the Americans, the crew of the Lutece, and four natives. Before going they destroyed what they could not take with them, cut down many trees to get the cocoanuts more easily, and left to the prisoners very scant provisions, and bad at that. The few cocoanuts that remained were largely destroyed by the great number of rats on the island. There was plenty of fish and turtles.

After the flight of the Germans the French flag was hoisted on the island and the twentieth-century Robinson Crusoes organized themselves under Captain Southard of the Manila and M. Fain, one of the owners of the Lutece. The camp was rebuilt, the supplies rationed out, the catching of fish and turtles arranged, and the question of going in search of help discussed. On Sept. 8 Pedro Miller, one of the owners of the Lutece, set sail in an open boat with Captains Southard and Porutu, a mate, Captain Williams, and three sailors, hoping to reach the Island of Maupiti, eighty-five miles to the east; but after struggling eight days against head winds and a high sea he returned to Mopeha with his exhausted companions. Two days later, Sept. 19, Captain Smith of the Slade, with two mates and a sailor, left the island in a leaky whaleboat dubbed the Deliverer of Mopeha and shaped their course toward the west; in ten days they covered 1,080 miles and landed at Tutuila, one of the Samoan Islands, where the American authorities informed Tahiti by wireless of the serious plight of the men marooned on Mopeha. The British Governor at Apia—Robert Louis Stevenson's last home—also offered to send a relief ship; but the Governor of the French Establishments of Oceania, declining this offer with thanks, dispatched the French schooner Tiare-Taporo from Papeete on Oct. 4.

Two days later the relief expedition sighted Mopeha by means of a column of smoke that rose from the island, for the Robinson Crusoes had organized a permanent signal system to attract the attention of passing vessels. The arrival of the rescuers was greeted with frantic acclamations. By evening the last boatload of refugees was aboard the Tiare-Taporo, and on the morning of Oct. 10 the schooner reached Papeete, where the prisoners at last were free.

The fate of the Lutece with the main body of the Seeadler's crew was indicated, though not fully explained, by a cable dispatch from Valparaiso, Chile, March 5, 1918, stating that the Chilean schooner Falcon had arrived there from the Easter Islands with fifty-eight sailors formerly belonging to the crew of the Seeadler. The sailors were interned by the Chilean Government. Count Felix von Luckner, commander of the Seeadler, who, with five of his men, had been captured by the local constabulary of the Fiji Islands, was interned by the British in a camp near Auckland, New Zealand. In December he and other interned Germans escaped to sea in an open boat and traveled nearly 500 miles, suffering from lack of food and water, but were recaptured after a two weeks' chase.

---

A report issued by an official British Investigating Committee, known as the Justice Younger Committee, appointed to investigate the treatment of British soldiers by their German captors, made public in April, 1918, presents a shocking record of barbarities. The commission reported as follows:

There is now no doubt in the minds of the committee that as early, at the latest, as the month of August, 1916, the German Command were systematically employing their British as well as other prisoners in forced labor close behind the western firing line, thereby deliberately exposing them to the fire of the guns of their own and allied armies. This fact has never been acknowledged by the German Government. On the contrary, it has always been studiously concealed. But that the Germans are chargeable, even from that early date, with inflicting the physical cruelty and the mental torture inherent in such a practice can no longer be doubted.

Characteristically the excuse put forward was that this treatment, not apparently suggested to be otherwise defensible, was forced upon the German Command as a reprisal for what was asserted to be the fact, namely, that German prisoners in British hands had at some time or other been kept less than thirty kilometers (how much less does not appear) behind the British firing line in France. This statement was quite unfounded.

Furthermore, at the end of April, 1917, an agreement was definitely concluded between the British and German Governments that prisoners of war should not on either side be employed within thirty kilometers of the firing line. Nevertheless, the German Command continued without intermission so to employ their British prisoners, under the inhuman conditions stated in the report. And that certainly until the end of 1917—it may be even until now—although it has never even been suggested by the German authorities, so far as the committee are aware, that the thirty kilometers limit agreed upon has not been scrupulously observed by the British Command in the letter as well as in the spirit.

The German excuse is embodied in different official documents, some of which enter into detailed descriptions of the reprisals alleged to be in contemplation because of it. These descriptions are in substantial accord with treatment which the committee, from the information in their possession, now know to have been in regular operation for months before either the threat or the so-called excuse for it, and to have continued in regular operation after the solemn promise of April that it should cease. These documents definitely commit the German Command to at least a threatened course of conduct for which the committee would have been slow to fix them with conscious responsibility. Incidentally they corroborate in advance the accuracy, in its incidents, of the information, appalling as it is, which has independently reached the committee from so many sides.

As a typical example, the committee set forth a transcript in German-English of one of these pronouncements, of which extensive use was made. It is a notice, entitled, "Conditions of Respite to German Prisoners." As here given, it was handed to a British noncommissioned officer to read out, and it was read out to his fellow-prisoners at Lille on April 15, 1917:

Upon the German request to withdraw the German prisoners of war to a distance of not less than thirty kilometers from the front line, the British Government has not replied; therefore it has been decided that all prisoners of war who are captured in future will be kept as prisoners of respite. Very short of food, bad lighting, bad lodgings, no beds, and hard work beside the German guns, under heavy shellfire. No pay, no soap for washing or shaving, no towels or boots, &c. The English prisoners of respite are all to write to their relations or persons of influence in England how badly they are treated, and that no alteration in the ill-treatment will occur until the English Government has consented to the German request; it is therefore in the interest of all English prisoners of respite to do their best to enable the German Government to remove all English prisoners of respite to camps in Germany, where they will be properly treated, with good food, good clothing, and you will succeed by writing as mentioned above, and then surely the English Government will consent to Germany's request, for the sake of their own countrymen. You will be supplied with postcard, note paper, and envelope, and all this correspondence in which you will explain your hardships will be sent as express mail to England.

It seems that the prisoners, from as early as August, 1916, were kept in large numbers at certain places in the west—Cambrai and Lille are frequently referred to in the evidence—but in smaller numbers they were placed all along the line. Their normal work was making roads, repairing railways, constructing light railways, digging trenches, erecting wire entanglements, making gun-pits, loading ammunition, filling munition wagons, carrying trench mortars, and doing general fatigue work, which under the pain of death the noncommissioned officers were compelled to supervise.

This work was not only forbidden by the laws of war, it was also excessively hard. In many cases it lasted from eight to nine hours a day, with long walks to and fro, sometimes of ten kilometers in each direction, and for long periods was carried on within range of the shellfire of the allied armies. One witness was for nine months kept at work within the range of British guns; another for many months; others for shorter periods. Many were killed by these guns; more were wounded; deaths from starvation and overwork were constant. One instance of the allied shellfire may be given. In May, 1917, a British or French shell burst among a number of British and French prisoners working behind the lines in Belgium. Seven were killed; four were wounded.

But there is much more to tell. The men were half starved. Two instances are given in the evidence of men who weighed 180 pounds when captured. One was sent back from the firing line too weak to walk, weighing only 112 pounds; the other escaped to the British lines weighing no more. Another man lost twenty-eight pounds in six weeks. Parcels did not reach these prisoners. In consequence they were famished. Such was their hunger, indeed, that we hear of them picking up for food potato peelings that had been trampled under foot. One instance is given of an Australian private who, starving, had fallen out to pick up a piece of bread left on the roadside by Belgian women for the prisoners. He was shot and killed by the guard for so doing.

It was considered, so it would seem, to be no less than a stroke of luck for prisoners to chance upon guards who were more merciful. For instance, one of them speaking of food at Cambrai says:

If it had not been for the French civilians giving us food as we went along the roads to and from work we should most certainly have starved. If the sentries saw us make a movement out of the ranks to get food they would immediately make a jab at us with their rifles, but conditions here were not so bad as at Moretz, where if a man stepped out of the ranks he was immediately shot. I heard about this from men who had themselves been working at Moretz, and had with their own eyes seen comrades of theirs shot for moving from the ranks.

At Ervillers in February, 1917, a prisoner's allowance for the day consisted of a quarter of a loaf of German black bread, (about a quarter of a pound,) with coffee in the morning; then soup at midday, and at 4:30 coffee again, without sugar or milk. On this a man had to carry on heavy work for over nine hours. The ration of the German soldier at the same time and place consisted of a whole loaf of bread per day, good, thick soup, with beans and meat in it, coffee, jam, and sugar; two cigars and three cigarettes. The food conditions at Marquion a little later are thus described:

We used to beg the sentries to allow us to pick stinging nettles and dandelions to eat, we were so hungry; in fact, we were always hungry, and I should say we were semi-starved all the time. While we were here our Sergeants put in for more rations, but the answer they got was that we were prisoners of war now "and had no rights of any kind; that the Germans could work us right up behind their front lines if they liked, and put us on half the rations we were then getting."

The ration was coffee and a slice of bread at 4:45 A. M., soup of barley and horseflesh at 2 P. M., eight pounds of barley and ten pounds of meat between 240 men. And they were compelled to work hard for eight or nine hours a day on this diet. The frequent cruelty of the guards generally is a matter constantly referred to:

The German Sergeant in charge at Ervillers (says one prisoner) was very harsh. Twice I saw him (this prisoner was there for a month only) using a dog whip, and heard of him doing so on another occasion. He used it mostly on men who were slow in getting out to work owing to weakness.

The description by a body of these men on their arrival at a camp in Germany, after being withdrawn from the front, may be taken as another example of this:

We were forced to work; we were given hardly any food, and when we fell down from sheer exhaustion we were kicked until we got up again, and it was not until we absolutely could not get about that we were sent back.

To add to their miseries, the accommodation provided for these prisoners was in many cases pathetically inadequate. The witnesses recur to this again and again. One sleeping place, for instance, for a large party was a barn with no roof. The rain poured in upon the men. They had to sleep in their wet clothes and work in the same clothes. They had no change of any kind. And some of these prisoners, if they survived so long, were kept behind these enemy lines for over a year. Their quarters at Cambrai are thus described by two of the men:

We slept about twelve in a room in our uniforms, without either greatcoats or blankets. There was no fire, and it was very cold. We lay on loose straw, which was full of vermin, and we consequently became verminous. We could only wash in a bucket of cold water, without either soap or towels.

The Germans did not supply us with any clothing, and as we had to work in all weathers, conditions were very hard. Our clothes used to get drenched through, but still we had to go back to barracks and sleep in them. It was terribly cold also, especially without our fur coats. We asked for clothing, but never got any.

But, added to all these hardships, it was the total absence of parcels and the fact that letters or communications from their friends rarely reached them that placed these prisoners, for misery, in a class apart. Instances are on record where the very existence of some of them was undisclosed by their captors for many months. In March, 1917, for example, a body of these prisoners who had been captured as long before as August, 1916, and had been kept at work by the Germans behind their lines ever since, were returned to a parent camp in Germany weak and emaciated. On arrival there they found a number of their own names in the lists of missing men that had been sent from our War Office through Switzerland and posted in the camp. * * *

It seems almost incredible, but the committee do not doubt it to be the fact, that as late as November, 1917, there were at Limburg-am-Lahn undelivered between 18,000 and 20,000 parcels for British prisoners on the German western front. In July, 1917, the German delegates at The Hague plainly recognized that no distinction in respect of the receipt of parcels could be properly made between prisoners of war in occupied territories and others. The agreement then concluded contains provisions on that subject. Having regard to the condition of things at Limburg as late as November, 1917, the committee can only regret that the effect of that agreement was certainly at that date not so manifest as it ought to have been. The matter, they add, is of tragic importance to the prisoners concerned. It made and makes just the difference between starvation and existence to the unfortunate sufferers.

The committee extract from the great mass of evidence now in their possession statements as to the impression produced upon those who actually saw our men upon their escape to the British lines or after their transfer to camps in Germany. These statements, they believe, must convince every impartial mind that it is impossible in terms of exaggeration to describe the sufferings these prisoners had undergone.

In April, 1917, three of them escaped over "No Man's Land." They were received by a British General Staff officer, a Major in the 1st Anzac Corps. This is what he says of them, under date April 18, 1917:

Three men escaped from behind the German lines to us the other day. They had been prisoners three months, and were literally nearly dead with ill-treatment and starvation. One of them could hardly walk, and was just a skeleton. He had gone down from 182 pounds to less than 112 pounds in three months. I fetched him back from the line, and it almost made me cry. All that awful January and February out all day in the wet and cold; no overcoat, and at night no blanket, in a shelter where the clothes froze stiff on him; no change of underclothing in three months, and he was one mass of vermin, no chance of washing. The bodies of all of them were covered with sores. "Beaten and starved," one of them said, "sooner than go through it again I'd just put my head under the first railway."

The following is the substance of statements by two witnesses from a German camp:

About June, 1917, a party of about twenty English soldiers came in who had been working behind the German lines on the western front. I became friends with one of them. He was so weak that I have several times seen him faint on parade. Another of them told me that he was one of a party of 100 working behind the lines on the western front digging trenches and carrying up supplies. He said they were all very badly treated and starved. They were knocked about by the Germans if they did not march as fast as they wanted them to, although they were all so weak. He was only sent to Germany when he became so weak as to be useless for work. When I left he did not look as if he could lift a shovelful of sand. There was another whom I knew. He had also been working behind the lines. They had to work in clogs and no socks. He said they used to tie rags round their feet. He was employed on road making. I never could have believed the things I was told but for the terrible state the men were in, which caused me to feel that no horror I was told was impossible.

Many were brought into the camp who had returned from working behind the lines; they were in a shocking state, literally skin and bones, hardly able to walk, and quite worn out physically and mentally; their clothes threadbare and in rags, without boots, wearing old rag slippers. They told me that the conditions of work behind the lines, where some of them had been for months, were terrible; they had to work eight hours a day, and generally were made to walk ten kilometers out to their work, and the only food they were given was one cup of coffee, a slice of bread, and some soup a day—a day's ration.

From another camp comes the following testimony:

In May of this year a large party of British came into the camp, who had returned from behind the German lines. They were ravenous through being starved, and half savages. I spoke to several of them. * * * Men were shot at sight for a slight cause, such as dropping out to get bread from Belgian civilians. The state in which they returned was the worst sight I have seen in my life. Their clothes were ragged, they were half shaven, verminous, suffering from skin diseases, and were half savage with hunger and bad treatment. After their arrival the commandant in the camp issued an order (which I saw) that no more of these parties should be taken through the main street of the town, but should go by the byways on account of the feeling that had been caused among the population. I am told that the population showed a great deal of sympathy, tears, &c.

About May 1, 1917, about 300 prisoners of all nationalities were brought from behind the western lines. I spoke to those who came into the lazaret. All were starving, and had been kept there until they collapsed from overwork. Fifteen Russians died as soon as they were brought in. One man told me that on a march of eleven kilometers a man fell out ill, the guard gave him so many minutes to fall in again, and told him he would shoot him if he was not up by then; he could not go on, and the guard shot him.

From a third camp:

I knew two of our men who had been working behind the German lines in the west for five months. One was 29 years old, the other 25. The first weighed 180 pounds when captured. He left the firing line too weak to walk, and weighed 110 pounds. He was badly treated and knocked about. When I saw him in camp he was black and blue. The other man had the same treatment. They were both starved, and both were gray-headed with the five months' treatment. These men said our men were dying there every day through hardship and exposure. The food behind the lines was about half the camp rations.

From a fourth camp:

In September, 1917, seventy-five noncommissioned officers, who had been behind the lines, were brought into our camp. They were in a bad physical condition, hungry, lousy, and worked out. One month after, a large body, all privates from behind the lines, captured since May, came in. They were in a terrible condition, famished beyond words. They had been worked to the bone, and were in a filthy condition. They made our camp lousy. The camp doctor said they were the worst cases he had seen, and said they could stay in bed for a week. They were so famished that two died of eating the food we gave them. They had been working on the Hindenburg line, and the railway Cambrai to Lille, and repairing it under fire. They said they were on very small rations and compelled to work. They told us that Frenchwomen who out of compassion gave them any trifling gift of fruit were knocked down by the sentries.

From the same camp:

I spoke to men who had been kept at work behind the German lines on the western front. The majority of these were there about twelve months, and they came into camp about the end of November or the beginning of December, 1917. They told me that they had been employed close up to the lines. They had been employed cutting trees, and had been under our own shellfire. They were half starved and in a terrible condition. On one occasion about 300 came in, about forty of whom had British clothes, the rest being dressed in odds and ends of French and German clothing—in fact, anything they could get hold of. We collected bread for them and cut it up in readiness for their arrival so as to save all possible time, but their hunger was so great they could not help raiding us and fighting for it. It was terrible to see them. I do not think many of them had been wounded, but their condition was so terrible that I cannot describe it.

They were absolutely the worst bunch of men I had ever seen. They were terribly thin and weak, and fell down as soon as they started to eat, as they were in an absolutely exhausted state. Their underclothing was in a dreadful state, and they were covered with vermin, and had been like that for about twelve months. This is the party which I mentioned as coming to the camp about the end of November or the beginning of December, 1917. About a fortnight after their arrival, and after their clothes had been fumigated and they had baths two or three times a week, they picked up wonderfully.

From a fifth camp:

In March, 1917, I saw fifty English prisoners come in to camp who had been working behind the lines near Cambrai digging trenches; they had been there three or four months. All of them were in a shocking condition, absolutely starved, with boils and sores all over them. We used to share our parcels with these men. During the whole time I was in camp—that is, up to December last—men were drifting in who had been working behind the lines on the western front; they always arrived in the same shocking condition. I remember particularly one, in November, 1917, coming back from Cambrai district. He was very bad and starved; he told me they had been very badly treated; all huddled together in barns, no sanitary arrangements, no blankets, and he said he had seen a native woman shot for giving them food; that they were well within range of guns, and within six kilometers of the lines, shells frequently falling about them, and that he had seen many of his own comrades wounded while working, that they were knocked about by their guards, and, generally, his account of their treatment was appalling. To my knowledge from conversation with them, men were coming in who had been working close up behind the lines right down to the time I left Germany in December, 1917.

From an army Chaplain:

On Feb. 16, 1917, there arrived in Minden Hospital sixteen men who had been working behind the western front, attached to Camp E.K. 5. The thermometer registered 10 degrees, Fahrenheit, below zero. They had walked seven kilometers from the station. Their clothing consisted of tunic, trousers, and thin shirt, boots and socks, and an old hat—no coat and no underclothes. They had been two days and two nights in the cold train with very little to eat. * * * Two of these men died later of consumption in Minden. They had all been captured in November (this was February) and their relatives did not know that they were even alive. These men report, too, that they are brutally treated; human life is not worth so much as horseflesh, because the latter can be eaten. They are worked until they either die or so completely collapse that they are useless. I believe this was the first party that arrived from the western front. I had the names of the men in a notebook, but it was taken from me. They said it was nothing to wake up in the morning and find the man sleeping beside you dead. I got the names of several who had died, and wrote to their people to inform them.

The committee close these statements with the following striking extract from the evidence of a young wounded British officer who was placed in a ward in a German hospital in France, filled with prisoners of all nationalities:

The German in charge of the ward was a university professor, and, seeing several of our men, also Russians and Rumanians, come on to the hospital in an emaciated condition, I asked him the cause, and where they came from, when, without giving me details, he told me they came from working camps behind the lines. There, he said, the conditions were frightful, so much so that he himself was ashamed of them—the men were overworked, under shellfire, very much underfed, had not much clothing, and slept in sheds and shelters in the snow under filthy conditions. I ascertained from him and from some of our own men that many died behind the lines; all were thoroughly ill-treated by the Germans, and the lives of those who did not die were made quite unbearable.

I am sure the German who informed me had no personal grounds which made him complain against the system, it was merely on humanitarian grounds that he told me he was shocked; and the independent stories I received from our own soldiers simply bore out the fact that the Germans were ill-treating their prisoners behind the lines at this time. While I was in hospital the German I have mentioned above did his best to get the men from the hospital marked unfit for work behind the lines; and I must in fairness add that as a result very few, if any, went back to work there once they had been sent to hospital, and they seemed to be marked for camps in Germany instead.

The report concludes: "The committee in their survey of the evidence dealt with in this report have failed to find a trace even of lip service either to the obligations so solemnly undertaken by the German Government in time of peace for regulating their conduct in time of war or to these principles from their War Book which that Government professed as their own. Further comment appears to the committee to be superfluous. The facts speak for themselves."

---

A correspondent sent the following from The Hague, April 20, 1918, regarding the German treatment of American prisoners:

From irrefutable evidence obtained by your correspondent, it is impossible to close one's eyes to what is going on in the hospitals and prisoners' camps in Germany. It is a mistake to believe that the treatment of prisoners and wounded in Germany has improved. On the contrary, it is as bad as it ever was, even worse.

The punishments inflicted are cruel and inhuman. As is well known, prisoners are absolutely dependent upon parcels for food and clothing. A favorite punishment is to withhold these from a whole camp or from large bodies of prisoners. It has been established beyond doubt that prisoners are employed behind the front and are under shellfire, in defiance of The Hague agreement of 1917.

Some prisoners never reach a camp in Germany for six months, meanwhile receiving no parcels of food. Their condition on arrival at camp, broken down and starving, is pitiable.

The evidence doesn't tend to show that American prisoners are receiving any preferential treatment. It is reported that the first American prisoners taken were hawked about the country, presumably to show them off to the populace. At Giessen, where, it would seem, American prisoners were kept on two separate occasions, they were prohibited any intercourse, even by sign language, with other prisoners and were not allowed to receive parcels or gifts from them.

British prisoners at Giessen asked if they could give parcels to Americans, and finally received permission to do so the following day. But the next day the American prisoners were moved away early in the morning.

British prisoners were able to detect Americans who had been captured any length of time by their appearance and by the state of their clothes. Until parcels for them arrived from Berne their state was deplorable.

A British noncommissioned officer recently obtained the signatures of the first ten Americans captured and talked with them. These men signed the scrap of paper in the hope that some news of them would reach the outside world. They were in poor physical health and somewhat despondent.

A few recent examples from a large amount of sworn evidence follow:

In February, 1918, 4,000 men were sent from a Westphalian camp to within thirty kilometers behind the front. Their guards ran away to escape the British shrapnel fire.

The state of prisoners coming from the big Somme battle in the first week of the present month was deplorable. Their wounds had not been dressed in many cases for more than ten days. Owing to the lack of dressing, British comrades bandaged their wounds with old towels and shirts.

It was formally announced by the German authorities in Camp Bonn on April 13 last that two British soldiers, R. and B., had been shot near Minden for not stopping talking when ordered to do so.

In November, 1917, men were brought into the hospital at M. continually, having been wounded by shrapnel from behind the lines. Wounded men lay for three or four weeks unattended and grossly neglected.

Much of the sworn evidence is so repugnant that it could not be published. There has been talk of reprisals on American prisoners, and even foreigners born in America are included in these threatened reprisals.

---

With the French Armies, April 20, 1918

The great fire at Rheims has nearly burned itself out. Having thrown in a week 50,000 explosive and an unknown number of incendiary and gas shells, the German gunners ceased as suddenly and inexplicably as they had begun, and when I entered the city this morning the silence of death brooded over it.

The written word is powerless to describe such a spectacle, and it is no more adequate for being unmeasured. But when men of faith, men who love the old and beautiful, write under the fresh, stunning impression of such a sight, is it strange that some loose phrases escape them?

I am very familiar with the ruins of Rheims. From the first bombardment, which destroyed the exquisite sculptures of the north tower and the façade of the cathedral three and a half years ago, I have been able to watch the mischief extending step by cruel step. At first, with normal British reluctance to credit the outrageous or incomprehensible, one was chiefly concerned to find out whether, after all, there was not some sort of military excuse. I severely cross-examined every one who could be supposed to know anything about the matter. There never was any shadow of excuse.

It remained only to record from time to time the progress of a crime as deliberate as any in the annals of the war, and in its own kind particularly damnable—a blackhearted crime such as a Comanche chief or a Congo cannibal would not have had the wickedness to conceive.

And if there be still any rationalist obstinate enough to ask for the reason why of this last outburst of vandalism, I can only hazard the guess that it may have been planned, like the long-distance bombardments of Paris, as a terroristic accompaniment of the Hindenburg offensive. It may have been supposed that the tales of the refugees would help to demoralize Paris and the rest of the country. So little after these terrible years has the boche learned of the people he set out to conquer.

Well, the Cathedral of St. Louis is not falling. Wonderful was the work of the builders. More buttresses, pinnacles, gargoyles, and stone railings have been shattered, more statues chipped, and rain, entering freely by a large rent in the roof, has worked invisible damage since my last visit in November. The cathedral has been struck again. The uplifted sword of Joan of Arc in the bronze equestrian statue before the cathedral has been cut in half.

If this were all, we should have after the war at least a worthy memorial to leave to posterity. It is said that it would now cost a million sterling to restore the finest Gothic fane in France. I hope nothing of the kind will be attempted, nothing more, that is, than the construction of a new roof, new windows, doors, and furnishings, and the necessary strengthening of the structure.

For as it stands, gashed and discolored, the vast shell has a strange magnificence and a piteous loveliness like that of some of the broken splendors that remain to us from the ancient world. Let Rheims speak to the future generations as the ruins of the Acropolis and the Forum have spoken to our fathers and us.

But the city itself raises a different and a more difficult problem. It is now no exaggeration to say that as a whole it is destroyed beyond hope. Till a fortnight ago large parts of it were not beyond the possibility of repair. Remember that Rheims was not a small town like Ypres or Arras, but a wealthy and dignified community of 120,000 souls, occupying a space equal to one-fifth of that of Paris.

There is now from end to end probably not a single house whose walls are not more or less broken. The northern and eastern quarters were already in ruins. Now the centre of the city is gutted. Of the public buildings the central squares built in the time or after the Counts of Champagne, the cloth warehouses and workshops, the private residences, bazaars and shops, nothing stands but rows of smoking walls, half buried in fallen rafters and masonry.

---

Dr. Norman Maclean, an eminent Scottish scholar, whose articles from the front have appeared in The Scotsman of Edinburgh, penned this touching picture of the war-devastated Somme region a few days before the Germans again swept over it in March, 1918:

They stood side by side on a heap of rubbish inside the door of the ruined church in the midst of the ruined town—a man and woman garbed in humble, rusty black. The survivors of the erstwhile population were being brought back as shelters were prepared and work provided for them; these had obviously just returned, and had come straight to the church. When they fled before the flood of death, the church stood scatheless, built immovably upon the rock of the centuries. It was a shrine of beauty and a haunt of peace. But as they now stood on the mound of fallen masonwork inside the west door, what they saw was this—the roof lying in an undulating ridge piled on the floor, the sacred pictures torn and tattered; the pillars shattered; the altar buried under a great mass of débris, and a figure of the Christ, uninjured, looking out through the broken arches on the dead town, and on the land beyond, where the white crosses gleam o'er the multitudinous dead.

The man stood motionless, with a face like a mask. But in a moment the woman shook as if stricken by an ague. She turned and stumbled toward the doorway, where there is no door, the tears coursing down her cheeks and a sob in her throat. The man turned and followed her. He took her hand in his, and they walked away with bowed heads in silence. It is strange how the human heart is moved. It was the tremulous face of that black-robed woman, and the lifting of her hands as if to hide the abomination of desolation from her sight, and the stumbling flight from a scene intolerable, that made me feel the horror spread before me. For I saw it with her eyes.

What she saw was infinitely more than what I could see. She had experienced in her own soul that this was holy ground. In happy days of childhood heaven seemed to lie here; she had come hither to be received, in white, into the holy fellowship; hither to be married; hither to dedicate her children at the sacred font. And when the burden of life was heavier than could be borne, how often had she come hither; and as she fell on her knees at the elevation of the Host, the very God seemed to fold her in the Eternal Embrace, and her troubles fled as morning mists before the sun.

And when the war came, and the men went forth, and with them her sons, how often did she come softly to this sanctuary and dip her hand in the holy water at the door and cross herself, and bow toward the altar, and kneel and pray that they might be saved. In and out all day they came then, men and women, and they prayed for their own, and for France, and their prayers were as the moaning of the winds. * * * And now this! Nothing is left. Home and town and children and sanctuary are all overwhelmed in the one flood. And the Christ from the broken pillar gazes upon a perishing world. It is with her as with those of old, who fell under the heel of the oppressor and who cried: "Zion is a wilderness, Jerusalem a desolation; our holy and our beautiful house where our fathers praised Thee is burned with fire, and all our pleasant things are laid waste."

There is that in man which enables him to meet every blow of fate with unblanched face—save one. When the blow is aimed at his soul, then he shrivels. It was in her soul that this woman was smitten, as she saw the house of her God thus. And that is why there in the land of death the churches and cathedrals are all in ruins. To make the altars of Arras gaze on the clouds and the stars, and make the winds wail through the colonnades of Rheims, was deemed the surest and swiftest way of spreading terror and affright. So the devotées of Odin declared war upon God. For a little while the tribal deity and the belligerent dynast reign supreme. The homeless and bereft, the great multitude who are as those standing on the rubble-heap, are verily left with nothing but their eyes to weep with.

It is amazing how soon one gets assimilated to the most horrifying environment. In a few days one can walk through a town which has been turned into heaps without even a shock of wonder, just as at home one reads the war news and the list of the dead without any realization. In these days we need to be stung broad awake now and then. A city in ruins becomes deadly monotonous—until one is wakened.

One day, when the sun broke forth heralding the Spring, the promise of green on a clump of tangled rose bushes tempted me to turn into the garden of a shattered villa. It was as thousands of others: the hearthstones looked upward to the clouds, and the household goods lay piled tier on tier of rotting lumber as floor fell on floor. In the centre of the green a shell hole took my eye, and I picked my way toward it. Out of the earth at the bottom of the hole there obtruded the bones of a man's arm. In haste, the dead had been thrown into the shell hole and lightly covered. And the rains had washed so much of the earth away. And that bone brought the realization that I stood in the midst of one vast cemetery.

