than ever before." He called his fellow-countrymen to witness that at no stage of the war had he judged the purposes of Germany intemperately, but had sought to learn the objects Germany has in this war from the mouths of her own spokesmen. The President then went on to point out that her civilian representatives, the Chancellor, and the delegates to the peace conference in Russia had professed their desire to conclude a fair peace, but the military masters of Germany proclaimed a very different conclusion by their deeds. Briefly outlining what they had done to impose their power on a helpless people in Russia and to exploit everything for Germany's use, the President asked if we would not be justified in believing that they would do the same thing at the western front if they could. He went further and asked if these military masters of Germany are checked on the west, whether they might not offer favorable terms with regard to Belgium and France and Italy in order to assure themselves of a free hand in Russia and the East. The President answered his own question by this conclusion to his speech: 66 Their purpose is, undoubtedly,.to make all the Slavic peoples, all the free and ambitious nations of the Baltic Peninsula, all the lands that Turkey has dominated and misruled, subject to their will and ambition, and build upon that dominion an empire of force upon which they fancy that they can then erect an empire of gain and commercial supremacy-an empire as hostile to the Americas as to the Europe which it will overawe-an empire which will ultimately master Persia, India, and the peoples of the Far East. In such a programme our ideals, the ideals of justice and humanity and liberty, the principle of the free self-determination of nations, upon which all the modern world insists, can play no part. They are rejected for the ideals of power, for the principle that the strong must rule the weak, that trade must follow the flag, whether those to whom it is taken welcome it or not, that the peoples of the world are to be made subject to the patronage and overlordship of those who have the power to enforce it. That programme once carried out, Ainerica and all who care or dare to stand with her must arm and prepare themselves to contest the mastery of the world-a mastery in which the rights of common men, the rights of women, and of all who are weak, must for the time being be trodden under foot and disregarded and the old, age-long struggle for freedom and right begin again at its beginning.. Everything that America has lived for and loved and grown great to vindicate and bring to a glorious realization will have fallen in utter ruin and the gates of mercy once more pitilessly shut upon mankind! "T Tto The thing is preposterous and impossible; and yet is not that what the whole course and action of the German armies has meant wherever they have moved? I do not wish, even in this moment of utter disillusionment, to judge harshly or unrighteously. I judge only what the German arms have accomplished with unpitying thoroughness throughout every fair region they have touched. What, then, are we to do? For myself, I am ready, ready still, ready even now, to discuss a fair and just and honest peace at any time that it is sincerely proposed a peace in which the strong and the weak shall fare alike. But the answer, when I proposed such a peace, came from the German commanders in Russia, and I cannot mistake the meaning of the answer. I accept the challenge. I know that you accept it. All the world shall know that you accept it. It shall appear in the utter sacrifice and self-forgetfulness with which we shall give all that we love and all that we have to redeem the world and make it fit for free men like ourselves to live in. This now is the meaning of all that we do. Let everything that we say, my fellow-countrymen, everything that we henceforth plan and accomplish, ring true to this response till the majesty and might of our concerted power shall fill the thought and utterly defeat the force of those who flout and misprize what we honor and hold dear. Germany has once more said that force, and force alone, shall decide whether justice and peace shall reign in the affairs of men, whether right as America conceives it or dominion as she conceives it shall determine the destinies of mankind. There is, therefore, but one response possible from us: Force, force to the utmost, force without stint or limit, the righteous and triumphant force which shall make right the law of the world and cast every selfish dominion down in the dust. At a time when German power seems to be harder to resist than ever before these words of the President, showing that he realizes that the whole strength of this country is needed, have a most welcome sound. His acknowledgment that this is a moment of "utter disillusionment" is also welcome. It is not a moment of disillusionment for all Americans, for there have been some Americans, among them persons of eminence and influence, who have never had any illusions about Germany's purposes or methods or about the issues of the war or the need of the employment of all our powers to resist German aggression. Such men have been anxiously waiting for the moment of disillusionment of which the President speaks. Now that it has come, it is the