deavoring to escape from the British fleet, the German Ambassador informed me that a conference had been held in Berlin in the early part of July at which the date of the war was fixed.

This conference was presided over by the Kaiser; the Baron Wangenheim was present to report on conditions in Turkey. Moltke, the Chief of Staff, was there and so was Grand Admiral von Tirpitz. With them were the leaders of German finance, the directors of the railroads and the captains of industry whose aid was essential to the Kaiser in putting his vast military machine into operation. Each was asked if he was ready for war. All replied in the affirmative except the financiers, who insisted that they must have two weeks in which to sell foreign securities and arrange their loans.

At the time this conference was held, nobody

outside the inner circles of the Berlin and Vienna governments dreamed of war as a result of the Sarajevo assassinations. They took good care that no suspicion should be aroused. The Kaiser went straightway to Norway on his yacht. The Chancellor left Berlin for a rest.

The diplomatic corps had no intimation of the impending calamity, and the British Ambassador went away, leaving the embassy to the Chargé d'Affaires. The same drug was used in Vienna, and even when the blow fell the Russian Ambassador was absent from his post on vacation.

In early July, 1914, only two capitals in Europe had the faintest idea that Europe was hovering on the brink of the greatest war in history. These were Vienna and Berlin. Mr. Morgenthau momentarily holds up a dark lantern, revealing a murderous crew of emperors, generals, financiers, and ambassadors planning the destruction of Europe. History has presented few spectacles so hideous and so calculatingly cruel. Mr. Morgenthau has given his fellow-countrymen a glimpse into history which they should keep constantly before them in the troublous times that lie ahead.

gence. If a university elects a professor of political economy it is necessarily with the understanding that he shall teach his subject in accordance with his own convictions. To dismiss him because he preaches free trade, when a majority of the trustees believe in pro"academic tection, would be a violation of freedom." Similarly to dismiss a professor of science who accepts the Darwinian conception of evolution, in face of the fact that most of the trustees still pin their faith to the first chapter of Genesis, would also violate this same principle. Practically all the cases in which the principle of "academic freedom" has been really involved have been of this kind. When Brown University dismissed E. Benjamin Andrews because he supported Bryan in 1896, it violated this rule, for Mr. Andrews was a political economist and a monetary expert and was, therefore, at liberty to hold and express any opinion that seemed good to him on the question of the free coinage of silver. Most similar cases have concerned professors of economics or sociology whose progressive ideas on the distribution of property have shocked the trustees and financial backers of the institutions in question.

They

The cases of Professor Cattell and Assistant Professor Dana are quite different. involve matters of personal conduct. Mr. Cattell was professor of psychology. Had he been dismissed for teaching a kind of psychology or philosophy which the trustees disapproved, such a dismissal would have violated "academic freedom." Professor Cattell's offense, however, was that he had written letters to Congressmen, on the stationery of Columbia University, asking them to use their influence against sending American troops to France. Mr. Dana was professor of English literature. The trustees dropped him from the rolls because he had conspicuously identified himself with the so-called People's Council, an organization whose energies, in the opinion of most Americans, are devoted to obtaining a peace that will be helpful to Germany and damaging to the United States. The real point that these cases involve is this: Has a university any responsibility for the personal conduct of its professors as men and as citizens? Has it any interest in the activities of its teaching force outside of the class room? So long as a professor teaches his subject satisfactorily, can he lead his own private life precisely as he wills? Merely to ask this question is to answer it.

A university is more than a group of buildings where the young man learns Greek, Latin, science, and philosophy. It is its constant boast that it is a training place for character and good citizenship. Our greatest universities have always insisted that, while they give their professors "academic freedom" in teaching their particular subjects, these same professors must maintain a dignity and seemliness in their personal lives that will not bring the institution into contempt. It is not true that a university professor, as soon as he leaves the classroom, becomes a free agent. What university could be expected to retain on its faculty a group of professors, for instance, who spent their lives outside the university halls in drunkenness and debauchery? How long would such an institution retain the confidence of the public?

A few years ago Columbia dismissed a professor for the reason that, although he was -a distinguished scholar and an altogether charming person, he was likewise notorious for the immorality of his private life. No one quesNo one questioned the propriety of this action or suggested that it violated the principle of "academic freedom." The trustees have now dismissed Professors Cattell and Dana because their activities outside the class room, in the opinion of the great majority of Americans, encouraged disloyalty and sedition, and are professedly intended to defeat our military operations and promote the success of Germany. Columbia informs the world that it will harbor no men on its teaching staff and no students who are openly working against the Nation in this, the greatest crisis in its history.

T

The War Before the War

HE revelations which are coming almost every day from Washington form a suitable accompaniment to Mr. Gerard's description of his three humiliating years at the German court. All these disclosures have a significance which extends beyond the light which they shed upon German military methods. They indicate the attitude which a Hohenzollern Germany has always maintained toward a self-governing democracy like our own, and they are to be read in connection with Germany's insulting behavior toward the United States for the last quarter century. During that whole period Germany has shown herself the enemy of mankind and

particularly the enemy of those countries which assert the principle of popular rule. They teach us the invaluable lesson, which we cannot too strongly or too frequently insist upon, that the complete triumph of Kultur signifies not only German domination over Europe but the destruction of free institutions in every part of the world. We Americans have been slow to grasp this situation in its complete reality, but as the history of the last twenty years is gradually unfolded, piece by piece, the fact that this struggle merely represents an attempt to reduce the world to medievalism, to crush individual liberty everywhere and to replace it with a military autocracy, becomes a truth as clear as sunlight.

