It is to some extent the decorative value of these stipple engravings that makes them sought after by collectorsmany of whom, let it be said, are women. The engravings thus prized are mostly in color. 66 The engraving entitled "Miss Farren," reproduced in our picture section, has an interesting history. It bears the name of Bartolozzi, one of the foremost English engravers of the golden age of engraving." He, however, had many pupils, and this plate, it is understood, was engraved by one of them-C. Knight; this particular print was made in 1792. It probably brought, when published, $25 or $50. In the recent sale it was sold for $1,900; other and even finer copies have, however, sold for from $3,000 to about $5,000. An astonishing fact about this class of engravings is that after Bartolozzi's death his prints went out of fashion, and for many years could be bought for from sixpence or less to two or three shillings-the latter sum, according to a reliable authority, being considered a high price. Without desiring to overemphasize the speculative side of collecting, it may be said that the joy of the collector who picked up a Bartolozzi print for sixpence and saw it appreciate to $3,000 may fairly be compared with the feelings of the maker of this collection in the case of at least one of his prints. This he bought some years ago for $165, and in this sale the auctioneer's hammer fell when the highest bidder named $11,000 as the price he was willing to pay for it. GEORGE DEWEY Last week there died, at almost fourscore years of age, a typical American-George Dewey, Admiral of the Navy. He was typical, first of all, in temperament. He had an American resourcefulness and shrewdness; he also had a simplicity and charm of manner which we like to think very American. 66 Secondly, he was a typical American because he " did things." People talk about Dewey as having" happened." But Dewey made himself "happen." From the time when he was an acting midshipman in the Annapolis Academy to the day of his death he was no accident; he himself originated the course of events. When he was only twenty-six years old, in the Civil War, at the battle of Port Hudson, in which, as he used to say, he "lived about five years in one hour," he took affairs into his own hands. Mortified to find not a man on the first boat from the sinking Mississippi willing to go back and take off the remainder of the crew, he asked, "Do you mean to desert your comrades?" (No answer.) Then he remarked: "Mr. Chase, draw your revolver." Of course one thinks almost exclusively of Dewey as the hero of a much greater battle, the battle of Manila Bay; and here again he has attached to a historic event one of his terse remarks, "You may fire when you are ready, Gridley." Every one knows also of Dewey's summary treatment of the proSpanish German admiral in Manila Bay who interfered with his blockade-how Dewey explained the situation with tremendous clearness; how the admiral disregarded the matter; how Dewey then fired a shot across a German bow; how one of Diederichs's officers appeared on the Olympia asking an explanation; and how the explanation came and was heeded. What is not so well known is that President McKinley, some time after, examining the files of the Navy Department to find an official record of the event, found nothing, and asked Dewey how the omission occurred. Dewey's reply was: "As I was on the spot and familiar with the situation, it seemed best that I look after it myself at a time when you had worries enough of your own.' What is still less known is the way in which Dewey prepared himself for meeting that great exigency. He was accustomed to of the kind of education he had received: "Valuable as the training at Annapolis was, it was poor schooling beside that of serving under Farragut in time of war." say But no account of that battle should be made which does not mention Dewey's wonderful achievement at a time when he was hampered by lack of the facilities which should have been his. There was, for instance, not even a peace allowance of ammunition for our vessels in the Far East. Vigorously supported by President Roosevelt, then Assistant Secretary of the Navy, to whom Dewey owed his appointment to the Asiatic Squadron, the then commodore succeeded in facilitating shipments so that some coal came to hand just before the outbreak of hostilities. But even so the entire supply when the ships went into action in Manila Bay was only about three-fifths of the full capacity of their magazines and shell-rooms. So he went ahead and made his own arrangements; he picked out an unknown coalingplace and he arranged with China for supplies. Dewey had the spirit of Paul Jones; but he also had the more prosaic but equally necessary quality of foresight, which is nine parts of wisdom and which must possess the civil and military leaders of any nation if it is to be always ready for its duty. BUFFALO BILL Alas for the boy of to-morrow! Buffalo Bill is dead. He was the last link clearly visible to