Everywhere and all around under the feet are the nameless dead—men, women, and little children. These last are the nightmare of this horror. Formerly nations recovered from war swiftly; the cradles filled up the gaps. But here the children are dead. To the eye of faith the Star of the East shines still with splendor over every spot where a babe lies. But that Star has been extinguished in this region of doom. The altar is buried, the hearthstone is in the rain, and amid the welter of rubbish you can see the children's cots twisted and rusting and woeful. A woman breaking into sobs inside a ruined church door; a body in a shell hole in a garden, a child's cot rusting on a rubbish heap—these open the eyes and make them see.

These things did not come by the arbitrament of war. It wasn't shrapnel and high explosives that wrought the desolation. From the battlements of the old citadel one can see the dead town lie spread, and the houses hit by shells are few and far between. The houses destroyed wantonly by the enemy ere they retreated are easily recognized, for the walls fell outward by the internal explosions. Ninety-five per cent. have fallen outward, and the wall of the church is likewise. This ancient sanctuary was wantonly destroyed by the retreating enemy. What amazes one is the appalling stupidity of such a crime. If the Germans destroyed the town, that was their right, the might of the sword, and their act could perhaps be justified. But to destroy the church is to destroy what even Attila spared, and so outrage the conscience and instinct of the world. There is never an excuse to seek when an outrage is perpetrated by the enemy. A hospital ship is sunk—but, of course, it is carrying munitions! A church is turned into a ruin, but its towers are used as observation posts! Poor little towers in a land of airplanes and captive balloons! If the churches had been spared, as they were spared in the world's darkest ages, humanity would know that the German soul was still alive. But now the world knows that it is up against an enemy that threatens body and soul alike—an enemy that not only kills the body, but destroys the soul! What an amazing stupidity!—but it is through such stupidity that God lays up judgment against the day of wrath.

---

A flurry arose in British Parliamentary circles early in May which for a day or so threatened to wreck the Lloyd George Government, but which resulted in a new triumph for the Premier and a humiliating defeat for those who had intrigued against him. It was precipitated by Major Gen. Sir Frederick Barton Maurice, who had been Director of Military Operations until April, 1918, when he was succeeded by Brig. Gen. Radcliffe. His removal had been due to a public utterance in which he had criticised General Foch for not coming sooner to the assistance of the British after the beginning of the German offensive.

On May 7 General Maurice published a letter in which he definitely asserted that the Premier had made a misleading statement to the House of Commons April 9, when he asserted that the British Army in France on Jan. 1, 1918, was considerably stronger than on Jan. 1, 1917; that he misstated the facts regarding the number of white divisions in Egypt and Palestine; also that Bonar Law, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had made a misstatement in denying that the extension of the British front in France had been ordered by the Versailles War Council.

A resolution was introduced by former Premier Asquith for the appointment of a committee to investigate the charges. The Lloyd George Government accepted the challenge and announced that they would regard the passage of the resolution as a vote of censure and would resign if it was carried. The debate on the resolution occurred May 9 and resulted in an overwhelming victory for the Government, the vote to uphold the Lloyd George Ministry being 293 to 106; the Irish members were not present.

In his address the Premier took up the charges in detail. Regarding the figures of the British strength he quoted from a report from General Maurice's own department, initialed by his deputy, dated April 27, 1918, which concluded with these words:

From the statement included, it will be seen that the combatant strength of the British Army was greater on Jan. 1, 1918, than on Jan. 1, 1917.

He also showed that his statements regarding the relative strength of the opposing forces in France and the number of white divisions in Egypt were based on figures furnished by General Maurice's department.

Regarding the extension of the British front in France the Premier made some interesting disclosures showing that the extension was made by agreement of Field Marshal Haig and General Pétain, and not by the Versailles Council. He said:

Before the council had met it had been agreed between Field Marshal Haig and General Pétain, and the extension was an accomplished fact. Field Marshal Haig reported to the council that the extension had taken place. There was not a single yard taken over as a result of the Versailles conference—not a single yard of extension.

In discussing this phase Lloyd George proceeded as follows:

Of course, the Field Marshal was not anxious to extend his line. No one would be, having regard to the great accumulation of strength against him, and the War Cabinet were just as reluctant.

There was not a single meeting between the French Generals and ourselves when we did not state facts against the extension, but the pressure from the French Government and French Army was enormous, and what was done was not done in response to pressure from the War Cabinet. It was done in response to very great pressure which Sir Douglas Haig could not resist and which we could not resist. We are not suggesting that our French allies are asking unfairly. That is certainly not my intention.

There was a considerable ferment in France on the subject of the length of the line held by the French Army as compared with our army. The French losses had been enormous. They had practically borne the brunt of the fighting for three years. There was a larger proportion of their young manhood put into the line than in any belligerent country in the world. They held 336 miles. We held a front of 100 miles.

That is not the whole statement, because the Germans were much more densely massed in front of ourselves. Not only that, but the line we held was much more vulnerable. Practically the defense of Paris was left to us, and the defense of some of the most important centres, but there was the fact that you had this enormous front held by the French Army, as compared with what looked like the comparatively small front of ours.

In addition to that, the French Army at that time was holding, I think, a two-division front on our line in order to enable us to accumulate the necessary reserves for the purposes of the attack in Flanders. That was part of the line which, I believe, was held before by the British and French.

The French were pressing in order to withdraw men from the army for purposes of agriculture. I ought to explain that their agricultural output had fallen enormously, owing to the fact that they had withdrawn a very large proportion of their men from the cultivation of the fields, and they felt it essential that they should withdraw part of their army for the purpose of cultivating the soil, and they were pressing us upon these topics.

The Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Sir William Robertson, and the Cabinet felt that it was inevitable that during the Winter months there should be some extension, and we acknowledged that something had to be done to meet the French demands, and to that extent we accepted the principle that there must be some extension of the line.

At that time the Field Marshal was under the impression that the Cabinet had taken a decision without his consent. The Chief of the Imperial Staff upon that sent the following memorandum to the War Cabinet. I will read it, but first, with reference to the Boulogne Conference, I may, perhaps, say that that was the first time we had a discussion with the French Ministers. The subject of discussion was a rather important foreign office. It was not summoned in the least to discuss an extension of the lines. We never knew that was to be raised. Sir William Robertson and I represented the British Government, and M. Painlevé, the Prime Minister, and General Foch represented the French Government.

When Sir William Robertson discovered that the Field Marshal was under the impression that we had come to a decision without his consent he sent the War Cabinet a memorandum, in which he says:

"At the recent Boulogne Conference the question of extending our front was raised by the French representatives. The reply given was that, while in principle we were, of course, ready to do whatever could be done, the matter was one which could not be discussed in the absence of Sir Douglas Haig, or during the continuance of the present operations, and that due regard must also be had to the plan of operations for next year.

"It was suggested that it would be best for the Field Marshal to come to an arrangement with General Pétain, when this could be done. So far as I am aware no formal discussion has taken place, and the matter cannot be regarded as decided. Further, I feel sure that the War Cabinet would not think of deciding such a question without first obtaining Sir Douglas Haig's views. I am replying to him in the above sense."

That, I think, was on the 19th of October. The War Cabinet fully approved of the communication. Sir Douglas Haig communicated, and said that it threw a new light on the Boulogne position. I think that we have a right to complain of the way in which it has been rumored about that Sir Douglas Haig protested.

The fact that Sir William Robertson had explained and Sir Douglas Haig had stated that the explanation threw new light has never been repeated. That is how mischief is done.

On Oct. 24 this question was first formally discussed by the War Cabinet. There was further pressure from the French Government, and Sir William Robertson gave his views as to the time which the British Government ought to take, and this conclusion is recorded in the minutes of the War Cabinet as follows:

"The War Cabinet approve of the suggestion of the Chief of the Imperial Staff that he should reply to Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig in the following sense: The War Cabinet are of the opinion that in deciding to what extent the British troops can take over the line from the French regard must be had to the necessity of giving them a reasonable opportunity for leave, rest, and training during the Winter months and to the plan of operations for the next year, and, further, while the present offensive continues it will not be possible to commence taking over more line.

"Under these circumstances the War Cabinet fear that until this policy is settled it will be premature to decide finally whether the British front is to be extended by four divisions or to greater or lesser extent."

The resolution was communicated to Sir Douglas Haig by Sir William Robertson, and we never departed from it. After that came the Cambrai incident and the Italian disaster, which necessitated our sending troops to Italy. That made it difficult for the Field Marshal to carry out the promise he made to General Pétain for a certain extension of the front. Then the present French Prime Minister came in, and he is not a very easy gentleman to refuse. He was very insistent that the British Army should take over the line.

We stood by the position that that was a matter to be discussed by the two Commanders in Chief. We never swerved from that position. At last M. Clemenceau suggested that the question should be discussed by the military representatives at Versailles, and that the Versailles Council should decide if there was any difference of opinion. The military representatives discussed the question, and the only interference of the War Cabinet was to this extent. We communicated with the Chief of Staff, who was then in France, and with Sir Douglas Haig to urge on them the importance of preparing their case for the other side so as to make the strongest possible case for the British view.

The military representatives at Versailles suggested a compromise, but coupled with it recommendations as to steps which ought to be taken by the French Army to assist the British if they were attacked, and by the British to assist the French if they were attacked, which was even a more important question than the extension of the front.

That recommendation came up for discussion at the Versailles Council of Feb. 1. Before that meeting Sir Douglas Haig and General Pétain met and entered into an agreement as to the extension of the front to Brissy, and Sir Douglas Haig reported that to the Versailles Council. When the discussion took place there no further extension of the line was taken at all as a result of the discussion.

That is the whole story. I was to make it perfectly clear that in the action Sir Douglas Haig took for the extension of the line he had the full approval of the British Cabinet, having regard to the pressure of the French Government and military authorities. Sir Douglas Haig had no option except to make the extension. He was in our judgment absolutely right in the course he took. Naturally, he would have preferred not to have done it, but the British Government fully approved of the action he took.

The real lesson of the discussion is the importance of unity of command. It would never have arisen if you had had that. Instead of one army and one commander responsible for one part of the line, and another army and another commander responsible for another part of the line, we have one united command responsible for the whole and every part. It was the only method of safety, and I am glad we have it at last.

It was not so much a question of the length of the line held by one force or the length held by another. It was a question of reserves massed behind.

The Premier ended with a plea for a truce to political "sniping." On May 13 it was announced that as a disciplinary measure General Maurice had been placed on "the retired list."

---

The new British Military Service act became effective in April, 1918, having passed both houses of Parliament by large majorities; it immediately received the royal assent. The provision applying conscription to Ireland was suspended temporarily, on the assumption that it would not be enforced until a measure of home rule for Ireland was agreed upon. The main provisions of the new service measure are as follows, as analyzed by The London Times:

Men Up to 50.—Obligation to military service imposed upon every male British subject:

1. Who has at any time since Aug. 14, 1915, or who for the time being is in Great Britain, and

2. Who on April 18, 1918, had attained the age of 18 years and had not attained the age of 51 years or who at any subsequent date attains the age of 18 years.

Men Up to 55.—If it appears necessary at any time for the defense of the realm, his Majesty may, by Order in Council, declare the extension of the obligation to military service to men generally or to any class of men up to any age not exceeding 56 years. The draft of any such order is to be presented to each house of Parliament, and will not be submitted to his Majesty in Council unless each house presents an address, praying that the order may be made.

Doctors.—Duly qualified medical practitioners, who have not attained the age of 56 years, are made immediately liable to military service.

The clause in the act of May, 1916, excepting from military service any person who has been "a prisoner of war, captured or interned by the enemy, and has been released or exchanged," is to cease to have effect. It is, however, provided that the change shall be without prejudice to any undertaking, recognized by the Government, and for the time being in force, that any released or exchanged prisoner of war shall not serve in his Majesty's forces during the present war.

The act of May, 1916, provided that the service should not be prolonged of men who, when their times for discharge occurred, had served a period of twelve years or more and had attained the age of 41 years. This section is to cease to have effect.

Method of Procedure.—His Majesty may, by Order in Council, extend the act to Ireland, with the necessary modifications and adaptations.

Legal Proceedings.—An Order in Council may be issued to make special provision for the constitution of the civil court before which proceedings for any offenses punishable on summary conviction under the Reserve Forces act, the Army act, and the Military Service acts are to be brought in Ireland. The order may also assign any such proceedings to a specified civil court or courts.

His Majesty may, by proclamation declaring that a national emergency has arisen, direct that any certificates of exemption other than those granted on the grounds of ill-health or of conscientious objection shall cease to have effect.

The Local Government Board or the Secretary for Scotland may make regulations for the following purposes:

1. For providing for applications for certificates of exemption, including appeals, being made to such tribunals, constituted in such manner and for such areas as may be authorized.

2. For establishing special tribunals, committees, or panels for dealing with particular classes of cases.

3. For regulating and limiting the making of applications.

4. For making other provision to secure the expeditious making and disposal of applications.

It is provided that such regulations shall not alter the four grounds for applications for certificates of exemption—the expediency, in the national interests, that a man should be engaged in other work, business or domestic reasons, ill-health, and conscientious objection.

Any person making a false statement with a view to preventing or postponing the calling up of himself or any other person, or for any medical examination, is to be liable to six months' imprisonment.

It is to be the duty of any man whose certificate has been withdrawn, or who no longer satisfies the conditions on which it was granted, to transmit it forthwith to the local office of the Ministry of National Service. If he fails without reasonable cause to do so, he will be liable to a fine of £50.

Any man holding a certificate of exemption (other than one from combatant service only) or applying for its renewal may at any time be required to present himself for medical examination or re-examination.

Every man granted a certificate of exemption is to join the Volunteer Force for the perid of the war, unless the tribunal dealing with the case orders to the contrary.

The act is to be read with previous acts in relation to the act of 1917, which confirmed conventions with allied States making subjects of those States in this country liable for military service. That act is also to apply to Ireland, if the act is extended to Ireland.

The exceptions from the act are the following:

1. Men ordinarily resident in the Dominions.

2. Members of the regular or reserve forces or of the Dominion forces, and territorials liable to foreign service.

3. Men serving in the navy, the Royal Marines, or the air force.

4. Certain categories of officers and men who have left or been discharged from the forces in consequence of disablement or ill-health; and men medically rejected, if, on further medical examination after April 5, 1917, they have been certified to be totally and permanently unfit for any form of military service.

5. Men in holy orders or regular ministers of any religious denomination.

---

The report was published May 10, 1918, that 250,000 Italian troops had been concentrated in France to swell the reserves of the allied armies against the German offensive, and that this had been accomplished without weakening the Italian front, which was preparing for a threatened Austrian attack. No statement was made regarding the British troops that had gone to Italy's aid during the disaster to the Italian armies in 1917.

General Sir Herbert Plumer, who took over the command of the British troops in Italy after their arrival there, Nov. 10, 1917, submitted his official report March 9, 1918. He stated that he found on his arrival that the situation in Italy was disquieting, the Italian Army having received a severe blow, and the aid that the British and French might give could not be immediate owing to difficulties of transport. As it was then uncertain whether the Italians could hold the Piave line, it was arranged that two British divisions in conjunction with the French should move to the hills north and south of Vicenza. By the time the troops had reached this position the situation had improved and an offer was made by the British in conjunction with the French to take over a sector of the foothills of the Asiago Plateau. But as snow was imminent and special mountain equipment was difficult to provide, the suggestion was made by the Italians that the British should take over the Montsello sector, with the French on their left. This was agreed to.

Sir Herbert considers that the entrance of the French and British had an excellent moral effect and enabled the Italians to withdraw and reorganize. The Montsello sector, which was taken over on Dec. 4 and work immediately begun on its defense, is described by Sir Herbert as a hinge to the whole Italian line, joining the mountain portion facing north, from Mount Tomba to Lake Garda, to the Piave line held by the 3d Italian Army.

December was an anxious month. Several German divisions were east of the Piave, and an attempt to force the river and capture Venice was considered likely. Local attacks grew more and more severe, and, though the progress of the enemy was not great and Italian counterattacks were constantly made, the danger of a break-through increased. The Austrians were being encouraged to persevere in the hope of getting down to the plains for the Winter.

Rear lines of defense were constructed, and as time passed and the preparations were well forward the feeling of security grew, and was further increased by the recapture by the Italians of the slopes of Monte Asolone on Dec. 22. The following day Mount Melago and Col del Rosso, on the Asiago Plateau, were lost, but the Italians regained the former by a counterattack. Though Christmas Day found the situation still serious, especially on the Asiago, where the Italians, while fighting stubbornly, suffered from strain and cold, the situation showed signs of improvement. This outlook was brightened still further by the capture of Mount Tomba, with 1,500 prisoners, by the French. In this action British artillery assisted.

"During all this period," the dispatch continues, "we had carried out continuous patrol work across the River Piave and much successful counterbattery work. The Piave is a very serious obstacle, especially at this season of the year, the breadth opposite the British front being considerably over 1,000 yards, and the current 14 knots. Every form of raft and boat has been used, but wading has proved the most successful, though the icy cold water made the difficulties even greater. In spite of this there has never been any lack of volunteers for these enterprises.

"On Jan. 1 our biggest raid was carried out by the Middlesex Regiment. This was a most difficult and well-planned operation, which had for its objective the capture and surrounding of several buildings held by the enemy to a depth of 2,000 yards inland, provided a surprise could be effected. Two hundred and fifty men were passed across by wading and some prisoners were captured, but, unfortunately, the alarm was given by a party of fifty of the enemy that was encountered in an advanced post, and the progress inland had therefore, in accordance with orders, to be curtailed. The recrossing of the river was successfully effected, and our casualties were very few. An operation of this nature requires much forethought and arrangement, even to wrapping every man in hot blankets immediately on emerging from the icy water.

"The 3d Italian Army also opened the year well by clearing the Austrians from the west bank of the Piave about Zenson. This was followed on Jan. 14 by the attack of the 4th Italian Army on Mount Asolone, which, although not entirely successful, resulted in capturing over 400 Austrian prisoners. The situation had by this time so far improved that I offered to take over another sector of defense on my right in order to assist the Italians. This was agreed to, and was completed by Jan. 28. On this day and the following the 1st Italian Army carried out successful operations on the Col del Rosso—Mont Val Bella front, on the Asiago Plateau. The infantry attacked with great spirit, and captured 2,500 Austrians. British artillery took part in the above operation."

General Plumer states that in February the weather was bad, much snow having fallen, and operations were hampered. Although the British had not taken part in serious fighting, yet they had some share in the improvement which, he says, had taken place.

The work of the R. F. C. under Brig. Gen. Webb-Bowen, during the period under review (says Sir Herbert) has been quite brilliant. From the moment of arrival they made their presence felt, and very soon overcame the difficulties of the mountains. They have taken part in all operations, and rendered much assistance to the Italians in the air. They have carried out a large number of successful raids on enemy aerodromes, railway junctions, &c., and have during the period destroyed sixty-four hostile machines, a large proportion of which were German, and nine balloons, our losses to the enemy during the period being twelve machines and three balloons.

A comparison of the photographs of hostile battery positions when our artillery entered the line with the positions now occupied shows that the enemy batteries have been successfully forced back almost throughout the whole front. Some British artillery assisted both in French and Italian operations, and a frequent interchange of British and Italian batteries was made, together with counterbattery staff officers, in order that experience of each other's methods might be gained. Every effort was made to illustrate the value of counterbattery work, the value of which we had learned by experience in France, but which the Italians had not hitherto fully appreciated.

"The Italians were only too anxious to profit by any experience we could give them, and this was done not only by frequent interchange of visits of commanders and staffs to the various sectors of defense, but by the establishment of schools of instruction, at which a large number of Italian officers actually underwent the courses. About 100 Italian officers attended the courses at the various schools, together with some French officers. Similarly, British officers underwent courses at French and Italian schools."

Sir Herbert thanks the Italian authorities for their assistance, especially General Diaz, Chief of the Staff, and expresses indebtedness to Generals Fayolle and Maistre, in command of the French troops.

---

The publication of the letter of Emperor Charles of Austria to his brother-in-law, Prince Sixtus, in which he sought a separate peace with France, referring to the "just claims" of France to Alsace-Lorraine, and which caused the downfall of Count Czernin, the Austrian Foreign Secretary, was followed by this official denial by the Austrian Government:

The letter by his Apostolic Majesty, published by the French Premier in his communiqué of April 12, 1918, is falsified, (verfaelscht.) First of all, it may be declared that the personality of far higher rank than the Foreign Minister, who, as admitted in the official statement of April 7, undertook peace efforts in the Spring of 1917, must be understood to be not his Apostolic Majesty but Prince Sixte of Bourbon, who in the Spring of 1917 was occupied with bringing about a rapprochement between the belligerent States. As regards the text of the letter published by M. Clemenceau, the Foreign Minister declares by All Highest command that his Apostolic Majesty wrote a purely personal private letter in the Spring of 1917 to his brother-in-law, Prince Sixte of Bourbon, which contained no instructions to the Prince to initiate mediation with the President of the French Republic or any one else, to hand on communications which might be made to him, or to evoke and receive replies. This letter, moreover, made no mention of the Belgian question, and contained, relative to Alsace-Lorraine, the following-passage: "I would have used all my personal influence in favor of the French claims for the return of Alsace-Lorraine, if these claims were just. They are not, however." The second letter of the Emperor mentioned in the French Premier's communique of April 9, in which his Apostolic Majesty is said to have declared that he was "in accord with his Minister," is significantly not mentioned by the French communiqué.

This statement drew forth from the French Government the following reply:

There are rotten consciences. The Emperor Charles, finding it impossible to save his face, falls into the stammerings of a man confounded. He is now reduced to accusing his brother-in-law of forgery, by fabricating with his own hand a lying text. The original document, the text of which has been published by the French Government, was communicated in the presence of M. Jules Cambon, Secretary General of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, and delegated for this purpose by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to the President of the Republic, who, with the authorization of the Prince, handed a copy of it to the President of the Council.

The Prince spoke of the matter to M. Ribot himself in terms which would have been devoid of sense if the text had not been that published by the French Government, is it not evidence that no conversation could have been opened, and that the President of the Republic would not even have received the Prince a second time, if the latter, at Austria's instance, had been the bearer of a document which contested our rights instead of affirming them?

The Emperor Charles's letter, as we have quoted it, was shown by Prince Sixte himself to the Chief of State. Moreover, two friends of the Prince can attest the authenticity of the letter, especially the one who received it from the Prince to copy it.

The Serbian Government, moreover, gave the lie direct to Count Czernin's statement in reference to offering peace to Serbia. Premier Pashitch was asked in the Skupshtina at Corfu by Deputy Marco Trifcovitch whether Count Czernin's statement was true. He replied that he had denied Count Czernin's statements as soon as he had received the text of the speech from Amsterdam, and that he welcomed this fresh opportunity of declaring before Parliament that, so far as Serbia was concerned, the statements were totally inaccurate. (Exclamations from the right, "Czernin lied!") The Premier then proceeded to say that Count Czernin had never made peace overtures to Serbia, and that, if he had, such proposals would not have been accepted. "All the statements of Count Czernin," continued M. Pashitch, "are only the result of Austro-Hungarian intrigues."

Premier Clemenceau explained in detail before three committees of the French Chamber, the Committees on Foreign Affairs, the Army, and the Navy, which represented practically one-fourth of the total membership, the circumstances connected with the letters; it was unanimously agreed that there was nothing in the situation to justify any further consideration than had been given them. The Paris Temps gave the following details concerning their receipt:

The Emperor's two letters, and the conversations arising out of them, will form an essential part of the proceedings before the committees today. The letter from the Emperor to Prince Sixte of Bourbon-Parma was communicated to M. Poincaré on March 31 last year, but it remained in the possession of the Prince, who gave a copy of it to M. Ribot, by whom it was placed in the archives of the French Foreign Office. "Let us add," says the Temps, "that in the course of the interview which he had with Lloyd George at Folkestone a few days after the copy of the letter came into his possession that M. Ribot handed a copy of this copy to the British Premier. A little later in the interview which took place at St. Jean de Maurienne, in Savoy, between the chiefs of the British, French, and Italian Cabinets the question was raised as to what should be done in case the Austro-Hungarian Cabinet took steps toward peace negotiations. An agreement was come to without difficulty between the Allies as to the line of conduct to be adopted in such an eventuality. Let us add that this first letter sent to Prince Sixte had determined the Allies to ask for further explanations, as the result of which Prince Sixte received from his imperial brother-in-law a second letter, which was also communicated to M. Poincaré and M. Ribot. We have no right to give any indication on this subject, but we believe we can state that this second letter was regarded unanimously by the Allies as of such a nature that it would not permit them to pursue the conversations further."

Kaiser Wilhelm in the following telegram accepted without reserve Emperor Charles's statement that the Sixtus letter had been distorted:

Accept my heartiest thanks for your telegram, in which you repudiate as entirely baseless the assertion of the French Premier regarding your attitude toward French claims to Alsace-Lorraine, and in which you once again accentuate the solidarity of interest existing between us and our respective empires. I hasten to inform you that in my eyes there was no need whatever for any such assurance on your part, for I was not for a moment in doubt that you have made our cause your own, in the same measure as we stand for the rights of your monarchy. The heavy but successful battles of these years have clearly demonstrated this fact to every one who wants to see. They have only drawn the bonds close together. Our enemies, who are unable to do anything against us in honorable warfare, do not recoil from the most sordid and the lowest methods. We must, therefore, put up with it, but all the more is it our duty ruthlessly to grapple with and beat the enemy in all the theatres of war. In true friendship, WILHELM.

As a sequel to the matter it was reported from Vienna that the mother of Empress Zita and Prince Sixtus had been compelled to leave Vienna and live in retirement at her estates, remote from the Austrian capital.

---

The Irish home-rule question, in consequence of the failure of the Irish Convention to agree, became an important war issue in the Spring of 1918 on account of its effect upon Great Britain's man-power measures.

Premier Lloyd George, on May 21, 1917, announced the Government's decision to summon a convention of Irishmen representing all parties and interests to endeavor to reach an agreement on the home-rule question. The Sinn Feiners refused to send representatives, but all other factions were represented in the convention, which met July 25, 1917, at Dublin and elected Sir Horace Plunkett Chairman. The report of its recommendations was made public April 13, 1918, in three separate documents—the proposals for a scheme of Irish self-government, adopted by vote of 44 to 29 in a total membership of 90; a protest by the Ulster Unionist delegates, who dissented from any agreement, and the report of 22 Nationalist delegates, who were unable to agree to the fiscal proposals. The majority proposals were accepted by practically all the Nationalists, all the Southern Unionists, and 5 out of 7 of the Labor representatives.

The summary of the proceedings, presented by Sir Horace Plunkett, and the scheme of government as agreed upon by the majority, are of importance historically for a comparison with subsequent measures of home rule, which the British Government announces it intends to introduce before putting into force conscription in Ireland.

Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith the report of the proceedings of the Irish Convention. For the immediate object of the Government the report tells all that needs to be told:

It shows that in the convention, while it was not found possible to overcome the objections of the Ulster Unionists, a majority of Nationalists, all the Southern Unionists, and five out of the seven Labor representatives were agreed that the scheme of Irish self-government set out in Paragraph 42 of the report should be immediately passed into law. A minority of Nationalists propose a scheme which differs in only one important particular from that of the majority. The convention has, therefore, laid a foundation of Irish agreement unprecedented in history.

I recognize that action in Parliament upon the result of our deliberations must largely depend upon public opinion. Without a knowledge of the circumstances which, at the termination of our proceedings, compelled us to adopt an unusual method of presenting the results of our deliberations, the public might be misled as to what has actually been achieved. It is, therefore, necessary to explain our procedure.

We had every reason to believe that the Government contemplated immediate legislation upon the results of our labors. The work of an Irish settlement, suspended at the outbreak of the war, is now felt to admit of no further postponement. In the dominions and in the United States, as well as in other allied countries, the unsettled Irish question is a disturbing factor both in regard to war effort and peace aims. Nevertheless, urgent as our task was, we could not complete it until every possibility of agreement had been explored. The moment this point was reached—and you will not be surprised that it took us eight months to reach it—we decided to issue our report with the least possible delay. To do this we had to avoid further controversy and protracted debate. I was, therefore, on March 22, instructed to draft a report which should be a mere narrative of the convention's proceedings, with a statement, for the information of the Government, of the conclusions adopted, whether unanimously or by majorities.

It was hoped that this report might be unanimously signed; and it was understood that any groups or individuals would be free to append to it such statements as they deemed necessary to give expression to their views. The draft report was circulated on March 30, and discussed and amended on April 4 and 5. The accuracy of the narrative was not challenged, though there was considerable difference of opinion as to the relative prominence which should be given to some parts of the proceedings. As time pressed, it was decided not to have any discussion upon a majority report, nor upon any minority reports or other statements which might be submitted. The draft report was adopted by a majority, and the Chairman and Secretary were ordered to sign it and forward it to the Government. A limit of twenty-four hours was, by agreement, put upon the reception of any other reports or statements, and in the afternoon of April 5 the convention adjourned sine die.

The public is thus provided with no majority report, in the sense of a reasoned statement in favor of the conclusions upon which the majority are agreed, but is left to gather from the narrative of proceedings what the contents of such a report would have been. On the other hand, both the Ulster Unionists and a minority of the Nationalists have presented minority reports covering the whole field of the convention's inquiry. The result of this procedure is to minimize the agreement reached, and to emphasize the disagreement. In these circumstances I conceive it to be my duty as Chairman to submit such explanatory observations as are required to enable the reader of the report and the accompanying documents to gain a clear idea of the real effect and significance of the convention's achievement.

I may assume a knowledge of the broad facts of the Irish question. It will be agreed that of recent years the greatest obstacle to its settlement has been the Ulster difficulty. There seemed to be two possible issues to our deliberations. If a scheme of Irish self-government could be framed to which the Ulster Unionists would give their adherence, then the convention might produce a unanimous report. Failing such a consummation, we might secure agreement, either complete or substantial, between the Nationalist, the Southern Unionist, and the Labor representatives. Many entertained the hope that the effect of such a striking and wholly new development would be to induce Ulster to reconsider its position.

