contend that it ought to be an American army. The size of it would be determined by our military authorities. If it should be considered impracticable to send a large army, however, it does not follow that no army at all should be sent. A small force of Americans in Russia would be better than no force at all, always assuming that it would go there only with the approval and welcome of the majority of the Slavs. The question of the leadership of such an army would be very important. So far as military considerations are concerned, of course any one of our tried regular army generals would be capable of handling the job, but the social and political qualifications of the chief of such a force would be of much consequence. A man like General Pershing or like the late General Funston, for instancethat is, a man of democratic repute and with the qualifications of a good "mixer "-would be vastly preferable to a man of equal technical ability but hampered by notable wealth or blue blood. The smaller the army, the more important these qualities in its leader would be. For a small army in Russia Theodore Roosevelt would be a capital commander. It is unfortunate that the reputation Senator Root has among Socialists and labor men handicapped the Root Mission in Russia, despite the energy and excellent intentions of all its members. The Root Mission did accomplish considerable good, but it worked always under this handicap. Before its arrival in Russia Anarchists from the United States went among the people telling them that Senator Root was notorious in America as the friend of capital and the enemy of labor, and decrying the whole Mission as capitalistic and bourgeois. The result was that many of the radical papers twisted the utterances of the members of the Mission in Russia, or, what was more effective, ignored their presence altogether. But, to take examples from the Root Mission for the case in hand, men of the type of Messrs. Charles Edward Russell, James Duncan, and Stanley Washburn are the kind that we ought to try to send to Russia whenever we send representatives there. Messrs. Russell and Duncan were able to do a good deal of service to the American cause because their known connections with American Socialism and labor made them less repugnant to the Russian radical masses than some of the other members of the Mission. Major Washburn's wide knowledge of Russia and acquaintanceship with Russians make him always a useful man to the United States in dealings with the Slav nation. Men like George Kennan-men, that is, who speak Russian and who understand the radical tempercould be of great value to America in Russia.

We Americans are apt to take our boasted democracy too much for granted. We must not forget how matters have been reversed by the Russian Revolution. Before that event some Americans were wont to argue that the cause of the Allies was not the cause of democracy, because, they said, "autocratic Russia is one of the Allies." Now some of the more radical Russians who want immediate peace are arguing that there can be no gain for world democracy in their fighting by the side of England, France, and America "because England, France, and America are not democracies." To the Red Russians even France and the United States are oligarchies.

In conclusion, the question whether or not the Allies should send an army to Russia must be determined mainly by the attitude of the Russians toward this project. The nationality of the army must be determined largely by the same factor, and, of course, by the factor of availability and accessibility. Affairs may even come to a pass where Americans and Japanese will work together to help Russia-an event which might be of great significance for the future of American-Japanese relations and for the whole problem of the Far East.

There is one fallacy frequently employed by some of those who dismiss with scorn the proposal to help Russia by lending her fighting men. This is expressed in the glib remark that "Russia has plenty of men herself."

"Plenty of men," indeed; but what kind of men are they? Many of them are proving themselves too lazy or cowardly to fight. Suppose China were to-day in the position of Russia, sorely beset by an invader, with her allies at some distance away. Would any one argue against sending an army to help China on the ground that "China has plenty of men"? Now, while the inferiority of the Chinese as soldiers is proverbial, in fact they could hardly be worse than some Russians of to-day.