the boy of to-day between the golden age of American romance and the commercial present. Kit Carson, Dan'l Boone (may his first name ever be printed with that apostrophe indicative of the real plainsman's pronunciation !), Davy Crockett, Custer, the Little Big Horn, the Alamo, the Oregon Trail-these names were only names to the boy of to-day. Still he had Buffalo Bill. Does that name mean anything to you, O Reader? Does it not mean the smell of sawdust and popcorn, the sight of a highpooped coach hard pressed by galloping Indians clinging to the sheltered sides of their ponies (piebald, please) as they empty across the withers of their trusty mounts the contents of equally trusty Winchesters? Does it not also mean a gallant figure with flowing loeks, hawk eyes, and the seat of a scout, who punctured flying glass balls with deadly aim and swept his sombrero to the crowd with the grace of a Walter Raleigh? But only the boy of yesterday, or day before yesterday, knew the real Buffalo Bill. In his Wild West Show Colonel William F. Cody was not playing the part of a mimic. He was reliving his actual past. Hence the boys and girls of Cody's own generation who had seen those galloping redskins when their Winchesters spat real lead got more thrill from the Wild West Show than even the younger boys and girls. William Frederick Cody was a fighter all his seventy-one years. His first job was carrying supplies to army posts, and it is said that he killed his first Indian when only eleven years old. He later became a pony-express rider, and when the Civil War began became a scout with the Seventh Kansas Cavalry. In 1867-8 he was engaged to kill buffalo as food for the construction gangs building the Kansas Pacific Railway. By bagging 4,280 of the great beasts in eighteen months he earned the nickname under which he later became famous. Then he returned to scouting, the work at which he excelled perhaps above all others. From 1868-72 he outfought and outguessed the Sioux and Cheyenne Indians at their own kind of war and was made Chief of Scouts by General Sheridan. From that time on when an Indian tribe went on the warpath Cody was generally sent against it. One of Buffalo Bill's most famous feats was his duel with Yellow Hand, an Indian chief noted for his bravery and fighting skill. Matching a hunting-knife against a tomahawk, Cody killed the brave in a thrilling hand-to-hand battle. When the Indian wars had ended, Cody's fairness and tact won the friendship of the very chiefs who had been his bitterest enemies. Some of them entered his Wild West Show with white hunters, trappers, and cowboys who loved the daring scout. In addition to its great success in this country the Wild West Show toured Europe several times, where it was greeted with much enthusiasm. This show was Buffalo Bill's greatest work. It was a university, a traveling course in the history and social life of the United States at one of its most interesting eras. Buffalo Bill helped to lay the foundations for the civilization of our modern West. More than any other he taught the rest of this country and other countries the fine things that our West had stood for-courage, honesty, fair play, and self-reliance. What is peace? Many of our pacifist friends think of peace as simply stopping fighting; but stopping fighting is not peace. If two boys get into a fight, pound each other, wrestle and roll over each other on the ground, and finally, exhausted, get upon their feet and with clenched fists and hot hearts stare at each other, ready to begin again as soon as they have got their breath, they are not at peace, though they have stopped fighting. If a mob attacks a jail for the purpose of taking out a prisoner to hang him without law and without trial, and is halted by a shot or two from the jail, and waits to make preparations to batter in the door and complete its lawless purpose, there is not peace because the fighting has temporarily stopped. There is not peace until either the jailer surrenders the prisoner to the mob or the mob abandons its attempt to capture and hang the prisoner. Mere cessation of fighting is not peace. An agreement of minds is necessary to peace. In 1870 Germany made war on France and took possession of Alsace and Lorraine. In 1914 she made war on Belgium and France and took possession of Belgium. In this war she has disregarded international law, the laws of war, and the common principles of humanity. The leaders of her war party have declared that small nations have no right to exist, that treaties do not bind a nation which desires to make war, that war is not a necessary evil, but a biological, moral, and Christian necessity. So long as Germany holds this attitude, and so long as the rest of the civilized Powers hold that war is an evil, though sometimes an unavoidable evil, that treaties are obligatory, that international law ought to be observed, that in war the laws of war ought to be regarded, so long can there be no peace between Germany and the Allies. If both