Perhaps unanimity was too much to expect. Be this as it may, neither time nor effort was spared in striving for that goal, and there were moments when its attainment seemed possible. There was, however, a portion of Ulster where a majority claimed that, if Ireland had the right to separate herself from the rest of the United Kingdom, they had the same right to separation from the rest of Ireland. But the time had gone by when any other section of the Irish people would accept the partition of their country, even as a temporary expedient. Hence, the Ulster Unionist members in the convention remained there only in the hope that some form of home rule would be proposed which might modify the determination of those they represented to have neither part nor lot in an Irish Parliament. The Nationalists strove to win them by concessions, but they found themselves unable to accept any of the schemes discussed, and the only scheme of Irish government they presented to the convention was confined to the exclusion of their entire province.

Long before the hope of complete unanimity had passed, the majority of the convention were considering the possibilities of agreement between the Nationalists and the Southern Unionists. Lord Midleton was the first to make a concrete proposal to this end. The report shows that in November he outlined to the Grand Committee and in December brought before the convention what looked like a workable compromise. It accepted self-government for Ireland. In return for special minority representation in the Irish Parliament, already conceded by the Nationalists, it offered to that Parliament complete power over internal legislation and administration, and, in matters of finance, over direct taxation and excise. But, although they agreed that the customs revenue should be paid in to the Irish Exchequer, the Southern Unionists insisted upon the permanent reservation to the Imperial Parliament of the power to fix the rates of customs duties. By far the greater part of our time and attention was occupied by this one question, whether the imposition of customs duties should or should not be under the control of the Irish Parliament. The difficulties of the Irish Convention may be summed up in two words—Ulster and Customs.

The Ulster difficulty the whole world knows; but how the customs question came to be one of vital principle, upon the decision of which depended the amount of agreement that could be reached in the convention, needs to be told. The tendency of recent political thought among constitutional Nationalists has been toward a form of government resembling as closely as possible that of the dominions, and, since the geographical position of Ireland imposes obvious restrictions in respect of naval and military affairs, the claim for dominion home rule was concentrated upon a demand for unrestricted fiscal powers. Without separate customs and excise Ireland would, according to this view, fail to attain a national status like that enjoyed by the dominions.

Upon this issue the Nationalists made a strong case, and were able to prove that a considerable number of leading commercial men had come to favor fiscal autonomy as part of an Irish settlement. In the present state of public opinion in Ireland it was feared that without customs no scheme the convention recommended would receive a sufficient measure of popular support to secure legislation. To obviate any serious disturbance of the trade of the United Kingdom the Nationalists were prepared to agree to a free-trade arrangement between the two countries. But this did not overcome the difficulties of the Southern Unionists, who on this point agreed with the Ulster Unionists. They were apprehensive that a separate system of customs control, however guarded, might impair the authority of the United Kingdom over its external trade policy. Neither could they consent to any settlement which was, in their judgment, incompatible with Ireland's full participation in a scheme of United Kingdom federation, should that come to pass.

It was clear that by means of mutual concessions agreement between the Nationalists and the Southern Unionists could be reached on all other points. On this important point, however, a section of the Nationalists, who have embodied their views in a separate report, held that no compromise was possible. On the other hand, a majority of the Nationalists and the whole body of Southern Unionists felt that nothing effective could result from their work in the convention unless some understanding was reached upon customs which would render an agreement on a complete scheme attainable. Neither side was willing to surrender the principle; but both sides were willing, in order that a Parliament should be at once established, to postpone a legislative decision upon the ultimate control of customs and excise. At the same time each party has put on record, in separate notes subjoined to the report, its claim respecting the final settlement of this question. A decision having been reached upon the cardinal issue, the majority of the convention carried a series of resolutions which together form a complete scheme of self-government.

This scheme provides for the establishment of a Parliament for the whole of Ireland, with an Executive responsible to it, and with full powers over all internal legislation, administration, and direct taxation. Pending a decision of the fiscal question, it is provided that the imposition of duties of customs and excise shall remain with the Imperial Parliament, but that the whole of the proceeds of these taxes shall be paid into the Irish Exchequer. A joint Exchequer Board is to be set up to determine the Irish true revenue, and Ireland is to be represented upon the Board of Customs and Excise of the United Kingdom.

The principle of representation in the Imperial Parliament was insisted upon from the first by the Southern Unionists, and the Nationalists conceded it. It was felt, however, that there were strong reasons for providing that the Irish representatives at Westminster should be elected by the Irish Parliament rather than directly by the constituencies, and this was the arrangement adopted.

It was accepted in principle that there should be an Irish contribution to the cost of imperial services, but owing to lack of data it was not found possible in the convention to fix any definite sum.

It was agreed that the Irish Parliament should consist of two houses—a Senate of sixty-four members and a House of Commons of 200. The principle underlying the composition of the Senate is the representation of interests. This is effected by giving representation to commerce, industry, and labor, the County Councils, the Churches, learned institutions, and the peerage. In constituting the House of Commons the Nationalists offered to guarantee 40 per cent. of its membership to the Unionists. It was agreed that, in the south, adequate representation for Unionists could only be secured by nomination; but, as the Ulster representatives had informed the convention that those for whom they spoke could not accept the principle of nomination, provision was made in the scheme for an extra representation of Ulster by direct election.

The majority of the Labor representatives associated themselves with the Nationalists and Southern Unionists in building up the Constitution, with the provisions of which they found themselves in general agreement. They frankly objected, however, to the principle of nomination and to what they regarded as the inadequate representation of Labor in the upper house. Throughout our proceedings they helped in every way toward the attainment of agreement. Nor did they press their own special claims in such a manner as to make more difficult the work, already difficult enough, of agreeing upon a Constitution.

I trust I have said enough to enable the reader of this report and the accompanying documents to form an accurate judgment upon the nature and difficulties of the task before the convention and upon its actual achievement. While, technically, it was our function to draft a Constitution for our country, it would be more correct to say that we had to find a way out of the most complex and anomalous political situation to be found in history—I might almost say in fiction. We are living under a system of government which survives only because the act abolishing it cannot, consistently with Ministerial pledges, be put into operation without further legislation no less difficult and controversial than that which it has to amend. While the responsibility for a solution to our problem rests primarily with the Government, the convention found itself in full accord with your insistence that the most hopeful path to a settlement was to be found in Irish agreement. In seeking this—in attempting to find a compromise which Ireland might accept and Parliament pass into law—it has been recognized that the full program of no party could be adopted. The convention was also bound to give due weight to your opinion that to press for a settlement at Westminster, during the war, of the question which, as I have shown, had been a formidable obstacle to agreement would be to imperil the prospect of the early establishment of self-government in Ireland.

Notwithstanding the difficulties with which we were surrounded, a larger measure of agreement has been reached upon the principle and details of Irish self-government than has yet been attained. Is it too much to hope that the scheme embodying this agreement will forthwith be brought to fruition by those to whose call the Irish Convention has now responded? I have the honor to be, Sir, your obedient servant,

HORACE PLUNKETT.

April 8, 1918.

The proposed scheme of Irish self-government referred to in Sir Horace Plunkett's letter is set out below, the majorities by which each section or subsection was carried being indicated in parentheses:

The Irish Parliament. (51 votes to 18.)

(1) The Irish Parliament to consist of the King, an Irish Senate, and an Irish House of Commons.

(2) Notwithstanding the establishment of the Irish Parliament or anything contained in the Government of Ireland act, the supreme power and authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters, and things in Ireland and every part thereof.

Powers of the Irish Parliament. The Irish Parliament to have the general power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland, subject to the exclusions and restrictions specified in 3 and 4 below. (51 to 19.)

Exclusions from Power of Irish Parliament. (49 to 16.) The Irish Parliament to have no power to make laws on the following matters:

(1) Crown and succession.

(2) Making of peace and war, (including conduct as neutrals.)

(3) The army and navy.

(4) Treaties and foreign relations, (including extradition.)

(5) Dignities and titles of honor.

(6) Any necessary control of harbors for naval and military purposes, and certain powers as regards lighthouses, buoys, beacons, cables, wireless terminals, to be settled with reference to the requirements of the military and naval forces of his Majesty in various contingencies. (41 to 13.)

(7) Coinage; legal tender; or any change in the standard of weights and measures.

(8) Copyright or patent rights.

Temporary and Partial Reservation. The Imperial and Irish Governments shall jointly arrange, subject to imperial exigencies, for the unified control of the Irish police and postal services during the war, provided that as soon as possible after the cessation of hostilities the administration of these two services shall become automatically subject to the Irish Parliament. (37 to 21.)

Restriction on Power of Irish Parliament on Matters Within Its Competence. (46 to 15.)

(1) Prohibition of laws interfering with religious equality. N. B.—A subsection should be framed to annul any existing legal penalty, disadvantage, or disability on account of religious belief. Certain restrictions still remain under the act of 1829.

(2) Special provision protecting the position of Freemasons.

(3) Safeguard for Trinity College and Queen's University similar to Section 42 of act.

(4) Money bills to be founded only on Vice-regal message.

(5) Privileges, qualifications, &c., of members of Irish Parliament to be limited as in act.

(6) Rights of existing Irish officers to be safeguarded.

Constitutional Amendments. Section 9 (4) of the act of 1914 to apply to the House of Commons with the substitution of "ten years" for "three years." The constitution of the Senate to be subject to alteration after ten years, provided the bill is agreed to by two-thirds of the total number of members of both houses sitting together. (46 to 15.)

Executive Authority. The executive power in Ireland to continue vested in the King, but exercisable through the Lord Lieutenant on the advice of an Irish Executive Committee in the manner set out in act. (45 to 15.)

Dissolution of Irish Parliament. The Irish Parliament to be summoned, prorogued, and dissolved as set out in act. (45 to 15.)

Assent to Bills. Royal assent to be given or withheld as set out in act with the substitution of "reservation" for "postponement." (45 to 15.)

Constitution of the Senate. (48 votes to 19.) Lord Chancellor, 1; four Archbishops or Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, 4; two Archbishops or Bishops of the Church of Ireland, 2; a representative of the General Assembly, 1; the Lord Mayors of Dublin, Belfast, and Cork, 3; peers resident in Ireland, elected by peers resident in Ireland, 15; nominated by Lord Lieutenant—Irish Privy Councilors of at least two years' standing 4, representatives of learned institutions 3, other persons 4; representatives of commerce and industry, 15; representatives of labor, one for each province, 4; representatives of County Councils, two for each province, 8—64.

On the disappearance of any nominated element in the House of Commons an addition shall be made to the numbers of the Senate.

Constitution of the House of Commons. (45 to 20.)

(1) The ordinary elected members of the House of Commons shall number 160.

(2) The University of Dublin, the University of Belfast, and the National University shall each return two members. The graduates of each university shall form the constituency.

(3) Special representation shall be given to urban and industrial areas by grouping the smaller towns and applying to them a lower electoral quota than that applicable to the rest of the country.

(4) The principle of proportional representation, with the single transferable vote, shall be observed wherever a constituency returns three or more members. (47 to 22.)

(5) The convention accept the principle that 40 per cent. of the membership of the House of Commons shall be guaranteed to Unionists. In pursuance of this, they suggest that, for a period, there shall be summoned to the Irish House of Commons twenty members nominated by the Lord Lieutenant, with a view to the due representation of interests not otherwise adequately represented in the provinces of Leinster, Munster, and Connaught, and that twenty additional members shall be elected by Ulster constituencies, to represent commercial, industrial, and agricultural interests.

(6) The Lord Lieutenant's power of nomination shall be exercised subject to any instructions that may be given by his Majesty the King.

(7) The nominated members shall disappear in whole or in part after fifteen years, and not earlier, notwithstanding anything contained in Clause 5.

(8) The extra representation in Ulster not to cease except on an adverse decision by a three-fourths majority of both houses sitting together. (27 to 20.)

(9) The House of Commons shall continue for five years unless previously dissolved.

(10) Nominated members shall vacate their seats on a dissolution but shall be eligible for renomination. Any vacancy among the nominated members shall be filled by nomination.

Money Bills. (45 to 22.)

(1) Money bills to originate only in the House of Commons, and not to be amended by the Senate. (Act, Section 10.)

(2) The Senate is, however, to have power to bring about a joint sitting over money bills in the same session of Parliament.

(3) The Senate to have power to suggest amendments, which the House of Commons may accept or reject as it pleases.

Disagreement Between Houses. Disagreements between the two houses to be solved by joint sittings as set out in act, with the proviso that if the Senate fail to pass a money bill such joint sitting shall be held in the same session of Parliament. (45 to 22.)

Representation at Westminster.

(1) Representation in Parliament of the United Kingdom to continue. Irish representatives to have the right of deliberating and voting on all matters.

(2) Forty-two Irish representatives shall be elected to the Commons House of the Parliament of the United Kingdom in the following manner:

A panel shall be formed in each of the four provinces of Ireland, consisting of the members for that province in the Irish House of Commons, and one other panel shall be formed consisting of members nominated to the Irish House of Commons. The number of representatives to be elected to the Commons House of the Imperial Parliament shall be proportionate to the numbers of each panel and the election shall be on the principle of proportional representation. (42 to 24.)

(3) The Irish representation in the House of Lords shall continue as at present unless and until that chamber be remodeled, when the matter shall be reconsidered by the Imperial and Irish Parliaments. (44 to 22.)

Finance. (51 to 18.)

(1) An Irish Exchequer and Consolidated Fund to be established and an Irish Controller and Auditor General to be appointed as set out in act.

(2) If necessary, it should be declared that all taxes at present leviable in Ireland should continue to be levied and collected until the Irish Parliament otherwise decides.

(3) The necessary adjustments of revenue as between Great Britain and Ireland during the transition period should be made.

Financial Powers of the Irish Parliament.

(1) The control of customs and excise by an Irish Parliament is to be postponed for further consideration until after the war, provided that the question of such control shall be considered and decided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom within seven years after the conclusion of peace. For the purpose of deciding in the Parliament of the United Kingdom the question of the future control of Irish customs and excise, a number of Irish representatives proportioned to the population of Ireland shall be called to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. (38 to 34.)

(2) On the creation of an Irish Parliament, and until the question of the ultimate control of the Irish customs and excise services shall have been decided, the Board of Customs and Excise of the United Kingdom shall include a person or persons nominated by the Irish Treasury. (39 to 33.)

(3) A Joint Exchequer Board, consisting of two members nominated by the Imperial Treasury, and two members nominated by the Irish Treasury, with a Chairman appointed by the King, shall be set up to secure the determination of the true income of Ireland. (39 to 33.)

(4) Until the question of the ultimate control of the Irish customs and excise services shall have been decided, the revenue due to Ireland from customs and excise, as determined by the Joint Exchequer Board, shall be paid into the Irish Exchequer. (38 to 30.)

(5) All branches of taxation, other than customs and excise, shall be under the control of the Irish Parliament. (38 to 30.)

Imperial Contribution. The principle of such a contribution is approved. (Unanimously.)

Land Purchase. The convention accept the recommendations of the Sub-Committee on Land Purchase. (Unanimously.)

Judicial Power. (43 to 17.) The following provisions of the Government of Ireland act to be adopted:

(a) Safeguarding position of existing Irish Judges.

(b) Leaving appointment of future Judges to the Irish Government and their removal to the Crown on address from both houses of Parliament.

(c) Transferring appeals from the House of Lords to the Judicial Committee, strengthened by Irish Judges.

(d) Extending right of appeal to this court.

(e) Provision as to reference of questions of validity to Judicial Committee.

The Lord Chancellor is not to be a political officer.

Lord Lieutenant. The Lord Lieutenant is not to be a political officer. He shall hold office for six years, and neither he nor the Lords Justices shall be subject to any religious disqualification. His salary shall be sufficient to throw the post open to men of moderate means. (43 to 17.)

Civil Service. (42 to 18.)

(1) There shall be a Civil Service Commission consisting of representatives of Irish universities which shall formulate a scheme of competitive examinations for admission to the public service, including statutory administrative bodies, and no person shall be admitted to such service unless he holds the certificate of the Civil Service Commission.

(2) A scheme of appointments in the public service, with recommendations as to scales of salary for the same, shall be prepared by a commission consisting of an independent Chairman of outstanding position in Irish public life, and two colleagues, one of whom shall represent Unionist interests.

(3) No appointments to positions shall be made before the scheme of this commission has been approved.

Deferring Taking Over Certain Irish Services.

Arrangements to be made to permit the Irish Government, if they so desire, to defer taking over the services relating to Old-Age Pensions, National Insurance, Labor Exchanges, Post Office Trustee Savings Banks, and Friendly Societies. (43 to 18.)

The final division on the question of the adoption of the report as a whole was as follows:

FOR (44)

1. E. H. Andrews
2. M. K. Barry
3. J. Bolger
4. W. Broderick
5. J. Butler
6. J. J. Clancy
7. J. J. Coen
8. D. Condren
9. P. Dempsey
10. Earl of Desart
11. J. Dooly
12. Captain Doran
13. Archbishop of Dublin
14. Lord Mayor of Dublin
15. T. Fallon
16. J. Fitzgibbon
17. Sir W. Goulding
18. M. Governey
19. Earl of Granard
20. Captain Gwynn
21. T. Halligan
22. A. Jameson
23. W. Kavanagh

1. Alderman McCarron
2. M. McDonogh
3. J. McDonnell
4. C. McKay
5. A. R. MacMullen
6. Viscount Midleton
7. J. Murphy
8. J. O'Dowd
9. C. P. O'Neill
10. Lord Oranmore and Browne
11. Dr. O'Sullivan
12. J. B. Powell
13. T. Power
14. Provost of Trinity College
15. Sir S. B. Quin
16. D. Reilly
17. M. Slattery
18. G. F. Stewart
19. R. Waugh
20. H. T. Whitley
21. Sir B. Windle

---

AGAINST (29)

1. Duke of Abercorn
2. Sir R. N. Anderson
3. H. B. Armstrong
4. H. T. Barrie
5. Lord Mayor of Belfast
6. Archbishop of Cashel
7. Sir G. Clark
8. Colonel J. J. Clark
9. Lord Mayor of Cork
10. Colonel Sharman-Crawford
11. Bishop of Down and Connor
12. T. Duggan
13. H. Garahan
14. J. Hanna

1. M. E. Knight
2. Marquis of Londonderry
3. J. S. McCance
4. Sir C. McCullagh
5. J. McGarry
6. H. G. MacGeagh
7. J. McHugh
8. Moderator General Assembly
9. W. M. Murphy
10. P. O'H. Peters
11. H. M. Pollock
12. Bishop of Raphoe
13. T. Toal
14. Colonel Wallace
15. Sir W. Whitla

---

Nineteen Ulster Unionists signed a dissenting report in which they declared that it had soon become evident to them that no real approach to agreement was possible, as the Nationalists put it beyond doubt that what they wanted was "full national independence," or a Parliament possessing co-equal powers with those of the Imperial Parliament. If the Ulster Unionists had anticipated this at the outset, their report explained, they "could not have agreed to enter the convention." Objection was taken to the Nationalist scheme, which aimed at denying the right of the Imperial Parliament to impose military service in Ireland "unless with the consent of the proposed Irish Parliament."

Dr. Mahaffy, Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, and the Archbishop of Armagh, in a separate note, stated that they found it impossible to vote for the majority proposals, since these involved, in their opinion, either the coercion of Ulster, which was unthinkable, or the partition of Ireland, which would be disastrous.

Twenty-two Nationalists, including Joseph Devlin, M. P., the Archbishop of Cashel, the Bishop of Raphoe, the Bishop of Down and Connor, and the Lord Mayors of Dublin and Cork, signed a report favoring a subordinate Irish Parliament with immediate full powers of taxation.

The majority of the Nationalists also signed a note explaining that for the sake of reaching an agreement with the Unionists they did not press their claim for full fiscal autonomy.

The Southern Unionists, who for "high considerations of allied and imperial interests" signed the majority report, also added a note. They insisted that all imperial questions and services, including the levying of customs duties, be left in the hands of the Parliament of the United Kingdom; that Ireland send representatives to Westminster; and that the whole of Ireland participate in any Irish Parliament.

Apart from the main question whether an Irish Parliament with an Executive responsible to it should be established, debate chiefly centred on the question of fiscal autonomy. By January, 1918, it became apparent that on the financial issue there were three clearly defined bodies of opinion:

First—The Ulster Unionists favoring the maintenance of the fiscal unity of the United Kingdom;

Second—A section of Nationalists insisting upon complete fiscal autonomy for Ireland;

Third—The Southern Unionists, supported by other Nationalists, and the majority of the Labor representatives, favoring a compromise which left to Ireland the proceeds of all sources of revenue and the imposition of all taxes other than customs.

It was to overcome these and other differences that Premier Lloyd George invited representatives of the convention to London to confer with the Cabinet. The Premier's letter, dated Feb. 25, 1918, is published in the report. It discloses the fact that some of the Nationalists had been willing to set up an Ulster Committee in the Irish Parliament to veto the application of certain legislation to that province, to make Belfast the headquarters of the Irish Ministry of Commerce, and to let the Irish Parliament meet alternately in Dublin and Belfast.

Dealing with "the difficult question of customs and excise," Lloyd George wrote:

The Government are aware of the serious objections which can be raised against the transfer of these services to an Irish Legislature. It would be practically impossible to make such a disturbance of the fiscal and financial relations of Great Britain and Ireland in the midst of a great war. It might also be incompatible with that federal reorganization of the United Kingdom in favor of which there is a growing body of opinion. On the other hand, the Government recognize the strong claim that can be made that an Irish Legislature should have some control over indirect taxation as the only form of taxation which touches the great majority of the people, and which in the past has represented the greater part of Irish revenue.

The Government feel that this is a matter which cannot be finally settled at the present time. They therefore suggest for the consideration of the convention that, during the period of the war and for a period of two years thereafter, the control of customs and excise should be reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament; that, as soon as possible after the Irish Parliament has been established, a Joint Exchequer Board should be set up to secure the determination of the true revenue of Ireland—a provision which is essential to a system of responsible Irish government—and to the making of a national balance sheet, and that, at the end of the war, a royal commission should be established to re-examine impartially and thoroughly the financial relations of Great Britain and Ireland, to report on the contribution of Ireland to imperial expenditure, and to submit proposals as to the best means of adjusting the economic and fiscal relations of the two countries.

The Government consider that during the period of the war the control of all taxation other than customs and excise could be handed over to the Irish Parliament; that for the period of the war and two years thereafter an agreed proportion of the annual imperial expenditure should be fixed as the Irish contribution; and that all Irish revenue from customs and excise as determined by the Joint Exchequer Board, after deduction of the agreed Irish contribution to imperial expenditure, should be paid into the Irish Exchequer. For administrative reasons, during the period of the war it is necessary that the police should remain under imperial control, and it seems to the Government to be desirable that for the same period the postal service should be a reserved service.

The announcement of the British Government's twofold plan of home rule and conscription for Ireland caused an outpouring of protests from the whole of the Nationalist population. Preparations for resistance were begun, a great anti-conscription fund was opened, resolutions from public bodies began pouring in, and the Sinn Fein clubs renewed their activities.

The most striking feature of the opposition to conscription was that it welded together all the Irish elements represented by the Nationalist Party, the Independent Home Rulers, led by William O'Brien and Timothy Healy; the Sinn Fein, and the Labor organizations, which in recent years had not been very friendly to the Nationalists. Representatives of all these parties were present at a conference in Dublin, held, under the Chairmanship of the Lord Mayor, on April 18. The Catholic Bishops, at a meeting in Maynooth the same day, adopted a declaration against conscription. This meeting was attended by five representatives from the Dublin conference—John Dillon, Edward de Valere, Timothy Healy, a Labor delegate, and the Lord Mayor of Dublin.

A majority of the Nationalist members of the House of Commons decided to abstain from attendance in Parliament during the crisis, thus adopting the attitude of the Sinn Feiners who were elected to the House but have never attended. Fifty-five of the Nationalist members met in Dublin on April 20, with John Dillon presiding, and passed a resolution in which they declared that the enforcement of compulsory military service on a nation without its assent constituted "one of the most brutal acts of tyranny and oppression of which any Government can be guilty."

Fifteen hundred delegates of labor unions met at the Mansion House, Dublin, on April 20, and pledged their resistance to conscription. They also fixed April 23 for the stoppage of all work as an earnest of this resolve and to enable all workers to sign the pledge of resistance. The complete stoppage of work was duly observed on the day mentioned, and passed off for the most part in a quiet and orderly manner.

Sunday, April 21, was observed throughout Catholic Ireland as the day for the administration by the priests of the anti-conscription covenant. From every Catholic pulpit conscription was the subject of discourse, and the action of the Bishops and political leaders was explained. The assemblies where the pledge was taken were generally outside the churches, sometimes in the open air, sometimes in a hall. The practice followed in many cases was for the priest to read the pledge, sentence by sentence, the people reciting after him. In other cases the pledge was given by the raising of hands or the signing of a paper. The Bishops took part with the inferior clergy in administering the pledge, addressing the people and generally warning them against isolated and unconsidered action. They urged obedience to the orders of the recognized leaders, who act in co-operation. All classes, including lawyers, bankers, and merchants, as well as farmers and workmen, took the pledge.

On May 1 an Order in Council was issued by the British Government postponing the operation of the National Service, or conscription, act in Ireland beyond that date, to which it had been previously postponed.

Premier Lloyd George, commenting on the new attitude of the Irish Home Rulers in a letter addressed on May 2 to Irish workers on the Tyneside in England, wrote:

The difficulties have not been rendered easier of settlement by the challenge to supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament in that sphere, which always has been regarded as properly belonging to it by all advocates of home rule, which recently was issued by the Nationalist Party and the Roman Catholic Hierarchy in concert with the leaders of the Sinn Fein.

While Nationalist and Catholic Ireland had already begun its campaign of resistance to conscription, the Ulster Unionists, under the leadership of Sir Edward Carson, prepared to oppose home rule. Sir Edward Carson declared that the Government had broken its pledges to Ulster by undertaking to pass a Home Rule bill, and on April 24 he advised the Ulster Unionist Council to reorganize its machinery for the impending struggle.

The appointment of Field Marshal Viscount French as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and of Edward Shortt, member of the House of Commons for Newcastle-on-Tyne, as Chief Secretary for Ireland was officially announced on May 5.

Lord French, before his new appointment, was Commander in Chief of the forces in the United Kingdom and had gone to Ireland in that capacity a few days before he became Viceroy. Edward Shortt, in addition to being a Home Ruler, had voted against the extension of conscription to Ireland until an Irish Government had been established.

---

W. A. Willison, Canadian correspondent, cabled from the Picardy front on March 22, 1918:

While British and German troops were struggling far to the south in the opening clash of the Spring campaign, the greatest projector gas bombardment in the world's history was carried out by the Canadians tonight against the enemy positions between Lens and Hill 70. Sharply at 11 o'clock the signal rocket gave notice of the beginning. A moment later over 5,000 drums of lethal gas were simultaneously released from projectors, and were hurled into the enemy territory from the outskirts of Lens, and northward to Cité St. Auguste and the Bois de Dix-Huit.

From his front lines and strong points favoring winds carried the poisonous clouds back upon the enemy's supports, reserves, and assembly areas. The whole of the front was lit up with enemy flares, dimly seen through the heavy mist, while the men in our lines could hear the enemy's gas alarms and cries of distress from the hostile trenches.

Nine minutes later our field artillery, supported by heavy guns and heavy trench mortars, opened up with a slow bombardment, which gradually increased in intensity, until, forty minutes later, the enemy positions were swept with a short, intensive, creeping barrage, which raked his forward and rear areas with high explosive. Caught by our gas without a moment's warning, caught again as he was emerging from his shelters by our artillery, the enemy's casualties must have been very heavy, for the effectiveness of our smaller gas operations has been emphatically proved by the evidence of prisoners.

Tonight's bombardment was three times greater than anything of its kind ever attempted by us on the Western front, and much greater than anything ever launched by the Germans, though the score of the second battle of Ypres and other reckonings are still to be settled, and will be settled.

---

Inspector in Paris for the Fraternité Americaine

[Since this article was written Dunkirk has faced a new peril from the blow struck in her direction by the powerful German armies around Ypres, to the southeast; but the author's vivid and sympathetic description of the daily life of the little city remains as true as in the Winter days when it was penned for Current History Magazine.

In the track of the wind stands the plucky little City of Dunkirk, still flapping the flags of courage and constancy in the face of an increasingly rabid enemy. It is the only city of France that is subjected to bombardment from land and sea and sky.

What is the every-day life in a town near enough to the front to be never free from the menace of a triple bombardment? That is what I went to find out, traveling by way of Calais in stygian darkness, for the train was without lights to avoid the danger of bombs.

A little before dawn the train drew into the black station of Dunkirk, through whose roofing the sky showed dimly in spots where air-raid shells had spattered. The silent crowd jostled through the darkness, the soldiers separating themselves from it at the military exit. Inside, only a ray from a dark lantern, held by the officer who scanned the passports one by one, made a spot of light among the overlapping shadows. The wind sighed through the draughty place, the snow entered freely, the floor was sloppy with mud. Outside in the empty square not a vehicle, not a porter, in sight. The street cars had stopped running.

My hotel lay beyond the centre of the town. In the driving storm, through unknown streets, I knew it would be foolish to attempt to find it. An officer passed and to him I appealed. "To the right, in the middle of the square," he said, with outstretched arm, "is the Lion de Flandre. If they can't put you up there, come back and we will see."

Not a point of light indicated the identity of the Lion de Flandre. On nearer approach all the houses appeared boarded up, as though long since abandoned. In the middle of the square was an oblong hump, like the roofed-over foundation of a demolished building. I learned later that this was a public refuge built for the inhabitants of the section.

As I turned irresolutely in the direction of the dark façades, the silhouette of a man in casque and puttees passed across the snow. A crack of light gleamed from a hidden doorway, and through it he disappeared. I followed hard after him and stepped into a lighted room full of smoke and soldiers, a man's place, with sand-strewn floor and bottles conspicuously in evidence. Nevertheless, the comfortable woman behind the bar received me without surprise. A room she could give me, but as for food, that was a different matter. The boches had the habit of coming at about dinner time, and it had become a nuisance to abandon the untasted meal every night and to dive into the cave—it really had! So she had given up trying to have anything hot at night and let the fires go out at 6. But if I would like a sandwich and some beer—?