business of us all, whether we have been under any illusions or not, to unite to help our allies with all our powers to destroy the monster that menaces the future of freedom throughout the world. KNOLL PAPERS BY LYMAN ABBOTT THE SPIRITUAL MEANING OF DEMOCRACY HE President's declaration that the object of this war is to make the world safe for democracy," said my friend "has been enthusiastically welcomed. But are we so sure that democracy is the best form of government, that it is worth what this war is costing us?" to me, No, I am not sure that any form of government is worth fighting for. But democracy is much more than a form of government. France is a republic, Italy is a monarchy; but both are democracies. The United States is a republic, Great Britain is a monarchy; but in some respects Great Britain is more democratic than the United States. It has in its Imperial Government both referendum and recall; the United States has in its Federal Government neither. Democracy is not a mere form of government. It is a religious faith. It is a spirit of life—a spirit of mutual regard for each other's interest and mutual respect for each other's opinions; it is government by public opinion; it is liberty, equality, fraternity, in the institutions of religion, industry, and education as well as in the government; in a word, it is human brother hood. It involves four fundamental liberties: We sometimes ought to forego our rights; we never ought to abandon our duties. 1. The prophet Ezekiel, overcome by the vision of Jehovah in the Temple, threw himself upon his face before his God. And the voice said unto him, "Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak to thee." It is a fundamental right of man to stand upon his feet and face, unafraid, the Almighty. This is his right because this is his duty. It is not right for him to allow any priest, church, creed, or book to stand between him and his heavenly Father. The priest, the church, the creed, the book, may help him to find his way to God; they may help him to understand his God; but they never should be allowed to take the place of God. God is not an absentee, to be interpreted only by a messenger or a letter. He is man's "Great Companion." The messenger and the letter are useful only as they bring the soul into companionship with that Companion. It is the right of every man to give account of himself to God because it is the duty of every man to give account of himself to God. No substitute can do it for him. The recognition of this right and the fulfillment of this duty forbid all spiritual despotism, and are a sacred and solemn guaranty of spiritual liberty. This is Religious Democracy. 2. God made this world for the habitation of man and has And these liberties are not only rights; they are also duties. given it to him for his dwelling-place. It was not made for white men or for Anglo-Saxon men or for rich men or for wise men or for good men; it was made for all men. They are all his children. And they all have a right to a share in it. In the Father's house there is bread enough to spare; why should any one perish with hunger? That is the question which the hungry in every land are asking, and they have a right to ask it. Society is not divinely organized when some men have so much that they know not how to use it, and others so little that they know not how to live. Whether the twin evils of luxurious wealth and sordid poverty are due to the rich or to the poor or to neither but to a vicious organization of society we do not here consider. They are evils which democracy is endeavoring to cure by promoting a better distribution of wealth. And in doing this democracy is endeavoring not only to secure to all men their rights, but to enable all men to perform their duties. For it is the duty of every man to put into the world at least as much as he takes out of it, and the duty of society to make this possible for every man. I have met many skeptics, but never one so skeptical that he doubted the Biblical statement, Naked came I out of my mother's womb." Coming into the world naked, it is clear that if we are to possess anything we must either produce it, accept it as a gift, steal it, or get it out of the common stock. Whoever does not by some service of hand or brain or heart, by what he does or what he endures, by what he makes or what he says or what he suffers, contribute his share to the world's welfare, must be classed with the beggars, whether he is clad in rags or in velvet. To make such contribution is the duty of every man. A fair opportunity to make such contribution is the right of every man. This is Industrial Democracy. 