parties were to lay down their arms and the soldiers were to come out of their trenches, still there would be no peace. There would be no peace until either Germany recognizes the right of small nations to exist, recognizes the obligation of treaties, recognizes the duty of respect for international law, recognizes the duty of compliance with the laws of civilized warfare when war exists, or the Allies accept the principles which have been affirmed by the German war party both by their words and by their deeds. There can be no peace without an accord of minds between the two combatants, and there can be no agreement of minds unless either Germany yields to the Allies or the Allies yield to Ger many. Observe that we do not say there can be no just peace or no permanent peace. We there can say be Peace is not a no peace. mere negative thing, it is not a mere absence of fighting. It is accord in spirit and purpose. It was impossible to have peace in the United States in 1865 unless either the North agreed that the Union was a mere confederacy of States and that sovereign States had a right to withdraw from the confederacy if they saw fit, or the South agreed that the United States was a Nation and that sovereign States had no right to withdraw. It was not merely the cessation of fighting at Appomattox which constituted peace; it was the agreement of North and South to live together on the basis of liberty and union. And agreement now of the Allies and the Central Powers to stop fighting would not constitute peace. Nothing will constitute European peace except either an agreement by the Allies to lapse back into the barbarism which Germany has endeavored to impose upon Europe or the agreement of Germany to accept, even if under compulsion, the civilization for which the Allies are contending; and this agreement must be expressed, if there is to be a real peace, not in words only but in deeds. No pacifist can believe in peace more than we believe in it. But it is idle to cry "Peace! Peace!" when there is no peace. And as long as it is an unsolved question whether international law shall be obeyed, the rights of neutrals and of non-combatants in war shall be respected, the laws of war shall be recognized as obligatory, the rights of small nations to exist shall be recognized, and the wrongs perpetrated in violation of these principles shall, as far as possible, be repaired, peace does not exist; for peace is not merely freedom from physical strife; it is freedom from fear, terror, anguish, anxiety; it is quietness of mind; it is reconciliation between parties at variance. The American religious leaders in the article entitled "No False Peace," which we published in our issue for January 10, put very clearly the issues involved in the present war: The ravage of Belgium and the enslavement of her people: was it right or wrong ? The massacre of a million Armenians: was it a permissible precaution or an unpardonable crime? The destruction of life through the sinking of the Lusitania and of other merchant ships: was this an ordinary incident of warfare or was it deliberate and premeditated murder?. The intimidation of small nations and the violation of international agreements are these things excusable under provocation or damnable under all circumstances? What we here affirm is not that there can be no just or permanent peace until there is an agreement upon these questions. What we affirm is that any cessation of hostilities which is not practical answer to these questions is not peace at all. It is no based upon an agreement of the nations of Europe in their more peace than the cessation of fighting between two boys while they get their breath to resume the fight, or a cessation of fighting between a mob and the sheriff while one prepares to defend the jail and the other prepares to attack it, The answer which the Allies have made to the note of the Central Powers and the suggestion of the American President is a true peace proposal. We should like to see an indorsement of that answer by the universal public opinion of the American people. And this we desire, not only in the interest of liberty and justice, but in the interest of peace. TO LYNCH OR NOT TO LYNCH ? To do an obscure Negro to death is one thing; it is quite another thing to assassinate a Governor. This fact the stupidest and most cowardly mob knows. Governor Stanley, of Kentucky, knew this too, and he had the courage of his conviction. On Thursday morning, January 11, Governor Stanley faced a mob. From a friend he had heard by telegram that there was disorder at Murray, Kentucky, the county seat of Calloway County. A Negro had been charged with killing a white man. He had been brought into court and had pleaded self-defense. The Judge granted the reasonable request of his attorney for time to prepare the case, and ordered the Negro to Paducah for safe-keeping. Then the mob intervened and demanded an immediate trial, and the Judge yielded. "I was compelled to do so," this Judge is reported in the