After the long, starved journey this was not alluring.

"Not a cup of tea with the sandwich?" I pleaded. A collaborator was called, a plump, dark woman, and after a hurried conference I was asked to wait in the room behind the café. Nothing could be more dismal than this compartment. It was high for its floor space, like a deep box with a lid, and had no outside windows, being wedged between the café and the kitchen. The ornate glass divisions were gone or clinging in fragments, the walls pierced in many places, the plaster down. A tiny point of gas burned high above the table.

They were very good to me, these warbound women, one of whom, I discovered, had an ulcerated tooth, the other two little boys captive in Belgium.

In a short time a small bit of steak and a potato cut in quarters and fried were placed before me, and simultaneously a large black dog with wistful eyes but determined manner stationed himself at my side. The steak was followed by a chilly little salad, bread and cheese, and more butter than I had seen for many a month in Paris—and a cup of tea which, for its grateful warmth, I drank without challenge.

Snatches of honest English, mingled with French, filtered in from the café, where the fire was not quite extinct and where beer was served until 9 o'clock. Before that hour I was fumbling upstairs guided by the patronne, who carried a two-inch stub of candle between her fingers. "This is the way to the cave," she explained, pointing to a doorway under the stairs. "In case of an alarm you have only to rush down there. There will be a light burning at the entrance." Passing through the hallway she indicated the spot where a man had recently been killed. "If he had stayed where he was, at the table where you have just eaten, Madame, he would have been all right, but as he ran to the refuge a bomb exploded outside in the square, burst open the front door, traversed the length of the corridor, passed through the kitchen wall and into the garden beyond. But you can rest assured that nothing will happen tonight, Madame," continued the patronne, who seemed as familiar with the habits of Gothas as a farmer's wife is with those of fowls—"Not in this wind, oh, no!"

After that first night I groped my way alone to bed, the candle stub having come to an end, feeling my way along the pitch dark passageways to the room with the linoleum mat, the room which had not known fire for three years and a half, whose paneless windows were boarded up, the one room in the house which had not lost a ceiling or floor or whose walls were not clipped through with shells. The regular inmates of the hotel slept nightly in the cellar. It saved time and was warmer.

Notwithstanding the reassurances of the patronne I confess to going to bed with half my clothes on. But under the wing of the storm Dunkirk slept tranquilly for three successive nights. Of course, there was always the soft bum-bum of the cannon on the northern horizon, strange tremors shook the bed, and the night was full of weird sounds, the rattling skeletons of dead houses.

Like an arm held up to protect the face, the coast between Calais and Dunkirk bears the brunt of storm from the North Sea. A dark sea, sombre and brooding, girdled by lowering clouds; on the snow-driven plain a few detached towers, etched as though in sepia against the gray sky and rising abruptly above the low line of roof—this is Dunkirk on a Winter's day. A homely little town with a deep fringe of docks and waterways on its seaward side and a girdle of fortifications built by Vauban encircling the rest. The whole set in a ring of dark water which fills the moat. It is thoroughly Flemish in character, and, seen from the water, must resemble a city on a delft tile. The moral attitude of the town has always been one of robust activity. Even its patron saints are among the most industrious and enterprising in the calendar—notably St. Eloi, who brought Christianity to the Dunkerquois and to whom the original Dunkirk (church on the dunes) was dedicated.

All the history of the town is tinged with a vigor which has blown in to it from the sea. Here the crusading ships of Baldwin of Flanders, and later those of St. Louis of France, were fitted out. After the momentous marriage of Marie of Burgundy had thrown the city for a time under the dominion of Spain it played a brilliant part in the game of the period—piracy.

The quaint tower on the quay—called Lugenhaer, the Liar—was used at that epoch to give false signals to ships at sea. But it dates from a much earlier period, and was one of twenty-eight towers with which Baldwin of Flanders bound together the wall with which he surrounded the city. The Liar and the belfry of the recently ruined Cathedral of St. Eloi were the only interesting architectural bits left in Dunkirk. The thirteenth century tower, dark and strong at its base, rises to a great height, flowering into restrained tracery at the top and shepherding under its shadow the heart of the town, which lies below it. This is the lodestone. Toward it I turned after leaving the battered hotel that first morning at Dunkirk.

---

From the snowy Place de la Gare the street cars started regularly in divergent directions, but oh, the gloom of those dead streets which they passed! Wide streets, winding between rows of low houses, plain and solid, but built on a neighborly plan. Their desolation is the more marked because of this innate, homelike quality. In almost all of them the window and door spaces were boarded up, and the first impression was rather that of a deserted city than of a demolished one. But a second glance showed that destruction had come from the sky, tearing away the roof, annihilating the interior, and rendering the house uninhabitable, perhaps irreparable, though the walls might to a certain extent be left standing. Often the havoc was more apparent, exposing the bare skeleton of a home and the shattered remnants of household comforts in shocking nudity.

The freakishness of destruction by bombardment is proverbial. It is this which creates in the timid an intense anxiety and in the hardy the willingness to take a chance. The 8-year-old son of the chief surgeon at the Military Hospital, stretching out his hand during a bombardment, said calmly, "Of course it may fall on that, but there is plenty of room on each side." And this rather sums up the spirit of the Dunkerquois who remain.

Of a population of 40,000, about 5,000 are left, and most of these have become modern cave men. To be thoroughly up to date one must live in a "casemate." In every quarter of the town posters announce the locality of these public refuges. They are either cellars reinforced overhead, or dugouts in the public squares, strongly roofed with corrugated iron, which is covered with wood and sandbags. Often there is extra trench work inside, always a tight little stove with a pipe running the length of the cave, plank benches along the sides, and usually beds with army blankets.

Into these refuges the Dunkerquois has learned to precipitate himself with extraordinary celerity. He considers a minute and a half sufficient time in which to gain safety, no matter where he may be when the "alerte" is given. When there is a bombardment from the land side the alarm is sounded as the obus[**? *french for shell] leaves the gun at the front. It takes 90 seconds for its flight to Dunkirk. So accurately is this calculated that casualties seldom result from a land bombardment. The inhabitants scuttle into safety, and the damage is limited to bricks and mortar. The peppering from sea is also taken lightly. The firing is very rapid, but it is soon over, and the shots are comparatively small, passing clean through the walls without shattering them. It is the air raids which are dreaded, and these are increasingly frequent and destructive. Often the chugging of the motors can be heard in the thick darkness for a quarter of an hour or more before there is an explosion, and this is a nerve-racking experience.

A striking feature of the streets in Dunkirk is the incumbrance of the sidewalks by boxes filled with stones and sandbags. These cover the windows and approaches to the cellars and serve as shock absorbers against flying pieces of shell.

And why does any one stay in so precarious an outpost on the verge of the fighting line? Some perhaps because to set forth alone or with a brood of children into an unknown world already trampled by countless refugees seems an equally perilous outlook. Others because their maintenance still depends upon the docks and shipyards, though the 6,000 longshoremen usually employed about the piers have disappeared. Then there are those whose interests are bound up in a shop or other investment in the town, and business is brisk in Dunkirk, owing to the presence of two armies. A few there are who are not only of Dunkirk but who are Dunkirk itself, upon whose presence depends the prosperity of the town and its usefulness to the State.

For if the picturesque landmarks have disappeared, Dunkirk has by no means lost its sea prestige. It is the third port of France, and though its position is singularly exposed it is largely through its harbor that the British Army has been revictualed since the beginning of the war. This renders still more remarkable the fact that not one ship has been lost between Dunkirk and the English port of clearing. One does not appreciate at first glance all that this implies. It means for one thing that some one must sit tight at Dunkirk. Traffic by sea has gone on uninterruptedly and until recently has been quite that of normal times. Now, owing to the recent restrictions on imports and exports, it is greatly reduced, though still regular. The sailings and dockings take place on schedule time.

One of those largely responsible for the order of the port is the Consular Agent of the United States, M. Morel, also President of the Chamber of Commerce of Dunkirk. His house, a mere skeleton, has long since been abandoned for the superior comforts and safety of the cellar. Attached to the jamb of the almost equally ruined office building his small sign in black and gold makes a brave showing. The front of the building had been largely torn away and with it a part of the roof. Looking up one saw a dizzy arrangement of laths and rafters, suggestive of the underside of a heap of jackstraws. But the staircase was firm and led to a small back room, where a bright fire burned and where business was transacted as usual; not only the business of the port, for while I was there an American Red Cross doctor and a bevy of nurses came in to have their passports renewed.

Another home which I had the privilege of entering, that of Commandant Boultheel, had been more fortunate, for it stood as yet untouched by disaster. Here in an atmosphere of warm charm, a serene and gracious hostess dispensed hospitality to her friends. Pewter and old china on the walls and a great fire of logs dispelled the depression of the outside world. Around the table were men of war and men of the world, who represented the finest qualities of the French. Among them was a valiant Préfet du Nord, who had spent ten months as hostage in a German prison, using his time to study English and reread Horace. In fact, I felt, as I had on the train, that the further I got from Paris the nearer I came to the heart of France.

A glimpse of "cave life" I had in the pharmacie maintained by the Sisters of the Sacré Coeur in the basement of the Hôtel de Ville, where it had been temporarily installed by the city, its own quarters being untenable. This was a large space lighted by electricity and crowded with bottles and jars, bundles of herbs and bandages, and made cheerful by the bright faces of the sisters. In another portion of the cellar they sleep, living entirely underground.

Families are large in Dunkirk, and children troop unconcernedly to and fro between home and school. To them the nightly flight to the casemate is no longer a wild adventure.

The business part of the town has not the sad aspect of the residence streets, for it is full of life. The decrepit shops, half boarded up, many of them resembling a face with a bandage over one eye, are doing a lively business. With the demands of a large floating population of two armies, Dunkirk is not suffering commercially. Department stores, book shops, shoe stores, provision shops of all kinds, make the most of a short day. Oranges, figs, dates, nuts, and conserved food of all kinds are much in evidence, also warm clothing, blankets, boots, and novels. The restaurant of the Hôtel Chapeau Rouge was filled with French and English officers, and an excellent meal was served much as it would be in Paris. At 4:30 everything is closed. Lights are extinguished, windows and doors are sealed with their householders behind them, unless the latter are among those who seek the comparative safety of the suburbs at nightfall. For though the entire surrounding country is subject to bombardment, the town is the centre of attack. In the twilight of the unlighted streets scarce a footfall is heard. Only the occasional rumble of a heavy cannon shakes the air. Behind the wall of darkness pulses a full life undismayed by the terrors of the approaching night or the possibilities of the tomorrow.

In the heart of the forest I once saw a stag leading his herd to the shelter of a rock in the rush of an oncoming storm. Having urged them into crouching positions around him, he turned and with a simple gesture lifted his head to the storm. There was that in his attitude which compelled reverence. One mentally saluted, though one might think "poor, silly beast, in what way could he mitigate the lash of the tempest?" But instinctively he had obeyed the highest for which he had been created, the protection of the weak. And his calm presence caught away all panic from those around him. Often while in Dunkirk this scene came back to me, recalled by the simple matter-of-courseness with which these brave men and equally brave women stayed on because it was the place for them to be.

At the Military Hospital of Rosendael, with the exception of the intrepid surgeon and the almoner, it is the women who hold the position. Originally the city hospital, it was taken over by the army at the beginning of the war. An immense building with modern equipment and a capacity for 700 patients, it has been necessary of late to evacuate many of the sections because of the increasing frequency of the bombardments. The hospital has been struck many times and one ward completely destroyed. As it happened there were no soldiers in that section, it being used as a maternity hospital for the city. Several women and little children were killed and also the sister in charge, Sister St. Etienne, so dear to her co-workers that she is never spoken of without tears. She had just finished her rounds for the night when the alarm came. Her one thought was to save her ward from panic. A bomb crashing through the roof hurled a beam across the sister, killing her instantly and wrecking the entire wing.

In spite of this tragedy and of recurring attacks, the other sisters and the head nurse, Mlle. Guyot, have held their posts with quiet heroism and have never lost an hour's duty. The patients now are mostly convalescent, because fresh cases are no longer brought there.

The supplies of shirts, pajamas, and bandages sent from America were gratefully commented upon by Mlle. Guyot, and I was touched by similar expressions from the men. One poor aviator, terribly burned, but recovering, put up a bandaged hand and saluted me "for all American women." Another poilu wove for me a table mat of red, white, and blue cord. All were fervent in their good wishes.

Everywhere warmth and order prevailed, from the wards where the bandaged soldiers sat about with their pipes and their knitting to the big bakery where the fragrant brown bread is baked and to the kitchens with their caldrons of broth and crisp roasts of meat.

Dry, well ventilated "abris" or bomb shelters have been built in connection with each section of the hospital. The surgeon, who sleeps in a cellar near the centre, is the first to assist his patients to shelter in case of an alarm. There, underground, long games of cards are played on the brink of the unknown. This is not callousness, but is done with deliberate intent by the clever surgeon, (a refugee from Lille,) knowing that by this means his men may be saved a nervous strain which might prove fatal.

Mlle. Guyot, who has been at the hospital since the beginning of the war, knows as well as any one what the city has endured. It was she who said to me:

"I shall never forget that Dunkirk has borne the weight of the war from the first day; that she has seen the exodus of the Belgian population, to whom she has given refuge as well as to the people of the Department du Nord; that she has known the passing of innumerable armies going and coming from the Yser; that in October, 1914, she began to be bombarded, having at the same time to fulfill the immense duty of bringing in and caring for the wounded from that immortal battlefield; and through it all I have seen Dunkirk living and working and saving with a smile!"

The military position of Dunkirk is sometimes confusing because it has been alternately on the French and English fronts. The English are now retiring, but sentinels of three nationalities still guard the city gates; English Tommy and French poilu stand with their arms across each other's shoulders, the Belgian stands apart.

On the sands of Malo, which is but a prolongation of Dunkirk, with a sweeping beach toward the North Sea, strange men from Tonquin were digging trenches—dark men branded by the sun and the mark of the East, with warm dabs of color on their high cheekbones, and small opaque eyes under rising brows. The uniform of the French Colonial is often a medley. He looks as though he had begun "dressing up" like children in the attic, and as though his mind had fallen short of his expectations. Out on those bleak sands his touches of rich blue, crimson, and green had almost the fervor of stained glass set against the dark and sinister sea. To the north the Belgian coast cut the background with a livid streak of sand.

In spite of the moving figures, the loneliness was as of the ends of the earth. The silence was accentuated rather than broken by the purr of the cannon and the mewing of a stray gull slapped sidewise by the wind. But it is thus that I like to think of Dunkirk—scourged by the wind, blotted out by the storm, knowing that for the time being her stout hearts are safe.

As the sea has been the life of Dunkirk in the past, so it will be its resurrection. The city cannot be struck a deathblow from the land side as has many another less favorably situated. But what a unique protégé for some god-mothering American city to help re-establish through her sympathy and aid!

Is it any wonder that France has just included in the arms of Dunkirk the following legend in addition to the one gained by the naval battle of 1793: "Ville heroique, sert d'exemple à toute la nation"?

---

Sworn statements from British soldiers returned from German prison camps and hospitals received by Reuter's Agency (the Associated Press of Great Britain) indicate that systematic brutality is practiced there upon Italian prisoners. Lance Corporal Horace Hills, 7th Suffolk Regiment, made the following statement under oath:

Five or six thousand Italians came in. They had traveled three or four days, and had had nothing at all to eat. After they arrived soup was brought in, and, as they were starving, they rushed at it. The Germans then dashed forward and stabbed them with their swords and bayonets, and killed and wounded a lot. Seven or eight Italians were dying every day in the camp of starvation. They had no parcels. I saw an Englishmen give an Italian bread, and the Italian went down on his knees and kissed his hands.

Private J. F. Jackson, King's Liverpool Regiment, swore:

One Italian told me they had been fifteen days on the journey and had only three meals all the time. Our hospital lager was separated from the camp by barbed wire; we took some bread and threw it over the wire to the Italians; they all began to grab for it, but a lot of Germans rushed up and drew their bayonets and flourished them in the air in a threatening manner, and kicked and threw the Italians about, and got the bread for themselves.

At Friedrichsfeld the treatment of the Italians was equally barbarous, the sentries shooting them for trying to get food from the British. Equally revolting stories come from Ohrdrup, Nammelburgh, Stendal, Soltau, Limburg, and Hamburg.

---

Germany's plan to divide Belgium by organizing a small group of "activists" to establish a so-called Council of Flanders for the purpose of separating the Flemish from the Walloon Provinces, was described in the April issue of Current History Magazine, pp. 91-96, along with the fearless opposition which the attempt created. The following summary of the case, with a fuller array of dates and details, has since been prepared by the Belgian Foreign Office at St. Adresse, France, the seat of King Albert's Government in exile:

The semi-official Wolff Agency in Berlin announced on Jan. 20, 1918, that the so-called Council of Flanders had proclaimed the autonomy of Flanders Dec. 22, 1917. Soon after that action, which had passed unnoticed and had left Belgian opinion indifferent and scornful, Herr von Walraff, German Secretary of the Interior, had judged the time opportune for a trip to Belgium, (Jan. 1, 1918.) The "council," after getting into close relations with him, had taken up the decree which the Landtag had intrusted to him on the 4th of February preceding, and had declared that it would submit itself to a popular referendum.

At length a commission of executive officials was created; it included heads for the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Public Works, Arts and Sciences, Justice, Finance, Labor, National Defense, Posts and Telegraph, and the Navy. The German telegraphic agencies sent out this news in all directions to spread the idea that Flanders was showing an intention of detaching itself from Belgium, and to give the impression of a spontaneous popular movement for political separation.

The thought that inspired this intrigue dates back to a period almost two years earlier. On April 5, 1916, the German Chancellor, in defining the war aims of Germany before the Reichstag, had outlined the imperial policy of establishing a protectorate over the Flemings. Later there were found in Belgium some obscure and discredited citizens who, betraying their sacred duty, placed themselves in the pay of the enemy and consented to make themselves the agents and accomplices of the invaders.

On Feb. 4, 1917, an assembly composed of 200 Belgians speaking the Flemish language met and voted for the creation of a "Council of Flanders." On March 3 this body sent a deputation to Berlin, and the Chancellor announced to it that "the policy tending toward the administrative separation would be pursued with all the vigor possible during the occupation," and that "during the negotiations and after the conclusion of peace the empire would not cease to watch over the development of the Flemish race." The German decrees dividing Belgium into two administrative regions followed close upon these declarations, (March 21, 1917.)

At the end of 1917 the German authorities believed that the moment had come to consummate the enterprise by completing the administrative separation with a political separation. Thus the end would be attained: Belgium would be dismembered; one part of the country would fall under vassalage to Germany, and, in case there were no annexation, would become in a way a sphere of influence for the empire.

The intrigues of the "Council of Flanders" are merely a comedy intended to mask this policy. The policy rests upon a clever juggling with the question of languages. Under cover of the principle of free self-determination of peoples, it seeks to internationalize an internal problem in the hope of dislocating the Belgian nationality. Perhaps it also aims at the creation of a fictitious Government which shall furnish the German Government with the means for opening fallacious peace negotiations to deceive the world and weaken the cohesion of the Allies. Many German newspapers have allowed these aims to appear, and some have boldly unveiled them.

But the strong protests of Flemish communities and of the entire Belgian Nation have foiled these plans, and the news coming from the occupied region enables us to determine with precision the character of the rôle played by the "Council of Flanders." At the same time it attests the determination of the Belgian people to repel all foreign interference and to maintain its unity unshaken.

What is this "Council of Flanders"? It has no representative character. It was created by a private assembly which had no mandate from the people. It now pretends to seek popular sanction through an election. This is only a subterfuge. There has been no election. There has been no consultation of the people. The promoters have limited themselves to assembling groups of adherents in theatres or restaurants, and causing gatherings composed of their proselytes, with an admixture of the curious and the idle, to vote on lists of candidates previously arranged in the private offices of those who are directing the work.

The Deputies and Senators, in a protest to the Chancellor, thus denounced the pretense of an election that was organized in Brussels:

A meeting was called at a day's notice in an exhibition hall. Everybody entered who wished to, Belgians or strangers, men, women, and children. There were in all 600 or 700 persons. It was these unknown persons, come together by chance, without control or guarantee, that in a few moments, as an interlude in a speech, proclaimed the election of twenty-two Deputies to the "Council of Flanders" and fifty-two Provincial Councilors, Such was the expression—without the knowledge of the people—of the will of the Municipality of Brussels, which has 200,000 electors and almost 1,000,000 inhabitants.

Foreign occupation has not wholly destroyed legitimate and regular representation in Belgium. The Provincial Councils and the City Councils are still functioning. The administrative framework of the country survives. The municipal organization, so solidly rooted, has not ceased to exercise power. The Provincial and Municipal Councilors, like the Deputies and Senators, most of whom remain in the country, have been elected by universal, direct, and secret suffrage. They alone in the occupied territory are competent to express the true national opinion, and that opinion is strikingly voiced in the protest of the Flemish and Walloon members of Parliament, in that of the Common Councils of the capital and the large cities of Antwerp and Ghent, whose example has been followed by an increasing number of prominent citizens and local Governments of smaller towns in Flanders.

It has been demonstrated that the "Council of Flanders" is pursuing an enterprise of usurpation, that it is a tool of the invader, and that its members are in reality only agents of the German authorities. They went to Berlin a year ago to ask for administrative separation. Herr von Walraff met them at Brussels at the beginning of 1918 to arrange for political separation. When Tack and Borms were arrested by the Belgian police on the order of Belgian Magistrates it was the German functionaries who, by force, compelled their release, and they came out of prison by the side of the German officer who had liberated them. It was the Kommandantur of Antwerp that ordered the communal administration, disregarding its resistance, to authorize the "activist" demonstration of Feb. 3, and to have this protected by the police, in violation of orders of the Burgomaster that had been in force nearly four years. It was the German military headquarters, too, that forbade all demonstrations of other groups and commandeered the hall of the Chamber of Commerce, placing it at the disposition of the organizers of a demonstration judged by the Burgomaster to be one to wound public sentiment and endanger the public peace.^[1]

At length Governor General von Falkenhausen stamped the "Council of Flanders" with the seal of German investiture, deciding by a decree of Jan. 18, 1918, (published Feb. 10,) that the appointment of the "council's" delegates was subject to his ratification, and that these delegates were called to collaborate with him in his legislative labors.

Thus one has the right to conclude that the whole organism of the "Council of Flanders" is only a foreign tool to serve the enemy in his designs of division and oppression. The delegates of the council cannot pretend to any independence, since the decree of Jan. 18 reduces them to the rôle of functionaries of German authority, named by that authority and expected to contribute, by their advice, to its political work.

The Belgian people, without distinction of language, party, or condition, have, by impressive demonstrations, repudiated the faithless citizens who, joining hands with the enemy, have arrogated to themselves the right to speak in the name of the Flemings. The Flemings were the first to condemn the crime. To the protests of the Deputies and Senators and of the City Councils have been added those of the leading intellectual and political societies of Flanders. The Flemish Academy raised its voice to "affirm its fidelity to the Belgian Fatherland and its King." The Belgian Labor Party proclaimed that "not one of the 800 labor groups composing it, and not one of its authorized leaders, had been led astray or corrupted by the activist-separatist movement, either in Flanders or in Wallonia."

In the streets of Antwerp, of Malines, of Brussels, spontaneous uprisings which the German troops could not suppress voiced the scorn and anger of the crowds.

Crowning this expression of the popular will and giving it the sanction of law, the Brussels Court of Appeals, acting upon the protest of the Deputies and Senators, at a plenary sitting of all its united chambers, [Feb. 7, 1918,] ordered a hearing which ended in the arrest of delegates of the "Council of Flanders" on a charge of conspiracy against the form of the State, interference with public functions, and wicked attacks against the constitutional authority of the King, the rights of the chambers, and the laws of the nation. When the German authorities, protecting the guilty ones and acting in the guise of vengeance, caused the arrest of the Presidents of the Court, who had come in the august garb of justice to do their duty, the Court of Cassation, by a decree of Feb. 11, decided unanimously to suspend its sittings; the Courts of Appeals in Ghent and Liége, with all the courts of first instance and the courts of commerce, followed its example. The civic heroism of a whole people is summed up in that impressive gesture. There is no more eloquent page in history.

This nation can remain free. It stoically endures the presence and domination of the enemy in its territory. The foreign occupation that has lasted three and a half years has not broken its spirit or its will to resistance. The Flemish, like the Walloon communities, victims of the most frightful brutalities, subjected to a system of forced labor, decimated by deportations, have remained immovably faithful to King and country. The moral unity of the nation has continued intact.

The Flemish question does not imperil this unity. It dates much further back than the war and has often been a subject of lively debate. It is a question of interior policy which the nation alone must solve, after the war, independently, under its own free constitutional powers. Belgium has had the same Constitution since 1831, and has not dreamed of altering its principles, unless we except the proclamation of universal manhood suffrage in 1893. In eighty-three years of peace and prosperity there was not a single political party that cast doubt upon the validity of the fundamental charter—an eloquent proof of its plastic vitality and perfect harmony with the deepest needs of the nation's collective existence.

Equality before the law, (Article 6,) individual liberty, (Articles 7, 8, 9, 10,) liberty of religious faith, (Articles 14 and 15,) freedom in education, (Article 17,) freedom of the press, (Article 18,) the right of assembly, (Article 19,) liberty of association, (Article 20,) freedom as to language, (Article 21)—these are the essential axioms on which the nation's public life is based.^[2]

The Belgian Constitution, after guaranteeing respect for these fundamental principles, regulates the exercise of political powers, all of which, it declares, "emanate from the nation." (Article 25.) "The legislative power is exercised jointly by the King, the House of Representatives, and the Senate." (Article 26.) The Deputies are elected directly by all the Belgian citizens who are 25 years old and who have lived at least one year in the commune, those who fulfill certain requirements of knowledge or capacity being allowed one or two supplementary votes. (Article 47.) Senators are elected on the same principles, with the difference that the voters must be at least 30 years old. The Senate also includes a certain number of members elected by the Provincial Councils. (Article 53.) For both chambers the voting is obligatory and secret, and the division of seats is arranged on a system of proportional representation that safeguards the rights of minorities. Subject to the responsibility of his Ministers the King exercises the executive power. (Articles 63 and 64.)

Judicial power is exercised through courts whose members are not subject to removal. (Articles 99 and 100.) A jury alone can deal with criminal cases, political charges, and indictments brought against the press. (Article 98.)

Finally, side by side with the three great political branches, the provincial and communal Governments deal with all matters of local interest. Chief among them are—for the commune: the City Council, elected by direct vote, and the "College of Burgomasters and Aldermen," whose members are chosen by the Common Council, with the exception of the Burgomaster, who is appointed by the King; and for the province: the Provincial Council, directly elected, the "Permanent Deputation," elected by the Provincial Council, and the Governor, who represents the National Government.

This rapid sketch suffices to show the democratic and liberal nature of the Belgian Governmental system. Such institutions permit of free discussion and facilitate the peaceful solution of the most irritating internal problems. As the protest of the Flemish societies puts it, "The Flemings are not a conquered nation; they have the same electoral right as the Walloons; they have all the means for safeguarding their just rights."

Belgium has always lived an intense life, yet this has never compromised its unity. Three great parties, the Catholic, the Liberal, the Socialist, struggle for preponderance, and their action extends to all parts of the country without distinction of language. Each of them supports an identical program, in Flanders as in Wallonia, regardless of whether the citizens speak Flemish or French. The party lines have never corresponded with the linguistic lines. In each are found leaders of the Flemish movement, whose aspirations have given rise to many speeches, but have never been repudiated as anti-patriotic. This movement is thus described by the Flemish societies in their protest against the "Council of Flanders:" It is the expression of the fundamental principle that every population possesses the inalienable right to develop itself according to its own character and its own language, life, and historic personality." But it remains essentially national and declares itself, in the document just cited, unalterably hostile to the separation of the country into two Governments with two capitals, two Ministries, two Parliaments. The Flemish societies see in separation only "a weakening that will lead to a catastrophe for the Flemings, as well as for the Walloons." They add:

Our most sacred political and economic interests are menaced by these absurd plans. The organic whole which has made of Belgium, through its commerce and industry, its rivers, ports and railways, its agriculture and workingmen, all working together under a single Government through scores of years, an economic power of the first order, would be dissolved, artificially weakened by contradictory influences, enervated by divergent official policies. The narrow particularism which in the past and present has done so much harm would dominate. The balance between the different political, religious, and social tendencies in our country would be destroyed, and Belgium would be left in a state of crisis which, through long years, would render almost impossible the relief of the country and the curing of the wounds caused by the war.

In the years before the war the Belgian Parliament passed several laws intended to assure to the Flemish language the place that belongs to it in the national life, especially in the administrative, judicial, and educational departments. It will suffice to recall the law of May 12, 1910, on secondary schools, and the law of July 2, 1913, on languages in the army, making a knowledge of Flemish and French obligatory for admission to the National Military School. At the moment when the war broke out the Parliament was considering a proposition tending to organize Flemish high schools, and in a report to the King, Oct. 8, 1916, the Government declared itself "convinced that immediately upon the re-establishment of peace a general agreement of favorable sentiments, which it will try to promote, will assure to the Flemings, both in the higher schools and in all the others, that complete equality, in right and in fact, which ought to exist under the guarantees of our Constitution." (Moniteur, Oct. 8-14, 1916.)

Only after the war can the Government solve the problems arising out of the Flemish movement. The promoters of that movement themselves deplore the intervention of an alien power and scorn the traitors who have conspired with the enemy, accepting money and positions at his hand. It is as loyal Belgian citizens, they declare, that they are striving for reforms from which they expect a fuller intellectual development of Flemish communities, and they see in such culture a new force of unity for the nation, from which they by no means wish to be separated.