3. We are in this world in the making! The object of life is the development of men and women. It is therefore the duty of every one to make of himself, and of every parent to make of his children, the best product possible. The Northern radical affirms that the Negro can be made the peer of the white man, and therefore ought to have the same education. The Southern conservative declares that the Negro never can be made the peer of the white man, and therefore ought not to have the same education. Both are guessing. What the Negro race can become after an education like that of the Anglo-Saxon race no one can foretell. And the experiment can never be tried. For it is not within the power of man so to shape the world's destiny as to pass one race through the educational process through which other races have passed. It is neither possible nor desirable that the Africans or the East Indians or the Chinese or the Japanese should become replicas of the Anglo-Saxons. This truth democracy recognizes, and therefore wherever it has gone it has established the public school. The object of education should not be to run all pupils into the same mold. The school should not be a foundry. The object should be to give to every pupil a chance to grow. The school should be a garden. Education, therefore, should prepare for life, which is itself the larger education. It should be adapted to the present conditions and the prospective needs of the pupil. The growing recognition of this truth has created optionalism in education, has added industrial training to academic education, has provided, as never before, for woman's education. To enjoy an opportunity for education is the right of every individual; to make that opportunity so varied as to meet the varied needs of the members is the duty of society; to avail himself of the opportunity to make all of himself that he can make is the duty of every individual. This is Educational Democracy. 4. It is the right and duty of every man to govern himself. It is one object of education to prepare him to perform this duty. It is his right to determine his own destiny-his right because his duty. And as he must see with his own eyes, work with his own hands, and think with his own brain, so he must guide himself with his own judgment and rule himself with his own conscience. If he is blind, some one else must see for him; if he is paralyzed, some one else must work for him. So, if he has no judgment or no conscience, some one else must guide and rule him. But every normal man is furnished with eyes to see, hands to work, judgment to guide, conscience to rule. Such is the assumption of democracy, which holds that the object of all just government is to prepare the governed to govern himself. Democracy, therefore, in the family and in the school trains the growing child in the art of self-government. And democracy in the state throws responsibility upon the untrained citizen and is not discouraged if he blunders and sometimes blunders badly, for democracy believes the untrained voter will learn by his own blunders. This is Political Democracy. This is the democracy for which we are fighting against its resolute and remorseless foes. Germany has not political liberty, and does not desire it. It is autocratic not only in its form of government but in the spirit of its people. Professor Kuno Francke, of the German Department in Harvard University, in an essay written before the war, thus characterizes the distinction between the American and the German temperament: I think I need not fear any serious opposition if I designate self-possession as the cardinal American virtue. . . . In contradiction to this fundamental American trait of self-possession, I designate the passion for self-surrender as perhaps the most significant expression of national German character. 46 He adds that, while this passion leads the German at times to surrender himself to a great cause or sacred task, it also leads him to surrender himself to whims and hysterias of all sorts. Nobody,' he 66 says, can be a more relentless destroyer of all that makes life beautiful and lovely, nobody can be a more savage hater of religious beliefs, of popular traditions, of patriotic instincts, than the German who has convinced himself that by the uprooting of all these things he performs the sacred task of saving society." The events which have occurred in Belgium, northern France, Serbia, and Armenia since this essay of .Professor Francke's was written furnish a tragic illustration of its truth as an interpretation of German character. Germany has not educational liberty. Its educational system is ingeniously framed to equip a few with boots and spurs to drive, and the many with saddle and bridle to be driven. Its teachers are appointed by the king in the provinces, by the Emperor in the Empire. Their function was declared by the Emperor of Austria in 1815, by the present Emperor of Germany in 1890, to be the creation of obedient subjects and loyal supporters of the crown. Germany has not industrial liberty. All wealth is derived from the land. In America by our Homestead Law we threw open our agricultural lands to all the world, giving 160 acres to any individual who would live upon them and cultivate them; and, though we carelessly allowed our mines, forests, and water powers to fall into the hands of a few wealthy owners, we are attempting by our policy of conservation and of land taxation to correct that well-nigh fatal error. In Germany the ancient feudal system survives, which puts the control of the nation's wealth into the hands of a landed aristocracy, popularly known as Junkers. Peasant proprietorship is practically unknown. Germany has not religious liberty. "Perfect love casteth out fear." It is equally true that fear casteth out love. The religion inculcated by the leaders of German thought and life is the religion of fear. The reverence demanded is for a God who is the ally of the military power; the worship