Lusitania was the illegal act of the Imperial German Government, acting through its instrument the submarine commander, and violating a cherished and humane rule observed, until this war, by even the bitterest antagonists." And he adds this pertinent prophecy as the final word of his judgment: "But, while in this lawsuit there may be no recovery, it is not to be doubted that the United States of America and her allies will well remember the rights of those affected by the sinking of the Lusitania, and, when the time shall come, will see to it that reparation shall be made for one of the most indefensible acts of modern times."

Should this case be carried to the Supreme Court of the United States and Judge Mayer's decision and opinion there be sustained, the Commissioners of the United States, when they come to settle with Germany, will have behind them the precedent of a great legal decision for demanding a large indemnity from Germany. Such an indemnity should be exacted both as a punishment and as a reparation. It is false sentiment to say that we must deal gently with Germany lest we crush her. When the settlement day comes for Germany, there will be no duty calling upon any one to try to interfere with the operation of the law, recognized by the ancient Hebrews, which visits "the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation."

PAN-AMERICAN CORDIALITY

Although the attention of the people of the United States is now fixed upon the problems of the European war, they ought not to forget that one way to promote American success in the war is to cultivate and strengthen our friendships with our South American neighbors, especially with the republics of Argentina and Brazil.

About a year ago Secretary Daniels sent an American fleet to Rio Janeiro and Buenos Aires, and our officers and men were received with warm hospitality by both Brazilians and Argentinians. Last February the Rev. Samuel G. Inman, Secretary of the Committee on Co-operation in Latin America, in an article contributed to these pages, said: "The visit of Admiral Caperton's war-ships to Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina constitutes one of the most important events in the development of closer international relations between North and South America." To substantiate this statement he quoted the opinions of well-known men in South America, the Minister of Public Instruction of Montevideo saying, "I have been working for closer relations between my country and yours for thirty years, but I never imagined it was possible for such a spontaneous expression of love and sympathy to be given by any Latin-American nation to the United States."

Brazil and Argentina have now reciprocated by sending two of their finest war-ships to American waters. They are lying at anchor in the port of New York, the Brazilian battleship São Paulo and the Argentine dreadnought Rivadavia. On August 21 the Mayor's Committee on National Defense of the City of New York gave a dinner at the Waldorf Astoria to the officers of these two ships. It was largely attended by citizens who wished in this way to express their appreciation of the courtesies shown to our own Navy in South American waters, and our friendship for our great sister republics to the south of us. Ambassador Naón, of Argentina, and Ambassador da Gama, of Brazil, spoke in felicitous English, and Secretary Daniels responded for the National Government, and especially for the Navy, in a very strong address, in which he paid the following effective tribute to the friendships which naval life produces:

To these officers of these dreadnoughts and to the men who man them I wish, as Secretary of the Navy, to tender the Nation's welcome-they are shipmates. There is no relation in life so intimate, so cordial, so sympathetic, as that which exists between shipmates.

I remember some time ago meeting an admiral, now on the retired list, and in chatting with him on the train I spoke of having met the day before a boatswain in the Navy, a man who had served for forty years, a splendid type of the American sailor, and I said to the Admiral, "Do you know Bosun Hill?" "Why," said he, "of course; we were shipmates" and in that word shipmates goes a something of friendship and sympathy

and comradeship that you do not find anywhere in any other relationship in the world.

It has been suggested that the hospitality of the metropolis ought not to be confined to the officers of these ships, but should be made to include the sailors as well. We hope that something can be done for the seamen of Argentina and Brazil while they are visiting these waters. What Dr. Butler, of Columbia University, has happily called the "international mind "-that is to say, the mind to understand and respect the view of the other fellow-can in no way be better cultivated than by a promotion of such international naval visits as have been exchanged during the past year between the United States and her sister Latin-American Republics.

THE WAR DISPOSAL OF A PEACE FUND

As is well known, Theodore Roosevelt was one of the recipients of the $40,000 Nobel Peace Prize. It was awarded to him because of his connection with the Peace of Portsmouth which closed the Russo-Japanese War.

When he received it, as he did not care to use it for himself, he gave it as a foundation for an industrial fund. Congress created a Commission to receive and use it. But it seems that it did not prove practicable to make the use intended of the

money.

