1 10 THE OUTLOOK in the list, but will unhesitatingly accept the Government's warnings. 2 January of his ability as an executive in the construction of the Hudson Tunnels, and the operation of trains through them between New York City and New Jersey; and he is, by virtue of his work as Secretary of the Treasury, qualified to deal with financial GOVERNMENT OPERATION OF THE problems such as are presented in this new Government venture. R RAILWAYS EVOLUTIONARY as it may seem, the action of the President in taking over on December 28 the entire railway system has been almost universally accepted as a normal and natural act. Even the conservatively-minded among the daily newspapers, and even such natural conservatives as bankers, greet this action in a spirit not only of acquiescence but of satisfaction. The way in which this profound change from private to public management of our railways has been received is an indication, as striking as it would be possible to find, of the effect on America that has been made by the World War. For it is as a war measure that the President has taken possession of the entire railway system of the country. This he explains in his Proclamation published on Thursday morning, December 27. He quotes the resolutions of Congress declaring war on Germany and Austria respectively, in which Congress authorizes and directs the President "to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war. ." And he also quotes from the Army Appropriation Act of August, 1916: The President, in time of war, is empowered, through the Secretary of War, to take possession and assume control of any system or systems of transportation, or any part thereof, and to utilize the same, to the exclusion as far as may be necessary of all other traffic thereon, for the transfer or transportation of troops, war material, and equipment, or for such other purposes connected with the emergency as may be needful or desirable. This provision was a product of the great war in Europe, although it was adopted more than seven months before the United States entered that war; and it gives the President this authority to take possession of and operate the railways—and, for that matter, all the transportation lines, including steamships-as an exercise of the Government's war powers. It is, therefore, as an emergency measure, undertaken only because we are at war and only because of authority which Congress has given the President in time of war, that this Proclamation has been issued; but the terms of the Proclamation are none the less sweeping. The Government has taken possession of every line of railway and every system of coastwise or inland transportation owned or controlled by a railway, including terminals, sleeping and parlor cars, private cars and car lines, elevators, warehouses, telegraph and telephone lines-in fact, the whole equipment of all American railways. The President intimates that even the operation of street-car lines and so-called interurban electric lines may pass under Government control and operation by a subsequent order. In taking possession of the railways the President of course observes the limitation placed upon the Government by the Constitution. It would be contrary not only to the Constitution, but to the whole spirit of America, for the Government to seize private property under any emergency unless that private property were either forfeited through violation of law on the part of the owner and through consequent trial before the courts, or duly bought and paid for at a compensation carefully and judicially determined. In this case the railway property itself does not pass into the ownership of the Government. It is neither forfeited nor purchased. It is simply placed under the control and management of the Government. But that control, that management, is as complete and unqualified as if the railways were the property of the Government itself. At the same time, as the President makes very clear, for the use of the railways the Government will see that the owners of the railways, their shareholders, and the owners of railway obligations, will be duly paid. For the purpose of carrying out what he has proclaimed, the President has appointed William G. McAdoo, Director General of Railroads. Mr. McAdoo does not relinquish his post as Secretary of the Treasury, but assumes his new duties in addition to those he is now performing. Mr. McAdoo has given evidence The actual work of operation will be carried on by those who have carried on the railways under private management. To the ordinary observer there will be little change. In fact, however, the change will be radical. With the overwhelming burden which war has placed upon the railways, the unequal distribution of cars and supplies and other elements in transportation has threatened the country with very serious trouble. There has been a Committee of Railway Executives who have been patriotically co-operating with the Government; but this Committee has had no power to enforce its decisions, or even to see that railways that lack equipment and other necessary things should be supplied by roads which had enough and to spare. Managers cannot do what they will with private property. Only the Government has the power and authority commensurate with the task. Though this great change comes as an emergency war measure, it is inconceivable that, though it may be modified, it should not be in some form lasting. Just as Government regulation has made it impossible to conceive of this country's ever going back to the old days when railways were managed with as much individual freedom as if they were on private estates of their own; so Government operation will, in our opinion, soon. make it inconceivable that this country will ever go back to purely private operation, even though regulated. The