would equal the absurdly exaggerated estimate of the cost of the Civil War during its four years' duration, and during the forty-nine years of pensioning, debt paying, and so-called losing productive energy. Even the present European war the war of wars the most stupendous military struggle of all this world's history, does not cost so much! Does that sound like the statement of a lunatic? Perhaps so, yet, viewed from certain standards, it is undoubtedly true. It has been estimated that the war is costing the nations involved $40,000,000 a day. That would be about $1,200,000,000 a month, or $14,400,000,000 a year. That vast sum does not include the damage to property or the loss of productive energy. The latter, according to economists, cannot be accurately figured out, but is not so large owing to the utilization of the reserve energy of the nation. The damage to property is also difficult to estimate. No value can be placed on some objects, Ivaluable for sentimental reasons alone. It is doubtful, however, if the actual cash value of the property destroyed will average a million dollars a day for an entire year. Surely two million dollars a day for the period of a year is a liberal estimate. That would amount to $730,000,000 per annum and give a total cost of $15,130,000,000.

This estimate of cost, which seems vast enough, is for all the nations. If, however, in order to give those who cry out against "militarism's burden "

every advantage, we divide the total among only the great European nations-England, Germany, France, Russia, and Austria - the cost is about $3,026,000,000 each per year. If we averaged the cost among Belgium, Servia, Montenegro, Japan and Turkey in addition, the average would of course be greatly reduced, but as these nations are undoubtedly bearing the smaller part of the cost it is, perhaps, just as well to exclude them.

Glancing back we find that the above is practically the same amount spent in the United States. annually for liquor and tobacco. If we should consider the total cost of liquor, tobacco, and white slavery in the United States we would have a sum almost twice the average cost of the war to any European nation. Of course, these are vague estimates of the cost of the present war. They are probably not very accurate, but as they are from pacifist sources they are probably none too small.

Again we find that in comparison with other stupendous things war becomes lilliputian.

Furthermore, though Mr. Angell by rather doubtful reasoning attempts to show that when France was compelled to pay an indemnity of one billion dollars to Germany, France gained and Germany lost, it is believed that he will have a hard time getting any financier or student of economy to agree with him. An indemnity to a victor may not pay all the cost of a war, but it is a great offset to such cost, and a

country which can compel the payment of a billion dollars from a defeated enemy will find it a material help. We hardly believe that Germans would agree with Mr. Angell, and if victors in the present war would offer to pay rather than receive indemnity though we are sure that France, if defeated, will be glad to adopt Mr. Angell's ideas and willingly receive, rather than pay. Says Hamilton-Grace in his Finance and War:

The Germans have never ceased regretting that they imposed a war indemnity on France only of £200,000,000 ($1,000,000,000). It is probable that, were the chance to recur, this indemnity would be nearer £1,000,000,000 ($5,000,000,000).

Thus, not only is the cost of war exaggerated, but a well prepared nation may lessen it by an indemnity.

CHAPTER VII

SOME ADVANTAGES OF MILITARY FORCE AND OF WAR

NOT only is military force in peace a paying prop

osition and war less of a horrible burden than is generally supposed, but there is actually much to be said in favor of both military force and of war. It would be unjust to the soldier and unjust to the militarist, did we fail to give these facts.

One of the strongest arguments of those who state that military force during peace is an advantage, lies in the claim that the army and navy form immense educational institutions, and that the entire nation benefits industrially, commercially, and otherwise by the training which its citizens receive as soldiers. Germany is given as the great example of this fact. Many militarists attribute much of Germany's success to the training which her citizens receive in the army. To this General Chittenden objects that it is in spite of, and not because of, military training that Germany is successful commercially; that on the contrary it is because of the fact that Germany succeeds in everything that her military force is so successful. A reasonable view seems to be that both of these conditions may be partially correct. Certain

it is that military training has an important value entirely apart from its actual military value. This is conclusively proven in the numerous military schools of the United States. The majority of these schools disclaim any attempt to train soldiers, but include military training merely to make better citizens. They find that the man trained militarily learns obedience, promptness, cleanliness, orderliness, coolness, and secures that priceless asset known as executive ability - the ability to male others obey. Such schools form a stronger character and make better men.

If this is true in a military school, it must be equally so with similar training received elsewhere. If thousands of parents pay from $500 to $1,500 per year to secure this training for their boys, surely there is some gain to the nation in the men who receive this training in the army. The fact is too well attested by educators throughout the world to admit of serious questioning.

Recently a number of officers were reviewing the cadets of the John Wanamaker Commercial Institute, a regiment composed exclusively of boys and young men employed in the great Wanamaker store in Philadelphia. These boys are not trained as professional soldiers, but are drilled and disciplined. They absorb through the military drill the military virtues. At this drill an officer was heard to ask the commandant of cadets why the organization was