International

an interview reported by the New York "Herald:"

I have attended many international conferences. Before some of them met it was said that the difficulties were so great as to make a rupture certain. Well, the rupture never occurred, and it is an established fact that when you sit around a table and discuss questions frankly, looking one another in the eye, difficulties have a way of diminishing.

M. Briand comes to Washington not as an extremist. Some time ago to the question, "How shall France be saved from economic ruin?" so good a man as ex-President Poincaré replied, "Enforce the treaty by an army at once"- -a simple, logical statement appealing to the popular imagination. M. Briand said, however:

The solution of the problem consists in accord between France and her allies. It is better to reduce our claims on condition that they are guaranteed by a definite contract than to seek more important payments in the distant future with our Own strength alone. . . . France has the force to compel respect for engagements taken with her and would be able to use it if necessary. But it is in peace that she wants to bring Germany to fulfill her engagements.

This policy does not renounce the use of force, if need be, for the execution of the Treaty. But it would be applied with our allies at our side and after all other means of settlement had been exhausted.

This is the situation facing France. If, at Washington, she is urged to limit her army as other nations their navies, she may very properly ask those who sit at the Conference table what safeguard they propose in case of the next unprovoked German attack.

months ago; but the son has remained in Paris ever since, and has only just now gone back to Belgrade, his capital, to assume his royal dignity.

Constantine, his Greek neighbor to the south, is again finding that his crown does not fit and threatens, it is said, to abdicate in favor of the Crown Prince unless the Government succeeds in negotiating a necessary loan. Certainly his prospects in the endeavor to retain that part of Asia Minor occupied by Greeks have not been improved by the treaty reported as concluded between France and the Independent Turks.

The most-talked-of crown, however, just now is that of St. Stephen, the crown of Hungary. It has been worn by the Emperor Charles as King of Hungary, and that young man has made two recent attempts to get it again. By these attempts he has not only menaced the peace of his own country, but has destroyed his own chances. Two years ago the Hungarian Parliament passed a law providing that the question of a monarch should be postponed until the domestic and international political situation had become more settled. The impatient Charles, however, would not wait for the settlement. Relying upon a profoundly royalist people and upon the fact that he had never been deposed, Charles felt that the Hungarians must turn to him as their legitimate king.. Hence, breaking the promise to the Swiss which they had imposed upon him after a similar flight in order to seize the crown, he left Switzerland secretly with his wife, by airship, and, landing in Hungary, attempted, with his adherents, to march to Budapest. The Hungarians are naturally disposed towards a monarch, but they found themselves opposed to this monarch. They resisted him, interned him, banished him, and actually passed a Hapsburg dethronization law. This has appeased the Powers in general and the Little Entente (Czechoslovakia, Rumania, Ju

goslavia) in particular. Their troops had been mobilized and were ready to enter Hungary. As an English gunboat happened to be in the Danube, Charles and his wife were taken on board.and thence transferred in Rumanian waters to a British cruiser, which is transport. ing them, presumably, to the Portu guese island of Madeira, said to have been selected as their place of exile. Thus, for the moment, Great Britain is again in charge of an ex-Emperor. The transfer of Napoleon to St. Helena comes to mind. Madeira is far more attractive. Yet Napoleon the Great went to St. Helena and Charles the Little goes to Madeira.

E

contr

THE NEW JAPANESE PREMIER MAKAHASHI is a common name in "Who's Who" in Japanic mentions some fifty eminent Takahashis. One of them, Korekiyo Takahashi, is the new Japanese Prime Minister, in suc cession to the late Premier Hara. Baron Takahashi is sixty-seven years N old. He is a Samurai-and the Samurai still mean much in Japan.

200

། །

He has been a great Minister of Finance. His life has been an education for this post. When thirteen years old, he was sent to this country for study, and, returning home, ultimately became shed principal of an English school at Osaka. Six years later he entered the Government service and occupied various posi tions in it, and also in the Bank of Japan, finally becoming its Vice-Gover nor, and then President of the Yokohama Specie Bank. Appointed financial agent for raising foreign loans in Eng land and America, he visited those countries twice. Finally he became the Gov ernor of the Bank of Japan.