Baron de Broqueville, the Belgian Prime Minister, said to a correspondent of The London Times:

The Belgian people, after three and a half years of the most grinding oppression, have shown by the courageous defiance of enemy bayonets which brought about the collapse of the "activist" plot, that they have lost none of their sturdy resolve to be free; that the spirit which moved them to reject the German ultimatum of Aug. 2, 1914, is as strong as ever. * * *

Only one thing is worrying and humiliating in a quite special degree all Belgians in occupied territory. It is the fear lest abroad it may be imagined that there really is an "activist" movement in Belgium. All the reports we have received on this point amount to this: "No one in Belgium talks of this alleged movement, for it is nonexistent. There are a few miserable individuals in German pay—always the same—who intrigue and plot. All they have achieved is to arouse against them such feelings of repulsion and hate that they have been thrust forever forth from the nation, and nothing can cleanse them of their crime. For mercy's sake, beg people not to insult us by treating the agitation of these individuals seriously, and to stop seeing any agitation where there is nothing but the work of a few paid traitors.

It is in this sense that our compatriots write to us from behind the German barrier. There, as elsewhere, the most ardent advocates of Flemish claims reject foreign interference in internal policy, and they treat as traitors to the cause all those who accept bribes from the torturers of their country.

---

The German Government from the beginning of the war has systematically stripped the factories of Belgium and other conquered territory with the purpose, it is charged, of crippling industries in those countries, not only as a war measure, but as an economic means of preventing future competition. This phase of German war policy is treated in a brochure edited by Professors Dana C. Munro of Princeton, George C. Sellery of the University of Wisconsin, and August C. Krey of the University of Minnesota. It is issued by the United States Committee on Public Information under the title, "German Treatment of Conquered Territory." The editors find their text in this statement by Deputy Beumer, made before the Prussian Diet in February, 1917:

Anybody who knows the present state of things in Belgian industry will agree with me that it will take at least some years—assuming that Belgium is independent at all—before Belgium can even think of competing with us in the world market. And anybody who has traveled, as I have done, through the occupied districts of France, will agree with me that so much damage has been done to industrial property that no one need be a prophet in order to say that it will take more than ten years before we need think of France as a competitor or of the re-establishment of French industry.

This exploitation for the benefit of German industry is an outgrowth of the plan suggested early in August, 1914, by Dr. Walter Rathenau, President of the General Electric Company of Germany, to establish a Bureau of Raw Materials for the War. The bureau (Kriegsrohstoffabtheilung) was made a part of the Ministry of War. Its operation in the occupied territories was explained in a lecture by Dr. Rathenau in April, 1916, as follows:

It was necessary to be sure of an increase in the reserve of raw materials both by purchase in neutral countries and by monopolizing all stocks found in the occupied territory of the enemy. * * * The occupation of Belgium, of the most valuable industrial parts of France, as well as of parts of Russia, made a new task for the organization. It was necessary to make use of the stocks of raw material of these three territories for the domestic economy of the war, to use, especially, the stores of wool found at the centres of the Continental wool market. Valuable stocks of rubber and of saltpeter were to be used for the profit of the manufacturer at home. The difficulties that are met with in keeping to the rules of war while making these requisitions have been overcome. A system of collecting stations, of depots and of organizations for distribution was arranged which solved the difficulties of transportation, infused new blood into industry at home, and gave it a firmer and more secure basis.

This plan, which has given German industry "a firmer and more secure basis," was used not merely to "make war support war" by contributions wrung from the conquered peoples, but also to destroy future competition—in violation of The Hague Convention, (Articles 46, 52, 53,) which Germany had signed. In the first months of the war a pretense was still made of acting under military necessity, but this was soon abandoned. On March 4, 1915, Brand Whitlock, American Minister to Belgium, reported to the State Department:

The Federation of Belgian Steel and Iron Manufacturers forwarded a protest to the German Governor General in Belgium, on Jan. 22, 1915, complaining that the German authorities have invaded the Belgian plants and seized the machinery and tools, which have been taken to pieces and sent to Germany in great number; in many cases no receipt was left in the hands of the legitimate owner to prove the nature, number, and value of the seized tools. Machinery to the value of 16,000,000 francs ($3,000,000) had been taken away up to Jan. 22.

Furthermore, the Feldzeugmeisterei in Berlin has entered into a contract with the firm Sonnenthal Junior of Cologne, which firm is to collect, transport, and deliver to German manufactories of war supplies all engines and tools seized in Belgium and France, and to bring them back after the war is over.

This contract provides, also, that the Sonnenthal Company has the right and even is compelled, in co-operation with the gun foundry at Liége, to pick out in factories of the occupied territory those machines which seem most useful for the manufacture of German war supplies and to propose the seizure of the machinery.

The Royal Belgian Government protests, with indignation, against these measures, which constitute a clear violation of Article 53 of the regulations of the Fourth Hague Convention. The items enumerated in Article 53 are limited and neither the seizure nor the transport to another country of machinery and tools used in industry are permitted; these implements must always be respected when they are private property, (Article 46.)

By the removal of these tools, the efforts made by the manufacturers in order to maintain a certain activity in the plants are nullified, numerous workmen are obliged to remain idle and are facing starvation. These measures will also retard the restoration of industry after the war is over.

Furthermore, the German authorities disregard in a systematic way the prescriptions of Article 52 of the above-mentioned regulations of the Fourth Hague Convention, which stipulate that requisitions in nature from towns and their inhabitants in the occupied territory can only be permitted when they are directly destined for the army of occupation.

A dispatch from Minister Whitlock dated at Brussels, Aug. 2, 1915, gives a fuller memorandum on the subject, as follows:

Upon the arrival of German troops at Brussels, the city and communes of the agglomeration were required to pay as a war contribution the sum of 50,000,000 francs in gold, silver, or banknotes, the Province of Brabant having to pay, in addition, the sum of 450,000,000 francs, to be delivered not later than Sept. 1, 1914.

The sum of 50,000,000 francs imposed on the City of Brussels was reduced to 45,000,000 francs, but the city was later subjected to a penalty of 5,000,000 francs on the ground that two members of the German Secret Service had been attacked by the crowd without assistance having been rendered by the Brussels police. On this point it may be noted that when Mr. Max, the Burgomaster, at the beginning of the occupation, asked the German authorities to inform him of the names of the German secret police agents whom they intended to employ, he was told that there were no German secret police in Brussels.

In December, 1914, a contribution of 480,000,000 francs, payable at the rate of 40,000,000 a month, was imposed on the provinces.

At the beginning of April, 1915, a fine of 500,000 marks was imposed on the City of Brussels, which refused to repair the road between Brussels and Antwerp—a State road the repair of which devolved upon the State. But the German authorities had taken over the State moneys, and should, therefore, have assumed the expense of the work. Furthermore, this road is entirely outside of the territory of the City of Brussels, and, finally, the city had not the administration for the maintenance or construction of roads, and had neither material nor personnel to carry on such work.

On Jan. 16, 1915, on Belgians who had voluntarily left the country and had not returned by March 1, 1915, tenfold advance of personal tax was made; and many taxes were imposed on communes as indemnity for damages claimed by German citizens to have been suffered through acts of the inhabitants at the time war was declared.

When the German Army arrived in Brussels, it requisitioned for the daily support of the troops 18,000 kilos of wheat, 10,000 kilos of fresh meat, 6,000 kilos of rice, 10,000 kilos of sugar, and 72,000 kilos of oats. Similar requisitions were made, in all cities in which the German troops camped. The requisitions, however, exceeded the needs of the troops in passing or in occupation, and a large part of the requisitioned supplies was sent to Germany.

At Louvain the German authorities requisitioned 250,000 francs' worth of canned vegetables and at Malines about 4,000,000 francs' worth.

In Flanders and in part of Hainault the farmers were despoiled of almost all their horses and cattle and the little wheat and grain remaining. The little village of Middleburg, for instance, which numbers 850 inhabitants, after having given up 50 cows, 35 hogs, and 1,600 kilos of oats, was forced to furnish in January and February, 1915, 100 hogs, 100,000 kilos of grain, 50,000 kilos of beans or peas, 50,000 kilos of oats, and 150,000 kilos of straw.

At Ghent and Antwerp the German authorities found about 40,000 tons of oil-cake, necessary for the feeding of cattle in Winter, and seized it.

They also carried off several hundred thousand tons of phosphates from Belgium for use in Germany.

Walnut trees on private properties, as well as on State lands, were cut down and requisitioned.

Besides, draught horses—the result of a rational selection carried on through more than a century and probably the most perfect Belgian agricultural product—were carried off throughout all Belgium. Not only did the German Army requisition horses necessary for its wagons, mounts for its troops or artillery service, but it carried away from the Belgian stock horses absolutely unfit for military service, which were sent to Germany. The same is true as regards the cattle.

All crude materials indispensable for Belgian industries were requisitioned and sent to Germany—leather, hides, copper, wool, flax, &c. Furthermore, if not the entire stock, at least the greatest number possible of machinery parts, were shipped to Germany to be used, according to German statements, in making munitions which the Belgian factories had refused to produce.

At Antwerp, requisitions of all kinds of materials and products were considerable, notably:

	Francs.
Cereals	18,000,000
Oilcake, about	5,000,000
Nitrate, over	4,000,000
Oils—animal and vegetable—over	2,000,000
Oils—petrol and mineral—about	3,000,000
Wools	6,000,000
Rubber	10,000,000
Foreign leathers, to Dec. 1, about	20,000,000
Hair	1,500,000
Ivory, about	800,000
Wood	500,000
Cacao	2,000,000
Coffee	275,000
Wines	1,100,000

Cottons in large quantities—one house having been requisitioned to the amount of 1,300,000 francs. Other enormous requisitions were made on shop depots, &c., and are impossible of computation just now.

The requisitions from Antwerp, which Mr. Whitlock enumerates, were the subject of a protest by the Acting President of the Antwerp Chamber of Commerce on March 18, 1915. He valued these goods at more than 83,000,000 francs ($16,600,000) and stated that only 20,000,000 francs ($4,000,000) had been paid by the German authorities. The reply of Governor General von Bissing on Sept. 24 shows that up to that time payment had not been made. The reason is indicated in the following statement of German policy, published in the Frankfurter Zeitung Dec. 21, 1914:

The raw materials which the Imperial Government has bought in Antwerp, Ghent, and other places will be paid for as soon as possible. The payment will be made only after the goods have been transported into Germany and after the valuation has been made, and the payment shall be made in such manner that no money shall be sent from Germany to Belgium during the period of the war.

Professor Munro and his fellow-editors have drawn freely upon the official texts printed in the work entitled "German Legislation for the Occupied Territories of Belgium," edited, in ten volumes, by Huberich and Nicol-Speyer, (The Hague, 1915-17.) These volumes cover the period from Sept. 5, 1914, to March 29, 1917, and contain a reprint of "The Official Bulletin of Laws and Ordinances" in German, French, and Flemish. The documents show that the first step under the Rathenau plan was to ascertain what raw materials and other supplies were accessible. Consequently, there were many ordinances commanding the declaration of certain wares. The following is an example:

Brussels, Dec. 11, 1914.

All stocks of benzine, benzol, petroleum, spirits of alcohol, glycerine, oils and fats of any kind, toluol, carbide, raw rubber and rubber waste, as well as all automobile tires, shall immediately be reported in writing to the respective chiefs of districts or commanders, with a statement of quantity and the place of storage. * * *

If a report is not made the wares shall be confiscated for the State and the guilty individual shall be punished by the military authorities. (From "German Legislation," &c., Vol. I., p. 95.)

Such a declaration made it easy for the military authorities later to acquire the wares either by direct requisition or by forced sales. The following are examples:

Brussels, Aug. 13, 1915.

Article 1. The stocks of chicory roots existing within the jurisdiction of the General Government in Belgium are hereby commandeered. (From "German Legislation," &c., Vol. IV., p. 148.)

Brussels, Jan. 8, 1916.

Article 1. All wools (raw wool, washed wool, tops and noils, woolen waste, woolen yarns, artificial wools, as well as mixtures of these articles with others) and also all mattresses filled with the wools above specified and now an object of trade or introduced into trade, found within the jurisdiction of the General Government, are hereby commandeered.

Wool freshly shorn or in any other way separated from the skin shall also be subject to seizure immediately upon its separation. (From "German Legislation," &c., Vol. VI., p. 57.)

Between October, 1914, and March, 1917, there were ninety-two separate ordinances of the General Government commanding the declaration, forced sale, or confiscation of various materials. Of these, forty-five were issued in 1915 and thirty-five in 1916. How these decrees passed by rapid evolution from mere declaration to complete confiscation is instanced in these typical examples:

1. A decree issued at Brussels July 19, 1916, lists several pages of textile materials which are to be declared.

2. A decree of Aug. 22, 1916, enlarges the preceding list.

3. A decree drawn up July 19, 1916, but not published till Sept. 12, 1916, declares 75 per cent. of this material subject to seizure by the Militärisches Textil-Beschaffungsamt.

4. Later decrees of seizure cover materials overlooked in these.

Every scrap of metal in the conquered countries that could possibly be seized has been confiscated. The ordinance below is given as an example of the thoroughness of the system of requisitions. The prices to be paid were entirely too low, and the sixth section shows that the owners were not expected to part with their property willingly. The ordinance was issued at Brussels Dec. 13, 1916:

SECTION I. The following designated objects are hereby seized and must be delivered.

SECTION II. Movable and fixed household articles made of copper, tin, nickel, brass, bronze or tombac, whatever their state:

1. Kitchen utensils, metal ware, and household utensils, except cutlery.

2. Wash basins, bathtubs, warm-water heaters and reservoirs.

3. Individual or firm name plates in and on the houses, doorknobs, knockers, and metal decorations on doors and carriages not necessary for locking.

4. Curtain rods and holders and stair carpet fixtures.

5. Scales.

6. All other household articles or adornments made of tin.

The articles included under the numerals 1-6 are subject to seizure and delivery even when not contained in households in the narrow sense, but in other inhabited or uninhabited buildings and rooms, (e. g., offices of authorities, office rooms in factories and entries.)

SECTION III. Exempt from seizure and delivery:

1. Articles on and in churches and other buildings and rooms dedicated to religious services.

2. Articles in hospitals and clinics, as well as in the private offices of physicians, apothecaries, and healers, so far as these articles are essential to the care of the sick or the practice of medicine and cannot be replaced.

3. Articles in public buildings.

4. Articles which are part of commercial or industrial stores either designated for sale or useful in the business. For these articles a special decree is enacted.^[3]

SECTION IV. Procedure of seizure is as follows:

All alteration of the articles subject to seizure is forbidden. All judicial disposition or change of ownership is interdicted, except in so far as the following paragraphs permit.

SECTION V. Obligation to Deliver. The delivery of the seized articles must be made at the time and places designated by the Division of Trade and Industry; it can also be made before the requisition at the Zentral-Einkaufsgesellschaft for Belgium. Upon delivery the ownership of the articles is vested in the German Military Administration.

Articles of artistic or historic value, if so recognized by the Bureau of Delivery, need not be delivered.

The Bureau of Delivery may, for unusual cause, grant exemptions from delivery.

SECTION VI. Indemnity. The following prices will be paid for the delivered articles:

	Francs.
Copper, per kilo	4.00
Tin	7.50
Nickel	13.00
Brass	3.00
Bronze	3.00
Tombac	3.00

In arranging the weight, seizures of nondesignated materials will not be included.

The payment will take place on the basis of the estimate made by the Bureau of Delivery. Payment will be made to the deliverer without question of his ownership.

If the deliverer refuses to accept the payment he will be given a receipt, and the determination of the indemnity in this case will follow through the Reichsentschädigungskommission according to the rules in force.

SECTION VII. Persons and Corporations Affected by This Decree:

1. House owners, inhabitants and heads of establishments.

2. Persons, associations, and corporations of a private or public nature whose buildings or rooms contain articles enumerated in Section 2.

To this group, furthermore, belong also State, Church, and community business and industrial establishments, including business, industrial, and office buildings in the ownership, possession, or guardianship of military and civil authorities. For buildings abandoned or not occupied by their owners or inhabitants, the communal authorities are responsible for the execution of this decree. The district commanders are authorized to furnish further instructions to the communities in this case. If dwelling houses are occupied as quarters by German military or civil authorities the execution of this order rests upon the military authorities concerned.

SECTION VIII. Confiscation. [Failure to comply with the provisions of the decree entails confiscation.]

SECTION IX. Co-operation of Communities. [Local authorities ordered to co-operate in execution of this order.]

SECTION X. Certificates of Exemption. [Verwaltungschef empowered to issue certificates of exemption.]

SECTION XI. Punishment for Violations. Any one who intentionally or through gross negligence violates the present decree or supplementary regulations will be punished with imprisonment not to exceed two years or a fine not to exceed 20,000 marks, or both. Any one who urges or incites others to violate the present decree or its supplementary regulations will be punished in like manner, unless he has incurred graver punishment under the general law. The attempt is punishable. Military courts and military authorities are empowered to try cases. (From "German Legislation," &c., Vol. IX., pp. 398-394.)

Some industries which were not directly useful to the Germans were at first allowed to resume work in whole or in part, for the Government did not wish to cut off all sources of the enormous indemnities which it was levying upon towns and individuals. But the rival manufacturers in Germany objected angrily against this policy. Thus Dr. Goetze, head of the German Glassmakers' Union, wrote in the Wirtschaftzeitung der Zentralmächte, Nov. 10, 1916:

It has become vital to the German manufacturers of glass wares that the Belgian manufacturers should be stopped from going to neutral markets, and it must be admitted that the German Civil Administration has fully recognized the necessity of arranging this matter according to the demands of the German industry, and that it has taken suitable action. [In spite of this some Belgian shops were able to do some exporting and had affected the market price.] Measures must be taken to stop this. For this reason the factories of Central and Eastern Germany, which are most directly concerned, have secured the promulgation of an order stopping importation, transit, and exportation. * * * We must demand that the German Civil Administration of Belgium should first of all look out for the protection of the interests of the German industry.

In addition to securing the aid of the German Government in ruining Belgian industries which competed with them, German manufacturers have also been aided by the German Government in obtaining Belgian trade secrets. For example, Dr. Bronnert secured a permit from the War Ministry to visit the factory at Obourg for making artificial silk. He took full notes of all that he could learn when he visited it, on Dec. 9, 1916, and carried away designs and parts of the machinery. Dr. Bronnert is a director of a German factory for making artificial silk which competes with the Belgian factory. (From the "Informations Belges," No. 307.)

When Belgium attempted to protest against the illegal requisitions, citing The Hague regulations, they received answers such as the following, which was read to the Municipal Council and notables of the town of Halluin, June 30, 1915:

Gentlemen: What is happening is known to all these gentlemen. It is the conception and interpretation of Article 52 of The Hague Convention which has created difficulties between you and the German military authority. On which side is the right? It is not for us to discuss that, for we are not competent, and we shall never arrive at an understanding on this point. It will be the business of the diplomatists and the representatives of the various States after the war.

Today it is exclusively the interpretation of German military authority which is valid, and for that reason we intend that all that we shall need for the maintenance of our troops shall be made by the workers of the territory occupied. I can assure you that the German authority will not under any circumstances desist from demanding its rights, even if a town of 15,000 inhabitants should have to perish. The measures introduced up to the present are only a beginning, and every day severe measures will be taken until our object is obtained.

This is the last word, and it is good advice I give you tonight. Return to reason and arrange for the workers to resume work without delay; otherwise you will expose your town, your families, and your persons to the greatest misfortunes.

Today, and perhaps for a long time yet, there is for Halluin neither a prefecture nor a French Government. There is only one will, and that is the will of German authority.

The Commandant of the Town,

SCHRANCK.

(From Massart's "Belgians Under the German Eagle," New York, 1916, pp. 192-3.)

The German profits from the Rathenau plan were summarized thus frankly by Herr Ganghofer in an article published in the Münchener Neueste Nachrichten Feb. 26, 1915:

For three months about four-fifths of the army's needs were supplied by the conquered country. Even now, although the exhausted sources in the land occupied by us are beginning to yield less abundantly, the conquered territory is still supplying two-thirds of the needs of the German Army in the west. Because of this, for the last four months the German Empire has saved an average of 3,500,000 to 4,000,000 marks a day. This profit which the Germans have secured by their victory is very greatly increased by another means. That is the economic war which, in accordance with the rules of international law, is being carried on against the conquered land by the exhaustion of the goods which belong to the State, which are being carried to Germany from Belgium and Northern France. These are in enormous quantities and consist of war booty, fortress supplies, grain, wool, metal, expensive hardwood, and other things, not including all private property which cannot be requisitioned. In case of necessity this private property will, of course, be secured to increase the German supply, but it will also be paid for at its full value. What Germany saves and gains by this economic war, carried on in a businesslike way, can be reckoned at a further 6,000,000 to 7,000,000 marks a day. Thus the entire profit which the German Empire has made behind its western front since the beginning of the war can be estimated at about 2,000,000,000 marks. For Germany this is a tremendous victory through the sparing and increase in her economic power; for the enemy it is a crushing defeat through the exhaustion of all of the auxiliary financial sources in those portions of his territory which have been lost to us.

Of the branches and management of this economic war I shall have more to say. Then people will learn to banish to the lumber room of the past the catch phrase about "the unpractical German." A German officer of high rank at St. Quentin characterized this happy change which has taken place in our favor in these half-serious, half-humorous words: "It is extraordinary how much a man learns! Although in reality I am an officer of the Potsdam Guard, now I am in the wool and lumber business. And successful, too!"

Governor General von Bissing's testimony on this subject, as recorded in his "Testament," will be found in full in Current History Magazine for February, 1918, pp. 330-38. Among the passages from it quoted in the pamphlet here under review is this:

The advantages which we have been able during the present war to obtain from Belgian industry, by the removal of machinery and so on, are as important as the disadvantages which our enemies have suffered through the lack of their fighting strength.

That the systematic exploitation and destruction in Flanders and Northern France were still going on in the Fall of 1917 is shown by the following dispatch from the American Chargé d'Affaires in Holland:

The Hague, Sept. 29, 1917.

Secretary of State, Washington: A person who has recently arrived here from Ghent gives the following information as to conditions in East and West Flanders and Northern France:

The looms and machinery are being taken away from the textile mills in Roubaix and Tourcoing and sent to Germany. Such machines as cannot be removed and transported have in some instances been dynamited, and in others are being destroyed with hammers. In the neighborhood of Courtrai in Flanders all the mills have been ordered to furnish a list of their machinery. The measures which have been applied to the north of France will be carried out in Flanders. All textile fabrics have been requisitioned by the military authorities, even in small retail stores, and woolen blankets have been taken from private houses. There is also extensive requisitioning of wine. In the larger cities in the course of the past few weeks large numbers of children of from 10 to 15 years have been brought in for office work. There is a rapid increase in the number of women brought in for this purpose. A marked animation was observed in the Etappen inspection at Ghent last week. It is believed that at the meeting of the inspection something unusual was being discussed.

LANGHORNE,

Charge d' Affaires.

That the Rathenau plan is still wringing the remnants of industrial supplies from Belgium in 1918 is shown by documents still later than those printed in the brochure just reviewed. In January linen and mattresses were being taken from hotels, boarding houses, and convents all over Belgium. The inhabitants were forbidden by law to have any wool in their possession, but were offered a substitute made of seaweed. The large electrical plant at Antwerp known as l'Escaut was stripped of its machinery, which was transferred to a German plant. Belgian kitchens did not escape. The huge copper pans and kettles, the glory of Belgian housewives, had to go to Germany with the bright jars and jugs of the milkmaids. Nearly every conceivable brass, copper, and bronze object had been requisitioned by that time.

The Belgian Government sent out a statement on Feb. 17, 1918, containing these passages:

The German authorities then aggravated the evils of industrial stoppage by forbidding public works and commandeering the factories and metals and leather for military purposes. After this they instituted the barbarous system of deporting workmen to perform forced labor in Germany, a system which they had to interrupt officially, after some months, because it proved revolting to the conscience of mankind, but only to substitute for it immediately the forced labor of the civilian population, in work of military value, by the order of the military authorities. This system is still being cruelly maintained in the zones lying back of the fighting line in the provinces of East and West Flanders, Hainault, Namur, and Luxemburg.

Meanwhile, the commandeering has become general, and affects both natural and manufactured products and also tools, motors, and means of transportation, whether mechanical or animal. Finally, fiscal and administrative measures have been taken to close the last remaining outlets for Belgian products into neutral countries.

These facts are incontestable. They are proved by many rules and regulations officially published by the German authorities.

At present the raid upon the last economic resources of occupied Belgium has been carried on to such an extent that they are methodically taking away all the machinery from the factories, which they themselves have made idle, in some cases to set it up again in Germany, in other cases, to break it up and use it for grapeshot.

The purpose of this entire system of destruction is double: First, to supply deficiencies in German industry; secondly, to put an end to Belgian competition and later to subject Belgian industry to that of Germany when the time comes for refitting the factories with machinery after the war.

The proofs collected by the Belgian Government in support of this statement are conclusive. It is significant that in general the task of systematically stripping Belgian factories was intrusted to German manufacturers who were the direct competitors of the Belgian owners. Some of them have taken advantage of their official positions to steal secrets of manufacturing processes, for example, at the artificial silk shops of Obourg, and personal methods of production and sale.

And as to the fact that Germany is destroying the factories for a military reason without any regard for the economic needs of Belgium or for the rights of nations, it is sufficient to cite the following passages from a semi-official note that appeared in the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, No. 392, of Dec. 18, 1917, in which Germany distinctly pleads guilty:

"All measures taken in Belgium are inspired by military necessity.

The exploitation, under military control, of Belgian factories in order to repair locomotives and automobiles, and also to obtain material of war for the front, is carried out for the purpose of relieving the strain on German industry and economizing transportation. It has become necessary to strip the Belgian factories of their machinery and other fittings, because all German industry is busy filling orders for material of war. * * * By relieving the home market from the necessity of enlarging our own factories we are accelerating the production of munitions and other products. * * * In consequence of the intense activity of all German industry our machinery and other equipment is tremendously overworked, and must from time to time be partly replaced by new machines, while, furthermore, we must be able to furnish spare parts rapidly unless we wish to see our output of munitions diminish. The machinery and equipment required for these purposes are evidently brought from Belgian factories. The destruction of whole factories for the production of grapeshot is effected in order to maintain at its present level the supply of iron and steel in Germany, or, if possible, to raise it. * * * It is not only possible, but even evident, that, in view of all the steps taken by the military authorities, the question of keeping up work in some of the factories of the occupied country must be subordinated to considerations tending to spare the lives of German soldiers and thus protect our national power."

---

This record of the deliberate crippling of Belgian industries was brought up to March 6, 1918, by an official dispatch to the United States Government, quoting the statement of Belgian refugees to the effect that dynamite was being used to destroy machines and equipment in factories in the Mons district. Rails of tramways were being taken up, and in some cities they were entirely destroyed. Meanwhile, deportation of men, and even of children 13 years old, was proceeding, several hundred boys between the ages of 13 and 15 being taken from Mons alone.

---

Cardinal Mercier, Archbishop of Malines, issued the following letter to the clergy and people of his diocese on March 2, 1918:

My Very Dear Brethren:

The painful tidings, announced semi-officially on Feb. 8, by the occupying power, have been confirmed. The bulletin of laws and edicts, dated Feb. 21, requires an inventory of the bells and organs of our churches. Informed by experience, we need not delude ourselves; the inventory of today is the signal for the requisition of tomorrow.

The repeated protests of the Sovereign Pontiff, our appeal to the Chancellor of the Empire, appear thus to have been in vain.

Your Christian hearts will bleed. At a time when we are in such need of comfort, a veil of mourning will descend upon our land, covering like a shroud our every day. It is to be for Catholic Belgium an interminable Way of the Cross.

It is true, is it not, dear brethren, that we should have borne this sorrow, added to so many others, if it had concerned ourselves alone, but this time the rights of God, of our Saviour, Jesus, the freedom of the Church and of her heritage are to be sacrificed to what is called necessity, that is, to the military need of our enemies.

"This term, liberty of the Church, rings harshly on the ears of politicians," writes the great Dom Gueranger. They immediately discern therein the signs of a conspiracy. Now there is no thought in our minds either of conspiracy or of revolt, but of the indefeasible affirmation of the rights granted to His Immaculate Spouse by our Saviour, Jesus.

The freedom of the Church lies in her complete independence with regard to all secular powers, not alone in her teachings of the Word, in the administering of the sacraments, in the untrammeled relations between all ranks of her Divine hierarchy, but also in the publishing and applying of her disciplinary decrees—in the conservation and administration of her temporal heritage.

"Nothing in the world is dearer to God than this liberty of His Church," says St. Anselm.

The Apostolic See, through the medium of Pope Pius VIII., wrote on June 30, 1830, to the Bishops of the Rhine Province: "It is in virtue of a Divine order that the Church, spotless spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, Jesus Christ, is free and subject to no earthly dominion."

"This freedom of the Church," continues Dom Gueranger, "is the bulwark of the very sanctuary, hence, the shepherd, sentinel of Israel, should not wait until the enemy has entered into the fold to sound the cry of alarm. The duty of protecting his flock begins for him at the moment of the enemy's siege of his outposts, upon whose safety depends the police of the entire city."

In the execution of this duty of our pastoral office we protest, dear brethren, against the injury which the forcible seizure of church property will cause to the liberty of our mother, the Holy Church.

We add that the removal of the bells without the consent of the religious authorities and despite their protests will be a sacrilege.

The bell is, in fact, a sacred object its function is sacred. It is a consecrated object; that is to say, it is devoted irrevocably to Divine service. It has been not only blessed but anointed by the Bishop with the holy oil and the holy chrism, just as you were anointed and consecrated at holy baptism; just as anointed and consecrated as the priest's hands which are to touch the consecrated wafer.

The function of the bell is holy. The bell is sanctified by the Holy Ghost, says the liturgy, sanctificetur a Spiritu Sancto, to the end that, in its voice, the faithful shall recognize the voice of the Church calling her children to hasten to her breast.