As we are now in a great crisis, and as, to quote Mr. Roosevelt's own words, "the utmost demand is being made upon the ability of every man and woman, rich or poor, I do not think it right that the fund should lie idle, and I think it most appropriate that the Nobel Peace Prize fund should be used, through appropriate organizations, to care for our soldiers, and for the widows and children and mothers of our soldiers, in this great war, waged to secure the only kind of peace worth having-the peace which is founded on right and justice and mercy."

;

Accordingly Mr. Roosevelt asked Congress to return the money for this purpose. The securities, when sold, plus the cash in hand, realized over $45,000, and Mr. Roosevelt promptly announced that he would make donations to the following war charities: The American, Italian, and Japanese Red Cross; the Y. M. C. A. and the Y. W. C. A.; the Knights of Columbus the Jewish Welfare Board; the Salvation Army; the Belgian, . Serbian, Armenian, Rumanian, and Montenegrin sufferers; the Navy League; and also to a large number of persons for personal war charities in widely separated regions. The language accompanying two of these gifts should be quoted. One of the statements was:

To Langdon Warner, Acting American Vice-Consul at Harbin and Vladivostok for the Czechoslovaks, the extraordinary nature of whose great and heroic feat is literally unparalleled, so far as I know, in ancient or modern warfare, $1,000. In this case, as in all the cases that follow, the value of the money contribution amounts to so little that it seems hardly worth sending, but the money was given to me by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee for my action in connection with the peace of Portsmouth, which closed the Russo-Japanese War, and I wish to use it in part to show my admiration for the high heroism of the peoples who have done most and suffered most in this great war to secure liberty for all those nations, big or little, which lead selfrespecting and orderly lives and act justly and fairly by others. The other was:

To Judge Joseph L. Nunan, of Georgetown, Demerara, for wounded soldiers and their families in Ireland, $500. I send this through Mr. Nunan because he believes in Home Rule within the Empire, and stands uncompromisingly for prosecuting the war against Germany with all possible efficiency until the enemy is overthrown.

The query arises as to whether Mr. Roosevelt might possibly have accomplished more good by giving the fund as a lump sum to some one organization. It certainly would have been easier that way. But Mr. Roosevelt chose another way, incidentally showing the wide range of his interests and knowledge, and accomplishing several things otherwise impossible. In the first place, he gave himself the satisfaction of showing to many persons and societies that he trusted them to make proper use of his money; he distinctly attached no conditions to his gifts. In the second place, he gave the benefit of his indorsement to many

little-known but highly serviceable forms of relief and agents of relief. And, in the third place, he was able to use his donations, as in the case of the fund for wounded soldiers and their families in Ireland, as a means of emphasizing certain principles and policies.

GOSSIPS BEWARE

The "Red Cross Bulletin " reports an interesting case under the Espionage Act recently tried in the United States District Court in Wisconsin. The defendant was charged with accusing the Red Cross and the Y. M. C. A. with being a bunch of grafters and saying, "Not over ten or fifteen per cent of the money collected goes to the soldiers or is used for the purpose for which it is collected." Apparently no evidence was offered on the trial by the defendant to sustain the truth of these accusations. The Espionage Act provides that whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or promote the success of its enemy, shall be liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both. The defense seems to have rested upon the claim that charges against the integrity of the Red Cross or the Y. M. C. A. were not in violation of this law. The answer of the Judge to this contention is thus reported by the "Red Cross Bulletin :"

Can a man who contaminates the spring at its source avoid responsibility because the resulting damage occurs at the mouth of the stream? Can a resident of this country avoid responsibility for remarks the effect of which is to interfere with the raising of the funds by which the Red Cross is maintained when he would be liable if he interfered with the same organization in its field of activity? Without funds the organization cannot successfully carry on its work. In fact, one of the chief purposes of the organization is to convey from the citizen at home to the citizen in arms that which means to the latter greater comfort and greater efficiency. This is possible only by the judicious use of the moneys donated by the supporters of this war. To cripple the force collecting the funds by the spreading of false reports interferes with "the operation of success " of the work and is

actionable.

This decision is of importance because it apparently is based upon the doctrine that in a democratic country a democratic organization co-operating with the military forces of the government is in so far identified with them that any interference with their co-operating work is interference with the operation of the military forces of the government.