So to argue against helping Russia with an army because Russia "has plenty of men herself" is to ignore the real issue. The issue is, Do the Allies want Russia to remain Russia or are they willing to have her become part of Germany? It is all a matter of estimating probabilities and possibilities. Would the Russians welcome a foreign army or would they betray it or openly oppose it? Would Japan's price for her aid be too high? would it be making Japan too powerful to let her help Russia? or would there be more ultimate danger to the balance of power in the far East and to peace in the world by letting Germany expand across Siberia? Is it practicable for America to help Russia fight, or would she better confine all her efforts to helping France and England on the western front? Such questions as these are constantly demanding attention. They ought to be answered, however, not by the Allied Governments, but by the Allied peoples. These peoples ought to insist on being told all that their Governments know. The other day a Paris newspaper asked why the Japanese were not lending Russia their physical assistance. A few days later a Petrograd newspaper raised the same question. I have heard the same query in the mouths of scores of Americans, and all who ask this question imply that Japan is not doing her part. And yet I am told, on good Japanese authority, that Japan has never been asked to help Russia-in fact, that she has reason to believe that the Allies do not want her to do much in this way. Then, in the name of common sense, why can we not have an official statement on this and similar questions, or else let the people decide? Must the peoples of the Allied democracies be treated as if they were the subjects of the ex-Russian Czar? One of the finest contributions which the Russian Revolution has made to political progress is its clear-cut denunciation of secret diplomacy. We who are fighting for democracy cannot afford to become autocratic in the management of our war, for what we may gain by the more direct application of our strength we will lose by the enfeeblement of the enthusiasm based on our conviction that we are fighting for democracy. And even our hidebound conservatives and tories must see the folly of dealing with young Russia by secret diplomacy.

Whether or not Russia ought to be helped by a foreign army is a question to be decided even more by political considerations than by military factors. Russia's whole future status depends on the ability with which she can digest her huge bite of democracy. Be not too sure yet about this war's contribution to world democracy. Though much seems to have been gained thus far, more than all the gain may be lost by a collapse on the home stretch.

You fathers and mothers, you brothers and sisters, of the boys in America's young Army, do not become so engrossed in the battle on the western front, where America is helping England to help France, that you forget that men are dying for liberty on another front where young Russia is fighting a combination of foes without and traitors at home and has only young Russia to help. Do not forget, in the disproportion of newspaper attention, that Germany could lose all she has gained on that western front, and more, and yet remain a menace to world peace and democracy if she were to annex Russia on a line from Odessa to Petrograd.

None of our allies has fundamentally so much in common with that young Russia as America. None of our allies, not even France, has such great possibilities for winning the confidence of that young Russia as America. None of our allies can do so much to save the good things that young Russia may be able to give the world as we Americans if we make the most of our opportunities to understand Russia and to help her.

We cannot help her unless we understand her. If we understand her, the form which our assistance should take will determine itself. We must not fail to expand our communications with Russia and to keep them open. Russia must know and must be kept reminded that whenever she needs our help, be it an army or what not, so far as it is in our power to give she may have it. Thus may we contribute more than any other people to build a newer west in the older east, and to foment the full fruition of the benefits of the Russian Revolution, beside which even the great good that France gave the world may yet be small.

Tokyo, Japan, September 21, 1917.

[Those who are using the weekly outline should not attempt to cover the whole of an outline in any one lesson or study. Assign for one lesson selected questions, one or two propositions for discussion, and only such words as are found in the material assigned. Or distribute selected questions among different members of the class or group and have them report their findings to all when assembled. Then have all discuss the questions together.]

I-INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

A. Topic: "Lafayette, Here We Are !"
Reference: Pages 244, 245.
Questions:

1. Do these editorial extracts prove that there is "an overwhelming American sentiment in favor of a peace founded upon victory in the field" (italics mine)? Are you convinced that this war must go on "until Germany is brought to her knees and made to give up her conquests"? Give several reasons. 2. Against what principles and for what principles does this article by Mr. Léon show that the Allied Governments are fighting? Be specific in picking out the statements and naming the principles. 3. Give a summary of the services of Lafayette to America. What principles and institutions did he fight for at that time? Are France, America, and their allies fighting for the same principles and institutions now? 4. Can you explain how Germany has come to be the enemy of four-fifths of the civilized world? 5. In what ways do General Pershing's three words, "Lafayette, nous voilà," test American sentiment about this war? 6. Read the following helpful books: "The German Empire Between Two Wars," by R. H. Fife (Macmillan); "Modern. Germany, by J. E. Barker (Dutton); "Socialized Germany," by F. C. Howe (Scribners); "The Foundations of Germany," by J. E. Barker (Dutton); "The Soul of Germany,' by T. Smith (Doran); "Germany vs. Civilization," by W. R. Thayer (Houghton Mifflin).