It announced your initiation into Christian life, your confirmation, your first communion. It announced, dear parents, your Christian marriage; it weeps for the dead; thrice daily it marks the mystery of the Incarnation; it recalls the immolation of the Lamb of God on the altar of sacrifice; it sings the joys of Sabbath rest, the cheer of our festivals of Christmas, of Easter, of Pentecost. Her prayers are associated with all the events and all the great memories, happy or unhappy, of the fatherland.

Yes, the seizure of our bells will be a profanation; whosoever assists in it will lend the hand to a sacrilege.

The Catholic Bishops of Germany and Austria will not deny these principles. If their patriotism has wrung from them concessions which must have cost their religious spirit dear, patriotism with us confirms on the contrary the law of resistance. We would be betraying the Church and the fatherland were we so cowardly as to permit without a public act of reprobation the taking away of metal to be converted by the enemy into engines of destruction, destined to carry death into the ranks of the heroes who are sacrificing themselves for us.

The authorities, strangers to our beliefs, will not be greatly moved, I fear, by the protest, however worthy of respect, of our religious consciences, but at least they should remember their given word and not tear up a juridical code which their believers have elaborated with us and promulgated. Morality has force of law for Governments as for individuals.

On Oct. 18, 1907, the representatives of forty-four Governments gathered together at The Hague, drew up a convention concerning laws and customs of war on land.

They were assembled, they proclaimed unanimously, for a double purpose—in the first place to safeguard peace and prevent armed conflicts between nations; and, in the second place, in the extreme hypothesis of an appeal to arms, to serve, nevertheless, the interests of humanity and the progressive demands of civilization by restraining, as much as possible, the rigors of war.

To this convention there was annexed a set of regulations which, the general tenor of its clauses having been examined a first and a second time, respectively, during the peace conferences held in 1874 at Brussels and in 1899 at The Hague, was submitted a third time, in 1907, to careful study at the second conference at The Hague and signed by the plenipotentiaries of all the great powers.

The first signer of this code of international law in wartime was Baron Marschall von Bieberstein, delegated by his Majesty, the German Emperor, King of Prussia.

Articles 52 and 46 of the regulations annexed to the convention are formulated as follows:

"Article 52. Neither requisitions in kind nor service can be demanded from communes or inhabitants, except for the necessities of the army of occupation."

"Article 46. Family honor and rights, individual life and private property, as well as religious convictions and worship, must be respected."

Evidently bells and organs are not necessary to supply the needs of the army of occupation, they lie in the domain of private property, are destined for the exercise of Catholic worship.

The transformation of these articles of the Church into war munitions will be, therefore, a flagrant violation of international law, an act of force perpetrated on the weaker by the stronger because he is the stronger.

We Belgians, who have never wished nor acted other than well toward Germany, we are the weak ones. I call you all to witness, brethren, is it not true that prior to 1914 a current of sympathy, of esteem, of generous hospitality was turning our trusting hearts toward those who are today so harshly oppressing us? You will remember that on the very day of the invasion the first lines that flowed from my pen spoke to you of those "whom we have the sorrow to call our enemies." For four years Germany has been rewarding us. Nevertheless, we will not rebel. You will not seek in desperate recourse to material force the sudden triumph of our rights.

Courage does not reside in passionate impulse but in self-mastery. We will offer to God in reparation for the sacrilege which is about to be committed against Him, and for the final success of our cause, our supreme sacrifice.

Let us pray, one for the other, that the arm of the All-Powerful may lend us support; "Lord," says the Holy Spirit, in the Book of Esther, "Lord, Sovereign Master, all is subject to Thy authority. Nothing, nobody, is capable of resisting Thee if Thou shalt decide to save Israel. * * * Grant our prayer, Lord! Transform our grief into joy, so that, living, we may glorify Thy name. * * * Thou art just, Lord. Now they are no longer satisfied to weigh us down under the most grievous servitude, they intend to silence the voices that praise Thee and to tarnish the glory of the temple. Remember us, O Lord. Reveal Thyself to us in this hour of our tribulation. * * * O God, Thou art exalted above all, hearken to the voice of those who place their hopes in Thee. Deliver us from the blows of injustice and grant that our courage may control our fears."

In the name of the freedom of the Church, in the name of the sanctity of the Catholic religion, in the name of international law, we condemn and reprove the seizure of the bells and organs of our churches; we forbid the clergy and faithful of our diocese to co-operate toward their removal; we refuse to accept the price of the sacred objects taken from us by violence.

Strong in invincible hope, we await the hour of our God.

D. J. CARDINAL MERCIER,

Archbishop of Malines.

---

The Belgian Government, shortly after the Bolshevist Government of Russia deserted the Allies and disbanded its armies, sent this eloquent appeal to Petrograd:

By the treaty of April 19, 1839, Russia placed her guarantee upon the independence and neutrality of Belgium. On Aug. 4, 1914, when Germany had violated this neutrality—which the German Government also had guaranteed—Belgium appealed to Russia for aid. To this appeal Russia replied on Aug. 5 by promising the assistance of her arms. Thus Belgium entered into the struggle for independence and neutrality, trusting in the unswerving loyalty of the Russian people.

On Feb. 14, 1916, Russia undertook to renew by a solemn act the pledges she had made regarding Belgium, "heroically faithful to her international obligations." Russia declared before a listening world that she would not cease hostilities until Belgium should be re-established in her independence and liberally indemnified for the losses she had endured. Furthermore, Russia promised her aid in assuring the commercial and financial rehabilitation of Belgium.

The authorities placed in power by the Russian revolution have just signed—on Feb. 9 and March 3, 1918—treaties under which they lay down their arms before the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires.

Yet Belgium is still the prey of the imperial armies, which oppress her, decimating her population by privations and pitiless repressions, and overwhelming her with the worst kind of moral tortures. To these violences the Belgian Nation continues to oppose forces of resistance drawn from a consciousness of right, from the beauty of her cause, from her love of liberty.

Respect for treaties is the basis of the moral and juridical relations of States and the condition of an honest and regular international order. Carried into the war by a will to compel respect for a treaty which Russia had guaranteed, Belgium is pursuing the struggle without wavering, and at the price of the most cruel sacrifices. She considers that the promise of Russia, in which she trusted, is still binding. She refuses to believe that the Russian people, master of its destinies, will irrevocably abandon the promises made in its name. Confident in the honor and loyalty of the Russian people, Belgium reserves to herself the right to implore the execution of obligations whose permanent character places them outside any internal changes of régime in the State.

---

Premier and Foreign Minister of Serbia

[Speech delivered March 31, 1918, before the Skupshtina at Corfu and especially translated for Current History Magazine]

Since the last meeting of this Assembly a great number of events have come to pass which have measurably modified the general military and political situation. One of our greatest allies, Russia, has retired from the battlefield, but another ally, quite as powerful as Russia, but doubtless not yet bringing to bear all the force of which she is capable, has rushed to our aid.

These two principal events, with others of less importance, have perceptibly changed the situation which existed more than a year ago, when Germany proposed to us the conclusion of a peace "honorable" for both the belligerent groups. Already at that time had Germany perceived the impossibility of fighting her adversaries by military force alone, and was obliged to resort to other means, which she had already employed, although in a more restrained fashion. So Germany decided to make more energetic use of her hidden channels with the idea of disorganizing in the quickest possible time the unity of her adversaries. She contrived intrigues, employing different methods according to the country where they were to be used and where she believed they would succeed.

You still remember the case of Miassoyedov, which was perpetrated with the aim of annihilating an entire Russian army. You also remember the attempt of the enemy to have Ireland revolt, an experiment which dismally failed owing to the prompt and energetic measures taken by the British Government. Surely you have a vivid memory of the criminal exploitation which the enemy Governments made in Italy of the Papal note in favor of peace. Also, you remember the numerous cases of arson of munition plants by the action of their agents, and the enemy propaganda of a premature peace for the benefit of Germany, employed to the limit by pacifists and certain imperialist and international adventurers through lectures and "defeatist" newspapers in neutral countries.

All these intrigues were clothed in fine phrases and put forward with high humanitarian ideals, by which the enemy propagated monarchistic ideas in republics and republican ideas in monarchies, eulogizing a military régime in democratic countries and in autocracies democratic, republican, and even anarchistic ideals.

They all had one sole end—to provoke internal disorders and discord among the Allies in order to divert the attention of Germany's adversaries from the principal aim. In every allied country these secret machinations of our enemies were unmasked and repelled. Repelled—except in Russia. All these intrigues and secret machinations could not succeed anywhere except in Russia, where there are many Germans, and where our enemies managed to concentrate the entire attention of a people in the midst of war upon their internal organization. In this way the possibility was placed in the hands of enemies—most dangerous to the liberty of the people and to their right to dispose freely of their destiny—to guide more easily the struggle with free and democratic nations reared against Prussianism in order to defend the rights of the weak and prevent the enslaving of other countries and other peoples.

The first revolutionary movement in Russia was directed against an autocratic and irresponsible Government. On the side of the revolution they pretended that the Government had initiated pourparlers for a separate peace with Germany unknown to the Russian people and the Allies. After this first movement, a second took place in Russia demanding a democratic peace "without annexations and indemnities" on the basis of the right of peoples to determine their destiny freely and for themselves.

This second revolutionary provisional Government not having the desire to cut the bonds which attached Russia to the democratic and allied countries, a third movement followed, which did not hesitate to cut the bonds uniting Russia to the Allies, to demobilize the Russian armies—an act contrary to all reason, even revolutionary—and to initiate pourparlers with the enemy at Brest-Litovsk for a separate peace.

The result of these pourparlers was the capitulation of the Maximalists to Prussian militarism, the disguised annexation by Germany of the great Baltic provinces of Russia, and the conclusion of peace between the Central Powers and the Ukraine, by which the latter separated from her enfeebled sister in order consciously to aid the enemies of the Slav race. The recognition of the independence of Finland, Caucasia, and Poland by the Central Powers followed, and, upon its heels, disintegration and general discord in Russia finally giving place to the present civil and fratricidal war.

We would not wish to deny that the Russian revolution counted for something in the ranks of its sincere combatants in the way of high social ideals, for democratic reforms, and for liberty. But, judging from its results, it is impossible to deny that the Russian revolution sustained a German influence, and that this influence so far has been useful only to Germany, who still makes war on Russia in order to prevent the latter from unifying her enfeebled peoples and re-establishing her position in the world.

The Russian revolutionists fell before the blow of Prussian militarism and surrendered to it the peoples who had hoped to obtain the right of self-determination. It is possible, even probable, that the situation in Russia may improve. But at present what the Germans aimed at in Russia has been attained. They have taken away Russian provinces, incited civil war in the Russian fatherland, and removed the danger of the Russian armies which threatened them. These armies having been prematurely demobilized for incomprehensible reasons, the enemy is able to direct all his forces against his other adversaries. He has also obtained in this way a considerable amount of war material and food.

This catastrophe, which has covered the Russian people with shame, has been a lesson to all other nations, for it has definitely confirmed the conviction that it was certainly Germany who provoked this terrible war with the aim of conquest and hegemony.

But the great and free America did not wait for this moment before deciding to declare war on Germany, who had placed above the principles of right and justice that of brute force. On account of the Germans' conduct in the war, which surpassed all known horror and barbarism, not sparing even neutral nations, the United States became convinced that it was its duty to restrain this bestial force if the world were not to fall under the yoke of Prussian militarism. America entered the war to defend civilization and the right of people to dispose of themselves.

The appearance of North America on the war stage filled the place made vacant by the surrender of Russia. Our allies having come to the conviction that they could count no longer on Russia, and that it would even be dangerous to regard her as a military asset, have employed all their forces in conformity with the new situation in order to fortify the solidarity which unites them and to augment their military and material force in proportion to what they had lost by the withdrawal of Russia, all with the idea of assuring the world a just and durable peace based on the liberty of the people to be self-determining. The strength of the army of our allies is greater by far than that of the enemy, not only in man power but also in material. Organization is improving, and on all questions there is complete accord. Quite recently German war atrocities decided Japan to participate still more actively in the struggle.

The Serbian people, who have made the greatest sacrifice and given the finest proofs of their loyalty and fidelity toward the Allies, may therefore be certain that their sacrifices have not been in vain, and that their ideals will be realized if they continue to give in the future the evidence of their military and civil virtues, and if, as in the past, they abhor all intrigues having for their aim the destruction of our concord and union in defense of the interests of our people, who bear three names, but who form but one nation. We have observed that Austria-Hungary, particularly in these latter days, has intensified her intrigues and her calumnies against the Serbian people. She began by spreading in Western Europe the false rumor that Serbia had tried, in an indirect way, to initiate pourparlers for a separate peace, because in our country and on the front of the Serbian Army she had suggested that she would be disposed to end the war against Serbia were it not for the fact that King Peter and the Serbian Government were opposed to the project. All such intrigues and calumnies, have only one end—to destroy the faith which our allies have in the Serbian people, to rupture the national concord, and by our discord and quarrels to assure the conquest of the Serbian Nation.

But our people know Austria-Hungary too well to be taken in by these infamous intrigues and to believe her lying words. The nation remains faithful to her noble allies, who are pouring out their blood for little and weak nations, and will not deviate one hair's breadth from her stand until the end. The Serbian people have given all that they have, and now, although few in numbers, they still stand faithfully by the side of the Allies. They should never lose sight of the fact that it was Austria-Hungary who provoked the war with the idea of annihilating Serbia.

Our allies will not fail to acquire the conviction that the various peoples of Austria-Hungary cannot be free, and that a durable peace cannot be guaranteed so long as these peoples shall live in the State of the Hapsburgs, who from peoples once free have made Germano-Magyar slaves and have prevented their development by subjecting them to Germano-Magyar exploitation.

Germanism in its drive toward the Orient hurled itself upon Serbia, and only as a single united nation of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, closely bound to Italy, can we obstruct the German push toward the Orient and Adriatic, and aid in the establishment of a durable peace.

We ask only justice. We demand that slavery of peoples be abolished, just as slavery of individuals was suppressed. We demand equality among all nations, whether great or small, the fraternity and equality of all nationalities, and the foundation of a free State of all the reunited Jugoslavs. The return of Alsace-Lorraine to France and the complete re-establishment of independent Belgium; the re-establishment of the kingdom of all the Czechs, also that of all the Poles, the union of Italians with Italy, of Rumanians with Rumania, of Greeks with Greece, all of which would constitute the greatest and most solid guarantee for a just and lasting international peace. Hence we proclaim what should be realized soon or later—if not after this war then after a new shedding of blood—because this realization is identified with the progress of civilization and of humanity.

These great ends, humane and just, which are incarnated with the life and growth of civilization, we repeat, should be realized. They embrace those great ideals which spring from the soul and sentiments of individuals and races, and which will vanquish the brute force of certain anachronistic States, just as, in the last century, they vanquished the brute force of the individual.

Let us pledge our honor and eternal gratitude to all the peoples who are fighting for the right of all nations to shape their own destiny and for an international peace both just and lasting.

---

The peace treaty between Rumania and the Central Powers was signed at Bucharest May 6, 1918, and is called "the peace of Bucharest." Dr. von Kühlmann, the German Foreign Secretary, was Chairman of the plenipotentiaries representing the Central Powers. A comprehensive synopsis of the terms of the treaty appears elsewhere in this issue of Current History Magazine.

A writer in The London Times explains why Rumania was compelled to accept the enemy's exacting terms. He quotes General Averescu, the Rumanian Prime Minister, in these words:

If Rumania accepts the humiliating German peace terms and is ready to yield to her enemies the dearest part of her territory, she does not do it only to spare the lives of the remnants of her army, but for the sake of her allies, too. If Rumania refuses the German conditions today she may be able to resist another month, but the results will be fatal. A month later she might have to lose even the shadow of independence which is left to her now; and then, no doubt, the Germans would deal with her in the same way as they dealt with occupied France and with Belgium. The whole Rumanian army would be made prisoners, and would be sent to work on the western front against the Allies, while the civilian population would be compelled to work in ammunition and other factories for the Kaiser's army. I fought in the ranks in 1877 to help my country to win the Dobrudja. You may imagine how I feel now, having to sign the treaty which gives it to our worst enemies. But we are compelled to amputate an important part of our body in order to save the rest of it. However painful it may be, we are bound to do it.

To understand Rumania's situation, as The London Times correspondent goes on to say, we have to consider her position since Kerensky's fall. At the end of November, 1917, the front from the Bukowina to the Black Sea was held by a Russo-Rumanian force. Its flanks from Dorna-Watra to Tergu-Ocna and from Ivesti to the Black Sea were held by three Russian armies, numbering about 450,000 men, and by two Rumanian armies of about 180,000 men. The Russian armies were, of course, weakened by many desertions and by lack of discipline, so that their actual was much less than their nominal strength. Nevertheless, about 350,000 Russians were still holding the front at that time. When the Russian armistice was signed, Rumania was compelled, by the joint threats of Germany and the Soviets of the Rumanian front, to adhere to it. From that day the Russian troops began to leave the trenches, not in hundreds, as they did before, but in masses of thousands at a time. Thus, at the end of January, 1918, hardly 50,000 Russians remained on the whole Rumanian front, and they had no desire to fight the enemy, but, being from Siberia or some other remote part of Russia, found it more convenient to spend their time in Rumania than to go back to their own country. They could easily raise money by selling to the highest bidder (Austrian or Rumanian) their guns, rifles, motor cars, &c.

For a certain time many—especially the French—believed strongly in the Ukraine and in the promises of the Rada. Much money had been spent in recruiting an army of the Ukraine which was supposed to fill the gaps left by the Russian Army on the southwestern front. All that I saw of this army was a group of about 150 boys, none of them over the age of 16, armed with rifles with fixed bayonets, a pistol, a sword, and a dagger. All wore spurs, though none of them had a horse. They paraded in the main streets of Jassy daily between 11 and 12. I calculated that every one of these boys cost the Entente well over £10,000. But in time the most incorrigible dreamers realized that the Ukraine had played a trick on Rumania. Then the handsome Ukrainian toy soldiers were withdrawn from circulation, and no army ever replaced the Russians.

In the meantime, the Rumanian Government decided, for political and military reasons, to occupy Bessarabia. This operation required no less than seven divisions. Thus at the beginning of February the same front which was held in November by over 500,000 men was occupied by barely 120,000. Army supplies were getting shorter every day; and Rumania, being in a state of war with the Bolshevist Government, was completely cut off from the rest of her allies. In these circumstances Germany had an easy prey, and dealt with it in true German fashion.

When the treaty with the Ukraine was signed Rumanian Headquarters received a note from General Morgen, the German Commander in Chief, saying that, as peace with Russia had been concluded, the Rumanian armistice had come to an end, and that delegates should be sent without delay to Focsani to examine the new situation. The Rumanian delegates arrived at Focsani next day. They were received with such insolence by the German delegates that the Chief of the Rumanian General Staff, General Lupesco, threatened to leave immediately. The discussions, however, did not last very long, and the mission came back with the announcement that Rumania had to decide within four days whether she was ready to discuss peace terms or not. A Crown Council was held immediately; and the majority of the Generals declared that the army could resist for a month at the most. M. Bratiano and M. Take Jonescu, who could not consent to make peace with the enemy, resigned, and the King asked General Averescu, the most popular man in Rumania, to form a new Cabinet.

Meanwhile, King Ferdinand received a telegram from Berlin, by which he was warned that the Austro-German Government would not discuss peace terms with a Cabinet which included M. Bratiano or any member of his former Cabinet. The feelings of the King of Rumania—when he saw that even before peace discussions had begun the enemy had begun to interfere in Rumania's internal politics—-can be appreciated. But King Ferdinand carried his head high, as he had done all through the tragic misfortunes of his country, and was indifferent to German arrogance. He replied to Herr von Kühlmann that Rumania was an independent country, and had a right to any Government she pleased. But none of the members of the former Cabinet came into the new one. General Averescu formed a Government which had the tragic task of concluding peace, and thus of annihilating, temporarily at least, all the tremendous efforts that Rumania had made during the preceding fifty years to become, economically as well as politically, the leading power in the Balkans.

The peace negotiations were supposed to last for a fortnight at most. In fact, they were nothing more than a farce, for the Germans allowed no discussion at all. They simply laid their preliminary conditions before the Rumanian delegates, and, taking advantage of the military helplessness of Rumania, told them: "You can take it or can leave it." The Rumanian delegates made a few attempts to discuss the German terms, but they soon found that it was useless and that the only thing to do was to yield.

The fact was that Rumania had to satisfy three hungry enemies. Each had his own object, but in each case the result was the same from the point of view of Rumania—subjection to the German yoke. The Bulgarians were eager to accomplish their ideal of "a great Bulgaria" by the annexation of the Dobrudja. Therefore, Rumania had to give up the Dobrudja. The Austrians, under Magyar pressure, demanded the surrender of the Carpathian passes—a condition which was pressed by Count Czernin, who remembered with bitterness the rebuff that he had suffered from the Rumanian King and Government at the time when Rumania came into the war. The Germans were determined to seize the immensely rich oilfields of Rumania and to secure for an unlimited period Rumanian wheat for Germany at a price to be fixed by German authorities. For years Germany had tried to get control of the Rumanian oilfields. Where bribes and the offer of a heavy price had failed, the chance of war now insured success. The oilfields were seized nominally by way of a monopoly for ninety-nine years.

As usual, Germany's allies had to yield up some of the prey to her. Thus the Germans succeeded in setting up a condominium over the most important part of the Dobrudja, between Constanza and the mouths of the Danube. From Campina, the centre of the oilfields district, a pipe line runs direct to Constanza, where the oil can be stored in enormous tanks, which were left practically untouched when Constanza was abandoned in November, 1916. It is essential for Germany that she should control the pipe line, and this she will certainly do under the form of the condominium.

As for the grain supply, the Germans, who had had to pay a heavy price for Rumanian grain before Rumania went to war, owing especially to British competition, were particularly careful to insure now against the repetition of anything so unpleasant. The form of the agreement which was dictated to Rumania on this point is that the surplus is to go to Germany after the needs of Rumania have been satisfied. What the needs of Rumania may be will be decided by a Rumanian commission; but this is to be under German control, and there is not much doubt that the ration allowed to the Rumanian population will be proportioned pretty accurately to the needs of Germany.

These territorial and economic advantages secured, Germany went on to add humiliation for Rumania to the heavy toll of material loss. They insisted that the eight Rumanian divisions which were holding the Rumanian front should be demobilized at once under the control of German staff officers. Finally, the Germans asked that the Rumanian Government should give all possible facilities to a German force to pass through Rumania to Odessa. In point of fact, on March 10, long before the peace conditions were settled, the first German battalions passed through Galatz on their way to the Ukraine.

All these humiliating conditions had to be accepted. The motive of the Germans in piling up their enactions so frequently was evidently to compel the Averescu Cabinet, which they suspected of being pro-ally, to resign. They hoped to force the King to form a Cabinet of their Bucharest friends. In this they succeeded. The present Government of Rumania may be pro-German; but the Rumanian Nation—from the last peasant soldier, who brought the Germans to a stand last Summer at Maraseshti and Oitoz, to the King—bitterly hates everything German. Isolated as Rumania is now, she waits breathlessly for the victory of the Allies, hoping to be helped to free herself from German dominion.

---

Following is a comprehensive summary of the treaty finally signed by the Rumanian Government at Bucharest, May 6, 1918:

Clause 1.—Re-establishment of Peace and Friendship.

Article I. Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey, on the one hand, and Rumania on the other, declare the state of war ended and that the contracting parties are determined henceforth to live together in peace and friendship.

Article II. Diplomatic and Consular relations between the contracting parties will be resumed immediately after the ratification of the peace treaty. The admission of Consuls will be reserved for a future agreement.

Clause 2.—Demobilization of the Rumanian Forces.

Article III. The demobilization of the Rumanian Army, which is now proceeding, will immediately after peace is signed be carried out according to the prescriptions contained in Articles IV. and VII.

Article IV. The regular military bureau, the supreme military authorities and all the military institutions will remain in existence as provided by the last peace budget. The demobilization of divisions eleven to fifteen will be continued as stipulated in the treaty of Focsani signed on March 8 last. Of the Rumanian divisions one to ten, the two infantry divisions now employed in Bessarabia, including the Jäger battalions which are the remnants of dissolved Jäger divisions, and including two cavalry divisions of the Rumanian Army, will remain on a war footing until the danger arising from the military operations now being carried on in the Ukraine by the Central Powers ceases to exist.

The remaining eight divisions, including the staff, shall be maintained in Moldavia at the reduced peace strength. Each division will be composed of four infantry regiments, two cavalry regiments, two field artillery regiments, and one battalion of pioneers, together with the necessary technical and transport troops. The total number of the infantry of the eight divisions shall not exceed 20,000 men; the total number of cavalry shall not exceed 3,200; the entire artillery of the Rumanian Army, apart from the mobile divisions, shall not exceed 9,000 men. The divisions remaining mobilized in Bessarabia must, in case of demobilization, be reduced to the same peace standard as the eight divisions mentioned in Article 4.

All other Rumanian troops which did not exist in peace time will at the end of their term of active military service remain as in peace time. Reservists shall not be called up for training until a general peace has been concluded.

Article V. Guns, machine guns, small arms, horses, and cars and ammunition, which are available owing to the reduction or the dissolution of the Rumanian units, shall be given into the custody of the Supreme Command of the allied (Teutonic) forces in Rumania until the conclusion of a general peace. They shall be guarded and superintended by Rumanian troops under supervision of the allied command. The amount of ammunition to be left to the Rumanian Army in Moldavia is 250 rounds for each rifle, 2,500 for each machine gun, and 150 for each gun. The Rumanian Army is entitled to exchange unserviceable material at the depots of the occupied region, in agreement with the allied Supreme Command, and to demand from the depots the equivalent of the ammunition spent. The divisions in Rumania which remain mobilized will receive their ammunition requirements on a war basis.

Article VI. The demobilized Rumanian troops to remain in Moldavia until the evacuation of the occupied Rumanian regions. Excepted from this provision are military bureaus and men mentioned in Article 5, who are required for the supervision of the arms and material laid down in these regions. The men and reserve officers who have been demobilized can return to the occupied regions. Active and formerly active officers require, in order to return to these regions, permission of the chief army command of the allied forces.

Article VII. A General Staff officer of the allied powers, with staff, will be attached to the Rumanian Commander in Chief in Moldavia, and a Rumanian General Staff officer, with staff, will be attached as liaison officer to the chief command of the allied forces in the occupied Rumanian districts.

Article VIII. The Rumanian naval forces will be left to their full complement and equipment, in so far as their views, in accordance with Article IX., are not to be limited until affairs in Bessarabia are cleared, whereupon these forces are to be brought to the usual peace standard. Excepted herefrom are river forces required for the purposes of river police and naval forces on the Black Sea, employed for the protection of maritime traffic and the restoration of mine-free fairways. Immediately after the signing of the peace treaty these river forces will, on a basis of special arrangement, be placed at the disposal of the authorities intrusted with river policing. The Nautical Black Sea Commission will receive the right of disposing of the naval forces on the Black Sea, and a naval officer is to be attached to this commission in order to restore connection therewith.

Article IX. All men serving in the army and navy, who in peace time were employed in connection with harbors or shipping, shall, on demobilization, be the first to be dismissed in order that they may find employment in their former occupations.

Clause 3.—Cessions of territory outlined in Articles X., XI., and XII.

Article X. With regard to Dobrudja, which, according to Paragraph 1 of the peace preliminaries, is to be added by Rumania, the following stipulations are laid down: (A) Rumania cedes again to Bulgaria, with frontier rectifications, Bulgarian territory that fell to her by virtue of the peace treaty concluded at Bucharest in 1913. (Attached is a map showing the exact extent of the frontier rectification, with a note to the effect that it forms an essential part of the peace treaty.) A commission composed of representatives of the allied powers shall shortly after the signature of the treaty lay down and demarkate on the spot the new frontier line in Dobrudja. The Danube frontier between the regions ceded to Bulgaria and Rumania follows the river valley. Directly after the signature of the treaty further particulars shall be decided upon regarding the definition of the valley. Thus the demarkation shall take place in Autumn, 1918, at low water level.

(B) Rumania cedes to the allied powers that portion of Dobrudja up to the Danube north of the new frontier line described under Section A; that is to say, between the confluence of the stream and the Black Sea, to the St. George branch of the river. The Danube frontier between the territory ceded to the allied powers and Rumania will be formed by the river valley. The allied powers and Rumania will undertake to see that Rumania shall receive an assured trade route to the Black Sea, by way of Tchernavoda and Constanza, (Kustendje.)

Article XI. says that Rumania agrees that her frontier shall undergo rectification in favor of Austria-Hungary as indicated on the map, and continues:

"Two mixed commissions, to be composed of equal numbers of representatives of the powers concerned, are immediately after the ratification of the peace treaty to fix a new frontier line on the spot."

Article XII. Property in the ceded regions of Rumania passes without indemnification to the States which acquire these regions. Those States to which the ceded territories fall shall make agreements with Rumania on the following points: First, with regard to the allegiance of the Rumanian inhabitants of these regions and the manner in which they are to be accorded the right of option; secondly, with regard to the property of communes split by the new frontier; thirdly and fourthly, with regard to administrative and juridical matters; fifthly, with regard to the effect of the changes of territory on dioceses.

Clause 4 deals with war indemnities, of which Article XIII. declares that the contracting parties mutually renounce indemnification of their war costs, and special arrangements are to be made for the settlement of damages caused by the war.

The fifth clause relates to the evacuation of occupied territories, embodied in Articles XIV. to XXIV., summed up as follows:

"The occupied Rumanian territories shall be evacuated at times to be later agreed upon. The strength of the army of occupation shall, apart from the formation employed in economic functions, not surpass six divisions. Until the ratification of the treaty the present occupation administration continues, but immediately after the signature of the treaty the Rumanian Government has the power to supplement the corps of officials by such appointments or dismissals as may seem good to it."

Up to the time of evacuation, a civil official of the occupation administration shall always be attached to the Rumanian Ministry in order to facilitate so far as possible the transfer of the civil administration to the Rumanian authorities. The Rumanian authorities must follow the directions which the commanders of the army of occupation consider requisite in the interest of the security of the occupied territory, as well as the security, maintenance, and distribution of their troops.

