involved, but simply a question whether those orders, for which no exact precedent can be found, and which, therefore, are not covered by any written rule, constitute a justifiable application of old and recognized principles of international law to new and unprecedented conditions. In these orders issued by the British Privy Council in the name of the King there is no use of the word "blockade;" but the action which the Council announces that the British naval vessels will take is the sort of action that is taken in a blockade. In his Digest of International Law" Professor John Bassett Moore, whose authority on the subject is universally recognized, says: "The "The investment of a place by sea and land with a view to its reduction is a mode of warfare which cannot reasonably be objected to, so long as war is recognized as an arbiter of national disputes." The blockade is one of the means of investing a country or parts of a country. In the old days it was made effective by the placing of war-vessels outside of a port or the ports of the enemy's country so that no neutral vessel could go in or out without passing within the range of the war-ships' guns. Conditions of warfare have changed, and this particular way of investing an enemy's ports is hardly more practicable in the case of war between nations with large military and naval resources than dependence upon horses or camels or elephants for the transportation of weapons of warfare on land would be. The principle of the blockade, however, remains. It consists in preventing all trade by sea between the nation blockaded and the rest of the world.

It can

be justified only if it is effective, because an ineffective blockade bears unequally upon neutral nations. But, if it is effective, the principle is not changed whether the warships which enforce it stand just outside the enemy's territorial waters or range the seas. It has been somewhat of a question whether a belligerent is justified in stopping neutral vessels from taking goods destined to the enemy or originating from the enemy to and from neutral ports. This question involves what is called "the doctrine of continuous voyages." Great Britain adopts this doctrine by declaring that she is going to undertake to stop such commerce with the enemy even though carried through neutral ports. Precedent for this doctrine is found in American practice. It is noteworthy that in its announcement Great Britain assures to neutral nations relief from some of the hardships that

have to be endured in the case of an ordinary blockade. What the Allies have instituted might be called a long-distance blockade or marine siege with certain alleviations for neutrals. There is no doubt that the rules of naval warfare, as they have been formulated from past practice, are not to be, and cannot be, literally followed; but it is difficult to see in what respect the principles on which those rules are founded are by these orders-in-council disregarded. The questions involved in these orders-in-council are legal, not moral-questions not of right and wrong, of humanity and inhumanity, but questions concerning the application of precedents and principles to unprecedented conditions.

In view of these facts, the American Government is justified, of course, in taking every precaution to see that American rights are protected; but there is no occasion for any such vigorous protest as would have been justified by the invasion of the principles of humanity. There is every reason why the questions at issue should be settled without excitement.

WHAT ARE THEY FIGHTING FOR?

Most of the world's controversies are due in whole or in part to misunderstandings. The Roman Catholics did not understand the Protestants, nor the Protestants the Roman Catholics; the Cavaliers did not understand the Puritans, nor the Puritans the Cavaliers; the men of the Southern States did not understand the men of the Northern States, nor the Northerners the Southerners. It is one of the tragedies of this tragic war that the men in the trenches do not understand one another. The English believe that the Germans wish to take permanent possession of Belgium and get military control of the English Channel. And yet it is reported that an issue of a Munich paper has been suppressed because it advocated the permanent occupation of Belgium. Was this suppression because the German Government has no such plan, or because it does not wish the plan prematurely disclosed? We do not know. The Germans believe that the English and the French are jealous of Germany's prosperity, have banded together to destroy her, and intend her dismemberment. They are fighting for the life of the Fatherland. There has been no declaration by or on behalf of either of these Allies

to warrant this widespread German belief; and yet if this belief were not widespread it is doubtful whether the military authorities would have the support of the German people which is now accorded to them.

Can anything be done to correct these misunderstandings and so prepare the way for a peace founded on justice and good will? We think something can be done.

The Allies have agreed together to make no peace which is not made by them in common. It is apparent that France and England have agreed to act together in what amounts to a blockade of Germany. Why cannot the Allies unite in a public and authoritative statement, not of the terms on which they would make peace, but of the terms on which they would be willing to cease hostilities for the purpose of peace negotiations? We should like to see such a statement issued with the joint authority of England, France, Belgium, Russia, Servia, Montenegro, and Japan, which might read something like this:

We do not hate Germany. We are not jealous of her prosperity. We do not fear her commercial rivalry. We recognize the service she has rendered to the world in the past in literature, music, science, and industry. We have no wish to humiliate her. We do not seek her dismemberment. And we

shall be glad at any time to enter into negotiations with her for the permanent peace of Europe provided, first, the following conditions are complied with :

(1) Her Chancellor declared at the outset of the war that Germany was violating international law and doing an injustice to Belgium in crossing her borders, and that whatever could be done would be done to repair this injustice when the war was over. As a first condition of peace negotiations she must cease this injustice, withdraw her military forces from Belgium and Luxemburg, restore political and industrial liberty to the peoples of these states, and declare herself ready to do whatever can be done to repair the wrong inflicted upon them.