changes which this war is making cannot be ignored or abandoned after this war is over. Government operation has come, in our judgment, to stay. Whether this means ultimately Government ownership or not is another question. New York City owns its subways, but does not operate them. The United States Government does not own the railways, but will hereafter operate them. There is no question that the public has a right to own and the right to operate public utilities. The question in each case should be decided simply on this one ground, whether the public can act for itself better than it can hire private enterprise to act for it. The railways are public highways. Whether they are managed by private enterprise or by public authority, they should be managed for the benefit of the public. The time has come when it is proved that public benefit requires Government operation. And because the evidence of that is unmistakable, it is not in the least surprising that the whole country should acquiesce. WHICH? There is a familiar story of Abraham Lincoln to the effect that a delegation of clergymen once called on him, one of whom said, "I hope, Mr. President, that the Lord is on our side," to whom Lincoln replied, "That does not concern me; what concerns me is that we should be on the Lord's side.' Christmas morning's papers published a speech delivered by the Kaiser to his troops containing the following two sentences: "The year 1917, with its great battles, has proved that the German people has in the Lord of Creation above an unconditional and avowed ally on whom it can absolutely rely. Without him all would have been in vain." The difference between Abraham Lincoln and the Kaiser is the difference between true and false religion, true and false faith. False religion is the religion of self-will. False faith has its own plans formed and claims God as a silent partner lending the capital of his almighty power to enable self-will to carry out its plans. True religion is the religion of consecration. True faith believes that God has plans, and prays the Psalmist's prayer, "Show me thy paths, O Lord," and devotes itself to discovering God's paths and working with God to accomplish them. The Kaiser's faith wants God for his ally. Lincoln's faith wants to be the ally of God. At this beginning of a new year it were well for each one of us to ask himself whether his faith is that of the Kaiser or that of Abraham Lincoln. LYMAN ABBOTT. ALSACE-LORRAINE Among the proposals for peace attributed to the German Government, and undoubtedly emanating from Germany, there is one that appeals with great force to many believers in selfgovernment. This is "To leave the disposition of Alsace-Lorraine to a plebiscite of inhabitants." This proposal recalls a somewhat similar one made by Stephen A. Douglas in 1854, to leave the question whether slavery should be admitted to or excluded from a Territory to the inhabitants of the Territory themselves. The proposal has passed into American history under the title of "Squatter Sovereignty." Abraham Lincoln's characterization of this proposal will be found in Volume I of his complete works, page 249: What was Squatter Sovereignty? I suppose, if it had any significance at all, it was the right of the people to govern themselves, to be sovereign in their own affairs while they were squatted down in a country not their own, while they had squatted on a territory that did not belong to them, in the sense that a State belongs to the people who inhabit it-when it belongs to the Nation-such right to govern themselves was called Squatter Sovereignty. What Germany proposes to do is to leave the question of Alsace-Lorraine to be determined by its present population, while the French inhabitants who were dwelling there in peace three years ago have been mostly killed off (to say nothing of the other French inhabitants who have been driven out by the German occupation of the past forty years) and their places taken by Germans "who have squatted on a territory that did not belong to them." It is true that no territory should be disposed of by external authority without consideration of the rights and interests of the people who dwell upon it, and generally not without some consultation of their wishes; but it is not true that the people who happen to be dwelling upon a territory at any particular time are the only ones whose interests are to be considered, the only ones who have rights to be taken account of, the only ones whose wishes and judgment are to be consulted. The Nationalists in Ireland demand that the destiny of Ireland should be determined by the Irish people, without regard to the rights or the interests of the English; but when the inhabitants of the north of Ireland desired to apply the same principle and demanded that Ulster should not be turned over to the control of the people in the south of Ireland against the will of the inhabitants of the north of Ireland, the Nationalists repudiated their own principle and demanded the right to exercise a controlling authority over the whole of Ireland. This simple fact illustrates the fallacy of the principle involved in squatter sovereignty. There are immense stores of coal and iron in Alleghany County, Pennsylvania. It would be preposterous if those stores of coal and iron belonged to the three-quarters of a million of people in that county. It was preposterous in the Civil War to claim that the people of Louisiana owned the mouth of the Mississippi River because they dwelt upon its banks and the people farther up had no rights or interest in the mouth of that river. It is quite as preposterous to claim that because now a majority of the people living in Alsace and Lorraine and transferred there from Germany are or may be Germans, Germany has a right to take possession of the mineral