control, despite the activity of Governor Harrison in urging the delinquent officials to do their duty.

Those who are interested in present conditions in the Philippines will be more than interested in reading at first hand Mr. Worcester's illuminating comments on the present status of health work in the Philippines, on the destruction to all intents and purposes of the widely known Philippine Bureau of Science, on the attitude of the Filipinos toward their loudly heralded laws against slavery and peonage, and on the futility of attempting to promote genuine friendliness with the islanders by any such sop as is contained in the preamble to the new Jones Bill.

THE FREIGHT RATES DECISION

The effect of the recent decision of the Inter-State Commerce Commission is to extend to the roads east of Buffalo and Pittsburgh the permission granted last July to the railways between the Buffalo-Pittsburgh line and the Mississippi to increase their freight rates about five per cent. This permission is guarded with certain exceptions and limitations. It has been estimated that the increase of revenue to the railways concerned may be about fifty million dollars—and, conversely, manufacturers and other shippers must pay this amount additional for service.

When this question was first argued before the Commission, The Outlook pointed out that the railways were entitled to higher rates if it were shown that with reasonable economy they could not, because of the general increase in prices, earn enough to meet fixed charges and interest on proper investment, pay fair wages, insure safety, keep up equipment, and provide for proper development. This, in any case and at any time, is a question of fact, and it is the immensely intricate and difficult duty of the Inter-State Commerce Commission to determine what the facts are and what action they justify. The second or supplementary decision just reached analyzes new and important facts laid before the Commission since its first decision was made. To quote the report as to these new facts, "collectively they present a new situation," and they show a just reason for increased net revenue. Chief among the things that make a new situation are: the low condition of net operating revenues of the roadslower for the year ending in June last than in any year since 1903; the drop in a year

975

of a million dollars in the investment account of the roads; the effect of the war on business; quite recent enlargement of expenditure on roadways; increases in cost of material. In short, the decision is not, as some critics claim, a reversal of former action, but a new decision based on new evidence.

The reference to the war in the report is of special import, not only in itself, but because it is coupled with a comment on the railway business which is the reverse of the attitude of persecution attributed to the Commission by its critics. The report says:

"Whatever the consequences of the war may prove to be, we must recognize the fact that it exists, the fact that it is a calamity without precedent, and the fact that by it the commerce of the world has been disarranged and thrown in confusion. The means of transportation are fundamental and indispensable agencies in our industrial life, and for the common weal should be kept abreast of public requirements."

The relations of this decision to the business world, and to the place which the InterState Commerce Commission occupies as between the railways, the shipper, and the Government, will later be considered editorially in The Outlook.

CIVILIZED WARFARE AND NEUTRAL NATIONS

In last week's "Story of the War a German naval raid upon the English coast towns of Scarborough, Whitby, and Hartlepool was reported by Mr. Bullard, and the opinion was expressed that if it were an isolated raid it would have little effect beyond stimulating recruiting in England. Whatever effect it has had, it has certainly increased the number of recruits. Apart from any effect on the course of the war, however, it has made an impression upon neutral nations, and especially upon American opinion, out of all proportion to its apparent military significance.

Scarborough is primarily a summer resort. It has no military or naval importance. The Germans claim that technically it could be regarded as a defended town. The English deny this. If the Germans try to show that it was a defended place, it is for the purpose of mollifying neutral sentiment, and not for the satisfaction of their own sense of right; for the German military authorities have given no sign of recognizing the validity of any rule prohibiting the bombardment of undefended places. The ground for such a rule The

Outlook has pointed out heretofore. It is one of those rules, whether drawn up and ratified in written form or simply observed as a matter of custom and sense of decency, that distinguishes savage fighting from civilized warfare. That there is such distinction

But,

is based on the difference of purpose. Savage fighting has for its object extermination. Civilized warfare has for its object the enforcement of a national purpose or policy. whatever may be the rule in this case of the raid upon Scarborough, the actual result was the same as if the place were technically as well as practically undefended.

The victims were not soldiers, but civilians, and to a large extent women and children. What military advantage commensurate with the effort and risk can come from such a raid is hard to say, but one great disadvantage has resulted. Germany is making a great effort to secure the approval of American sentiment. Such a raid as this nullifies the arguments of German representatives. Americans are not won by exploits that end in the killing of women and babies; and all the reasoning in the world will not conceal the fact that the raid on Scarborough was an exploit of this kind.

