inches in diameter, and that the third was six inches. Soot on the concave-convex lens told him it had been used on an oil lamp. The fuel burned with the mirror lens he knew was gas. From a date on one of the glass fragments and an investigation of the patents issued on that date he learned the name of the maker of the lens. Measurement of the piece of rubber proved it to be from a fourinch tire. On the splintered shaft of the buggy he found gray paint. Being familiar with the history of automobile development, Sergeant Brennan knew that the combination of eight-inch gas head-lights, six-inch oil sidelights, and four-inch tires was characteristic of the earlier Packards. With only the slight evidence which we have just enumerated, and his own knowledge of motor cars, he determined that the car which had run down Foreman McHugh was a 1909 Packard, Model 18, with nickel-plated lamps and gray body. Moreover, as the car had been in an accident, he knew that it probably needed repairs.

To make a long story short, a search of repair shops and garages led to the discovery of the car Brennan wanted in a garage in Allenhurst, New Jersey.

But there was not yet evidence enough, after interviewing the owner of the car, to warrant his arrest. Here Brennan showed that he understood human nature as well as automobiles. Believing that if the owner of the car which Brennan had found were guilty he would become nervous and consult his lawyer, Brennan found the name of the man's legal adviser, and, hiding himself in a telephone booth near the entrance to the lawyer's office, waited "for many perspiring hoursit was July "-until the motorist appeared. Then the man was arrested and was placed under $5,000 bail, awaiting trial.

The success of Sergeant Brennan proves that the application of the simple virtues of common sense and perseverance, which Sherlock Holmes has so often praised, will often accomplish the apparently impossible. Incidentally, it is further proof of the high ability of the New York police under the administration of Commissioner Woods.

SECRETARY BAKER AND
THE GENERAL STAFF

By a provision of the National Defense Act of June 3. 1916, the Secretary of War was called upon to define the relations between the General Staff and the bureaus of

713

the War Department. Secretary Baker's opinion, as recently reported, of the proper function of the General Staff and its legal relations to both the Secretary and the bureaus of the War Department seems to us both good law and good sense.

Secretary Baker has announced that the policy of the War Department will remain. as heretofore; that the Chief of the General Staff, speaking in the name of the Secretary of War, "will co-ordinate and supervise the various bureaus, offices, and departments. He will advise the Secretary of War."

According to this opinion, the General Staff will suffer little or no loss of power. The only changes which will be made are those specifically provided for by the National Defense Act of the last session of Congress.

In stating his position towards the General Staff Secretary Baker quotes, with hearty approval and indorsement, from the annual reports made by Mr. Root when he was Secretary of War. He generously and truthfully refers to Secretary Root as one of the greatest Secretaries of War of modern times. It was Secretary Root, it will be remembered, who was primarily responsible for the establishment of the present General Staff. In accepting as his own Secretary Root's position, Secretary Baker says:

I think nothing can be clearer from the written opinions of the Secretary of War whose suggestions are responsible for the creation of the General Staff. . . than that it was intended to supply to the Secretary of War a lawfully authorized military adviser to whom all other heads of departments and bureaus should report, and through whom the Secretary of War should be constantly kept advised and informed; that it should be the duty of this officer, aided by the General Staff corps created by the Act, so to advise himself of all operations of the military departments and bureaus of the War Department as to inform the judgment of the Secretary upon any question submitted for his decision, and by correlating, co-ordinating, and supervising the judgments of the various heads of bureaus and sub-departments to be able to prevent a civilian Secretary of War from inadvertent error, due either to a lack of familiarity with military matters or to the vast pressure of business of many and divers characters which too far absorbs the time of the Secretary of War to permit him personally to undertake the detailed study necessary in each case.

The position which Secretary Baker has taken in this matter cannot be too highly commended.

TIME TO ACT

Again a great railway strike threatens the Nation.

What is the Nation's Government doing about it?

The last time such a strike was menacing the Nation was less than three months ago. The four brotherhoods, composed of men working on the trains of American railways, were on the point of combining to stop work simultaneously. It was a war move. And Congress, under the urgent advice of President Wilson, yielded to the demands of these four unions, enacted a law temporarily making eight hours the legal basis for one day's pay for the members of these unions, and then, intrusting the study of the operation of the law to a Commission, adjourned without doing anything further to prevent a recurrence of the menace.

In such an emergency in war a general may be excused who sacrifices some of his forces in order to save the rest.