wealth of those two provinces. The question how the ownership of the surface of the earth can be determined, and how the political control of each section of the surface of the earth should be determined, is a very difficult one, because so many, so various, and so complex are the rights and interests involved. One thing, however, that is very certain is that no people have an absolute and exclusive right to control and use for themselves any portion of the earth's surface merely because they chance at the time when the question of control arises to dwell upon that territory. As the interest of the whole American Nation was rightly considered in determining the political control of the United States, as the rights and interests of the people of all Great Britain ought to be taken into consideration in determining the political control of Ireland, so, whenever the nations are prepared to make the new map of Europe, the rights and interests of the various peoples of Europe must be taken account of in determining the boundary lines of Alsace-Lorraine, and, indeed, of every new boundary line that may be drawn. The question of Alsace-Lorraine, like many another question that has been raised or revived by this war, is a world question; and a world question cannot be decided by a local vote. WHY HESITATE? We Americans have gone into the war with the avowed purpose of fighting for democracy and liberty. From all kinds of witnesses comes the testimony that our men, disinclined to war, are setting out to fight in this war with high spirit, because they believe they are going to fight for liberty and democracy. And what impels us Americans to fight has been the evidence that a despotic, ruthless Power, acknowledging nothing more divine than Might, has oppressed, crushed, beaten down, and mangled people whose only offense has been that they loved liberty and dared to stand up against that power in the defense of liberty. This is why America admires Belgium and wants to help the Belgians. But Belgium is not the only country that has suffered because it dared to try to be free. The very first country to bring down upon its head the mailed fist in this war was Serbia. And Serbia has been terribly punished for her love of freedom. Pan-Germany has delegated the scourging of Serbia to Bulgaria; and the Bulgarian King and his military group have taken joy in inflicting misery upon the Serbians. And America, who has entered this war to defend democracy and liberty, is at peace with the Bulgarian King. At least America is at peace with Bulgaria in form-but not in truth. If we are at war with Germany because she is making the world unsafe for democracy, we are at war with all who aid her in making the world unsafe. We should declare war on Bulgaria. First, because we should then be recognizing an existing fact. Second, because, as the map shows, Bulgaria and Bulgarian control of Serbia are part of the Pan-Germanic scheme, and by making war on Bulgaria we should threaten Pan-Germany. Third, because by making war we should close up the Bulgarian Legation and the Bulgarian consulates in this country. We have permitted one of Germany's allies to maintain centers of information, not to say influence and power, in this country. We should no longer allow a Government which is the ally of our enemy and the enemy of democracy to be treated as a friend, and to keep its agents in this country. Fourth, because the Bulgarians themselves, who are naturally admirers of America and American ideals, need the demonstration that America does not stand for the Prussianism to which their King has committed.them and their country. It is known that when the United States entered the war against Germany many Bulgarians who had been hypnotized by their petty Czar came to their senses and deserted the service of that wretched little despot. It is more than likely that a declaration of war by the great Republic of the United States upon the Government of Bulgaria would make thousands of other Bulgarians realize how they have been duped. Fifth, because Serbia asks it. There is in this country a Serbian Mission. One of its members has been Professor of International Law in the University of Belgrade. Another has been Serbian Minister for Foreign Affairs. Another is a general, a Serbian hero of 1914. This Mission, representing a small country that successfully defied for months the great Austrian Empire, that has fought and fought and fought, that has been overrun with enemies and subjugated, that has been neglected by the Allies, though it was the first to take up the Allied cause, and though it lay closest to the heart of Pan-Germanythis Mission is here to plead Serbia's cause. Though this Mission has not officially asked this country to declare war on Bulgaria, there is no manner of doubt that every Serb in or out of Serbia that has Serbia's cause at heart would hail with joy a declaration of war by the United States against Serbia's nearest and most destructive enemy, Bulgaria. That reason alone is enough. Why hesitate? A ARMS, CLOTHES, AND S the Congressional inquiry into the Ordnance Bureau and the Quartermaster's Department proceeds, the grave deficiencies which exist in the supply and equipment for our troops grow more and more apparent. It is admitted by all interests, both in and out of the War Department, that our soldiers abroad are depending at present entirely upon our allies for their artillery and machine guns. The authorities in our War Department state that our allies can afford to lend us this vital aid without detriment to themselves. Many voices have been raised, however, in a protest against such a statement. To the impartial observer it seems distinctly unlikely that France and England-two nations which have been straining every resource during the last three years to ward