Baron Takahashi's appointment to the Premiership indicates a continuation of the Hara policies. With them, as Min ister of Finance in the Hara Cabinet, he has been in sympathy. He is a Liberal. He favors, it is said, the maintenance of China's territorial integrity. He was among the first to warn his fellow. countrymen against excessive expenditure at a time when Japan's economic condition had been hard hit by the reac tion following the period of war prosperity. Not only is he counted upon to support any reasonable project of naval retrenchment, but some expect him to signalize his advent to the Premiership by a striking act affecting the Japanese land forces on the mainland of Asia.

E record with deep regret the untimely death of Natalie Curtis Burlin, Mrs. Paul Burlin, a valued contributor to The Outlook, who was run down and fatally injured by an automobile in Paris, where she died on October

SE P

23. Her last article for The Outlook was contributed to its issue of September 14, and entitled "From Kraal to College." It was a very delightful and illuminating interpretation of the personality and character of a native African, Kamba Simango. During the past ten years she had contributed to The Outlook several papers on the musical and pictorial art of the American Negro and the American Indian.

She was a niece of George William

Curtis, the distinguished American journalist and publicist, and early in life displayed a remarkable talent for music and received a thorough musical education both here and in Europe. She was an accomplished pianist and at first did some original musical composition, but she became interested in primitive music, and thus her attention and talents were turned to a study of the myths and music of the American Indian and later to the folk-songs of the African Negro and the "spirituals" of the American Negro. In this study of the æsthetic genius of these two submerged races she had the hearty sympathy and coal operation of President Roosevelt, and through his assistance was enabled to in visit Indian reservations under the most

favorable auspices. In 1905 she published "Songs of Ancient America," being a collection of the songs of the Pueblo Indians. This and a later book on Indian music won wide recognition both in this country and in Europe for the amazing accuracy of her transcriptions and annotations of strange and difficult melody and rhythm. A little later she began a similar study of Negro i folk music, and in 1919 published a volume of Negro folk-songs which was a contribution not only to the literature of music itself, but to an important branch of ethnology. Only last year, as a result of her study of primitive African folklore, she published "Songs and Tales from the Dark Continent." At the time of her death she was visiting Spain and France with her husband. On this trip she spoke before an International Congress on "The History of Art" at the Sorbonne in Paris.

When the news of her death was received, the Indian and Negro students at Hampton Institute gathered in the chapel and sang the old "spirituals" which she had recorded for them as a tribute to her memory, and at the same time in a distant convent a sisterhood of nuns repeated a prayer for the repose of her soul. In an address in memory of her at Hampton Institute, Dr. Gregg, its principal, said:

Natalie Curtis Burlin was a true artist in literature and in music, and somewhat of a seer as well, discerning inner meanings and hidden spiritual values. Her genius chose folk

lore and folk music particularly as its principal field of exploration and exercise, and with respect to the folk tales and folk-songs of the American Indian and the Negroes she became one of the first authorities.

Her life and work furnish a remarkable example of the way in which art can be made the means of a ministry of service in human advancement.

A PLEA FOR THE PRONGHORN

HE pronghorn antelope is one of the

very new North American animals peculiar to the continent and without close relations anywhere in the world. It formerly ranged from near the Mississippi River west to the Pacific Ocean, and from western Canada south well into Mexico. In primitive times, and indeed within the memory of living men, it was the most abundant of the larger animals of the plains-more numerous, many believe, than the buffalo, whose numbers have always been so talked about. To-day this unique animal appears to be on the verge of extinction.