Significant in much the same way of the German attitude toward the rules of civilized warfare and the German interest in neutral opinion is an interview with Grand Admiral von Tirpitz secured by the same correspondent of the United Press who recently interviewed the German Crown Prince. Admiral von Tirpitz, who is the German Minister of Marine, suggests the possibility of attacking the merchant vessels of the Allies by submarines. Of course this is distinctly contrary to the customary usage of civilized warfare. Merchantmen are seized, but not under circumstances that mean the destruction of those on board. Submarines, however, cannot capture merchantmen; all they can do is to creep up unsuspected and put holes in their bottoms. The excuse for such a procedure which Admiral von Tirpitz offers is that it would do something to offset England's blockade of Germany's coast. But the Admiral significantly inquires, "What would America think?"

NEUTRAL OPINION

Neutral opinion on such an exploit as the Scarborough raid and such a proposal as the above is, onthe whole, unquestionably strongly unfavorable; but it is unformulated. There

is a tendency on the part of some, in view of what is happening in the present war in disregard of civilized rules of warfare, to conclude that there is, after all, no such thing as international morality. A view opposed to this tendency was strongly presented last week in a speech at the annual festival of the New England Society in the city of New York by the Hon. James M. Beck. Briefly, he said that the end of war cannot come merely through the creation of international tribunals and other forms of judicial machinery, however desirable they may be as means, but only by the creation of international good will, the spirit of conciliation, the regard for international justice, the cultivation of an international conscience-what the founders of the American Union termed "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind." That there is such a spirit of good will and such a sense of international right and justice had been pointed out in preceding speeches by President Eliot and Dr. Lyman Abbott in their references to the principles of the Pilgrim Fathers and to the history of the United States. Mr. Beck expressed the conviction that such international sense of right should now be recorded by the neutral nations. For that purpose he advocated the calling of a conference of neutral nations by the President of the United States, not so much to propose terms of peace as to " express their collective judgment either upon the causes of the war or, at all events, upon the methods of the war."

This is a very interesting suggestion; and it may be of material practical value. think it is very doubtful whether there would be any advantage at the present time in endeavoring to bring about peace between the nations at war, and an attempt resulting in failure would be a distinct disadvantage. But if the neutral nations could come together and reaffirm the laws of civilized warfare, taking the Hague conventions as a basis for their declaration, it might have an effect on the conduct of the war and could hardly fail to have an effect in disabusing the popular mind of the notion that war abolishes all rules and disregards all humanities, and that there is no morality between nations that can stand a crucial test. Whether or not any practical effect comes from this suggestion, Mr. Beck rendered a large service in emphasizing the moral aspects of the war and in calling attention anew to the fact that at least one nation is founded on a sense of

If the statements of the newspaper correspondent who reported the interview with Admiral von Tirpitz, to which we have referred, are to be accepted as trustworthy, the German Minister of Marine is a dreamer of dreams as well as the maker of a powerful navy.

In suggesting that German submarines can torpedo every English or Allies' ship which nears- any harbor, and can thus by a radical violation of international rule starve England out, the able Admiral who in twenty years has created the German navy appears as a reader of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. This delightful and ingenious writer, just before his visit to this country last spring, wrote a short story as a warning to England. He described one of the smallest Powers in Europe as not only defying England, but as, by the use of a group of submarines to sink the British food ships and to attack vessels off the British ports, finally reducing Great Britain to the point of starvation and compelling her to make peace.

But Admiral von Tirpitz goes further than this in the exercise of his imagination by relating his vision concerning the future relations of Japan and the United States. In this he has confirmed the position of The Outlook last week, putting Americans on their guard against German interpretation of the position and spirit of Japan.

The fundamental attitude expressed twenty years ago by the German Emperor in his famous speech on the "Yellow Peril" is made perfectly clear in the Admiral's declaration that Germany will "never abandon the white race." Japan, he declares, will make China a vassal and militarize it. Then, said the Admiral, it will be time for America to look out. It is inexplicable to him that Americans can view with apparent indifference Japanese activity in the Pacific; and he closes with the stereotyped prediction of a war between Japan and the United States. The use of the words "white man " in connection with Asia is the crux of the whole difficulty. It stands for an ingrained sense of racial superiority and is the expression of a racial insolence which must be extirpated root and branch; it is a gratuitous and insulting reflection on the character, history, and ability of the

977

great races in the East. Any attempt to stir up American feeling against Japan is distinctly a violation, if not of the rules of war, at least of the rules of honor. To poison the wells of national feeling is just as discreditable as to poison the wells from which men drink.