off the attacks of an aggressive and desperate foe-should have supplies to spare. In any case, it grows more and more apparent that the admitted shortage of supplies for our own troops is due, in part at least, to a failure by the War Department to avail itself of all the resources at the command of the American Nation. This general criticism is particularly applicable in the case of the supply of machine guns. The machine-gun situation is doubly complicated, for it involves a controversy which has been raging in army circles for a long period antedating the present war. Any one who has followed at all closely the action of the War Department in recent years knows that the Bureau of Ordnance has manifested on more than one occasion a hostility towards the Lewis machine gun which has aroused considerable debate. Colonel Lewis, U. S. A., retired, the inventor of the Lewis machine gun, believes that the failure to recognize the value of his weapon has been due to the personal antagonism of General Crozier, Chief of the Bureau of Ordnance. General Crozier, on the other hand, has indicated on more than one occasion that he was not satisfied with the performance of the Lewis gun in actual test. Colonel Lewis's arguments are strengthened by the fact that his gun has been eagerly seized upon by the ordnance officials of our allies, and that thousands upon thousands of them are now in constant use on and over the western front. Whatever the cause of General Crozier's objections, they were sufficient in weight greatly to retard the acceptance of Lewis machine guns by the War Department even after the outbreak of hostilities had made manifest to every eye the immediate need of developing to the limit the machine gun capacity of American factories. In his testimony before Congress Colonel Lewis told of his repeated efforts to give his gun to his Government without compensation to himself. He said that he had returned to the American Government the thousands of dollars in royalties he had received for Lewis guns ordered for the English Government but later turned over to our own. He said that the War Department had at first refused to accept his check, and later, after reversing its decision, had failed even to acknowledge his voluntary gift. Colonel Lewis's statements to this effect, backed up by letters produced at the Congressional investigation, whatever bearing they may have on his criticism of General Crozier, certainly give evidence of a lack of cour tesy from officials toward the inventor. General Crozier claims that the War Department has found in the Browning machine gun a better weapon than the Lewis, but all the testimony before the Congressional Committee showed that the Browning gun, so far as any quantity produc tion is concerned, is largely a thing of the future. At the time of its adoption by the War Department but two Browning guns were in existence. It would seem to the lay observer that it would have been better to accept as the standard equipment of our troops a weapon which had already decisively proved its merit and its right to survive on a thousand hardfought fields. The Browning gun may be a hundred times more efficient than the Lewis, but it can be said, without fear of contradiction by partisans of either gun, that no blueprint ever killed a German. The Congressional inquiry into the Quartermaster's Department has brought to light certain deficiencies of method which have greatly retarded the equipment for our troops. So far as the Congressional investigation has proceeded, there has been little indication that personal jealousy has been permitted to interfere in any way with the proper provision of food, clothing, and other such supplies for our military forces. It is plainly evident, however, that because of our general unpreparedness in the past, and the inelastic organization of our War Department, the Government has been unable to provide uniforms, overcoats, and certain other supplies for the men in training. Apparently the Quartermaster's Department has made its best showing in the matter of the food provided for the men, for there has been a notable lack of criticism on the grounds of insufficient food. One of the reasons why there has been delay in providing clothing for our troops is to be found in the complicated system used by the War Department in checking orders passing between various offices within the War Department. General Sharpe, under questioning by Senator Wadsworth, admitted that in one important case it took four days for a telegram to come from the Adjutant-General's office to the Quartermaster-General. Senator McKellar graphically described the course of the particular telegram to which General Sharpe referred. Said Senator McKellar: As I understand the course of that telegram, it comes from the officer in the field to the Adjutant-General. Then it comes to the Quartermaster-General. Then from the QuartermasterGeneral back to the Adjutant-General; then from the Adjutant-General to the Assistant Chief of Staff, and from the Assistant Chief of Staff back to the Adjutant-General and the Quartermaster General combined. Then from the Adjutant-General back to the officer, and the Quartermaster-General then acts upon it. General Sharpe said that he then acted upon such a requisition if his approval had been confirmed, but it was made manifest that confirmation of an order implied progress through the entire course of procedure described by Senator McKellar. General Sharpe admitted that on one occasion General Wood had on his own authority bought twenty thousand pairs of overalls for his men at Camp Funston in order that they might be clothed until the regulation uniforms arrived. He did this without authority, but the Quartermaster-General approved of it, because of the necessity of the situation. General Wood's