A small group of these animals has long been known to occupy a territory in eastern Oregon and northern Nevada just along the boundary between these two States, and, since the country is valueless for agriculture, some efforts have been made to have a refuge set apart there for the protection of the antelope-and incidentally of the sage hen, our largest grouse, which also is constantly becoming fewer in numbers. Of late years, however, outfits of sheep have been driven into this area occupied by the antelope, and it is reported that the sheepmen declare that they purpose to kill off all the antelope, so that there shall be no excuse for asking the Government to establish an antelope refuge. News recently received in the East

New York Zoological Society

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE

from people in Nevada declares that an official of the Biological Survey and his deputy recently spent some days riding the antelope range, where they saw many antelope; and just across the State line in Oregon they counted fourteen carcasses of antelope that had been shot down and left. The carcasses were examined and the bullet holes seen in them; and no portion of the animals had been used. The killing was wanton. Stock riders in this district informed the official that a little farther north was another place where, in the same fashion, twenty-seven antelope had been shot down and left.

The region where this is reported to have occurred is remote and is settled sparsely or not at all; but it seems evident that active measures should be taken by the States of Oregon and Nevada and, so far as possible, by the Federal Government to protect these unique animals in what is almost their last home.

Over most of the United States settlement and the economic use of the land have extinguished most of the large animals native to North America; but it seems that we should all of us do what is in our power to postpone as long as possible their total extermination.

VER two thousand years ago a Hebrew prophet foretold the time when "all the armor of the armed man in the tumult, and the garments rolled in blood, shall be for burning, for fuel of fire." The proposal to scrap over a million and three-quarter tons of naval vessels looks like a long step toward the fulfillment of this ancient prophecy.

The Christian doctrine of peace is expressed in a sentence of the Apostle Paul: "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men."

It is not always possible.

In the days of Washington it was not possible to live peaceably with the Government of George III. War was a duty.

In the days of Abraham Lincoln it was not possible to live peaceably with a slavocracy which would have destroyed the Republic that it might enslave the Negro. War was a duty.

In the days of McKinley it was not possible to live peaceably with a sixteenth-century despotism which was slowly crushing out the life of a defenseless neighbor. War was a duty.

In the present decade it was not possible to live peaceably with the Hun who was devastating Belgium and France

and threatening the destruction of modern civilization. War was a duty.

But now? The voice which in former epochs called the Nation to war now calls the Nation to do all that is possible to establish a world peace and uphold it with justice and righteousness.

The moral influence of our Government's proposal and of the response which it has evoked it is impossible to overestimate. It is statesmanlike not only in matter but also in method of presentation. It is proof of American good faith in offering a bigger sacrifice of naval power than is asked of others; it is wise in not sacrificing vital interest of self-defense; it is courageous in completely halting naval competition; it is intelligent in that it is expressed in terms that people can understand; it is skillful in that it summons to the Government's support public opinion here and brings pressure of public opinion to bear upon other Governments. It converts American aspirations into a welldefined resolution; carries forward phrases into action; answers effectively the charges, sometimes malicious, oftener ignorant, brought by Bolshevists against democracy; will counteract the schemes of militarists entangled in the traditions of an obsolete feudalism; will hearten the friends of justice, liberty, and peace in all lands; and will promote international trust, confidence, and good

will.

It is true that armaments are the

tools, not the causes, of war. But it is also true that laying aside some of the tools of war may facilitate the peaceful solution of perplexing problems. Too many weapons of war in the hands of the negotiators do not necessarily tend to peace. A well-informed correspondent in the last issue of The Outlook said: "The situation in the Far East will be distinctly improved if some agreement can be reached for progressive and substantial decrease in naval armaments, and if this can be attained the tension will be greatly eased." The tension has already been eased, and the Powers assembled in Washington will approach the world problems in a spirit quite different from that with which they approached them in Paris. The question for Americans, "What is our duty toward other peoples and how shall we accomplish it?" still remains for consideration, and it is a difficult question. What is the duty of civilized nations to China, which has been too peaceful to be able to protect herself? What their duty toward the Armenians, surrounded by a people whose military passions are infensified by religious fanaticism? What their duty toward France, with a neighbor which has changed her Government but has given no sign as yet of having

changed her disposition or her desire to crush her rival? What toward the lesser Powers of Europe between whom the fires of jealousy and hate are smoldering and every now and then break out into open warfare?