Louisville" Courier-Journal as saying, "to save my own life, the mob having threatened to blow me up with a bomb if I did not comply with its request. "Safety first "-a motto that has become quite widely accepted in America recently-did not, however, appeal to the Governor as a good rule of conduct. Having been apprised of the situa tion by a telegram, he at once got confirmation of it by telephone from the Judge himself, and started for the county seat. Unarmed, ready to take the consequences, or, rather, disdainfully disregardful of the consequences, this courageous man told that mob the truth. This is part of what he said to the mob: There is but one difference between civilization and savagery, between communities where men sleep at night with unlocked doors with their wives and children about them and none to make them afraid, as you are wont to do here in Calloway-there is but one difference between such a community and the jungle where a savage chief stands with a knotted club above the body of his dusky spouse to protect her and his simple holdings by the strength of his right arm. Court-houses, reverence for law and order, and the willingness of every citizen to look to the law for the vindication of his wrongs and the protection of his property are the essence of civilization. When you defy courts and insult judges, you lapse into barbarism, you relinquish all claim to civilization. I speak here in this temple of justice, not only with the authority of the civil law, but with the anction of a higher decree first proclaimed from Sinai. I am here not to snatch the accused from punishment, but to save him from violence; not to paralyze, but to give vigor and strength and dignity to the strong arm of the law. It is my purpose to see that this man is tried as speedily as may be consistent with his security, while on trial, and. freedom from every form of outside interference. I appeal from those who would incite to murder to mothers and wives and children. Go back . . . and tell them what I have said to you and what you have almost done, and if they condemn me or condemn this Judge, come and wreak your vengeance upon us both, if you can. Before blackening my soul with a base perjury and submitting to the dictates of a disorderly mob, I would suffer you to hang me by the neck until I was dead, or in your ferocious wrath to tear me limb from limb and feed the dismembered fragments to the vultures, or burn my body at the stake and send back to my wife and children the ashes of a brave and honest man, rather than to purchase a cycle of security at the price of perfidy, cowardice, and dishonor. That is real eloquence because it expresses conviction and courage and was backed by action. With the name of Governor Stanley, of Kentucky, should be coupled the name of Governor Manning, of South Carolina. Last October a respectable and prosperous Negro farmer was lynched to death by a crowd in Abbeville, South Carolina, because he had had hot words with a white storekeeper. In daylight the mob carried the dying Negro along the streets of the town, through the Negro district as a mode of intimidating the colored people, and through the fine residential quarter as an expression of triumph; then hanged his body to a tree. The coroner's jury found that this Negro had come to his death at the hands of unknown parties. The Governor was out of the State at the time, but within ten days he notified the sheriff that the lynchers must be tried, and before the voters cast their ballots in the election in which he was a candidate he made a public statement to the effect that to carry through the prosecution he would exercise all the powers of his office. What failure on the part of public officials to exercise physical and moral courage like that of Governor Stanley or moral courage like that of Governor Manning may bring to a community was shown last spring in the lynching at Waco, Texas, which will always be remembered as the " Waco Horror. The crime which the big, sullen Negro in that case committed was as brutal as can well be imagined. On the eve of the criminal's trial and virtually certain execution a mob seized this ignorant and probably mentally deficient culprit, tortured and then hanged him and burned his body. An account of it, with pictures of the lynching (one of them showing faces of some members of the mob), was published in a supplement of the Crisis" last July. The details of this crime against society are too horrible to relate here. Political, moral, and physical cowardice are written all over the story. 