prompt action was apparently typical of the way in which the Quartermaster's Department has not been managed. No American can be blind to the size of the problem which has confronted the War Department since the outbreak of the war. And many Americans, with the size of the problem confronting the War Department in mind, have been loth to criticise the inefficiency which has in some respects been manifested. As one citizen overheard in a restaurant a few days ago remarked, "Think what confusion would result if the average business concern were asked to expand a thousandfold within a few months." The comparison sounds plausible, but it is not just. An ordinary business is run on a basis of paying for improvements and developments out of its profits. A War Department is organized with the understanding that whenever an emergency exists the funds at its disposal will be limited only by the resources of the Nation. The success of an ordinary business is determined by its daily balance-sheet. The success of a War Department can be determined only by its ability to face an emergency and to meet whatever demands the country makes upon it in time of war. A war department organized only for peace-time use is like an insurance company organized on a basis of never having to pay out money for the losses of its policy-holders. What would the average citizen say of an insurance company which accepted his premiums year after year, but failed to pay its just debt when his house or his factory burned to the ground? In the very nature of things a war department should be organized with the greatest possible degree of elasticity. If it proves itself inelastic and convention-bound in time of war, it can be justly criticised, even though a commercial concern confronted by problems of the same character and magnitude might be pardoned for a demonstration of similar deficiencies. "N HOW THE LIGHT BREAKS THROUGH THREE AUTOBIOGRAPHIES IN BRIEF TOW, like a child that has paid a nickel for a toy, they are crying because the salesman won't let them have the toy and the nickel also." This is the way that Hermann Hagedorn, an American of German parentage, characterizes those German-Americans who want to be loyal to America but at the same time want to cherish a loyalty to their German inheritance. An American who knows no divided allegiance can perhaps best understand what this struggle between two such loyalties means by learning how that struggle has affected the lives of individuals. Three such individuals in what here follows tell their stories of that struggle as it has affected them. After reading these stories the plain American, who has never been troubled with a hyphen, will perhaps be more ready to sympathize with some of his fellow-Americans who have been through some phase of this struggle. As Mr. Hagedorn, in the article written for the Vigilantes from which we have quoted above, says concerning the German-American: Like all sentimentalists, he wants to have his cake and eat it too; he forswears his allegiance to Germany because he wants to enjoy American equality of opportunity, and at the same time he persuades himself that he is still ein guter, braver Deutscher. America is his wife, but he keeps Germany as his soul-mate, and is puzzled and offended when his wife boxes his ears and hales him into court. . . . America should have been more observant. She should have seen that the German-Americans needed some friendly attention. America did not see, but Germany did. The German-American has a keen sense of duty. It is inbred in him. That sense of duty will make him wish faithfully to obey the laws of the United States, of which he is a citizen. But the German-American has likewise an abnormally developed bump of sentimentality. That fatal quality will make him turn again and again wistfully to the dream-Germany which has long perished, if it ever existed. . . . In the hearts of countless German-Americans there is unquestionably a conflict raging between that sense of duty and that sentimental turning to the past. It is not surprising that this conflict between a loyalty based on a sense of duty and a loyalty based on sentimentality should bring distress and in some cases hardship. And it is not surprising that it affects different individuals in different ways. The three stories that follow tell how this conflict has affected three different types. In the case of Mr. Froehlke, that conflict has been carried on within his own mind. Though Mr. Froehlke was born in America, he has gone through the struggle between those two loyalties as neither of the other two has. He has experienced conversion to the American spirit, and he suggests that that process of conversion is slow in coming to an end. In the case of Dr. Steiner, the storm of the conflict has surged against him from the lives of others. Born of Jewish parentage in Austria, Dr. Steiner knew what it was to find the American spirit before he ever came to this land; and he has known what it has been to go through such a conflict as some of his fellowAmericans are going through, because he has himself gone through a similar process in becoming a minister of the Christian gospel. He has tried to be an interpreter of the American spirit to others who, like himself, have been alien immigrants. The special occasion which calls forth the story he tells is referred to in a note which prefaces what he has to say. In the case of the unnamed woman of Wisconsin, that struggle has had its outcome in a whole-hearted acceptance of the American spirit which amounts to a profound, sturdy, aggressive faith. THE EDITORS. I-THE CONFESSION OF A SO-CALLED GERMAN PASTOR AND A A FEW REFLECTIONS BY THE REV. S soon as the European war broke out I entirely forgot that America was the land of my birth and became a rabid pro-German, denouncing