But what is inexcusable is the inertia, the lack of foresight, the indecision, which allows such an emergency to arise. And what is even less excusable is to remain inert, unforeseeing, undecided, after the emergency is past but the danger still threatening.

If a chauffeur finds the brakes of his car out of order on a hill, he may be forgiven if he turns into a tree to the injury of his car in order to save the lives of children in the road. But he should be held strictly to account for letting his brakes get out of order, and he cannot be forgiven if, after the emergency is past, he fails to put them in order.

The railway strike was not an unexpected menace. For many weeks it had been threatening. Our readers may turn back to The Outlook for June 28 and find there a clear forecast of the impending danger. More than two months before Congress acted The Outlook said that "the consequences of a general railway strike are appalling to contemplate," and that there should be " new -legislation to protect the public interest. What The Outlook saw was at that time visible to any one with eyes.

But the emergency was allowed to arise; and then by emergency legislation to be likened to the surrender of a fortress that an army might be saved-Congress for the time being averted a strike.

Now is the Government again to be inactive?
The brotherhoods are not. They are plan-

ning to secure the co-operation of the American Federation of Labor in order to get reinforcement for their demands. They declare that, regardless of any possible action by the courts suspending the operation of the present law until its meaning and constitutionality can be determined, if the terms of the law are not applied by the first of January they will strike anyway. Congress yielded to the brotherhoods' leaders; but took no bond from them. The railway unions have their demands enacted into law and yet have not parted with any of their liberty to strike. The public is to-day as unprotected as it was on the 1st of September.

In the meantime the brotherhoods have acquired a new ally-winter. The coal

shortage is bad enough as it is. With a tieup of the railways the coal famine would be complete. Waterways will soon be frozen. If Congress has averted a strike in Septemter only to let it reappear in December, not even "safety first " has been secured.

The public has a right to protection against the calamity of a Nation-wide labor war.

Congress meets on December 4. Within twenty-four hours it ought to enact a law making it a criminal offense for men to combine in order to interfere with the orderly legal processes of ascertaining the facts in a labor dispute, testing the legal rights of the disputants, and reaching a conclusion under authority of law as to the operation of any labor law or the merits of any specific dispute.

Under such an enactment the Adamson Eight Hour Law, which goes into effect on January 1, would have a chance for suitable tests in the courts; and any labor leaders who brought about a combination of employees to strike as a reprisal for such tests would subject themselves to criminal prosecution.

That Congress could do in twenty-four hours.

Then Congress should speedily provide by law for a permanent Commission which should have authority to collect facts relative to conditions of labor, including wages, on all inter-State carriers, and to compel both employers and employees to lay before it any dispute that they cannot adjust themselves and to await its findings.

This is not compelling men to work; it is forbidding them to combine in stopping work for the purpose of forcing their will upon the people against the people's law.

Finally, Congress should provide for a

method applicable to all inter-State carriers, by which the revenues should be equitably apportioned to the Government, the stockholders, and the employees.

Labor unions have proved themselves indispensable agents for progress towards social and industrial justice; but they will cease to be agents for progress and become agents for reaction if they fail to hold themselves, as all other agencies should hold themselves, responsive to the will of a selfgoverning and sovereign people.

This is the time for prompt action. brotherhoods have had their turn. is the turn of the public.

The Now it

MRS. GALLISON'S GERMANY During the war Germany has seemed to most Americans like a house behind a high wall. Those who go out and in are few, and the solid gates close behind them. Mrs. Gallison, whose first article on her recent experiences in Germany appears elsewhere in this issue, takes us where we can look over the wall and see something of the life of the people who have been living and suffering and working and hoping on the other side.

Such a glimpse as can be obtained from this article of Mrs. Gallison's and the other articles that are to follow is one we know our readers will welcome. It can be given only by an observer who is capable of sharing in the experiences and the point of view of the common people of Germany. That Mrs. Gallison is such an observer our readers may be assured from a letter which we have received from Dr. Kuno Francke, Professor of the History of German Culture and Curator of the Germanic Museum at Harvard University. Dr. Francke writes us :

Mrs. Gallison is a most estimable woman who for many years has been, and still is, the director of the choral society of Radcliffe College. Her article seems to me distinguished by sincerity and genuineness of feeling, quite apart from its being replete with first-hand and most instructive information. Its publication by The Outlook would be a help, I believe, not so much to the German cause as to the cause of human understanding and fellowship.