66 For such an atrocity the responsibility rests not alone upon the white community in which it occurs. Some of that responsibility rests upon those sentimentalists who, in the name of humanity, promote inhumanity by the endeavor to make ineffective the process of orderly justice. Some of the responsibility rests upon a small group of Negro leaders who have been preaching covetousness and envy as virtues, and who have tended to dull the minds of some of their followers to a sense of duty and to the importance of self-control. Some of the responsibility rests upon Northern people who have been indifferent to the acute problems of the South, and who have made by their unsympathetic criticisms the solution of those problems more difficult by the people who face them. It is upon such leaders among the colored people as the late Booker Washington, and such leaders in public office in the South and elsewhere as Governor Manning and Governor Stanley, that the Nation must depend for working out prac tical methods of abolishing the lynching evil. But it is only through the power of public opinion and the public will that such leaders will be chosen, and will be provided with the instruments for making the crusade against this evil effective. WHY POETS READ AND WHY ONE POET SHOULD BE READ A poet whose work has earned him a high place among the younger English writers has just come to the United States for the inevitable lecture tour. Perhaps it may be just as well to discuss here the general subject of poets' readings before entering upon the discussion of this particular poet and his work. It may seem less like a sermon with a specific text if the sermon is given first. When a great many people have been given a great deal of enjoyment by the work of a poet, they naturally want to see and know in the flesh the man to whom they stand indebted. A friend is a friend, whether he is met within the pages of a book or in the streets of a city, and whether he is a poet or a plumber. But a poet, being also a human, and having but one right hand to give for a shake, cannot go for a week-end visit to every purchaser of his songs, so he frequently stands himself up on a platform where those who wish, at nothing or something a head, can look at him. It is an awkward sensation, standing up on a platform and being looked at and doing nothing, so a poet always reads from his works, and sometimes, we regret to say, when he reads the cloak of mystery and admiration which has been thrown about him slips a little on his shoulders. Then his book-friends become his critics and they go home with a feeling that the debt is all on their side and that the poet owes them thanks for putting themselves out to hear him read. This is all quite absurd and shows that poets are a much abused and misunderstood race, even if fewer and fewer of them can be found to admit it. The chief fault in the case of our reading poets is not to be found in the fact that they do not know how to read. It lies in the fact that their audiences expect them to read as well as they write. Some poets can read, and for that we should be profoundly grateful, but we ought to regard these exceptions as an unearned increment of happiness to which we are in no way entitled by any laws of business or art. We do not expect our composers to be great interpreters of their work, nor our dramatists to be our greatest actors, nor our automobile engineers to be dare-devil racing drivers. Therefore a poet's readings should be regarded chiefly as an opportunity to strengthen a very real friendship through personal contact. It should not be judged solely as an exhibition of eloquence and diction. But this is traveling a long distance from the English poet who was left inhospitably stranded at the beginning of this discourse. His name is Wilfrid Wilson Gibson, and there are many Americans who made friends with his work before he ever came to this country. There is no better time than the present for those who are still unfamiliar with his work to meet both him and his poetry. 1 Two characteristic volumes of this poet of common folk have just been published, "Livelihood and "Battle and Other Poems.' Poems." They both deserve a wide and careful reading. Mr. Gibson has made a distinctive and valuable contribution, not only to letters in the sense of letters as art, but also to letters in the better sense of reflections and interpretations of life. Distinctive in subject and manner, his simple, direct, and vivid presentations of the tragedies and trivialities, of the ambitions and the desires, of the great mass of those who are born to live rather than to achieve as the world understands achievement-possess that touch of sincerity and reality which is only too seldom found. Mr. Gibson knows how to handle both the harmonies and the cacophonies of words. His meter is pliable and elastic, but he seldom loses sight of the essential rhythms of poetic speech. Two of his poems from his volume "Battle and Other Poems we republish here because they are characteristic of much of the manner and spirit of his verse: "THE DANCERS "All day beneath the hurtling shells Before my burning eyes Hover the dainty demoiselles The peacock dragon-flies. 