B. Topic: The Melting-Pot.
Reference: Pages 234, 235.
Questions:

1. Can you see reasons why this topic is placed under "International Affairs"? 2. Mention ways by which the 442 newspapers indicated in this article are helping win this war? 3. How do you account for the entire absence of German-language newspapers when they claim they are loyal to the United States? 4. The Outlook has suggested two very important topics (page 235) in "what America is doing for the foreigner" and in "what the foreigner is doing for America." Discuss these two topics somewhat at length.

II-NATIONAL AFFAIRS

A. Topic: The Case of La Follette; Free Speech.

Reference: Pages 233, 234; Editorial, pages 238, 239.

Questions:

offense of La Follette's speech at St. Paul? What do you think of Senator La Follette defending himself on the ground of "the right of free speech"? 2. What do some of La Follette's colleagues think of his speech (page 233)? What do you? 3. Comment on the following criticisms made of La Follette: "A sinister enemy of democracy," "A big yellow streak," "He is playing the part of a demagogue," ""Should not be permitted to lead misguided persons into disloyalty," "Should be expelled from the Senate." 4. Tell what you think of President Butler's statements in The Outlook's editorial on "Free Speech" (page 238). 5. How has The Outlook explained the meaning of free speech? Is this explanation acceptable to you? Why or why not? 6. Who, in your opinion, are the foes of our National household? 7. What constitutes true Americanism? 8. Read those two most interesting and powerful books by Theodore Roosevelt entitled "Fear God and Take Your Own Part" and "Foes of Our Own Household" (published by the George H. Doran Company, New York).

B. Topic: The Anti-Alcohol Movement. Reference: Editorial, pages 240, 241. Questions:

1. What has led The Outlook to say that the American people are being driven to the conclusion that the regulation of the use of alcoholic beverages is impossible? 2. What has The Outlook said showing that "the present prohibition movement is not a sudden spasm of indignation"? 3. For what reasons does The Outlook believe that this is not an appropriate time to consider a prohibition amendment to the Federal Constitution? What is your opinion as to this? 4. What are the four questions The Outlook would have the Nation study thoroughly? To this end what is The Outlook's proposal? 5. What would The Outlook have done while this study is going on? Your opinion of this? 6. What results of local option are recorded in this editorial? 7. In the last paragraph of this editorial what has The Outlook said about "this enemy," and what definite comparisons has it presented?

III-PROPOSITIONS FOR DISCUSSION (These propositions are suggested directly or indirectly by the subject-matter of The Outlook, but not discussed in it.)

1. The nature of peace is difficult to understand. 2. Germany will never again be respected. 3. The liberty of our country is at stake.

This New Range Is A Wonder For Cooking

Although it is less than four feet long it can do every kind of cooking for any ordinary family by gas in warm weather, or by coal or wood when the kitchen needs heating.

There is absolutely no danger in
this combination, as the gas section
is as entirely separate from the coal
section as if placed in another part
of the kitchen.

Note the two gas ovens above-one
for baking, glass paneled and one
for broiling, with white enamel door.
Gold Medal

Glenwood

The large oven below has the Indi-
cator and is heated by coal or wood.
See the cooking surface when you
want to rush things-five burners
for gas and four covers for coal.
When in a hurry both coal and gas
ovens can be operated at the same
time, using one for meats and the
other for pastry-It

"Makes Cooking Easy"

Write for handsome free booklet 131
that tells all about it.
Weir Stove Co., Taunton, Mass.

Makers of the Celebrated Glenwood Coal, Wood
and Gas Ranges, Heating Stoves and Furnaces.