These problems have not been solved. But a spirit has been inspired not only in the Conference but in the nations of the earth which gives ground for hope that for them a possible solution may be found by patience, charity, and good will. This may well furnish a theme for devout gratitude on the approaching Thanksgiving Day.

MR.
OF WOODROW WILSON

TUMULTY'S LIFE

WR

E shall not undertake a careful estimate of the "Life of Woodrow Wilson" by his former private secretary, Mr. Joseph P. Tumulty, which is now appearing serially in the New York "Times," until it appears in book form. It is only fair to wait until the work is completed to print a judgment upon it, but one statement in it should be corrected, for the sake of historical accuracy. In Chapter XXVI, in which Mr. Tumulty is defending President Wilson's policy of neutrality during the first two years of the World War, he asserts that Theodore Roosevelt approved of Mr. Wilson's neutrality in the following language:

Colonel Roosevelt himself, who subsequently attacked so strongly the "pusillanimity" of the Administration's course, said on September 23, 1915:

"A deputation of Belgians has arrived in this country to invoke our assistance in the time of their dreadful need. What action our Government can or will take I know not. It has been announced that no action can be taken that will interfere with our entire neutrality. It is certainly eminently desirable that we should remain entirely neutral and nothing but urgent need would warrant breaking our neutrality and taking sides one way or the other."

It was not the policy of a weakling or a timid man. It was the policy of a prudent leader and statesman, who was carefully feeling his way amid dangers, and who as a historian himself knew the difficulties of an imprudent or incautious move.

Mr. Roosevelt did not say these words on September 23, 1915. They were printed in an article by him in The Outlook of September 23, 1914. Mr. Tumulty does not say that in quoting the above passage from Theodore Roosevelt's article in The Outlook he omits to add its most important part. Mr. Roosevelt continued in the same article from which Mr. Tumulty quotes:

But we pay the penalty of this action on behalf of peace for ourselves, and possibly for others in the future,

by forfeiting our right to do anything on behalf of peace for the Belgians in the present. We can maintain our neutrality only by refusal to do anything to aid unoffending weak Powers which are dragged into the gulf of bloodshed and misery through no fault of their own. ... But it is a grim comment on the professional pacifist theories as hitherto developed that our duty to preserve peace for ourselves may necessarily mean the abandonment of all effective effort to secure peace for other unoffending nations which through no fault of their own are dragged into the war. Mr. Roosevelt's article in The Outlook from which Mr. Tumulty gives a garbled quotation was written about September

1, 1914. At that time Mr. Roosevelt, as

well as The Outlook, in common with all patriotic citizens of the country, de sired to give the President of the United States a full and free opportunity to formulate his policy with regard to all the international questions involved in the war. Mr. Roosevelt-and The me Outlook agreed with him-at that very time believed that an official protest

against the Belgian invasion was de manded both on the grounds of good morals and good Americanism. He hoped that the President was going to come to this view, and he did not desire to put obstructions in his way, although he reserved the right to criticise the President if he failed to condemn the Belgian invasion. It was in this spirit that Mr. Roosevelt made the allusions to Belgium in the article from which Mr. Tumulty has made only a partial, and therefore a misleading, quotation.

FUNDAMENTALS

OF CHRISTIANITY

CONSIDERABLE agitation is going on at this time in the Chris tian Church concerning the "fundamentals" of Christianity, and two denominations are threatened with heresy trials because certain of their clergy are accused of not teaching the fundamentals. A few years ago a series of booklets prepared by Christian minis ters on "Fundamentals" was published, the publication endowed, and the book. lets, I believe, extensively circulated. I occasionally get a letter from some "Unknown Friend" who is inclined to discard the old creeds and either sug gests a new one to take their place or asks me to prepare one. These all assume that Christianity is, or at least includes, a system of doctrines, and that certain of these doctrines are "foundations" on which the entire system rests.