UNCOMPROMISING WOMEN

The letter of Mr. Lloyd George, British Prime Minister, to the Interallied Women's Congress adds another to his distinctions. In it he says:

My experience in South Wales last week has confirmed me in the belief that the women there understand perfectly what is at stake in this war. They do not mean to make peace until the Allies have made it impossible for another carnival of violence to befall mankind.

As justifying this tribute we quote the following from the platform of the Women's Party in England:

War till victory, followed by a peace imposed upon the Germans and their allies which, by withdrawing subject populations from their control and by reducing their mineral and other warlike resources, will make it physically impossible for the Germans to wage another war with any prospects of success.

...

The adoption of more radical and vigorous war measures, with a view to securing complete and speedy victory. Such measures to include:

Food rations, accompanied by the development of communal kitchens, so as to economize domestic labor, reduce food waste, and guarantee to the people the best possible food at the lowest possible prices, cooked in the most skillful way, so that its full nutritive value may be secured.

All non-essential industry to be now reduced, and even prohibited, in order to liberate additional labor power for agriculture and war industry and fighting power for the trenches.

Efficient and loyal public service to be guaranteed by ridding all Government departments of officials having enemy blood or

connections, and of all officials who have pacifist and pro-German leanings, or have displayed lack of the necessary zeal and competence.

In addition, as a further indication of feminine acuteness, the protest of the Women's Party in London to Mr. Lloyd George concerning Bulgaria should be noted:

The Women's Party, having noticed a rumor that Bulgaria may declare herself a republic, nevertheless feels assured that the British Government, having regard for the fact that the Bulgarian people are equally responsible with their sovereign for the aggressive and iniquitous national policy of Bulgaria, which is the Prussia of the Balkans, will refuse to make any compromise peace with Bulgaria whether that country be under a monarchical or a republican régime, especially in view of the fact that any form of compromise peace would invoke spoliation of our faithful and heroic allies Serbia, Rumania, and Greece. A general election is impending in Great Britain. Under the new Franchise Act, admitting women, the electorate will be greatly enlarged. Of the position of the women towards returning the present Government, Mrs. Pankhurst, the English suffragist leader, says, as reported by the New York "Times :"

It has been stated that our party was in favor of the Socialist Labor programme. That is the very one we have been fighting against. Lloyd George has not got a machine behind him in the coming general election like the "Wait and See" Liberal leader, Asquith, but he has the women voters with him, and we are fighters from the start.

All the real English people who believe in the win-the-war policy will stand solid with Lloyd George, and the only ones against him will be the pacifist "Germany-is-not-so-bad type and the backers of the Bolsheviki propaganda now being circulated in England.

Germany has reason to fear when such words come from

women.

VOTING WRONG AND RIGHT

By the defeat of James K. Vardaman in the Mississippi primary for re-election to the United States Senate President Wilson has won a triumph for the Nation. The President's declaration that Vardaman's re-election would be regarded "as a condemnation of the Administration" turned the tide against that would-be statesman, though Mr. Harrison might have won anyway. A characteristic statement of Senator Vardaman's is one quoted by the New York "Times," that "the United States stabbed Germany in the back while France and England held her down."

In the Nebraska primaries, George W. Norris, also one of the "willful twelve "Senators, but of a far different sort from Senator Vardaman, secured the nomination for re-election. We do not know that the Administration opposed him on any other ground than that he was a Republican.

To our mortification, we find that, through an inadvertence, certain names were omitted in our recent list of the members of the Sixty-fifth Congress who voted right on the declaration of war and on the Conscription Bill. The members omitted were Representatives Bankhead, of Alabama; Scott, of Iowa; Goodall, White, and Hersey, of Maine; and Zihlman, of Maryland. Any one who assumes that because of our regrettable omission they voted wrong is grossly mistaken; they have clean scores and should be given credit for them.

The case of Mr. White is specially to be noted, as his opponent for the nomination in the Maine primaries is former Congressman McGillicuddy, who, according to the National Security League's chart, voted wrong on four of the six principal preparedness measures in the Sixty-fourth Congress. A closer examination of Mr. McGillicuddy's record, we are told, will disclose that these are not the only votes of the kind; that he either voted against or did not vote at all on amendments for increasing aircraft production, for larger appropriations for coast defense cannon, and on the effort to secure larger battleship programmes.