(2) She has taken possession in times past of the provinces of Alsace-Lorraine and Schleswig-Holstein without the consent of the people of those provinces. As a second

condition of peace negotiations she must agree that the people of Alsace-Lorraine and the people of Schleswig-Holstein should be left free to determine by a referendum

with what country they wish to ally themselves.

(3) She has accused Servia of complicity in assassination, and refused the offer of Servia to submit the question of her guilt to an impartial tribunal. As a third condition of peace negotiations she must withdraw that refusal and consent to submit for impartial investigation her charges against Servia either to the Hague Tribunal or to a conference of the European Powers.

(4) She has incited the Turkish Government to make war on the Christian populations of Europe. As a fourth condition of peace negotiations she must consent to the emancipation of the Christian populations of Europe from the domination of the Turkish Government, to the expulsion of that Government from Europe, and to proper international provision for making the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles free passages for the commerce of the world from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean.

(5) Militarism has proved a crushing burden to the peaceful and industrial inhabitants of Europe in times of peace and has brought upon them the awful tragedy of a great war. As a fifth condition of peace negotiations Germany must agree to enter into a conference with the other European Powers and agree to combine with them in taking such measures as may be necessary to relieve the peaceful peoples of Europe from the burdens and perils of militarism, and to secure for the subject races of Europe, specifically the South Slavs and the Poles, such measure of civil, religious, and industrial liberty as can be secured for them consistently with peace and order.

We have here outlined these preliminary conditions to peace negotiations in order to present this proposal to our readers in a clear, concise, and understandable form. Some of our readers may think these proposals inadequate, others may think

some of them unnecessary. Very likely both may be right. We are not trying to legislate for the Allies, but we believe that if the Allies would formally and officially unite to declare the terms on which they would be willing to enter into peace negotiations, and issue this declaration in all the languages of modern Europe, they could do something-perhaps much—to remove current misunderstandings from the minds of the common people, and could do much to justify their resolute atti

tude and insure and confirm the sympathy of the neutral Powers.

BERNHARDI'S CHANGE OF

HEART

With the outbreak of the great war General von Bernhardi's writings were brought home to the world with a force and rapidity which amazed his compatriots. The vigor of his style and of his personality-neither of which was entirely lost in translation-compelled respectful attention while they evoked a chorus of disapproval. Frank paganism is not to be despised, even though it be hated and feared.

It is therefore with considerable surprise that the reader notes Bernhardi's comments upon the war, recently published in the New York "Sun," where, in a signed statement authorized by the Kaiser, he reviews the history of the last few months and gives his interpretation of events.

says,

England," he "is every way responsible for the world war." Well, what of it? Why should this fact, if it is one, call for condemnation by one who has twice quoted so admiringly Frederick the Great's remark to the effect that "no man, unless he is an idiot, will leave his enemies time calmly to adopt his measures to destroy him, but take advantage of his start," or who quoted again from the same royal author, "Is the term assailant' such a terrible one? It is to frighten cowards only." If this policy is sauce for the eagle, why not for the lion ?

a Scarecrow

Why should the man who wrote, "I hope the German people will assert and maintain itself as the dominating race of Europe," now protest that the British claim that "German victory would mean the subjugation of the world" is " absolutely without foundation

and ridiculous "?

With German troops masters of Belgium he now says, No weaker neutral state need fear any violation in the case of victory on the part of Germany." For this fact he finds ready justification in his review of the strategy of the war. He writes:

The great mass of the French army was to have been collected in northern France in order to advance against the right wing of the German army. Then, if the Germans-as apparently was assumed on the part of France would be the case-should on their part march into

Belgium, in order to gain room for the disposition of their troops and to oppose the French offensive, then the Belgian army, together with 150,000 English landed in the meanwhile, were to advance against the right flank of the Germans to crush their right wing, and, in conjunction with the French main army, to roll up from the north the entire German army standing on the French border.