1 Battle and Other Poems. By Wilfrid Wilson Gibson. The Macmillan Company, New York. $1.25. Livelihood. By Wilfrid Wilson Gibson. The Macmillan Company. $1.25. T THE HE history of the outbreak of the European war has been greatly simplified by the various official documents published by the different belligerent Governments. The "Blue Book" of Great Britain, the "White Book" of Germany, the "Grey Book" of Belgium, the "Orange Book" of al Russia, the "Red Book" of Austria, and several others will not only be of value to the future historian, but greatly aid the reader of current news in forming his opinion on the controversial questions of the war. D 30 So the various peace notes which have been recently exchanged by Germany, the Allies, and President Wilson form, when gathered together, documentary information which should be at the command of every student of the war and its problems. In spite of the fact that they have so far accomplished no tangible results, they may perhaps not inappropriately be called The White Papers of Peace," because they do establish the bases upon which eventually a just and permanent peace may be constructed. We shall here try to give a brief survey of these papers, and, in addition, an account of some of the comment upon them. We review these documents in their chronological order. 66 1. Germany to the Entente Allies, December 12, 1916. 2. President Wilson to the Powers, December 18, 1916. 3. Germany's Reply to President Wilson, December 26, 1916. 4. The Entente Allies' Reply to Germany, December 30, 1916. 5. The Entente Allies' Reply to President Wilson, January 10, 1917. 6. Germany's Reply to the Entente Allies, January 11, 1917. 7. The Kaiser's Proclamation, January 13, 1917. 8. Speech of Premier Lloyd George, January 11, 1917. GERMANY TO THE ALLIES On December 12, 1916, the German Government, speaking for itself, Austria, Turkey, and Bulgaria, addressed a note to the neutral Powers for transmission to the Allies. In this note Germany describes the war as "a catastrophe which thousands of years of common civilization has been unable to prevent, and which injures the most precious achievements of humanity." She asserts again that the war was forced upon her; that so far she has been victorious; that she has the military and economic strength to continue it to the bitter end if necessary; that she and her associates "have been obliged to take up arms to defend justice and the liberty of national evolution;" but that her aims are not to shatter or annihilate " her adversaries. In spite of the fact that "Germany and her allies, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey, have given proof of their unconquerable strength in this struggle," they are willing to enter into negotiations looking towards peace. "If, in spite of this offer of peace and reconciliation, the struggle should go on, the four allied Powers [Germany, Austria, Turkey, and Bulgaria] are resolved to continue to a victorious end, but they disclaim responsibility for this before humanity and history." PRESIDENT WILSON TO THE BELLIGERENTS On December 18, 1916, President Wilson addressed to all the belligerent Governments his now famous note calling upon those Governments to state the ends and objects for which they are fighting. The note, which was signed by the American Secre tary of State, Mr. Lansing, on behalf of the President, concludes with the following paragraph: The President is not proposing peace; he is not even offering mediation. He is merely proposing that soundings be taken in order that we may learn, the neutral nations with the belligerents, how near the haven of peace may be for which all mankind longs with an intense and increasing longing. It was in this note that the President made use of certain phrases which puzzled and irritated many men both in this country and in the countries of the Entente Allies. These phrases are as follows: "The concrete objects for which the war is being waged have never been definitively stated. The leaders of the several belligerents have stated those objects in general terms. But, stated in general terms, they seem the same on both sides. Never yet have the authoritative spokesmen of either side avowed the precise objects which would, if attained, satisfy them and their people that the war had been fought out. The world has been left to conjecture what definitive results, what actual exchange of guaranties, what political or territorial changes or readjustments, what stage of military success, even, would bring the war to an end." most GERMANY'S REPLY TO PRESIDENT WILSON On December 26 Germany's answer to the foregoing note of the President was transmitted through Ambassador Gerard. If it was the President's purpose to obtain from Germany a definitive statement of her objects, or the terms upon which she would make peace, he failed. Germany's reply was couched in the and vague general terms. The answer is in full as follows: The high-minded suggestion made by the President of the United States of America in order to create a basis for the establishment of a lasting peace has been received and considered by the Imperial Government in the friendly spirit which was expressed in the President's communication. The President points out that