THE BIBLE IN CHINA

The first version of the Bible in China was that of Dr. Joshua Marshman, and was published in 1820. The translation

canner in the State may avail himself of the facilities afforded, and no canner will be refused relief if he is worthy of it and has the required security.

by Dr. Morrison, of Canton, which, completed in that same year, was published in 1823. Those who tried to put these Bibles into circulation faced great difficulties, and it was considered no small feat that during the year 1822 "the greater part of five hundred copies of the New Testament and some books of the Old Testament had been put into circulation." A far cry that to 1916, when the Bibles put into circulation by the American Bible Society alone numbered 2,274,710 copies.

The American Bible Society began its real work in China in 1834, in the face of great opposition on the part of the authorities of China. The Christians were accused of all sorts of evil intentions, and it was even said that their Bibles were saturated with a poisonous material in order to destroy those who received the books. Gradually the opposition of the Chinese was overcome. It was found that, instead of giving away the Bibles, a more successful way to get them into circulation was to sell them at a nominal price. In selling the books native colporteurs proved very useful.

From a trusted special correspondent of The Outlook in the Far East we learn that Dr. John R. Hykes is still in charge of the work of the American Bible Society in China. During the forty-five years that he has been there, and particularly during the twenty-four years that he has been with the Society, the work has made great strides. The circulation for his first year as agent was 305,715, an increase of 52,840 over the best previous record. At the same time the cost of distributing the Bibles was reduced by one-third for each thousand copies. Altogether, in twenty-four years Dr. Hykes has put more than eighteen million Bibles in circulation in China.

Dr. Hykes abolished the practice by which local missionaries formerly kept the small profits on their sales for their expenses. He now has under him five paid white superintendents, who have under them in their respective districts paid Chinese directors of the many voluntary Chinese workers who do the bulk of the actual distribution. Of Dr. Hykes's work our correspondent

It is a satisfaction to add that the operation of this plan has already relieved the situation and has averted the serious food loss that confronted the canning industry of New York.

A BILL OF FARE FOR WAR TIMES

Six thousand meals using only fifty pounds of sugar for all purposes is the record established by the cafeteria in the Food Administration Building at Washington. This is at the rate of one pound to one hundred and twenty meals, and is in some contrast with what the Food Administration is asking the American housewife to do to save sugar-to use two pounds per month per person, or one pound for forty-five meals.

The Food Administration announces that it feeds an average of six hundred persons per day for the noon meal, and the sugar ration mentioned covers its use for all purposes, including tea, coffee, desserts, and in cooking. Most of the desserts contain such substitutes as honey, maple syrup, white syrup, or corn syrup, and the use of sugar is confined almost exclusively to tea and coffee, for which there is a large demand. Every patron is asked if he desires sugar in his tea or coffee, and, if so, it is served in uniform quantities at the time the cup is filled.

No wheat in any form has been served, not even in cooking. Bread is made of corn-meal, potato, rice, barley, and corn flours. This has been found to work well from a palatable as well as a nutritional standpoint.

Beef is served only once a week, and then in some form which presents the opportunity of stretching the quantity used, such as in stews, croquettes, casseroles, and soufflés. Fish is served twice a week as a main dish, but is frequently used in salads.

The cafeteria is self-supporting, and its use of substitutes (quite contrary to the widespread belief that substitutes are more expensive) has enabled its management to serve its menus at low prices, as may be seen by such items as these : Baked mackerel-parsley sauce.... .10 Tomato and egg salad.. Cold tongue..

Potatoes au gratin.

Corn on cob...

Rice or corn muffins and butter Cheese.....

.10 Maple nut pudding with whipped .05 .05 Watermelon

cream

.10

.05

.05

CANNING

Reports from the Department of Agriculture, and especially from the National War Garden Commission, indicate that the present season is marking an unprecedented amount of canning, insuring the harvesting and preservation of our summer crop of spinach, peas, tomatoes, corn, and other vegetables, as well as a great variety of small fruits.

par

The industry in New York State is specially large, and is ticularly active in the northern region. In the last two seasons crops of vegetables were light; the present crop is fine. More over, canners have extended their acreage, thus still further enlarging their production.

Yet the amount of money that they have been able to procure from the banks with which they deal has been inadequate to enable them to continue their business and save perishable food products. Meanwhile the cost of containers and other expenses had increased. The situation was precarious. Aid, to be of real value, was needed quickly; otherwise many perishable food products would be lost, to the great detriment of canners and the consuming public, as well as our soldiers overseas.