everything that smacked of anything Allied, particularly British, in the sharpest terms. In the heat of passion I unreservedly threw my lot with the German nation, and actually conceived of the idea, with its resultant emotion, that if Germany were to go down into defeat it would be my share in life ever afterward to greet my fellow American citizens shamefacedly and apologetically. Viewed in the light of the present time, my former self was a German in disguise, and that man who with biting sarcasm remarked, after I had sat in judgment on the Entente with particular harshness, "You Germans will soon be roaming about without a country," was almost right, for when Congress declared a state of war existing between Germany and our country I virtually found myself on neutral ground and had no country, Germania and America, on either side of me, both appealing for respective demonstrations of loyalty. America won the day, but the transition was not quite so precipitate as a certain communication which I sent to one of our local newspapers immediately after Bernstorff had been handed his passports would indicate; part of this here follows: "The severance of diplomatic relations caused my heart to bleed, and I am sure it lacerated the souls of thousands of other men of German descent. Thank God, it was only for the moment! With a supreme and holy effort we have thrown off our prejudices in regard to the European war and are now concerning ourselves only with the interest of America. We shall stand by our country. Surely our fellow-citizens will understand how it could come to pass that we were downcast at the news of the severance of diplomatic relations with Germany, the land of our forefathers, whose memory we cherish. It was but natural. PAUL FROEHLKE Our patriotism has been put to the test, and be it known that it has stood the test. Our hearts are beating for America, our hopes are for America, our lives, our services, are at the disposal of America." This letter, written bona fide by a sanguine-choleric hand, established beyond a doubt my loyalty among fellow-Americans. In reality, however, as I see it now, my communication was a shield which protected me against accusations of disloyalty while I got my bearings and steered toward the safe harbor of Americanism. That there was need of such a course soon became apparent to me. My assumption that I was an American after our country had taken up arms against the Imperial Government of Germany received a severe jolt when, to my horror, I found that I could read war news unfavorable to the Allies with equanimity and a certain degree of complacency; in my treacherous heart there was concealed a jubilant triumph because of German victories which slavish fear of prosecution suppressed. What a pass I, a native American, had come to! How could it be possible? As I ponder over this question it appears to me that I, and no doubt others, were not altogether to blame for the temperamental condition just confessed. Our fellow-Americans made it difficult even for a native American who happened to have a reading and speaking knowledge of the language of his forefathers-in our case it is the German language-to be and feel himself a real American. Of course I must admit that, as my father was the pastor of a large German-speaking congregation, my environments were principally German; we spoke German at home, carried on conversations in the German language with most of our friends, read German literature extensively, and attended such schools and colleges as laid stress on the German part of the curriculum. Influence of this nature combined with natural tendencies was bound to create in us a certain degree of regard for the land of our forefathers. This attachment to the old country would not only have remained harmless, but, in my opinion, would have continued to be a beneficial factor in our American life, had not our American brethren continually harped on and accentuated our being of German extraction, and thus, in the course of time, perpetuated in our mind the idea that we were an incongruity in the American make-up. 66 As far back as my memory reaches I remember being called a German, seldom an American. When I attended our parochial school, my "Yankee" friends, of course, said I was going to the German school, and they dubbed me a Dutchman." Later on, when I was graduated from college and had completed my course in a theological seminary, I never failed to be introduced as the German pastor, though I preached more English than German. Living in a settlement where people spoke a great deal of German, it was no uncommon thing for me to hear politicians paying a glowing tribute to the honesty, integrity, and initiative of the German people, as though these commendable qualities were our private property. In papers, books, and magazines of all sorts the praises of Germany, her Government, her people, her scenery, "her everything," were sung. Tourists who came back likewise praised Germany, and took special pains to draw comparisons and place America not always in a very favorable light. How, then, in the name of common sense, was I to become Americanized when my fellow-citizens did all in their power to Germanize me, an American by birth? So it happened that when my country took up arms against the Kaiser and his kin I was out of sympathy with her undertaking. I did not feel myself a real American. When one considers what has happened since war was declared, this treatment of the German-Americans by their fellowcitizens appears all but criminal. And they felt it; the truth of this is borne out by the fact that America is betraying a bad conscience by the distrust which she shows toward everything German, regardless of whether American ideas have been assimilated or not. When a state of war was declared