THE AMERICAN LEAGUE TO
LIMIT ARMAMENTS

In protest against the organization of a National Security League which has already been commented upon in The Outlook, and against the agitation for public discussion of our National resources for defense, there has been organized an American League to Limit Armaments. The title of this new organization, if it may be judged by the first meeting, should be changed to "The League to Limit American Armaments."

The purpose and intent of this new organization, however, can best, perhaps, be judged by quoting the call for the initial gathering :

We oppose the exploitation at this time of the so-called military unpreparedness of the United States and the comparison of our National defenses and military and naval establishments with those of European nations. While the people are entitled to the fullest possible information, we emphatically protest against making an inquiry a basis of a campaign for increased military and naval expenditures in an attempt to rival the armaments of other nations.

There has been presented to the United States an unexampled opportunity for constructive moral and political leadership in the work of the world. In order to take advantage of this opportunity, it is not only necessary to maintain our strict neutrality and to preserve relations of friendship and confidence with each one of the belligerent Powers, but it is also necessary to refrain from policies which will arouse in their minds or in the minds of our own people the fear that we have reason to protect ourselves against attacks from any of them. We prefer that our Nation should be the first moral Power in the world rather than that it should rank high on the roll of military and naval powers.

Certainly this call has good backing, for it was supported by such people as Bishop Greer, Miss Jane Addams, Miss Lillian D. Wald, President Butler of Columbia, Mr. George Foster Peabody, Mr. Morris Hillquit, and Mr. Hamilton Holt.

During the past few weeks The Outlook has endeavored to make clear its position on

the question of the proper military defense for a democracy, and the discussion is further continued in an editorial in this issue. Suffice it to say here, therefore, that the error involved in the statement just quoted seems to us to be a fundamental one, and to lie in a willingness to seek safety in ignoring facts or dismissing them without discussion, in a misinterpretation of the motive of those who are desirous of securing such information as is needful to an intelligent comprehension of the needs of National defense, and in assuming, without discussion, that the ensuing action which may be found necessary will destroy whatever claim or ambition we have to be called "the first moral Power in the world."

SCANDINAVIA AND THE WAR

At Malmö, in southwestern Sweden, across the strait from Copenhagen in Denmark, has just occurred a meeting of three Kings. Their portraits appear on another page.

They were Gustaf V, King of Sweden, Haakon VII, King of Norway, and Christian X, King of Denmark. The last two are brothers, sons of the recently deceased Frederick VIII of Denmark. King Gustaf's father, the lamented Oscar II, died in 1907.

The three young Kings have already given not only promise but performance in fulfilling the hopes of their subjects as to their worthiness in view of their ancestry. Consequently the economic and political condition of Scandinavia has been latterly at a high level.

The Malmö meeting was the first which has occurred among these three men as kings. It was made necessary by the desirability of coming to definite conclusions as to concerted action in view of certain contingencies. These contingencies were presumably largely, if not entirely, those brought into being by the present war.

It is natural that Sweden should be somewhat more pro-German than are Norway and Denmark, for Sweden is closest of the three to Russia in so far as length of frontier is concerned, and perhaps fears a Russian onslaught more than do the others. On the other hand, it is natural that Denmark should be pro-Allies because she still smarts from the wrong done to her in 1864, when she lost to Germany the control of the province of Schleswig. Of the three Scandinavian countries, Norway is probably the most really neutral in sympathy. Yet all three recognize the necessity, in their own interest as well as

in the world's interest, of conserving strict neutrality.

At the same time they have suffered severely by the recent war both in the minelaying which has occurred in the North and Baltic Seas and in the arbitrary restrictions put upon contraband of war. Protests have been made, but the protests have been largely disregarded. After the close of the war Scandinavia will have something to say on that day when, to use President Wilson's phrase," where wrongs have been committed, their consequences and the relative responsibility involved will be assessed."

GERMANY AND BELGIUM

During the early stages of the war frequent reference was made by German apologists to the knowledge which the German General Staff possessed of the intent of both France and England to violate Belgian neutrality. No specific proofs were at the time produced, yet this unsupported statement was made one of the chief justifications of the invasion of the neutral territory of Belgium.