The canners appealed to the War Finance Corporation, recently organized by Act of Congress. The Corporation suggested a plan under which relief might be given. The main feature of the plan was a carefully controlled system of warehousing goods at the respective canning plants, so that the necessary adequate security might be obtained for the money advanced, as required by the War Finance Corporation Act. A Warehouse Company was organized by the canners with paid-in capital of $100,000. This company issues receipts for goods stored, which receipts, to the extent of 125 per cent of the cost value of goods, form the basis of collateral to secure the respective loans to the canners. The company is managed by eleven representative canners of New York State. The arrangement provides that every

T

THE AIRPLANE SCANDAL

HE revelations concerning American inefficiency in supplying airplanes to the Army which have been made in the report of the sub-committee of the Senate Committee on Military Affairs and in the testimony of Major-General William L. Kenly, Chief of Military Aeronautics, ought not to surprise the country. They had been foreshadowed in this and other journals. Many months ago The Outlook reported to its readers, in several articles, the deficiencies and failures in our airplane production. We had at that time reliable reports from trustworthy sources that all was not going well. We asserted that our Army was not getting airplanes, and was not likely to get them, under the prevailing conditions of organization and manufacture. In January last we said editorially:

What is the duty of the American public, whose fighting sons, brothers, and husbands are awaiting the weapons with which to win our victory? The unpardonable sin is indolence and lassitude, or the paralysis of official red tape hidden under the plea of military secrecy; and it is the sin of the public if it permits inaction. In the light of the rifle and machine-gun revelations, it seems necessary that the public should demand the truth concerning our airplane situation.

Criticisms of this kind aroused a storm of protest. The Outlook, as well as other journals which were trying to tell the truth for the good of the country, received letters accusing them of a lack of patriotism and loyalty. Some of our readers told us that we were actuated by partisan bias and were trying to discredit the Administration. But nothing that we said six or eight months ago concerning the mismanagement of our aircraft programme compares with what is now said by members of the Senate Committee especially designated for this investi

gation. This investigating sub-committee consists of two Democrats, Senator Thomas of Colorado and Senator Reed of Missouri, and two Republicans, Senator New of Indiana and Senator Frelinghuysen of New Jersey. The sub-committee, of which Senator Thomas is chairman, after calling attention to the fact that on June 8, 1917, the Government announced that a great fleet of 25,000 airplanes was about to be created, and to the fact that on July 24, 1917, Congress appropriated $640,000,000 to carry out this programme, says: "In the opinion of the Committee, a substantial part of the first appropriation was practically wasted." The Committee makes no allegation of corruption, leaving that aspect of the case to the special investigation which ex-Justice Hughes is now carrying on. But it does assert But it does assert that there was favoritism in making contracts and unbusinesslike confusion, waste, and lack of co-ordinated authority. The Committee makes several practical recommendations of reform, of which the two most important are, first, the creation of a Department of the Air with a single head, who would presumably be a member of the Cabinet. This plan has already been adopted by Great Britain with notable success. The second recommendation is a commission of engineers and pilots for observation at the front.

This report of the Senate Committee of the disheartening and almost scandalous situation in the American production of military airplanes is confirmed by General Kenly in the evidence, just published, which he gave before the Senate Military Affairs Committee.

General William L. Kenly is a graduate of West Point and has been in the service for nearly thirty years. He was in action in Cuba during the Spanish War and in the Philippine Islands. He was appointed to his present post as Chief of Military Aeronautics last spring. He reports that he found great confusion in the airplane organization, and defined the entire situation as "a mixed-up jumble." He urges the creation of a Department of Aeronautics with a secretary in the Cabinet.

A significant feature of his testimony was his assertion that, to the best of his knowledge, and he of course is in a position to know as much about the airplane situation as any one in the country, not a single American-made machine was, as late as July 20, used by our fliers on the other side. He and two of his subordinates, Colonel Bane and Major Reinhart, who also testified, named certain American-manufactured airplanes as "unsafe and dangerous." Ten days before this testimony appeared, a gallant young American aviation officer, who has just had a most dramatic fall in an Americanmade machine, in which, although he escaped with his life, he was severely injured, told one of the editors of this journal that all the American fliers on this side distrust the structural strength of this particular machine. What can possibly be worse for the morale of our Aviation Corps? To supply our fliers with machines in which they have no faith because they have tried them and discovered their weakness is nothing less than a crime.