For the present, railways, posts, and telegraphs will remain under military administration, and will, in accordance with proper agreements, be at the disposal of the authorities and population. As a general rule, the Rumanian courts will resume jurisdiction in the occupied territories to their full extent. The allied powers will retain jurisdiction, as well as the power of police supervision, over those belonging to the army of occupation. Punishable acts against the army of occupation will be judged by its military tribunals, and also offenses against the orders of the occupation administration. Persons can only return to the occupied territories in proportion as the Rumanian Government provides for their security and maintenance.

The army of occupation's right to requisition is restricted to wheat, peas, beans, fodder, wool, cattle, and meat from the products of 1918, and, further, to timber, oil and oil products, always observing proper regard for an orderly plan of procuring these commodities, as well as satisfying the home needs of Rumania.

From the ratification of the treaty onward the army of occupation shall be maintained at the expense of Rumania. A separate agreement will be made with regard to the details of the transfer of the civil administration, as well as with regard to the withdrawal of the regulations of the occupation administration. Money spent by the allied powers in the occupied territories on public works, including industrial undertakings, shall be made good on their transfer. Until the evacuation these undertakings shall remain under the military administration.

Clause 6.—Regulations regarding navigation on the Danube.

Article XXIV. Rumania shall conclude a new Danube Navigation act with Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey, regulating the legal position on the Danube from the point where it becomes navigable, with due regard for the prescriptions subsequently set forth under Sections A to D, and on conditions that the prescriptions under Section B shall apply equally for all parties to the Danube act. Negotiations regarding the new Danube Navigation act shall begin at Munich as soon as possible after the ratification of the treaty.

The sections follow: (A) Under the name Danube Mouth Commission, the European Danube Commission shall, under conditions subsequently set forth, be maintained as a permanent institution, empowered with the privileges and obligations hitherto appertaining to it for the river from Braila downward, inclusive of this port. The conditions referred to provide, among other things, that the commission shall henceforth only comprise representatives of States situated on the Danube or the European coasts of the Black Sea. The commission's authority extends from Braila downward to the whole of the arms and mouth of the Danube and adjoining parts of the Black Sea.

(B.) Rumania guarantees to the ships of the other contracting parties free navigation on the Rumanian Danube, including the harbors. Rumania shall levy no toll on ships or rafts of the contracting parties and their cargoes merely for the navigation of the river. Neither shall Rumania, in the future, levy on the river any tolls, save those permitted by the new Danube Navigation act.

Section C provides for the abolition after the ratification of the treaty of the Rumanian ad valorem duty of 1-1/2 per cent. on imports and exports.

Articles XXV. and XXVI. deal with Danube questions and provide that Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Rumania are entitled to maintain warships on the Danube, which may navigate down stream to the sea and up stream as far as the upper frontier of Austria's territory, but are forbidden intercourse with the shore of another State or to put in there except under force majeure or with the consent of the State.

The powers represented on the Danube Mouth Commission are entitled to maintain two light warships each as guard ships at the mouth of the Danube.

Article XXVII. provides equal rights for all religious denominations, including Jews and Moslems, in Rumania, including the right to establish private schools.

Article XXVIII. provides that diversity of religion does not affect legal, political, or civil rights of the inhabitants, and, pending ratification of the treaty, a decree will be proclaimed giving the full rights of Rumanian subjects to all those, such as Jews, having no nationality.

The remaining three articles provide that economic relations shall be regulated by separate treaties, coming into operation at the same time as the peace treaty. The same applies to the exchange of prisoners.

Emperor William replied to Chancellor von Hertling's congratulations on the conclusion of peace between Germany and Rumania with this message:

The termination of the state of war in the east fills me also with proud joy and gratitude. Thanks to God's gracious help, the German people, with never-failing patriotism, under brilliant military leadership and with the assistance of strong diplomacy, are fighting step by step for a happy future.

I can but convey my thanks on this occasion to you and also to your collaborators. God will help us to pass through the struggle which the hostile attitude of the powers, still under arms against us, has forced us to continue and to conclude it victoriously for the good of Germany and her allies.

Emperor William in a telegram to Dr. Richard von Kühlmann, the German Secretary for Foreign Affairs, said:

The conclusion of peace with Rumania gives me an opportunity of expressing my joyful satisfaction that peace has now been given to the entire eastern front.

May rich blessings descend on the peoples concerned from the resumption of peaceful labor to which they can now devote themselves.

I thank you and your collaborators for the work done in loyal co-operation with our allies, and I confer on you as a sign of my appreciation the Order of the Royal Crown of the First Class.

---

Count Czernin, the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister, during the negotiations with Rumania explained in a public speech that Rumania would be compensated for the loss of territory on the Transylvanian border by taking the southern part of Bessarabia, the Russian province bordering Rumania on the east. The southern part of Bessarabia, however, has few Rumanians, while the northern part is largely populated by them. Subsequent events have apparently changed the Austro-German plans, for the whole of Bessarabia has voted almost unanimously for union with Rumania. The event was officially announced at Washington on April 22 through the Rumanian Charge d'Affaires, N. H. Lahovary, as follows:

On April 9 the National Assembly of Bessarabia voted by 86 against 3 for union of Bessarabia to Rumania. The Rumanian Premier was then at Kishinev (capital of Bessarabia) and took cognizance of the vote amid enthusiastic acclamation and declared this union to be definitive and indissoluble.

Bessarabian delegates went to Jassy on April 12 to present the homage of the people of Bessarabia to their Majesties the King and Queen of Rumania. A Te Deum was sung at the cathedral in the presence of the royal family, the Government, and the Bessarabian delegates. The Archbishop of Bessarabia was also there, having taken the place next to the Metropolitan of Moldavia, who celebrated the service.

After the ceremony was over a parade of the troops took place, followed by a luncheon given at the royal palace in honor of the Ministers of Bessarabia. His Majesty the King drank to the health of the united Rumanian and Bessarabian people, after witnessing the great historic event accomplished by the will of the people of Bessarabia and proclaiming indissoluble the union of the ancient province of the Moldavian crown to the mother country.

Bessarabia, according to Mr. Lahovary, has about 3,000,000 inhabitants, and more than three-fourths of these are Rumanians. "Bessarabia," he continued, "is one of the richest farm lands of what was formerly Russia. The Bolsheviki ravaged it frightfully during the Winter months, and the country was only saved by the Rumanian troops, who were called in by the Bessarabians. Because of this help the Bolsheviki declared war on Rumania, and there were violent clashes between the Bolshevist brigands and Rumanian troops. Finally the latter ousted the Bolsheviki and succeeded in restoring tranquillity, but only after the Bolsheviki had committed most frightful outrages and pillaged the country. If Rumania was obliged to make peace, it was due directly to the attitude of the Bolsheviki toward Rumania."

---

Professor of Semitic Languages in the University of Pennsylvania

[From his book, "The War and the Bagdad Railway"]

Germany's project of a railway from Berlin to Bagdad, now rivaled by a new one from Berlin to Bombay via Russia, was one of the chief causes of the war. It dates from 1888, when a syndicate of German and British capital organized the Anatolian Railway, to be built from Haidar Pacha, opposite Constantinople, to Angora—about 360 miles. The German members later bought out the British interests. Further concessions were obtained, but in 1898 a much more ambitious plan was brought forward by the visit of the German Emperor to Sultan Abdul Hamid, and in 1899 the general policy of a line across Asia Minor was announced. This line, however, as a glance at the map will show, did not get beyond Angora; Russia killed that phase of the project. The Bagdad Railway was then organized in 1903, and obtained from Turkey an unprecedented concession running southeastward to the Persian Gulf. Both England and France were offered a minor share in the enterprise, but refused. The Germans thus remained in full control, at the same time obtaining all the French capital they needed through Swiss banks.

The Bagdad Railway has been a nightmare resting heavily on all Europe for eighteen years—ever since the announcement in 1899 of the concession granted to the Anatolian Railway Company. No step ever taken by any European power anywhere has caused so much trouble, given rise to so many complications, and has been such a constant menace to the peace of the world. No European statesman to whom the destinies of his country have been committed has rested easily in the presence of this spectre of the twentieth century. In the last analysis the Bagdad Railway will be found to be the largest single contributing factor in bringing on the war, because through it more than through any other cause the mutual distrust among European powers has been nurtured until the entire atmosphere of international diplomacy became vitiated. The explanation of this remarkable phenomenon, transforming what appeared on the surface to be a magnificent commercial enterprise, with untold possibilities for usefulness, into a veritable curse, an excrescence on the body politic of Europe, is to be sought in the history of the highway through which the railway passes. The control of this highway is the key to the East—the Near and the Farther East as well. Such has been its rôle in the past—such is its significance today. * * *

The most recent events are merely the repetition on a large scale of such as took place thousands of years ago and at frequent intervals since. The weapons have changed, new contestants have arisen to take the place of civilizations that after serving their day faded out of sight, but the issue has ever remained the same. We are confronted by that issue today—the control of the highway that leads to the East. * * * The decisive battlefields for the triumph of democracy are in the West, but the decision for supremacy among European nations lies in the East. The Bagdad Railway is the most recent act in a drama the beginnings of which lie in the remote past. * * *

The course of events in the Near East since the entering wedge, represented by Napoleon's expedition to Egypt, is to be interpreted as the irresistible onslaught of the West to break down the barrier created in 1453. As we survey the successive steps in this onslaught, the struggle between France and England, culminating in the Convention of 1904, which gave France a dominant position in Morocco in return for allowing England a free hand in Egypt, the attempts of France and Russia to hedge in England in India, followed by England and Russia in dividing up their "spheres of influence" in Persia, the commercial and railway concessions secured by England, France, and Russia from Turkey, sinking ever deeper into a slough of desperate weakness, we see how these struggles, conventions, and partnerships all lead up to the dramatic climax—the struggle for the historic highway which is the key to the Near East. Its possession will mean in the future—as it always has in the past—dominion over Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and probably Arabia; and the Near East points its finger directly toward the Farther East. Under the modern symbol of railway control, Asia Minor, true to the genius of its history, once more looms up as a momentous factor in the world history. * * * The murder at Serajevo was merely the match applied to the pile all ready to be kindled. * * *

Full credit should be given to the German brains in which this project was hatched, and there is no reason to suspect that at the outset the German capitalists who fathered the enterprise were actuated by any other motive than the perfectly legitimate one to create a great avenue of commerce. When, however, the German Government entered the field as the backer and promoter of the scheme the political aspect of the railroad was moved into the foreground, and that aspect has since overshadowed the commercial one.

Had the original plan of the German group to run the Bagdad Railway across Northern Asia Minor from Angora been adhered to, the interior would have been kept free, and it is likely that a favorite English plan (afterward taken up also by the French Government) to run a railway from the Gulf of Alexandretta via Aleppo and the Euphrates to Bagdad might have been carried out. * * * The railway projects of Asia Minor and Syria might have remained purely commercial undertakings of great cultural value. The political aspect of railway plans in the Near East might have been permanently kept in the background.

The stumbling block that prevented the execution of the original plan was—strangely enough—Russia. Her opposition to the northern route brought about the change. Russia had plans of her own in Asia Minor and in the lands to the east beyond. In the last two decades of the nineteenth century Russia, fearing the extension of English power in the Far East, cast her eyes about for securing zones of influence that might bring her into touch with the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. She secured the co-operation of France in 1891, and it is both interesting and instructive to note that the Franco-Russian alliance was originally directed against England rather than against Germany. * * * She exacted from Turkey the Black Sea Basin agreement, formally sanctioned in 1900, which reserved to her the right to construct railroads in Northern Asia Minor. * * * At all events, her opposition was strong enough to secure a modification of the plan of the Bagdad Railway in favor of the transverse route, which, as it turned out, gave Germany a tremendous advantage over all rivals, though it also brought on the opposition of England. Russia was not prepared to allow any further advantage to be gained in the East by England. On the whole she still preferred Germany.

[England's opposition to Germany's new railway scheme became acute when it was publicly announced that the road was not to terminate at Bagdad, or even at Basra, but to run on to a point "to be determined" on the Persian Gulf. The Convention of 1902-3 made it evident that Germany had stolen a march on England, and that the prestige of France, too, had suffered. The favor shown to the German syndicate by the Turkish Government was evident. The terms were indeed unprecedented. Says Dr. Jastrow: "No wonder that there were great rejoicings in Germany when they were announced and gnashing of teeth outside of Germany." With the announcement of the 1902-3 concession and the formation of the Bagdad Railway Company as a successor to the old Anatolian Company, the German syndicate did offer English and French capitalists a share in the enterprise, and insisted that the plan was "international." But the "share" thus offered was merely assistance in financing what would remain a German matter—inasmuch as Germany reserved the control in the management's personnel. England and France therefore refused to participate.]

---

The revelations by Prince Lichnowsky, German Ambassador in London at the outbreak of the war, which were printed in the May number of Current History Magazine, produced a profound impression throughout the world, disclosing as they did the part played by the German Imperial Government in starting the war. German officialdom at once attacked Lichnowsky, compelling him to resign his rank and threatening him with trial for treason. On April 27, 1918, the Prussian upper house decided to grant the request of the First State Attorney of District Court No. 1 of Berlin for authorization to undertake criminal proceedings against Prince Lichnowsky. The State Attorney held that Prince Lichnowsky, in communicating to third parties documents or their contents officially intrusted to him by his superiors had infringed the secrecy incumbent on him.

In referring to the prosecution of the Prince, Maximilian Harden, in a May issue of the Zukunft, said:

"I will swear that there are dozens of men sitting there in these dark war hours who have written and said similar things in sharper and more bitter words." Herr Harden asked whether these would meet the same fate if their papers were stolen and exposed in German shop windows. "Many a trusted wife," he said, "must cry out in fear: 'But, you know, Ernst, Adolf, and Klaus have spoken more desperately.'"

The chief theme of Lichnowsky's memorandum, the editor of Die Zukunft asserts, was the danger to Germany of a too-close alliance with Vienna and Budapest, of the flirtation with Poland, and his insistence upon the necessity of friendly relations with a strong Russia. The German outcry against Lichnowsky, however, gave foreign countries the impression that the Prince had made fearfully damaging disclosures of Berlin's guilt. The question of blame, he says, "reflected almost an identical interpretation to that of our White Book, and a cool head would not have made a world sensation out of it." Harden concludes by saying that an ostracized Lichnowsky would become a power; but the Prussian Diet has no sense of humor.

In the May Current History Magazine an abridged version of the first reply of former Foreign Secretary von Jagow to Prince Lichnowsky was printed, but the document is of such importance that a translation in its entirety is herewith given.^[4]

---

Practically coincident with the giving out for publication on March 19, through the semi-official Wolff Telegraph Bureau, of an account of a discussion in the Main Committee of the Reichstag of the memorandum of the former Ambassador at London, together with substantial excerpts from the main chapters of his work, the German Government got in touch with Herr von Jagow, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the war began, and asked him to write an article calculated to counteract the effect of the Lichnowsky revelations. Herr von Jagow hastened to accede to this request, but he merely made matters worse for the German Government by practically admitting the correctness of Prince Lichnowsky's assertion that England did not want war and that Berlin was aware of this.

Copies of German newspapers received here show that, while the journals of all factions were practically of one mind in reproaching the German Foreign Office for its lack of diplomatic ability, the Pan-German and militarist organs laid special stress upon the implication in the von Jagow article that Germany might have been willing to drop its alliance with Austria if it could have been sure of contracting one with England, and the Liberal and Socialist papers declared that it was no use insisting any longer that Great Britain was guilty of the wholesale bloodshed of the world war, and that now nothing really stood in the way of moving for a peace by agreement.

These comments were so sharp on both sides that Herr von Jagow was soon moved to write another article defending his reply to Prince Lichnowsky and arguing that his statements regarding the Triple Alliance could by no means be interpreted as meaning that he would have been willing to abandon Austria-Hungary in favor of Great Britain. In this article, which was first printed in the Münchener Neueste Nachrichten, von Jagow says he cannot understand how these statements can be taken to mean that he was an opponent of the alliance with Austria and was considering a choice between Austria and England. He proceeds to defend his own policy by reference to the fact that Bismarck was not content with the Triple Alliance on the one hand, and the famous "Reinsurance Treaty" with Russia on the other hand, but in 1887 deliberately promoted agreements between Austria-Hungary, Italy, and England, with the object of "bringing England into a closer relationship to the Central European league and making her share its burdens." Bismarck's policy relieved Germany of some of her obligations, because "Austria-Hungary, supported by Italy and England, held the balance against Russia."

Then, as The London Times points out, carefully avoiding the history of the present Kaiser's reversal of Bismarck's policy and abandonment of the "Reinsurance Treaty" with Russia, von Jagow defends his attempts to make British policy serve Germany's purposes. It was "because of the isolation of the Triple Alliance, which had come about in the course of years," that von Jagow "pursued a rapprochement with England." He did so, "not with any idea of putting England in the place of Austria-Hungary, but in order, by disposing of the Anglo-German antagonism, to move England to a different orientation of her policy." Germany "could not count upon Italy," and wanted other assistance in upholding Austria-Hungary in the Balkans against Russia. Herr von Jagow proceeds:

"The combination of England would have relieved us of the necessity of taking: our stand alone, when the case arose, for Austria-Hungary against Russia. As was effected by the agreements of 1887, a part of our obligations would have been laid upon other shoulders. It is in this sense that I spoke of the possibility of the loosening and the dissolution of old unions which no longer satisfy all the conditions.

"The alliance with Austria-Hungary was the cornerstone of Bismarckian policy, and that it had to remain. The expansion of the alliance into the Triple Alliance, by taking in Italy, was a means of supplementing the Central European grouping of the powers; it was an 'auxiliary structure,' by means of which Bismarck aimed at a further guarantee of peace, especially as he intended thereby to check Italy's Irredentist policy. Threads then ran to England via Italy. These threads gave way later, and this caused a considerable change in the attitude of Italy.

"A friendly attitude on the part of England toward the Triple Alliance—what Professor Hermann Oncken calls the moral extension of the Triple Alliance over the Channel—was the aim of our policy, and in this we were sure of the complete accord of our allies. I never thought that the agreements about Bagdad and the colonies would mean an immediate alteration of England's course in European policy. These agreements were to prepare the way for this change of course. I was under no illusions about the difficulties which would still have to be overcome. But difficulties, and even resistance on the part of public opinion in one's own country, cannot prevent us from following a road that is seen to be right. The league between Germany and Austria-Hungary, supported by friendship with England, would have created a peace bloc of unassailable strength. The increasing Irredentism of Italy, her friction with Austria on the Adriatic, and the Russophile and also Irredentist tendencies of Rumania, would have lost their importance. Then, in given circumstances, the Triple Alliance treaty might have been modified. The union with England would also have secured us against Russian aggression, and the obligations imposed upon us by our alliance would thereby have been diminished.

"The road to this goal was long. The calm development was crossed by the Serajevo murders, and in the fateful hour of August, 1914, the English Government—instead of keeping peace—preferred to join in the war against us. The English Government has probably since then been assailed by serious doubts as to whether its choice was right. In any case, it assumed a considerable share of the guilt for the bloodshed in Europe."

Herr von Jagow then denies that his scheme was inevitably doomed to failure, saying that the policy of England is more liable to adaptation and alteration than the policy of any other country, and that "more far-seeing statesmen than those who were intrusted with the fortunes of the Island Empire in 1914—think only of the Pitts, Disraelis, and Salisburys—held other views about the orientation of England toward Germany and Russia."

"As matters stand today, attempts to arrive at clearness about the respective parts played by our enemies at the outbreak of the war, and about the greater or less degrees of guilt belonging to each of them, can have only a historical value. England has made the cause of our enemies her own, and so she also shall be made to feel how Germany defends herself against her enemies."

---

[Copyrighted]

Herr von Jagow's first reply to Prince Lichnowsky, which was printed in the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung March 23, 1918, follows:

"So far as it is possible, in general, I shall refrain from taking up the statements concerning the policy obtaining before my administration of the Foreign Office.

"I should like to make the following remarks about the individual points in the article:

"When I was named State Secretary in January, 1913, I regarded a German-English rapprochement as desirable and also believed an agreement attainable on the points where our interests touched or crossed each other. At all events, I wanted to try to work in this sense. A principal point for us was the Mesopotamia-Asia Minor question—the so-called Bagdad policy—as this had become for us a question of prestige. If England wanted to force us out there it certainly appeared to me that a conflict could hardly be avoided. In Berlin I began, as soon as it was possible to do so, to negotiate over the Bagdad Railroad. We found a favorable disposition on the part of the English Government, and the result was the agreement that was almost complete when the world war broke out.

"At the same time the negotiations over the Portuguese colonies that had been begun by Count Metternich, (as German Ambassador at London,) continued by Baron Marschall, and reopened by Prince Lichnowsky were under way. I intended to carve the way later for further negotiations regarding other—for example, East Asiatic—problems, when what was in my opinion the most important problem, that of the Bagdad Railroad, should be settled, and an atmosphere of more confidence thus created. I also left the naval problem aside, as it would have been difficult to reach an early agreement over that matter, after past experiences.

"I can pass over the development of the Albanian problem, as it occurred before my term of office began. In general, however, I would like to remark that such far-reaching disinterestedness in Balkan questions as Prince Lichnowsky proposes does not seem possible to me. It would have contradicted the essential part of the alliance if we had completely ignored really vital interests of our ally. We, too, had demanded that Austria stand by us at Algeciras, and at that time Italy's attitude had caused serious resentment among us. Russia, although she had no interest at all in Morocco, also stood by France. Finally, it was our task, as the third member of the alliance, to support such measures as would render possible a settlement of the divergent interests of our allies and avoid a conflict between them.

"It further appeared impossible to me not to pursue a 'triple alliance policy' in matters where the interests of the allied powers touched each other. Then Italy would have been driven entirely into line with the Entente in questions of the Orient, and Austria handed over to the mercy of Russia, and the Triple Alliance would thus have really gone to pieces. And we, too, would not have been able to look after our interests in the Orient, if we did not have some support. And even Prince Lichnowsky does not deny that we had to represent great economic interests right there. But today economic interests are no longer to be separated from political interests.

"That the people 'in Petrograd wanted to see the Sultan independent' is an assertion that Prince Lichnowsky will hardly be able to prove; it would contradict every tradition of Russian policy. If we, furthermore, had not had at our command the influence at Constantinople founded by Baron Marschall, it would hardly have been possible for us to defend our economic interests in Turkey in the desired way.

"When Prince Lichnowsky further asserts that we only 'drove Russia, our natural friend and best neighbor, into the arms of France and England through our Oriental and Balkan policy' he is in conflict with the historical facts. Only because Prince Gortschakoff [Russian Premier] was guiding Russian policy toward a rapprochement with a France lusting for revenge was Prince Bismarck induced to enter into the alliance with Austria-Hungary; through the alliance with Rumania he barred an advance of Russia toward the south. Prince Lichnowsky condemns the basic principles of Bismarck's policy. Our attempts to draw closer to Russia went to pieces—Björki proves it—or remained ineffective, like the so-called Potsdam agreement. Also, Russia was not always our 'best neighbor.' Under Queen Elizabeth, as at present, she strove for possession of East Prussia to extend her Baltic coasts and to insure her domination of the Baltic. The Petrograd 'window' has gradually widened, so as to take in Esthonia, Livonia, Courland, and Finland and reach after Aland. Poland was arranged to be a field over which to send troops against us. Pan-Slavism, which was dominating the Russian policy to an ever greater degree, had positive anti-German tendencies.

"And we did not force Russia to drop 'her policy of Asiatic expansion,' but only tried to defend ourselves against her encroachments in European policy and her encircling of our Austro-Hungarian ally.

"Just as little as Sir Edward Grey [British Foreign Secretary] did we want war to come over Albania. Therefore, in spite of our unhappy experience at Algeciras, we agreed to a conference. The credit of an 'attitude of mediation' at the conference should not be denied Sir Edward Grey; but that he 'by no means placed himself on the side of the Entente' is, however, surely saying rather too much. Certainly he often advised yielding in Petrograd (as we did in Vienna) and found 'formulas of agreement,' but in dealing with the other side he represented the Entente, because he, no less than ourselves, neither would, nor could, abandon his associates. That we, on the other hand, 'without exception, represented the standpoint dictated to us from Vienna' is absolutely false. We, like England, played a mediatory rôle, and also in Vienna counseled far more yielding and moderation than Prince Lichnowsky appears to know about, or even to suggest. And then Vienna made several far-reaching concessions, (Dibra, Djakowa.) If Prince Lichnowsky, who always wanted to be wiser than the Foreign Office, and who apparently allowed himself to be strongly influenced by the Entente statesmen, did not know this, he surely ought not to make any false assertions now! If, to be sure, the degree of yielding that was necessary was reached in Vienna, we also naturally had to represent the Austrian standpoint at the conference. Ambassador Szögyeni himself was not one of the extremists; in Vienna they were by no means always satisfied with his attitude. That the Ambassador, with whom I was negotiating almost every day, constantly sounded the refrain of casus foederis is entirely unknown to me. It certainly is true that Prince Lichnowsky for some time past had not been counted as a friend of Austria in Vienna. Still complaints about him came to my ears oftener from the side of Marquis San Giuliano [Italian Foreign Minister] than from the side of Count Berchtold, [Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister.]

"King Nicholas's seizure of Scutari constituted a mockery of the entire conference and a snub to all the powers taking part in it.

"Russia was by no means obliged 'to give way to us all along the line'; on the contrary, she 'advanced the wishes of Serbia' in several ways, Serbia even receiving some cities and strips of territory that could have been regarded as purely Albanian or preponderatingly so. Prince Lichnowsky says that 'the course of the conference was a fresh humiliation for the self-consciousness of Russia' and that there was a feeling of resentment in Russia on that account. It cannot be the task of our policy to satisfy all the unjustified demands of the exaggerated self-consciousness of a power by no means friendly to us, at the cost of our ally. Russia has no vital interests on the Adriatic, but our ally certainly has. If we, as Prince Lichnowsky seems to wish, had flatly taken the same stand as Russia, the result would have been a humiliation for Austria-Hungary and thus a weakening of our group. Prince Lichnowsky seems only anxious that Russia be not humiliated; a humiliation of Austria is apparently a matter of indifference to him.

"When Prince Lichnowsky says that our 'Austrophilie' was not adapted to 'promote Russia's interests in Asia,' I don't exactly understand what this means. Following a disastrous diversion toward East Asia—in the Japanese war we had favored Russia without even being thanked for it!—Russia again took up her policy directed toward the European Orient (the Balkans and Constantinople) with renewed impulse, (the Balkan Alliance, Buchlau, Iswolsky, &c.) [Iswolsky retired as Russian Foreign Minister after Germany forced the Czar to repudiate his Serbian policy in 1909.]

"Venizelos, the cunning Cretan with the 'Ribbon of the Order of the Red Eagle,' evidently knew how to throw a little sand into the eyes of our Ambassador. He, in contrast to King Constantine and Theototy, always was pro-Entente. His present attitude reveals his feelings as clearly as can be. Herr Danef, however, was entirely inclined toward Petrograd.

"That Count Berchtold displayed certain inclinations toward Bulgaria also in its differences with Rumania is true; that we 'naturally went with him' is, however, entirely false. With our support, King Carol had the satisfaction of the Bucharest peace. [Ended second Balkan war.] If, therefore, in the case of the Bucharest peace, in which we favored the wishes and interests of Rumania, which was allied to us, our policy deviated somewhat from that of Vienna, the Austro-Hungarian Cabinet certainly did not believe—as Prince Lichnowsky asserts—that it 'could count upon our support in case of its revision.' That Marquis San Giuliano 'is said to have warned us already in the Summer of 1913 from becoming involved in a world war,' because at that time in Austria 'the thought of a campaign against Serbia' had found entrance, is entirely unknown to me. Just as little do I know that Herr von Tschirschky—who certainly was rather pessimistic by nature—is said to have declared in the Spring of 1914 that there soon would be war. Therefore, I was just as ignorant of the 'important happenings' that Prince Lichnowsky here suspects as he was himself! Such events as the English visit to Paris—Sir Edward Grey's first to the Continent—surely must have been known to the Ambassador, and we informed him about the secret Anglo-Russian naval agreement; to be sure, he did not want to believe it!

"In the matter of Liman von Sander, [German reorganizer of the Turkish Army,] we made a far-reaching concession to Russia by renouncing the General's power of command over Constantinople. I will admit that this point of the agreement over the military mission was not opportune politically.

"When Prince Lichnowsky boasts of having succeeded in giving the treaty a form corresponding to our wishes, this credit must not be denied him, although it certainly required strong pressure on several occasions to induce him to represent some of our desires with more emphasis.

"When Prince Lichnowsky says that he received the authorization definitely to conclude the treaty, after he previously asserts that 'the treaty was consequently dropped,' this contains a contradiction which we may let the Prince straighten out. Lichnowsky's assertion, however, that we delayed publication because the treaty would have been 'a public success' for him that we begrudged him, is an unheard-of insinuation that can only be explained through his self-centred conception of things. The treaty would have lost its practical and moral effect—one of its main objects was to create a good atmosphere between us and England—if its publication had been greeted with violent attacks upon 'perfidious Albion' in our Anglophobe press and in our Parliament. And there is no doubt that, in view of our internal position at that time, this is what the simultaneous publication of the so-called Windsor Treaty would have caused. And the howl about English perfidy that the internal contradiction between the text of the Windsor Treaty and our treaty would doubtless have called forth would hardly have been stilled in the minds of our public through the assurance of English bona fides.

"With justified precaution, we intended to allow the publication to be made only at the proper moment, when the danger of disapproving criticism was no longer so acute, if possible simultaneously with the announcement of the Bagdad Treaty, which also was on the point of being concluded. The fact that two great agreements had been concluded between us and England would doubtless have materially favored their reception and made it easier to overlook the aesthetic defects of the Portuguese agreement. It was consideration for the effect of the agreement—with which we wanted to improve our relations with England, not to generate more trouble—that caused our hesitation.