At the fall of Antwerp Germany announced that in the archives of the Belgian Government there were found certain papers bearing upon this earlier contention, that gave ample proof that the invasion of Belgium was not the invasion of a neutral territory but the invasion of an active, if secret, ally of France and England.

Dr. Dernburg, who may be described as the official German ambassador to the court of American public opinion, has now submitted to American consideration these documents in translation, together with an editorial introduction from his own pen. In this introduction Dr. Dernburg makes two assertions which in our opinion are unjustified by the facts of the situation as shown in the very papers which he offers as proof. Briefly, these two assertions are:

First, that England was determined to land troops in Belgium with or without her permission, irrespective of whether German troops were marching through Belgium or not.

Second, that the Belgian Government was not itself neutral, because in the past it had advised with English military authorities concerning methods by which English and French troops should be introduced in Belgian territory in case of a German invasion. This action he characterizes as the "guilt of the Belgian Government."

The first of Dr. Dernburg's assertions

ignores entirely the efforts made by England, as witnessed in her official communications with the German Government, to secure from the latter a guarantee of Belgium's neutrality, a guarantee which France willingly and instantaneously made. It ignores also the statements of the British Military Attaché, quoted by the Belgian Major-General Ducharme to the Belgian Minister of War, and contained in the second document which Dr. Dernburg makes public, that "the entry of the English into Belgium would only take place after a violation of our neutrality by Germany."

Dr. Dernburg bases his assertion solely, sɔ far as we can see, upon the statement of the Chief of the Belgian General Staff, contained in the second document, that "England was ready to land troops even if Belgium had not asked for assistance." This statement was made after the Agadir crisis of 1911. Dr. Dernburg conveniently ignores the fact that, as further shown in this same document, such a disembarkment of English troops on Belgian soil was definitely decided upon by the English military authorities because of their disbelief in the ability of Belgium to protect herself, as she was by law and honor bound to do, against a German invasion. With this the Belgian military authorities did not agree. The events of the past few months have furnished conclusive proof of the correctness of the judgment of the English military authorities.

In charging Belgium with 'destroying her own status of neutrality by making or considering plans of action with the English and French Governments Dr. Dernburg seems to us to be very wide of the point. If the Belgian authorities had not taken this step in an attempt to prepare themselves for the eventuality of a war between France and Germany, they would have been grossly negligent of their duties, not only to the Belgian people, but also to those nations to whom they were bound by treaty to protect their own country's neutrality. That they saw fit to discuss these problems with the English and French military authorities is proof only of the quarter from which they foresaw the most immediate danger of treaty violation. How. with the strategic railways, frequent stations, and the long landing platforms for troops confronting them across their German frontier, could they have done anything else without gross negligence to their people? There is no evidence in Dr. Dernburg's two

979

documents that England or France. had Germany re-agreed to respect Belgium's integrity, would have been the first to cross the frontier of that neutral state; nor is his contention sustained that Belgium, because of her conversations with English and French military authorities, had lost all claim to consideration from her German neighbor.

THE FIRST BULGARIAN
MINISTER

Agriculture is the main source of wealth in Bulgaria. But agricultural conditions there are in a more primitive condition than in this country. This is only natural when one considers the long years of oppression under Turkish rule, the insufficiency of communications, and the want of capital.

The first of these hindrances has been removed, the second is being removed, and the third should be removed. But Bulgaria is not rich enough herself to furnish the necessary capital for a proper agricultural development, even in a country where peasant proprietorship is practically universal. Bulgaria has contracted various loans in Europe, but there has always been some political string" attached. This leads Bulgaria to turn towards America; indeed, the Queen's proposed trip to this country last year may not have been wholly disconnected with the idea of raising a loan here. The same idea is doubtless not disconnected with the arrival of Stefan Panaretoff, the first Bulgarian Minister to this country, whose portrait appears on another page.

66

Mr. Panaretoff has spent most of his life as a teacher. He has been connected with Robert College, Constantinople, for fortythree years. Every one knows that the modern Kingdom of Bulgaria owes its conception to the inspiration which Bulgarian students have received at Robert College; and Mr. Panaretoff's teachings, it is said, have had much to do with the molding of Bulgarian destinies. His first venture outside of the lecture-room was to enter his country's diploImatic service. He comes to this country particularly to represent his country's interests in agriculture. He has already begun making arrangements for the admission to our agricultural colleges of a number of young Bulgarians whose expenses are being paid by the communal governments in which they reside. One of these young men has already entered the University of Nebraska; others