which he has at heart and leaves open the choice of the door. To the Imperial Government an immediate exchange of views seemed to be the most appropriate road in order to reach the desired result. It begs, therefore, in the sense of the declaration made on December 12, which offered a hand for peace negotiations, to propose an immediate meeting of delegates of the belligerent states at a neutral place. The Imperial Government is also of the opinion that the great work of preventing future wars can be begun after the end of the present struggle of the nations. It will, when this moment shall have come, be ready with pleasure to collaborate with the United States in this exalted task. THE REPLY OF THE ALLIES TO GERMANY On December 30 the Allies (Belgium, France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Montenegro, Portugal, Rumania, Russia, and Serbia)-named, it is interesting to note, in this alphabetical order by the Allies themselves-replied to the German note of December 12 suggesting peace. The Allies' reply first denies the German statement that the war was forced upon Germany, and asserts that as long as Germany insists upon denying that she herself began and brought on the war all peace negotiations will be sterile. The reply asserts that "the Allied nations have sustained for thirty months a war which they did everything to avoid." And it recalls their peace efforts at the war's outbreak in 1914. "Great Britain suggested a conference; France proposed an international commission; the Emperor of Russia asked the German Emperor to consent to arbitration; and Russia and Austria-Hungary came to an understanding on the eve of the conflict. But to all these efforts Germany gave no response and made them ineffective." The Allies briefly review the violation of Belgium; recall the fact that the German Chancellor in a speech in the Reichstag admitted that the aggression upon Belgium was an injustice and a violation of international law; and assert that there can be no peace until Germany has made reparation and paid penalties for the violation and destruction of Belgium and has given adequate guarantees that she will never again commit an act of similar injustice. THE ALLIES' REPLY TO PRESIDENT WILSON On January 10 the Allies made their reply to President Wilson's note of December 18. They began by paying "tribute to the elevation of the sentiment with which the American note is inspired," and by expressing an earnest hope for the success of some plan "for the creation of a league of nations to insure peace and justice throughout the world." But they state that no such plan can be usefully discussed until there has been made "a satisfactory settlement of the present actual conflict." They express a profound desire "to terminate as soon as possible a war. for which the Central Empires [Germany and Austria] are responsible, and which inflicts. such cruel sufferings upon humanity." But no thought of a termination of the war can be entertained without "reparation, restitution, and the guarantees to which they are entitled by the aggression for which the responsibility rests with the Central Powers [Germany and Austria]." They protest "in the most friendly but in the most specific manner" against the implication contained in President Wilson's note that the two groups of belligerents in Europe are fighting from the same motives and for the same objects. They recall the "horrors" of the invasion of Belgium and Serbia, the massacre of the Armenians, the raids of Zeppelins upon non-fortified towns, "the destruction by submarines of passenger steamers and merchantmen," and "the deportation and the reduction to slavery" of civilians, as evidence of a sharp distinction which should be made between them and their Teutonic enemies. They then proceed categorically to answer President Wilson by affirming "the objects which they seek by continuing the war." They state that "the Allies experience no difficulty in replying to this request." They define their objects to be the restoration of Belgium, of Serbia, and of Montenegro, with indemnities; the evacuation of the occupied territories of France, Russia, and Rumania, with reparation; the reorganization of Europe on a stable régime which shall be founded upon a respect for small nations and upon full security and liberty of economic development for all nations great or small; the protection by international agreements of territorial and maritime frontiers against unjustified attacks; the expulsion from Europe of the Turkish Empire; the freedom of Poland; and (by implication) the return to France of Alsace-Lorraine, taken by the Germans in the Franco-Prussian War, and the return to Italy of the Trentino and the territory round about Trieste which were absorbed by Austria under the administration of Prince Metternich in the last century-provinces which the great Liberal statesman Cavour was unable to obtain when he created a free and united Italy. They conclude by saying: "That which they desire above all is to