between America and the Imperial Government of Germany, apprehensions were entertained on all sides as to the stand German-Americans would take toward a situation pregnant with so many possibilities of a decisive nature. Why this distrust? Surely the German-Americans did not merit this disgrace. The history of our country vouched for their loyalty, and history, it is said, repeats itself. Undoubtedly this uneasiness was partly due to the fact that this war would automatically align so many of our fellowcitizens against their kinsmen, a situation in which sentimentality and natural affection might be easily misguided and precipitate disaster; but for the most part this distrust toward the German-American was engendered by his own bad conscience. He was not without blame. Through bitter experience our fellow-Americans have discovered their mistake, and would retrieve that which they heretofore have neglected. Toward this end our Administration has taken measures for an official campaign of enlightenment as to our war aims. Nothing could be more expedient and opportune. Coming at a time when a great many German-Americans were perplexedly asking themselves, "Warum dieser Krieg?" this propaganda for true, unadulterated Americanism was, and is still, bound to bring good results, inasmuch as the psychological moment for such a movement has been chosen and the whole dealt with in the spirit of mutual helpfulness and fairness. Much of the war-time oratory which was indulged in by amateurs, who acted in no official capacity, and therefore in very many cases had no inside information, was nauseating to me in its spread-eagle style, and, if anything, only served to foster my dislike for war against Germany. Another adverse feature of these bellicose speeches was that they were very often delivered by those men who before the war made it a practice to cater to "German" people. Can you imagine the impression it made on me when the very same men who before the war assiduously. labored to Germanize me dragged the general apathy of the German-American into the hell-hole of fiery invectives, and would have every German-speaking American shot as a traitor at sunrise? They put me in mind of a parent who in a fit of anger mercilessly whipped his spoiled child, whose greatest crime was that it had followed in its father's footsteps. In their public utterances a spirit of more or less sanctimonious hypocrisy evinced itself. To be sure, it inspired me with confidence and refreshed me when our Administration finally hit upon the plan of taking me into its confidence, of meeting me half-way, as it were, and of making me feel that I was an integral part in the American machinery. Former prejudices gradually pushed aside, I began to apply myself with painstaking study to the solution of the perplexing problems and the mental phenomena with which only GermanAmericans in this war crisis were confronted. The Government co-operating with me in the spirit of fair play, my efforts have been crowned with success. I am beginning to feel myself a real American. To illustrate the point permit me to relate an experience of mine, trivial in itself, but full of meaning. Walking along the street the other day I met with a crowd of small boys and heard one of them say, "There goes the German pastor." Before the war and some time after I did not mind being accosted and spoken of in that manner; but this time the "German" part of it hurt, not because I am ashamed of my German parentageI am proud of it--but because it awakened in me a sensation as if I were ostracized from the categorical group that saith, "We are Americans !" In conclusion I ask the question, Am I a traitor? I may have been one in embryo, but it seems to me I was nipped in the bud. Savannah, Illinois. II-A WRONG STRATEGY BY EDWARD A. STEINER It has been asserted that some of Dr. Steiner's utterances have been open to severe criticism. As he is known to large numbers of Americans, and especially to our readers, as a writer and a lover of humanity, it is eminently suitable that he should explain through The Outlook just what his position is. Those of our readers who remember his three articles on the Herr Director and the American spirit will associate his name with a particularly high and moving interpretation of America. The Outlook's acquaintance with Dr. Steiner is personal and direct. We hope that this communication from him, which has been published also elsewhere, will lead to a more discriminating valuation of the Americanism that has been fostered by Americans of alien birth.-THE EDITORS. M pen has been practically idle for three years. In common with most Americans, I have felt much and suffered in an uncommon degree, and when one suffers clear thinking is difficult. One can speak without thinking, but one cannot write; at least I could not. The suffering has, however, become so intense that I must give utterance to my feeling, and I am addressing Outlook readers because they have been my audience for many years, always patient and generous. When the war broke out, I was not as unprepared for it as most Americans. I knew it was coming, and also knew why it was to come. I did not know how vast the conflagration would be, and did not dream that we should suffer by it to the degree that we have. From the very first, however, I shared in the suffering which has now become so common. I knew Serbia and loved its people. I had great hopes that after the Balkan War it would speedily recover and ultimately find its place among the forward-moving nations of Europe. The invasion of Serbia by Austria, its final devastation by Austrian and German troops, the ravages of disease which followed, I felt in their full force, and knew it to be the doom of the people whom I loved. The conquest of Montenegro was a still greater agony for |