enforced an embargo on the products of its own country. The "Journal" adds:

The question of the right of search did not go to arbitration in the Civil War, because both nations [England and America] accepted the rulings of their own courts. The question of neutrals' fitting out armed expeditions and selling war-ships to hostiles went to arbitration, and the international law of it was settled for all time by the Geneva Tribunal.

An important recent event connected with the present war has been President Wilson's note to England concerning the interference by British vessels with American shipping. Since last week's issue of The Outlook went to press the full text of that protest has been published. In the course of the note Mr. Wilson says:

The Government of the United States fully admits the full right of a belligerent to visit and search on the high seas the vessels of American citizens or other neutral vessels carrying American goods and to detain them when there is sufficient evidence to justify a belief that contraband articles are in their cargoes; but his Majesty's Government, judging by their own experience in the past, must realize that this Government cannot, without protest, permit American ships or American cargoes to be taken into British ports and there detained for the purpose of being searched generally for evidence of contraband, or upon presumptions created by special municipal enactments which are clearly at variance with international law and practice.

This would seem to leave the general principle of examination and seizure unchanged, and would be, as the Washington "Times" concludes, simply a demand for more efficient methods of attaining to the business at hand. The main question is whether British ships have abused their acknowledged right of search.

There has been temptation to do so, not only because some of the largest exports from this country have been deemed contraband, but also because there has been smuggling.

As to the exports in question, the chief is copper. Of this commodity our exports have not increased in total quantity; indeed, they have decreased. They are about twothirds as large as they were before the war. But there has been a sudden increase in the importation by Scandinavia and Italy. The

English believe that this is due to the necessity of using copper in the manufacture of munitions of war, and to the possibility of getting it from a neutral into a belligerent state. On the other hand, it may be said that, with Germany largely cut off, other nations were able to increase their output of goods into which copper enters, and that Scandinavia and Italy have drawn large supplies of the metal from us to be converted into commercial products which in other times would have been turned out by German plants. Moreover, as the New York "Times" points out, these countries have had an abnormal demand for their own military necessities.

Another important commodity which has been made contraband is rubber, needed at the present time for the manufacture of tires and boots. Other contraband commodities are turpentine and rosin, because they are used in making certain explosives.

The necessity of stopping the importation of these things into belligerent countries has led the British to carry their basic right of search to the point of escorting American vessels under suspicion into British ports and detaining those vessels for periods ranging from a fortnight to six weeks.

Special justification for the search of vessels clearing from our ports has been claimed by the British because of alleged smuggling. It was also claimed that in some cases the ship's manifest did not disclose the whole of the cargo. It is therefore significant that the American Government has issued a special circular urging the co-operation of American exporters and shippers with the Government in regard to the manifests of neutral ships.

During the Boer War Lord Salisbury, then British Foreign Minister, announced the Government's decision regarding foodstuffs as follows:

Foodstuffs, with a hostile destination, can be considered contraband of war only if they are supplies for the enemy's forces. It is not sufficient that they are capable of being so used. It must be shown that this was in fact their destination at the time of seizure.

This doctrine, says the Waterbury “ American," covers the case fully and excellently.

England has been acting in a manner contrary to her own past declarations as to what should constitute contraband of war, if we may believe the Sacramento "Bee:"

The truth of the matter appears to be that England materially has modified, to suit herself

and her own interests in the present war, what is styled the Declaration of London, drafted in 1909, with respect to articles contraband of war. Our Government significantly has called for a definite statement of the present British attitude in the matter, "in order that it may take such measures as will protect American citizens in their rights;" which should be sufficient to notify the British Government that it must put a stop to the arbitrary and arrogant naval practices of which complaint is made.

The utter ruin of our trade with the enemies of England, France, and Russia was expected by the Philadelphia "Ledger," for supremacy on the seas carries with it the closure of hostile ports. "We have not even insisted on those fundamental rights in noncontraband commerce which precedent upholds." The "Ledger" adds, however:

But when England undertakes to regulate, interfere with, and even prevent our commerce with nations that are not at war, she assumes a privilege which this Government in no circumstances can admit, and against the exercise of which it is compelled vigorously to record itself.