insure a peace upon the principles of liberty and justice, upon the inviolable fidelity to international obligations with which the Government of the United States has never ceased to be inspired." And they add that they will fight on, consenting to no peace which does not assure the objects thus stated. GERMANY'S REPLY TO THE ALLIES On January 11 Germany published her reply to the statement of the Allies of December 30, which was in itself a response to the original peace note of Germany dated December 12. Germany begins by saying that she will not enter into any discussion regarding the origin of the world war, for "history will judge upon whom the immense guilt of the war shall fall;" but the 66 note then proceeds to intimate that "history's verdict" will be that the war arose from "the starvation policy of England, the revengeful policy of France, the endeavor of Russia to gain Constantinople, and the mobilization of the Russian armies for an attack upon Germany." Germany and Austria, the note continues, took arms solely for the defense of their liberty and existence, and by means of the war they have obtained this end. Germany denies that her original peace note of December 12was a mere war maneuver," and, replying to the accusation that she has been guilty of cruelty and inhumanity in the conduct of the war, calls the world to witness "the fate of the Irish people, the destruction of the liberty and independence of the Boer Republic, the subjugation of northern Africa by England, France, and Italy, the suppression of Russian alien nations, and the violation of Greece which is without precedent in history." In pursuance of this tu quoque, or "you're another," form of argument, Germany says that the use of Indian and other colored troops in Europe by Great Britain and France "undermines the prestige of the white race," and that the extension of the war into Africa is incompatible with the usages of civilization. She repeats her defense for the invasion of Belgium as follows: Twice the Imperial Government declared to the Belgian Government that it did not come as an enemy to Belgium, and asked it to spare to the country the terrors of war. Germany offered to guarantee the integrity and independence of the Kingdom to the full extent, and compensate for all damages which might be caused by the passage of the German troops. It is known that the Royal British Government in 1887 was resolved not to oppose the use of the right of way through Belgium under those conditions. The Belgian Government declined the repeated offer of the Imperial Government. Upon her and those Powers which instigated her to this attitude falls the responsibility for the fate which befell Belgium. The reply concludes with the statement that the Imperial German Government made the first overtures for peace, and that the decision of acceptance rested with her adversaries. Having declined to accept the German offers, the Allies must bear "the full responsibility for the continuation of the bloodshed." COMMENT FROM VARIOUS SOURCES The exchange of the diplomatic notes between Germany and the Allies, of which the foregoing is a summary, has aroused world-wide comment. The general opinion of the neutral press and peoples is that the Allies' part in the correspondence is the more frank and definite, the more exact in its statement of historical facts, and therefore the more reliable and commendable. The two foremost personages representing the belligerent groups have also expressed their per sonal opinions on the official correspondence. These two personages are the German Kaiser and the British Prime Minister. On January 13 the following proclamation by the German Emperor was published in Berlin. It deserves printing in full of the German ruling caste: as a part of the record, and as showing the temper and attitude THE KAISER'S PROCLAMATION Our enemies have dropped the mask. After refusing with scorn and hypocritical words of love for peace and humanity our honest peace offer, they have now, in their reply to the United States, gone beyond that and admitted their lust for conquest, the baseness of which is further enhanced by their calumnious assertions. Their aim is the crushing of Germany, the dismemberment of the Powers allied with us, and the enslavement of the freedom of Europe and the seas, under the same yoke that Greece, with gnashing of teeth, is now enduring. But what they could not achieve in thirty months of the bloodiest fighting and unscrupulous economic war they will also fail to accomplish in the future. Our glorious victories and our iron strength of will with which our fighting people at the front and at home have borne all hardships and distress guarantee that also in the future our beloved Fatherland has nothing to fear. Burning indignation and holy wrath will redouble the strength of every German man and woman, whether it is devoted to fighting, to work, or to suffering. We are ready for all sacrifices. The God who planted his glorious spirit of freedom in the |