is of a God imaged by Odin, not by Jesus Christ. Its ethical effect is indicated by the following two sentences from a German pastor, in a paraphrase of the Lord's Prayer: "Forgive in merciful longsuffering each bullet and each blow which misses its mark! Lead us not into the temptation of letting our wrath be too tame in carrying out thy divine judgment!" This pagan Power has, through its Emperor, declared its purpose to reorganize Europe, recall from the grave the buried Cæsars and re-establish them in this twentieth century.' We are at war with this pagan Power in order to establish for all humanity the right, and to maintain for all humanity the duty, of selfcontrol, self-development, self-support, and personal comradeship with the heavenly Father. This is what we mean by the saying: The world shall be safe for democracy. The Emperor's address, October, 1990, on the dedication of the Museum of Roman Antiquities at Saalburg. THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR PROGRAMME AN AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENT, PREPARED WITH THE CO-OPERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR ECENT developments in all the warring countries abroad have shown clearly that the fundamental problem which all must meet is that of the proper use of man power. It has become almost a hackneyed statement to say that this is a war of industries even more than of armies. None the less, the statement holds true, and the real question which we have to face if we are to perfect a really adequate war organization is how to place each man where he can do the most effective work for the winning of the war. To use an individual in any niche other than the one for which he is best fitted is a waste of valuable human energy, and to that extent is a weakening of the Nation's war machine. This is the general principle underlying the new plan for a war labor administration. R have shown clearly that the fundamental problem which The plan is not theoretical, but is developed by the war experience of the last ten months, influenced, in addition, by the example of the European nations whose conditions are most nearly like our own. It is the plan that is supported by facts as they exist in this country to-day. The tendency toward unifying and centralizing the administration of the American labor programme has been an irresistible development. The President's determination early in January to place the responsibility for the administration of the Nation's labor policies on the Secretary of Labor was reached as a result of experience with a situation in which each production department of the Government had been engaged in handling its own individual labor problems without a central policy and with no single agency to determine proper methods of distribution or proper means of giving preference to the most vital forms of war work in supplying them with the necessary labor. The outbreak of war found the country without an effective National distributing or employment agency system, and with no complete system to deal with labor controversies which might arise in an industrial population of thirty-five million. As the munitions programme developed, without any central agency to look to for handling problems of distribution and adjustment, each production department of the Government-that is, the Ordnance Department, Quartermaster Department, the Ship ping Board, and the Navy Department-naturally set up within its own jurisdiction an agency or agencies for handling its manpower problems. This development was inevitable, and, in a large measure, beneficial. Many of these agencies have done most effective work in securing needed labor and in dealing with industrial disputes. Yet the weakness arising from a lack of unified policy showed itself comparatively early. The National industrial system, complex as it is, is yet a single organismu. One member cannot be touched without affecting the whole. In adjustment and distribution alike these several labor agencies were found to be interfering with each other. Government departments began to bid against each other for labor with the only possible inducement in sight one of wage increases. Strikes and disputes were handled by the several departments, often with good judgment in individual cases; but, without common understandings as to policies, agents of the various departments frequently added confusion to complicated situations. Some arrangement was necessary to deal promptly and uniformly on a Nation-wide basis with labor disputes affecting war work. With out such a plan it seemed inevitable that existing labor unrest would be stimulated. It was this situation which led the President to authorize the Secretary of Labor to establish a war labor administration to deal with the man-power problem on an adequate, uniform, National scale. The decision had of course been preceded by the most careful study of conditions in indus try and of their causes. The President's decision was announced early in January. Shortly after that the Secretary of Labor appointed an Advisory Council of seven members, consisting of two representatives of the public, two of employers, two of wage-earners, and one of women in industry. The Secretary asked this Council to assist him in formulating a programme and