HYMN BOOKS

FOR ALL DEPARTMENTS OF CHURCH WORK
SEND FOR RETURNABLE EXAMINATION COPIES
THE BIGLOW & MAIN CO., New York or Chicago

Cultivate Your
Natural Beauty

YOU can have a youthful appearance, clear

Y complexion, magnetic eyes, pretty eyebrows

and lashes, graceful neck and chin; luxuriant
hair; attractive hands, comfortable feet.
You can remove wrinkles, lines, pimples, blackheads;
strengthen sagging facial muscles-have comfortable
feet, all thru following the simple directions of
Susanna Cocroft's
Physical Culture
for Face, Neck,
Scalp and Feet.

Grace Mildred Culture Course Dept. 13, 624 S. Michigan Ave., Chicago, Ill. (A Division of Susanna Cocroft's Phys. Culture Course)

Because of its

Editorial power Brevity of expression

Authentic war news

News of the world

Authoritative feature articles

Pictorial events of the week

Most desirable class of readers

Increasing circulation
Low advertising rate

The Outlook offers National advertisers
value that can be duplicated by few
other publications.
Mr. H. E. Hooper,

President of the Encyclopædia Britannica Company, recently stated:

"We have sold our books in the past ten or fifteen years cheaper through The Outlook than through any other publication, without a single exception. It seems to me that the purchaser of advertising who buys. simply on circulation is one who does not know the first principles of advertising."

THE OUTLOOK COMPANY

THE BACKWASH OF THE

BATTLE

BY A VOLUNTEER IN THE AMERICAN
AMBULANCE SERVICE IN FRANCE

Along the Chemin-des-Dames the big guns had been pounding away for days. And now the infantry had advanced to the assault-successfully. The papers in the morning were full of it: "Another glorious victory for our arms." "The Germans pushed back six kilometers on a ten-kilometer front." "Four thousand prisoners and many guns captured. Boche retreat continues." And to-night there's a hospital train due at La Chapelle freight station, the first of the many that are coming in from the north.

The single flickering arc light in the salle des expeditions throws a ghostly illumination over the waiting ambulances lined up in their proper stalls, nose to the wall, and over the little groups of khakiclad drivers, some walking about, some telling stories, some dozing on the steps or seats of their machines. One of the more restless waiters goes down the long corridor to look again at the bulletin written in chalk on the little slate hanging there on the wall: "Train sanitaire No. 4 P. L. M., arrivant vers 23 h. 45. 128 blessés, dont 9 sont officiers." It is already long past the hour, but no one is curious. Hospital trains are always late.

Suddenly a voice calls out far down the freight shed. Lights go up, and the silent forms bestir themselves. Out on the platform the stretchers and blankets are piled high, and down to the left, threading its way among the twinkling red and white lights of the Gare du Nord switchyard, the train is backing into the inclosed siding. Slowly it rolls up and comes to an imperceptible halt.

The faces of infirmiers peer out of the gloom through the square windows in the center of the side doors. The doors them

selves slide back, wicks of smoldering lamps are turned up, and in the semidarkness one can see vague forms twisting uneasily on the double tier of rough wooden bunks. "Où sommes nous ?" (Where are we?) one of them asks. "Paris," is the reply. The questioner gives a curious grunt and is silent.

The work of unloading begins. Some, with only one member mangled or shot away, are able to squirm or roll onto the held stretchers by their own efforts. Those others, with both leg and arm broken or with an abdominal wound, are not moved so easily. Cold perspiration breaks out on their foreheads and involuntary groans arise as their hurts are reawakened by their own exertions or by the unavoidable awkwardness of their helpers. And in the eyes of all is the wondering look of those who have seen things too big to understand or to question.

Once on the stretchers, their belongings are collected, pitifully few for the most part-a crammed musette, or a few trinkets tied up in a handkerchief. Now and then one exhibits with childlike pride a graygreen German helmet.

All types are here: A sturdy peasant from the Midi; it will be long before he gets about his little farm again. Or a swarthy factory hand from the north; he has not heard from his family for three years, nor will any of his kin come to cheer him during the slow months of his recovery. Here is a fusilleur marin, with the red pompom on his sailor hat. And there is the