But Jesus Christ did not teach a system of doctrines, though various systems of doctrines have been developed out of his teaching. Jesus Christ was a teacher

nde

300

not of philosophy but of life. He was a vocational teacher. When he taught a theological doctrine, it was generally, if not always, with immediate reference to the conduct of life. Did he say God is spirit, it was only to add that we must worship him in spirit; did he say that God is our Father, it was that he might urge that in prayer we are to approach him with the fearless freedom of chiliren. He defined his purpose as a eacher by his invitation: "Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly of heart, and re shall find rest unto your souls." He aught, not to satisfy our curiosity, but o give us rest in this restless world. He defined to his followers their apointed theme: "Teach men," he said, to observe whatsoever I have commanded you." In a single significant entence one of his Apostles has characterized his teaching as life teaching: He came "teaching us that . . . we should ive soberly, righteously, and godly."

For over sixty years I have been acustomed to go to the Four Gospels in in endeavor to ascertain what answer esus would give to any new moral or eligious problem presented in our comalex civilization. Following this life abit, I went to the Gospels to learn What Jesus treated as fundamentals, and hes the Gospel is a message of divine foriveness, and this message of divine Corgiveness distinguishes Christianity torom all other religions, the conditions if forgiveness as Jesus defined them apetarently constitute what Jesus regarded f's the "fundamentals" of his message of lad Tidings.

The Pharisees brought him a woman ccused of adultery. "Master," said Mhey, "Moses said this woman should be toned to death. What do you say?" "I TA ay," he replied, "that he that is withgut sin among you should cast the first etone." There was no one to cast it, nd they went away one by one, leaving esus and the woman alone. Then esus, who had stooped down to write We know not what upon the ground, that e might not witness their humiliation or hers, lifted himself and spoke to

Chrader:

Woman, where are they? did no man condemn thee? No man, Lord.

Neither do I condemn thee: go thy way; from henceforth sin no more.

He required of her no theological pinion. What she believed we do not now. There is nothing to indicate that le knew. His sole fundamental was that she should cease her sin.

Jesus was passing through the city of Jericho-city of priests, city of taxgatherers. Under the Roman system,

the tax-gatherer was necessarily corrupt and an oppressor of the people. Jesus passed by the priests and invited himself to be the guest of a tax-gatherer; and the populace grumbled because "he is gone in to lodge with a man that is a sinner." I wonder what Jesus said to him in that unreported interview. Jesus never told, nor did Zaccheus. But the effect of the message is narrated. Zaccheus promised to restore fourfold to any from whom he had wrongfully exacted aught; and, since he could not undo all the evils of his past life, he would give half of what was left of his ill-gotten wealth to the poor.

What did he believe about the Virgin birth, the deity of Jesus Christ, the authority of the Bible, the sacrificial atonement? We do not know. We do not even know whether he was a Jew or a pagan. We only know that he was resolved to do all in his power to repair the evil produced by his past wrongdoing; and Jesus pronounced him a "son of Abraham." Reparation for the past was one of Christ's fundamentals.

a

A Pharisee invited Jesus to dine, imagined himself patronizing an itinerant teacher, and did not offer him the ordinary civilities paid to an honored guest. The villagers crowded into the courtyard where the dinner was probably spread, among them a notorious woman of the town, known to the Pharisee as harlot. Something Jesus said awoke the memories of her lost innocence and a hopeless desire for a better future. Tears welled up to her eyes and dropped upon Christ's naked feet, outstretched in Oriental fashion behind the couch on which he was reclining. She knelt down, took the long tresses of her hair to wipe off these desecrating drops, then, unrebuked, covered the feet with kisses and anointed them with the ointment which she carried in her bosom. The Pharisee, unable to comprehend the beauty of an awakened repentance for the past and a hope for a better future, looked on with a sneer upon his face which interpreted to the sensitive soul of Jesus the unuttered thought within: "This man, if he were a prophet, would have perceived who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him; for she is a sinner." Jesus, answering the unspoken thought of the Pharisee, and turning to the woman, who now stood trembling and abashed before him, brought back to self-consciousness by his recognition of her involuntary homage, said to Simon:

Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet; but she hath wetted my feet with her tears, and wiped them with her hair. Thou gavest me no kiss: but she, since the time I

came in, hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but she hath anointed my feet with ointment. Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

One fundamental of Christ's teaching is reverencing love for the One whose life and teaching has awakened in the soul the longings for the new life.