organizing plans for the new administration; and the plan now adopted is largely the result of the deliberations of this body. It consists in establishing in the Department of Labor seven new divisions, or services, to handle the emergency war work placed on the Department by the President's order. These seven new divisions will be directly responsible to the Secretary of Labor through a Policies Board consisting of the heads of the divisions with the Secretary as chairman. This Policies Board will serve as a general staff for the Department, to talk over at frequent intervals the plans of the Department and to unify policy. The labor administration, it is expected, will have complete charge and direction of the war labor policy of the Government, and will establish machinery adequate for carrying them out. Congress is now being asked for an appropriation to provide for the administrative expense. The seven new divisions include an adjustment service, a housing and transportation of workers service, a conditions of labor service, an information and education service, a women in industry service, a training and dilution service, and a distribution or employment agency service. These agencies, it will be seen, can be made to include all the main functions necessary for the promotion of a sound industrial system and for the proper distribution, housing, and education of the working population. Throughout, of course, the central idea will be the expediting of necessary munitions of war, and the proper, just, and equitable employment of workmen in. the most effective manner for the production of the supplies which our Army at the front and the armies of our allies so urgently need. Labor is merely an abstract noun; it is not a commodity which can be seen or handled or bought or sold. Capital is also used to include persons within its meaning. In this sense there is no such thing as capital. Yet capital is represented by things which are tangible, which can be bought or sold, seized or condemned; and labor, except in its products, is not. The labor problem is, from beginning to end, a human problem on both sides. The persons who are included within the meaning of the word capital are merely human beings engaged in industry with a certain background of tradition, experience, and motives; and labor is like capital in this. respect. Each group must be considered in any war labor programme as a collection of individual members of the Nation, and not as its mere instrumentalities or possessions. The most obvious recognition of this principle lies in the plans for the adjustment service. No mere machinery for imposing adjustment, arbitration, or whatever it may be called, on the two groups can be successful without the promotion of a spirit to support it in the groups involved. This spirit must be the main reliance in any accommodation of differences between the human elements involved. A most gratifying start toward a better spirit of co-operation between employer and employee has already been inaugurated in the agreement reached by the joint conference. of employers and employees held in Washington during the past month with Mr. William H. Taft and Mr. Frank P. Walsh representing the public. This group has worked out an understanding on many of the basic principles involved in the relations between capital and labor. The understanding thus reached on controversial points will unquestionably be of the greatest value in accommodating future specific differences. The recommendations of the conference will undoubtedly be embodied in the policy to be pursued by the adjustment service of the new labor administration when its organization is finally completed. It is only through employers and wage-earners meeting together and discussing on equal terms their common problems that real cooperation in a democratic country can be secured. Agreements of this sort have already been utilized on certain specific forms of war work, and the inauguration of the same method for dealing with the general labor situation augurs well for the future. The plans for the Department of Labor, however, recognize the necessity for following up and administering the terms of any agreement reached. The wage-earners cannot be successfully distributed among the war industries without the maintenance of proper housing facilities, proper working conditions for both men and women, and adequate training facilities. Nor can dis putes be avoided without a sufficient degree of Governmental investigation aimed to adjust all matters of complaint for either side against the other from their very beginning. A recognition of these facts underlies the establishment of the housing and transportation, conditions of labor, training and dilution, and women in industry services. A war housing bill has passed the House of Representatives and is now pending in the Senate carrying an appropriation of $50,000,000 for the purpose of establishing an adequate housing programme, and the Secretary of Labor has requested Mr. Otto M. Eidlitz to act as housing director as soon as this service is authorized. Vastly important for the promotion of sound sentiment in all classes of the industrial population and for securing an informed public opinion on industrial problems, there is also included in the plan of administration