Considered in its larger aspects, affirms the Galveston "News," President Wilson's note is a protest against a general tendency, manifested in varying degree by all the belligerent nations, to encroach on the rights guaranteed to the commerce of neutral nations by international law and custom.

Most American papers support the Wilson note in its entirety; the Indianapolis "Star," however, thus summarizes the thoughts of many :

That we should speak out to Great Britain in behalf of the international law which she and ourselves have upheld in the past-yes.

But that we should "twist the lion's tail" or unfairly embarrass a combatant in this great war -no, a hundred times no. . . .

Our protest to Great Britain on her treatment of our ships is justified. Our protest to Germany against the violation of Belgian neutrality, the greatest national crime of our century, would also have been justified. We made the protest in one case; we did not make it in the other.

not be able to ignore. We are ready to believe that the excess of activity. arises from the zealous commanders. They forget that famous precept of Talleyrand, who always recommended, above all, not too much zeal.

America, the Scandinavian countries, and Italy are united by an informal understanding which might become formal if the abuses continue. They only desire to see their commerce protected, and demand that international rules, instead of arbitrary belligerents, reign over the

The American note, or similar views from other neutrals, must not be taken as an expression of hostility toward England or her allies, but as an expression of irritation at the injury to their commerce by the inconsiderate application of international rights.

The organ of the Italian Radicals, the "Vita" of Rome, declares the Wilson note to be the most important document since the beginning of the war, because it is from the greatest Power in the world not involved in the conflict. Neutrals nowadays must be in a position to enforce their rights. This the United States can do, says the "Vita," for she has enormous interests throughout the world and a formidable fleet. The paper goes on:

Fortunately, American interests are identical with those of the smaller neutral Powers. These states can follow in the footsteps of the United States. Should the neutral Powers of Europe join hands, as the countries of Scandinavia have done, for the protection of their maritime interests, their voice would be more convincing. Experience shows that observance of the rights of neutrality is contingent upon the possession of material strength on the part of the neutral Powers to enforce their point of view.

The "Vita" concludes with the hope that the neutral states of Europe will act with America in insisting that the relations between neutrals and belligerents be settled on a broad basis, "otherwise the United States will get all the satisfaction, while the other neutral Powers will be worse off than before."

In Germany the Wilson note is being interpreted as meaning that the Fatherland may possibly be able to obtain more supplies; indeed, the "Kölnischer Zeitung" suggests that the United States send war materials to Germany and Austria under protection of a war-ship.

The "Frankfurter Zeitung has this to say on the protest :

England's sea militarism threatens the economic life and existence of all neutrals, and the time must come when the neutrals will unite to defend themselves. England will listen to

neutral complaints when she is ordered to do so, not when she is requested. President Wilson has the means to attain that result. He simply needs to halt the exportation of war materials to the Triple Entente.

The comment of French newspapers is no less significant. "La France," for instance, a Paris paper, while criticising what it calls the bad humor of American exporters, declares that American interests lie in allowing Great Britain to carry out her work of policing the seas tranquilly for the salvation of Europe and the world.

Another Paris paper, the "Guerre Sociale," makes this characteristic reference:

The Teutonic alliance has four entry gates for imports-Suez, Gibraltar, the English Channel, and the passage between Iceland and Scotlandall shut by the Allies. The American contrabandists are crying out, "Let us rejoice in this proof of the completeness of the blockade."

The Paris" Figaro" is also sarcastic : American statistics show that the November exports to Italy were valued at $17,000,000, against $7,500,000 in the November preceding; to Denmark, $13,000,000, against $1,000,000; to Norway, $16,000,000, against $750,000; and to Sweden, $7,500,000, against $1,000,000. It does not appear at first sight as if American commerce was suffering so terribly from the surveillance by the allied cruisers of the cargoes consigned to neutral countries whence Germany might obtain supplies.

"Figaro" does not doubt, nevertheless, that England, while maintaining her rights, will diminish as much as possible the inevitable inconveniences which have been caused by the exercise of the right of search.