We have done wonders with our man power. Our soldiers are the best in the world. Our training camps have been a complete success. The knowledge and practice of the art and science of fighting shown by our soldiers and sailors have been unsurpassed in history. Their mechanical equipment ought to be of the very best, and the United States is capable of producing the very best if the production is properly organized and directed. We regret to have to say that the country will hold Secretary Baker personally responsible for the collapse of our aircraft programme. He has resisted the formation of a single department with a Cabinet head. The President ought not to permit this resistance any longer. As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy President Wilson is entitled to the profound thanks of this country for his remarkable accomplishments in organizing the largest, finest, and most efficient body of fighting men that any republic has ever sent to war. By using the same methods in producing its equipment that he has used in organizing this Army he will add to the debt of gratitude his country already owes to him. We wish that the President might realize this and create a special department with a man of power and authority at its head. This is the only effective remedy for the War Department's present failure in airplane production. To put, as Secretary Baker has now done, the matter in the hands of an Assistant Secretary of War is something, but not enough.

WHAT THE IRISH WISH

A subscriber asks us to tell our readers in clear and simple terms what the Irish wish. Impossible! For they do not themselves know what they wish. The British Government asked them to meet in convention and formulate their wish that it might be presented to Parliament. They met in convention, and, after several weeks of debate, adjourned without being able to reach any conclusion. Individually Irishmen wish inconsistent things, collectively they can agree upon no common expression of a united desire. What one group eagerly demands another group as eagerly abhors; what one group regards as evidently right another group passionately denounces as palpably wrong. Roughly speaking, the Irish may be divided politically into three groups.

One group desires Irish independence. John Devoy, an Irish Fenian, defined their wish over forty years ago in the following sentence: "The recovery of Ireland's national independence, and the severance of all political connection with England." The Sinn Feiners of to-day are the successors of the Fenians of the last century. Independence is their wish. A second group desire home rule, but not independence. They desire to remain a part of Great Britian, entitled to her protection and to a share in the Imperial Government. But they desire an Irish Parliament to manage Irish affairs, with the right of regulating "all matters relating to the internal

affairs of Ireland." These are the Nationalists.

The third group wish to leave well enough alone. They desire no constitutional change in the relation of Ireland to Great Britain. One of their number has thus defined their wish: "The business men of Ulster are generally inclined to censure the Government for too much weakness and vacillation in enforcing the law. We want a settled policy that will insist on punishing crime and supporting the law."

The conflicts between these three groups are due in part to prejudices inherited from the past; in part to differences in racial temperaments; in part to a difference in religious faith. In general the first group are Roman Catholics and Celts, and live in the southern part of Ireland; the third group are Protestants, descendants of an English colony planted in Ireland in the reign of Henry the Eighth, and live in the northern part of Ireland; the middle group occupy a position midway between the first and the third, and include Roman Catholics and Protestants, Celts and Anglo-Saxons. They have been described by a recent English writer as "a practical party taking what they could get, and because they could show ostensible results they have had a greater following in Ireland than any other party.

Irish independence would be impossible for Great Britain and grossly unjust to Ireland. Shakespeare truly interprets the Englishman's estimate of his native land:

"This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands."

On this wall, this moat, the welfare, if not the existence, of Great Britain depends. How could England consent to see this wall thrown down, this moat filled up, a foreign country inhabited by a hostile people planted at her doors, and Ireland made a rallying-place for England's enemies and Ireland's harbors nests for U-boats to prey upon English commerce? Irish independence, impossible for England to grant, would be disastrous for Ireland to receive. For it would give Ireland over to factional fights and resulting anarchy. Before the English conquered Ireland and established in that unhappy land law and order "endless civil wars distracted the island;" "the feuds of the Irish septs were as bitter as their hatred of the stranger." The Church shared in the general strife: "Feuds and misrule had told fatally on ecclesiastical discipline;" the bishops were political officers, or hard fighters like the chiefs around them; their sees were neglected, their cathedrals abandoned to decay; through whole dioceses the churches lay in ruins and without priests." So long as the present feuds between the Irish factions continue, so long as the Irish meeting in constitutional convention cannot agree on any common plan for self-government, so long as southern Ireland invites German

66