a service on information and education which will endeavor to clarify the war labor policy of the Government through a wide diffusion of correct information. The material distributed will include both general news of the plans and purposes of the Government and of the results of foreign experience on similar problems and technical information about the most modern methods of plant management and handling of employment problems. Necessarily, the traditions of misunderstanding between employers and wageearners are a serious handicap to the maintenance of any cooperative agreements for the period of the war, and, though difficulties which may arise might theoretically be anticipated and avoided through Government investigation, mediation, and the operation of adjustment boards, the results desired can never practically be accomplished unless the general public, as well as the parties themselves, is correctly informed on these subjects and can lend its support to adjustments and accommodations which may be urged. One of the most vital parts of the new programme is the employment agency service, which will attempt to set up, for the first time, a central distributing agency for labor which can place the needed man quickly and effectively in the place where he is most needed. One of the greatest difficulties which the Government has met up to the present time in its attempt to solve the labor problem has been the tendency of employers and Government departments alike to bid against each other for labor which they all need, with the inevitable result that labor has migrated to the place where wages were the highest without regard to the importance of the work involved. The new distributing agency, it is hoped, will furnish a means for deciding the relative importance of different forms of war work and for securing and placing workmen at the points where they can be of the most value. Necessarily, the success of this task will depend in large measure on the terms agreed upon between the I representatives of employers and workmen in conference on questions such as the adjustment of wages, the limitation of profits, and similar issues. The war labor administration will be dealing with the problem of labor in production, and, necessarily, it will have to be in the closest possible contact with the departments of the Government which are handling production problems. Since the various production agencies have already established divisions for dealing with their labor problems, and since these divisions are in touch with their needs, it would, naturally, be unwise to do away with them. The plan involves leaving in each production department the agencies already established, and even, in some cases, adding to these agencies, while taking over in the new labor administration all control of general policy. These separate labor agencies, that is, will continue to handle their individual problems, but will look to the Department of Labor for leadership on basic principles. In this way the weaknesses which have manifested themselves before, such as interference on adjustment questions and uncontrolled competition for labor, will be avoided, while their services, with the benefit of ten months' experience, will be retained. The Department of Labor, in the new administration, will have an agency capable of dealing with the labor side of the industrial situation as a whole through its extensive machinery, while it will have the aid and assistance of each of the separate bureaus already established on their particular problems. No prediction, of course, can safely be made as yet as to the outcome of the new labor programme. It is a step of the firstimportance for which no precedent existed in this country. In certain respects it resembles the British plan, which centralized control in the labor supply department of the Ministry of Munitions. At the same time the difference between conditions in the two countries made many features of the British programme impracticable here. The general aim has been to adopt as far as possible the features of the British plan which seemed to apply to this country, while making such changes and innovations as American experience already acquired made apparently advisable. The plan is not a theoretical one; and one of its chief claims for support lies in the fact that it has grown out of actual experience, and has not been simply framed along new and arbitrary or blindly imitative lines. Necessarily, no programme will be successful without the best possible men in charge of it, and every effort is being made to secure for the new divisions the men best fitted by training and experience to handle the work. The Government realizes that the problem of man power is one of prime magnitude, and it is laying its plans accordingly. THE PERIL OF N an article headed "20,000,000 Subscribers to the Third Liberty Loan," published in The Outlook of April 10, I made some errors which I hasten to admit, although no one has as yet called attention to them. Writing of the amount that would be obtained if a $50 bond were bought by each one of the 55,000,000 persons in the United States who had passed their twenty-first year, I said that the resulting subscription would be $27,500,000,000. It is, of course, perfectly obvious that I used an extra cipher