"It is correct that—although in a secondary degree—consideration was also taken of the efforts just then being made to obtain economic interests in the Portuguese colonies, which the publication of the agreement would naturally have made more difficult to realize. These conditions Prince Lichnowsky may not have been able to perceive fully from London, but he should have trusted in our objective judgment and acquiesced in it, instead of replacing his lack of understanding with suspicions and the interjection of personal motives. He certainly would have found our arguments understood by the English statesmen themselves.

"The Ambassador's speeches aroused considerable adverse sentiment in this country. It was necessary for the creation of a better atmosphere, in which alone the rapprochement being worked for could flourish, that confidence in our English policy and in our London Ambassador be spread also among our people at home. Prince Lichnowsky, otherwise so susceptible to public opinion, did not take this motive sufficiently into account, for he saw everything only through his London spectacles. The charges against the attitude of the Foreign Office are too untenable to be bothered with. I would only like to point out that Prince Lichnowsky was not left in ignorance regarding the 'most important things,' in so far as they were of value to his mission. On the contrary, I gave the Ambassador much more general information than used to be the custom. My own experiences as Ambassador induced me to do so. But with Lichnowsky there was the inclination to rely more upon his own impressions and judgment than upon the information and advice of the Central Office. To be sure, I did not always have either the motive or the authority to impart the sources of our news. Here there were quite definite considerations, particularly anxiety regarding the compromising of our sources. The Prince's memorandum furnishes the best justification for the caution exercised in this regard.

"It is not true that in the Foreign Office the reports that England would protect France under all circumstances were not believed.

"At Knopischt, on the occasion of the visit of his Majesty the Kaiser to the Archduke heir apparent, no plan of an active policy against Serbia was laid down. Archduke Franz Ferdinand was not at all the champion of a policy leading to war for which he has often been taken. During the London conference he advised moderation and the avoidance of war.

"Prince Lichnowsky's 'optimism' was hardly justified, as he has probably convinced himself since through the revelations of the Sukhomlinoff trial. Besides, the secret Anglo-Russian naval agreement (of which, as said before, he was informed) should have made him more skeptical. Unfortunately, the suspicion voiced by the Imperial Chancellor and the Under Secretary of State was well grounded. How does this agree with the assertion that we, relying upon the reports of Count Pourtalès that 'Russia would not move under any circumstances,' had not thought of the possibility of a war? Furthermore, so far as I can recollect, Count Pourtalès [German Ambassador at St. Petersburg] never made such reports.

"That Austria-Hungary wished to proceed against the constant provocations stirred up by Russia, (Herr von Hartwig,) which reached their climax in the outrage of Serajevo, we had to recognize as justified. In spite of all the former settlements and avoidances of menacing conflicts, Russia did not abandon her policy, which aimed at the complete exclusion of the Austrian influence (and naturally ours also) from the Balkans. The Russian agents, inspired by Petrograd, continued their incitement. It was a question of the prestige and the existence of the Danube Monarchy. It must either put up with the Russo-Serbian machinations, or command a quos ego, even at the risk of war. We could not leave our ally in the lurch. Had the intention been to exclude the ultima ratio of the war in general, the alliance should not have been concluded. Besides, it was plain that the Russian military preparations, (for instance, the extension of the railroads and forts in Poland,) for which a France lusting for revenge had lent the money and which would have been completed in a few years, were directed principally against us. But despite all this, despite the fact that the aggressive tendency of the Russian policy was becoming more evident from day to day, the idea of a preventive war was far removed from us. We only decided to declare war on Russia in the face of the Russian mobilization and to prevent a Russian invasion.

"I have not the letters exchanged with the Prince at hand—it was a matter of private letters. Lichnowsky pleaded for the abandonment of Austria. I replied, so far as I remember, that we, aside from our treaty obligation, could not sacrifice our ally for the uncertain friendship of England. If we abandoned our only reliable ally later we would stand entirely isolated, face to face with the Entente. It is likely that I also wrote that 'Russia was constantly becoming more anti-German' and that we must 'just risk it.' Furthermore, it is possible that I, in order to steel Lichnowsky's nerves a little and to prevent him from exposing his views also in London, may also have written that there would probably be some 'bluster'; that 'the more firmly we stood by Austria the sooner Russia would yield.' I have said already that our policy was not based upon alleged reports excluding war; certainly at that time I still thought war could be avoided, but, like all of us, I was fully aware of the very serious danger.

"We could not agree to the English proposal of a conference of Ambassadors, for it would doubtless have led to a serious diplomatic defeat. For Italy, too, was pro-Serb and, with her Balkan interests, stood rather opposed to Austria. The 'intimacy of the Russo-Italian relations' is admitted by Prince Lichnowsky himself. The best and only feasible way of escape was a localization of the conflict and an understanding between Vienna and Petrograd. We worked toward that end with all our energy. That we 'insisted upon' the war is an unheard-of assertion which is sufficiently invalidated by the telegrams of his Majesty the Kaiser to the Czar and to King George, published in the White Books—Prince Lichnowsky only cares to tell about 'the really humble telegram of the Czar'—as well as the instruction we sent to Vienna. The worst caricature is formed by the sentence:

"'When Count Berchtold finally decided to come around we answered the Russian mobilization, after Russia had vainly negotiated and waited a whole week, with the ultimatum and the declaration of war.'

[In quoting Lichnowsky, Herr von Jagow omits the former's statement that Count Berchtold "hitherto had played the strong man on instructions from Berlin."]

"Should we, perhaps, have waited until the mobilized Russian Army was streaming over our borders? The reading of the Sukhomlinov trial has probably given even Prince Lichnowsky a feeling of 'Oh si tacuisses!' On July 5 I was absent from Berlin. The declaration that I was 'shortly thereafter in Vienna' 'in order to talk everything over with Count Berchtold' is false. I returned to Berlin on July 6 from my honeymoon trip and did not leave there until Aug. 15, on the occasion of the shifting of the Great Headquarters. As Secretary of State I was only once in Vienna before the war, in the Spring of 1913.

"Prince Lichnowsky lightly passed over the matter of the confusing dispatch that he sent us on Aug. 1—at present I am not in possession of the exact wording—as a 'misunderstanding' and even seems to want to reproach us because 'in Berlin the news, without first waiting for the conversation, was made the basis of a far-reaching action.' The question of war with England was a matter of minutes, and immediately after the arrival of the dispatch it was decided to make an eleventh-hour attempt to avoid war with France and England. His Majesty sent the well-known telegram to King George. The contents of the Lichnowsky dispatch could not have been understood any other way than we understood it.

"Objectively taken, the statement of Prince Lichnowsky presents such an abundance of inaccuracies and distortions that it is hardly a wonder that his conclusions are also entirely wrong. The reproach that we sent an ultimatum on July 30 to Petrograd merely because of the mobilization of Russia and on July 31 declared war upon the Russians, although the Czar had pledged his word that not a man should march so long as negotiations were under way, thus willfully destroying the possibility of a peaceful adjustment, has really a grotesque effect. In concluding, the statement seems almost to identify itself with the standpoint of our enemies.

"When the Ambassador makes the accusation that our policy identified itself 'with Turks and Austro-Magyars' and 'subjected itself to the viewpoints of Vienna and Budapest,' he may be suitably answered that he saw things only through London spectacles and from the narrow point of view of his desired rapprochement with England à tout prix. He also appears to have forgotten completely that the Entente was formed much more against us than against Austria.

"I, too, pursued a policy which aimed at an understanding with England, because I was of the opinion that this was the only way for us to escape from the unfavorable position in which we were placed by the unequal division of strength and the weakness of the Triple Alliance. But Russia and France insisted upon war. We were obligated through our treaty with Austria, and our position as a great power was also threatened—hic Rhodus, hic salta. But England, that was not allied in the same way with Russia and that had received far-reaching assurances from us regarding the sparing of France and Belgium, seized the sword.

"In saying this, I by no means share the opinion prevalent among us today that England laid all the mines for the outbreak of the war; on the contrary, I believe in Sir Edward Grey's love of peace and in his earnest wish to arrive at an agreement with us. But he had allowed himself to become entangled too far in the net of the Franco-Russian policy; he no longer found the way out, and he did not prevent the world war—something that he could have done. Neither was the war popular with the English people; Belgium had to serve as a battle cry.

"'Political marriages for life and death' are, as Prince Lichnowsky says, not possible in international unions. But neither is isolation, under the present condition of affairs in Europe. The history of Europe consists of coalitions that sometimes have led to the avoidance of warlike outbreaks and sometimes to violent clashes. A loosening and dissolving of old alliances that no longer correspond to all conditions is only in order when new constellations are attainable. This was the object of the policy of a rapprochement with England. So long as this policy did not offer reliable guarantees we could not abandon the old guarantees—even with their obligations.

"The Morocco policy had led to a political defeat. In the Bosnian crisis this had been luckily avoided, the same as at the London Conference. A fresh diminution of our prestige was not endurable for our position in Europe and in the world. The prosperity of States, their political and economic successes, are based upon the prestige that they enjoy in the world.

"The personal attacks contained in the work, the unheard-of calumnies and slanders of others, condemn themselves. The ever-recurring suspicion that everything happened only because it was not desired to allow him, Lichnowsky, any successes speaks of wounded self-love, of disappointed hopes for personal successes, and has a painful effect.

"In closing, let us draw attention here to what Hermann Oncken has also quoted in his work, 'The Old and New Central Europe,' the memorandum of Prince Bismarck of the year 1879, in which the idea is developed that the German Empire must never dare allow a situation in which it would remain isolated on the European Continent between Russia and France, side by side with a defeated Austria-Hungary that had been left in the lurch by Germany."

---

In commenting upon Herr von Jagow's reply to Prince Lichnowsky, Georg Bernhard, editor in chief of the Vossische Zeitung, took occasion to re-emphasize his favorite theory of a rapprochement with Russia so as to enable Germany to reduce Great Britain to the level of a second-class power. In a long article, printed on March 31, Herr Bernhard asserted that Prince Lichnowsky had been by no means alone in his policy of seeking agreement with England as Herr von Jagow himself had admitted, and that the German Foreign Office had seemed obsessed with the idea that it was a question of a choice between Austria and England, when, in reality, if the diplomats had wanted to pursue a good German policy and at the same time be of service to Austria, they should have made it a question of Russia or England and tried to establish good relations with the former under all circumstances. After quoting von Jagow's remark about the inadvisability of abandoning old alliances until new constellations were attainable, Herr Bernhard said:

"We shall not go into the question here if, during this war, which strains all the forces of the alliance to the utmost, a former German Secretary of State should have written such sentences. It is incomprehensible how they came from the pen of a sensible man—and Herr von Jagow is such a one. And it is still more incomprehensible how they were able to escape the attention of the Foreign Office. Fortunately, they can no longer do any harm now, as through our deeds we have demonstrated our loyalty to the Austrians and Hungarians better than it can be done by any amount of talk."

In an earlier editorial Herr Bernhard referred as follows to von Jagow's admission that he did not believe that England had laid all the mines leading to the world war:

"In spite of all experiences, therefore, here is another—almost official—attempt made to represent the war as merely the result of the aggressive desires of France and Russia. As if France (through whose population went a shudder of fear as it saw itself on the edge of the abyss of war) would ever have dared to go to war without knowing that England stood back of her! And were Edward's trips to Paris without any effect upon our diplomats? Has it not also finally become sufficiently well known through the reports of the Belgian Ambassador how France repeatedly tried to escape from the alliance, but was always again forced into the net by Nicolson, [former British Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs,] through Edward? The Imperial Chancellor, von Bethmann Hollweg, himself admitted in the Reichstag the harmful rôle of King Edward. Only he, as probably did Herr von Jagow also, thought that Edward's death put an end to the policy of encircling. But this policy of encircling—and here is where the mistake entailing serious consequences is made by our diplomats—was not at all merely a personal favorite idea of Edward VII., but the continuation of the traditional English policy toward the strongest Continental power."

Herr Bernhard then asserted that England desired the publication of the proposed Anglo-German treaty regarding the division of the Portuguese colonies into spheres of economic interests so as to make Portugal's eventual support of the Entente all the surer, and continued:

"And Lichnowsky wanted to fall into this trap set by England. It was avoided by the Foreign Office more through instinct than sagacity. And these diplomats have guided Germany's destiny before and during the war! Let us give the warmest thanks to Hindenburg because his sword has now, it is to be hoped, put an end once for all to the continued spinning of plans by such and similar diplomats even during the war."

Theodor Wolff, editor in chief of the Berliner Tageblatt, probably the leading organ of the German business elements and liberal politicians who were opposed to the war from the beginning, and who still hope for a negotiated peace that will facilitate an early resumption of trade relations with Great Britain and the rest of the allies, expressed the hope that the "battle of minds will finally create a clearer atmosphere," and then remarked:

"Only quite incidentally would I like to allow myself to direct the attention of Herr von Jagow to an erroneous expression that appears twice in his reply. Herr von Jagow writes: 'We informed him [Lichnowsky] of the secret Anglo-Russian naval agreement,' and in another place: 'The secret Anglo-Russian naval agreement might also have made him a little more skeptical.' Only the day before, on Saturday, it was said in an article of the Norddeutshe Allgemeine Zeitung, also directed against Lichnowsky: 'Negotiations were pending with Russia over a naval agreement that the Prince characteristically passes over in silence.' In reality, although hasty historians also speak without further ceremony of a treaty, it is manifest that no Anglo-Russian agreement existed; there was merely a Russian proposal, and the most that can be said is that 'negotiations were pending.' * * *

"His [von Jagow's] remark, 'It is not true that the Foreign Office did not believe the reports that England would protect France under all circumstances,' is in contradiction with the well-known report of the then English Ambassador, Goschen, which describes into what surprise and consternation Herr von Bethmann and Herr von Jagow were thrown by the news of the English declaration of war."

In beginning his comment upon von Jagow, Herr Wolff threw a little more light upon the way in which Prince Lichnowsky's memorandum "for the family archives" got into more or less general secret circulation in Germany before it was printed by the Swedish Socialist paper Politiken last March, and also described the character of Captain Beerfelde, the member of the German General Staff who, according to some cabled reports, is to be tried for his part in distributing copies of the memorandum.

Herr Wolff said that Prince Lichnowsky had had five or six copies made, of which he had sent one to Wolff, one to Albert Ballin, head of the Hamburg-American line, and another to Arthur von Gwinner, head of the Deutsche Bank. All of these persons carefully hid the "dangerous gift" in the deepest recesses of their writing desks, but a fourth copy went astray and got into hands for which it had not been intended, and from these hands passed into those of still another individual. Then the editor wrote:

"I made the acquaintance some years before the war of the officer who obtained the memorandum 'on loan,' and sent copies of it to State officials and politicians. He belongs to an old noble family, was treated with sympathy by General von Moltke, the Chief of the General Staff, occupied himself enthusiastically with religious philosophy or theosophy, and was a thoroughly manly but mystic person. * * * After hard war experiences, he felt the longing to serve the dictates of peace with complete devotion, and he surrendered himself to a pacifism which is absolutely incompatible with the uniform.

"Late one evening he visited me in a state of great excitement, and told me that he had manifolded a memorandum by Prince Lichnowsky which had been lent to him, and that, without asking the author, he had sent it to the 'leading men.' It was impossible to convince him by any logic or on any grounds of reason that his action was wrong, senseless, and harmful. He was a Marquis Posa, or, still more, a Horatius Cocles, who, out of love for Rome or for mankind, sprang into the abyss."

The Berlin Vorwärts, the leading organ of the pro-Government Socialists, began its editorial on the von Jagow reply by remarking that the article of the former State Secretary for Foreign Affairs was hardly calculated to convince the reader that Prince Lichnowsky's self-esteem was the only thing that had had a "painful effect" upon the German people in July, 1914, and since that time. It then said that "Herr von Jagow agrees with Lichnowsky upon the decisive point!" quoted what von Jagow had said about his desire for an Anglo-German rapprochement, and continued:

"These words show that, in 1913, the Wilhelmstrasse and the London Embassy were in the complete harmony of common beliefs and intentions. Herr von Jagow, exactly like Lichnowsky, exactly like Bethmann, and exactly like Wilhelm II., believed in the possibility of creating 'an atmosphere of confidence,' as Jagow says, between Germany and England, through a series of agreements, of which those regarding the Bagdad Railroad and Africa were to have been the first."

Vorwärts then proceeded to point out that the Albanian crisis had strengthened this faith instead of weakening it, took up von Jagow's reasons for Germany's refusal to have the proposed Anglo-German agreement on the Portuguese African colonies published, and exclaimed:

"What a fear of Tirpitz! A disturbing of the new relations through his intrigues and the howling of his jingo press was to be avoided through an affectation of secrecy. But three weeks later the war with England was here and the Pan-German sheets welcomed 'the longed-for day!' What had happened in the meantime? Of course, 'perfidious Albion' (even Jagow puts quotation marks on these words) had in the meantime thrown off the mask and revealed her perfidy! Let's hear what—after Lichnowsky—Herr von Jagow, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in July, 1914, has to say about it!"

Then Vorwärts quoted Jagow's description of how the war began, and went on:

"All that remains of the accusations against the English Government is that it did not prevent the world war, 'although it could have done so.' Now Herr von Jagow also did not prevent the world war, but he must certainly be acquitted of the charge that he could have prevented it. He really could not, and so an emphatic statement of inability is the best excuse for him and his fellow-disputants.

"Let us establish the facts. England did not desire the war; she merely did not prevent it. The war was not popular in England; it also was not popular in Russia and France. But it has become popular. The whole world—right away across the Atlantic and the Pacific—is united in hatred against us. We, however, have for almost four years been inoculated with the view that 'England laid all the mines which caused the war'—a view which the Secretary of State, in accordance with the evidence of the Ambassador, has now declared to be false! It is, however, by this false view that the whole war policy of the German Empire has been directed—from the declaration of unrestricted submarine warfare, which brought us war with America, down to those Chancellor speeches which say that Belgium must not again become England's area of military concentration.

"If all the parties concerned were convinced that the belief in England's guilt is a fiction, why did they feed this belief, and why did they pursue a policy which was based upon it? They ought rather to have appointed to the Chancellorship Tirpitz, who, perhaps, believes what he says. Instead of that, a policy of fear of Tirpitz has been pursued. Sometimes a policy against Tirpitz has been attempted, but it has always been reversed at decisive moments, out of fear of the nationalistic terror.

"This fear was, perhaps, not entirely unfounded, for agitation is unscrupulous. The older ones among us still remember very well 'an Englishwoman' who was very unpopular in many circles, but this Englishwoman was the mother of the German Kaiser. No doubt there was no more convenient method for the Government to guard the dynasty than for it to take part in, or at least to tolerate, the agitation against the English. This was the only way of preventing the agitation from turning ultimately against the wearer of the German imperial crown. But ought such intimate considerations to have been permitted to play a part when the fate of the nations was at stake?

"Let us put an end to this! At this moment we are in a battle which may be decisive and which is going in favor of the empire. But even after this battle we shall possess neither the possibility nor the moral right to treat our opponent according to the principle of 'With thumbs in his eyes and knee on his breast.' Even after the greatest military successes there exists the necessity for political negotiation. It will be easier for us to enter into this negotiation after the poisonous fog of the war lies shall have lifted. Now that Herr von Jagow has cleared up the rôle played by England at the beginning of the war, there is nothing in the way of the fulfillment of the promise made by Bethmann to 'make good the wrong committed against Belgium'!

"If it is perhaps true that everything Wilhelm II., Bethmann, von Jagow, and Lichnowsky thought was true up to three weeks before the outbreak of the war was false, then let the mistake be acknowledged and the conservative Pan-Germans be put openly in the Government, so that they, both within and without, may complete the work of a peace by force. But if this is neither desirable nor possible, then there is nothing left to do but to take a decided step ahead. For the German people cannot be satisfied with the methods of governing exercised before and during the war. * * * The German people can only endure after the war as a peace-loving nation that governs itself."

To a Britisher who has followed the trend of events in the Near East, and who has witnessed the gradual development of German intrigues in that area, there has never been published a document so important and so condemnatory of Germany as the disclosures of Prince Lichnowsky.

On the one hand, the memorandum of the Kaiser's ex-Ambassador in London proves from an authoritative enemy pen that, practically ever since the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78, and particularly from the time of the accession of the present Emperor to the throne in 1888, the Germans have carefully prepared the way for the present war, and that during this period they have consistently turned their attention toward the East and toward the development of the Mitteleuropa scheme. And on the other side it indicates, if indeed any indication were still required, that the so-called rivalry existing between England and Germany prior to the war arose not from any desire on the part of Great Britain to stand in the way of the development of legitimate German interests in the Balkans and in Asia Minor, but from the unwillingness of the Government of Berlin to agree to any reasonable settlement of the many all-important questions connected with these regions.

Although for years the Germans had been intriguing against the Triple Entente, Prince Lichnowsky, a man possessed of personally friendly feelings for England, was sent to London in order to camouflage the real designs of the enemy and to secure representation by a diplomatist who was intended to make good, and who, in fact, did make a high position for himself in British official and social circles. The appointment itself raises two interesting questions. In the first place, while this is not stated in the memorandum, it is clear that, whereas Baron Marschall von Bieberstein was definitely instructed to endeavor to make friends with England and to detach her from France and Russia, or, if this were impossible, to bring about war at a convenient time for Germany, Prince Lichnowsky's task was somewhat different. Kept at least more or less in the dark as to German objects, the Ambassador, who arrived in London when the Morocco crisis of 1911 was considered at an end, instead of being intrusted with the dual objects of his predecessor, was clearly told to do, and did in fact do, his utmost to establish friendly relations with England. The Berlin Government, on the other hand, this time maintained in its own hands the larger question of the making of war at what it believed, happily wrongly, to be a convenient time for the Central Empires. In the second place, although this, too, is not explained, various references made by Prince Lichnowsky leave little doubt in the mind of the reader who knows the situation existing at the German Embassy prior to the outbreak of war that the Ambassador himself was aware that von Kühlmann—the Councilor of Embassy—was, in fact, the representative of Pan-Germanism in England, and that to this very able and expert intriguer was left the work of trying to develop a situation which, in peace or in war, would be favorable to the ruler and to the class whose views he voiced.

To come down to the real subject of this article—the proof provided by Prince Lichnowsky's disclosures of the long existence of the German Mitteleuropa scheme and of the fact that Germany, and not Austria, made this war, largely with the object of pushing through her designs in the East—I propose to divide my remarks in such a way as to show that the development of this scheme passed through three phases and in each case to take what may be called a text from the document under discussion.

The first phase lasted from the Congress of Berlin of 1878, when Prince Lichnowsky says that Germany began the Triple Alliance policy, and more definitely from the accession of the present Emperor to the throne in 1888 until the Balkan wars. While in using these expressions the ex-Ambassador does not refer only to this period, he says: "The goal of our political ambition was to dominate in the Bosporus," and "instead of encouraging a powerful development in the Balkan States, we placed ourselves on the side of the Turkish and Magyar oppressors."

These words contain in essence and in tabulated form an explanation (from the pen of a German whose personal and official positions enabled him to know the truth) of the events which were in progress during this period—events the full importance of which has often been refuted and denied by those who refused to see that from the first the Kaiser was obsessed by a desire for domination from Hamburg to the Persian Gulf. Indeed, from the moment of his accession the sentiments and views of the German ruler became markedly apparent, for one year later his Majesty paid the first of his carpet-bagging visits to Constantinople—a visit more or less connected with the then recent grabbing of Haidar Pasha-Ismid railway—now the first section of the Bagdad line—by the Germans, and with the prolongation of that line to Angora as a German concern, concessions secured by Mr. Kaula, acting on behalf of German interests in 1888.

Before and particularly after the appointment of Baron Marschall von Bieberstein, who had then been a personal friend of the Kaiser for many years, the enemy had been carefully preparing the way for the realization of his Pan-German dreams in the Near and Middle East. Although so far as the Balkan States were concerned, up to the outbreak of the war the Kaiser endeavored to screen his intentions behind a nominally Austrian program, for years he had really been making ready his ground for the present occasion by military, political, and economic penetration and by diplomatic intrigues destined to bring about a favorable situation for Germany when the propitious moment for action arrived. The power of von der Goltz Pasha, who introduced the present military system into Turkey in 1886, and of his pupils was gradually increased until the Ottoman Army was finally placed completely under Germanic control.

The Young Turkish revolution of 1908, which at first seemed destined greatly to minimize German power at Constantinople, really resulted in an opposite effect. Thus in spite of the effective support of England for Turkey during the Bosnian and Bulgarian crises of 1908 and 1909, a gradual reaction subsequently set in. This was due in part to the cleverness and regardlessness of von Bieberstein, and in part to the circumstances arising out of the policy adopted by the Young Turks. For instance, while the Germans ignored the necessity for reforms in the Ottoman Empire so long as the Turks favored a Teutonic program, it was impossible for the British Government or the British public to look with favor upon a régime which worked to maintain the privileged position of Moslems throughout the empire, which did nothing to punish those who instigated the massacre of the Armenians of Cilicia in 1909, and which was intent upon disturbing the status quo in the Persian Gulf, and upon changing the status of Egypt to the Turkish advantage.

Such indeed became the position that even the Turco-Italian war, which might have been expected to shake the confidence of the Ottoman Government in the bona fides of Italy's then ally, did not seriously disturb the intimate relations which were gradually developing between Berlin and Constantinople. Here again enemy intrigues were to the fore, for in addition to Austria's objecting to the inauguration of any Italian operations in the Balkans, the German Government, when the position of its representative in Constantinople had become seriously compromised as a result of the Italian annexation of Tripoli, which he could not prevent, suddenly found it convenient to transfer von Bieberstein to London and to replace him by another, perhaps less able, but certainly none the less successful in retaining a grasp over everything which took place in the Ottoman capital.

Before and particularly after the accession of the Kaiser to the throne, the Germans gradually furthered their program by a system of railway penetration in the East. In the late '60s Baron Hirsch secured a concession for the construction of lines from Constantinople to what was then the north-western frontier of Eastern Rumelia, and from Saloniki to Mitrovitza, with a branch to Ristovatz on the then Serbian frontier. At first these lines were under French influence, but they subsequently became largely an Austrian undertaking, and considerably later the Deutsche Bank secured a predominating proportion of the capital, thus turning them practically into a German concern. In Asia Minor the British, who were originally responsible for the construction of railways, were gradually ousted, until, with the signature of the Bagdad Railway agreement in 1903, the Germans dominated not only that line, but also occupied a position in which, on the one hand, they had secured control of many of its feeders, and, on the other, they had jeopardized the future development and even the actual prosperity of those not already in their possession.

This brings us up to the second phase in the development of Pan-Germanism in the East—the period of the Balkan wars—toward two aspects of which, as Prince Lichnowsky says, the Central Powers devoted their attention. "Two possibilities for settling the question remained." Either Germany left the Near Eastern problem to the peoples themselves or she supported her allies "and carried out a Triple Alliance policy in the East, thereby giving up the rôle of mediator." Once more, in the words of the Prince himself, "The German Foreign Office very much preferred the latter," and as a result supported Austria on the one hand in her desire for the establishment of an independent Albania, and on the other in her successful attempts to draw Bulgaria into the second war and to prevent that country from providing the concessions which at that time would have satisfied Rumania.

So far as the first of these questions—that connected with Albania—is concerned, while the ex-Ambassador admits the policy of Austria was actuated by the fact that she "would not allow Serbia to reach the Adriatic," the actual creation of Albania was justified by the existence of the Albanians as a nationality and by their desire for independent government. Indeed, that the régime inaugurated by the great powers on the east of the Adriatic, and particularly the Government of William of Wied, proved an utter failure, was due not so much to what Prince Lichnowsky describes as the "incapacity of existence" of Albania as to the attitude of the Central Powers, and especially to that of Austria, who, having brought the new State into being, at once worked for unrest and for discord in the hope of being able to step in to put the house in order when the propitious moment arrived.

The second direction in which the enemy devoted his energy was an even larger, more German and more far-reaching one. "The first Balkan war led to the collapse of Turkey and with it the defeat of our policy, which has been identified with Turkey for many years," says the memorandum. This at one time seemed destined to carry with it results entirely disadvantageous to Germany. Thus, if the four States, Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro, and Serbia, who fought in the first war had continued on good terms with one another, the whole balance of power in Europe would almost certainly have been changed. Instead of the Ottoman Empire, which prior to the outbreak of these hostilities was held by competent authorities to be able to provide a vast army, then calculated to number approximately 1,225,000 men, there would have sprung up a friendly group of countries which in the near future could easily have placed in the field a combined army approximately amounting to at least 1,000,000, all told. As the interests of such a confederation, which would probably have been joined by Rumania, would have been on the side of the Triple Entente, the Central Powers at once realized that its formation or its continued existence would mean for them not only the loss of the whole of Turkey, but also the gain for their enemies of four or five allies, most of whom had already proved their power in war,

Between the Balkan wars and the outbreak of the European conflagration, but as part of the former period, there occurred two events of far-reaching significance. The first, which is mentioned by Prince Lichnowsky, was the appointment of General Liman von Sanders practically as Commander in Chief of the Turkish Army—an appointment which Mr. Morgenthau rightly tells us constituted a diplomatic triumph for Germany. When coupled with the fact that Enver Pasha—an out-and-out pro-German—became Minister of War about the same time, the military result of this appointment was an enormous improvement in the efficiency of the Ottoman Army. Its political significance, on the other hand, was due to the fact that it carried with it a far-reaching increase of Pan-German influence at Constantinople.

The second event in progress during the interval of peace was connected with the Aegean Islands question. Germany, having first utilized her diplomatic influence in favor of Turkey, later on encouraged the Government of that country in its continued protests against the decision upon that question arrived at by the great powers. Not content, however, with this, the Kaiser, who has now adopted the policy of deportation in Belgium, in Poland, and in Serbia, definitely encouraged the Turks in a like measure in regard to the Greeks of Asia Minor in order to be rid of a hostile and Christian population when the time for action arrived. That this encouragement was given was always apparent to those who followed the course of events in 1914, but that it was admitted by a German Admiral to Mr. Morgenthau constitutes a condemnation the damning nature of which it is difficult to exaggerate.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

[American Cartoons]

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---