Jésus desired one last quiet interview with his friends before his death. He arranged for a meeting around a supper table. In those days of sandaled but unstockinged feet, to wash the feet before sitting down to a meal was accounted as necessary as to wash the hands with us. This office was generally performed by a servant, and it did not occur to either one of the disciples to offer this service to the others. Instead, they fell into an unseemly wrangle how their respective places should be arWhen it was at ranged at the table. last settled and they had taken their places, Jesus rose from his seat, laid off his upper garments, girded himself with a towel in the fashion of a servant, and himself washed and wiped the feet of his disciples. Peter remonstrated:

Peter. Lord, dost thou wash my feet?

Jesus. What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. Peter. Thou shalt never wash my feet.

Jesus. If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.

One fundamental of Christ's teaching is absolute and unquestioning loyalty to him as Leader and Master on the part of those who enlist in his service.

These incidents must here suffice. The reader may follow the lead thus indicated and study the Gospels to ascertain from other passages what Jesus regarded as the fundamentals of Chris tianity.'

If Christianity is a system of philosophy, then certain doctrines might be regarded as fundamental in that system. But if Christianity is a life, the fundamentals are not understandings by the intellect as to the nature of the Bible, of Christ, and of Sacrifice, but acts of the will, as repentance, love, and loyalty. And if so, the condition of admission to the Church of Christ should not be acceptance of a creed, ancient or modern, simple or complex, but the consecration of the life to the service of God in the service of his children under the leadership of Jesus Christ.

LYMAN ABBOTT.

1 The enigmatical passage in Matthew xvi. 13-20 can hardly be regarded as indicating that belief in Jesus as Messiah is a "fundamental," since Jesus explicitly charged the disciples "that they should tell no man that he was the Messiah."

TOT at Memorial Continental Hall in the city of Washington, but throughout the length and breadth of the country, was held the first session of this Conference of Nations. The thousands who were assembled on Armistice Day at Arlington about the flag-draped bier of the Unknown who had given his life for freedom knew that they were only part of that assemblage of the whole Nation who with them stood in silence, and the uncounted multitude, East and West, North and South, who heard the President's voice in tribute and joined with him in prayer. Nothing that is done here in Washington will be understood unless it is recognized as the fruit of the spirit that pervaded the amphitheater at Arlington and was carried from there to all quarters of the Nation.

As I write the memory of that service and the significance of it are for the time being blotted out from the minds of almost all here by the unprecedented proposal made on behalf of the American Government by Mr. Hughes for the ending of competition in naval armaments. There is no doubt about the colossal effect of that statement. Even those who may later raise questions about it seemed at first to be stunned into acIceptance. Already the roar of approval from throughout the country and from peoples of many other lands is beginning to be heard. That response of the peoples to America's plan is, like the plan itself, a product of that same thought that brought the peoples together in their tribute to the Unknown Soldier.

Through the days that preceded the Eleventh of November there was uncertainty as to the course which the American Government was to pursue. Did it really understand the mind of the Nation? There were those who feared that the Government did not understand the people's aversion to war, to the cost of it, the waste of it, the dirt and grime of it, material and moral, the grief of it, and at best its tragedy. There were those who wondered whether the Government would keep in mind the patriotism of the people, their willingness for their country's sake to pay the price and to let, if need be, the tragedy overwhelm them. There were those who had so often heard words without deeds, lofty aims expressed without any corresponding action, that they were skeptical as to the practical outcome of another conference. There were those who remembered so well the secret conversations, the lack of candor, the shiftiness of the sordid, and the equal shiftiness of the unstable and vague doctrinaire, that they lacked faith in the possibility of any definite and lasting conclusion. And yet during the days immediately preceding the Conference there was a general and growing hope. This may pos

sibly have been due to the assurances repeatedly made by unquestioned authority that there was already in hand a practical and definite proposal for consideration, and that the conclusionsmore than that, the proposals and even the discussions, of the Conference would be attended with an unexpected degree of publicity. More reassuring even than those statements was the evident fact. that there were no preliminary concealed conversations going on between the representatives of the nations, that there was to be, as it was stated, "no conference before the Conference." The importunity of newspaper men, whose business it is to learn and make public all that they legitimately can, beat against a Government that was adamant in its purpose to treat all on even terms and to start not before the beginning but at the beginning, and at the same time, open and frank concerning all that could be made known.