We in America know the Germany of the General Staff, the Germany that is in Belgium, the Germany that has hurt irreparably the embodied soul of other ages as it has shone through such monuments as those at Ypres and Rheims and Louvain and the châteaux of

715

northern France, the Germany that found beauty and has left desolation. We know what a docile people can do when they wear the "Kaiser's coat." But the Germany that we have not heard about as much as we should is the Germany of the people at home.

If we are to understand Germany, we must understand not only the Germans of the army of occupation, but the Germans who are remaining on the soil of the Fatherland.

Most Americans are pro-Ally because they understand the Germany that invaded Belgium and sank the Lusitania, and they know that this Germany is a menace to that liberty which has been the source of our life as a nation. But that is also the very reason why Americans should understand this other Germany as well and see what is the relation between these two Germanys. It may interest the readers of Mrs. Gallison's articles to know that the first suggestion that her account be printed in The Outlook came from an acquaintance of hers who is a native of one of the allied nations with which Germany is

at war.

see.

We shall not here detain our readers to discuss any of the points that Mrs. Gallison raises. We shall only remind them that Mrs. Gallison does not pretend to be giving a scientific report of economic and social conditions. What she is giving is the moving picture that was imprinted upon the sensitive film of her mind as she went about among the German people during the strain of war. It is the most vivid, the most convincing, the most understandable picture of Germany during these days that we have happened to Emphatically, it has not given us the least desire to sympathize with the aims of Germany in this war; but it has given us a new and livelier sense of sympathy with the people of Germany, because it seems to. bring close to us their present tragedy and yet helps to make clearer to us how long a road they must travel before they can come to the real good that is in store for them. The very enemies of the German people are the ones who are bringing them liberty. And this picture by Mrs. Gallison shows us how impossible it is for that liberty to be conferred upon the German people except as the German people themselves enter into the struggle for it. They do not understand as yet what is happening to them. It will be many years before they do understand. No one, however, we believe, no matter how prejudiced, can read this account by Mrs.

Gallison without coming to the conviction that the German people are worthy of the liberty that they are destined to gain, and will bring to the world in return gifts of order and organization that the freer peoples of the world need.

SIENKIEWICZ, PATRIOT AND

NOVELIST

Henryk Sienkiewicz, the Polish writer, died the other day in Switzerland. A por: trait appears on another page.

To many Americans the name of Sienkiewicz will suggest only "Quo Vadis." If the readers know the great Polish romancer only by that story of the dying pagan Rome and the infant Christian Rome, they have an imperfect and incomplete idea of the author. Far more brilliant than the book by which his name is best known outside of his own country, and of far better fiber and substance, were the three works which make up Sienkiewicz's great Polish historical trilogy. Named in their order, the books are "With Fire and Sword,' The Deluge," and "Pan Michael." If these books had done nothing more than leave to literature the characters of Zagloba and Pan Michael, they would have been a permanent addition to the world's romance. Zagloba, Falstaff-like in his boisterous bravado, but really in time of stress as brave as he is merry, and Michael, the shining hero of Polish war and love, are two figures which cannot be forgotten. The three historical novels, as was said in The Outlook over twenty years ago, when they were newly translated into English, possess wonderful versatility and throb with vitality and a kind of Homeric energy. They are at times repellent because of their minute description of the cruelty and sensuality of the times, and perhaps also to some readers because of the many Polish names and words, which grate harshly on English and American ears. But together they form a splendid picture of Poland as it was when it was a great country. semi-barbaric but heroic. Mr. Sienkiewicz had also a notable advantage in approaching English readers because of the remarkable ability of his translator, Mr. Jeremiah Curtin, who succeeded in catching the spirit and manner of the original in an unusual and perhaps unprecedented way.

66

Quo Vadis," which has been read in novel

form, presented on the stage, and seen by hundreds of thousands of Americans in moving pictures, is less true and sincere in spirit than the Polish novels. It is dramatic, but too often melodramatic, sensuous, and over-exciting, but it had at least one character that deserves to live, namely, Petronius, the Roman arbiter of fashion and calm philosophy. It is probably true that " Quo Vadis " has been somewhat vulgarized by over-popularity, and that if it were laid to-day before a competent critic, new and fresh as when first published, it would be assigned a higher place than it now holds.