which should have been omitted, and that the correct figure would be $2,750,000,000. Later on in the article I repeated the mistake in writing that if 12,500,000 persons invested $2 a week, and an additional 12,500,000 persons invested $1 a week for fifty weeks, the sum secured would be $18,750,000,000. The correct amount would be $1,875,000,000. All of which shows how important it is that we should be careful in dealing with the nothings or ciphers of life, and how difficult it is for us to comprehend things we cannot visualize. If the sums involved had been thousands instead of billions, these mistakes would have been self-evident to me as I wrote, but because I have not and can never have a conception of what a billion dollars really means the error did not reveal itself to me or the proof-readers, and apparently has not been noticed by any one else. Reflecting thus on a miscalculation that I am chagrined to admit, I find myself wondering whether the necessity for thinking in billions, which is one consequence of the war, is not making us all careless of the smaller sums that we earn and disburse. We read that the belligerents are spending one hundred or one hundred and twenty-five million dollars a day. The statement means absolutely nothing to us, for it is beyond our comprehension; but I am nevertheless inclined to think that it makes us less careful in the expenditure of one dollar and is largely responsible for the advance in prices that is causing much hardship and is mistakenly attributed to inflation. Perhaps we can counteract the tendency toward extravagance that is thus induced by reckoning the cost of the war in terms that we can understand. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1918, the total expenses of our Government will have been about $130 apiece for every man, woman, and child in the Nation. This means an average of $260 each for every adult in the country. This money must be saved and paid in taxes or invested in bonds. The question is, Are we all doing our share? THEODORE H. PRICE. GLIMPSES OF OUR SOLDIERS IN FRANCE SPECIAL CORRESPONDENCE OF THE OUTLOOK The two following letters throw an interesting light upon the conditions and circumstances in which, outside of his fighting duties, the American soldier is living in France. Francis Rogers, the author of the first letter, is a graduate of Harvard and an accomplished musical authority and singer of New York. He and his wife have volunteered their services in the important work of entertaining the soldiers which is carried on systematically by the Y. M. C. A. and other organizations at the front. Mrs. Lee, a daughter of the late E. P. Roe, the popular American novelist, has for two winters been officially engaged in hospital relief work in France.—THE EDITORS. T I-THE AMERICAN PRIVATE AND THE FRENCH POILU HE Rogers Concert Party" completed its third month in France with a record of some sixty concerts, given to as many different audiences. Nearly all of these concerts were given for the American soldiers; but a few of them took place in French Foyers du Soldat and hospitals. Occasionally our audiences have been made up of soldiers from both armies. In a previous letter (The Outlook, December 12, 1917) I described our camp concerts as they were during the first weeks of our tour. Since then we have not altered their general character, though no two programmes are exactly alike, and experience has suggested changes in minor details. Formerly the boys were eager to sing in chorus, but now that they are hard at work in their daily military routine they prefer to sit back and listen to the voice of somebody else. Consequently, nowadays I do all the singing, except in "America," with which we always conclude our entertainment. (As for "The Star-Spangled Banner," it is beyond the capacity of anything except a trained chorus or a brass band.) The American soldier is, and is likely to remain, homesick. Home news filters to him all too slowly through the American papers printed in France and through the Army Post Office. My wife and I have ourselves been away from home too long to have any fresh news to offer him, but we talk with him about his home, sing him the home songs, and tell him home jokes and stories as industriously as ever. The evil temptations that surround a camp can best be met by the soldier who feels himself in close touch with the standards of his bringing up, and correspondents in America will do well to keep the tone of their letters on a plane that will invigorate the morale of their boys in France. The fatigues and difficulties of military service in a far country must be resisted by a healthy inner life. Boys who do not hear often from home or who get depressing or commonplace letters are much more likely to slip or fall than those whose families supply them with constant mental and moral refreshment. This advice applies not only to parents and wives, but also to girl friends, who should remember that as our soldiers come closer to the stern realities of life they mature quickly and judge things more and more by their intrinsic value. When they finally come home, they will not be satisfied with the trivialities that may have contented them before the war; they will be disappointed if they do not find a serious mental attitude to correspond with