And this growing hope has thus far been amply justified. The facilities afforded to the press of the world, represented by several hundred correspondents, are as nearly complete as normal human foresight could make them. Concerning this aspect of the Conference I hope to have something to say at another time. The candor with which the American Government has approached this Conference is known now to all the world by the frank and specific proposal it made at its first opportunity. But what is still more significant, if possible, is the fact that the Government has shown that it has understood the mind of the people in its two apparently conflicting phases-its aversion to war and its acceptance of loyalty to country even to the ultimate sacrifice. And it is here that is found the significance of the observance of Armistice Day.

Two days before that, the Olympia, famous as Dewey's flagship at the battle of Manila, had brought the body of the soldier, chosen by lot among the unknown dead in France, to the Navy Yard. The day was cloudy and chill. A mistlike rain subdued alike the outward aspect of buildings and streets and the inward feelings of the people who lined the way. As I passed a small frame house I turned at the sound of the opening of a window sash. There, across a narrow stretch of grass, at a window stood the slight figure of an old woman.

"What all is going on here?" she asked. "I've been alone here in the house, sick; and I've seen the people passing and I've wondered what all is going on."

"The people," I told her, "are gathering to greet the body of an Unknown Soldier."

That seemed to closed the window. set me wondering.

satisfy her, and she

But my own answer These are the very

people that, we are told, and we know, hate war. And yet would' they have gathered to greet the body of one who had died in the mine to give them coal? or on the railway to bring them food? or on a building to give them shelter? or in a factory to clothe them? These people who hate war gather to honor a soldier. It has always been so. It al ways will be so. And then I stood in the crowd as the procession passed. It was cavalrymen, with their swords rat tling against their horses' flanks, who accompanied the Unknown Dead. It was a gun carriage on which rested the bier. Later I stood with the crowd in the broad open space before the eastern front of the Capitol, and there I watched the flag-draped bier as it was carried up the long flight of steps into the rotunda. And again those who bore it were soldiers, men chosen because of their valor and success in battle. The next afternoon, the eve of Armistice Day, I joined the long line of those who by thousands from early morning till late at night quietly passed the Unknown Soldier's resting-place under the Capitol's great dome. And there at the head and at each corner of the bier stood a soldier.

Not long after the autumnal dawn on Armistice Day, a procession started from the Capitol. Again there were soldiers; and after the bier walked two men, one the President, Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and beside him the Commanding General, and in their train two other men, one a former President and Com mander-in-Chief, afoot, and in a carriage the man who had been the Commander. in-Chief of the Unknown Soldier himself. A few hours later I stood on the open space above the columns that surround the austerely beautiful marble amphi theater at Arlington. The level space below was filled with a multitude; olive drab in the center, where hundreds of soldiers stood, the greenish-brown color relieved by the rich colors of the feath ered war bonnets of five Indian chiefs. And in front was the lofty arch which roofed the place where stood the Presi dent and others of high distinction from many nations. And before them rested, as it were, on a mound of flowers the body of the Unknown incased, and cov ered with the Nation's colors and with floral wreaths. There, by a ceremony as beautiful and austere as the structure, those within and the many thousands gathered on the grass outside, bore their witness to the honor in which they held, not only this Unknown Soldier, but all the known and unknown soldier dead And beyond the crowd, under the trees were the multitude of stones recording the resting-places of thousands who had died in war. And when the ceremony was ended, and the body of the Unknown was committed to the ground, a bugle