Disregarding for the moment the fact that the main French offensive happens to have been sent into Alsace and Lorraine, we may justly paraphrase Bernhardi's words as follows: France, finding that Germany had invaded Belgium, no longer considered herself bound by the pledge to keep her own troops off Belgian soil; therefore France was primarily guilty of offending against the neutrality of that unfortunate state. The logic of this argument is not quite conclusive.

There is another shaft, however, left in Bernhardi's bow. "Belgium," he says, quoting from the familiar documents upon which Dr. Dernburg placed such stress, "long before the beginning of the war had made agreements with England in case Britain should become involved in a war with Germany. England had declared that under such circumstances it would positively land troops in Belgium, and Belgium has not made the least objection to this violation." This quotation is equally unconvincing, however, for, like Dr. Dernburg, General von Bernhardi also chooses to ignore the statement made by the English military attaché responsible for the papers discovered by Germany that "the entry of the English into Belgium would only take place upon the violation of her territory by Germany."

Furthermore, Bernhardi chooses to ignore his previous interpretation of the collective guarantee of Belgian neutrality. He says in " Germany and the Next War:" By a collective guarantee is understood the duty of the contracting Powers to take steps to protect this neutrality when all agree that it is menaced. Each individual Power has the right to interfere if it considers the neutrality menaced." The italics are General von Bernhardi's.

Frankly, Bernhardi the militarist is a more inviting figure than Bernhardi the apologist. Sentimentalism does not become a roaring lion. Somehow one is tempted to wonder if with the permission of his Kaiser to write an article for the New York "Sun "there came

also an order as to what that article should contain.

FINE THINGS IN WAR

We hope every Outlook reader saw the letter by Professor Joseph W. Roe, of Yale University, which we published last week. In it Mr. Roe refers to a suggestion of Professor Conrad Matschoss, of Charlottenburg, Germany. We repeat that suggestion here :

The daily newspapers of the warring nations assume a terrible responsibility when they persist in publishing only those news items which seem suited to increase hatred against the enemy. Would it not be an act of mercy for neutral nations to spread in a systematic manner such news as would allay this terrible hatred? Some of the important German newspapers have already begun such a campaign. On one occasion, for example, the German public was acquainted with the fact that Frenchwomen had decorated the graves of German soldiers with flowers as well as French graves. On another occasion they reprinted the protest of an English paper against the persecution of Germans in England. German military authorities examine carefully every report about acts of cruelty perpetrated by our enemies and contradict in all the newspapers every untruth and exaggeration. If all the fine things which can be told about the different warring nations could be gathered and systematically placed before the public, how much good might be accomplished for that ultimate understanding which, after all, cannot indefinitely be deferred! Such a wonderful service ought, in my opinion, to be the great American mission.

In last week's issue of The Outlook we printed a picture showing how the British fired a salute of honor over the grave of the commander of the German battle-ship Blücher. There are recorded, too, in the present issue some of the acts of courtesy of the Japanese towards the Germans during the war. Unquestionably the German people and German soldiers have individually manifested the same spirit of chivalrous thoughtfulness toward their enemies. We urgently ask our readers to send us any incidents of this kind that may have come to their notice through responsible newspaper clippings or, better, from personal letters. We propose to follow the suggestion of Professor Matschoss conveyed to us by Professor Roe, and to print, if we can get them, the records and incidents of the fine things which the war has brought out even among the

combatants. We especially want German incidents. The horrors of war have been too much exploited. We hope our readers will co-operate with us in making this record of good deeds.

IN LENT

THE PRICE OF THE SOUL

The health of society is being more rigorously guarded than ever before. As fast as science discovers the sources of disease she lays upon us the duty of removing them. Drainage, sanitation, pure water and milk, good food, are no longer matters of choice; they are matters of necessity. Public health is a public duty; an epidemic of typhoid fever is a disgrace to a community; it is an evidence of criminal ignorance or criminal carelessness. The time is coming when death as the result of laxity of supervision or indifference will involve a penalty on the offending community. Health is an achievement; it can be secured and preserved only by ceaseless vigilance.