Sienkiewicz was not only a great writer but a great patriot. Pole to the heart, he labored incessantly for Polish unity and Polish liberty. It is told of him that at one time, feeling that the Polish language and the Polish heroic history were not properly presented to the young because of the repressive methods of the masters of Poland, he prepared a brief outline printed on material that would last and in Polish type that could be easily read, and shaped so that it could be carried in the inner hat-bands of Polish boys. This is only one instance of his devotion to the cause. During the present war he has been working with all his strength to alleviate the suffering of his Polish countrymen, and he was president of the general relief committee for Polish victims of the war.

Personally Sienkiewicz had an interesting history. He was the son of a Polish country gentleman; began to write essays at an early age, and was educated at the University of Warsaw, but left it because he resented Russia's decrees forbidding the use of the Polish tongue and aiming at denationalization of the Poles. Thereafter he roamed over Poland in a sort of gypsy life, studying legend, character, and history. He took part in an unsuccessful attempt to form in this country a Polish community of artists and musicians. and on its failure returned to Poland and began his serious literary work. A long list of books stands to his credit, but none compare with those we have named. In those novels which attempted analysis of modern society, such as "Without Dogma," he became almost commonplace--that is, he did neither better nor worse than scores of other contemporary writers. He will be remembered as a distinguished writer of historical fiction.

T

10 those who are not devotees of any sport the reminiscences of players seem frequently a meaningless and dreary profusion of words. The fact that some golfer played a memorable stroke from the rough on the seventeenth hole, or that some baseball player knocked a home run in the ninth inning, or that some football player muffed a punt in the late eighties, is, of course, not an event of international importance. Doubtless the sun would still rise if young Ouimet had never beaten the aweinspiring Vardon and Ray or if Kennard's right foot had never won a Yale- Harvard game, but the interest which we take in the rising and the setting of the sun might be considerably lessened if such things as these did not make up a part of our lives.

For those who cannot appreciate this feeling we do not advise a reading of "Football Days," by William H. Edwards, better known both to his own college generation and to those of later years as Big Bill" Edwards, of Princeton. Mr. Edwards's book is more than a record of his own long experience with the game of football. He has compiled the reminiscences of most of the celebrated players of recent years. His volume lays no particular claim to literary distinction, but it has the quality of camp-fire talk on almost every page. With generous welcome he has invited to his powwow on the history of football representative players, coaches, and trainers from almost every college.

The recent changes in the football rules have largely eliminated the old cry for the abolition of the game. Yet even in the old days men were not the only defenders of the rapidly changing and developing game of football. In the pages of Mr. Edwards's book Wyllys Terry, the great Yale half-back, recounts this story:

"When fond parents ask the advisability of letting their sons play football, I always tell them of an incident at the Penn-Harvard game at Philadelphia one year, which I witnessed from the top of a coach. girl was asked the question:

A young

"If you were a mother and had a son, would you allow him to play football?'

"The young lady thought for a moment, and then answered in this spirited, if somewhat devious, fashion:

"If I were a son and had a mother, you bet I'd play !"

In the early days of Yale's great supremacy her teams owed something more than mere encouragement to the sex which is sometimes not credited with a profound respect for the game of football. Listen to what Corbin, captain of the Yale football team of the year '88, has to say of the coaching system of Yale at that time. Of course every one is familiar with the great and sportsmanlike part which Mr. Walter Camp has played in the development of American football, but what Mr. Corbin has to say of Mrs. Camp's work at Yale may be news to many. He writes:

The head coaches of the Yale team were really Mr. and Mrs. Walter Camp. They . had been married in the summer of 1888 and were staying with relatives in New Haven. Mr. Camp had just begun his connection with a New Haven concern, which occupied most of his time. Mrs. Camp was present at Yale Field every day at the football practice and made careful note of the plays, the players, and anything that should be observed in connection with the style of play and the individual weakness or strength. She gave her observations in detail to her husband at supper every night, and when I arrived Mr. Camp would be thoroughly familiar with that day's practice and would be ready for suggestions as to plays and players to be put in operation the next day.

"This method was pursued during the entire season and was practically the only systematic coaching that the team received."

From Georgia Mr. Edwards brings another side-light on the part women have played in the development of football. Playing against the University of Virginia on the team of the University of Georgia in 1896 was Vonalbalde Gammon. He was fatally injured in this game and shortly thereafter died. Edwards writes: