.[]735 
 
 and Peace Crime of 
 Entente Allies 
 
 BY 
 
 STEWART E. BRUCE 
 
Qass. 
 Book 
 
 ■T^735- 
 
ni 
 
 7) 
 
 <: >. 
 
 o 
 
The War Guilt 
 
 and Peace Crime of the 
 
 Entente AUies 
 
 BY 
 
 STEWART E. BRUCE 
 
 ^ 
 
 F. L. SEARL & CO. 
 
 110 W. 34th St., New York, 
 
 New York 
 
 1920 
 

 Copyright 1920, by 
 
 STEWART E. BRUCE 
 
 1.1, .; mi 
 
 MAY 23 1921 / (C. 
 
O 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 I have held the belief from the beginning of 
 the struggle that Russia, G-reat Britain and 
 France were essentially as guilty of bringing on 
 the World War as Germany. Even if this guilt 
 had been very generally recognized, a book such 
 as this might have been deemed neither wise nor 
 expedient, provided the victors had atoned for 
 their share in the guilt by acting with some de- 
 gree of moderation when the time for settle- 
 ment had arrived. But when the terrible nature 
 of the Peace settlement is contemplated, one 
 would be untrue to his own conscience as well 
 as lacking in duty to humanity if no attempt 
 were made to reopen this whole question, now 
 that free speech and a free press are again in 
 our possession. 
 
 The purpose of this book is to show the guilt 
 of the Entente Allies, America's unwise partici- 
 pation in the struggle, the evil nature of the 
 Peace settlement, and most important of all — 
 the structural changes which will be necessary 
 in the governments of such countries as Great 
 Britain, France, Germany and America, to the 
 end that the people will become the real masters 
 of their own destiny, so that a repetition of 
 such a world calamity may not again occur. 
 
 The Author. 
 670 St. John Ave., 
 
 Pasadena, California. 
 
.15 
 
 3^ 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 Introductory 1 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 Great Britain 27 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 France 61 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 Russia 68 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 The United States 70 
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 A Further Consideration of Inconsistency, 
 
 Insincerity and Guilt 116 
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 The Peace of Versailles 144 
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 
 The Lessons and the Remedy 170 
 
What in me is dark 
 Illume, what is low, raise and support; 
 That to the height of this great argument 
 I may assert eternal Providence 
 And justify the ways of God to men. 
 
 — Milton. 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 Introductory 
 
 Peace, above all else, is what the world needs 
 to-day — not physical peace alone, but mental and 
 spiritual peace as well. 
 
 Germany is crushed. The Kaiser is a refugee. 
 The triumphant armies of the Allies, for the 
 most part, have returned to their respective 
 countries, and their battle flags are furled. 
 
 The great leaders representing the victors, 
 after months of labor, have presented to the 
 world a ''Peace Treaty," presumably in ac- 
 cordance with the lofty war aims, which were 
 set forth from time to time during the course of 
 the conflict and which were to serve as a rally- 
 ing cry for the hosts of "freedom against autoc- 
 racy. ' ' 
 
 The conquered peoples have abjectly ac- 
 cepted the terms of their conquerors. Since 
 the Armistice was signed the winter snows have 
 fallen, the grass has grown green and again the 
 snow falls on Flanders Fields, and yet there is 
 no peace anywhere in the world except per- 
 chance the peace that death has brought to the 
 millions who are the victims of this appalling 
 sacrifice. 
 
 We hear the cry "Peace," "Peace" but 
 there is no peace. Civilization to-day stands re- 
 buked. The scourge is on the bare back of every 
 country, both ally and enemy. The heavens are 
 dark with the avenging wrath of the Almighty 
 God. Governments are trembling as if by 
 palsy. Envy, hatred, revenge, excesses, vio- 
 
 [1] 
 
lence, starvation and death stalk up and down 
 the lands. Truly we have sown the wind and 
 now we are reaping the whirlwind. 
 
 What harvest may the world expect from such 
 a sowing? What manner of harvest must we 
 reap, if for five long seasons we sow lies, hatred, 
 revenge, malice where once grew mercy, kind- 
 ness and truth 1 
 
 No miracle can save the world from the black 
 abyss into which it has fallen. Our disease is 
 not merely collective but it is also individual. 
 The tares must be uprooted from the garden of 
 each heart, and truth, charity, humanity and love 
 must be substituted. There is but one formula 
 to be applied — ''Know the Truth and the Truth 
 shall make you free. ' ' 
 
 What the world needs to know now for its 
 temporal salvation is the Truth. Truth about 
 their leaders, truth about their enemies, and 
 truth about themselves. 
 
 If lies led the world astray, then it is manifest 
 that truth is the only hope of the world to-day. 
 
 It is hard to forgive your enemy and make 
 peace with him if you continue to believe that 
 you are entirely right and he entirely wrong, 
 but if you should find extenuating circumstances 
 in his favor, or should discover that there was 
 blame on both sides, enmity in all likelihood 
 would soon pass away. 
 
 No real peace can come to the world until the 
 real truth about this war is known to all. If the 
 world has been led astray by falsehoods, by 
 lying propaganda, by organized and systematic 
 misrepresentation, and if hatred and revenge 
 has taken possession of the human heart there- 
 by, it is evident that truth is the essential recti- 
 fying and restoring agent. It is indeed not nec- 
 essary for you to know that your enemy was 
 
 [2] 
 
right and you wrong in order to lay a basis for 
 reconciliation, but it is necessary to know that 
 both of you were to blame — and quite equally. 
 If on investigation it were determined that the 
 Allies were equally to blame with Germany in 
 being responsible for the late war, the whole 
 heart of humanity would change its attitude, a 
 new spirit of forgiveness would follow, and this 
 in itself would tend to bring true world peace. 
 If it were found that Britain, France and Rus- 
 sia were equally guilty with Germany, then we 
 are in honor bound to acknowledge this fact in 
 justice, if for no other reason, to the twelve mil- 
 lions of Germans in America, who before the 
 war were considered highly desirable and use- 
 ful citizens, and who while the war lasted were 
 the victims of all the artifices that malignant 
 hatred could invent. 
 
 In this volume as a contribution to truth and 
 world peace, I will endeavor to show: (1) that 
 Russia, France and England were all guilty 
 and all contributed to the causing of the world 
 war, (2) the particular selfish aim and object 
 which each country expected to attain as a re- 
 sult of the war, (3) the heroic and the stupid 
 parts America played in the great war tragedy, 
 (4) what means must be taken by the people to 
 prevent a recurrence of such a catastrophe. 
 
 In this inquiry for truth I do not purpose tak- 
 ing time or space to prove Germany's guilt. 
 That task has been covered in every detail and 
 from every possible angle by thousands of in- 
 terested and disinterested investigators. The 
 contributions on this question are perhaps 
 more voluminous than on any other subject in 
 all history. Some of the findings are unbiased 
 and enlightening, but the greater part can only 
 be purified by being consigned to the flames, 
 
 [3] 
 
unless this generation desires to go down in 
 history as being the victims of the vilest prop- 
 aganda, and the most unfair if not criminal dis- 
 tortions of the truth ever experienced by man. 
 
 Viewing the records of the past five years, a 
 disinterested observer might be pardoned if he 
 sincerely asked, *'Is there truth in anything, 
 anybody or anywhere?" All things seem tinc- 
 tured or distorted. All sense of fitness, fair- 
 ness, justice and proportion seem to have van- 
 ished. Reason, for the present, seems to be 
 dethroned and men are governed in the most 
 part by their primeval and baser instincts. The 
 caveman to-day is grinning through the thin 
 veneer of so-called civilization. 
 
 Witness for example the monstrous request 
 of the British and French nations through their 
 accredited spokesmen, that the late Emperor of 
 Germany be tried by them for high crimes com- 
 mitted against international law and order. The 
 Kaiser may be as guilty as all Hell, but who 
 can measure the degeneracy of such an offense 
 against elementary justice as that any man 
 should be brought into court in which his re- 
 vengeful enemy is the complainant, prosecutor, 
 judge, jury and executor? Had a trial of the 
 Kaiser been desirable, it should have been left 
 to a court made up of neutrals with the request 
 that they should not only pass on the guilt of 
 the Kaiser and those associated with him, but 
 that they should also pass judgment on all the 
 leaders who had any part in letting loose the 
 dogs of war in August, 1914. This one act or 
 request by a responsible British statesman will 
 show future generations, as nothing else will, 
 how far the world has drifted away from the 
 well established and universally recognized 
 principles of justice — principles that had 
 
 [4] 
 
marked prior to 1914 the high-water mark of 
 our civilization. 
 
 He who would do full justice to friend and 
 foe alike in order that Peace may be hastened 
 on this earth must before all else recognize in 
 heart and brain the fatherhood of Grod and the 
 brotherhood of man. He must free himself of 
 the baleful influence of that tribal instinct which 
 masquerades under the guise of super-patriot- 
 ism, that pagan worship of the state, material 
 though it is, corrupt though it is, which oper- 
 ates always to the exclusion of the plain and un- 
 mistakable teachings of Christ. 
 
 When the question of simple justice is in the 
 balance, an honest man will know no city, no 
 state, no nation or kindred, for justice has no 
 bounds is universal and eternal. 
 
 In arriving at a correct judgment as to the 
 guilt or innocence of Eussia, England and 
 France, we must turn back the pages of history 
 to those formative and eventful days in 1914, 
 beginning with July 26th, and ending August 
 5th, the date of the staging of the world war 
 drama. 
 
 The neutral press covering this period must 
 be consulted and dissected by the future his- 
 torian in order that he may obtain unpartisan 
 information as to what really and truly did 
 occur on those momentous days. In order to 
 Imow definitely the opinion of the world as ex- 
 pressed and reflected in the newspapers, both 
 by despatches from Europe and editorials at 
 that important time before propaganda had got- 
 ten in its deadly and poisonous work, we of 
 necessity are compelled in this inquiry to rely 
 to a degree on the press of these dates, among 
 other things to give material evidence for our 
 guidance in reaching a verdict. 
 
 [5] 
 
In order to obtain a proper perspective, it 
 will be necessary to divide into four arbitrary 
 divisions the important time under considera- 
 tion, namely: 
 
 (1) That period beginning with the slaying 
 of the Austrian Crown Prince and ending 
 August 5, 1914, the day when Great Britain 
 joined Russia, France and Belgium in war on 
 Germany. 
 
 (2) From August 5, 1914, until America en- 
 tered the war. 
 
 (3) From America's entry until the Armis- 
 tice. 
 
 (4) From the Armistice up to the present. 
 In-so-far as arriving at the truth goes, with 
 
 regard to placing the guilt on the heads of those 
 responsible for the world's greatest calamity 
 the first named period will, without doubt, be 
 chosen by the impartial historian of the future 
 as the one in which the records are more clear 
 and clean than during any subsequent period; 
 that period in which the crystal streams of truth 
 were as yet comparatively free from the poisons 
 of propaganda; when men spoke their minds 
 freely without being charged with pro this and 
 pro that, and when men read history with their 
 understanding, and less through the spectacles 
 of inflamed passions and prejudices. 
 
 Those, indeed, were the days of free speech, 
 free press and free men — men free to point out 
 if they cared to without risk of imprisonment 
 such outstanding facts as, for instance — that 
 for self protection Germany required an army 
 equal to the combined strength of her border 
 neighbors, Russia and France; as England for 
 her protection required a navy equal to the com- 
 bined strength of any two of her rivals ; that a 
 record of forty years of peace should count for 
 
 [6] 
 
something before the tribunal of public opinion ; 
 that nearly every civilized country during that 
 time had their hands more or less stained with 
 human blood, and also that the character and 
 record of those arrayed against her, as attested 
 to by history, entitled their pretended war aims 
 to be received with at least as much suspicion 
 as those entertained by fair-minded men against 
 Germany. 
 
 We cannot turn backward old time in its 
 flight for a day, much less five years, but we 
 can turn back the printed page of history and in 
 a measure re-live the fateful hours of the past, 
 breathe its atmosphere and drink from the 
 streams of truth, which often are clearer at 
 their source; and again refresh our memory 
 which time and circumstances have dimmed or 
 distorted. 
 
 As a preliminary to this inquiry as to war 
 causes and war guilt the records and impres- 
 sions as contained in the press at that time 
 must now be recalled and re-examined. Not- 
 withstanding the fact that eighty per cent of 
 the American people were connected by blood 
 relation to the people of the Entente Allies, and 
 therefore their sympathy would naturally go to 
 them, we find in the face of this a strong public 
 sentiment as expressed in the press, condemning 
 all parties engaged in the European contest. 
 
 Foreign news for American publications 
 came through the Associated Press and other 
 non-partisan news agencies. These despatches 
 and summaries are usually based upon verified 
 information, and in normal times reflect condi- 
 tions truthfully as set forth and described. 
 Through such agencies as these, London and 
 Berlin, for instance, years ago received as 
 authentic news and description of the San Fran- 
 
cisco eartliquake as did the people of California. 
 In such cases as these there was no necessity 
 for falsehood or misrepresentation. 
 
 It is safe to say that up to August 5, 1914, 
 propaganda as we now understand it, was not 
 in evidence and could not be detected in the 
 news as hourly flashed from London, Paris, 
 Berlin and St. Petersburg. Unconscious parti- 
 sanship may be detected in both the despatches 
 and conclusions, but take it as a whole, no effort 
 was made to influence public opinion, and the 
 news gatherers and contributors were true and 
 faithful to the highest traditions of the news- 
 paper calling. 
 
 The representatives of the news agencies 
 cabled the news as they got it and accompanied 
 this news with descriptive material, reflecting, 
 to the best of their ability, the atmosphere, and 
 the lights and shadows surrounding the actors 
 as they began playing their parts in those 
 eventful and never-to-be-forgotten days. 
 
 On the morning of July 26, 1914, the world 
 awoke to find that a general European War, 
 long promised, long delayed, was not only a 
 possibility but now almost a stern and horrible 
 reality. Half a score of men were holding in 
 the hollow of their hands the fate of Europe; 
 while the life and death of untold millions 
 rested on the whim, caprice or ambition of men 
 whose number could be counted on the fingers 
 of the human hand. 
 
 God Almighty alone knew all the hidden se- 
 crets of the heads and hearts of these men, but 
 it has surely been left to mortals, even ordinary 
 mortals, to divine at least some of the motives 
 of these so-called national leaders, which oper- 
 ating at the time, failed to stay the hand that 
 would unleash the dogs of war. 
 
 [8] 
 
It must be remembered that up to the third 
 week in July the Austro-Servian difficulty was 
 purely local in character, and remained so until 
 the Russian Czar took an uncompromising stand 
 in relation thereto. 
 
 Examine, if you will, not necessarily with a 
 microscope, but with the naked eye, that bastard 
 child of a shameless union of civilization and 
 barbarism, that hairy half animal and half man, 
 that tyrant under whose blonde skin flowed the 
 blackest and crudest blood of Europe and then 
 ask yourself in the name of God and humanity, 
 if this is the creature that Great Britain and 
 France acknowledged as leader and blindly fol- 
 lowed into a war that any madman would know, 
 meant the destruction of Europe. Or, was it 
 that Great Britain and Prance, too proud to 
 acknowledge such a leadership, used this Rus- 
 sian tyrant and his two hundred million slaves 
 as a hunter uses his hounds to tree the enemy 
 and then proceed to bag him at will in more or 
 less safety and security. 
 
 Here, for example, in Southern California, 
 published in Los Angeles, are two typical morn- 
 ing newspapers — the Daily Times and the Daily 
 Examiner. More than a million people depend 
 largely on these papers for their local and, 
 world news. The Examiner has been charged 
 with being Anti-British and by some Pro-Ger- 
 man, therefore that paper will be excluded in 
 this inquiry and the cable dispatches and edi- 
 torials of the Times will be presented as the 
 first newspaper evidence, among numerous 
 others, as showing the mind of Europe and the 
 American sentiment that obtained between 
 July 26th, when a general European war became 
 an almost foregone conclusion, and August 5th, 
 the day when Great Britain decided to cast her 
 
 [9] 
 
lot with Russia, France and Belgium in war on 
 Germany. After August 5tli a strict censor- 
 ship was established, and a screen was thrown 
 around Germany, and immediately propaganda 
 was begun under British leadership to whet the 
 fighting spirit of the Allies and win for their 
 cause the support of neutral nations. Therefore, 
 the following despatches and editorials, free 
 from the censor and comparatively free from 
 the poison of propaganda, are presented as 
 showing that a large portion of the reputable 
 press of America believed that the guilt of 
 Russia, Great Britain and France was clearly 
 manifest and the underlying causes for the 
 European war antedated by many years the 
 murder of the Austrian Crown Prince. It will 
 be shown further, that these same publications, 
 at a later date, in obedience to the command of 
 their masters or to race prejudice, joined in a 
 general condemnation of Germany and a lauda- 
 tion of all aims and objects of her enemies. It 
 will be well for the reader to examine the cable 
 despatches which came direct from London and 
 also to note the editorials, which at the time 
 expressed spontaneous convictions, and then 
 compare them with the tirades of later dates. 
 
 'The Daily Times of Los Angeles, for instance, 
 is typical of a large section of the American 
 Press. Up to August 5, 1914, the American pa- 
 pers had at their disposal as much knowledge 
 of war causes as at any subsequent period, and 
 it will be interesting to note their attitude then 
 and compare it with their virulent and incon- 
 sistent position later. 
 
 For instance, on July 31, 1914, the Los An- 
 geles Times had the following editorial; writ- 
 ten after viewing the whole European situation. 
 '^ Russia may take up the quarrel that she 
 [10] 
 
has seemed anxious to have since the 
 Crimean War. France scarcely seems to 
 conceal her expectations that she will be 
 drawn into the conflict. Germany is bound 
 by an alliance that cannot well be ignored 
 at so crucial a time Emperor Wil- 
 liam called with picturesque inappropri- 
 ateness ''the war lord of Europe" is trying 
 to maintain harmony." 
 
 On August 2nd (three days before Britain de- 
 clared war) the Times had the following inter- 
 esting editorial : 
 
 "Britain is smiling; they laugh at how 
 Germany is putting her foot into the sea; 
 England knows who is ready for the sea 
 and who is not. England has been unhappy 
 about Germany's idea of a fleet for some 
 time. There will be a noise like a crack of 
 doom Over There if this continues to look 
 like England's opportunity." 
 
 The Times was right. Three days later, on 
 August 5th it did look like Britain's oppor- 
 tunity. Her enemy and trade rival was almost 
 surrounded — Russia on one side and France on 
 the other ready to dismember her. Could any- 
 thing be more to Britain 's liking 1 
 
 On August 5th, the Times on a prominent 
 part of the first page gives the reasons why 
 each country is at war. 
 
 (1) Russia's desire to have supremacy in 
 Eastern Europe. 
 
 (2) Germany to fulfil obligations to Austria, 
 also to cripple her rapidly growing rival 
 — Russia. 
 
 (3) France as an ally of Russia to get back 
 lost provinces. 
 
 2 [H] 
 
(4) England to support France and Rus- 
 sia, to cripple her rapidly growing 
 Naval rival. 
 
 CABLE DESPATCHES 
 
 The morning of July 26th, 1914, brought the 
 first cablegrams which apprised the American 
 people that a general European war was immi- 
 nent. These despatches will prove at the pres- 
 ent time both interesting and instructive. 
 
 (BY ATLANTIC CABLE ANJD ASSOCI- 
 ATED PRESS) 
 
 London, July 26th '^The vital question to 
 Europe is whether Russia will come to the 
 rescue of her little Slav brother involving 
 the other powers and making of the war a 
 dread struggle of the Slav against Teuton 
 for European supremacy." 
 
 London, July 26th ''Report from St. Petersburg 
 says that Russia is mobilizing, but it is to 
 be remembered that Russia mobilized to 
 some extent when Austria annexed Bosnia, 
 and the German Emperor stepped to the 
 side of his ally and put a veto on Russian 
 intervention. ' ' 
 
 St. Petersburg, July 26th * ' General Soukhomli- 
 noff, Russian minister of War to-day made 
 a long detailed vigorous speech showing 
 the complete military readiness of Russia." 
 
 Paris, July 26tli "The Republic Francaise — 
 'We are called upon to intervene, not as 
 mediators but as belligerents, with all our 
 forces' (Up to this time France was not 
 directly or indirectly threatened)." 
 
 Berlin, July 26th "Germany has made known 
 to the European capitals, particularly 
 [12] 
 
Paris and St. Petersburg, that she regards 
 the conflict between Austria and Servia as 
 concerning these two states alone, and the 
 contest, therefore, must be localized. The 
 statement continues that German endeav- 
 ors are directed towards inducing the other 
 powers to accept that standpoint so that the 
 peace of Europe may be preserved." 
 
 Berlin, July 27th ''It is understood here that 
 Russia has informed Berlin that no mobili- 
 zation has taken place. In consequence of 
 this Germany has decided not to mobilize 
 unless Russia does so." 
 
 Paris, July 29th ''The French Government has 
 taken firm 'means to suppress anti-war 
 meetings. A strong sentiment for peace is 
 shown amongst the people." (Strange pro- 
 ceedings of a Government that desired 
 peace, to suppress peace meetings.) 
 
 Brussels, July 29th "Military movement in 
 Belgium is being pushed rapidly, and by 
 to-morrow evening one hundred thousand 
 men will be equipped and ready. The forts 
 around Liege and Namur are receiving war 
 equipment. ' ' 
 
 London, July 31st "Germany has addressed a 
 note to Russia requesting an explanation 
 of Russian mobilization and in the absence 
 of a satisfactory reply, it is feared here 
 that Germany may take steps to mobilize 
 also. Sir Edward Grey invites Germany 
 to suggest some way out of the difficulty. 
 Germany's view is, that it behooves Eng- 
 land and France to bring pressure on Rus- 
 sia so as to allow the two principals to 
 settle their differences without outside in- 
 terference. ' ' 
 
 [13] 
 
Berlin, July 31st ''Grand Duke Ernst of Hesse, 
 a brother of Empress Elizabeth of Russia, 
 was sent to-day by Emperor William to Rus- 
 sia in a last endeavor to arrange peace. ' ' 
 
 London, August 1st "The belief is held here by 
 many that the existence of the whole of 
 Europe as an armed camp, nervous and 
 jealous, can have but one culmination, and 
 if the hour for a general settlement has 
 struck, there will be no faltering. ' ' 
 
 London, August 1st "War developments have 
 moved to-day with startling rapidity. The 
 German ultimatum to Russia demanding 
 that Russia cease the mobilization of her 
 army expired at noon and at 5:15 o'clock 
 in the evening the German Emperor signed 
 a mobilization order. 
 
 "Now the die is cast and Europe is to be 
 plunged into a general war, which has been 
 the apprehension of European statesmen 
 for generations. It is now only a question 
 of how soon a state of actual war will exist 
 between Germany and France. 
 
 "Late to-night placards were posted in 
 Paris calling for general mobilization and 
 the German ambassador, although he has 
 not been handed his passport, was prepar- 
 ing to leave the French capital. It is not 
 known at exactly what hour Germany's 
 ultimatum to France asking that country to 
 decide what attitude she would assume in 
 the case of a war by Germany and Austria 
 against Russia, was to expire, but it is be- 
 lieved it will not be long before diplomatic 
 relations will be ruptured or war declared. 
 
 "The German Emperor and his advisers, 
 [14] 
 
have maintained to the last that they made 
 a supreme effort for the sake of peace and 
 the last of the series of earnest appeals 
 from Emperor William to Emperor 
 Nicholas was a telegram repudiating re- 
 sponsibility for the calamity threatening 
 the world on the grounds that while Ger- 
 many was engaged in mediating with Aus- 
 tria-Hungary at Russia's request, Russia 
 by her general mobilization was threaten- 
 ing Germany's safety." 
 
 London, August 1st ^'From the moment Aus- 
 tria-Hungary caught the world napping in 
 its swift attack on Servia, the German Em- 
 peror has been one of the principal figures 
 in the situation. To-night all London re- 
 gards him as the chief figure, isolated, 
 dominating, unafraid, with his back against 
 the wall; desiring peace but adhering to 
 the demand of his people for war. 
 
 ''Many persons believe the situation would 
 have been different to-night if Emperor 
 William had been at Potsdam instead of 
 with his fleet in the North Sea when the 
 Hapsburgs proceeded with their chastise- 
 ment of Servia; but when William II 
 reached home all Germany was aflame over 
 the great struggle between Teuton and 
 Serb. 
 
 ' ' The German Emperor towering head and 
 shoulders over every other head in Europe, 
 is regarded by the diplomats here to-night 
 as being in the tightest place in his re- 
 markable career, with Italy running away 
 from the Triple Alliance and Austria seri- 
 ously engaged with Servia. Emperor Wil- 
 liam stands surrounded. Russia is mobil- 
 [15] 
 
izing on the one hand, France ready on the 
 other, and Great Britain is threatening his 
 navy and throwing a cordon of fighting 
 ships around his seaports." 
 
 ''Well may the Kaiser say as he said in his 
 speech last night, 'A dark day has to-day 
 broken over Germany. ' !Thus the Emperor 
 stands to-night in the eyes of England a 
 sort of Frederick the Great, beset on every 
 side by enemies. And he is the great figure 
 in the situation which has almost in the 
 twinkling of an eye changed to place him 
 in a position of great military disadvan- 
 tage. ' ' 
 
 Berlin, August 2nd "An official statement to- 
 day says 'In consequence of a Russian at- 
 tack on German territory, Germany is in a 
 state of war with Russia. The French re- 
 ply to the German representative is of 
 an unsatisfactory character. Moreover, 
 France has mobilized and an outbreak with 
 France must, therefore, be reckoned with, 
 any day or any moment. ' ' 
 
 London, August 2nd "Numerous peace meet- 
 ings are being held throughout England. 
 It is urged on all sides that England halt 
 Russia on penalty of withdrawing from the 
 Triple Entente ; that Russia has already in 
 the past violated the understanding by its 
 anti-British action in Persia and that civil- 
 ization should be better with German than 
 Russian supremacy in that section of 
 Europe; that England must cast her lot 
 with German civilization as against Rus- 
 sian barbarism. These protests are com- 
 ing in from societies and prominent men 
 and women in every walk of life. ' ' 
 [16] 
 
St. Petersburg, August 2nd ''The rupture of 
 diplomatic relations between Russia and 
 Germany took place under dramatic cir- 
 cumstances. It was midnight Friday when 
 Count von Pourtales, the German ambas- 
 sador to Russia, visited Foreign Minister 
 Sazonoff and asked for an urgent interview. 
 As soon as he was received, he informally 
 called upon Russia to cease her mobilization 
 within twelve hours. The allotted period 
 passed without an answer. At 7 :00 o'clock 
 Saturday evening, Count Pourtales again 
 called upon Minister Sazonoff and asked if 
 Russia would cease mobilizing forces. To 
 this the Russian statesman replied: 'Inas- 
 much as the Russian Government has not 
 answered within the time you specified, it 
 follows that Russia has declined to agree 
 with your demands.' Three times Count 
 von Pourtales repeated the German ultima- 
 tum and each time the Russian Foreign 
 Minister met his statement with the same 
 firm negative. Finally Count von Pour- 
 tales rose from his chair, bowed to the For- 
 eign Minister and left the room without a 
 word. He and the members of his staff at 
 once departed from St. Petersburg by way 
 of Finland." 
 
 London, August 3rd "British statesmen decline 
 to state whether they regard the invasion 
 of Belgium a cause for war." 
 
 London, August 5th ''Britain declares war on 
 Germany. ' ' 
 
 Washington, August 6th ' ' Military experts here 
 believe that Germany's only hope is in 
 crossing Belgium." 
 [17] 
 
Newspaper Comments 
 
 Mr. Norman Hapgood, editor of Harper's 
 Weekly, in a dispatch to that paper, dated Lon- 
 don, August 12th, 1914, expresses the following : 
 
 "Many who call this war the greatest calam- 
 ity in history must trace it to the vast fighting 
 machines which must be used quickly on account 
 of the importance of the first blow. Some blame 
 Germany and some Eussia. Some fear one of 
 these countries, and some the other. The 
 cooler and more balanced minds say that if it 
 had not been for the armaments and alliances, 
 there would have been time for consultation, 
 and the area of war would have been limited." 
 
 Bernard Shaw, Special cable from London : 
 * * France, instead of using her surplus income 
 in abolishing French slums and building up 
 French children into strong men and women, 
 has lent it to Russia to strengthen the most 
 tyrannical government in Europe. And to secure 
 interest on her loan she has gone into an unnat- 
 ural alliance with Russia against her more civ- 
 ilized neighbors. We have no right to throw 
 stones at France on this account for we made 
 agreement with Russia of a still more sordidly 
 commercial character for the exploitation of 
 Persia with capital that should have fed our 
 starved children. And now mark the conse- 
 quences; Germany with hostile France on one 
 side and hostile Russia on the other is in a posi- 
 tion so dangerous that we here in our secure 
 island can form no conception of its intolerable 
 tension. By our blunders we have brought 
 about the war. We have deliberately added to 
 the strain by making a military and naval anti- 
 German alliance with France, without at the 
 same time balancing its effect. By assuring 
 
 [18] 
 
Germany that if she kept the peace with France 
 we would not help Russia against her, nor in 
 the last resource allow Russia to advance her 
 frontier westward. ' ' 
 
 "It is not to be wondered at that Germany 
 with a chronic pride in its militarism raised to 
 desperation by Russia, France and England, 
 made a wild attempt to cut its way out after a 
 despairing appeal to us to let it fight one to two 
 instead of one to three. Let us be just to Ger- 
 many. ' ' 
 
 "History will not excuse us because after 
 making the war inevitable, we run around at 
 the last moment begging everybody not to 
 make a disturbance. ' ' 
 
 London Outlook: 
 
 "It must be contended that Servia has been 
 receiving an amount of sympathy which is 
 quite unwarranted by circumstances. The highly 
 colored portrayals of her as a gallant little 
 nation, fighting against odds, is all fudge. The 
 Serb has shown treachery and cunning to friend 
 and foe alike until they have alienated every 
 ally except the great power (Russia) which may 
 find it awkward to offer practical help." 
 
 Mr. Lowes Dickinson, Author and Lecturer^ — 
 Cambridge University: 
 
 "For what are these gamblers playing? Each 
 says he is playing for safety. Each says the 
 other is playing for power. We English be- 
 lieve we are resisting aggression. We may be 
 sure the Germans do not believe it of us. We 
 may be sure they do not believe they are ag- 
 gressors. Behind all governments is a theory — 
 the theory of the balance of power. Behind 
 the theory are passions — the passions of fear 
 
 [19] 
 
and cupidity. Behind these passions is the 
 whole, long and tragic history of mankind. The 
 rulers play on them like pipes. All men not 
 blinded by theories know that the power to 
 which governments sacrifice nations is an idol. ' ' 
 
 Detroit Daily News, July 31, 1914 :— 
 "That a state of war exists over most of 
 
 Europe was perfectly apparent before Germany 
 
 issued her declaration." 
 
 Detroit News, August 3, 1914 (Leading article 
 on first page) : — 
 
 "Political moralists and sticklers for the 
 rules of the game Avill be very severe of their 
 criticism of the German Emperor for pouring 
 his army into neutral territory. ..." 
 
 "This is just as foolish as to condemn a man 
 for shooting another when he believes his life 
 to be in imminent danger. When a nation 
 deems its life in danger it seldom says, "After 
 you, my dear Alphonse. ' ' They did that sort of 
 thing at Fontenoy, and found it very costly. ' ' 
 
 * * One might find in the vicinity of Oyster Bay 
 another leader who might have done the same 
 thing if he thought his country might be in dan- 
 ger of being overrun by enemies on every bor- 
 der save one. ' ' 
 
 Springfield Republican : 
 
 ' * Europe is full of racial rivalries, suppressed 
 imperial and national ambitions, religious 
 hates, economic pressure, trade jealousies, in- 
 ternal strains and stresses and lines of cleavage 
 which run across the frontiers." 
 
 London Labor Leader : 
 
 "It is monstrously unfair to thrust on the 
 German leaders all the responsibility for the 
 present conflict. It may be true that they held 
 
 [20] 
 
a pistol to the head of Europe, but is there not 
 some justification for a man whipping out a pis- 
 tol when he is surrounded by armed enemies 
 plotting his downfall? That has been the posi- 
 tion of Germany. During the past ten years 
 Great Britain, France and Russia have delib- 
 erately schemed to isolate and degrade Ger- 
 many. ' ' 
 
 New York Sun: 
 
 ''There is nothing reasonable in such a war 
 as that for which Europe has been making 
 ready, and it would be folly for this country to 
 sacrifice itself to the frenzy of dynastic policies 
 and a clash of ancient hatreds which is urging 
 the Old World to destruction. 
 
 ' ' Could anything be more rational than a re- 
 fusal of the United States, the government and 
 the banking and business community, acting to- 
 gether, to permit Europe to draw on this 
 country for the expense of the mad courses on 
 which it is about to embark? Should not the 
 United States say to the world that if Europe 
 is going to plunge into the abyss, the United 
 States does not intend to go down with it?" 
 
 New York Evening Post : 
 
 "But for the obligation the Alliances have 
 laid upon the contracting nations, no one would 
 think it possible that the ignoble war upon 
 Servia would plunge all Europe into strife. 
 Talk about Dead Hand ! The two alliances with 
 their subsidiary ententes are laying the hand 
 of death upon all Europe to-day; compelling 
 rulers to do what they shrink from; launching 
 navies and setting armies on the march; leav- 
 ing the masses dazed as to what it is all about ; 
 and opening a prospect of ruin and woe fit to 
 stagger humanity. They have called these 
 
 [21] 
 
alliances the safety of Europe. Now we see 
 them as they are, a peril and a curse. ' ' 
 
 Professor Herbert Sanborn — Vanderbilt Uni- 
 versity. 
 
 ''It may be true that Germany desires com- 
 mercial expansion (and certainly this is the cause 
 of the arrayal of British arms against her) 
 but this is necessary economic right, not a crime. 
 She desires it, however, not in the interest of 
 luxurious living, as of England, but for the sake 
 of her higher civilization and culture ; and there 
 is no modern nation whose people as a, whole 
 are so thoroughly permeated with this spirit." 
 
 Ramsey MacDonald, Member of the British 
 House of Commons : 
 
 "It is a diplomatists' war made by half a 
 dozen men. Up to the moment ambassadors 
 were withdrawn the people were at peace. They 
 had no quarrel with each other. They bore each 
 other no ill will. A dozen men brought Europe 
 to the brink of a precipice, and Europe fell over 
 it." 
 
 Lewiston, Maine, Journal : 
 
 "The war is all the fruit of a false national 
 ambition and of imperialism and special privi- 
 lege fighting against Christian International- 
 ism. ' ' 
 
 Philadelphia Public Ledger: 
 
 "The ultimate issue, stripped of all subordi- 
 nate and vital hopes involved, is commerce. ' ' 
 
 Louisville Courier Journal : 
 
 " 'Big Business' at its worst as an example 
 of criminal brutality, lawless selfishness and an 
 utter lack of consideration for the gull'd fools 
 who the toils of war pursue where bleed the 
 many to enrich the few." 
 
 [22] 
 
New York Sun : 
 
 "What historian, in reviewing the evils that 
 are blinding in their contemporary aspect, will 
 ever be able to apportion justly the responsibil- 
 ity between the personal and dynastic war im- 
 pulse in high places of power and the underly- 
 ing and invisible forces of race hatred and 
 national greed." 
 
 Detroit News, August 11th, 1914. 
 Special Cable dispatch : 
 
 London, August 11th, 1914 — Robt. C. Long, 
 former correspondent of the International News 
 Service, stationed at St. Petersburg and Berlin, 
 and one of the last men to leave Berlin, 
 writes : — ' ' Kaiser William did everything in his 
 power for peace. Despite the protest of Von 
 Moltke, he delayed the mobilization decree." 
 
 '^The causes of the war apart from the tra- 
 ditional race hatred and remote historical 
 grounds were two. Of neither of them was the 
 Kaiser guilty. The first cause was the incredi- 
 ble folly of Count Berchtold, in refusing to 
 negotiate with Russia direct. Bethmann Holl- 
 weg in his zeal for peace practically issued an 
 ultimatum to Austria; otherwise Germany 
 would desert her. Berchtold then climbed down 
 and started direct negotiations with Russia. 
 But it was too late. The mischief was done. 
 Russia had mobilized her armies and compelled 
 the Kaiser to mobilize the German army. 
 
 ''In this war, beyond doubt, all blood guilti- 
 ness lies on two powers. On Austria for her 
 undue harshness to Servia; on Russia for dis- 
 honesty in secretly mobilizing her armies, while 
 the Kaiser was working for peace. ' ' 
 
 [23] 
 
Detroit Free Press, August 1st, 1914 (Edito- 
 rial) : 
 
 ^ ' Germany will go to war with Eussia because 
 it is afraid of the ascendancy of Russia and 
 dreads the rising star of the Slav. It feels that 
 the struggle must come some time — the sooner 
 the better. 
 
 ''Germany will go to war with France be- 
 cause it is afraid to leave France in its rear with 
 strength unimpaired. It knows that France has 
 not forgotten nor forgiven the defeat and loss 
 of the Franco-Prussian war. 
 
 ''Great Britain will not go to war to help 
 France, but it fears that a Teuton victory will 
 leave Germany too strong for safety. 
 
 ' ' Europe as a whole is plunged in the war be- 
 cause a long period of peace has permitted the 
 development of a number of nations of almost 
 equal fighting strength, who are fearful and 
 jealous of one another." 
 
 Detroit Free Press, August 6th, 1914 (Edito- 
 rial) : 
 "So far as those primarily responsible for 
 this war are concerned, it is a war without the 
 shadow of excuse. It has been bom of envy, 
 hatred, greed, distrust and ambition. 
 
 ' ' The whole origin of the affair is sordid and 
 disgusting. The pretenses of justification made 
 by the nations which precipitated it are so bald 
 that a Mexican bandit would not consider them 
 fit ground for a manifesto." 
 
 Detroit Times, July 29th, 1914 (Editorial) : 
 
 "If Russia helps Servia, up goes Austria in 
 smoke and a new power, the Servian-Balkan 
 Empire, is born in Southeastern Europe. The 
 Eastern half of Europe, from the frozen Arctic 
 
 [24] 
 
to the tropical Mediterranean Sea, will then be 
 held by cousins in race, brothers in religion, 
 brothers in semi-civilization — the Eussians and 
 Serbs — both ambitious even to the conquering 
 of the world. 
 
 ' * That is principally why Germany is getting 
 out her fleets. Because, Austria out of the way, 
 Germany would be next to be neatly carved up 
 with the sword. 
 
 '*If Russia helps Servia as against Austria, 
 Germany is expected to attack Russia. The 
 next move of the checkers would be for France 
 to hop on the back of Germany. 
 
 ''If England plays the game according to 
 treaty, she would put in her best licks against 
 Austria and Germany. 
 
 "But will she? 
 
 ''Does she want to see her hereditary enemy 
 — Russia, build an invincible wall in eastern 
 Europe? Does she want Russia to become the 
 greatest power on earth? Does Lloyd George 
 want Democracy put back a century in Europe 
 by Russian-Serb domination?" 
 
 Detroit ,Times, August 11th, 1914 (Editorial 
 Express) : 
 "It is unfair, this inclination to put the 
 blame for this terrible war on Gennany. 
 
 "Germany is not blameless, but the blame 
 must be shared by Russia, France and Eng- 
 land." 
 Detroit Journal, July 31st, 1914 : 
 
 "And behind them all stirs the bloodthirsty 
 restlessness of the Russians. Their Cossacks 
 will fight as they ride down women in the street. 
 
 "Russia is the most war-like of the nations be- 
 cause she is the least enlightened; her rulers 
 
 [35] 
 
are the least pacific because they have the 
 smallest sense of responsibility." 
 
 The Outlook, August 8th, 1914 : 
 
 Rev. Lyman Abbott, Editor, — Theodore Roose- 
 velt Contributing Editor. 
 
 ** Germany cannot permit Russia to attack 
 Austria without flying to Austria's defense. In 
 the first place, the German people are liberty- 
 loving and have developed political freedom to 
 a high state since the days of Bismarck. They 
 look with distrust upon the despotic bureau- 
 cracy of Russia, and Russia with her enormous 
 population and resources is always a possible 
 enemy of Germany on the North. France 
 threatens Germany on the South. On the west 
 the commercial and political tension with Eng- 
 land has almost reached the breaking point 
 more than once during recent years. It is nec- 
 essary, therefore, for Germany to preserve 
 peace and intimate friendship with Austria. 
 The Austrians are Germanic, and it may well 
 be that German statesmen look forward to the 
 time when German-Austria may become an in- 
 tegral part of the greater German Empire. It 
 is entirely probable that the German Emperor 
 sincerely desired to preserve peace in Europe, 
 but he will not sacrifice either the future safety 
 or the future expansion of his Empire to Rus- 
 sia or France for peace. ' ' 
 
 Note — ^The above editorials and comments are not offered as 
 proving guilt, but rather to show that a very large number of 
 thinking people — non-German at that — viewed with suspicion, 
 all parties, engaged in the struggle. Thousands of such opin- 
 ions eould be submitted, if space permitted. 
 
 [26] 
 
CHAPTER II 
 G-EEAT Britain 
 
 Great Britain (erroneously called England) 
 played an important part not only in the prose- 
 cution of the World War, but also an equally 
 important part in its staging. 
 
 :The United Kingdom is made up of the di- 
 visions known as England, Scotland and Wales ; 
 which with Ireland and self-governing depen- 
 dencies make up the great British Empire. 
 England, therefore, is not Great Britain; no 
 more than Prussia is Germany. However, those 
 who have read history aright must concede that 
 England is the Prussia of the British Empire. 
 The characteristics of the native Englishman as 
 compared to the Scotchman, Welshman or 
 Irishman is more like his Prussian cousin than 
 he is like either of the three named ; and is just 
 as marked and as distinctive as the Prussian 
 type differs from the German type as found in 
 Germany outside of Prussia. The dominant 
 Prussian and the dominant Englishman in 
 many respects are more nearly like brothers 
 than cousins. In the first place, they are alike 
 in that each possesses to a marked degree, the 
 dual nature of angel and beast. Each has in 
 common the following characteristics: Inordi- 
 nate pride, acquisitiveness, cruelty, self-suffi- 
 ciency, overpowering egotism and the religious 
 belief in their divine right to rule; and at the 
 same time in combination with these traits is to 
 be found abundantly at times fine ethical ideals, 
 and the loftiest human impulses. 
 
 There are, however, two notable differences to 
 
 [37] 
 
be found in the two divisions of this long sep- 
 arated tribe, the first difference we may note is 
 in their taste as regards eating and drinking. 
 This, however, may be due to climate, and does 
 not in any way disprove their common origin. 
 The second difference that may be observed is 
 in the underlying principles by which they are 
 governed. iThe Englishman adheres to the in- 
 dividual while the Prussian employs the col- 
 lective system as a basis for his laws and 
 regulations. In other words — individualism as 
 opposed to state socialism. 
 
 It is not my purpose here to discuss the merits 
 or demerits of these opposing principles of gov- 
 ernment, but it will surely not be amiss to point 
 out that Great Britain (and later America) in 
 endeavoring to accomplish what each claimed 
 was the most vital and important task of all 
 their history, namely winning the war, disre- 
 garded and threw overboard the individual 
 theory and accepted and practiced collectivism 
 in a very marked degree. In the case of free 
 speech, and free assemblage, for example, they 
 out-Prussianed the Prussian. 
 
 If the war was fought by the Allies to kill 
 Prussian theories of government, then Germany 
 is to a large extent a victor, for both in Britain 
 and America individualism is now on a 
 stretcher, while Prussian collectivism in its 
 most irritating and obnoxious form is quite 
 firmly in the saddle. 
 
 Some good after all may come out of this war 
 in that an enlightened and modified form of so- 
 cial collectivism may be adopted in the place of 
 individual license, and in place of that perni- 
 cious form of collective autocracy that exists in 
 streaks in England and America to-day. Surely 
 there is room for this when under our political 
 
 [28] 
 
system, a half a dozen men who control abun- 
 dant capital may, without let or hindrance, close 
 arbitrarily mammoth industrial plants, thereby 
 throwing out of employment thousands, and 
 thus ruining a whole country-side, basing their 
 action on individual rights; or on the other 
 hand, business of the whole country is often 
 strangled by the walkout of a few thousand men 
 engaged in a basic industry, such as railroading, 
 claiming individual rights as opposed to na- 
 tional rights. 
 
 Up to the 5th day of August, 1914, the Eng- 
 lishman and his Prussian cousin had done 
 pretty well considering their small and humble 
 beginning; each having pushed his own way in 
 the world, in a very noteworthy if not always a 
 praiseworthy way. 
 
 It is indeed many hundred years since the 
 great-great-grandfathers of the present in- 
 habitants of England left their haunts in the 
 forest beside the Elbe, the Weser, the Ems and 
 in all likelihood the far off Vistula and assem- 
 bled themselves together for the purpose of 
 making their future homes on the little Island 
 to the west of Europe 's mainland. 
 
 We can see in imagination the startled native 
 Britons watching the approach of that strange 
 armada as the eastern breeze swept it towards 
 the Kentish shore. What strange craft, what 
 strange people, what strange dress. Fair of 
 skin, blue of eyes, blonde hair falling in pro- 
 fusion on their shoulders, dressed in the skin of 
 the wolf, the bear and ox, many with horns pro- 
 truding from their foreheads. Little wonder 
 the natives became panic-stricken, gave up their 
 homes (at least temporarily) and fled to caves 
 and forests, leaving the newcomers free to take 
 possession of the rich lands bordering on the 
 
 [29] 
 
bays and rivers adjacent to their landing place. 
 
 Thus began the wonderful history of that 
 branch of the Teuton tribe that separated itself 
 from the parent family for reasons we will 
 never know, first occupying the lands now 
 known as Kent and Essex, then, as time went 
 on, the whole island and the adjoining one and 
 to-day the sun never sets on their dominion. 
 
 Following the career and noting the achieve- 
 ments of the two branches of this wonderful 
 family the impartial observer will be struck 
 with the similarity of their methods of aggres- 
 sion, their marvelous powers for dominion, and 
 their wonderful faculty of acquisition. 
 
 It is not strange that after a separation of 
 nearly fifteen centuries the Englishman of to- 
 day should show somewhat different character- 
 istics to that of his present German cousin. 
 They have lived vastly different lives. One 
 settled down at home, tilled the land, etc., while 
 the other chose an island home and became 
 more or less a world rover. Even in the early 
 days the rude sails of the Islander carried him 
 far and without a great deal of effort. It was, 
 therefore, inevitable that the changed mode of 
 life of the two separated divisions of the Teuton 
 family, would in time produce a marked diver- 
 gency of character and custom. The English- 
 man became a man of the world at an early date, 
 while those he left behind on the mainland, for 
 the most part, remained for centuries little more 
 than the denizens of a country-side. 
 
 A factor that never must be overlooked in 
 determining the character of the Englishman, 
 or at least those things which in early days de- 
 termined his future character, was his mode of 
 life for hundreds of years immediately follow- 
 ing his landing on the shores of Briton. His 
 
 [30] 
 
occupation of the new land was not a peaceful 
 one — on the contrary it was one of the crudest 
 and most bloody of history. From the day the 
 Teuton landed it was a veritable war of race 
 extermination. It was, in the crudest sense, a 
 case of the survival of the fittest. No quarter 
 was given. Even Rome had set the Teuton in- 
 vader an example in moderation, which he did 
 not heed. The Romans lived side by side with 
 the Britons and taught them in art, agriculture 
 and the Christian religion. When it became 
 necessary for Rome to withdraw from the is- 
 land, the native Britons witnessed their depar- 
 ture with evidence of sincere grief, coupled with 
 prayer for their early return and protection. 
 
 There is a vast difference between a war of 
 extermination, such as this, and a war of con- 
 quest. In the latter case, a few battles may be 
 fought in which but a small percentage of the 
 population of either side takes part, and in 
 many instances the defeated peoples are often 
 unaware of any perceptible change in their con- 
 dition, and frequently it is only a question of 
 the slight difference in task masters. A war of 
 extermination means the wiping out of men, 
 women and children, the crudest and most 
 beastly of all wars. 
 
 What manner of descendants, even to the 
 fiftieth generation, might we expect from a race 
 of men and women the hands of whose ancestors 
 were almost daily, for centuries, steeped in in- 
 nocent human blood? 
 
 Considering such ancestry, is it to be mar- 
 veled at that cmelty and barbarism should at 
 times become manifest in their offspring, as the 
 race ebbs and flows, advancing, then again re- 
 verting to type; often to the worst features of 
 the primitive type? This reversal to type in 
 
 [31] 
 
the individual is of frequent occurrence, and is 
 in evidence constantly, but a national reversal 
 conies at more or less lengthy intervals, and a 
 world reversal, such as witnessed during the 
 period of the great war, is a human phenomenon 
 never before witnessed; all races and peoples 
 having been enmeshed in the coils of virulent 
 and malignant, contagious reaction. 
 
 For several centuries the insular and conti- 
 nental divisions of the Teuton family were vir- 
 tually separated and scarcely came in contact 
 one with the other. Each was engrossed with 
 his own separate and distinct problems. For a 
 length of time England was engaged in a two- 
 fold task — exterminating the natives and re- 
 pelling the invasions of the inhabitants of the 
 northern part of the island; also the adventur- 
 ers from the mainland. During this time the 
 continentals were engaged in inter-tribal wars, 
 together with an occasional excursion of a more 
 or less ambitious nature to the south, east and 
 west. But each member was steadily, but in a 
 different direction, coming toward both light 
 and nationality. 
 
 It may indeed be truthfully stated, that no 
 serious rivalry or political jealousy could be 
 noted, to any great extent, between these peo- 
 ples prior to 1871 when Germany humbled 
 France, and as a result, a great continental na- 
 tion came into being. Great Britain immedi- 
 ately sat up and took notice. From that day on 
 the watchful eye of Britain was constantly on 
 the new giant of the nations. 
 
 Well might she view with apprehension, if 
 not alarm, the union or amalgamation of these 
 virile kingdoms and states into one mighty 
 whole. She saw, not a loose connection of alien 
 provinces, each entering with mental or selfish 
 
 [32] 
 
reservations, but she beheld a loyal union of 
 twenty-five sovereign states — four kingdoms, 
 seven principalities, six grand-duchies, five 
 duchies, three free towns, not mentioning the 
 wealthy provinces of Alsace-Lorraine all ex- 
 cepting the latter entering the Union imbued 
 with a common spirit of nationality, a common 
 language, an intensified community spirit, 
 showing clearly to the world that the ambition 
 of one was the ambition of all. 
 
 At last Germany became a nation. At last 
 this great people had found themselves. And 
 what did all this mean to startled Britain? 
 
 Here was a new united nation of forty-five 
 millions of people, of Teuton blood, in many 
 respects the salt of the earth, highly intelligent, 
 educated, industrious, inventive, now fired with 
 ambition, occupying a country possessing, next 
 to America, the most wonderful natural and 
 varied resources in all the world. Had not 
 these same people, even when divided, made 
 more or less of a successful bid for world trade? 
 Now that they were united and under ambitious 
 and skillful leadership, what naturally might 
 be anticipated! And, has history not proven 
 that these feelings of disquietude of the British 
 Were more real than imaginary? They saw 
 clearly a real rival for world trade, a rival that 
 had not only every element of initiative that 
 they possessed, but also infinitely greater nat- 
 ural resources. This is indeed putting the case 
 mildly. In addition to this, was not the horri- 
 ble suspicion beginning to dawn on her for the 
 first time, that Britain had reached the apex of 
 her greatness, and that already national old age 
 had set in with all the accompanying evidences 
 of atrophy and decline? 
 
 There has been, as history attests, the inevita- 
 [33] 
 
ble sad day that comes into the lives of nations 
 as into the lives of individuals. A day surely 
 comes to the reigning queen of beauty and fash- 
 ion when she looks into the mirror and detects 
 for the first time the wrinkle or the tell-tale 
 gray hair, the sure precursor of evil days to 
 come; or like the heretofore invincible athlete, 
 with years of conquest to his credit, suddenly 
 discovers a powerful rival looming on the hori- 
 zon at a time when he himself, as well as his 
 friends, detects flabbiness where once there was 
 firmness, and growing weakness where once 
 there was strength. And that day at last ar- 
 rived for Britain; Britain the invincible, the 
 mother of nations and the unchallenged arbiter 
 of the world. And what was the evidence of 
 atrophy, senility and decay? 
 
 Had Britain not already performed the 
 functions of motherhood? She had performed 
 this function by both parentage and adoption. 
 Already her blood children had for the most 
 part reached maturity and had embarked in 
 independent business for themselves, without 
 consulting the wishes or interests of the parent. 
 One of her first bom and the most promising of 
 the progeny, by reason of arrogant and inhu- 
 man treatment administered prior to 1776, was 
 not only cold and indiiferent but even to a de- 
 gree hostile, to the motherland. 
 
 Canada and Australia had reared tariff walls 
 against the world, the British Isles included. 
 They clearly gave the motherland notice that 
 they did not consider that there should be either 
 love or friendship in trade. They naturally 
 preferred, as a first choice, to purchase their 
 own products, and when that would not be ex- 
 pedient to trade where they could do so to the 
 greatest advantage, regardless of family ties. 
 
 [34] 
 
They condescended to offer to give the parent 
 preference, provided she granted the same con- 
 cession, but the acceptance of this proposition 
 on the part of Britain would be suicidal and 
 diametrically opposed to those trade principles 
 which for many years were the foundation of 
 her very economic existence. Such a proposi- 
 tion was in every sense impracticable, for the 
 reason that Britain's commercial supremacy 
 depended primarily on cheap material and 
 cheap labor. To place a tariff on all but colonial 
 imports would, without doubt, raise the cost of 
 supplies to the British consumer and manufac- 
 turer. If it did not, what advantage would 
 there be for the colonist? If, for instance, an 
 import duty raised the price of wheat to the 
 British consumer, the price of flour would rise, 
 bread inevitably would become dearer, the cost 
 of living would therefore advance, labor of ne- 
 cessity would demand and obtain higher living 
 wages, these wages would increase the cost of 
 the manufactured article, and this increased 
 cost, owing to keen competition, would exclude 
 Britain from many world markets, as some of 
 these markets had been held on a 3 to 5% mar- 
 gin of profit. 
 
 Britain could not coerce her blood offspring 
 into family trade relations, and the only thing 
 left for her was to control as best she could, 
 her adopted children, such as India ; over whom 
 she exercised complete authority. Even in this 
 her hands were tied for the reason that in order 
 to appear consistent she had to apply free trade 
 principles with the result that she could claim 
 no greater trade advantage than enjoyed under 
 these circumstances, by her most hated compet- 
 itor. In addition to this her treatment of these 
 dependent possessions had to be both equitable 
 
 [35] 
 
and enlightened, if she continued to profit by 
 the salutary lesson that America taught her 
 many years ago; a lesson that she took seri- 
 ously, and as a result, colonists, such as Canada 
 and Australia, her younger and smaller chil- 
 dren, have been treated with kindness and 
 consideration, a circumstance these lusty young- 
 sters do not appreciate, or at least do not give 
 proper credit to the source of their full and 
 complete freedom of to-day. 
 
 No matter what theories are presented, sensi- 
 ble men will always keep their eyes on, and be 
 guided by, concrete instances. And what were 
 the concrete instances that were pressing 
 themselves on the thoughtful Britisher at the 
 particular time of which we speak; at the time 
 when this huge Grermanic competitive giant ap- 
 peared on the horizon? 
 
 Who could fail to note the progressive flabbi- 
 ness of fibre, that was everywhere in process, 
 impairing, if not now threatening, the health, if 
 not the life of the nation? A large percentage 
 of the inhabitants were now little better than 
 idlers living on incomes the source of which 
 must be examined and analyzed, in order to 
 appreciate the effect of certain forces on na- 
 tional life and character. 
 
 Britain at that particular time was suffering 
 from a disease that at the present time is 
 threatening the economic well-being of America. 
 For centuries the manufacturers and merchants 
 of Britain dominated the trade of the entire 
 world. The inevitable result was that great 
 trade balances were established in Britain's 
 favor in nearly every country on the habitable 
 globe — balances that represented clear profits. 
 These balances in most cases were allowed to 
 remain drawing high interest; Britain, there- 
 
 [36] 
 
fore, was receiving tribute in the form of inter- 
 est from the entire world. To a measurable 
 extent, a large percentage of the British people 
 were now living, not on their immediate earn- 
 ings, but on their incomes, and these incomes 
 derived from foreign sources, a large percent- 
 age of which had been established by the fa- 
 thers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers of 
 those enjoying such incomes. Had the British 
 people as a whole, instead of individuals, been 
 the recipients of these incomes from outside 
 sources, the evil to that extent would have been 
 mitigated; but who can measure the softening 
 and deleterious effect that these incomes had on 
 the life and character of a considerable section 
 of the British people? It created and sustained 
 an idle class, in fact a separate and distinct 
 class, one that was not in the least dependent on 
 other branches of society, unsympathetic, proud 
 and selfish. 
 
 ' ' They toiled not, neither did they spin, ' ' and 
 in full view of the struggling mass of their 
 countrymen, they arrayed themselves in fine 
 linen and lived sumptuously on the good things 
 gathered from every land and every clime. 
 
 What would be the inevitable effect of this 
 on the body politic? The school boy who had 
 his first experience in athletics can answer. 
 Seeing these idlers on every hand enjoying one 
 continuous holiday, is it a wonder that the work- 
 ing class had become insistent in their demand 
 for more holidays and shorter hours'? Cut off 
 by hostile tariff from her own children, her own 
 natural resources on the wane, compelled by 
 conditions to haul raw materials from the ends 
 of the earth for her factories and furnaces and 
 then haul back again in the finished product ; a 
 large percentage of her people, idlers and non- 
 
 [37] 
 
producers and tlie balance demanding short 
 hours and extra holidays, what position was she 
 in when a great and formidable world competi- 
 tor made his appearance? Surely the future 
 was dark and threatening. 
 
 As the years went on the worst fears of the 
 British were realized — competition became 
 keener, market after market was either invaded 
 or captured by her hated rival — even the home 
 market had to be divided with the German. 
 
 All over Germany, almost over night, imme- 
 diately after 1871 sprang up myriads of woolen 
 and cotton mills, shipyards, chemical plants, and 
 huge roaring blast furnaces which gradually 
 silenced the great manufactories of Leeds, Glas- 
 gow, Birmingham and Manchester. In every 
 section of the known globe, civilized and unciv- 
 ilized, the Englishman was driven to despera- 
 tion as he saw the fortunes of the commercial 
 war going against him — a commercial war which 
 all observers knew, owing to the character of 
 the trade combatants, would end in a blood war 
 — not a war between products — but ultimately 
 between men. 
 
 This losing commercial war was distressing 
 enough for the Islander, but the worst awaken- 
 ing was yet to come. Germany, owing to the 
 increased importance of her foreign trade had 
 decided on a powerful navy. If the British had 
 spasms when they saw their trade going to 
 another, they now had convulsions when they 
 beheld the growth of the German navy. 
 
 England had for many years exclusive world 
 monopoly of a navy. Her justification for this 
 great, grim machine was that a powerful 
 weapon, such as this, was necessary to protect 
 her people at home and her trade abroad. This 
 belief with her not only became a religion but a 
 
 [38] 
 
fetisli. No one in the world was ungenerous 
 enough to deny Britain the security that these 
 moving fortresses afforded when they were em- 
 ployed for the legitimate purpose of home and 
 fireside protection. But there was a growing 
 feeling in the minds of people possessing inde- 
 pendent thought, that there did not exist on the 
 top of this earth a country good enough, disin- 
 terested enough and just enough to be given 
 exclusively the use of so great and far-reaching 
 a weapon — a weapon capable of so much de- 
 struction and intimidation. It may be true that 
 Britain used this great power benevolently and 
 with moderation. But what self-respecting man 
 or nation wants a club held over his head, that 
 possibly might come down at any moment that 
 the holder deemed necessary either for punish- 
 ment, discipline or reproof? And who can say 
 truthfully that the chief thought of Great 
 Britain in navy expenditure was home protec- 
 tion? In her navy expenditures was not her eye 
 singled on those craft that could be used abroad, 
 while with less expenditure in purely coast de- 
 fense equipment she could have found the nec- 
 essary home protection? 
 
 Considering all circumstances, is it to be won- 
 dered that a proud, ambitious rival should seek 
 to lay the foundation of a navy which should at 
 least dispute the pretensions of Britain to the 
 exclusive physical monopoly of the high seas? 
 
 Some may say that this act of Germany was 
 not generous, but when had Germany been the 
 beneficiary of Britain's overflowing good will 
 and generosity? If there are such evidences, 
 history is silent. 
 
 The possible exception to this may be found 
 in the fact that in 1870, before the declaration of 
 war on Prussia by France, Britain unanimously 
 
 [39] 
 
sided with Prussia and applauded the resistance 
 of the German people against the gross and in- 
 solent attitude of Napoleon III. In a measure, 
 by this token of sympathy, the British people 
 made up for the ignoble exhibition of temper 
 that they showed toward the same people only 
 fifteen years previously at the time Britain and 
 France failed to draw Prussia into the Crimean 
 War — a war that had for its object, the placing 
 of Turkey in a secure position in European 
 society. [The Prussian King's refusal to be a 
 party to this brought down on his head the 
 vials of wrath of the British. He was odiously 
 nicknamed by the British, and held up publicly 
 as a weakling, having no decision of character^ — 
 and a sensualist of the worst type ; all of which 
 history repudiates to-day. Of course, it is 
 within the knowledge of all that there never 
 has been love lost or sympathy wasted on either 
 side, as the dominant Englishman and the domi- 
 nant Prussian are too nearly alike for real or 
 artificial sentimental outpourings. 
 
 It has been mentioned that Britain showed 
 marked sympathy for Prussia at the opening 
 of hostilities with France. But that sympathy 
 was short lived ; in fact, it began to wane when 
 the first battles showed Prussia's remarkable 
 fighting ability. Any sympathy that was left, 
 disappeared completely when it became known 
 that Germany had exacted the rewards of the 
 victor and was emerging from the conflict a 
 world power of the first magnitude. 
 
 For twenty-five years prior to 1914 Great 
 Britain was frantically fighting to hold foreign 
 trade; or busily engaged in building two ships 
 to Germany's one. At frequent intervals, in or- 
 der to relieve the immense drain on her re- 
 sources, she made overtures to her rival, look- 
 
 [40] 
 
ing to the curtailment of sea armament, but 
 inasmuch, as her propositions always left her 
 in the firm possession of her ancient, if not 
 time-honored club, Germany of necessity was 
 compelled to decline such overtures. 
 
 As a result of all this a horrible war between 
 these great powers was brewing and being fo- 
 mented. Seeing that she was being rapidly 
 relegated to the rear commercially, Britain pro- 
 ceeded to use subterranean means of a very 
 doubtful nature to head off her rival. She be- 
 gan to encircle Germany with a cordon of 
 alliances and *' understandings." She capital- 
 ized French hatred for the German, Belgian 
 distrust, and Russia's inordinate ambition. 
 Germany was not blind to this menace. As a 
 result of it she was compelled to double and 
 triple her armament expenditures — causing a 
 terrific strain on the financial resources of the 
 country. 
 
 The powder was being rapidly piled up for 
 the coming, inevitable explosion. The murder 
 of the Austrian Crown Prince and Princess fur- 
 nished the spark. 
 
 What peculiar emotions take possession of 
 one's mind and soul as he views Britain's entry 
 into the great war ! It was but yesterday, with 
 the exception of one province, that the empire 
 was wrapped as if in a mantle of peace ; without 
 even a premonition of the passions that, a few 
 hours at most, would be tearing every heart 
 from its mooring. It was as if a summer's sea 
 in an hour had been lashed by the fury of a 
 typhoon. Fear, cupidity, revenge, hatred and 
 super-patriotism took possession of the nation ; 
 blinded and infuriated, they cast themselves 
 over a precipice into Europe's seething mael- 
 strom. 
 
 [41] 
 
Even six years after this debacle it is difficult 
 to account for this spontaneous, national aberra- 
 tion. Under what law, psychological or socio- 
 logical, may it be classified? 
 
 Seeking in vain for a solution, I overlooked a 
 possible one that was at my very side. I found 
 it in Dexter — Dexter my companion and friend. 
 I will have you know, first of all, that Dexter is 
 a dog ; that by the way, is the worst thing and 
 the best thing that may be said of him. To refer 
 to a human being as a ''man" means nothing. 
 A man is an animal who walks on two legs 
 (when he is sober) and makes known his wants 
 by wagging his tongue. There are men and 
 men and dogs and dogs. There are men made 
 in the image and likeness of their Creator; 
 whose heads tower above the clouds and who 
 breathe the pure air of God's sunlit truth; and 
 there are men who crawl on their bellies, snake- 
 like, and wallow in the mire of sin, ignorance, 
 superstition and crime. 
 
 We are told that the dog descended from the 
 wolf, and man from the ape. If this is true. 
 Dexter and I, his companion, had very much of 
 an even start insofar as remote ancestry is con- 
 cerned. 
 
 A philosophic personage once remarked, the 
 more he saw of men the better he liked dogs. 
 That statement would hold true, to a greater 
 degree, the past six years than at any other 
 period in the history of either man or dog. 
 There are men, even those whose hands have 
 recently been dipped in human blood, who will 
 take exception to the claim that, in some re- 
 spects at least, human beings have not reached 
 the high plane in evolution that the average 
 dog has attained. 
 
 It has been truly said that there is at least 
 [42] 
 
hope for mankind when we remember that the 
 dog descended from the wolf. Consider, if you 
 will, the blood-curdling- ferocity of the wolf 
 either singly or in the pack, tearing each other 
 limb from limb, either through hatred or by 
 reason of hunger, and then contemplate their 
 lineal descendant of to-day, Dexter, the protec- 
 tor of little children, a boon companion, and a 
 faithful friend. 
 
 There are, in all likelihood, thousands and 
 thousands of years of evolution between the 
 cowardly, treacherous, ferocious, demon-eyed 
 inhabitant of the wild and that gentle and lova- 
 ble creature of to-day that goes bounding down 
 the path to greet his master and give him a 
 joyous welcome to home and fireside. Evolu- 
 tion, patiently but masterfully, has done its 
 work ; progress at least that has kept pace with 
 man's advancement. 
 
 If evolution has performed such marvels for 
 the dog, there is hope that it will do as much for 
 man ; that it will in time eliminate some of those 
 attributes that mark him, too frequently indeed, 
 as little removed from some of the beasts of the 
 forests or reptiles of the jungle. 
 
 It is true, there are dogs that may and do 
 retain some of the vicious characteristics of 
 their ancestor, the wolf ; but it is also true that 
 the blood and brain and heart of a very large 
 percentage of mankind, at times at least, is well 
 under the influence and domination of the an- 
 cestral beast from which it is claimed they 
 sprang. Look around you in any community, 
 and behold manifest evidence of this. 
 
 Now, there are a number of dogs in the im- 
 mediate neighborhood where Dexter lives, some 
 of high and more of low degree. As a general 
 thing he gets on with these very much as human 
 
 [43] 
 
beings are wont to with their neighbors. He 
 passes some with an air of disdain, with others 
 he is on pleasant speaking terms, while others 
 he receives and visits. But there is one dog just 
 down the street that is an exception to all we 
 have said — that is Pat. Pat is a brindle bull, 
 with one good clear blue eye (the only good eye 
 he possesses) and the other a sickly white, re- 
 sembling a marble set in a hole. Pat has more 
 scars to his credit than a Frenchman has war 
 medals, and of them he has just as good reasons 
 to be proud. Some of these he received in de- 
 fense while others came while re-capturing his 
 former possessions. 
 
 But just what there was about Pat that Dex- 
 ter my Scotch collie friend did not like (and 
 the dislike was mutual) we never could deter- 
 mine; for Pat on the whole was a good dog as 
 dogs go. He scarcely ever attacked another 
 of his kind without provocation; he kept 
 watch over the children of his house-hold, 
 and woe unto the stranger who would molest 
 them. The baby in the carriage was as safe 
 with Pat at its side as it would be on its 
 fond mother's lap; but with all these endearing 
 qualities Dexter hated him with all the hatred 
 that even a human being in war is capable of. 
 Dexter could be at your side peaceful as a June 
 morning, his great big brown eyes radiating 
 love and devotion, when suddenly he would spy 
 Pat — like a shot out of a cannon, he would be 
 off — and the fight would be on — and to a finish. 
 When he would return it would be with down- 
 cast eyes ; ashamed of himself as a man the day 
 following a fall from grace in the form of a pro- 
 tracted spree. He would say as best he could, 
 * ' I do not understand what gets into me when I 
 see that fellow — I forget everything and every- 
 
 [44] 
 
body and I just feel that I want to tear him 
 limb from limb." 
 
 As the Entente Allies entered the war, the 
 world beheld the distressing spectacle of the 
 English bulldog and the French poodle follow- 
 ing the Russian wolf into the wilderness. Truly 
 they barkened to the call of the wild. 
 
 All nations that entered the war (Belgium 
 perhaps excepted), like Dexter — were conform- 
 ing to one of the lowest as well as one of the 
 oldest laws of nature — the law of reversal to 
 type — civilization temporarily becoming bar- 
 baric. 
 
 Every nation that entered the war entered 
 with a lie on its lips. Perhaps the most trans- 
 parent lie of all and the one from which accrued 
 the greatest sympathy and benefit for the falsi- 
 fier, was that employed by Great Britain as a 
 reason for her entering the world war; namely, 
 to protect Belgian neutrality. This brazen dis 
 tortion of the truth was accepted without ques- 
 tion, not only by the majority of the British 
 people, but by the unthinking masses in America 
 as well. 
 
 Now that this lie has served its purpose and 
 ''civilization has been saved," let us examine 
 some of the outstanding phases of this question. 
 
 Does anyone with an ounce of intellect, or 
 possessing an atom of fairness, believe that 
 Great Britain would not have been in the war, 
 Belgium invaded or Belgium passed by? Has 
 it not been the regret of England since 1870 
 that she did not at that time join hands with 
 France against Germany (although for their 
 own selfish purposes they gave all encourage- 
 ment to the Prussians before hostilities began) ? 
 With France conquered and prostrate at Ger- 
 many's feet, what advantage would Belgium be 
 
 [45] 
 
to Britain as a buffer state? None whatever. 
 Surely no one would claim for Britain that she 
 sought the neutrality of Belgium for the good 
 of that country — it was with an eye singled to 
 her own protection. Knowing the history of 
 Britain and her heartless and selfish treatment 
 of small countries, we know that had it not been 
 for the danger that it held for herself, for the 
 future, Britain would not have risked a single 
 ship, a single gun, or a single man to protect 
 these people. Going to war to protect small 
 nations and to maintain the sanctity of treaties 
 sounds exalted; but what arrant hypocrisy on 
 her part.* Look down the pages of history and 
 observe the number of small nations that have 
 been either swallowed, or pounded into insen- 
 sibility by England, or, where that did not 
 occur, she stood idly by while they were de- 
 voured by larger nations. 
 
 These instances are unnecessary here to re- 
 hearse, but it will be of interest to recall one as 
 showing Britain's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde per- 
 formance when it comes to enforcing the sacred- 
 ness of treaties. 
 
 Be it known to all that in the early fifties of 
 last century, the great big pulsating heart of 
 Britain went out to the Turk, as it in 1914 
 went out spontaneously to bleeding Belgium. 
 This admission must be made in order to give 
 credit where credit is due. Was it not by Brit- 
 
 *It is evident that Theodore Eoosevelt did not share the be- 
 lief that Britain entered the war, disinterestedly for the pur- 
 pose of protecting little Belgium. In the "Outlook" of August 
 23nd, 1914, he remarks: "Belgium, however, was armed and 
 went to war. If she succeeds in protecting herself, it vnll be 
 because she had armed and not trusted to the treaty, and be- 
 cause she received aid from big military powers, who would 
 have given it anyhow, as a matter of their own vital interest, 
 as a matter of self-defense — not merely for the defense of 
 Belgium, but for the defense of themselves." 
 
 [46] 
 
ish effort that the Turk was given a safe place 
 in the European family of nations, and was it 
 not due to that same nation that Turkey was 
 put in a position she could defy Europe, and 
 as a consequence she was not afraid to commit 
 those outrages from time to time that have 
 shocked mankind? 
 
 In order to protect Turkey and at the same 
 time curb ravenous and barbaric Russia (after- 
 wards in 1914 Britain's loyal and faithful and 
 honorable ally) she insisted, in the Crimean 
 war settlement, that the Black Sea should be, 
 so far as war vessels were concerned, neutral- 
 ized. This neutrality was strictly observed un- 
 til the year of the Franco-German war, when 
 Russia boldly and bluntly gave notice that she 
 intended to ignore this portion of the treaty — 
 which she did. Britain was incensed and pro- 
 ceeded immediately to round up European na- 
 tions to side with her in the enforcement of this 
 treaty. She first approached Austria, but 
 Austria declined — then Prussia was inter- 
 viewed, but no encouragement was given — then 
 she besought France with a like result. Had 
 these powers listened to Britain at that time, 
 there would have been a general European war; 
 If war at that time was delayed, Britain is not 
 to receive the credit. It must be observed, ho^v^- 
 ever, that she did not show any disposition to 
 fight — alone — for the sanctity of a treaty. She 
 waited patiently for a more favorable day, a 
 day when she could be sure of the necessary 
 assistance. Had Germany violated Belgian neu- 
 trality, and France and Russia remained neu- 
 tral, may we not make a good guess how far 
 Britain would have gone in the laudable enter- 
 prise of upholding the sanctity of this treaty? 
 
 The future British historian, no doubt, would 
 [47] 
 
readily excuse his country for not trying to en- 
 force the Belgian treaty as the brilliant apolo- 
 gist did regarding the Black Sea incident when 
 he wrote ''it would have been a piece of pre- 
 posterous quixoty on the part of England to 
 take on herself alone the responsibility of 
 maintaining the sanctity of the treaty. ' ' 
 
 There are three things to be learned from 
 that incident; first, Britain will not fight, no 
 matter what principle is involved, unless the 
 outcome is considered a foregone conclusion; 
 second, that she would have been guilty of 
 bringing on a general European war in 1870 on 
 so trivial a thing as the enforcement of the 
 neutrality of the Black Sea, had she succeeded 
 in dragging other nations in with her; third, in 
 1914 she was willing to prostitute herself by 
 making an alliance with Russia, a self-confessed 
 violater of the sanctity of treaties, in war on 
 another power that she deemed guilty of the 
 same offense. 
 
 This, now celebrated, treaty, was first signed 
 in the early part of the last century and re- 
 vised and strengthened later. It will be remem- 
 bered, the causes that led to its revision. 
 Britain discovered that a deal was on between 
 Prussia and France whereby under certain 
 conditions, France would become the possessor 
 of Belgium. Britain naturally stepped in and 
 frustrated the deal. As both parties were 
 caught red-handed, they were ready to sign any 
 guarantee of Belgian neutrality. Accompany- 
 ing the serious turn that this affair took, there 
 remains the ludicrous side. In 1914 it became 
 necessary to go to war to uphold this treaty. 
 And what spectacle did we behold? We find 
 loyally at Britain's side in this sacred cause, 
 Russia, the arch violator of the Black Sea 
 
 [48] 
 
treaty, and France, who in 1866 was not only a 
 prospective violator but actually ready to annex 
 that unfortunate little country ; and in addition 
 to these, her latest ally, pagan Japan, who, in 
 conjunction with Great Britain herself, violated 
 the neutrality of China, against China's solemn 
 protest, by landing Japanese and British troops 
 on Chinese soil to capture the German posses- 
 sion, Kiao-Chau. 
 
 Treaties of this kind are generally one-sided 
 affairs, and are simply declarations governing 
 future purposes and behavior. In this case, 
 Prussia signed a certain engagement without 
 a compensating equivalent. This in law would, 
 of necessity, render the document worthless. 
 She entered this engagement at that particular 
 time to calm a distressed and excited neighbor. 
 Had Prussia refused to sign, Britain certainly 
 could not have gone to war to compel her to do 
 so, as she could not have deemed her guilty of 
 violating a treaty unless she had violated it. 
 Germany was, perhaps, as much a sly knave 
 in signing a document such as this, when she 
 knew it would be repudiated should repudiation 
 become necessary, as Britain was a fool to ex- 
 pect the engagement to be kept, no matter what 
 circumstances might present themselves. 
 
 Theodore Roosevelt understood this when he 
 made the following declaration, as printed in 
 the ''Outlook" in the fall of 1914: ''When 
 giants are engaged in a death struggle, as they 
 reel to and fro, they are certain to trample on 
 whomever gets in the way of the huge, stormy 
 combatants. When before our eyes a score 
 of treaties and of engagements of the most 
 solemn kind are those literally not to be worth 
 the paper they are written on, there is some- 
 thing both pathetic and ludicrous in the belief 
 
 [49] 
 
that signing names to a bit of paper will of and 
 by itself forward the cause of peace. ' ' 
 
 Practically the same view of this treaty was 
 held by Mr. Gladstone, when, in the British 
 House of Commons he said : ' ' I am not able to 
 subscribe to the doctrine of those who have 
 held, in this house, what plainly amounts to the 
 assertion that the simple fact of the existence 
 of a guaranty is binding on all parties to it, 
 irrespective, altogether, of the particular posi- 
 tion in which it finds itself at the time in which 
 the occasion for acting on the guaranty arises." 
 
 It is true that Germany may have had ulterior 
 reasons for the invasion of Belgium — dark and 
 diabolical — and thus breaking an obligation; 
 but who can truthfully say that she did not have 
 a parallel reason to act as she did, if we agree 
 that a country's self -protection and safety is 
 the first duty of its rulers — as self-preservation 
 is the first supreme duty of society. I may, for 
 instance, sign an agreement with my neighbor 
 not to cross his property, or in any way tres- 
 pass on it, but if I saw my house in flames and 
 my family endangered, would I not only be 
 justified in violating my agreement by crossing 
 his property in order to make haste, but would 
 be well within my moral rights in felling any 
 person who would stand in my way? 
 
 All military authorities in Europe were 
 agreed that, owing to a general preparedness, 
 much depended on the swiftness of the first 
 blow, when hostilities were inevitable. When 
 the life of a nation is at stake, its rulers have 
 on their shoulders a respojisibility that trans- 
 cends all other responsibilities. To split hairs 
 on questions of honor or niceties, in such an 
 emergency, would be as idiotic as for a man on 
 the way to the hospital with a friend bleeding 
 
 [50] 
 
to death, to delay reaching there, and give as an 
 excuse that he did so in order not to violate the 
 traffic speed law. 
 
 War is not a parlor affair, a Sunday school 
 picnic or a fashion parade. War is hell from 
 the start and hell to the finish, and no soil is 
 sacred on hell's borders. You might just as 
 well try to draw an arbitrary neutral line be- 
 tween paradise and purgatory, between sanity 
 and insanity, or east and west, as to name the 
 boundaries, the exits, or entrances for the arch- 
 demon War. 
 
 Political policies are influenced, as they should 
 be, by time, place and circumstances. No insti- 
 tution is permanent — all earthly things are in 
 the course of change — transitory. Nations, like 
 men, in their action, will always be guided by 
 exigencies and circumstances — ^more especially 
 when it is a question of life or death. 
 
 It is, of course, undoubtedly true that 
 some nations observe the terms of treaties more 
 religiously than others. It may even be true 
 that Britain has more of a clean record than 
 most countries, considering the magnitude of 
 such undertakings. But it must be observed 
 that a larger percentage of the British so-called 
 treaties are not, strictly speaking, treaties at 
 all — ^merely concessions — stipulating what the 
 other party agrees to do. And it will be found 
 in a large number of these cases that bullets 
 have had a great deal to do with the acquiescence 
 in these terms — lead bullets of the Marlborough, 
 Roberts and Kitchener type; supplemented by 
 the no less potent silver bullets of the Lloyd 
 George variety. 
 
 When nations play for the favorable public 
 opinion of the world (for public opinion is an 
 asset as tangible as gold), and seek to prove the 
 
 [51] 
 
guilt of their opponents and their own inno- 
 cence, it is imperative, in the interest of justice, 
 to know whether or not all parties are appearing 
 in court with clean or unclean hands. With 
 this in view, it would be unfair, in this inquiry, 
 if we did not inquire, to some extent, into the 
 antecedents of the nation that has made the vio- 
 lation of treaties her reason for entering the 
 world war. 
 
 We do not have to go very far back into inter- 
 national criminal history to find the trail of the 
 serpent leading to the nation which has been 
 assuming the role of *' protector" of small peo- 
 ples, and the observer of international cove- 
 nants. 
 
 A narration of the case of Egypt, fresh in the 
 minds of everybody, will suffice to prove Brit- 
 ain's hypocrisy, without even referring to the 
 fact that she guaranteed the independence of 
 Persia, yet she, by a secret deal, allowed Russiai 
 to practically possess her. She also guaranteed 
 the independence of Korea, yet she allowed her 
 ally, Japan, to possess and enslave these unfor- 
 tunate people. She sanctioned the division of 
 Morocco between her friends, France and Spain. 
 
 Twenty-eight years ago, Britain, like the giant 
 python, after duly covering its victim with 
 slime, began the process of swallowing Egypt, 
 and the last gulp was taken on December 18, 
 1914, and now Egypt is an undigested lump in 
 Britain's belly. This fact must be brought 
 clearly to the attention of all our people, par- 
 ticularly those who sided with Britain in the late 
 struggle, believing that she was fighting for high 
 international principles. 
 
 Britain began her real occupation of Egypt in 
 1892, and for what purpose? Ostensibly for 
 putting down an insurrection, but really to col- 
 
 [52] 
 
lect bonded and other indebtedness, much of 
 which was purchased by her at a small fraction 
 on the dollar. Promise after promise was made 
 by Britain that she would withdraw from that 
 country, but she kept complete control, and on 
 December 18, 1914, as has been stated, removed 
 the lawful Khedive and appointed one of her 
 own choice, who would be a mere tool, and was 
 maintained against the wishes of the people of 
 Egypt, and by the power of Britain's military 
 forces. The British Press acknowledged from 
 that date that the flag of Britain floated over 
 Egypt. 
 
 On Monday, August 25, 1919, the Honorable 
 Joseph W. Folk, ex-Governor of Missouri, 
 recently chief counsel for the Department of 
 State, and ex-Counsel for the Interstate Com- 
 merce Commission, appeared before the Senate 
 Committee on Foreign Relations, and gave the 
 following testimony: ''Great Britain first en- 
 tered Egypt on the pretext of protecting the 
 Khedive against the rebels among his own peo- 
 ple. She then continued to stay on the pretext 
 of protecting the people against the tyranny of 
 the Khedive. So at the beginning of the war 
 England was occupying Egypt in that way. 
 
 *'0n December 18, 1914, Great Britain seized 
 Egypt through the appointment of a Sultan by 
 Great Britain, and now, contrary to the prin- 
 ciples of the covenant of the League of Nations, 
 and her previous promises. Great Britain asks 
 that Egypt be turned over to Great Britain with- 
 out the consent of the Egyptians, as a subject 
 and conquered nation. 
 
 ''Further: that the Egyptian Commission, 
 now in Paris, is in virtual imprisonment. They 
 are not allowed to send their representatives 
 to the United States. Great Britain does not 
 
 [53] 
 
seem anxious that the people of the United 
 States should know the story of Egypt. 
 
 ''Thus, by the seizure, Great Britain has 
 added to her enormous acquisitions 350,000 
 square miles, much as rich as Illinois or Iowa, 
 and 13,000,000 souls." 
 
 This very modern instance, as above set forth, 
 without going further, will show the cant and 
 hypocrisy of Britain in her world heralded 
 claims of entering the war as a defender of 
 small nations and the upholder of the sanctity 
 of international agreements. This fact, clearly 
 understood and established, will do more to 
 clear the atmosphere, so that world affairs may 
 be seen in their true light and relation, than any- 
 thing we may well conceive. 
 
 Why, then, did Britain go into the war? We 
 have seen that we cannot take her word. Her 
 reason, we have found to be false and hypo- 
 critical. Her record and the facts are against 
 her. 
 
 We have to judge nations precisely as we 
 would individuals. In the case of a man charged 
 with murder, a motive must be shown. Britain, 
 by some, is charged w^ith a very grave offense. 
 She is not charged with wantonly bringing on 
 the war, but with criminally refusing to stay 
 the hand that unleashed the dogs of war. Brit- 
 ain's crime was criminal passiveness, not crim- 
 inal activeness. She wanted war, under certain 
 conditions, and yet she did not want war. No 
 doubt, she recoiled from the thought of war — 
 that portion of her that was highly civilized 
 recoiled from the horrible prospect — but at the 
 same time circumstances impelled her to play 
 two parts. Two spirits took possession of her ; 
 the spirit of light, and the spirit of darkness. 
 Her better nature told her to stop the war at 
 
 [54] 
 
all cost, and take European leadership until 
 sanity would again be enthroned. The spirit 
 of darkness said to her : ' ' This is your opportu- 
 nity — seize it." Instead of deciding she hesi- 
 tated. To ease her conscience, she importuned 
 Germany to stay the hand of Austria. Ger- 
 many's reply came instantly: "See the Czar — 
 I only move if he does." Britain knew in her 
 heart, that Russia's mobilization was bringing 
 Germany into the conflict, and that one sure way 
 to ward off hostilities, was to persuade Russia 
 to cease mobilizing — to cease mobilizing even 
 at the peril of losing Britain as an ally. This 
 she did not do. She pleaded with the leader of 
 the Triple Alliance, her enemy, but failed to use 
 all means in her power to check Russia — ^her 
 erstwhile friend. Does anyone dare state that 
 Russia would have gone to war without the im- 
 plied assistance of France and Britain; much 
 less imagine France would have entered the 
 war without a tacit British understanding or 
 the assurance of a firm Russian understanding? 
 What was it that Britain asked Germany to 
 do? Was it not to curb her dependable ally, 
 Austria, while that ally was in a state of 
 national high temper, beginning as she was, to 
 punish Servia for the atrocious killing of her 
 Prince and Princess. Austria was justly and 
 naturallj'' enraged. She wanted satisfaction of 
 a very practical and very human kind. Ger- 
 many replied in substance : ' * My friend Austria 
 is aggrieved, she is righteously indignant. She 
 is temporarily in high temper. I believe, for 
 her own good, Servia should be chastised, there- 
 fore, tell your friend Russia to lay down her 
 arms — she has not been hurt, she has not been 
 insulted or angered, her national honor has not, 
 as yet, been violated." If Britain took this ad- 
 
 [55] 
 
vice and acted accordingly on it, we have no 
 record of it. 
 
 Now, presuming Germany had coerced Aus- 
 tria, no doubt the great war would have been, 
 at least temporarily averted — how long no one 
 can tell. In that she would have alienated the 
 only country she could reasonably depend upon, 
 in the future, in case of a life and death strug- 
 gle, with Russia and France combined. Aus- 
 tria's good will and support was absolutely 
 indispensable to Germany, owing to her critical, 
 isolated location. Had Britain coerced Russia, 
 and Russia became estranged thereby, this loss 
 would not have been so vital to Britain as the 
 loss of Austria to Germany, for England was 
 still safe, without an ally, behind her moving 
 walls of iron and steel. 
 
 Thousands in Britain at the critical time saw 
 the danger. They pleaded with the British Gov- 
 ernment to curb Russia as the only logical thing 
 to do under the circumstances, but they were not 
 heeded. This was vital. Bearing on this point 
 of view, the representative of the Associated 
 Press in London, cabled the Los Angeles Times 
 and other American newspapers the following 
 important summary, dated London, August 1st, 
 1914: ''The feature of the war situation here 
 to-day is the growing intensity of the debate, 
 whether Britain should or should not take part 
 in the threatened European slaughter. Those 
 desiring peace are concentrating a strong fire 
 on Premier Asquith and Sir Edward Grey; de- 
 mand that Russia be commanded to halt on the 
 penalty of Britain's repudiation of the Triple 
 Entente. Their argument first is : that Britain 
 is not only free as regards legal obligations but 
 is free on the point of honor, hence the right 
 to hold aloof from any war that it does not 
 
 [56] 
 
sanction; secondly: that Russia has already 
 violated the entente by its anti-British proceed- 
 ings in Persia and elsewhere in central Asia; 
 thirdly : that civilization would be better off with 
 Germany dominating the continent than Russia 
 in the dominant position. 
 
 *'A solemn warning is sounded against the 
 colossal mass of Slavic ignorance and barbarism 
 that is sweeping over Europe, as barbarians 
 swept over it at the time of the great migrations. 
 They declare that the Slavic race in its whole 
 existence has not produced more than a dozen 
 first rate men, and that Britain must not co- 
 operate with such a power in assailing the benefi- 
 cent civilization of the Germanic peoples. 
 These views are supported by letters and tele- 
 grams from individuals and societies, and by 
 personal appeals by some of the ablest and most 
 noted men in the United Kingdom. ' ' 
 
 The British Ministry did not take this ad- 
 vice, but spent their precious time in sending 
 notes to Germany until Russia, Germany and 
 France had drifted into war, and were already 
 at each others' throats. Britain, mysteriously, 
 was held back from checking Russia, as if by 
 the unseen hand of her darkest past. 
 
 On August 5th, Great Britain, after seeing 
 Russia, France and Belgium at war on her great 
 rival, decided that her time for striking had at 
 last arrived. 
 
 As the Los Angeles Daily Times of August 
 2nd significantly stated, editorially, "If it con- 
 tinues to look like England's opportunity, there 
 will be a noise like the crack of doom over 
 there." And was not this Britain's opportu- 
 nity? Was there anything more to be desired? 
 (There was her hated rival — the rival that was 
 rapidly relegating her to the rear, commercially, 
 
 [57] 
 
now surrounded by enemies — 180,000,000 Rus- 
 sians on her eastern border and 40,000,000 
 revengeful French on her western border, all 
 bent on dismembering and dismantling Ger- 
 many. Could not Britain, according to accepted 
 views, at that time, play a safe and sure game ? 
 Of the belligerents, was she not the most envi- 
 able of all? Her people were safe from attack. 
 The great battles would be fought on soil other 
 than her own. Her fleet, long in idleness, could 
 now sweep the seven seas clean of the enemy. 
 She knew Germany had only a nominal and nor- 
 mal supply of food, and this would only last a 
 given length of time, and then starvation — a 
 heretofore useful ally — would help finish the 
 undertaking. 
 
 Her four allies, Eussia, France, Belgium and 
 Starvation, were thought sufficient to over- 
 whelm Germany without her furnishing much of 
 her manpower. 
 
 Immediately, Great Britain announced her 
 war aims, the complete physical victory over 
 her enemy. This announcement adhered to, 
 made it impossible for Germany, at any time 
 ^ in the future, to compromise. There was noth- 
 ing left but abject surrender or fight to a finish. 
 Germany had to make her arrangements accord- 
 ingly. Now what did the fulfillment of these 
 war aims mean to Britain? It would mean a 
 crippled commercial rival. It would mean the 
 return of Alsace-Lorraine to France, taking 
 from Germany the coal and iron — which had 
 been the basis of her competitive industry. It 
 would mean the capture of the German fleet — 
 dead or alive — either at the bottom of the sea 
 or floating gracefully into a British harbor, a 
 British prize, her share of the prospective war 
 loot. It meant not only that Germany would 
 
 [58] 
 
be crushed, but in the crushing process, Russia 
 would be more or less dismantled as a result of 
 her collision with Germany, and India, there- 
 fore, would be safe for at least another genera- 
 tion. In other words — she would by this pro- 
 cess get rid of two rivals at one and the same 
 time. And what of the German colonies ? Noth- 
 ing, then, about these was mentioned but the 
 British lion, with a far-off look in his eyes, was 
 licking contemplatively his immense chops. 
 
 If, in passing a house you discovered a man 
 crawling through a window, and you questioned 
 him regarding his intentions, and he told you 
 that he was going in to protect a child from 
 an attack — ^you may well pass on with your sus- 
 picions dispelled, but if on your return you find 
 him emerging from a wrecked neighborhood, 
 the owners put to flight, and found this man and 
 his friends collecting everything of value in 
 sight, you naturally would feel that you were 
 deceived. 
 
 If we had any doubts of the good intentions 
 of the Triple Entente when the war began, what 
 must we now think after reviewing the terms of 
 the Peace Treaty, which has been presented for 
 the scrutiny of a startled world I 
 
 It is said that every man has his price. This 
 price may be money or honor, or even safety. 
 Britain's ''price" in entering the war may not 
 have been either indemnity or territory, but it 
 certainly was a crushed rival, and the German 
 Fleet ''dead or alive." These were the two 
 things that Britain wanted, and her allies were 
 welcome to all the rest (perhaps with the ex- 
 ception of the German colonies). Britain got 
 these things, but at what cost! Hundreds of 
 thousands of her young manhood are buried in 
 a foreign soil; the maimed and diseased are 
 
 [59] 
 
shuffling up and down every highway and by- 
 way, where the British flag floats, around the 
 world ; a crushing debt lies on every household 
 in the land; her foreign credits are nearly all 
 wiped out; now a debtor, no longer a creditor 
 nation; her people discontented at home and 
 discredited abroad; herself one of the most ap- 
 palling victims of ''Peace by complete physical 
 victory. ' ' 
 
 Had Britain's leaders in August, 1914, seen 
 one-tenth of the picture of the desolation of the 
 world to-day, instead of wasting their efforts 
 with the German Emperor, they would have 
 torn themselves from the Russian alliance as 
 they would from the claws of a tiger, the fangs 
 of a serpent, or the embrace of a leper. 
 
 [60] 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 Feance 
 
 Little did Spain think when she offered the 
 Spanish Crown to Leopold, a German Prince, 
 that she was unwittingly sowing the seed from 
 which would grow a great European war, and 
 out of the settlement of that war, the greatest 
 war of all history. 
 
 The source of a mighty river may be found in 
 the side of a mountain, thousands of miles away. 
 The beautiful city of Chicago, built as it is on 
 modem lines, was made possible by a cow kick- 
 ing over a kerosene lamp fifty years ago. 
 
 The germs of this great war were injected 
 into the veins of the body politic of Europe in 
 1870, when Spain offered the crown of Isabella 
 to Leopold of Hohenzollern. That offer was the 
 direct cause of the Franco-German war ; and the 
 annexation of Alsace-Lorraine by Germany, as 
 embodied in the Peace settlement of that war, 
 contributed as nothing else did to the war just 
 closed. 
 
 Napoleon III of France had long looked for a 
 pretext for war. His rule was acknowledged to 
 be burdensome, prosaic and commonplace. 
 There was nothing in it to appeal to the 
 imagination of his temperamental and volatile 
 countrymen. He had been frustrated in his at- 
 tempts to annex Belgium. He saw Prussia add- 
 ing to her provinces. His dream was the 
 annexation of all the beautiful western Ehine 
 lands. As he grew desperate, he became cor- 
 respondingly bolder and more daring. He was 
 urged on by his Ministers, and by his festering 
 servile court. The psychological moment had 
 
 [61] 
 
arrived, and the pretext, events had furnished. 
 When the Crown of Spain was offered to 
 Leopold,* the French Emperor immediately ob- 
 jected, and announced that he never would 
 acquiesce in any such extension of Germany's 
 prestige and power. The King of Prussia in 
 deference to this protest, advised Leopold to 
 refuse the proffered crown, which he immedi- 
 ately did. [This ready compliance, on the part 
 of William, was not sufficient for the haughty 
 French Monarch and his advisers. They de- 
 manded that not only Grermany should forbid 
 one of her princes to take the crown, now, but 
 should also agree that they would not do so in 
 the future. A further demand was made that 
 King William write Napoleon a letter of apol- 
 ogy for having even contemplated allowing a 
 German prince to accept the Spanish succession. 
 In twenty-four hours Prussia was ablaze with 
 indignation, and the French Ambassador was 
 practically ordered to leave Berlin. France 
 replied by declaring war. As every school child 
 knows, the fortunes of this war were Germany's. 
 Had France won, the eastern frontier of that 
 country would have been the Rhine. France's 
 greatest apologist will admit that. For a num- 
 ber of years prior to 1870, France unmistak- 
 ably showed desires for the west bank of the 
 Rhine. At the Congress of Paris, held in 1856, 
 Britain was compelled to curb France in that 
 regard. When France's proposition came up 
 before the Congress, Lord Clarendon, the Brit- 
 ish representative, replied: ''That means 
 plainly the Rhine border for France and the 
 
 •Prinee Leopold was more nearly related to the Bonapartes 
 than to the Hohenzollerns. His father was son of the French 
 Princess, Marie Antoinette, a niece of Murat, King of Naples. 
 His mother was the Princess Josephine, a daughter of the 
 Princess Stephanie, sister of Hortense De Beauharnais. 
 
 [62] 
 
transmutation of the German Confederacy." 
 France withdrew her proposition and waited 
 for a more favorable opportunity. That oppor- 
 tunity came in 1870 and then she played for this 
 big stake — and lost. Instead of gaining beauti- 
 ful western Rhineland, she lost Alsace-Lorraine. 
 ''She went after wool and came back shorn." 
 In this she has not shown the saving grace of 
 even the gambler. 
 
 Among gamblers the "squealer" is consid- 
 ered the most despicable of all creatures; he 
 plays the game as the game is played — he loses 
 and forthwith he rushes out, calls the police, 
 seeks the sympathy of his neighbors, and lies 
 awake nights conjuring how he can "get even." 
 He makes up his mind that on the first opportu- 
 nity he will recover his loss by force. So he 
 waits until he can get two or three sympathizers, 
 and at the first opportunity the enemy is way- 
 laid and after a disastrous fight, the lost treas- 
 ure is regained. 
 
 To regain these lost provinces, France stood 
 ready to unite forces with any European despot 
 or despots. Their quarrel, no matter how 
 despicable, was her quarrel, provided her quar- 
 rel would be made their quarrel. 
 
 The day previous to the appearance on the 
 horizon of the European war cloud in 1914, had 
 any inhabitant of France, from school boy to 
 president, been asked to name that which he 
 desired above all things barring the saving of 
 his own soul, he would have promptly answered : 
 "Alsace-Lorraine avenged." There can be no 
 two opinions regarding this. 
 
 Now, when the war broke out and each coun- 
 try was trying to clear its skirts of the guilt 
 of contributing to the starting of the war, and 
 when France was successfully playing the "in- 
 
 [63] 
 
nocent and injured" part, was it not the duty 
 of the neutral world to come out boldly and ask 
 her this pertinent question : ' ' France, you have 
 in season and out of season, by day and by 
 night for forty years, promised to avenge 
 Alsace-Lorraine and wrest these lost provinces 
 from Germany. Then, when did you expect to 
 do this? Was it not when you felt strong 
 enough of your own strength, or, when you 
 would receive the assurances that other strength 
 added to your own would make the effort 
 a success? That being so, have you not con- 
 cluded that now is the time, and have you not 
 welcomed and made your plans accordingly?" 
 
 If France was ever going to make good her 
 oft expressed intentions, surely the day to act 
 had arrived. Was it not but a few years ago 
 that she felt almost equal to the task herself? 
 Now, with the assistance of 180 million Eus- 
 sians, who would batter her enemy on the east, 
 and the might and power of the British navy, 
 what more could be desired? With all these 
 things in her favor and to her supreme liking, 
 with hatred and revenge in her heart, can she 
 expect us to believe that she at the time was a 
 force for peace? On the contrary, was she not 
 one of the outstanding factors which made war 
 not only possible but certain? In conformity 
 with this, is it any wonder we find her sup- 
 pressing peace demonstrations, even before 
 Germany mobilized? Are there any records to 
 show that she sought sincerely to stay the hand 
 of Eussia? Are there any records to show that 
 she sought to join Britain in bringing pressure 
 to bear on Eussia? >There are no such records. 
 
 The terrible thing in this whole connection 
 was the fact that for forty years, by reason of 
 her national and undying hatred for Germany, 
 
 [64] 
 
France could be used at any time to support 
 the subterranean machinations of Britain or the 
 lustful ambitions of Russia, provided these 
 were directed against German}^ Either of these 
 countries separately or in combination, always 
 knew they had the support of France in any 
 reprisals, right or wrong, directed against Ger- 
 many. This knowledge distressed many a lover 
 of peace throughout the world. 
 
 Some foolish people, even to-day, ask why it 
 was necessary for Germany to attack France 
 when her quarrel originally began with Russia. 
 Had Germany turned her face to the east to lock 
 arms with the Russian bear, France would have 
 been on her back like a tiger. For days before 
 hostilities broke out, France was crouched on 
 her haunches, her eyes ablaze, ready to spring 
 on the back of Germany. 
 
 A few weeks before the European war cloud 
 appeared in 1914, Professor Albert Leon Gui- 
 rard, a brilliant French writer, contributed a 
 very sympathetic and luminous article entitled 
 ' ' French Revenge, ' ' which was published in the 
 *' Contemporary Review." This extract from 
 the article will prove very enlightening : 
 
 ''Under the influences, the conception of a 
 revanche arose immediately — spontaneously. It 
 remained for many years the cardinal principle 
 of French National life — the thought unuttered, 
 but ever present, according to the dictum of 
 Gambetta : 'Let us think of IT always and never 
 speak of it.' Even Victor Hugo, the prophet of 
 peace and universal Republic had to confess : 
 'Another war, alas!! Yet it is necessary'; and 
 all of the leaders of French thought, perhaps 
 Renan alone was strong enough to breast the 
 tide of popular passion. But la revanche had to 
 be postponed ; the country had to recuperate, a 
 
 [65] 
 
permanent government had to be established, 
 and the army must be reorganized " 
 
 ' ' The Entente Cordiale with England left our 
 treasure of suspicion and hatred undivided. The 
 conflict with Germany became intense and 
 broader. To the eternal Alsace-Lorraine ques- 
 tion was added colonial rivalry, and all the fears 
 and grievances of our new friends across the 
 Channel " 
 
 ''What about the future? War is not impos- 
 sible. The sudden and formidable revival of 
 Chauvinistic passion in a Kepublic, which seems 
 to be torn by religious and social problems, can- 
 not be ignored. For the first time, perhaps, 
 since 1870, France has faced the probability of 
 war almost cheerfully. Germany knows this; 
 it is one of the reasons for her immense arma- 
 ment. If war were to break out, of course the 
 odds Avould be against France, but the result 
 would be by no means certain. War, in all 
 probability, would mean a conflict between the 
 Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance — a pos- 
 sibility which makes one shudder. ' ' 
 
 The above extract is worth reading twice. 
 Here is a Frenchman who loves his country de- 
 votedly, and deprecates the spirit of revenge 
 that he finds rampant throughout France — 
 knowing where it will eventually lead the 
 nation ; pointing out in plain words the evil ef- 
 fect of the British understanding with his coun- 
 trymen, and at the same time sharing to some 
 extent the belief shared by Frenchmen that in 
 a single-handed combat with Germany the out- 
 come would be doubtful. 
 
 It is evident that that if Frenchmen had 
 doubts about the outcome of a war between 
 France and Germany, then surely there could 
 be no doubt in their mind, if they had Russia 
 
 [66] 
 
and Britain on their side. And it must not be 
 overlooked, that this French writer gives an ex- 
 cellent reason Avhy Germany was forced to in- 
 crease her armament; a reason that should be 
 carefully noted by those who are constantly con- 
 demning Germany for having thoroughly 
 armed. 
 
 France, now, is again in possession of the 
 provinces which she lost through her own arro- 
 gance and indiscretion in 1871. She obtained 
 this result by reason of the assistance given 
 her by Russia, Britain and America. The re- 
 turn of these provinces was made one of the 
 principal war aims of the allies. The demand 
 for the return of these provinces was contested 
 to the last by Germany. 
 
 The question of the return of Alsace-Lor- 
 raine proved a stumbling block to early peace 
 and no doubt delayed peace many months. 
 
 France again has her provinces. The gam- 
 bler's losses have been returned. Thousands of 
 Americans, not counting the millions of the un- 
 fortunates of other countries, are sleeping in 
 French soil to-day as a result of being dragged 
 from their homes by false leaders for the pur- 
 pose of undoing the diabolical work of Napoleon 
 III and his mad ministers. 
 
 It is indeed sad to see the young manhood of 
 the world slain in the most just cause, let 
 alone such a one as this ; but it is even more dis- 
 tressing to know that out of this fiery hell the 
 nations of the world have not come out purged 
 and purified as we all firmly hoped, but on the 
 contrary, revenge, hatred, greed and cupidity 
 are the four cornerstones upon which the vic- 
 tors are building the future peace of mankind. 
 
 [67] 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 Russia 
 
 We shall have little to say about Russia. The 
 bones of her last Czar are now bleaching on the 
 Siberian plains; a fit resting place, among the 
 countless thousands of his victims. Old Russia 
 has forever passed away. New Russia has been 
 bom — born in a home of starvation, desolation 
 and ruin. Out of this cradle may yet come the 
 hope of mankind — who can tell? We have heard 
 a new strange voice — the voice of an infant — 
 but it has been heard around the world. To 
 some, it is the angel whisper of hope, a rift in 
 the clouds, a voice announcing the rising sun for 
 the enslaved and benighted peoples of the world. 
 
 Cruel monarchies and more or less enlight- 
 ened republics have joined hands to crush 
 out the life of this new born child, but in this 
 they have been as impotent and as helpless as 
 chaff before a hurricane. 
 
 If Russia has a divine message for this torn 
 and bleeding world, that means peace where we 
 have war, plenty where we have want, freedom 
 where we have slavery, hope where we have 
 despair, then all the armies of the nations and 
 all the gold in the world's vaults, and all the 
 lies of Ananias multiplied a million times by a 
 depraved and viper press, will be as helpless 
 and impotent to stay its onward march as the 
 murderers of Christ were two thousand years 
 ago. 
 
 In this great war all governments, whether 
 despotic, limited monarchies or republics, sac- 
 
 [68] 
 
rificed and betrayed their peoples. If new born 
 Eussia holds for the future the germs of a true 
 democracy — a democracy that will represent the 
 heart and conscience of mankind, instead of the 
 will of a few rulers, or leaders, God speed her 
 on her way. 
 
 [69] 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 United States 
 
 On Tuesday, August 19th, 1919, President 
 Wilson graciously consented to receive a select 
 committee of the United States Senate, for the 
 purpose of explaining and interpreting the 
 Peace Treaty, which he had recently signed in 
 Paris, in the name of the American people. 
 
 Perhaps one of the most enlightening admis- 
 sions the President made on that occasion, and 
 which seems as yet generally unknown to the 
 world, was his admission regarding the reasons 
 for America's entering the war. People gener- 
 ally assume that America went into war on ac- 
 count of the acts of injustice committed by Ger- 
 many against the citizens of the United States, 
 in the sinking of the "Lusitania," etc., etc. We 
 have found that this was all an error. These 
 were not the reasons at all, as will be found 
 from the following statement: 
 
 Senator McCumber: Do you think if Ger- 
 many had conmiitted no act of war or no act of 
 injustice against our citizens, would we have 
 gotten into the war? 
 
 President Wilson : I think so. 
 
 Senator McCumber : Do you think we would 
 have gotten in anyway? 
 
 President Wilson : I do. 
 
 At last the mask has fallen from the face of 
 America, or at least from the face of President 
 Wilson, and now we are able to see a little 
 clearer and a little further. 
 
 [70] 
 
It is evident then that the American people 
 held the opinion that they went into the war on 
 account of the so-called acts of injustice per- 
 petrated by G-ermany, and President Wilson 
 went into the war for reasons of his own, which 
 reasons have not yet been fully determined or 
 publicly revealed. 
 
 Now, no matter what these reasons were, 
 whether good or bad, there is no question that 
 the verdict of the future will record two of the 
 most tragic and far-reaching blunders in the 
 annals of statesmanship, namely : 
 
 (1) The mistake of the United States in tak- 
 ing a partisan side instead of remaining an ar- 
 biter and a judge between the warring factions 
 of Europe. 
 
 (2) When America did decide to go into the 
 war, on the side of the Entente Allies, that she 
 did not exact from her associates a hard and 
 fast agreement covering the terms of future 
 peace; but left it until the day when Germany 
 lay prostrate at her enemies' feet, at which time 
 America would be of no future use to the Allies, 
 and would not be in a position to exact peace 
 terms that would be healing in their nature, and 
 would form a basis for future permanent world 
 peace. 
 
 Immediately, on the breaking out of hostili- 
 ties in Europe, the United States declared her 
 official neutrality. This, indeed, was the only 
 sort of neutrality that could be expected, con- 
 sidering the racial complexion of America. 
 
 It is safe to say that in America there were at 
 least five families in whose veins flowed Brit- 
 ish, French, Belgian or Russian blood to one of 
 German or Austrian blood — and blood is natu- 
 rally thicker than water. 
 
 British capital controlled, directly or indi- 
 [71] 
 
rectly, a large volume of American business. 
 The press to a certain extent was influenced by 
 British capital, or, at least, controlled by the 
 interests which had direct or indirect connection 
 with Lombard Street. It became evident, at the 
 outset of the war, that Europe would be com- 
 pelled to call on America for billions of dollars 
 worth of the products of farm and factory. It 
 was realized full well that owing to the British 
 fleet, little of this would reach Germany — prac- 
 tically all would go to the Entente Allies. Big 
 business, such as this, is controlled by big busi- 
 ness men, and big business men have not in the 
 past overlooked the power of the press, and in 
 the year of our Lord 1914, ''big business" con- 
 trolled very generally the press of the United 
 States — as, unfortunately for the people, they 
 do to-day. 
 
 Under these conditions, as might be expected, 
 propaganda was soon set in motion to create 
 a sentiment in favor of the Allies and to dis- 
 credit Germany. Those papers that had given 
 their views freely, the first week or ten days 
 after the war began, laying the blame on all the 
 nations involved, within thirty days changed 
 their attitude and began decrying Germany and 
 lauding the "high and honorable war aims" of 
 the Entente. Billions of dollars, in long-term 
 credits, must be given to Britain, France and 
 Russia, and nothing must be done to discredit 
 these debtors, or make their financial position 
 insecure. 
 
 The ground was ready for the seeds of such 
 propaganda. As has been stated, eighty per 
 cent of America by blood was Entente. For 
 several years prior to 1914, there were unmis- 
 takable evidences of a rapprochement between 
 America and Britain — evidences that time had 
 
 [72] 
 
nearly healed old sores, and past animosities 
 were being forgotten. In addition to this, it 
 must be admitted that, generally speaking, the 
 German was not liked in this country. He was 
 *' unpopular." All agreed that he was honest, 
 industrious, progressive — a good citizen gener- 
 ally ; but he was not accepted whole-heartedly or 
 with warmth by his fellow citizens. 
 
 The people generally did not like his pleas- 
 ures, his tastes, his accent, or even his appear- 
 ance; and to the ignorant portion of the 
 population he was 'Hhe Dutchman." He was 
 not in favor with either the politician or the 
 charlatan. He did not respond readily to the 
 wiles and machinations of the one or the bland- 
 ishments and artifices of the other. 
 
 All this antipathy was difficult to trace to its 
 source. It was certainly prejudice — ill-founded. 
 It may have been that there was a feeling of 
 resentment due to the fact that the German pos- 
 sessed more painstaking, technical knowledge of 
 everyday affairs than his neighbors; and that 
 at times he may have shown contempt for pre- 
 vailing ignorance; or that if for instance a 
 farmer, he set too high a standard of cleanli- 
 ness, tidiness and order for some of his shift- 
 less, haphazard and lazy neighbors. 
 
 Considering the natural antipathy entertained 
 for the Germans and the returning good feeling 
 for Britain and the overwhelming numbers di- 
 rectly or indirectly connected with the lands of 
 the Entente, it can easily be seen what fertile 
 field the propagandist had at his disposal ; and 
 by reason of this one-sided condition, the Ger- 
 man in America was placed in a very unenviable 
 position. He would have been less than human 
 had he not protested against the heartless and 
 soulless propaganda that was placing him on 
 
 [73] 
 
the defensive; and misrepresenting, in many 
 respects and to a great degree, his beloved 
 fatherland. 
 
 When these people protested against what 
 they honestly believed to be an injustice, they 
 were reminded by many that the Grerman was in 
 America by sufferance; implying that he had 
 not the same right to be here as the others, and 
 that if he did not like conditions, ''Why did he 
 not go back to Germany?" 
 
 It might be advisable, at this point, to examine 
 the question why any people (other than In- 
 dians), are here. It is, indeed, arrant assump- 
 tion, to take for granted that this great virgin 
 continent was made and held by the Almighty 
 for any particular race or people. It is a ques- 
 tion even now, whether Europeans have not 
 a great sin to answer for, in robbing the Indian 
 of his birthright — and wiping God's creation 
 from the face of America. No matter what view 
 we take of that question, there are no two opin- 
 ions regarding the fact that the present inhabi- 
 tants are usurpers, and so far as title is con- 
 cerned, they have none — or at least no title that 
 is founded on other than might. 
 
 The German in coming to America naturally 
 and rightly assumed that he had the same rights 
 here as the Briton, Frenchman, Canadian or any 
 other man. It was no love for America that 
 brought him here, any more than it was love 
 that brought any other outsider. He came to 
 better his conditions. He came for the same 
 reason that one million Canadians came here and 
 for the same reason that a quarter of a mil- 
 lion Americans went to Canada. Surely no in- 
 telligent American will contend that Canadians 
 settled here in order to live under a government 
 permitting greater freedom or one that would 
 
 [74] 
 
afford them more protection and better safe- 
 guards than those under which they lived. The 
 American who religiously believes that his lib- 
 erties were and are perpetuated alone by his 
 wonderful written Constitution, will have quite 
 an awakening by a thirty days' sojourn in * Can- 
 ada, where it will be manifest to him that under 
 a different Constitution the Canadians enjoy 
 all the blessings of liberty that his country en- 
 joys. It may perhaps filter into his conscious- 
 ness that Constitutions have very little to do 
 with liberty, and that after all that which in 
 these days has become to most Americans a 
 fetish — that is, the Constitution of the United 
 States — has had no more to do with American 
 liberty and American progress than the label 
 on a bottle has to do with the virtue of the 
 ingredients that it contains. In fact, like the 
 label, it may have something to do only with 
 the directions of the contents — nothing more — 
 nothing less. It is the people who make the 
 Constitution and preserve the Constitution — 
 
 *Altliough Canada possesses one of the most liberal govern- 
 ments in the world, yet her position cannot afford complete 
 satisfaction to her people. Her situation is that of a son who 
 enjoys the full use of a farm while the titled remained in the 
 father. Eightly he is not taken as seriously by his neighbors 
 as if he were the real owner. He is often compelled to take a 
 "back seat" in the presence of real owners and where principals 
 only are recognized. Complete ownership tends to produce a 
 spirit of true independence and responsibility. 
 
 Real and complete independence would do much for Canada. 
 It would place the Canadian people in a position to make ad- 
 vantageous trade and other relations on their merits without 
 regard for that sentimental loyalty for England which they 
 deem necessary as part of their daily life — that loyalty which 
 the late G-oldwin Smith describes as "That sentiment which 
 increases in intensity the farther removed from old London." 
 
 With full independence, Canada would no longer be the 
 sentimental "cub" and feel that it would be at all times her 
 duty to follow her maraudering mother into the jungle. 
 
 Insofar as the United States is concerned, it might be of 
 more advantage for Canada to remain as she is — semi-inde- 
 pendent, as in that case she would remain^ to all intents and 
 purposes a "hostage" for Britain's future good behavior. 
 
 m 
 
not the Constitution that makes and preserves 
 the people. Had the American people, in the 
 beginning, simply adopted the Golden Rule as 
 their Constitution, and aimed to be guided as 
 a nation, as states, and as individuals by that 
 principle, there is no question that progress 
 would have been as marked, and liberty as 
 abundant, as it is to-day. Does any man think 
 that if the people of Mexico were given the 
 American Constitution that they would be one 
 whit better off? Their condition would be no 
 more improved than to present a blacksmith 
 with a medical diploma, which he had not 
 earned. 
 
 The German came to this country for precise- 
 ly the same reasons that the Canadian came 
 here, or the American went to northwestern 
 Canada. It was not ' ' liberty ' ' that he was after 
 — it was opportunity — opportunity that comes 
 as a result of natural conditions — conditions de- 
 pendent upon the gift of Providence and not on 
 written Constitutions. He felt he could pro- 
 duce more on fifty acres of rich, virgin Amer- 
 ican soil, than on five acres of overworked 
 German soil. It is true that he left to avoid the 
 bane of Germany — militarism. That was an in- 
 stitution that he naturally wished to avoid for 
 his children. Although this was true, all intelli- 
 gent Germans refused to blame their rulers for 
 that condition, for the simple reason that most 
 Germans felt the necessity of extreme military 
 preparation against a repetition of invasions 
 that so often in the past had almost ruined their 
 country. They granted that it was necessary 
 to her safety and her existence. There are some 
 non-thinking people who will not agree with that 
 statement. In order to appreciate Germany's 
 position (and we are speaking of Germany prior 
 
 [76] 
 
to 1914) let us put ourselves in that country's 
 position. Assume that all the Germans should 
 vacate their country and 70,000,000 free-born, 
 peace-loving, intelligent, prosperous American 
 citizens, together with their divine Constitu- 
 tion and all their most cherished institutions, 
 should take possession of Germany, and the 
 70,000,000 Germans, with their Kaiser and their 
 laws, should take possession of the United 
 States. Now, this would be a test of institu- 
 tions. It will be very interesting to know what 
 would happen as a result of this experiment. In 
 the first place the Americans would have as a 
 new eastern neighbor, instead of the protecting 
 Atlantic Ocean, a haughty, ambitious, uncom- 
 promising despot, controlling 200,000,000 half 
 barbarians, who had heretofore been kept in 
 check at the mouth of the cannon and at the 
 point of the bayonet. On her west she would 
 have 40,000,000 of armed, and land-hungry peo- 
 ple. We will not even mention her danger on 
 the south. Considering this situation how long 
 before these 70,000,000 Americans now occupy- 
 ing Germany would come to the conclusion that 
 every man must carry a musket? Not long in- 
 deed ! And does anyone imagine for a moment 
 that the lot of the average citizen would be 
 even as desirable as that of his German prede- 
 cessors? The extravagant and slip-shod meth- 
 ods of conducting business that often mark the 
 American at home, if continued on German soil, 
 would in all likelihood bring disaster — Con- 
 stitution or no Constitution. 
 
 But what of the 70,000,000 of Germans in 
 America, even with the Kaiser at their head? 
 With all the national advantages and opportu- 
 nities here would they not become a really great 
 commercial nation, as they aimed to be in Ger- 
 
 [77] 
 
many? And what about militarism? With little 
 Canada on their north and impotent Mexico on 
 their south, how long do you imagine it would 
 be before their big defensive anny would fade 
 away into civilian life ? 
 
 We must always remember that circumstances 
 alter cases ; and that often credit is given where 
 credit is not due; and condemnation is founded 
 frequently on ignorance and prejudice, instead 
 of justice based on facts. 
 
 As time passed and the war progressed, the 
 position of the Germans in America became 
 more difficult and, to a greater degree, unbear- 
 able. They were cut off from their fatherland, 
 which held within its borders, in many instances, 
 their own flesh and blood. They saw that Amer- 
 ica, through propaganda, was forced to view the 
 great war struggle through British spectacles. 
 They naturally became exasperated when they 
 beheld American factories running night and 
 day to supply the Entente with war material 
 that was destined to blow into eternity those 
 that were near and dear to them. They felt that 
 America's claim to neutrality was both hypo- 
 critical and un-Christian. America and Ger- 
 many were as yet at peace. They were friends. 
 There is, of course, no question in the mind of 
 any honest man regarding the depravity of one 
 who, for gold, would pass a dagger to one of two 
 friends who were engaged in a death struggle ; 
 and justify himself by claiming that he gave 
 them an equal chance for its possession, when 
 he knew full well that one of them was in such 
 a physical position in the struggle that he could 
 not reach the dagger — and where a full knowl- 
 edge existed in advance of whose heart it would 
 be driven into. A nation is equally depraved 
 and cannot be called Christian that allows its 
 
 [78] 
 
citizens to wax rich from a traffic which means 
 death and destruction to those with whom she 
 is at peace. 
 
 When the Germans in America witnessed this 
 one-sided procedure, when they saw the press, 
 as time went on, more and more distorting and 
 misrepresenting the German nation, and up- 
 holding in every particular the aims and claims 
 of her enemies, we to-day, on looking back, are 
 amazed at the extreme moderation of these peo- 
 ple, during the heart and soul-trying days of 
 1914, and after. 
 
 The propagandist found nothing so potent for 
 poisoning and inflaming the American mind as 
 ''atrocities." This was a form of poison that 
 could be injected into the national circulatory 
 system without detection. The dispenser of this 
 insidious form of propaganda could employ it 
 without much fear of detection — he could in- 
 ject unadulterated lies, or half lies and half 
 truths, according as he wished a specific result. 
 A few drops of this virus, skillfully injected, 
 would madden and inflame a whole community. 
 
 The fact that this propaganda was manufac- 
 tured at this particular time in England and 
 France and sent wholesale here did not seem to 
 arouse the suspicions of the American people. 
 It seemed as though they desired to swallow 
 the mixture, without question. They did not 
 seem to know or care to know, that during the 
 time that the Britsh papers were filled with 
 stories of atrocities. Premier Asquith made a 
 notable reply regarding these in the British 
 House of Commons in the following language: 
 
 * ' No information has reached the Minister of 
 War concerning the repeated stories that Ger- 
 man soldiers had abused the Red Cross flag; 
 killed and maimed the wounded; and killed 
 
 [79] 
 
women and children, as has been alleged so often 
 in stories of the battle-fields." 
 
 Here is the Premier of Britain, speaking for 
 the war office that had all access to the front and 
 even behind the lines, giving the lie to the stories 
 that filled the British press, and were fed with- 
 out stint or limit to the American people, and 
 to the people of the world. And it must be re- 
 membered that at the time the press was not 
 allowed anywhere near the front, and could not 
 get first-hand information. 
 
 It will be remembered that the worst stories 
 of atrocities were circulated during the first 
 months of the war ; particularly during the first 
 few months after Germany occupied Belgium 
 and France. America not being at war, her cor- 
 respondents were allowed to follow the Ger- 
 man armies. ''Current Opinion," the well 
 and favorably known magazine, calls attention to 
 the whole situation in the following words : 
 
 ' ' From the beginning of the present war, the 
 most harrowing stories of atrocities have been 
 current. But a noteworthy number of reports 
 have been coming of late from the American 
 correspondents discrediting the worst of these 
 stories and restoring, in a measure, the world's 
 faith in its own humanity. ' ' 
 
 Joseph O'Donnell Bennett of the Associated 
 Press, has sent a long and detailed statement to 
 the Chicago Tribune of the attempts of himself 
 and four American correspondents, to run down 
 stories of atrocities. He says : "I marched for 
 days with the German columns, often only one 
 day behind the fighting, with the houses that 
 had been burned still smouldering, the ground 
 freshly broken by shells and trampled by horses 
 and men, and the memory of the Genuan ad- 
 vance vivid in the minds of the inhabitants. I 
 
 [80] 
 
interviewed at least twenty persons in each of a 
 dozen towns, and found only one instance of a 
 non-combatant, who had been killed without 
 provocation. In this case the evidence did not 
 prove that this man had been wantonly mur- 
 dered. Neither in Brussels nor its environs 
 could we find, on diligent inquiry, a single of- 
 fense. Investigation failed to substantiate any 
 of the rumors, nor could we find any one in the 
 immediate vicinity who credited them. We have 
 seen no atrocities, we can get proof of none." 
 
 The New York World published the following 
 dispatch from a special correspondent dated 
 September 24th: 
 
 ''The French, English and Belgians accuse 
 the Germans of shocking atrocities, the Germans 
 accusing the English, French and Belgians of 
 equally shocking acts of barbarism." 
 
 "In the opinion of the impartial observer, 
 such as I am endeavoring to be, I feel that eighty 
 per cent of these accusations are not true, ten 
 per cent fearfully exaggerated, and ten per cent 
 true. ' ' 
 
 A round robin to the same effect was signed 
 by such men as Irving S. Cobb of the Saturday 
 Evening Post, Henry Hansen of the Chicago 
 Evening News, Roger Lewis of the Associated 
 Press, and John T. McCutcheon of the Chicago 
 Tribune. 
 
 The following editorial reflects the thoughts 
 of sane people regarding the question of atroci- 
 ties but such wise reflections apparently did not 
 sink into the consciousness of the Pro-Ally par- 
 tisan. The Emporia Gazette has this to say edi- 
 torially : 
 
 "Did the civilized world think war anything 
 but what it is — a miserable, cowardly carnival 
 of blood-lust and worse passions'? Of course 
 
 [81] 
 
they will shoot nurses, and worse than that ; of 
 course they will burn towns and outrage women. 
 Of course they will drop bombs, and let their 
 devilish passions loose upon every defenseless 
 thing. For that is war. The Germans are not 
 worse than the rest of us. When we go the limit, 
 the limit is bad, and war is the everlasting lust 
 of humanity. ' ' 
 
 It was a notorious fact that if the German 
 Command sought to punish the civilian popula- 
 tion either in Belgium or France, for sniping 
 or other depredations, they were immediately 
 attacked by the press as being barbarians — 
 never making allowance for the necessity for 
 such action. It will be admitted that in a life 
 and death struggle many things will be done 
 that will cause a shudder when rehearsed in a 
 peaceful gathering. But what must be said of 
 a nation of at least 100,000,000 fighting a pygmy 
 of a quarter of a million and resorting to ruth- 
 less warfare, as exhibited when Britain fought 
 the little Boer Republic? For ruthlessness the 
 following war order of Lord Roberts will equal 
 anything of which we have authentic knowledge : 
 
 * * When any attempt has been made to destroy 
 a railroad line, all the farms and residences 
 within a circumference of ten miles must be 
 destroyed ; cattle and all provisions taken away 
 and residents driven away without food and 
 shelter. ' ' 
 
 Modem warfare has discarded poison ar- 
 rows; but has substituted instead, poison gas 
 and poison propaganda. The most insidious, 
 the most deadly and without a question the most 
 cowardly method of war-fare is modern propa- 
 ganda. Poison gas often brings instant death 
 to the professional fighters on the battlefield — 
 and ends there; but poison propaganda does 
 
 [82] 
 
not see the full results of its deadly, venomous 
 and wicked work in three generations. Bayo- 
 nets and bullets maim and kill human flesh on 
 the field of battle; but poison propaganda in- 
 flames and pollutes the minds and consciences 
 of men, women and children of an entire nation. 
 
 But the war spirit must be intensified, Liberty 
 Bonds must be sold, therefore hate must be kin- 
 dled, and what more prolific breeder of hate 
 could be desired than the rehearsals of atroci- 
 ties, the maiming and killing of children, and 
 above all — the lustful assaults on women. 
 
 Many lovers of their kind, felt confident that 
 should Europe's feuds, jealousies and hatreds 
 culminate and burst into a continent-wide storm, 
 America, owing to her isolation, and the intelli- 
 gence and discernment of her people, could be 
 relied upon to balance the scales of justice as 
 between the warring factions. They at least 
 were expected not to condemn a nation unheard, 
 or on evidence submitted by its enemies. To 
 the amazement of all those who love justice and 
 fair play and who admired national sanity and 
 poise, they found a large section of American 
 people were being influenced by blood connec- 
 tion ; ready to believe the most horrible stories 
 told of one fighting group, and refusing to be- 
 lieve the other side being capable of acting in 
 the struggle differently from what would be 
 expected of them at church or in a drawing- 
 room. The American people were not without 
 examples for their guidance. They knew that 
 neither in America nor anywhere else in the 
 world were Grernians considered a lustful or 
 degenerate people. Then why should the war 
 produce more depravity in the German than in 
 the Belgian, the Englishman or the Frenchman? 
 The records of the Franco-Prussian war do not 
 
 [83] 
 
show that Germany was accused of either lust 
 or unnecessary cruelty ; then why such a change 
 in a few years in national character ? We have 
 said that Germany had a reputation the world 
 over for the high virtues of her people. But 
 what of Belgium and France f In the matter of 
 atrocities, Belgium in the Congo stands safely 
 next to Turkey in Armenia. And how will the 
 national morals of France compare with Ger- 
 many 's 1 France with her salacious art, her sug- 
 gestive literature, her unnamable hidden and 
 disgusting vices, and her carnival of race mur- 
 der — a revolting crime against both the laws of 
 man and God — race murder which depleted her 
 of her manhood, which nature had intended for 
 her protection in time of need"? 
 
 Unmindful of these and other conditions, mil- 
 lions of the American people threw reason and 
 discernment to the winds and were content to be 
 fed on vile concoctions which were prepared at 
 home and abroad by diabolical and skillful 
 hands which were rapidly rendering Americans 
 an easy victim for the coming sacrifice. 
 
 These unthinking people did not want war, 
 but they were stupidly playing into the hands 
 of a leader or leaders who did want war — and 
 yet were preaching peace. The time had not yet 
 arrived for those who talked peace with their 
 lips and yet had their hearts set for war to de- 
 clare themselves. Never in all history did a 
 leader of a people change so suddenly from the 
 soft-tongued angel of peace to the War God, 
 as did Woodrow Wilson, President of the 
 United States. Owing to the American people 
 giving credit to him for keeping them out of the 
 war, they elected him to another term. No 
 sooner had he secured the reigns of power for 
 an additional four years, than he tore from his 
 
 [84] 
 
face the mask of peace, and startled America 
 beheld the grinning and cynical visage of the 
 God of War. Never were the people of any 
 country so skillfully, so deliberately, and in 
 such cold blood, delivered into the hands of one 
 man, to be used at will and for his own ambi- 
 tions, and they became in his hands, by virtue 
 of power and circumstances, as helpless as sheep 
 before their shearers, when the American peo- 
 ple elected Woodrow Wilson their President for 
 a second term. When the hour arrived for 
 Woodrow Wilson to act, to act no doubt in ac- 
 cordance with the plans long matured, the 
 American people were as helpless to stay his 
 hand as the people of Germany were to stay the 
 hand of their Kaiser. Hundreds who yet 
 languish in American prisons can testify to 
 this fact. The President knew that if the ques- 
 tion of peace and war were left to the people, 
 that peace would be chosen triumphantly. That 
 is why he wore the garments of peace, before 
 they elected him. But now that he had full con- 
 trol what cared he for the peope ? It cannot be 
 said of Woodrow Wilson that he was not ambi- 
 tious. No man could reach the head of a great 
 university, the governorship of a great state, 
 or the presidency of the United States without 
 being impelled by ambition. He saw vividly a 
 great world drama being enacted — the greatest 
 drama of all time — the chief actors of which 
 would go down in history, through all the ages 
 to come. In view of this, was he going to re- 
 main an auditor, or be content to stand in the 
 wings where the audience could get an occa- 
 sional glimpse of him, or even play the modest 
 and unheroic part of peace-maker I 
 
 On the contrary, was he not in a position to 
 jump on the stage, seize the villain and cast him 
 
 [85] 
 
into outer darkness, and then restore the stolen 
 jewels to onr lady fair, bring about peace and 
 order, and then take a position in the center of 
 the stage before the footlights and hear the ac- 
 claim of a world audience with all the assurance 
 that his name would echo forever down the cor- 
 ridors of time ? 
 
 That indeed was a very ambitious dream ; but 
 Woodrow "Wilson was not the first man whose 
 dreams turned from pleasant and ambitious ex- 
 cursions into a horrible nightmare. 
 
 Mr. Wilson knew full well the arbitrary and 
 almost despotic power with which he was 
 vested; and that for another period of four 
 years. He knew Congress and he knew his peo- 
 ple. It is true that he realized that the majority 
 of the people, although holding strong opinions, 
 were not in favor of war ; but he knew that the 
 press was with him, the ultra-patriots, and the 
 noisy flag-wavers, and the hordes of greed and 
 graft (fifteen thousand of whom have since be- 
 come millionaires), and he was taught the les- 
 son by the European nations that once war is 
 declared and the national honor is at stake, and 
 the bands begin playing and patriotic hymns 
 sung, and the flags are set to the breeze — oppo- 
 sition will die away and any protest will be 
 smothered in the roar of noisy applause. If 
 Congress should balk, he knew what spurs he 
 could use on their haunches ; and if unmanage- 
 able — how they could be curbed. Never did a 
 European despot sit on his throne with more 
 confidence in being able to carry out his own 
 individual will, in spite of parliaments or peo- 
 ples, than Woodrow Wilson in 1916. He car- 
 ried into the White House the petty despotism 
 of the schoolroom. Long before he even 
 dreamed of the presidency he was a sincere be- 
 
 [86] 
 
liever in one-man authority. He came to the 
 conclusion, no doubt, that if, for instance, the 
 President knew more than any senator or con- 
 gressman, or more than any individual in the 
 country, that he should be the logical man and 
 the most desirable man to make the laws for the 
 people. Then why the necessity of an expensive 
 and troublesome Congress or Senate? In this 
 he was like the youth who spent his first day as 
 assistant in a drug store. In looking over the 
 stock he came across a bottle of patent medi- 
 cine. The label set forth that the remedy cured 
 every disease known to suffering humanity. The 
 boy was perplexed. In his dilemma he asked 
 the proprietor why it was necessary to keep 
 the thousand and one other drugs in stock, when 
 he had one medicine that would do the work of 
 all. 
 
 Mr. Wilson's opinions as far back as 1898 
 were a forecast of that contempt which he has 
 since shown for that approach to a representa- 
 tive government which we have here in America, 
 namely — Congress. Mr. Wilson at that time 
 was quite a sincere admirer of Bagehot, the 
 English wit and critic. Bagehot remarked : ''A 
 good horse likes to feel the rider's bit; and a 
 great deliberate assembly likes to feel that it is 
 under worthy guidance. A great assembly is as 
 soon spoiled by over-indulgence as a little 
 child." ''These," remarks Mr. Wilson, *'are 
 eminently business-like sentences. ' ' It certainly 
 must be flattering to Congress to know that un- 
 less under the firm guidance and discipline of 
 the President, they will become like spoiled 
 children. That certainly is the mind of the 
 schoolmaster — and it a far stretch from the 
 schoolroom to the White House. 
 
 The partisans of a Republican form of gov- 
 [87] 
 
ernmerit, particularly those who were possessed 
 of the conviction that a republic is Heaven-born, 
 and any modification of it would be both sacri- 
 lege and treason, must have been at least dis- 
 turbed, if not distressed, on observing Amer- 
 ica's entry into the great war. 
 
 It is not an exaggeration to state that the 
 American people had no say, nor were they con- 
 sulted in any greater regard in this very serious 
 business than the peoples of either Russia or 
 Germany. 
 
 The form of government in this country, as 
 at present constituted, in many respects is as 
 autocratic and as unresponsive to the will of the 
 people as was the government of Germany prior 
 to 1914 ; the only difference being that the Amer- 
 ican people, once in two or four years, have the 
 privilege of changing their taskmasters. King 
 Democrat or ex-King Republican is after all the 
 only choice of the people. 
 
 The independent pretender, usually owing to 
 conditions, has very little chance for the Amer- 
 ican throne. 
 
 That President Wilson acted upon his own 
 judgment, independent of his people, and with- 
 out consulting them, in deciding for war, cannot 
 be gainsaid. 
 
 The American people, once they had given the 
 reins of power to their executive were as help- 
 less and impotent to curb their ruler as the 
 people of German}^ were impotent against the 
 will of their Kaiser. If his judgment were good, 
 the people would benefit, and if bad, the people 
 would suffer; substantially as in Germany, and 
 in Germany exactly as in America. Not one 
 of the peoples of Europe, had they been con- 
 sulted by referendum, would have declared for 
 war — it was a war of the leaders, not of the 
 
 [88] 
 
peoples. Had the American people been con- 
 sulted as in a democracy, they would have given 
 even more of an emphatic verdict against war. 
 And no one knew that fact better than President 
 Wilson. That is the principal reason that he 
 waited for a second term of office before declar- 
 ing war. 
 
 He knew that the people of Britain did not 
 want war, or the people of Germany, or of 
 France, but he observed that once their leaders 
 had declared for war, and the poisons of hate 
 were skillfully let loose, and the War God en- 
 throned, that millions instantly stood ready to 
 make supreme sacrifices on the cruel and bloody 
 altar of pagan patriotism. 
 
 Europe had set up her altars for a blood 
 sacrifice, and the high priests of the Entente, 
 especially, refused to believe, in order to further 
 their own ends, that there was any salvation for 
 the peoples, except through the shedding of 
 human blood. Their eyes were blind and their 
 ears were deaf to compromise, rapprochement 
 or reconciliation. 
 
 The high priest of America shared in that be- 
 lief, and in support thereof set up an altar for 
 an American blood sacrifice. Instead of acting 
 the part of the world's greatest mediator, he 
 chose to be his country's greatest sacrificer. In- 
 stead of using his office and position in the spirit 
 of fairness, impartiality, and Christian charity 
 and forbearance, he became an uncompromising 
 partisan of one group against the other. His 
 own conscience, his heart and his brain told him 
 that the issues between the warring nations were 
 not clean-cut, they were not one-sided, that each 
 was guilty. He knew the particular disease 
 that was convulsing each and all of them. 
 
 In the face of this he committed, without stint 
 [89] 
 
or limit, and with but nebulous reservations, tbe 
 blood and treasure of America ; in common cause 
 with despotic and barbarous Russia, revengeful 
 ' and degenerate France, cruel and pagan Japan, 
 and designing and envious Britain. These were 
 the noble associates of America. It certainly 
 was like a Don Quixote going forth in the com- 
 pany of a band of angels to slay the dragon. 
 
 Woodrow Wilson knew intimately the char- 
 acter of each of the belligerents. He knew what 
 animated them in the past, and he was not blind 
 to each of their hidden aims and objects in the 
 great war. He had no misgivings as to which 
 way Russia was heading ; the prize France was 
 after; and Britain's hidden expectations. His 
 sense of fairness in the beginning of the struggle 
 told him that the interests of the world would 
 be best served by '^ peace without victory." 
 This exalted, if not inspired declaration, was 
 made early in the struggle; when all the main 
 facts were fresh and obtainable. It was cer- 
 tainly made with a full belief that no belligerent 
 was guilty, or all were guilty. There is no ques- 
 tion that he deemed them all guilty; and their 
 guilt only a question of degree. At any rate, at 
 that time, he apparently did not share the belief 
 that any fighting group in Europe, at least, was 
 wise enough, good enough, and just enough to 
 be allowed to completely crush another great 
 group and impose their will completely on the 
 other. Considering the ambitions of the Ger- 
 man ruling class, and their belief that Might 
 makes Right which had been proven against 
 them, coupled with a full knowledge of the his- 
 tory and ideals or lack of ideals of the nations 
 of the Entente, he was justified in believing even 
 then, that peace by victory was unthinkable and 
 would surely sow the seed for another struggle 
 
 [90] 
 
and would usher in a period of universal hate, 
 of which France was but an isolated example. 
 He felt, no doubt, like the just judge who lis- 
 tened to the case of two neighbors, both of whom 
 were in the wrong, unreasoning and unreason- 
 able, and who after reviewing the evidence gave 
 them both a lecture on manners and conduct, 
 and ordered each to pay his own costs. 
 
 These were Mr. Wilson's impulses as he 
 viewed the struggle in its early stages. When 
 one beholds to-day the terrible results manifest 
 on every hand of Peace by Victory — Peace by 
 complete physical domination of practically 
 half the civilized world over the other half, re- 
 sulting in universal anarchy and ruin the wide- 
 world over, and as one witnesses the depths of 
 degradation into which the world has fallen as 
 the result of this ''Victory," we can well imag- 
 ine future historians writing into history, 
 Woodrow Wilson as the most tragic and colossal 
 failure, considering' his opportunities, of all 
 time. It will be recorded that he let fall from 
 his nerveless grasp the sword with which he 
 could have cut the cords that were binding the 
 nations of Europe in a hopeless, struggling, and 
 of themselves, inextricable mass. The power 
 was given him to sever these bands, separate the 
 writhing mass, tell each the plain truth about 
 himself, lay down the basis for a just settlement, 
 and if this were not acceptable to one group and 
 acquiesced in by the other, join with the reason- 
 able group, or in the event of both refusing these 
 good offices, have America cut off communica- 
 tions entirely with both groups and leave them 
 to their own self-imposed destruction. 
 
 During the course of the war there were many 
 psychological opportunities for a whole-hearted, 
 fair-minded, and impartial injection of the good 
 
 [91] 
 
offices of America in the struggle. Instead of 
 taking the transcendent question up in a busi- 
 nesslike, let alone statesmanlike way, Mr. Wil- 
 son raised not even a hand to stop those actions 
 of his countrymen which created suspicions of 
 America in Germany and gave corresponding 
 encouragement to the Entente group. He al- 
 lowed his countrymen to wax rich as a result of 
 Europe's misfortunes; thereby creating a pre- 
 mium for the continuance of the war indefinitely. 
 He employed his precious time in blowing mean- 
 ingless word bubbles and watching them rise 
 and float into thin air, before an admiring audi- 
 ence that applauded his acrobatic and nice use 
 of words and phrases, which were as meaning- 
 less as they were impotent. When he theorized 
 he was indefinite : when he was definite he was 
 one-sided and brutally partisan. 
 
 Great Britain announced early that she would 
 be content with nothing less than a complete 
 physical victory over Germany. This was both 
 characteristic and probable. With her powerful 
 allies, and world resources at her command, she 
 was going to see to it, no matter who else might 
 suffer, that this long-looked for opportunity of 
 crushing her menace and rival would be turned 
 to the best possible account. She therefore didi 
 not like Wilson's early formula, ''peace with- 
 out victory"; but as to this she was soon put 
 at ease. She soon discovered that this was but 
 a fragile and evanescent dream of the school- 
 master — the statesman reverting momentarily 
 to a simpler type. 
 
 Britain began to understand the Wilson mind. 
 They saw a peculiar combination of schoolmas- 
 ter, preacher, politician and stateman. They 
 beheld neither an entity nor an non-entity, but 
 a peculiar mixture of softness and hardness, 
 
 [92] 
 
firmness and flexibility. They discovered, for 
 instance, that he was so physically and men- 
 tally constituted that he would be liable to make 
 more noise and fuss in having the tips of his 
 toes trampled upon, than in having his leg taken 
 off. They came to understand that he had a 
 very wide vision, but that his peculiarity lay in , 
 the fact that he could see only one object at a 
 time ; and when star-gazing, he was liable to be 
 thrown on all-fours by a trivial object at his 
 feet. 
 
 When President Wilson dropped his formula 
 ''peace without victory," and substituted 
 ''make the world safe for democracy," casting 
 at the same time a look of disdain at Genmany, 
 and one of approval and complacency on those 
 heroic defenders of democracy — Eussia, despot 
 and barbarian; Japan, the pagan; and France, 
 late of the Dreyfus fame — there certainly was in- 
 jected into the whole sad war business the first 
 act of real comedy — a species of humor that 
 even the stolid Englishman could appreciate, 
 admire and enjoy. 
 
 In the early months of the struggle there 
 were two propositions put forth for ending the 
 war — one by America, the greatest of the neu- 
 trals, and the other by Great Britain, one of the 
 leading participants. 
 
 These propositions were as wide apart as the 
 shores of the ocean that lay between the two 
 nations presenting them. Mr. Wilson spoke 
 truly for America, and registered the best 
 thought of mankind when, in expressing his 
 opinion, he used the most lofty phrase ever em- 
 ployed by a statesman — "peace without vic- 
 tory." He did not ask the warring nations to 
 compromise their differences. There was noth- 
 ing to compromise. There were no principles 
 
 [93] 
 
involved. The war had started, to all appear- 
 ance, by reason of two great nations, each 
 coming to the assistance of a neighbor and 
 friend. Russia made a move to protect Servia 
 — Germany stepped in to protect Austria; 
 France and England sided with their partner 
 and friend, Russia. It began with a local fight 
 between two neighbors and it grew to immense 
 proportions; through the attractive force of 
 sympathy, if not self-interest. There were no 
 principles involved. There were no questions 
 agitating these peoples that had to be solved. 
 There were no controversies between the na- 
 tions. But a day before the struggle began all 
 was as peaceful as at any period during the 
 preceding twenty-five years. Considering these 
 facts, Wilson no doubt felt there was nothing 
 to compromise — that the only thing for them to 
 do was quit fighting and resume their former 
 peaceful relations. No opposition to this 
 formula came from Germany; for she, though 
 it may have been hypocritical, claimed that she 
 was simply protecting an ally and defending 
 the fatherland. It remained for Great Britain, 
 as head of the Entente, to brush Mr. Wilson's 
 proposition aside and announce anew her war 
 aims which consisted in the monstrous declara- 
 tion that the war would be waged on her part 
 until Germany and her allies were crushed; in 
 other words, that Britain and her associates 
 intended to obtain complete physical victory 
 over their opponents. 
 
 Had it been a case of principle, of conscience, 
 of humanity, of unselfishness, or disinterested- 
 ness and of high ideals, coupled with humility 
 and an unblemished past record, as against a 
 record of years of proven international crime on 
 the part of one now engaged in a repetition of 
 
 [94] 
 
these crimes, then such war aims as set forth by 
 Britain could, in the sight of men, at least be 
 justified. But with Germany's guilt for starting 
 the war in doubt, even sincerely questioned by 
 prominent Britons, as well as neutrals, with 
 the further knowledge that to compare the pre- 
 vious war crimes of Germany and Britain, if 
 we take the record for the past hundred and 
 fifty years, would be like comparing the purity 
 of a mountain stream with the dirty waters of 
 the Ganges, would make Britain's claims and 
 aims preposterous. 
 
 A purely physical victory such as this meant 
 the exaltation of might ; a decision in strict ac- 
 cordance with the brutality of ages, the arbit- 
 rament of the caveman. A victory snch as this, 
 under the circumstances, was monstrous in its 
 conception, brutal in its execution, and accursed 
 in its results. 
 
 Here we find Britain setting herself up as 
 both plaintiff, judge and executioner. Judge 
 between Russia and Germany ; France and Ger- 
 many; and herself and Germany; excluding all 
 favorable and extenuating testimony for her 
 opponent, whitewashing and exalting her as- 
 sociates, and binding them by bribes, promises 
 and threats, in an agreement, to stick together 
 until each obtained what his heart craved, and 
 the enemy beaten into the dust. 
 
 In the face of this decision, proclaimed from 
 the house-tops, there was nothing left for Ger- 
 many to do but abjectly surrender or fight to a 
 finish. 
 
 No one knew better what this meant than 
 President Wilson. He knew that if such an un- 
 compromising and bloody program were carried 
 out, it would mean the wreck of Europe; and 
 yet he was the man who held the key to the 
 whole situation. rgg-. 
 
In order to carry out this gruesome enter- 
 prise, Britain required American food, clotliing, 
 and war materials. In addition to this she must 
 be allowed to undermine the strength of Ger- 
 many by starvation. A failure of either of these 
 plans rendered a complete victory impossible. 
 
 Had the hope of a complete physical victory 
 been removed from Britain's possibilities, and a 
 draw the only probable outcome remaining, 
 there is no question but that her leaders would 
 have preferred a termination of hostilities, at 
 the first psychological opportunity, on the basis 
 of peace without advantage to either side. 
 
 If Mr. Wilson had stood by his first impulse 
 and insisted, in-so-far as America was con- 
 cerned, that peace should come without victory, 
 he certainly was in a position to force reason on 
 Britain, by cutting off all supplies to the war- 
 ring factions. 
 
 It must be admitted that owing to the racial 
 complexion of America, Mr. Wilson's position, 
 to a marked degree, was difficult. As has been 
 stated, the natural sympathy, at least in the 
 early stages of the contest, was not strong 
 enough to influence five per cent of Americans 
 to intervene in behalf of Britain and her allies. 
 Had the merits of the controversy between the 
 contending parties in Europe, from a stand- 
 point of right and justice, been equal or even 
 somewhat in favor of Germany, America, if 
 compelled to take sides, would nevertheless have 
 without question joined the Entente. 
 
 Even though America sympathized- with the 
 Entente and profited by the war, it is only fair 
 to say that the majority of the people would not 
 knowingly do Germany an injustice, or would 
 they have the war continue one day longer than 
 necessary even though the nation made billions 
 
 [96] 
 
as a result of it. They desired world peace, 
 even at the expense of unheard-of profits. Not- 
 withstanding this, Mr. Wilson's position was 
 both delicate and difficult. He knew he might 
 favor the Entente without creating much oppo- 
 sition, aside from the German element, but he 
 dare not, even in the remotest way, appear to 
 favor Grermany. 
 
 It would be difficult indeed, to imagine what 
 conditions could induce America to go into the 
 war on the side of Germany, but no imagination 
 w^ould be necessary to conceive how easy it 
 would be to bring America in on the side of the 
 Entente. But America, nevertheless, was as 
 yet not beyond the power of discrimination. 
 For instance, if Mr. Wilson had made it plain 
 to the American people that peace without vic- 
 tory was the one thing desirable, that the war 
 should end with no advantage to either bellig- 
 erent, excepting indemnity to Belgium ; that he 
 conceived that each side was more or less to 
 blame; that Britain's slogan ''Peace by Vic- 
 tory" would mean Europe's ruin (as it has) ; 
 that Germany stood ready to disarm on fair 
 terms, and in order to bring this about, and in 
 order to bring Britain to her senses, it would be 
 necessary to cut off the supplies of food, cloth- 
 ing and war material from the Entente, Amer- 
 ica would have, with the exception of the war 
 profiteers and yellow newspapers, willingly and 
 cheerfully acquiesced. This was the key Mr. 
 Wilson held to the war situation. It would 
 have unlocked, without forcing, ihe door to 
 peace. One month of such treatment as this 
 would have brought haughty Britain both to 
 her knees and to her senses. 
 
 There were several periods, during the course 
 of the struggle, even within a few months of its 
 
 [97] 
 
inception, that the lock stood ready for the key. 
 Key in hand, Mr. Wilson stood hesitating, while 
 millions of mortals were being driven, like 
 helpless cattle, to the slaughter. 
 
 Starvation is ruthless warfare, even when 
 confined to a belligerent garrison, but who can 
 measure the atrocious villainy of an attempt, 
 in order to win physical supremacy, of the 
 starving of the men, women and children of an 
 entire nation? 
 
 Can any mortal even calculate the thousands 
 upon thousands of infants who went to their 
 graves more cruelly, and with more certainty, 
 than if they had been within the range of the 
 infernal British guns, than those countless in- 
 nocent children of Germany? 
 
 There never was a cause so just, since men 
 came on the earth, that required such fiendish 
 means to establish it, as the wholesale starving 
 of innocent women and children, of a village, 
 much less an entire nation. 
 
 Upon looking behind the scenes in Germany 
 to-day and observing the horrible results of the 
 gradual starvation of one entire nation by an- 
 other — the thousands of starving infants vainly 
 striving to extract sustenance from the emaci- 
 ated and impoverished breasts of mothers — 
 mothers who were refusing food that they 
 sorely needed in order that seed might be sown 
 for another harvest — old men dropping by the 
 wayside, ending life so that their offsprings 
 might live, dying as surely by this act of war 
 of the enemy, as soldiers in battle, and then 
 profane if you will, the name of Christ by call- 
 ing this Christian warfare, or the nation Chris- 
 tian that is so incarnate a fiend as to employ it. 
 It is in deed and truth the crowning infamy of 
 
 [98] 
 
war, a nation turning savage, multiplying the 
 Black Hole of Calcutta ten thousand times. 
 
 This was the method of warfare that Britain 
 had to employ, if she hoped, even by years of 
 effort, to obtain peace by victory. 
 
 But never in the history of mankind was ret- 
 ribution so swift, so appalling, and so deserved 
 as that which found expression in the submarine, 
 by which Germany, through what might almost 
 appear a gift of Providence, was placed in a 
 position, barring outside interference, to break 
 asunder the ever-tightening chains that were 
 slowly, but surely, crushing out the lives of non- 
 combatant men, women and children of Ger- 
 many. Britain's was a crime against humanity ; 
 cruel, merciless and monstrous; and Germany's 
 answer, terrible though it was, must be justified 
 in that, "necessity knows no law." 
 
 When Great Britain first adopted the star- 
 vation method for humbling her enemy, America, 
 although profiting from the war and sympa- 
 thizing generally with Britain, was compelled, 
 both as a matter of business and of conscience, 
 to protest against Britain's inhumanity. It will 
 be of interest now to examine a fragment of the 
 protest that was made against that inhuman 
 method of warfare. 
 
 The Literary Digest, March 13th, 1915 : 
 
 ''Continued protest against invasion of our 
 rights by any of the belligerents and continued 
 effort to bring about an understanding between 
 England and Germany, which will mitigate the 
 sufferings of neutral commerce, are urged by 
 many American editors in the situation pro- 
 duced by the starvation decree issued by the 
 two chief belligerents in Europe. In official 
 circles in Washington, there is a feeling as re- 
 flected by the correspondents, that "it will be 
 
 [99] 
 
impossible to induce Great Britain to make any 
 material changes in her plans she has announced 
 in starving Germany." '' Germany's doom is 
 sealed ; we will starve her out, ' ' says the French 
 Minister of Marine. 
 
 The New York World: 
 
 ''A blockade is a very definite thing, but to 
 notify the world in general terms that com- 
 merce with Germany is forbidden, without de- 
 claring a blockade and accepting its responsi- 
 bilities, amounts to a declaration that neutrals 
 as well as belligerents are involved in war. If 
 German submarine warfare is piracy, this law- 
 less British warfare also is piracy." 
 
 The New York Evening Post : 
 
 ''Such a frank repudiation of international 
 law and of a treaty will go far to rob England 
 of the moral superiority which she appears to 
 have had at the beginning of the war. ' ' 
 
 The New York Globe : 
 
 ''If neutral countries do not lay embargoes 
 on their commerce with Germany, as the Allies 
 prescribe, then the Allies are to enforce what 
 appears to be a blockade against these neutral 
 countries." 
 
 The Washington Post : 
 
 "The effect of the new law will be to drive 
 off the ocean all commerce except commerce 
 with the Allies. Our duty is to make such a de- 
 termined protest to England as shall be heeded. 
 This protest shall take the form of an ultima- 
 tum, or it may actually result in war. But even 
 that is preferable to being dragged into war on 
 account of our cowardly failure to enforce our 
 neutrality. ' ' 
 
 The Post, later on, asks : "Would the German 
 Government take pains to feed the prisoners of 
 war, first, while Germans themselves were 
 
 [100] 
 
starving?" And adds : ''In a short time it will 
 become apparent that Great Britain has made a 
 gigantic blunder by thus antagonizing the 
 peaceful nations of the world. Her plan is un- 
 workable for two reasons; first, the Allies will 
 not permit their soldiers in Germany to be 
 starved, which would be necessary and inevita- 
 ble if Britain's blockade should be effective ; and 
 secondly, the neutral nations of the world will 
 not permit their commerce to be destroyed. 
 They will go to war against Great Britain, if 
 nothing short of war will break her grip on the 
 ocean. ' ' 
 
 The Literary Digest in taking note of public 
 opinion in the United States, on March 20th, 
 1915, says : ' ' Indignant denunciation is pouring 
 in on Britain's long-range blockade of Ger- 
 many. Editorial observers call it an indefensi- 
 ble misuse of sea power, international bullying, 
 and a new form of piracy. ' ' 
 
 Boston Globe: 
 
 ' * England imposes her decree by no right, ex- 
 cept the right of might." 
 
 Pittsburgh Leader : 
 
 ''The right sort of reprisal would be to stop 
 shipments of all kinds from the United States, 
 which would put an end to the war in a way that 
 perhaps some folk in Europe have not figured 
 on." 
 
 New York Morning Telegraph : 
 
 "Count Bemstorf has a right to ask United 
 States to obey the spirit of neutrality and cease 
 selling powder and balls and cannon to Great 
 Britain while it would not send food to Ger- 
 many. Does any man of sense need to be told 
 that Bernstorf, when he filed his note of pro- 
 test, did not act within his rights. On the face 
 of it, though claiming to be neutral, we are 
 
 [101] 
 
favoring the Allies, as Count Bernstorf as- 
 serts," 
 
 The sentiment, as reflected in the above edi- 
 torials, although pointing the way in which 
 their President might proceed, shows clearly 
 that America was more bent on her own material 
 interests being conserved than the protection 
 of innocent women and children of Germany 
 against the inevitable results of barbaric piracy. 
 In America's indignant protests against the 
 lawlessness of Britain, in this instance, we can- 
 not find any more evidence or traces in the dic- 
 tates of humanity, aside from self-interest, than 
 when subsequently she resorted to war, as the 
 result of the destruction of her commerce by 
 German submarines. 
 
 Had America been strictly neutral, in thought 
 as well as in act, she would have seen unmistak- 
 ably, that German lawless submarine warfare 
 came as a direct result of British lawless mis- 
 use of sea power — lawlessness employed in or- 
 der to overcome a form of lawlessness which 
 had for its object the destruction of millions of 
 innocent non-combatants; and not committed 
 for the purpose of affronting the American 
 people. 
 
 To the protests of America, Britain turned a 
 deaf ear. She announced emphatically, that her 
 piracy would go on. America, therefore, was 
 placed in a position where she had to go to war 
 to maintain her neutral rights — or accept the 
 conditions as laid down by England, as a lesser 
 of two evils. Going to war to protect her com- 
 merce at that particular time would have been 
 unthinkable; unless she added to self-interest 
 the higher one of humanity — the protection of a 
 nation against starvation. In either case, war 
 was not either her remedy or her weapon. For- 
 
 [102] 
 
tunately, she had within her reach the means 
 by which Britain could be brought to reason 
 more quickly than by the use of armies or 
 navies — she could cut off temporarily, food, 
 clothing and war materials. But Mr. Wilson 
 did neither one nor the other. He saw in Brit- 
 ain's sea methods, autocracy in its most irri- 
 tating and objectionable form — cold, merciless, 
 destructive and uncompromising. Its power 
 for evil, for self-aggrandizement, for one-sided 
 punishment, was more than duplicating the 
 power of the worst despot on any throne of 
 Europe. Yet he could not see that this was a form 
 of autocracy that had to be crushed in order to 
 make the world safe for democracy. As yet the 
 beautiful dream of making the world safe for 
 democracy had not flitted through the Presi- 
 dent's brain. That ''inspired" conception took 
 possession of the soul of Woodrow Wilson upon 
 the refusal of Germany to stay the submarine 
 warfare, which warfare was jeopardizing Amer- 
 ican commerce, commerce which was employed 
 exclusively by Britain in Grerman destruction. 
 
 How a war, that was threatened, and after- 
 wards declared, for the purpose of protecting 
 profits and commerce, and could have been 
 avoided if these profits and commerce had been 
 left intact, could be turned into a holy war for 
 principle and humanity, is beyond all human 
 understanding and will remain for all time one 
 of the absurdities of history. 
 
 America's grievance against Germany was 
 set forth in plain and specific terms. She was 
 accused of destroying American shipping. If 
 the two countries were to remain friends, this 
 must be discontinued. If discontinued, Amer- 
 ica and Germany would continue in their his- 
 toric friendship; if persisted in, war would re- 
 sult. A purely business proposition. 
 
 [103] 
 
No *' sacred" principles were even hinted at, 
 much less anticipated. In plain English, the 
 proposition was, ''continue to sink our ships 
 and we will be at war, refrain and America and 
 Germany will remain at peace. ' ' 
 
 Long after the invasion of Belgium and the 
 thousands of atrocities credited to Germany, we 
 find Mr. Wilson making the following declara- 
 tion (December 8th, 1914) : "This is a war with 
 which we have nothing to do, whose causes can- 
 not reach us, whose very existence affords us 
 opportunities of friendship and disinterested 
 service which should make us ashamed of any 
 thought of hostility." 
 
 The pertinent question, then, naturally arises, 
 why should America have genuine hostility 
 against Germany in 1916, for the invasion of 
 Belgium and the atrocities that were re- 
 ported when Belgium and France were first 
 occupied, when on December 8th, 1914, with a 
 full knowledge of the invasion of Belgium, 
 coupled with rightful information regarding 
 atrocities, he tells his people that they should 
 be ashamed to have any thought of hostility? 
 
 Again, on December 7th, 1915, seven months 
 after the "Lusitania" had been sunk, he tells 
 Congress that, "we have stood apart, studiously 
 neutral. It was our manifest duty to do so." 
 
 Again, on September 2nd, 1916, after observ- 
 ing Europe's conflagration for two long years, 
 Mr. Wilson, in accepting the Democratic nom- 
 ination, re-affirmed his previous declarations 
 and gave assurance to the American people, 
 that if elected for a second term to the Presi- 
 dency, he would in the interests of the American 
 people, and the interests of humanity, continue 
 to lead his people in the paths of peace and neu- 
 trality. He gave them assurance, with as com- 
 
 [104] 
 
plete knowledge as was possible for any man 
 to possess as to who was guilty for bringing on 
 the war, with a knowledge of the particular 
 selfish interests that each party had in the strug- 
 gle, with a knowledge of Britain's inhuman pro- 
 gram of the starving of an entire nation and 
 with an appreciation of Germany's terrible 
 method of warding off the impending calamity 
 which this starvation method had in store for 
 her. 
 
 These peaceful utterances on the part of the 
 President were received with both confidence 
 and approval by the people of the country ; and 
 as a result of this confidence and approval, and 
 in obedience to the slogan, "he kept us out of 
 the war," Mr. Wilson owes his election for a 
 second term. 
 
 American history fully bears out the conten- 
 tion that some of her presidents have shown 
 traits and characteristics during their second 
 and last term of office which were not in evi- 
 dence during their first term. Having no fear 
 of the disapproval of the electorate, an inde- 
 pendence of action is noted — often bordering on 
 kingly autocracy. At the fag end of his first 
 term of office, and particularly preceding the 
 election of 1916, Mr. Wilson was the soft- 
 tongued neutral ; but no sooner was he installed 
 in office for the second term, than he gave the 
 world to understand that Mr. Wilson's ideas 
 and ideals were to prevail — not those of the 
 American people. 
 
 Mr. Wilson, almost over-night, assumed a de- 
 cidedly belligerent, partisan, and uncompro- 
 mising attitude. As yet he was not inspired by 
 the necessity of fighting to make the world 
 safe for democracy. That came later, during 
 the flood-tide of the Wilsonian platitudinous 
 
 [105] 
 
exuberance which well nigh engulfed the world 
 in a tidal wave of words. What he really en- 
 tered the war for was to make safe the Atlantic 
 for American ammunition ships which were des- 
 tined for British ports, but ultimately for the 
 body of the German soldier, and also to make 
 safe British passenger vessels which carried the 
 American flag at their masts and in their holds, 
 shot and shell which would ultimately blow the 
 German defenders into eternity. 
 
 ''Sink our vessels and there will be war, re- 
 frain from so doing and we will be friends." 
 That was the height and full measure of Wil- 
 son's war aims on April 18th, 1916, nearly two 
 3^ears after the European war broke out and 
 Belgium was over-run, one year after the Lusi- 
 tania was sunk, and with nearly two years of 
 full knowledge of both Germany's aims and 
 objects, and her war record. 
 
 The fires for humanity had not yet been 
 kindled in Wilson's heart — as yet we detect 
 nothing but sordid, commonplace self-interest. 
 
 In what was practically an ultimatum to Ger- 
 many, Mr. Wilson in 1916 says: ''Unless the 
 imperial German government shall now imme- 
 diately declare and effect an abandonment of its 
 present methods of submarine warfare against 
 passenger and freight carrying vessels, the gov- 
 ernment of the United States can have no choice 
 but to sever diplomatic relations with the Ger- 
 man Empire altogether." 
 
 Had Germany acquiesced in Mr. Wilson's 
 ultimatum, America would probably not be 
 wearing the halo of glory she is to-day, in having 
 fought and won the war to make the world safe 
 for democracy; which brought peace to the 
 world — a peace which is now beyond all under- 
 standing 1 
 
 [106] 
 
Not only did Woodrow Wilson cause America 
 to enter the war for purely local and selfish 
 reasons; and in doing so, Mr. Wilson wilfully 
 and grossly misrepresented the German govern- 
 ment. On February 3rd, 1917, Mr, Wilson an- 
 nounced to Congress the breaking off of diplo- 
 matic relations, in the following language: ''I 
 think you will agree with me, that in view of 
 this declaration, which suddenly and without 
 prior instruction of any kind deliberately with- 
 draws the solemn assurance given by the Im- 
 perial Grovernment 's note of the 4th of May, 
 1916, this government has no alternative con- 
 sistent with the dignity and honor of the United 
 States, but to take the course which, in its note 
 of the 18th of April, 1916, it announced that it 
 would take in event that the German govern- 
 ment did not declare and effect an abandon- 
 ment of the methods of submarine warfare 
 which it was then employing and to which it 
 now purposes again to resort." 
 
 In this Mr. Wilson flatly accuses Germany of 
 deliberately breaking a solemn assurance given 
 to this country regarding future submarine war- 
 fare. Germany gave no such solemn assur- 
 ance. She made it plain that her permanent 
 withdrawal was contingent. Germany express- 
 ly stated that, as evidence of good faith, she 
 would discontinue certain submarine practices, 
 provided Britain would refrain from her acts 
 of piracy. She asked America in the meantime 
 to use her influence through either friendship or 
 pressure to have Great Britain discontinue her 
 particular piratical warfare, a warfare at which 
 the submarine methods were directed. After 
 keeping her word, which was contingent, and 
 waiting several months, Germany announced 
 that she would meet piracy with piracy — she 
 
 [107] 
 
would figlit the devil with fire — she would sink 
 all commerce destined for her enemy, no matter 
 from what source it came. 
 
 The remarkable outcome of this controversy 
 was now culminating, and consisted in the fact 
 that although Britain inaugurated piracy on 
 American commerce, which meant the sinking of 
 American ships if British sea orders were not 
 obeyed and which only received a reprimand 
 from America, we find now that America is will- 
 ing to make war on Germany for interfering 
 with American commerce although Germany is 
 not doing this by reason of any animosity for 
 America but in order to save herself from de- 
 struction from the result of Britain's illegal 
 warfare. Had America been fair and firm in 
 the beginning in her treatment of British viola- 
 tion of international law, the world in all prob- 
 ability would have been saved the horrors of 
 submarine warfare as employed against mer- 
 chant vessels and America would not have been 
 called upon to expend either her blood or treas- 
 ure. There is no question that it was Wilson's 
 indecision and partiality, in the early stages of 
 the war, that prolonged the struggle, put com- 
 promise out of the question, and brought Amer- 
 ica into the war. 
 
 There is no question that there were many 
 periods during the course of the war when Ger- 
 many would have been willing to end the strug- 
 gle, without loss or gain of territory, or without 
 giving or receiving indemnity. 
 
 The same thing may be said of Great Britain 
 when the hopelessness of the struggle and its 
 appalling costs were appreciated; provided a 
 strong outside force were injected, which would 
 excuse her in the eyes of her associates and at 
 the same time save her pride. 
 
 [108] 
 
It is also true, needless to say, that if either 
 belligerent were winning, it would not listen 
 to outside suggestion or dictation. 
 
 Necessity is the mother of invention, as it is 
 also a law unto itself. After repeated warnings 
 to Great Britain and appeals to the United 
 States, Germany decided to use the submarine, 
 which must rightly be termed David's sling 
 against an arrogant Goliath. 
 
 A few days of this warfare changed, as if by 
 magic, the whole military situation and it be- 
 came evident to even a novice, that the old, 
 world-champion, the hero of a thousand fair and 
 unfair fights, was becoming groggy and sinking 
 under the terrible blows delivered beneath the 
 belt which he was receiving in return for the 
 foul blows that he had delivered from the very 
 beginning of the fight. It became evident to 
 his relatives and friends and business associ- 
 ates, that something must be done, and done 
 quickly, to save the old warrior from a knock- 
 out. 
 
 America as a whole, in some respects, would 
 not waste any sentiment in this regard even if 
 they saw Britain prostrate in the ring, but they 
 feared the prospective champion. America, in 
 this, was very much in the same frame of mind 
 as is reported of a New York politician who had 
 deserted the Democratic party on the free silver 
 issue and joined the Republicans. Later he re- 
 turned to the Democratic fold. On being ac- 
 cused of insincerity and on being asked for an 
 explanation of his conduct, replied that, '4ie 
 would rather trust the boss he knew than the 
 boss he did not know." 
 
 If America was going to have a sea-power boss, 
 she would rather trust the boss who had become 
 benevolent in the long use of autocracy than 
 
 [109] 
 
one wiiom she mistrusted as being a rising aspi- 
 rant to world rule, and whose graciousness she 
 doubted. 
 
 When Great Britain announced that she in- 
 tended to have the contest decided by purely 
 physical means, and in pursuance of that pur- 
 pose elected to use foul means for its accom- 
 plishment, she was, considering the resourceful- 
 ness, disposition, and desperation of her oppo- 
 nent, treading on dangerous ground. In mak- 
 ing her decision, she stupidly and persistently 
 undervalued the submarine. 
 
 If this *'no compromise" slogan of Britain's 
 did not stir President Wilson to action, it cer- 
 tainly must have caused him some uneasiness, 
 even in the early stages of the struggle. He 
 surely must have entertained the possibilities of 
 defeat for Britain. Justly or unjustly, the 
 American people would not allow Britain's sub- 
 jugation at the hands of the Germans. Mani- 
 festly not. Even though Great Britain richly 
 deserved punishment — even defeat — there is no 
 question but Mr. Wilson would use his high 
 office to save her from that humiliation. There- 
 fore, Mr. Wilson must have entertained even 
 from the opening of hostilities, the possibility 
 that America would have to enter the struggle 
 to save Britain from destruction. If that was 
 true, it is evident that America had an implied, 
 if not a legal or moral obligation to see that 
 Britain was not overcome. And Britain's reck- 
 less purpose of making this a "finish fight" 
 with all the possible evil consequences for her, 
 was she not assuming this attitude of bravado 
 largely for the reason that she knew, or at least 
 felt confident, that did defeat at any time stare 
 her in the face, America would step in to avert 
 the impending calamity? True, America had 
 
 [110] 
 
not signed a bond to save Britain; but, never- 
 theless, there existed an implied bond, stronger 
 than the written bond, the bond of blood, of lan- 
 guage, and of mutual interests. 
 
 Considering these outstanding facts and con- 
 ditions and the danger and responsibility for 
 America that lurked in Britain's reckless and 
 extravagant war aims, was it not Mr. Wilson's 
 manifest duty, as well as his right, to bring in- 
 telligent pressure on Britain, to the end that she 
 modify her method of warfare as well as her 
 war aims? 
 
 In the event that Great Britain refused rea- 
 sonable advice, it was Mr. Wilson's duty im- 
 mediately to take up the question with Ger- 
 many, looking to making an honorable peace 
 settlement ; a settlement conceived in a spirit of 
 justice and proffered to all belligerents with 
 scrupulous regard for impartiality. 
 
 Considering all the known facts relating to the 
 causes which produced the war, keeping in 
 mind that each came into court with hands 
 more or less unclean, each clearly having ob- 
 jects of a selfish nature in view, the only possi- 
 ble peace terms that could be consistently urged 
 by Mr. Wilson, would be on the basis of no in- 
 demnity, no territory, or no advantage to any 
 belligerent, with the exception that Germany 
 compensate Belgium for invasion, etc. 
 
 Viewing the whole question at that time with 
 a view to justice and expediency, or looking 
 back at the present time with a full knowledge 
 of all the happenings and events, a peace on that 
 basis would, in time, have met the approval of 
 mankind. 
 
 Had Germany refused such a peace program 
 as that, it would have been evident to Mr. Wil- 
 son that she was out for conquest and not for 
 
 [111] 
 
defense, and he could, with a clear conscience, if 
 he chose, throw support to the ''boss he knew 
 rather than the boss he did not know. ' ' 
 
 On the other hand, had Germany agreed to 
 these terms and Britain refused, Mr. Wilson 
 could have, and should have, in order to bring 
 Britain to fairness and sanity, cut off all sup- 
 plies from her. In this he would have had the 
 approval and support of a majority of his coun- 
 trymen, of neutral nations generally, as well as 
 a majority of the peoples who made up the bel- 
 ligerent nations. 
 
 Instead of taking action and employing the 
 power and prestige at his disposal, he frittered 
 away precious months in "watchful waiting" — 
 a catchy and euphonious phrase for the absence 
 of plan or lack of initiative. 
 
 Mr. Wilson drifted on this course until Ger- 
 many, through necessity, perfected a weapon so 
 terrible in its nature for destruction, so far- 
 reaching in its possibilities, that it not only 
 answered piracy by piracy, but if allowed to 
 continue, meant Britain's do^vnfall and the tri- 
 umph of Germany — Avith all that might mean 
 for America and the world. 
 
 With this new weapon in her hand and victory 
 now a probability, with hatred for her enemies 
 and contempt for America, is it to be wondered 
 that Germany now withdrew all peace overtures 
 which she had proffered from time to time ? 
 
 America's opportunity for bringing about 
 peace had passed; and now, in order to save 
 Britain from defeat, she had to fight. America's 
 decision had brought her into a frightful di- 
 lemma. She was compelled, if she entered at 
 all, to be entwined in the coils and meshes of 
 the Entente. Their individual war aims Amer- 
 ica could not repudiate, lest one of them should 
 
 [112] 
 
drop out; those principles that she considered 
 just and fair, she could not announce without 
 offending her new associates and weakening 
 their fighting spirit: and in order to meet the 
 dilemma, Mr. Wilson resorted to high sounding, 
 and at times meaningless, phrase making, senti- 
 ments which could be interpreted in as many 
 different ways as humanity possessed different 
 brain idiosyncrasies. To the Englishman he 
 was a brother, to the Frenchman a friend and 
 to the Russian and Jap he was a comrade in the 
 sacred cause of democracy against autocracy, to 
 the German people he posed as their would-be 
 deliverer and to the German rulers he was the 
 wrath of God. 
 
 The truth is, he entered the war to save Amer- 
 ican shipping from destruction and to save 
 America's chief debtor from defeat. 
 
 Now that America was in the war, ''Democ- 
 racy" was to be the slogan and Wilson its 
 prophet. To each of Mr. Wilson's lofty dec- 
 larations and pronouncements his new Euro- 
 pean and Asiatic associates reverently bowed 
 and said "Amen — ^we agree with every word of 
 that, whatever it means." Unfortunately for 
 Mr. Wilson, innocent and guileless prophet, in- 
 experienced and callow diplomat, unfortunately 
 for him indeed, that the Entente were not at 
 the time required to put in black and white 
 their conception of what they really did under- 
 stand as to the meaning and purport of Mr. Wil- 
 son's declarations. Indeed, it was not until 
 Germany was defeated, and until he met his vic- 
 torious friends in Paris, that he discovered to 
 his horror that his "14 Points" were only con- 
 sidered by the experienced and resourceful 
 statesmen of England, France, Italy and Japan, 
 as being juvenile first exercises in diplomacy; 
 
 [113] 
 
and democracy, as they understood it, consisted 
 in appropriating everything of value in sight, in 
 accordance with traditions and practices of the 
 honorable statesmen with whom Mr. Wilson 
 had, so fortunately for democracy, America and 
 the world, cast his lot. 
 
 As a result of this ' ' peace ' ' meeting Mr. Wil- 
 son returned to America, like Moses from the 
 Fair, with a case of green spectacles, in the 
 form of a peace treaty, an instrument which 
 would do credit and honor to Bismarck, Na- 
 poleon the First, Alexander or Caesar. 
 
 Thus to their long list of crimes the Allies 
 added the heartless one of taking advantage of 
 pastoral innocence, pedagogic statesmanship 
 and democratic simplicity, venturing abroad in 
 obedience to the dictates of vanity and the in- 
 cipient dreams of ambition. 
 
 All thinking men know that there was a time 
 during the progress of the war when Woodrow 
 Wilson could have dictated to his associates the 
 terms for a just and lasting peace ; there was a 
 time when we could have had the freedom of 
 the seas, gradual disarmament, made provision 
 for a right disposition of the German colonies, 
 reconciled Italy and secured relief for all time 
 from the Japanese menace. The time for dic- 
 tating that peace to our associates was when 
 they were depending on America's aid to save 
 them from defeat — the time was not when Ger- 
 many lay prostrate at the feet of her enemies 
 and when the Allies cared not the snap of their 
 fingers for further American aid. 
 
 Surely Mr. Wilson realized in his heart of 
 hearts as he sat at the Paris Council Table and 
 as he witnessed the independence and greed on 
 every hand that there was a vast difference in 
 dealing with men fighting wdth their ''backs to 
 
 [114] 
 
the wall" and the same group of men when they 
 had become exulting victors. 
 
 The service that these world leaders per- 
 formed for mankind and the peace which they 
 evoked, I will attempt to set forth and describe 
 in another chapter. 
 
 [115] 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 A Further Consideration of Inconsistency, 
 Insincerity and Gtuilt 
 
 It is no idle prediction that history will ap- 
 portion a large share of the guilt of bringing 
 on the World War to Great Britain, France and 
 Russia; and in addition to this, the almost 
 equally dastardly crime of prolonging the war 
 beyond reasonable bounds will be credited to 
 Great Britain, France and America. 
 
 While it is true America will be held guiltless 
 of contributing in any way to initial war causes, 
 yet there are two outstanding facts that the most 
 superficial observer is compelled to note: — 
 (1) That although America did not win the war, 
 yet the Allies could not have won without Amer- 
 ican aid. (2) Had America remained neutral, 
 in thought as well as in deed, and had not 
 favored the Allies and given them undue encour- 
 agement from the beginning, there is no ques- 
 tion that a compromise peace would have re- 
 sulted — and that at no distant time from the 
 outbreak of the war. 
 
 Nio matter what the ambitious military leader- 
 ship of the Central Powers or the Entente held 
 at the beginning of the War, it is safe to pre- 
 sume or even assert that within ninety days of 
 its inception there was not a general of repute 
 on either side who saw anything ahead but a 
 long-drawn out struggle. It simply resolved 
 itself into a question of resources. The astute 
 military leaders of Germany undoubtedly real- 
 ized that if with their fighting machine as per- 
 fect and as powerful as they ever could hope 
 
 [116] 
 
to have it, and that complete success did not 
 result within a reasonable length of time, they 
 certainly could not hope to have success either 
 in the immediate or distant future. 
 
 Each side, therefore, was compelled to meas- 
 ure resources. Germany's resources were well 
 defined, circumscribed, and to all appearance 
 ample only for defense. Whether for the rea- 
 son that she had given up hope of victory, or 
 for reasons of a sincere desire for peace, Ger- 
 many early in the struggle made overtures for 
 bringing the conflict to a close. These offers 
 were branded insincere, particularly by Great 
 Britain ; principally for the reason that a com- 
 promise peace — a peace which should leave 
 Germany no weaker and Britain no stronger — 
 did not suit the British leaders. But whether 
 these peace proffers by Germany were sincere 
 or were not, may be a debatable question ; but 
 the fact remains, and that fact will be to the 
 eternal credit of Germany, that she did offer 
 repeatedly to meet her opponents face to face 
 for the purpose of settling their differences ; and 
 the Entente Allies, to their reproach, made no 
 offer to end the war on any basis but that of 
 victory. 
 
 But what were the factors which compelled 
 Great Britain to cast aside the peace proffers 
 of Gennany and which induced her to continue 
 the fight until a complete physical victory had 
 been attained? Was she not building largely 
 on American support — that support which was 
 outwardly given, and that even greater support 
 which was secretly promised? In this will not 
 American leadership be held guilty of a crime 
 against humanity — almost as great as the crime 
 of starting the war, namely, the heartless crime 
 of contributing to the continuation of the strug- 
 
 [117] 
 
gle, months, if not years, beyond when the con- 
 flict should have ended naturally? 
 
 How this great, peaceful American giant was 
 brought into the conflict, unwillingly — blinded 
 and led by pygmies and parasites- — robbed and 
 bled, will be a subject that will not be exhausted 
 by writers and investigators for generations to 
 come. No subject in all history will surpass 
 this in human interest — it will remain one of 
 the outstanding absurdities of history — an 
 enigma and a paradox. 
 
 Long before the Lusitania was sunk, or before 
 the submarine became a factor in the war — 
 American diplomatic and financial interests 
 were at work to swing this country into the 
 war on the side of the Entente Allies. There 
 were two important moves to that end — one 
 staged in Paris and the other in Washington. 
 
 In the fall of 1914 when the great German 
 fighting machine became ''stalled" midway be- 
 tween the French frontier and Paris, the Ger- 
 man leaders made direct proposals for peace to 
 France. They knew that France realized more 
 than any of her associates that she would be the 
 one that would be "bled white," win or lose. 
 Her soil would be the battle ground, while Rus- 
 sia and Great Britain would remain practically 
 free from invasion. There is no question that 
 Germany did not expect France to desert her 
 associates and make a humiliating, dishonora- 
 ble and separate peace; but she certainly did 
 expect that France would bring pressure of a 
 legitimate kind on her allies to make them see 
 what it meant for France and the world to en- 
 deavor to crush the German fighting machine — 
 a taste of its formidable character they had 
 already experienced. Diplomatic America be- 
 came aware of this move, no doubt through in- 
 
 [118] 
 
formation supplied by Great Britain, and 
 instead of taking advantage of this psychologi- 
 cal situation to end the carnage in Europe, they 
 made inducements to France to continue the 
 struggle, pledging America's aid — not only 
 money, but men as well. 
 
 So, late in the fall of 1914 we find Myron T. 
 Herrick, who had been appointed Ambassador 
 to France by President Taft, William G. Sharp, 
 who had been appointed by Wilson to take Her- 
 rick 's place as Ambassador, and Robert Bacon, 
 representing the Morgan interests, closeted 
 with the high officials of France ; and it was at 
 this meeting that France was induced to reject 
 Germany's proposal for a peace conference, and 
 when the promise was given, if France would 
 fight on, that America would be brought into the 
 struggle. We have this information on no less 
 authority than Gabriel Honotaux, a former Min- 
 ister of Foreign Affairs of the French Republic 
 and a man high in the councils of France. 
 
 How America was ''blackjacked" into the 
 war by these men and Wilson will never be 
 adequately told, but enough is known and com- 
 ing to the surface daily to form a chapter in 
 American history which will bring the blush of 
 shame to those who are possessed of either 
 national pride or a sense of right and justice. 
 
 In a very general way, in a former chapter, I 
 alluded to those dark forces which were put in 
 operation to force America into the war. In 
 this chapter I will use more detail in outlining 
 this remarkable procedure. 
 
 Shortly after the secret meeting in Paris 
 which we have just alluded to, there was held in 
 the City of Washington, as a direct result of 
 the Paris meeting, a gathering of men whose 
 object was to control public opinion in this 
 
 [119] 
 
country by the direct and indirect purchase of 
 the press, and through this to intimidate public 
 men, as well as private citizens; and to make 
 it appear, through the barometer of the press, 
 that the sentiment of America was rapidly 
 shaping itself to enter the war on the side of 
 the Entente Allies. 
 
 There attended at this secret meeting in 
 Washington within a few months after the war 
 began a number of financial magnates, diplo- 
 mats, representatives of foreign nations, and 
 large newspaper proprietors. These men real- 
 ized that not five per cent of the American 
 people had any taste in taking part in Europe's 
 sordid commercial war; but it was firmly held 
 by such publicity experts as were in attendance 
 that the sum of forty millions of dollars would 
 be suificient to purchase the press, obscure the 
 issue, silence adverse criticism, scatter lies 
 broadcast, and turn the peace-loving American 
 people into bloodthirsty fanatics. As to some 
 of the details of how the will of this meeting was 
 carried out, the reader may consult the Con- 
 gressional Eecord of February 9th, 1917 — infor- 
 mation that the subsidized press never gave to 
 their readers. 
 
 Surely no one will question that in the fall of 
 1914 there was little war sentiment in the 
 United States — particularly at the time these 
 men, who at the Paris meeting pledged Ameri- 
 can blood and treasure to France, Roosevelt, 
 for instance, had not yet seen the '' enormity" 
 of the Belgian invasion, for we find him, long 
 after the invasion, holding the opinion that 
 ''what had been done in Belgium had been done 
 in accordance with M^hat Germany unquestion- 
 ably sincerely believed to be the course of con- 
 duct necessitated by Germany's struggle for 
 
 lifp " 
 
 ^"®' [120] 
 
But a decided newspaper ''sentiment" was 
 rapidly taking form as the agents of the AVash- 
 ington meeting, to which I have referred, got 
 down to definite and substantial action. Roose- 
 velt, the astute politician, was, I think, de- 
 ceived by this showing of war sentiment as ex- 
 pressed in the press. No doubt he was not 
 aware of what means had been taken to create 
 this sentiment — mistaking the artificial for the 
 real. As usual, he had his ear to the ground. 
 The tremors that came to his sensitive and edu- 
 cated ear were not from popular cries for war, 
 but from the ravings and rantings of the paid 
 and subsidized press. 
 
 To all appearance Wilson was neglecting to 
 take advantage of this war sentiment. But he 
 of all others was in a position to know the arti- 
 ficial nature of this sentiment — and he contented 
 himself to bide his time until sufficient of the 
 real article were produced — and the time oppor- 
 tune to show his true colors — to turn from 
 neutral grey to fiery red. 
 
 For once in Mr. Roosevelt's career that as- 
 tute gentleman failed to see beneath the surface 
 — he failed to see the inner workings of the 
 ' ' game. ' ' Assuming that Wilson was not taking 
 advantage of favorable political tradewinds, 
 Roosevelt concluded to spread his own droop- 
 ing political sails, hoping thereby to regain some 
 of his lost popularity — if not his former posi- 
 tion. He frantically and repeatedly struck 
 what he perceived to be the popular war chord 
 — but it did not respond to either his gentle 
 touch, or the swing of the big stick. 
 
 The fact is there was no sentiment to respond. 
 Every test that was made pointed to the fact 
 that there was no real war sentiment anywhere 
 in the country. Mr. Bacon endeavored to win 
 
 [121] 
 
the nomination for the United States Senate in 
 the State of New York on what was practically 
 a pro-war program — but met with disastrous 
 defeat. Even much later than this, in 1916, a 
 poll was taken in the House of Representatives 
 on the question '*Do you favor war with Ger- 
 many ? ' ' and only three representatives voted in 
 favor of war. Even after America entered the 
 war many anti-war adherents questioned Mayor 
 Mitchel's activity in war affairs, and as a re- 
 sult the New York mayoralty campaign devel- 
 oped into but one issue — war and anti-war. 
 Mr. Roosevelt told the electors of New York 
 and the world that a vote for Mitchel was a vote 
 to endorse the war ; and a vote for his opponent 
 meant a vote opposing the war. Mitchel was 
 buried under an avalanche of votes — in every 
 section of the great city. Early in 1916 a reso- 
 lution was submitted to the United States Sen- 
 ate and voted down by five to one — ''That the 
 sinking by a German submarine without notice 
 or warning of an armed vessel of her public 
 enemy, resulting in the death of a citizen of the 
 United States, would constitute a just cause for 
 war between the United States and the German 
 Empire. ' ' 
 
 Neither did the young manhood of the coun- 
 try show any burning zeal to enter the sordid 
 struggle — even at a time when all knowledge of 
 war causes and war guilt were at their disposal. 
 From April, 1917, to April, 1918, there were not 
 enough volunteers come forward of their own 
 free will sufficient to hold three miles of battle- 
 front ; and this in face of every conceivable form 
 of propaganda, and at the frantic entreaty of 
 men like Roosevelt, Root, and many others of 
 weight and importance; and they did not come 
 forward until they were forcibly driven in like 
 sheep. ^i2g-j 
 
So for once, Mr. Roosevelt struck the wrong 
 chord — and therefore failed to get a response 
 to his liking. His failures were attributed to 
 two things: (1) Mistaking the artificial for the 
 real sentiment of the country; (2) That the peo- 
 ple generally deemed him inconsistent — if not 
 insincere. 
 
 Had he not, in a measure, condoned the G-er- 
 man invasion of Belgium, and in addition to 
 this, had he not stated two months after the war 
 began that "It is certainly desirable that we 
 should remain entirely neutral"? When he 
 made the sudden change he did not even have 
 the sinking of the "Lusitania" for a reason. 
 
 The most charitable thing that may be said 
 of Mr. Roosevelt's position in the war contro- 
 versy is that it was both unintelligible and in- 
 consistent. 
 
 The arguments that Mr. Roosevelt indulged 
 in when he became a pro-ally partisan were 
 typical of the arguments that were used from 
 time to time by those who insisted that America 
 should enter the war; and the basis for these 
 arguments, might well be casually examined in 
 this chapter. 
 
 It was urged against Germany that she had 
 been preparing for forty years, a great fighting 
 machine, which was deemed a menace to the 
 peace of the world, and which had been assem- 
 bled for the purpose of world-conquest. 
 
 During the period of the war, and since, 
 thousands of people in a parrot-like way, voiced 
 their sentiments regarding Germany's war 
 guilt by repeating the threadbare remark : ' ' That 
 Germany for fifty years was preparing for a 
 world war. ' ' So far as these parrot-like individ- 
 uals are concerned, this thoughtless and superfi- 
 cial view settled the whole matter, without 
 
 [123] 
 
regard to any other consideration. The follow- 
 ing consideration of the subject is not intended 
 for the benefit of these parrots — for parrots 
 never learn — but rather for the rising genera- 
 tion who may approach this great subject with- 
 out prejudice, and only in quest of the truth. 
 
 For instance, these human parrots were not 
 told by Mr. Roosevelt, or Mr. Root, or Mr. 
 Choate, or the paid press, that Premier Asquith 
 of England in January, 1914, more than six 
 months before the war began, delivered his 
 soul of the following regarding Germany's mil- 
 itary preparedness: ''iTlie German army is 
 vital to the very life and independence of the 
 German nation, surrounded as Germany is by 
 other nations each of which possesses armies 
 almost as powerful as her own." 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George expressed practically the 
 same view. Surely these men are in a position 
 to qualify as experts in these matters ; and their 
 opinion on this subject should receive more 
 weight than that of a million ordinary propa- 
 ganda mongers. 
 
 Now, let us examine the question consistently. 
 Germany has been accused of preparedness. Is 
 that a crime? Let us see. Mr. Roosevelt has 
 preached preparedness — so has Mr. Asquith 
 and Mr. Lloyd George. They have claimed that 
 if a nation makes itself formidable no one will 
 wantonly attack that nation. Therefore, if that 
 rule be true, how could Germany render herself 
 free from attack without preparedness! Or, is 
 it that preparedness in Britain and the United 
 States is a national virtue, and in Germany a 
 crime ? 
 
 But it has been said that Germany had been 
 preparing for nearly fifty years for the World 
 War — with that very definite thing always in 
 * [124] 
 
view. According to this tribe of critics (and 
 their nnmber is legion)-, Germany immediately 
 after 1871 began her plans for world conquest. 
 It is held by military authorities that owing to 
 new inventions and general deterioration, war 
 equipment becomes to a great degree obsolete 
 every ten years. If the claim of Germany's 
 enemies be true, namely, that she had been pre- 
 paring to cast her thunderbolt for forty-four 
 years — then it must be admitted that Germany 
 prepared at least four times during that time, 
 and saw her stupendous exertions come to 
 naught. 
 
 The fact is that there never has been a year 
 since 1880 that Germany, relatively speaking, 
 has not been in a position to carry on war 
 against France and Russia as successfully as in 
 1914; and there were several occasions — if 
 world conquest were her aim — that she could 
 have started with twice the probability of suc- 
 cess as in 1914 — notably at the time when Great 
 Britain was engaged in crushing the Boer Re- 
 public, and also when Russia's fighting force 
 was grappling with Japan on the shores of the 
 Pacific. 
 
 If we admit that preparedness was not a 
 crime on Germany's part, and if we agree with 
 Mr. Roosevelt that Germany, due to untoward 
 circumstances, was justified in seeking a pas- 
 sage through Belgium, then it is difficult to see 
 what reason Mr. Roosevelt, for instance, should 
 liave had for the condemnation of Germany and 
 the espousal of the cause of the Entente, partic- 
 ularly during 1915. It may be ventured that the 
 sinking of the ''Lusitania" afforded a reason. 
 Owing to not knowing the truth, there is no 
 question that thousands were incensed at Ger- 
 many for this act ; but certainly Mr. Roosevelt, 
 
 [135] 
 
or Mr. Choate, or Mr. Root must have been in 
 possession of the knowledge that the "Lusi- 
 tania ' ' was a munition ship ; and that her vast 
 cargo of explosives was thought to have rendered 
 her safe from attack owing to the presence of 
 women and children on board. Had not Great 
 Britain held that the necessities of war made 
 it imperative that she starve Germany into sub- 
 mission — knowing that thousands of innocent 
 women and children would be the victims of that 
 procedure? Germany, in order to save herself 
 from destruction, was compelled to announce 
 that she would sink any ship, no matter of what 
 character, that contained war material which 
 would ultimately be used to slaughter her sol- 
 diers. In each case came the slaughter of the 
 innocents. 
 
 But how could any sane man, much less one 
 possessing the mental acumen of Mr. Roosevelt, 
 find it in his heart to condemn one country, un- 
 der these conditions, and laud the other, is be- 
 yond human understanding. In looking at this 
 question now, with authentic knowledge in our 
 possession regarding the " Lusitania, " we are at 
 a loss to characterize as the most infamous 
 those war promoters who sought to safeguard 
 the shipments of munitions under cover of in- 
 nocent women and children, and the government 
 officials, high and low, who persistently falsified 
 the facts by declaring that no munitions were in 
 the hold of the ' * Lusitania. " 
 
 As time went on, Mr. Roosevelt became more 
 and more belligerent; more anti-German and 
 quite pro-British. He now condemns Germany 's 
 preparedness, although he recommends extreme 
 preparedness for America; he roundly de- 
 nounces the invasion of Belgium and character- 
 izes the sinking of the ' ' Lusitania ' ' as butchery ; 
 
 [126] 
 
he can see nothing good in Germany, and holds 
 Great Britain np, not only as a model, but as a 
 savior of mankind. 
 
 Mr. Roosevelt's course in the war was typical 
 of that of many leading men, and no doubt in- 
 fluenced public opinion in America, and to some 
 considerable extent throughout the world. It 
 is, therefore, quite interesting to discover, or to 
 attempt to discover, what produced so decided a 
 change in Mr. Roosevelt's war views within a 
 period of six months from September, 1914. 
 The only outstanding event during that time 
 was the sinking of the "Lusitania," a subject we 
 have just discussed. 
 
 For instance, on September 28th, 1914, two 
 months after the invasion of Belgium, and while 
 the papers were filled with accounts of German 
 atrocities, we find Mr. Roosevelt delivering him- 
 self of the following, as published in the Out- 
 look: 
 
 "I am not passing judgment on Germany's 
 action I admire and respect the Ger- 
 man people. I am proud of the German blood 
 in my veins. When a nation feels that the 
 issue of a contest in which, from whatever 
 reason, it finds itself engaged will be national 
 life or death, it is inevitable that it should act 
 so as to save itself from death and to perpet- 
 uate its life What has been done in 
 
 Belgium has been done in accordance with 
 what the Gemians unquestionably sincerely 
 believed to be the course of conduct necessi- 
 tated by Germany's struggle for life." 
 After reading this paragraph, written as it 
 was at one of the most important periods of the 
 war, and taking this in conjunction with Mr. 
 Roosevelt's course later, we are compelled to 
 add to the crime of insincerity that of another, 
 which is best conveyed by the luminous words of 
 
 [127] 
 
Lincoln : — ''The man who will not consider botk 
 sides of a question is dishonest." 
 
 That there were two sides to the German inva- 
 sion of Belgium, two sides to the sinking of the 
 '^Lusitania," two sides to atrocities, two sides to 
 the submarine controversy, two sides to Ger- 
 many's preparedness, and, finally two sides to 
 the guilt of starting the war Mr. Roosevelt, of 
 all men, should have known. 
 
 Yet in the face of these facts, Mr. Roosevelt 
 took an uncompromising stand against Ger- 
 many, practically turning face-around from the 
 position he took during the first months of the 
 conflict. 
 
 No finer tribute could be paid any people than 
 that paid the Germans by Mr. Roosevelt, as 
 heretofore quoted. No doubt he would have 
 rendered the same generous tribute to the peo- 
 ple of England or of France. It may be urged 
 that it was German leadership that he suddenly 
 feared. If so, he was still on unproven ground. 
 For nearly the whole lifetime of Theodore 
 Roosevelt, was not Germany's record for keep- 
 ing the peace "as clean as a hound's tooth;" 
 while the hands of her opponents were con- 
 stantly, in season and out of season, steeped in 
 human blood. 
 
 Take the record of Great Britain, whose cause 
 he found in his heart to espouse, constantly at 
 war, stifling in the most cruel and bloody way 
 any opposition to her imperial will. 
 
 How could Mr. Roosevelt with a clear con- 
 science anticipate German world rule, of which 
 he had no positive knowledge, and overlook the 
 brutal world-rule of Great Britain, existing un- 
 der his own eyes, as exemplified by Ireland and 
 India! Did he not see the people of Ireland 
 held by Great Britain as a subject and conquered 
 
 [128] 
 
people, by no principle known to individual, na- 
 tional, international or universal law! Did lie 
 not realize that Ireland was entitled to her full 
 and complete freedom on the two great princi- 
 ples underlying all true nationality — ^^namely, 
 the ethnological, as well as the geographical! 
 Did he not loiow that India was kept in complete 
 bondage by Great Britain, in opposition to the 
 national aspirations of three hundred millions 
 of people whose aspirations were just as legiti- 
 mate as the national aspirations of Roosevelt 
 himself! Had he any more reason to fear 
 "German character" when it comes to world 
 domination — if it ever were intended to come to 
 world domination — than the "British charac- 
 ter" which Mr. Roosevelt's fellow Nobel prize 
 man — the sweet singer of India — Dr. Tagore, 
 was compelled reluctantly to describe as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 "Ever since my arrival in London I have 
 been so much surrounded by crowds of people 
 that correspondence has become well-nigh, im- 
 possible. From all I see and hear I now un- 
 derstand one thing very clearly, more clearly 
 than ever before, that at present we are fully 
 and fatally under the heels of the carnivorous 
 English. They are overbearingly powerful. 
 .... At the time of the frightful English 
 atrocities in the Punjab last year I thought 
 that they might have been purely accidental, 
 due mainly to grotesque panic. But from the 
 official reports of the parliamentary debates 
 on the subject, I now thoroughly realize that 
 that savagely callous brutality permeates 
 every particle of blood that flows in their 
 veins, and is indelibly ingrained in the very 
 marrow of their bones. Some of these human 
 beings here have even admired the blood- 
 soaked feats of General Dyer as ^splendid 
 [129] 
 
brutality.' In this connection I have been 
 more than shocked at the revolting signs of 
 blood-thirsty ferocity amongst even the 
 women of England. The time has come when 
 we must be thoroughly convinced that we 
 have nothing, absolutely nothing, to expect 
 from the British government and the British 
 people. To expect anything from them is to 
 insult one's own self. So long we were under 
 the hj^pnotic spell of the seductive phantoms 
 of the hope that they will give and we receive. 
 They were to be the givers and we the beg- 
 gars. But we are lucky indeed that they are 
 not capable of making gifts. For gifts ruin 
 the weak sooner and easier than deceit. If 
 we were strong, if we were powerful, then 
 acceptance of gifts could not make us small, 
 could not shrink our souls. Every great na- 
 tion accepts gifts from others. It is like ac- 
 cepting taxes. The one who has always gets. 
 The king ever gets, but the beggar never. 
 So even death is better for us than to extend 
 our hands to receive gifts from such a people 
 as the British." 
 
 The above is true of British leadership as now 
 constituted, as constituted in 1914 when the 
 great war was staged, and as has been consti- 
 tuted for centuries. Yet Mr. Roosevelt, by some 
 peculiar mental process (if we exclude political 
 ambition) brought himself to see that all right 
 was on Britain's side, and all wrong on the 
 side of Germany. 
 
 In judging between these nations, had Mr. 
 Roosevelt forgotten recent history — had he for- 
 gotten that when America was struggling to 
 free herself from the shame of slavery that 
 Great Britain, in every conceivable way, stifled 
 her efforts? It is unnecessary here to recall 
 these things; but it is proper to mention that 
 
 [130] 
 
Great Britain refused to loan America money 
 on that occasion — refused even to list American 
 bonds. And it remained for Germany to make 
 the necessary loan of millions to this country. 
 Not only this, but Germany contributed in 
 many ways to relieve America from the results 
 of her devastating" civil war. If Mr. Roosevelt 
 forgot the kindness of Germany in 1863, Mr. 
 Lincoln's administration did not, for we find 
 Mr. Seward, then Secretary of State, instructing 
 the American Minister at Berlin as follows : — 
 ''You will not hesitate to express assurance of 
 the constant good will of the United States 
 towards the Iring and the people who dealt with 
 us in good faith and great friendship during the 
 great trials through which Ave have passed. ' ' 
 
 In implicitly following British leadership in 
 the war, and urging his fellow citizens to that 
 course, was not Mr. Roosevelt losing sight of a 
 very important event in recent Anglo-American 
 history — an event which showed clearly the 
 character of not the "Beast of Berlin," but 
 rather the beast of London ? Did he forget when 
 the British lion sought to press her bloody paws 
 on the throat of Venezuela and was only driven 
 from her prey by Grover Cleveland, who was 
 compelled to deliver what was practically a war 
 ultimatum before the beast was driven otf I 
 
 Leopards cannot change their spots, but 
 wolves have been known to appear in sheeps' 
 clothing — but usually it is children, not men, 
 who are deceived thereby. 
 
 But how clearly even the children of America 
 were made to see Germany's ulterior intentions 
 and her manifest guilt and her unmistakable 
 program for world conquest, by such men as Mr. 
 Roosevelt! Did not her national motto — her 
 slogan — ''Deutchland Ueber AUes," prove it? 
 
 [131] 
 
How forcibly, how timely, and how intelligently 
 this phase of German's apparent guilt was 
 brought home to the American people! 
 ''Deutchland above all" was certainly ominous 
 and Hunnish; and the future historians when 
 they compare this evil slogan with those em- 
 ployed by Great Britain and America will un- 
 doubtedly otfhand be convinced of Germany's 
 guilt, and they will then understand what in- 
 duced many Americans to enter the contest 
 against her ! Compare, if you will, that modest, 
 ethical, considerate, and Christian slogan of 
 Christian America — ''America first;" or that 
 equally modest and Christian of our late ally — 
 "Rule Britannia." 
 
 It is reputed that a * ' popular divine ' ' of Win- 
 nipeg, Canada, declared from the pulpit that an 
 Ally uniform would be a direct passport to 
 heaven. If there were any question regarding 
 this, there certainly should have been none had 
 Great Britain and America taken the precaution 
 to have their mottoes or slogans emblazoned on 
 their soldiers' imiforms — "America First" and 
 "Rule Britannia." As the war made the por- 
 tals of Heaven a very busy place — this would 
 have facilitated matters, making it more easy 
 for St. Peter to separate the sheep from the 
 goats. 
 
 To narrate the shortcomings of Theodore 
 Roosevelt, now, to some of the American people 
 would be as cruel and heartless as to tell chil- 
 dren that there is no Santa Clans. Nationally, 
 we have not yet reached the level of a normal 
 sense in this country. We are young yet ; and 
 at times somewhat childlike. We still demand 
 a hero, or a victim. The only difference is, we 
 demand a live victim and are content with a dead 
 hero. 
 
 [132] 
 
Theodore Roosevelt realized that for a time 
 he possessed the love and affection of the Amer- 
 ican people perhaps to a greater degree than 
 did any other American in our history; but he 
 afterwards saw that love turn to cold ashes — 
 and that long before his untimely end. Ameri- 
 ca's love for Theodore Roosevelt was not con- 
 stant — it burst into a flame and then died down 
 — almost going out — and now we see the after- 
 glow, stimulated by memory which recalls noth- 
 ing but virtue, exalted manhood and nobility of 
 soul. In the presence of the fresh broken earth, 
 all else is forgotten. 
 
 Now that Theodore Roosevelt has passed into 
 history, his life belongs to mankind. Like all 
 great lives, it is an inheritance — but one that 
 must be appraised. Its sentimental value must 
 pass away in the presence of cold, calculating, 
 stem analysis. 
 
 I do not purpose judging Roosevelt the man, 
 or Roosevelt the statesman by his world-war 
 record. All great men have their inherent 
 weaknesses. The larger the diamond, the more 
 liable we are to find a flaw. Many are the 
 things that wreck virtue. The blazing jewel, 
 the sweet nectar of flattery, place and power — 
 all these sway the human lieart and deflect it 
 from its true orbit. 
 
 Roosevelt was possessed, as perhaps no other 
 American, with an overpowering sense of the 
 divine right to rule. When he was relegated to 
 private life it was as though a huge dynamo was 
 detached from the intricate machinery of Amer- 
 ican life. When the war came on, Roosevelt, 
 like a mighty engine, puffing and panting, was 
 on a side-track. 
 
 Wilson's neutrality was Roosevelt's appar- 
 ent opportunity. Was not eighty per cent of 
 
 [133] 
 
America, Entente in sympathy, and did they 
 not need a leader? Thus reasoning, Roosevelt 
 soon was on his way. 
 
 But America, although sympathetic, had not 
 yet lost the sense of discernment. They saw 
 Roosevelt, overnight, turn from neutral grey 
 to partisan red. How could thinking people 
 reconcile his burning zeal (when but a day previ- 
 ous he was the neutral) and that in the face of 
 recent events — such as the recent swallowing of 
 Egypt by Great Britain, the invasion of neutral 
 China by the Allied forces, the coercion of 
 Greece and the ruthless destruction of neutral 
 commerce, not mentioning the vaunted program 
 of his new-found friends which had for its in- 
 famous object the starvation of the women and 
 children of an entire nation? 
 
 This chapter has to do quite as much with 
 insincerity as with guilt. In reviewing this 
 question of insincerity, one cannot overlook the 
 war activities of such an outstanding figure as 
 the late Joseph H. Choate. 
 
 When the war began, Mr. Choate has passed 
 the allotted years of life, was rich in human 
 experience, possessed the power as few others 
 of his countrymen possessed, of not only analyz- 
 ing but weighing human motives and human 
 forces as well. When the war broke out, Mr. 
 Choate was United States Minister to Great 
 Britain. It will be remembered that the United 
 States immediately declared its neutrality. But 
 Mr. Choate was anything but neutral. Even so 
 early as October 8, 1914, we find him writing an 
 introduction for a book by Professor Cramb 
 (Professor of Modern History, Queen's Col- 
 lege, London), entitled "Germany and Eng- 
 land." This book was made up of a series of 
 lectures delivered by Professor Cramb which 
 
 [134] 
 
sought to show that Germany was shaping herself 
 for a war on Great Britain. Mr. Choate in this 
 introduction warmly supports Great Britain, 
 decries Germany, and among other things, says : 
 * ' It is truly an imperial contest between the Ger- 
 man Empire of the future, that is to be won only 
 by war, and the British Empire, whose chief 
 interests now and in all the future is peace 
 throughout the world. ' ' 
 
 That is very fine and sounds exceedingly well, 
 but Mr. Choate in a former page has set forth 
 Britain's title to the great empire (one-fifth the 
 world's surface), which she now seeks to hold — 
 in peace. Mr. Choate clearly shows that the 
 peace that Great Britain now seeks is the peace 
 that the robber, content now to hold his ill- 
 gotten gains, desires. Mr. Choate remarks: 
 ''Since the days of Frederick the Great, while 
 England, largely by force of arms, has extended 
 her imperial power all over the world, Germany 
 has remained cooped up within her narrow 
 boundaries, with inadequate access to the sea, 
 and without room for her rapidly increasing 
 population. ' ' 
 
 So Mr. Choate, already on borrowed time, is 
 willing (God only knows why) to stultify him- 
 self by coming to the defense of a people who 
 created an empire by force of arms and who 
 now hold title to much of this empire by force 
 of arms ; and he now joins with those who decry 
 as criminal the aspirations of another people 
 for legitimate world expansion — an expansion 
 that has become necessary by reason of in- 
 creased population. And Mr. Choate had for- 
 gotten that these people who sought legitimate 
 expansion (if they did seek expansion) re- 
 ceived the following certificate of character 
 from the same Professor Cramb whose book Mr. 
 
 [135] 
 
Choate lauds. Professor Cramb says: ''And 
 let me say with regard to Germany that of all 
 England's enemies, she is by far the greatest; 
 and by 'greatness' I mean not merely magni- 
 tude, nor her millions of soldiers, her millions 
 of inhabitants, I mean grandeur of soul." 
 
 The leaders of the Entente Allies and their 
 associates accomplished that which they claimed 
 would make the world a decent place to live in — 
 namely the crushing of Germany. The peoples 
 of the world for two long years have been look- 
 ing for the promised healing, peace — but no one 
 has discovered any signs of healing or any evi- 
 dences of the coming of that new world for 
 which sacrifices of blood and treasure, without 
 parallel, were made. 
 
 Could the deluded peoples of France, Great 
 Britain and America have imagined that the 
 following verse should be written two' years 
 after the close of the war^ — after the "great 
 victory" had been won — regarding one of their 
 sons who was given as a sacrifice, and these 
 lines written by an Englishman to the "Un- 
 known Soldier" whom England endeavored to 
 honor by placing his remains alongside of her 
 Immortals. 
 
 "T/ie Unknown Man" 
 
 (It is proposed to bury an "Unknown Man" 
 in Westminster Abbey, on November 11, as the 
 typical hero and patriot) : 
 "Unknown he died; unknowing lived, maybe; 
 
 The dupe of men more worldly-wise than he. 
 
 He knew not by what craft he was betrayed 
 
 To fight in wars that selfish hearts had made ; 
 
 Nor knew the cause of that curst strife, nor 
 knew 
 
 ri36] 
 
It was his very brother-man he slew. 
 Now slain, the folk who sent him to his doom 
 Acclaim him Hero, mock with pompous tomb. 
 On Unknown Man their idle grief bestowing: 
 Must we not rather mourn the Man Unknow- 
 ing?" 
 
 There is not a statesman in London or Paris 
 or Washington, who does not know that the at- 
 tempt at the strangulation of Germany, as em- 
 bodied in the Treaty of Versailles is one of the 
 outstanding causes of world unrest today; and 
 has been the principal factor in keeping world 
 wounds open and inflamed, and therefore ren- 
 dering them incurable. This knowledge is of 
 no avail to mankind generally for the reason 
 that it is secretly and cowardly held and en- 
 tertained, and scarcely whispered even to inti- 
 mates and associates less the holders of these 
 views might be deemed pro-German. The false 
 propaganda forces which were let loose in order 
 to win the war for the Allies have created a 
 condition of mind generally which renders it 
 inexpedient, not to say dangerous, for world 
 leaders to tell the plain truth, now that truth is 
 so necessary, so essential and so vital. 
 
 Lloyd George knows, Clemenceau knows, and 
 Wilson, if he be in full possession of his facul- 
 ties, knows, that before we can have world peace 
 and world health the evil that they perpetrated 
 in Paris must be destroyed — that the poisons 
 that they injected into world wounds must be 
 removed. 
 
 Neither the peace of the victors nor the 
 league of the conquerors can stand. The sober, 
 reasserted conscience of America, for instance, 
 has unmistakably announced that it will have 
 nothing to do with these unclean things. The 
 
 [137] 
 
toilers of all lands are awakening to the enor- 
 mity of this capitalistic and imperialistic crime. 
 
 In this chapter, I propose calling attention, 
 briefly, to those immediate things which must be 
 done, or more strictly speaking, undone, before 
 we can even approach a condition of peace which 
 shall contain any of the elements of permanency. 
 
 In seeking to trace world discontent to its 
 source — or more strictly speaking, sources — it 
 may be of some purpose, among other things, 
 to mention the case of Russia as proof of the 
 condition of mind of present world statesman- 
 ship by which we are clearly shown that evil 
 passions have taken possession of world leader- 
 ship, and the actions of these leaders differ in 
 no degree from their predecessors of one hun- 
 dred or five hundred years ago. It is the same 
 old story of tyranny and revenge which has 
 blinded all of them to everything excepting an 
 insatiable desire to feed on the morbid pleasures 
 that emanate from their power to inflict pun- 
 ishment and execute vainglorious passions. 
 
 Never have we had so striking and so illumi- 
 nating examples of history repeating itself as 
 in some of the main features of the late war. 
 We have many exact reproductions of actions 
 and events of bygone days — illustrating to the 
 full that human nature (in so far as world lead- 
 ership is concerned) does not change — that even 
 under the skin of a Wilson you find flowing the 
 blood of a George the Third. 
 
 The dastardly treatment of Russia by Great 
 Britain, France and America is but a repeti- 
 tion of the inhuman and illogical treatment of 
 France by Great Britain in 1793; when as a 
 result (and for no other reason) of the destruc- 
 tion of the French monarchy, Great Britain cut 
 off all diplomatic relations with France, laying 
 
 [138] 
 
the foundation for a hateful struggle of twenty- 
 five years' duration, and which cost thousands 
 of lives and millions in treasure, not counting 
 hatred, which even a century and a quarter has 
 not obliterated. 
 
 France, at that time, in no way had attacked 
 England, as at the present time Russia cannot 
 be charged with attacking either Great Britain, 
 France or America, or in fact, any of her neigh- 
 bors. It was simply a case of Great Britain 
 interfering in the internal concerns of a for- 
 eign country, without the slightest shadow of 
 justification. George III and his ministers did 
 not like the form of government that France 
 had adopted (as England, France and America 
 to-day do not like the form of government Rus- 
 sia has adopted) in the place of a monarchy. 
 The war with France was brought on to dis- 
 courage, if not kill, the progress of democratic 
 institutions in Europe. It was a war of opin- 
 ions, not one of either territory or other ag- 
 grandizement. 
 
 In order to carry out this wicked program, 
 every force, subterfuge and expedient known to 
 the tyrant was adopted; as every force, mean, 
 low and diabolical has been resorted to by Eng- 
 land, France and America, in order to strangu- 
 late Russia, while that unfortunate country is 
 undergoing and suffering the pangs of a new 
 birth. 
 
 The great war was a tragedy without parallel. 
 History will never apportion the exact guilt 
 to those responsible for this human convulsion. 
 The same thing cannot be said regarding the 
 responsibility for the two sickening tragedies 
 that are now being enacted before our very 
 eyes — enacted, not in the moment of passion, 
 but in cold blood, namely, the attempt at the 
 
 [139] 
 
 10 
 
strangulation of the German people by means 
 of the so-called peace treaty ; and the suffocation 
 of newborn Russia, at the hands of the same 
 criminal leadership. 
 
 Fortunately, there are evidences on every 
 hand, that the conscience of mankind is awaken- 
 ing to the appalling heinousness of these crimes. 
 America was the first to repudiate the whole 
 nefarious business; and consign to oblivion the 
 man who so grossly misrepresented them, and 
 misled them as well. 
 
 Now that America has spoken and given her 
 verdict on the war, the peace, and Wilson (not 
 speaking of little Grreece that has just repudi- 
 ated Allied leadership and all it stands for), we 
 may now hope for the beginning of the work of 
 real world reconstruction. 
 
 Before closing this chapter I will attempt to 
 outline a few important things which must be 
 done in order that the debris may be cleared up 
 and a firm foundation for universal peace estab- 
 lished. 
 
 The first consideration of the subject of world 
 reconstruction will of course be a scrutiny of 
 the League of Nations. It is unnecessary to 
 state that no world reconstruction can be accom- 
 plished without a loyal and sincere co-operation 
 by the whole family of nations. 
 
 We have, at present, a so-called League of 
 Nations; but to all intents and purposes it is 
 only a league of the conquerors — a league, 
 primarily to conserve what the Allies won as a 
 result of the war. 
 
 If a league of nations is desirable, it should 
 not be a league of the conquerors or an associa- 
 tion (with America's aid) to conserve that 
 which was won by the victors. It should be, 
 primarily, organized for the purpose of pro- 
 
 [UO] 
 
moting peace throughout the world on a basis 
 of fair play and justice. In that case the Peace 
 Settlement should have been arrived at and 
 ratified by the whole league and not by the vic- 
 tors. Such a conclusion should have been reached 
 in an open world court in which Germany 
 should have been heard, and in which the ques- 
 tion of general guilt should have been passed 
 upon, and not behind closed doors where only 
 one side could be heard. 
 
 Owing to the barbaric injustice of the peace 
 teiTns it is evident to a novice that there is no 
 incentive for the German people to get to work. 
 Under the terms, Germany is compelled to give 
 all her savings for the next thirty years to her 
 enemies; and in addition to this, she must live 
 on one-half what she formerly lived on, giving 
 the balance to the victors. But this is not all. 
 Germany cannot get financial assistance from 
 the outside world owing to the fact that any in- 
 crease that might result from the use of foreign 
 capital will be appropriated by the Reparation 
 Commission ; and no benefit will go to the pres- 
 ent generation of Germans, much less being left 
 in a position to return the borrowed money with 
 interest. 
 
 The sooner the world looks this hopeless con- 
 dition squarely in the face, the better for the 
 world (and by that I include Great Britain and 
 France). 
 
 Without delay, a world court should be es- 
 tablished and its first business should be to in- 
 quire into war causes, war guilt, and individual 
 responsibility ; and then decide on what repara- 
 tion, if any. 
 
 If the Entente Allies show a disposition to 
 take a sane view of the situation and will be 
 content to abide by the decision of a full world 
 
 [141] 
 
court, and if they show an earnest desire to 
 aid in true world reconstruction, I would rec- 
 ommend that the United States cancel her ten 
 billion dollar claim against Europe. Broadly 
 speaking, if Germany is in a position to pay, 
 and is compelled to pay thirty billion dollars to 
 the Allies, then it is certain that Great Britain 
 and France are in a position to pay ten billion 
 to America; but if one cancels, all should can- 
 cel. 
 
 There are a number of appealing reasons why 
 the United States should cancel this ten billion 
 dollar debt. (1) If (for world peace) cancel- 
 lations become the order of the day. (2) If, as 
 Roosevelt and other leaders claimed, be true, 
 that Great Britain and France from the opening 
 of the war were heroically fighting America's 
 battles and making her secure from future at- 
 tack by Germany, then this ten billion dollars, 
 and much more, should have been contributed 
 to the Allies as just compensation. (3) This 
 ten billion dollars scarcely represents the blood 
 money profits of America during the first two 
 years of the struggle. (4) The repayment of 
 so vast a sum will go far to impoverish Europe 
 and will add nothing to our own material com- 
 forts or necessities. Europe cannot pay us in 
 money. And even if she did, that w^ould not add 
 to our real wealth, as in order to get value for 
 it, we would have to re-spend it again in Europe. 
 Europe will have to pay us in products. 
 For years to come Europe will be purchasing 
 more from us than we will purchase from her. 
 Therefore, this ten billion dollars will be in- 
 creasing yearly and may reach the grand total 
 of twenty billion dollars before it is liquidated. 
 But what will happen when Europe decides to 
 pay this claim I We will have to accept billions 
 
 [142] 
 
of dollars of her products in excess of our ex- 
 ports. That might all be very good if each indi- 
 vidual American received an equal share of 
 such importation — but that would not be the 
 case. The fact is that while this debt would be 
 in process of repayment (in products), Ameri- 
 can factories to that extent would be idle, and 
 our workingmen out of work. If we resort to a 
 high protective tariff, for relief, then we can 
 keep these products out ; but if we do, then how 
 is Europe to pay us? Under the world's pres- 
 ent economic system, immense foreign credits 
 such as these, particularly by an exporting na- 
 tion, should be considered a liability instead of 
 a true asset. The difficulty regarding these 
 colossal debts is that they are generally not paid 
 by the generation contracting them, but left to 
 oncoming generations — with perhaps the excep- 
 tion of the interest. The hatred of the creditor 
 by the debtor is ever present — as it will be in 
 this case — let us make no mistake about that. 
 There is not an American who will lose a meal 
 by the cancellation of this debt; but there are 
 millions in Europe who will go hungry while it 
 is being paid. And I will declare further, that 
 if America insists on its re-payment, owing to 
 our peculiar economic system, thousands will 
 go hungry in this country, by being thrown out 
 of work, while Europe sends the result of her 
 labor to cover the payment. 
 
 From the very beginning of the war America 
 held the key to peace. That key was economic. 
 She failed to use it ; and was content to revel in 
 blood money profits. She still holds an eco- 
 nomic key which may yet unlock the door to 
 peace. Will she use it? 
 
 [143] 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 The Peace op Versailles 
 
 Strange though it may appear, the great mass 
 of the peoples of the world, vaguely fought for 
 ideals. This is quite as true of Germany as of 
 Britain, or America. No country had a monop- 
 oly of spirit, or good intention. The peoples of 
 no country, the day before the war began, 
 wanted the property of another. They fought, 
 first of all, and mainly, against the possibility 
 of foreign aggression — for home and fireside. 
 In pursuit of this, the Grermans felt that they 
 had to invade Belgium and attack France ; and 
 later the American people, with much less rea- 
 son, brought themselves to believe that they 
 were called upon to sacrifice their sons, on for- 
 eign soil, 3,000 miles from home, in order to 
 protect their country from some future attack, 
 vague and ill-founded though the possibility of 
 that might be. First of all, the laudable ideal 
 for which they all fought, as has been stated, 
 was for the preservation and the protection of 
 home and country. As the conflict progressed, 
 new ideals, particularly in America, were in- 
 jected; and soon the warriors on both sides be- 
 gan to feel that they were engaged in a sacred 
 cause — even to the hastening of Christ's King- 
 dom on Earth. 
 
 To-day, after the conflict has subsided, the 
 German, still confident of the righteousness of 
 his position, is quite at a loss to interpret this 
 so-called decree of Providence, and on looking 
 over the whole field, is beginning to suspect 
 that it is not a final decree, or even a decree at 
 
 [144] 
 
all, but only a painful chapter in a great volume, 
 a volume that contains many chapters ; and per- 
 haps in the last chapter the final decree shall 
 be set forth, even in words that all nations may 
 understand, words that will burn like fire into 
 the hearts and conscience of mankind. 
 
 And what of the victors? How do they fare 
 in mind and estate since tlie war closed! 
 
 Compare to-day, if you will, with Armistice 
 Day, that riotous culmination of brute force, 
 that orgy of sensuous emotions, that heathen 
 war-dance of the nations around the flickering 
 embers of a dying civilization, that fitting cul- 
 mination of lies, deceit, hatred, malice and 
 blood-lust; and then ask yourself why all this 
 change in spirit, if not in understanding? 
 
 Was there ever since the world began so 
 complete a disillusionment! Was ever bread in 
 the hand, so mysteriously turned to stone, or 
 the rainbow of promise turned to a thunder- 
 cloud or gold to dross, as since one-half of the 
 world, by physical force, successfully crushed 
 and enslaved the other half of God's creation — 
 Grod's handiwork — God's own sons and daugh- 
 ters. 
 
 To-day, the world sees nothing but the tri- 
 mnph of brute force and its evil fruits — a curse 
 alike to the victor as well as the vanquished. 
 
 As to whether Britain's starvation methods 
 of warfare or Wilson's ideality contributed 
 most to break down German resistance and 
 compelled her to surrender, I will not here dis- 
 cuss ; but I will venture to say, that history will 
 bear me out, that the President's pronounce- 
 ments betrayed the German people, and wit- 
 tingly or unwittingly assisted in causing them 
 to be delivered, body and soul, into the hands 
 of the most rapacious and soulless diplomatic 
 
 [145] 
 
robbers that ever imposed their lustful will on 
 a vanquished people. 
 
 The American President transformed himself 
 into the serpent, not a serpent with two eyes, 
 but with fourteen, each of which he used not 
 only to charm, but to captivate. He crawled 
 into the German home, where poverty, destitu- 
 tion and despair reigned supreme; and he 
 promised better things ; peace of mind and body, 
 and that beyond even the understanding; he 
 crawled into the trenches and seduced by his 
 honeyed words and fair promises the scarred 
 grim veterans, who stood for months and years 
 immovable, before the onslaught of a united 
 world. 
 
 He promised them bread — but he gave them a 
 stone — he held out hope — but left them in mor- 
 tification and despair. 
 
 In no sense, or in no particular, is the so- 
 called Peace Treaty in accordance w^ith Mr. 
 Wilson's promises and stipulations — promises 
 that were acquiesced in by Britain and France, 
 and upon which Germany consented to lay 
 down her arms. 
 
 It must be remembered that the Germans did 
 not surrender unconditionally; but expressed 
 themselves as willing to end the war on the 
 basis of President Wilson's Fourteen Points. 
 In order that there might be no misunderstand- 
 ing regarding this, the President addressed a 
 note to Germany, asking them to make it plain, 
 beyond conjecture, that they would lay down 
 their arms and end the struggle on the basis of 
 his Fourteen Points. Germany made it clear, 
 in her reply, that this was her understanding 
 and intention. It will be remembered that up to 
 this time Britain and France had allowed the 
 world to understand that Mr. Wilson was the 
 
 [146] 
 
accredited and official spokesman for those 
 forces which were at war on Germany. Now 
 that Germany was about to capitulate (and that 
 due in a large measure to the operation on the 
 German mind of the Fourteen Points), Great 
 Britain and France immediately insisted on 
 adding two new conditions for the cessation of 
 hostilities; one of which completely nullified 
 Mr. Wilson's "Freedom of the Seas" stipula- 
 tion, and the other had to do with reparation, 
 which subsequently proved another name for 
 indemnities, by which the Allies were able to 
 crush Germany, both politically and commer- 
 cially. 
 
 It is true, that the task of putting Mr. Wil- 
 son's Fourteen Points into a concrete agree- 
 ment would be almost as impossible as it would 
 be to harness a rainbow, or set forth in terms of 
 business the Milky Way ; yet after all, no well- 
 intentioned man, even one without experience 
 in diplomacy, could fail to understand, not only 
 the substance, but the spirit of Mr. Wilson's 
 deliverances. Friend and foe alike knew that 
 these stood for the rights of man; for better 
 world relations, and for the exaltation of jus- 
 tice. Lloyd George undoubtedly understood 
 Wilson's message to mankind. The force of 
 these utterances may even at least have tem- 
 porarily punctured the skin and entered the 
 dry bones of Clemenceau — that evil spirit of a 
 dead past. 
 
 Yet, Wilson's was the light that failed — failed 
 in the darkest and most tragic hour since the 
 creation of the world — at the cmshing and dis- 
 memberment of a great nation and a great 
 people. 
 
 All will agree that the representatives of the 
 nations assembled in Paris had the greatest 
 [147] 
 
opportunity of any group of men during all 
 time, of placing the affairs of the world on a 
 sound and enduring basis and laying the foun- 
 dation for an international peace and good will 
 which would stand the test of time. Then, what 
 were the causes which produced so unhappy an 
 ending to that which promised so much for 
 mankind? There were many contributing fac- 
 tors; the chief of which was the helpless and 
 impotent condition of Germany owing to the 
 complete and overwhelming victory of the 
 Allies, due to American intervention. With all 
 resistance broken down, a one-sided peace is 
 inevitable. A victor, in that case, may go any 
 distance that hate and greed may dictate. An 
 unbeaten army in the field although incapable 
 of victory, makes for compromise — and com- 
 promise in nine cases out of ten more nearly 
 balances justice than a complete victory of 
 one of the participants, particularly if it be a 
 physical victory. 
 
 Mr. Wilson's original formula, ''Peace with- 
 out Victory," would have prevented this peace 
 catastrophe, had it been logically and consist- 
 ently adhered to ; but peace by victory, not only 
 placed Germany in a position where she could 
 not resist injustice, but it also placed Mr. Wil- 
 son and his precious Fourteen Points in just 
 as impotent a condition as Germany; for the 
 reason that with Germany out of the way and 
 not to be feared, America was of no further use 
 to Britain and France — a fact which the Presi- 
 dent soon discovered when the Versailles Con- 
 ference got down to serious, practical business. 
 
 Being apprehensive regarding placing both 
 Germany and America in the power of the 
 Allies, under conditions named, I wrote the Ad- 
 ministration and leading members of Congress 
 
 [148] 
 
regarding our danger; pointing out that we 
 were valued by Britain and France only so long 
 as we were needed by them and useful to them, 
 and if we allowed Germany to be beaten before 
 definite war settlement conditions were arrived 
 at, America would have no influence at the 
 Peace Table, and that the result would be a 
 peace settlement that would be both cruel and 
 unjust, out of which would eventually come 
 other wars. 
 
 In addition to this I communicated to Con- 
 gress and the Administration, that which I con- 
 ceived to be the spirit in which the Peace Rep- 
 resentatives should approach those questions 
 upon the solution of which the future peace of 
 the world depended. The following statements 
 of the case, as well as the contention contained 
 in the preceding paragraph, were swept aside 
 particularly by the Administration, as being 
 pro-German propaganda — propaganda calcu- 
 lated to produce dissension between America 
 and ''our loyal and honorable allies." I will 
 leave it to my readers whether or not time and 
 subsequent events have or have not proven the 
 truth of my contention. The following is what 
 I conceived to be the spirit in which the Peace 
 Representatives should have approached their 
 task: 
 
 ''The great War Drama is rapidly nearing 
 its close. The world is turning its eyes towards 
 universal peace. Between the final act of war 
 and the dawn of a world peace lies a period of 
 neither war nor peace, a period of uncertainty 
 and doubt on the one hand, and faith and hope 
 on the other. That period, the most momen- 
 tous in all history, will be spanned by the great 
 conference of the representatives of the nations 
 
 [149] 
 
assembled for the purpose of adjusting present 
 differences, and formulating rules for the guid- 
 ance of nations in reference to their conduct — 
 one toward the other. On the wisdom, justice 
 and moderation of this great assembly depends 
 in a large measure the future misery or happi- 
 ness of mankind. 
 
 The labors of this International Conference 
 may come under two headings (1) the adjusting 
 of all differences between the Central Powers 
 and the Entente Allies, (2) the adjustment of 
 differences that may exist between nations, 
 without regard to how they were grouped dur- 
 ing the war, and also the consideration of rules 
 for the conduct of nations, naming penalties for 
 the infraction of these rules, together with the 
 adoption of means for the enforcement of de- 
 cisions. 
 
 There are those who contend that the time is 
 not yet ripe for the formation of a League of 
 Nations. Whether that claim can be substan- 
 tiated or not, depends largely on how the Con- 
 ference acquits itself in the first business 
 before it, namely, the policy pursued in the 
 settlement of the present war. If the rewards 
 of the victor be exacted — if Christian diplomacy 
 has no part in bringing to a close and settling 
 this contest, if an eye for an eye and a tooth 
 for a tooth policy still prevails, then the hope 
 for future world peace is based on shifting 
 sands. On the contrary, if the meeting of this 
 great body shall mark the beginning of a new 
 era, registering the hour on the dial of time 
 when old things shall have passed away, these 
 men who represent the nations must be imbued 
 with the spirit of the great Spaniard, when he 
 proclaimed, ** Whereas all the attributes of God 
 are equal. His mercy will always be more dear 
 to mankind than His justice. ' ' 
 
 [150] 
 
The settlement with Germany will at the 
 same time constitute the least and the most im- 
 portant work of the Conference, the least in 
 comparison with those transcendent questions 
 which have to do with the very destiny of na- 
 tions, and the most important as showing 
 whether those who lead mankind and speak for 
 them can rise above anger, malice, revenge and 
 self-interest, thereby convincing the world that 
 a League of Nations is not a dream. 
 
 It is indeed unfortunate, that a World Con- 
 ference whose findings and recommendations 
 should be free from bias, should assemble so 
 soon following a war that has left so many un- 
 healed wounds and so many burning hearts. 
 Conditions do not make for the purest and high- 
 est order of judgment. However, the situation 
 is to a certain extent saved by the prominent 
 part that America will be called upon to play in 
 the Council of the Nations. America's position 
 is unique. Although she has been a leading fac- 
 tor in deciding this contest, she has been called 
 upon to sacrifice less blood and treasure than 
 any of the contestants. On this account, Amer- 
 ica will approach the Council Table in better 
 temper and in a more judicial frame of mind 
 than may be expected of her associates. 
 
 It may well be assumed in advance that the 
 American representatives will insist on just 
 terms as between the Central Powers and the 
 Entente Allies. In determining a ''just set- 
 tlement" they in all likelihood, among other 
 things, will take into consideration the follow- 
 ing outstanding circumstances and conditions: 
 (1) That a large portion of the German popula- 
 tion had no lust for conquest, and had no hand 
 in willing this war. That they were kept in igno- 
 rance regarding the true object of their rulers, 
 
 [151] 
 
and that they were constantly misinformed, 
 through false propaganda, as to the trne situa- 
 tion in all its relations. Therefore, any hard- 
 ships or extreme measures that might be 
 directed at German leaders will, without doubt, 
 fall on the innocent in greater numbers than on 
 the guilty. (2) Inasmuch as this is, in all prob- 
 ability, the last onslaught of autocracy against 
 the rising and united forces of a revitalized 
 democracy, and that a new era is about to be 
 ushered in, they will on this account temper 
 justice with moderation if not with mercy, es- 
 pecially when they remember that nearly all 
 considerable nations represented at the great 
 Council Table have grown to their present pro- 
 portion by conquests more or less ambitious, if 
 not lustful in their nature. (3) That any peace 
 terms or settlement forced revengefully or ar- 
 bitrarily on a great people will not and never 
 can be permanent, as every nation has its pride 
 and national honor. (4) America has very 
 properly insisted, before meeting the German 
 representatives, that they inaugurate a consti- 
 tutional government in the Empire, or at least 
 one in which the will of the people is supreme. 
 That stipulation carries with it the supposition 
 that the German people are capable of exercis- 
 ing this right and will welcome this gift of 
 Freedom. The further conclusion is logical, 
 namely, that had all power been vested in the 
 German people in August, 1914, and the people 
 worked in harmony with the peoples of the 
 other nations, this war would never have dark- 
 ened the pages of history. If we refuse to ad- 
 mit the truth of this conclusion, we then must 
 confess that our insistence regarding the trans- 
 fer of the supreme power from a select few to 
 the shoulders of all the people, was and is, a 
 vain thing. [153] 
 
Now, after these terrible pangs of Liberty, if 
 a new Germany has been born and a new democ- 
 racy created, free from the shackles of autoc- 
 racy, our representatives, it is hoped, will not 
 be found assisting in substituting the chains of 
 the conqueror for those of the Kaiser." 
 
 ^ ^ ^ 4t ^ 
 
 It is possible that Mr. Wilson did not assist 
 in substituting ' ' the chains of the conqueror for 
 those of the Kaiser," but he certainly assisted 
 through his words and by the armies of which 
 he was Commander-in-Chief, in delivering the 
 German people, helpless and hopeless, into the 
 hands of those who, with cunning and deceit, 
 diabolically forged chains and shackles around 
 their victims, placing them in as complete bond- 
 age as those of any nation, or people, or tribe, 
 in the world 's darkest past. The peace that has 
 been consummated — is not only the peace of the 
 savage — but added to this the cunning of that 
 soulless product of our so-called civilization, 
 that cynical servant of kings and courts, that 
 creature who is devoid of every generous im- 
 pulse — the modern diplomat. 
 
 We may take the generous view of Mr. Wil- 
 son's part in the peace tragedy — that he did 
 not personally assist in putting the shackles of 
 the conqueror on the German people ; but what 
 must we think of the moral make-up of the man, 
 not to speak of the mental, when we find him 
 justifying this Versailles monstrosity, and 
 blandly telling the world that it was conceived 
 in the spirit of his Fourteen Points and born 
 of Justice. 
 
 Manifestly, we have here a case of mental 
 collapse or one of moral reversal, or of both. 
 Time alone may tell. 
 
 It is not theories we are now dealing with ; it 
 [153] 
 
is facts and consequences. It is important that 
 we know not only the meaning of the Fourteen 
 Points but also their purpose. As to their 
 meaning no one was in doubt. If there ever was 
 any doubt, it was as to their sincerity. They did 
 not make an appeal to the intellect alone, 
 but to the heart and conscience as well. They 
 had to do with feeling, as well as with under- 
 standing. They promised life, not death ; free- 
 dom, not slavery ; a golden sunrise, not the low- 
 ering shadows of the night; peace, good-will, 
 and ''charity for all, and malice toward none." 
 
 Their purpose was well understood by all. It 
 was the pen working in conjunction with the 
 sword. The psychologists of the Allies built 
 more on Mr. Wilson's declarations than on a 
 thousand belching cannon. He was a host in 
 himself. His apparent spirit of fairness and 
 conciliation, his assurances, his sympathy — all 
 were calculated to alienate the German people 
 from their rulers and place them unreservedly 
 under the protection of that great new World 
 Leader, who, far from the strife of Europe, had 
 sent forth a message that had echoed in the 
 hearts of all mankind. 
 
 Mr. Wilson encouraged the people of Ger- 
 many to rebel against their government — tacitly 
 upholding the sacred and inalienable right of 
 revolution. This they did. Thus the pen and 
 the sword, working harmoniously together, sup- 
 plemented by starvation, brought German lead- 
 ers to ask a cessation of hostilities, for the pur- 
 pose of ending the war on the basis of Mr. 
 Wilson's promises and conditions, as embodied 
 in the Fourteen Points. 
 
 Before an agreement would be entered into 
 which should have for a basis the Fourteen 
 Points, the Germans were informed by Mr. Wil- 
 
 [154] 
 
son that they would have to (1) dethrone the 
 Kaiser (2) establish a representative govern- 
 ment in Germany (3) evacuate all occupied ter- 
 ritory (4) render themselves impotent and help- 
 less by disarming. 
 
 This they complied with in every detail — 
 implicitly relying on Mr. Wilson's word and 
 protection. 
 
 And now let us see what they got. 
 
 It is not my purpose to attempt a minute dis- 
 section or a critical analysis of this so-called 
 peace agreement, and what it means for man- 
 kind. That task I will leave to those who pos- 
 sess, to a much greater degree than I, the divine 
 gift of seeing into the future and measuring con- 
 sequences. 
 
 As I approach this subject, it is with feelings 
 of my own littleness and impotency, combined 
 with those of pity, sorrow and contempt. When 
 one views the enormity of this crime — it is not, 
 as Milton says, to ''justify the ways of God to 
 men," but how are we to justify the ways of 
 these men to God I 
 
 You ask, what will be the consequences of this 
 peace? You might as well ask the scientist to 
 name the consequences that would come from 
 the implanting of the germs of a nameless dis- 
 ease in the human body. Alas, not one genera- 
 tion, but many would be required to render the 
 sum total of the misery, suffering and degrada- 
 tion that will follow. Not the first victim 
 alone would make the sum total; but years 
 hence, the babbling idiot, the dwarfed or de- 
 formed creature, the innocent child with a dis- 
 eased and polluted body, would form a part of 
 an appalling whole, of the sum of the inevitable 
 consequences. It is a computation beyond the 
 power of man. 
 
 [155] 
 
 11 
 
A thousand years will not see the sum total 
 of this peace crime. Millions of ill-nurtured 
 mothers — a nation of stunted children — proud 
 manhood in bondage — the brightest lights in all 
 the world of science dimmed or extinguished — 
 civilization in a large measure throttled and 
 dying at its source. 
 
 Were these peace terms that we have before 
 us, that Mr. Wilson had in mind, by which he 
 sought to detach the German people from their 
 rulers — when he gave utterance to his Fourteen 
 Points, and other important utterances, all bear- 
 ing on the same important subject? Examine, 
 carefully, and draw your conclusion. 
 
 The Allies, according to latest advices just 
 published, are demanding by way of indemnity 
 (they call it reparation), thirty billions of dol- 
 lars, in round figures. 
 
 Now, first of all, let us try to understand what 
 this sum means. Did I say ''understand" what 
 this sum means? Such a thing is impossible. 
 The human mind can no more grasp the stupen- 
 dous significance of these figures than it can 
 comprehend the immensity of space. The only 
 thing we can do is to make some imperfect com- 
 parisons. 
 
 The significance of this colossal sum will be 
 somewhat understood when we realize that the 
 total valuation of all Belgium in 1914 was 
 slightly in excess of six billions of dollars. In 
 other words, six billions of dollars would fully 
 pay for all Belgian lands, all buildings, both 
 public and private, all machinery, railroads, fur- 
 niture, bric-a-brac, art treasure, gold coin, in 
 other words, the entire country and everything 
 of value that it contains. Germany, it will be 
 seen, is compelled to present to the Allies an 
 amount of money sufficient to purchase the 
 
 [156] 
 
lands, buildings, public improvements, art treas- 
 ures, furniture, and everything of value not 
 merely of one, but five Belgiums. 
 
 And this in face of the fact that only a small 
 portion of that country was damaged, and very 
 few towns really destroyed. Her principal cities 
 are just as intact to-day as they were before the 
 war. The acreage under cultivation, at the 
 present time, will be found nearly equal to that 
 of 1913. 
 
 Almost the same things may be said of 
 France. In order to make it possible for the 
 mind to comprehend true relationships, as be- 
 tween colossal sums, I mention the fact that al- 
 though twelve per cent of France was occupied 
 by German troops, but three per cent of the total 
 area was really devastated, and two per cent 
 partially so. 
 
 Even in the worst cases of devastation, no one 
 can say that the property cannot be turned to 
 some account. Now, assuming that four per 
 cent of the total area of France has been com- 
 pletely destroyed beyond hope of restoration, 
 then it is evident that France lost four per cent 
 of her total wealth. The total wealth of France 
 in 1914 was approximately $60,000,000,000. 
 Four per cent of this amount would equalt 
 $2,400,000,000; in other words, $2,400,000,000 
 would be the total amount that Germany should, 
 in all conscience, be called upon to pay for the 
 restoration of this devastated area; and that 
 only upon proof of her war guilt and the inno- 
 cence of her opponents. 
 
 The above comparative figures are given only 
 for the purpose of showing both consistency 
 and true proportion. 
 
 tThe devastated portion was richer than the average of 
 France. It would be fair to raise this estimate somewhat. 
 
 [157] 
 
Now view this $30,000,000,000 indemnity from 
 another angle, and see what its imposition will 
 mean to the German people. 
 
 As there are approximately nine million fam- 
 ilies in Germany (after the loss of Alsace-Lor- 
 raine, Silesia and Poland) this would mean an 
 assessment of about three thousand five hundred 
 dollars on each and every family. Before the 
 war, the average wealth of each family was ap- 
 proximately $7,000, and the present value, with 
 war depreciations, etc., cannot be even $6,000 so 
 it will be seen that the people of Germany are 
 called upon to pay to the Allies more than one- 
 half the value of all their w^orldly possessions. 
 
 Now, assume that the Allies are generous 
 enough to permit Germany to pay off this 
 amount in thirty years at 5% interest. This 
 would be a total yearly amount of $2,000,000,000, 
 or somewhat in excess of $300.00 per year for 
 each and every family. The significance of this 
 sum may be gathered from the fact that the 
 average earning of the German family, prior to 
 1914, was between five and six hundred dollars 
 per year. 
 
 Now, if this were a purely local tax, going 
 into the municipal, state, and national treasury, 
 which in turn would be spent at home amongst 
 the people who paid the tax, it would be even 
 then very burdensome, even if there were no 
 other taxes ; but it must be remembered that this 
 $300.00 per year, per family, will be in addition 
 to the present burdensome taxes, and not only 
 that, but every dollar of it must be sent abroad 
 and not a penny of it will go into circulation at 
 home. 
 
 There is a vast difference between a country 
 owing a debt of $30,000,000,000 to her own peo- 
 ple, which would be represented in bonds held 
 
 [158] 
 
by all classes of the people upon which interest 
 would be collected, which interest would, in a 
 large measure, cover any taxation that would 
 be levied, and owing the same burden to outside 
 nations. In the latter case, the total must 
 be spent out of the country, for which there 
 would be no return or no approach to reci- 
 procity. 
 
 Now, in what manner must this $30,000,000,- 
 000 be paid, or rather this $300.00 per year, for 
 each family? As it cannot be paid in money, it 
 must be paid in goods — exports. In other 
 words, the German people must send abroad, 
 each year for thirty years, two billion dollars 
 worth of her surplus products in excess of what 
 she brings in, or, in other words, each family on 
 an average must send out $300.00 worth of 
 things to eat and to wear, and material for shel- 
 ter over and above what she requires to dress 
 itself, feed itself and shelter itself. 
 
 As the savings of each average family in the 
 nation, under normal conditions, is very small 
 (in Germany it would not exceed $100.00, after 
 all requirements had been met), it will be seen, 
 even under the most favorable conditions, were 
 each family to be compelled to send abroad, 
 $300.00 worth of food, clothing and other mate- 
 rials, from which no return would be received, 
 what indescribable distress and want would en- 
 sue. That being so, what imagination is neces- 
 sary to picture the want, sufferings and degra- 
 dation that will obtain throughout Germany, 
 when the Allies will take their tribute from the 
 meagre and depleted supplies, which meagre- 
 ness will be inevitable for a generation, owing 
 to the havoc of war. 
 
 But if the above were the sum total of the 
 infamy of the peace, one might hope to find 
 
 [159] 
 
something of an extenuating nature, wliicli 
 would soften and tone down its uglier aspects. 
 On the contrary, the farther we penetrate into 
 the subterranean passages of this Chamber of 
 Horrors, the more evidence we find of the work 
 of the assassin, of a premeditated, organized, 
 systematic, and cowardly crime. 
 
 They not only placed on the backs of the ema- 
 ciated and impoverished German people, guilty 
 and innocent alike, a load which will crush them 
 to the earth, but not content with this, they have 
 cut off the hands and feet of their victims, so 
 that they can neither help themselves, or go 
 forward with their burden. 
 
 They have done this in a manner which I will 
 attempt to relate and describe. 
 
 Now, the great sinuous and flexible arm which 
 Germany had stretched out to nearly every por- 
 tion of the habitable globe, was her merchant 
 marine. By means of this, she delivered 
 promptly, and at the lowest possible cost, the 
 proceeds of her great factories, her huge blast 
 furnaces, her cotton mills, with their millions 
 of spindles, her laboratories and her mines ; and 
 in return, came back laden with the raw mate- 
 rial, which would again feed the great mouths 
 of her roaring and smoking industries. Behind 
 this great arm, as it moved to and fro, back- 
 ward and forward, over the face of the earth, 
 were the great German people, with their mil- 
 lions of skilled mechanics, their army of re- 
 search workers, whose night lamps only went 
 out with the stars; a nation devoted to indus- 
 try, and therefore to the service of mankind. 
 
 It was evident, therefore, that this powerful, 
 efficient and purposeful machine would drive 
 antiquated and time-serving, self-satisfied com- 
 petitors, out of the world market, and thereby 
 
 [160] 
 
cause trade jealousies — those things which al- 
 ways make wars a possibility. 
 
 As has been stated previously, the nation 
 that suffered most from German competition, 
 was Great Britain. It was quite natural and 
 quite characteristic of that nation when, at the 
 peace conference Germany lay helpless on the 
 operating table, with Dr. Woodrow Wilson of 
 Washington, D. C, that eminent psychologist and 
 heart and brain specialist, administering the 
 ether, and Surgeon Clemenceau of Paris, France, 
 a doctor of the old school, who believes in heroic 
 methods of surgery and blood-letting, using the 
 knife, and that world renowned general prac- 
 titioner. Dr. Lloyd George of London, England, 
 a graduate of all schools, regular and irregular, 
 a trance medium of high order, holding the 
 bucket which is to receive the blood and carv- 
 ings of the victim — it was quite natural that 
 Dr. Lloyd George after seeing Germany disem- 
 boweled for the benefit of France, should sug- 
 gest to the operator that Germany's arm — her 
 merchant marine arm — should be cut off at the 
 shoulder. As Doctor Wilson was a metaphysician 
 and anaesthetist and not a surgeon, no doubt 
 he was not seriously consulted as to this by his 
 colleagues; however, the arm was amputated, 
 close to the shoulder. 
 
 By this surgical operation the Allies de- 
 stroyed Germany's merchant marine, which was 
 a felling blow at her economic life and existence. 
 With what completeness this act was performed, 
 will be seen from the following: 
 
 Germany is to deliver to the Allies all mer- 
 chant vessels of over 1,600 tons that she pos- 
 sesses and one-half of all vessels between 1,000 
 and 1,600 tons, not counting trawlers and other 
 minor craft. This means the utter impossibility 
 
 [161] 
 
of Germany doing any business by water with 
 the rest of the world, unless by using the ships 
 of other nations. 
 
 At the present time, owing to shortage of 
 ships, other nations are consequently short of 
 sea transportation facilities and it will be easily 
 understood what price Germany will have to 
 pay for such service, and how she is likely to be 
 served. 
 
 Out of this loot America gets 29 of the best 
 freight and passenger vessels to be found in 
 any harbor of the world, and this is but a frag- 
 ment of the whole. Of this fleet is the George 
 Washington, of 25,000 tons displacement, which 
 will go down in history as the vessel which car- 
 ried Woodrow Wilson to his political grave- 
 yard ; and buried with him the fondest hopes of 
 mankind. In addition to this vessel is the 
 Vaterland, of 54,000 tons, the world's largest 
 and most beautiful ship, and then there is the 
 magnificent Lloyd creation — the Kronprinzessen 
 Caecilie. 
 
 Thus, Avith one stroke, that which has been the 
 object of Germany's pride and her rivals' envy, 
 has been taken from her — leaving her poor in- 
 deed — ^but how has it robbed mankind? 
 
 In vain will the little children of the world 
 look for the playthings that only those Avho 
 knew the heart of a child could produce. Silent 
 as the grave will be that land of song and 
 music, the refrain of which echoed around the 
 world: God's silvery voice speaking to the souls 
 of men. The world will look in vain, for years 
 to come, for those mighty engines of steam and 
 electricity, which remove mountains and turn 
 the desert into the bower and the brook. From 
 whence will come those countless instruments 
 and inventions, by the cunning of which we can 
 
 [162] 
 
almost interpret and register the unspoken 
 thoughts of men; or to whom will we look to 
 restore this drab and dreary world to the varied 
 tints of the rainbow, or the colors of the bird 
 and butterfly? 
 
 That servant of the world is gone ; that serv- 
 ant who, by night and day, for fifty years or 
 more, by her industry and fair dealings has 
 added to human pleasure, human knowledge 
 and human comfort — is gone. The world will 
 look long for the coming of her like again. 
 
 It is known that the immense commercial body 
 of Germany sat finiily on two great legs — coal 
 and iron. With these she was moving forAvard 
 commerciall}^, at a rate at which she was rap- 
 idly out-distancing all rivals. For the benefit 
 of France directly, and for the trade security 
 of Britain indirectly, these mighty legs must be 
 cut off. In doing this, it must be said that the 
 surgeons did not perform so clean a job as in 
 the case of the amputation of Germany's arm; 
 an axe evidently being used instead of a knife. 
 They mutilated the legs more or less, but left 
 sufficient stumps upon which the nation could 
 hobble around within a very narrow area, in 
 central Europe. 
 
 We can see in our mind's eye this operation 
 being performed. Germany is again brought 
 to the operating room weak from her previous 
 operations; Professor Wilson carrying the 
 ether, Clemenceau the axe, and Lloyd George 
 the bucket. 
 
 The victim is brought into an amphitheatre, 
 in which there are hundreds of excited, gesticu- 
 lating men, representing nearly every nation of 
 the civilized world. Men alone are present. 
 Even the nurse, that redeeming type of our 
 civilization, with her soft footsteps, like unto 
 
 [163] 
 
the rustle of an angel wing — is not there. The 
 field is being made ready for her future labors. 
 
 What a picture we have before us, as we see 
 the victim, stretched on the table, gagged, and 
 bound; the three men standing near and the 
 emissaries of evil from every land looking on. 
 When will the world bring forth an artist who 
 will put on canvas the faces of these men and 
 this scene; like that great artist who pictured 
 the faces in that masterpiece — '^ Christ before 
 Pilate"? 
 
 We see Wilson with his classic, serious face, 
 nervous and apprehensive, ill-fitted to his sur- 
 roundings ; and Lloyd George, that personifica- 
 tion of volcanic energy, shifty as a toreador, 
 agile as an Arabian swordsman, cruel as Caesar, 
 and at times as gentle as the heart of a woman, 
 standing there smiling and complacent ; and be- 
 side him Clemenceau, that embodiment of the 
 beast, the word ''executioner" written into 
 every line of his countenance — in every smile, 
 as in every frown; cruel, merciless and unfor- 
 giving; the blood of the Middle Ages, coursing 
 through twentieth century veins, unable and un- 
 willing to see anything but in terms of France 
 — blind and deaf alike to every appeal of reason 
 and every dictate of humanity. 
 
 The grim business is soon over — these two 
 great legs — coal and iron — upon which German 
 commercial supremacy rested, are removed. 
 
 For a number of years to come, Germany is to 
 deliver to the Allies the stupendous sum of 
 forty million tons of coal annually. As there 
 are but nine million families in Germany, this 
 means that each family on an average must pro- 
 vide for the Allies more than four tons of coal. 
 How many great furnaces will go out, how many 
 million families will go short of fuel, during the 
 
 [164] 
 
rigorous German winters, the dullest imagina- 
 tion may comprehend. 
 
 The same thing applies to iron. Germany ob- 
 tained the larger portion of her iron ore from 
 Alsace-Lorraine. Her industries, scattered all 
 over the entire country, were created and es- 
 tablished in the belief that this supply would 
 be permanent. Alsace-Lorraine now goes back 
 to France — the justice of which we have gone 
 into, in another chapter. 
 
 At present, and for years to come, France 
 will be unable to avail herself of this new sup- 
 ply of iron ore, owing to her lack of furnaces 
 and factories and the skilled workmen neces- 
 sary to operate them. Germany has these fur- 
 naces and factories and the talent to operate 
 them. The world is suffering from a lack of 
 finished steel and iron. At one stroke, this 
 great world supply is cut off — without the 
 slightest regard for world needs; the only 
 thought being the destruction of Germany and 
 all her industries. 
 
 In America we have seen isolated examples of 
 suffering, caused by the closing down of one 
 particular industry, but this soon would be 
 overcome by other industries taking their place ; 
 or if that did not occur, the workers could soon 
 take other positions, or move to nearby towns 
 and be quickly at work again. But imagine 
 the deplorable and hopeless condition, and the 
 want and degradation that will follow, when the 
 industries of a whole country are artificially 
 paralyzed and that without hope of remedy. 
 
 The next operation to be performed was the 
 relieving Germany of her colonies. This, 
 though cruel, was not vital to Germany. It is 
 true, that in this, the Allies exacted their pound 
 of flesh, but it was not the flesh from off the 
 
 [165] 
 
German parent body, but rather the appropria- 
 tion of her cliildren. The loss therefore, was 
 more sentimental than real — not vital as in the 
 case of the loss of her merchant marine, her 
 iron, and her coal. 
 
 Under Article 119 Germany cedes all her right 
 and title to her overseas possessions. To make 
 matters worse for her, she loses not only her 
 title to these colonies, but she is still responsible 
 for any claims or debts standing against these 
 colonies, which were incurred in process of 
 development, or otherwise. In addition to this, 
 we find the following iniquitous feature: ''The 
 Allies and Associated Powers reserve the right 
 to retain and liquidate, all property, rights, and 
 interests belonging at the date of the coming 
 into force, of the present treaty, to German 
 nationals or companies controlled by them in 
 the German colonies." 
 
 Thus Germany is swept clean of her colonies, 
 and the citizens of these colonies may be de- 
 prived of their rights without redress. The 
 same provision applies to Alsace-Lorraine. By 
 the treaty, France may confiscate the property 
 of any German resident at will. 
 
 In addition to this, Germany must pay off any 
 debts incurred before the war, which now cover 
 Alsace-Lorraine, money spent in the public im- 
 provements, etc., of these provinces. 
 
 The unbearable financial burden already de- 
 scribed that has been put on the back of Ger- 
 many, and the amputations, which will render 
 her almost helpless, have also been supple- 
 mented by mutilations and indignities, for num- 
 ber, diabolical cunning, and disregard for 
 justice, which are without parallel in history. 
 They have fastened these unfortunate people 
 to the cross by a thousand and one nails, in 
 
 [166] 
 
addition to the cruel iron spikes, already de- 
 scribed. 
 
 I have another task to perform aside from 
 showing the war guilt and peace crimes of the 
 Allies and therefore must bring this chapter to 
 a close. 
 
 Volumes could be written if details were un- 
 dertaken. 
 
 I will simply ask the reader to consider but 
 a few of the minor strands by which, in addition 
 to the spikes and the nails, Germany is fastened 
 to the cross. 
 
 Examine the tariff provisions by which Ger- 
 many has to receive goods without being per- 
 mitted to exact duty, and does not receive the 
 same privilege in return; her great inland wa- 
 terway system under the control of her enemies ; 
 the west bank of the Rhine subject to their tariff 
 control, and other regulations of the victors ; day 
 and night at the mercy of the so-called Repara- 
 tion Commission, made to pass any laws or do 
 any service that these men, with their unlimited 
 powers, backed by menacing armies, may dic- 
 tate. 
 
 And the relation of this Instrument to Ger- 
 many forms only a part of the blight cast upon 
 the world by this hand of Death. It ignores 
 every element of economic law, decapitates with 
 a stroke one of the world's greatest res- 
 ervoirs of supply, disregards human trends and 
 customs, and tears asunder that which has been 
 cemented by the centuries, leaving peace little 
 less to be desired than war. 
 
 The Versailles Agreement was arrived at 
 after six months of plotting and intrigue, in an 
 atmosphere of greed, hate, falsehood, and re- 
 venge. It was conceived in lust and born of lies. 
 It is the foul creature of the night. 
 
 [167] 
 
Had all the German people been guilty, and 
 the Allies as innocent as the angels, still this 
 treaty would have been an abomination because 
 it usurps the functions of Providence, in that it 
 wreaks vengeance; and has it not been pro- 
 claimed ''Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord"? 
 
 But how is this great account to be balanced? 
 That it mil — be assured. The mills of the gods 
 may grind out this grist slowly, or they may 
 vomit it out like an earthquake. Already, 
 ominous subterranean rumbles are being heard. 
 
 It is said that before an earthquake takes 
 place, cattle become uneasy, birds fly wildly to 
 and fro, all living things except men become 
 excited and apprehensive. In a mysterious way, 
 they sense coming danger. 
 
 His eyes are blind, indeed, who does not see 
 the dark clouds gathering on the horizon; and 
 deaf are those ears that do not hear the rumbles 
 of Nature's gathering physical and spiritual 
 forces. Humanity everywhere is sensing dan- 
 ger. They realize that all is not well. The 
 civilization of other days through injustice, al- 
 though dwelling in the security of hewn rocks, 
 was swept away, and likewise our civilization, 
 less secure in our skyscrapers will, if we do not 
 take warning, collapse like a house of cards. 
 
 To-day, our so-called civilization is on trial — 
 on trial before the great Judge of the Universe. 
 It is on trial like other civilizations that have 
 gone before, and have been found wanting. If 
 there is not enough righteousness in this world 
 — enough Christian spirit, which will rise and 
 destroy the evil of this Peace — our civilization 
 like other civilizations will be over-turned and 
 we shall be commanded to build on new founda- 
 tions — other than greed and hate. 
 
 God will not permit this inequity. He will not 
 [168] 
 
permit a new edifice to be erected — after the 
 plan of these Versailles taskmasters, which has 
 for a foundation, injustice, and a superstructure 
 — to be made of human bones — cemented by 
 human blood and tears. 
 
 ''And the Kings of the earth, and the great 
 men and the rich men, and the captains, and the 
 mighty men, and every bond man, and every 
 free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the 
 rocks of the mountains ; and said to the moun- 
 tains and the rocks: 'Fall on us, and hide us 
 from the face of Him that sitteth on the throne, 
 and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great 
 day of His wrath is come ; and who shall be able 
 to stand r " 
 
 [169] 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 The Lessons and the Remedy 
 
 Out of this deluge of blood, from this storm 
 of fire that has swept Europe, will the peoples 
 of the world learn a lesson, will they get a new 
 vision, will they see and understand those ac- 
 cursed forces that are enslaving mankind, lead- 
 ing nations, like herds of cattle, to slaughter, 
 forcing humanity to march in multitudes, 
 through highways infested with thieves, their 
 hands tied and eyes blindfolded, led on either by 
 a pygmy king, an ambitious minister of state, or 
 a so-called "Constitutional Representative of 
 the people" — the president of a republic? 
 
 The people of every nation that entered the 
 great war were grossly misled, misrepresented 
 and deceived, whether their form of government 
 was an autocracy, constitutional monarchy, or a 
 republic. 
 
 In no case had the people of any country any- 
 thing whatsoever to say regarding their destiny 
 — this was just as true of America as it was of 
 Russia, Germany, France or Britain. 
 
 In no case were the people consulted — not 
 one. In America, like all the rest, the will of 
 one man was supreme. 
 
 In no instance did the people of any nation 
 want war. The people of Russia did not want 
 war, nor the people of Germany nor of France 
 nor of Britain, much less America. They de- 
 sired peace. They wished to be left alone to till 
 their lands, operate their factories, educate their 
 children, and live their lives in peace. 
 
 But, you say, they all entered the war and 
 [170] 
 
fought, and this being so they must have been 
 willing and eager to do so. ' That conclusion I 
 will not question. We have here the most per- 
 plexing problem in national psychology, a 
 phenomenon, difficult to dissect or analyze. 
 
 We know, for instance, the power of elec- 
 tricity; but we cannot analyze it. Every man 
 who wields the scepter of power in a nation, 
 whether he be Czar, Kaiser, King or President, 
 knows the existence of a hidden, latent national 
 force and he realizes how he can chain it to his 
 will and desire. In order to bring this power of 
 so-called national patriotism into action, he first 
 commits his country to a foreign program; 
 through the medium of the press fills the public 
 mind with a sense of danger; arouses a spirit 
 of prejudice and ill-will ; starts the flags waving 
 and the bands playing and in an incredibly short 
 time a wave of frenzy passes over the land and 
 soon the people are prepared for a blood sacri- 
 fice. 
 
 This is precisely what took place, first in 
 Russia, then in Germany and France, then in 
 England and her colonies and afterwards, to as 
 marked a degree in America. 
 
 To-day the world is suffering from the result 
 of a patriotic debauch. To-day every country 
 is suffering from the sin of idolatry — the wor- 
 ship of nationality — the sin of flag worship. So 
 long as this is so, ''the man on horseback" is 
 sure of his following; the king knows where he 
 can get his recruits; an ambitious autocratic 
 president of a republic knows upon whose shoul- 
 ders he may step towards ' ' a Place in the Sun. ' ' 
 
 If ultra-patriotism is a virtue in a people, then 
 all the warring countries are on an equality — 
 the Grermans being as fervent in their homage 
 and devotion to their flag as the Americans or 
 
 [171] 
 
 12 
 
the British or the French. But it is not a virtue 
 in a people — it is a national sin — it is a species 
 of pagan idolatry, a sin that has brought its 
 punishment down through the history of man- 
 kind — and never more swift and certain and 
 retributive than during the late war. 
 
 There is to-day in America more real, live and 
 sincere reverence for the American flag than 
 there is for the Cross which is symbolic of 
 Christ. I venture to say that, if in the presence 
 of a crowd, a man threw a stone through a 
 church window, even a window in which is in- 
 scribed the words of Christ, the worst that 
 would happen to him is that he might be handed 
 over to the police. But let the same man cast a 
 missile at the American flag and instantly he 
 would be torn almost limb from limb. There is 
 no question regarding the truth of that. 
 
 Those who attended war meetings held in the 
 different American churches must have, on re- 
 flection, been astounded at what they heard and 
 saw. The usual religious hymns would be sung 
 in order to impress the people with the sacred- 
 ness of their surroundings. These would be 
 sung in a very perfunctory, if not a half-hearted 
 way. But note the change in the demeanor and 
 spirit of the audience when the ' ' Star-Spangled 
 Banner" or "America" would be sung. What 
 sparkling eyes — ^what heaving breasts ! 
 
 The roof would almost rise with the fiery 
 fervor of the audience. How joyfully they 
 would sing *'My country, 'tis of thee, sweet 
 land of liberty," and that, perhaps, after some 
 of these same people had recently assisted in 
 tarring and feathering some unfortunate who 
 refused to buy Liberty Bonds or who, without 
 due consideration for consequences, publicly 
 quoted such antiquated sayings as these: "He 
 
 [172] 
 
who is without sin among you, cast the first 
 stone," or ''Blessed are the peace-makers" or, 
 perchance ''Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." 
 In this, the last chapter, I will endeavor to 
 point out the three things that the peoples of 
 the world must do in order to insure world 
 peace. 
 
 (1) They must cease the idolatrous worship 
 of flags and nationalities and substitute inter- 
 nation based on the brotherhood of man. 
 
 (2) International statesmen must restore 
 the world's equilibrium by creating confidence 
 based on justice. 
 
 There are evidences to be found in every 
 country of a rising tide setting in, which if not 
 checked by wise regulation and international 
 adjustments, will carry away existing authority 
 as the raging mountain torrent sweeps away 
 dykes and dams as though they were handfuls 
 of straw. The waters are disturbed and troubled 
 in all countries, while in others the lands are 
 flooded by revolutions and the people are being 
 submerged. Ancient land-marks, long thought 
 secure, have been swept away or obliterated. 
 
 Before the world can have true peace, the 
 peoples of the different nations must insist upon 
 the wiping out of all international agreements 
 which are based on injustice and maintained by 
 autocratic force. 
 
 The principal of these, of course, is the Ver- 
 sailles peace treaty, by which is sought the en- 
 slavement of the German people. 
 
 Whether the destruction of this enormity may 
 come as a result of evolution or revolution, it is 
 not my purpose to endeavor to forecast. There 
 is, however, a spirit growing amongst the work- 
 ers and producers of all lands which recognizes 
 the common brotherhood of labor, and a sense 
 
 [173] 
 
of justice which is not circumscribed by national 
 frontiers or artificially made boundaries, which 
 will demand that all forms of slavery of their 
 fellows, no matter where existing, must be de- 
 stroyed. 
 
 The fate of many a ship of state, with their 
 precious cargoes, will depend on how their cap- 
 tains interpret the restless barometer and read 
 aright these signs in the heavens — or whether 
 they mistake the tokens of an incipient storm 
 for the warning of an impending tornado, 
 
 (3) The people must have complete control 
 over their own destiny, as in a true democracy ; 
 a state where the will of the people, not a select 
 few, is supreme. 
 
 There is not a democracy on the face of the 
 earth to-day. There is not one country in which 
 the people rule. America is not a democracy — 
 it is a semi-autocracy known as a republic. A 
 republic in many respects is one of the most 
 vicious forms of government extant. Under this 
 form of government the people are constantly 
 bled, misled and misrepresented. 
 
 In this country the people are at the mercy 
 of two soulless autocratic machines, and are 
 ruled by these. It is true that we have the 
 privilege of temporarily getting rid of one auto- 
 cratic machine at the expiration of each two or 
 four years and substituting another one there- 
 for, but that process has its disadvantages In 
 that we discard a sleek and fatted crew for a 
 lean and hungry one. So under this blessed 
 republican form of government, we are engaged 
 year after year in the task of kicking the lazy, 
 dishonest, over-fat republican aggregation out 
 of the back door and letting in the hungry, whin- 
 ing and forlorn democratic contingent at the 
 front door ; and no sooner is this done than the 
 
 [174] 
 
republican horde takes a position in waiting at 
 the front door, knowing full w^ell that in a cer- 
 tain time the democratic contingent will disgrace 
 itself in the eyes of the public and be kicked out 
 and then the waiting republicans re-enter, not 
 because they are wanted, but for the reason that 
 under our present form of government we must 
 endure either one or the other. As a protest 
 against this farce, millions of reputable citizens 
 will not walk across the street to record their 
 votes. 
 
 We elect our so-called representatives for two 
 or four years. During the election campaign 
 all manner of promises are made — only to be 
 broken. 
 
 Have you ever observed the practical work- 
 ings of this so-called "Representative" Govern- 
 ment of ours, at short range — at Washington? 
 If you have, you will marvel that the American 
 people have not long ago gone bankrupt or be- 
 come revolutionists. 
 
 What spectacle do we observe at the national 
 capitolf Here we find four or five hundred men, 
 assembled from every state in the Union, given 
 absolute power under the constitution to enact 
 such laws as they will, spend such amounts of 
 money as they desire, and commit the people to 
 a thousand and one obligations, enterprises and 
 covenants both at home and abroad. 
 
 And who are these men and what influences 
 surround them? 
 
 They are usually of two classes — business or 
 professional men who have been failures in their 
 business or profession ; or if not these, the rep- 
 resentatives of "interests" — commercial and 
 otherwise. 
 
 The latter class are usually in the pay of 
 these "interests" and the former impecunious 
 
 [175] 
 
class, are recipients of tips, favors and bribes, 
 the amounts of these depending on how badly 
 the '' interests" are in need of legislative as- 
 sistance. 
 
 Come with me in imagination to Washington, 
 the seat of your national government ; and watch 
 the operation of that great machine that makes 
 your laws, levies your taxes, expends your 
 money, makes war and declares peace, and does 
 a thousand and one things which aifect you at 
 every turn and from every angle. 
 
 Your ''representative" is there. You see 
 him seated at his little desk, surrounded by 
 other little desks at which other men are sitting. 
 The legislative machine is running at full speed, 
 accompanied by a strange and unfamiliar hum. 
 Your ears are not yet in tune with your sur- 
 roundings. Although reasonably near, you only 
 catch an occasional word, amid the babble and 
 confusion. You are as near the different speak- 
 ers as your "representative" is, and you mar- 
 vel at what manner of ears he has, if they are 
 able to transmit to the brain all that has been 
 said. You give up the hopeless task of finding 
 out what it is all about and to assure yourself, 
 you fasten your eyes again on your "represen- 
 tative." You study his countenance. You try 
 to divine from his face the importance of the 
 occasion and the proceedings. He yawns, he 
 looks bored, he shifts uneasily in his seat, he 
 manicures his nails ; and while another ' ' repre- 
 sentative" is pounding a desk, impressing the 
 importance of his utterances, your ' ' representa- 
 tive" is seen stooping over and relating to his 
 desk mate what you suspect is either a funny 
 joke or a good story. 
 
 Hour after hour passes away and you have 
 yet to find one expression of either interest in 
 
 [176] 
 
the proceedings or quickened human intelligence 
 in the face of your ''representative." The 
 House is at last adjourned for the night. Bored 
 and bedraggled, your ''representative" goes out 
 into the darkness, Avith whom and where, 
 Heaven alone knows, and Heaven, for some un- 
 known reason, does not always tell the secrets 
 of a Congressman. 
 
 You go to your hotel feeling that something 
 was "done" at the session — but you have no in- 
 telligent idea what it was. You open up the 
 morning paper and to your amazement you find 
 that the night previous, two hundred and fifty 
 million dollars were appropriated, taxes involv- 
 ing millions were levied and several laws vitally 
 affecting every man, woman and child in Amer- 
 ica, were passed. 
 
 Now, follow this man out into the night, under 
 cover of the darkness of which the beasts and 
 reptiles of the jungle come forth to meet their 
 prey. This man carries with him the purse- 
 strings of the nation, strings that open at will 
 the overflowing ornate wallet of the rich and 
 the meagre earnings and savings of the poor — 
 tied in the discarded rags of poverty. He car- 
 ries with him not only this, but a thousand and 
 one other powers and privileges which, when 
 used or put in operation have power for good 
 and evil almost beyond human imagination. No 
 armed caravan, crossing the desert waste, bear- 
 ing to civilization rubies, diamonds and pearls 
 beyond the wealth of Croesus, is comparable 
 to the treasure borne by this man — your ' ' repre- 
 sentative, " as he disappeared into the darkness 
 — into the jungle. 
 
 Ask yourself, seriously, what hand feeds these 
 creatures of the night — these ravenous beasts of 
 prey — the number of which is legion; or who 
 
 [177] 
 
feeds that myriad aggregation of lizards that 
 infest not only the streets, depots and hotels of 
 Washington, but every wing and corridor of the 
 Capitol as well? The hand that feeds these 
 creatures is the hand of your ' ' representative ' ' 
 — not only these creatures, but the "interests" 
 that stand back of them. You have given, with- 
 out question, the power to do this. Take away 
 this power (in a way that I will presently indi- 
 cate) and before twenty-four hours after this 
 power has been taken away you would see such 
 an exodus of these beasts and reptiles from 
 Washington as would tax every railroad to its 
 limit. 
 
 To eradicate the evils of our so-called repre- 
 sentative system, means must be taken to cur- 
 tail those absolute powers that the American 
 people have placed in the hands of those who 
 represent them.* The people must be the final 
 
 *The writer recently had the pleasure of hearing a kindly 
 reference made to the desirability of a republican, as compared 
 to a democratic form of government. The Honorable Leslie M. 
 Shaw, ex-Secretary of the United States Treasury, a statesman 
 of the old school (who by the way, unlike most of his associates, 
 has not outlived his uscfulnesis) asked his audience which pro- 
 cedure would prove more satisfactory for the people, in case, 
 for instance in the building of a ship ; for the people to dele- 
 gate men who know all about ships and have them complete the 
 transaction, or have the ship built by the public which has no 
 knowledge of ships or shipbuilding. The point to be brought 
 home to his audience, of course, is that our Representatives in 
 Congress know what the people want and are better able to 
 transact the public business then the great mass of the people, 
 who are not equipped for such business. 
 
 In theory Mr. Shaw is correct. We need experts to carry out 
 our prospective undertakings and one man in this may do 
 more successful work than a million. But for instance you 
 desire to build a house — you employ an architect to do the 
 planning and the carrying out of your wishes and desires. 
 But mark the difference. Under our present republian form of 
 government, your architects, without consulting you, decide for 
 you, and the nation of wliich you are a part, that you need a 
 ship (or a railroad or a canal or a law) and also decides what 
 that ship shall cost, what kind of a ship it shall be, what par- 
 ticular use shall be made of it, and you, or rather the people, 
 have nothing to say about it, either as to its necessity, its use, 
 
 [178] 
 
judge as to the wisdom or necessity of any and 
 all important legislation. 
 
 How this may be done without destroying the 
 structure of our present form of government, I 
 will attempt to outline. 
 
 My proposition is, that our government con- 
 sist of four branches instead of three, as at 
 present. Instead of the Legislative, the Execu- 
 tive and the Judicial, as now obtains, we should 
 have four branches, namely : The Initiative, the 
 Public Ax^proval, the Executive and the Judicial. 
 
 In making this change, the present structure, 
 with one exception, will remain; but one im- 
 portant addition is recommended : 
 
 (1) Abolish the Senate. It is in no sense a 
 representative institution — representing only a 
 certain class and type of men and a certain class 
 and type of business. 
 
 (2) Retain the present House of Represen- 
 tatives and make of this what will be known as 
 the Initiative Branch. 
 
 (3) Establish a Public Approval branch. 
 
 (4) Retain our present Executive and Judi- 
 cial branches, with some modifications. 
 
 (5) Have the members of the Initiative 
 branch elected for a period of four years, in- 
 stead of two, as at present, and the President 
 for eight years instead of four. 
 
 or its cost — you simply have to accept it and pay the bill. The 
 only thing left for you to do in case you are dissatisfied, is 
 after two years you may have revenge by dismissing your Eep- 
 resentative and putting in his place, one that you have already 
 dismissed previously for either stupid or dishonest service. 
 
 What we want, and the people must have, are legislative 
 architects selected by the people and delegated to submit plans 
 and specifications for the approval of the people, and when 
 once the people approve of these plans these architects can 
 carry them into effect, and not before. 
 
 Of course, if Mr. Shaw claims that the people do not know 
 what they want, or are incapable of deciding what is good for 
 them — that is another story. 
 
 [179] 
 
The Initiative branch would resemble in many 
 respects our present House of Representatives, 
 and would be elected in the same manner as now 
 obtains. They would initiate all legislation, 
 both those of minor and major character. Minor 
 laws and legislation, with the President's ap- 
 proval, would, as now, become law. Major legis- 
 lation, of prime importance and which would 
 affect the people materially, before becoming 
 effective would have to pass the Public Ap- 
 proval branch; and then, under certain condi- 
 tions, would become law without the President's 
 approval. 
 
 Now, the important change in the form of 
 government which I propose will be found in 
 the establishment of the additional branch, 
 namely, the Public Approval branch. 
 
 It is important that I should elaborate this 
 clearly; for by reason of this branch and 
 through it we can have a real democracy — a 
 government which will express the absolute and 
 unqualified will of the people, instead of the will 
 of a hand-picked body of men. 
 
 I will endeavor to show that when what I am 
 pleased to call the Public Approval branch, 
 gives approval or disapproval to the laws which 
 the Initiative branch has passed, this approval 
 or disapproval will in every sense reflect the 
 prevailing wishes of the American people ; and 
 that, free from every form of contamination. 
 It will remove the American Government from 
 the jungle. 
 
 It will be seen that the Initiative branch will 
 not be the important mechanism of the govern- 
 mental machine; and therefore the briber and 
 corruptionist will find it almost useless to spend 
 his money in order to have his pet measure 
 passed by one branch, when it has to go before 
 
 [180] 
 
tlie Public Approval branch, wliicb will be im- 
 possible to buy or control. 
 
 As has been stated, the source of all legisla- 
 tion will be the Initiative branch. They will 
 formulate and pass such laws, minor and major, 
 as they deem wise. These, usually, will be in 
 obedience to the demands of the people. That 
 is the first step in the legislative process. After 
 the Initiative Congress performs its labors and 
 adjourns, those enactments of a major char- 
 acter are passed on to the Public Approval 
 branch, for acceptance or rejection. 
 
 This branch will comprise the voters of one 
 Assembly District in each state of the forty- 
 eight states of the Union. The Governor of each 
 state, at a public ceremony, will draw by lot the 
 Assembly District that will represent his par- 
 ticular state. For instance, New York State 
 has 150 Assembly Districts. Each district has 
 approximately fifteen thousand voters. Cali- 
 fornia has 80 Assembly Districts, each contain- 
 ing a smaller number of votes than those in 
 New York State. The particular district that 
 may be drawn in each state may be a rural 
 one or a city one but when the forty-eight dis- 
 tricts are drawn, representing the whole United 
 States, an average of rural and city districts 
 will be reached, so that when these forty-eight 
 districts record their wishes and desires, both 
 city and country have spoken. As soon as the 
 Governor of each state has impartially drawn 
 the legislative district that will, for the time 
 being, together with the other legislative dis- 
 tricts of the other states, make up the Public 
 Approval branch, the authorities at Washington 
 will immediately send a f ac-simile ballot to each 
 and every voter in the district, based on regis- 
 tration. A new registration in these districts 
 
 [181] 
 
would immediately take place and an election 
 day be named by the government. The majority 
 of votes in these districts would determine 
 whether the laws and enactments passed by the 
 Initiative branch should become the laws of the 
 land or not. Should sixty per cent of the voters 
 in these widely scattered forty-eight districts 
 approve a particular law, then that law comes 
 into effect without the signature of the Presi- 
 dent. Should less than sixty per cent and more 
 than fifty per cent approve, then the President's 
 signature would be necessary, in order to com- 
 plete the legislation. 
 
 In addition to this, the question would be sub- 
 mitted to these voters as to whether the Initia- 
 tive branch should be recalled or not. If sixty 
 per cent of the voters, together with fifty per 
 cent of the total number of states, should vote 
 for a recall of the Initiative branch — a general 
 Congressional election would have to take place 
 within six months. This would place members 
 of the Initiative Congress on their good be- 
 havior^ — all the time. 
 
 It must be understood that each year a new 
 drawing of Assembly Districts would take place, 
 which would form the basis of the Public Ap- 
 proval branch for that particular year. 
 
 The recall provision would apply to the Presi- 
 dent as well. The President would be elected 
 for eight years. If, in two consecutive years, 
 the voters comprising the Public Approval 
 branch should by a sixty per cent vote demand 
 the recall of the President, a new election must 
 take place at the same time as the next regular 
 or irregular Congressional election. 
 
 No fear need be felt regarding unnecessary 
 elections. 
 
 We may take it for granted that if more than 
 [182] 
 
sixty per cent of the voters scattered over the 
 entire United States as represented in the Pub- 
 lic Approval branch ask for a recall of the 
 President or Congress, there would be a mighty 
 good reason back of the demand. 
 
 The President would have the power of ap- 
 pointing the Judges of the Supreme Court. 
 These appointments should be for life or good 
 conduct, as at present. However, the people 
 should have the privilege of recall of these offi- 
 cials in the following manner. The ballot should 
 contain the following interrogation: ''Shall 
 the members of the United States Supreme 
 Court be recalled!" If sixty per cent of the 
 people vote in the affirmative on two successive 
 occasions, then the President must recall up to 
 half the number comprising the membership of 
 the Court and name new members to take their 
 place. It will be the President's business to 
 know what members of the Court are under the 
 suspicion of the public. Should the President 
 show disregard for the people's wishes, then he 
 will be in danger of recall himself. 
 
 The advantages resulting from this change in 
 the structure of our government will be : 
 
 (1) The Initiative Congress will be in every 
 sense the servants and not the masters of the 
 American people. 
 
 (2) The Public Approval branch will in every 
 sense represent the average thought, aspiration 
 and ideal of the American people, which should 
 be the beginning and the end of all legislation. 
 
 ( 3 ) Under this system all lobbying and every 
 form of graft would be eliminated, as what use 
 would there be in a corruptionist controlling the 
 Initiative branch when the question of accept- 
 ance or rejection would be in the hands of the 
 voters of forty-eight districts, each district rep- 
 
 [183] 
 
resenting several thousand voters and these dis- 
 tricts scattered over the entire country; and 
 protected by stringent laws against outside in- 
 fluences. 
 
 (4) Under this system we should have suf- 
 frage at its best. Every voter in these favored 
 districts would become alive to his importance 
 and responsibility. He would feel that he was 
 deciding momentous questions for the nation — 
 he would, in fact, be a member of Congress — 
 for the time being. 
 
 As these forty-eight Assembly Districts 
 would be drawn fresh every year, and their loca- 
 tion not known in advance, little chance would 
 there be for the forces of graft and corruption 
 to fasten themselves in any way on the com- 
 munities. 
 
 Under this plan, the voters of the entire coun- 
 try would elect and send experts to Washington. 
 Their duties would be to formulate and pass 
 laws for the consideration and approval of the 
 people's branch — a branch which consists of 
 forty-eight scattered districts. The people 
 would have the right to accept or reject these 
 laws and regulations, as submitted by the Initia- 
 tive branch. Under this plan, the American 
 people would become true masters of their own 
 destiny. It is only in this way that the peoples 
 of the world may overcome the different forms 
 of autocracies that enslave them. As new 
 democracies are created, fraternity and brother- 
 hood will link the nations of the world together, 
 and a treaty such as was recently signed in 
 Paris will receive at the hands of the democra- 
 cies of the world, the fate that it so justly de- 
 serves. 
 
 This nation could not endure, half slave and 
 [184] 
 
half free; neither can it continue a union of 
 autocracy and democracy. It will become one or 
 the other. 
 
 Never since this government was founded 
 has the Lamp of Liberty burned so low and so 
 unsteady as to-day. It is a light dimly 
 burning in the gloom of the valley — not high on 
 the hilltop. No longer is it the beacon light and 
 hope of the storm-tossed mariner; nor yet a 
 guide for the shackled sons of men. 
 
 Shall we stand idly by and watch the lowering 
 flame — as the darkness gathers around us — or 
 shall we, while it is yet day, raise aloft the ban- 
 ner of liberty, reconsecrate ourselves again to 
 its sacred cause and proclaim to all the world 
 that we shall, by the help of Grod, form in this 
 land, *'A Government of the people, by the peo- 
 ple, and for the people, that shall not perish 
 from the earth"? 
 
 Truth is the balanced scale. It knows no 
 flag, no national frontier — no creed. Flags are 
 the true emblem of greed, hate and vain glori- 
 ous self love ; national frontiers are the outposts 
 of strift; creeds the eastranged and divided 
 forces operating against evil. To the applica- 
 tion of truth in the affairs of men and nations, 
 this book is dedicated. 
 
 [185] 
 
Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 Treatment Date: uks/ 2001 
 
 PreservationTechnologies 
 
 A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
 
 111 Thomson Park Drive 
 Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
 (724)779-2111