Society can exist only by sustained exertion of body, mind, and soul; the life of men in the world depends on sleepless fidelity and effort. Play is as much a part of life as work, but play is a refuge from work, a relaxation from the strain of attention it involves. The race will never be able to retire from activity and live on its accumulated capital. The conditions of work will probably become easier; it is certain that they will be made to conform to a keener sense of justice. They will secure wider leisure, but they will never make idleness possible. society ever attempts to sit with folded hands and give itself up to pleasure on the fortune bequeathed to it by its vigorous and tireless ancestors, it will go into bankruptcy of char

acter and estate.

If

No business can be so solidly founded, so wisely organized, that it will go on its successful way by its own momentum; it must be served by fresh ability, managed with everrenewed skill, or it will be overtaken by disaster.

The Church cannot thrive on the traditions of a great past, preserve the reverence of the world by recalling and repeating the names of the saints, or serve the twentieth century by using slavishly the words and methods of the apostolic age. It must understand

the conditions and temper of the men and women of to-day, it must have the consecration of saintly lives in this generation, it must renew its youth in fresh vows and modern forms of activity. In every art subsidence of the creative spirit follows fast on loss of present courage, faith, and confidence; the spirit of the masters lives, not in the copyists whose easels are set up in every art gallery, but in the works that throb with the vitality of to-day and are beautiful with the light of this morning.

We are finding out in this country that democracy is not an end in itself but a method which demands more work and thought and devotion from more people than any other form of government. A perfect system of administration of public interests directed by weak, incompetent, and corrupt men would fail as disastrously as the most irresponsible oligarchy. In the whole world nothing will do its work without constant oversight except some kinds of automatic machinery; and machinery wears out and must be renewed. Vigilance is the price, not only of progress in society, but of health and safety. Men must not only guard but renew their possessions.

A man's character is determined by the habit he establishes of choosing the good or the evil thing; it is at stake every day; it must be reinforced every hour. In a weak moment, or a passing mood to which he surrenders his will, he may wreck it; the battle must begin again every morning, and ends only when night falls. However we may explain it, we cannot shut our eyes to the downward drift in society; a drift which can be overcome only by resolute and sustained effort. The moment this effort is relaxed moral standards become blurred, men begin to degenerate, communities begin to decay.

For society as for the individual, moral disease and death follow fast every relaxation of moral effort. Society must fight hourly for its life, and for every man and woman the same struggle is appointed. The soldier who sleeps on sentry duty is a traitor, however patriotic his intentions may be; the best purpose in the world will not help him when the line he was set to guard is broken and the enemy has pressed through; he must not only mean well, he must keep awake.

A soul is a priceless possession; no present standards of measurement can give us any real sense of its intrinsic value; it can be kept in safety only by tireless vigilance.

A BOSWELL MEMORIAL IN

An attempt is being made to preserve the two houses on Great Queen Street in London in which Boswell lived for a number of years and largely prepared the biography of Johnson. These houses have a double interest: that of literary association and that of architectural distinction. They are fine types of seventeenth-century domestic building, presenting a united façade divided into six bays by five pilasters." The organization which owns them proposes to demolish them, and the friends of Johnson and the lovers of the great biography are making an effort to raise the necessary funds to preserve these memorials, not so much of Boswell as of the group of men with whom he was associated.

For Boswell shines by a reflected light precisely as does Queen Elizabeth, and as Queen Victoria will shine in the not remote future. If one has an ambition for the kind of immortality which consists in being mentioned in connection with other people, it is a great piece of good fortune to know famous men and women. But the light that shines on Boswell is by no means a wholly reflected light. He was a snob, a vulgarian, and many people of authority have called him a sot. Carlyle said that the lower part of his face was "of a low, almost brutish character," and Macaulay describes him as "servile and impertinent, shallow and pedantic, a bigot and a sot, bloated with family pride, and eternally blustering about the dignity of a born gentleman, yet stooping to be a tale-bearer, an eavesdropper, a common butt in the taverns." This is put rather strongly, after the fashion of Macaulay; but there is a great deal of truth in it. Nevertheless, the bigot, the sot, and the snob wrote one of the most entertaining biographies in the literature of the world, a book which is likely to survive all the books by the other members of the Literary Club.

The Life of Johnson" holds a unique place in the literature of biography because it is so unflinchingly intimate and frank; although Boswell likes to compose his picture so that he appears himself within the radius of the camera, he shows the great lexicographer in his habit as he lived. If there had been anything mean, despicable, or unsound about Johnson, he could not have survived the uninterrupted and unescapable scrutiny to which Boswell submitted him. It must have