their own increased maturity of thought. Our opportunities to meet French audiences have been infrequent, but our few experiences have been such as to make us regret that they could not be numerous. The entry of America into the war was a great encouragement to the French soldier, and he likes to hear from American lips how glad we are to be in France and how anxious we are to do everything we can to reinforce the gallant French army in its struggle for the right. Knowing this, we have made a point of expressing from the platform our admiration for their mighty achievements and our high hopes for the future. These words of ours, as well as our French songs and recitations, the poilus have received with many marks of approval. The contrast between the French private soldier and the American is striking. The American, who has not yet been under fire, takes his military duties more or less in a spirit of adventure. He is, I am sure, potentially a good soldier, but he has not yet won his spurs; he has not received his baptism of fire. The French soldier, on the contrary, is a finished product. Three years and a half of discipline, danger, and suffering have developed him into a first-class fighting man. An English major said to me the other day that he considered the present French army to be the best army ever assembled anywhere, and I believe he is right. I am too ignorant of military affairs to hazard a judgment on matters of organization or equipment, but I have seen thousands of poilus, both at work and at play, and my respect for them increases every day. A typical poilu is five feet seven inches in height and weighs one hundred and fifty pounds. His hair is dark, as are his sparkling eyes. His mustache turns up cheerfully at the ends, his fresh-shaven cheeks glow with health. His shoulders are not broad, but his back is flat and muscular. His large, bony hands require no covering even in the coldest weather. His hips are rather large; his legs, slightly bowed, are noticeably sturdy. His uniform may be faded, but it is not ragged, and his shoes are in good repair. To my eye he looks the perfectly fit fighting man. In conversation one finds him full of courage and purpose, fatalistic in his personal philosophy, frankly tired of the war, but grimly resolved to free his country forever from the German invader. To achieve this end he counts largely upon the help of us Americans. Just what he thinks of us as individuals now that his country is swarming with us I cannot make out. Our methods and manners bear little resemblance to his, and there is much in our bearing that must be objectionable to him, but if, when the war is won, we shall have performed a fair share in winning it, we shall have done all that he really requires of us. I have never met a Frenchman who spoke well of his own Government, and yet this same Government has been remarkably successful in keeping the machinery of life running smoothly. When I came to France three months ago, I was prepared to find disorganization and discomfort, but in the course of my constant travels over a large section of the country I have found very little of either. Trains are few and slow both on the main lines and across country, but they are quite as faithful to the time-table as American trains in time of peace. Though they are few, they usually are adequate to the traffic requirements. Their dining-car serv ice remains far superior to ours. Whatever the problems of the private householder may have been in supplying his family with food, for the traveler who, like us, has lived in hotels, the problem has been simple enough. For a price less than those prevalent in America six months ago he has had no difficulty in obtaining a sufficient and well-proportioned meal. We have frequented pretentious hostelries in the large cities, as well as tiny inns in remote villages where before the war no American was ever seen, and nowhere have we found a shortage of any essentials of diet. White bread and cream disappeared long ago, but war bread is palatable, and there is always milk enough (albeit somewhat watery) for one's morning coffee. Sugar is always at hand. Meat is abundant. I saw recently in a little village some farmers who were sustaining life on three consecutive courses of meat at one sitting! Clothing (especially shoes) is more expensive than before the war, but is still below the prices prevalent in New York. Indeed, I doubt if the cost of living is higher in France to-day than it was in America a year ago. Gasoline is scarce and hard to get at any price. In Paris private automobiles have all but disappeared, but taxis are numerous between dawn and sunset, and still much cheaper than taxis in New York. But transportation by taxi is fraught with trials, seldom without a humorous aspect. The drivers are allowed so much gasoline per diem, and they consume it in such fashion as seems good to them. Most of the through trains leave Paris before eight o'clock in the morning, but, as few taxis emerge from their nightly repose as early as that, walking to the station, bags and rugs in hand, is often the weary lot of the traveler. From noon till two o'clock Mr. Taxi Driver is apt to be at luncheon, and even the great thoroughfares are as empty as Coney Island in January. As the day wears on the supply of |