When one comes to English opinion, the most striking comment comes from the London "Globe." There is no country in the world, it says, "not even our own or Holland, where commercial considerations have more weight... than in America. And hence we are not surprised that the head of the Democratic party . . . should issue this protest to Great Britain in order to avoid the accusation that he is neglectful of American business interests." The "Globe" continues:

We hardly like to suggest that the surprising attitude of Senator Walsh should possibly be interpreted in the light of the fact that he represents Montana, the principal copper-mining State, but the coincidence is curious. He is very firm on the obligation laid upon the United States to protect the rights of neutrals in general, but, like others, he has nothing to say as to the moral obligation of that great country to

protest against the inhuman violations of the Hague Convention, of which they are one of the chief guarantors.

It is true that England is not at the moment fighting the battle of Standard Oil or American copper, but she is defending the cause of democracy and freedom against the most formidable enemy which has threatened them for a hundred years. We are afraid our regard for America-and it is very sincere-will not stretch to inducing us to abandon our own most valuable weapon in the greatest war the world has ever seen.

In another issue the London "Globe " says:

Moral questions of supreme importance and special concern to the United States presented themselves during the last five months in the acutest form, as violations of all the Hague conventions, to which America is signatory, and in the promotion of which America has borne honorably a prominent part, have been flagrant and repeated; but the American Government has declared its inability to utter a word of protest.

The American Government is silent and unprotesting in the face of the indefensible outrages inflicted on Belgium. The voice of the great neutral nation which seeks to be the final arbiter for civilization, the keeper of the world's conscience, is raised for the first time; not on a question of higher morality, but to express impatience with the fact that the greatest war in the history of the world has interfered with the opportunities of American traders to make money out of the necessities of the belligerents. Whatever is at stake, American business must not be allowed to suffer.

The London "Times" thus correctly interprets the general American attitude :

We do not suppose this is a dispute of our right as belligerents to practice such interference with commerce between neutrals as is manifestly necessary for the protection of our national safety. What they do question, as we gather it, is whether the action of our ships does not in some cases exceed that manifest necessity.

As a concession to American feeling the London "Standard" makes a strong plea for greater publicity when American ships are detained for search. This, it says, would be a great departure from the accepted British practice, but it is not unreasonable. The "Standard" also thinks that a joint Anglo-American Committee, with powers to advise and report, would be advisable and that a certificate from such a body on each case as it arose would go far to satisfy American opinion.

overcoat, they took me into their company and whiled away the evening with tales of other wars. At the end they invited me to fill out their automobile on the morrow. Nearly every other automobile had been commandeered by the authorities for the "Service Militaire" and bore on the front the letters "SM." Our automobile was not in the blue-ribbon class, and the authorities had evidently passed it over as being no particular asset to them. But the correspondents counted it a great stroke of fortune to have any car at all; and, that they might continue to have it, they kept it at night carefully locked in a room in the hotel. They kept their chauffeur under like supervision. He was one of their kind, and with the cunning of a diplomat obtained the permit to buy petrol, most precious of all treasures in the zone of war.

With the British flag flying at the front, we sped away next morning on the road to Termonde. In the outskirts of Ghent we met a roving band of Belgian soldiers who were in a free and careless mood, quite willing to put themselves at our disposal. Under the command of the photographers they charged across the fields with fixed bayonets, wriggled up through the grass, or, standing behind the trenches, blazed away with their guns at an imaginary enemy. They did some good acting, grim and serious as death. All except one. This youth couldn't suppress his sense of humor. He could not, or would not, keep from laughing even when he was supposed to be blowing the head off a German. He was properly disciplined and put out of the game, and we went on with our maneuvers to the accompaniment of the clicking cameras until the photographers had gathered in a fine lot of realistic fighting-line pictures. These pictures are "true"-that is, they are faithful to reality, giving indeed even a better idea than if they were taken right on the battle line. They are ethically as justifiable as fiction, which is "the art of falsifying facts for the sake of truth."

One of the photographers sat stolidly in the automobile smoking his cigarette while