Mr. Gerard informs us that the Germans hate Americans, above all peoples, simply because we are a successful democracy. More recent revelations of German duplicity show that there are no instruments which the Prussian despotism will not use to accomplish our destruction. Most of us have accepted April 6, 1917, as the date when war began between Germany and the United States. In reality Germany has been waging war upon us ever since the present Kaiser came to power.

The German Government's attempt to form a coalition of European nations against us in 1898, when we went to the rescue of Cuba, was an act of war. The German Navy repeatedly committed acts of war against Admiral Dewey in the Philippines in that year. Germany's attempted invasion of Venezuela in 1902 was an act of war. Even the visit of Prince Henry in 1902 was an act of war, since its main purpose was to divide the allegiance of our people, and to transform our citizens of German birth into a compact mass that would serve the interests of the Kaiser. Germany has committed acts of war against us in Mexico, in Haiti, in numerous other places. For years the German Embassy has been simply a headquarters for plots directed against the peace and the sovereignty of our people. The German Ambassador has spent his finest talents in attempts to sow dissension between this country and England. We now know that when, in 1913, President Wilson was working to secure the repeal of the Panama Tolls Act, his bitterest opponent was the infamous Bernstorff, who was attempting in this way to make trouble between the United States and Great Britain-activities that were virtually acts of

war. The events of the last three years, the ambassadorial scheme to blow up our factories, to place mines in ships sailing from our ports, to disorganize our industries by causing strikes, to bribe certain purchasable journalists to attack their own nation, their own president, to seduce certain professional Irishmen to use American soil as a base of operations against a nation with which we were at peace, as well as the plottings to finance the activities of pacifists directed against the security of their countryall these Germanic undertakings amounted simply to one thing. They were acts of war against the United States.

The situation has, therefore, changed only in that the war is no longer being waged subtly, secretly, but openly, and in that hostilities are being prosecuted by the United States as well as by Germany. We have finally taken up the challenge which the Germanic system has for so many years been leveling at our democratic organization.

V

Our Feelings Toward Japan

ISCOUNT ISHII came on a mission to us recently and told us many pleasant things about the feeling of Japan for us, told us that such misunderstanding as there was had been instigated by the Germans and carried on by the irresponsible yellow journals on both sides of the water. The Viscount's friendly discourses were pleasant to hear and to read. His visit helped to alleviate His visit helped to alleviate a little strain that had arisen. It was a well timed and well executed mission.

But the Viscount did not go to the roots of things. The American distrust of Japan was not manufactured by the Germans. They may have tried to take advantage of it, but it is founded on several well-known causes.

In the first place, there is a very general impression among American traders that when Japan became paramount in Manchuria she discriminated most unfairly against American trade.

In the second place, there is the friction between the Japanese and the American populations on the Pacific Coast.

In the third place, Americans have felt a keen resentment that Count Okuma should have telegraphed an American magazine that Japan would restore Kiao-chau to Chinaonly to find later that Japan had no intention of doing this.

In the fourth place, Americans resented Japan's action in secretly confronting China with the famous twenty-one demands which, if accepted by China, would practically end our Open Door policy and the maintenance of the integrity of China.

The condition of affairs in Manchuria we have accepted. For the friction between Japanese and Americans on the Pacific Coast, we do not blame any one especially, and we shall do our utmost as Japan is doing to alleviate the difficulty.

Count Okuma's misrepresentation leaves an unpleasant impression which is very much heightened by Japan's pressure on China, as exampled by the twenty-one demands.

Viscount Ishii said nothing about these demands, but the impression gained from his speeches was that Japan had no designs on China's integrity or on the Open Door. That would mean that such demands would not be pressed again. There were several signs that under the changed conditions Japan had really decided on a less aggressive course toward China. The Viscount's assurances fitted in with these signs. Certainly, then, we should be induced to meet the friendly advances half way. That unquestionably was the general disposition.

Yet the Viscount had hardly left our shores when we were confronted with the following despatch from Peking, October 26th last:

The Japanese are exerting every effort, officially and unofficially, to close the Chinese arms monopoly contract, carrying control of the Nanking iron deposits and the employment of Japanese military advisers and a director of the new arsenal at Nan

king. It is asserted by the Japanese that they are extending credit, and not making a loan, and consequently that they are not violating the Six Powers' exclusive rights to make political loans.

This view is not shared by the French and the English and a large section of the Chinese press, as well as diplomatic circles, which unite in denouncing the deal as a revival of the most objectionable features in Japan's demands presented to China in May, 1915, known as "Group V." The principal provisions of those demands, which were twentyone in number, concerned the appointment of Japanese military and political advisers for China and Japanese supervision over the manufacture or purchase by China of munitions of war.

Minister Reinsch has advised the Foreign Office that China has invariably taken the position that it would hold the remainder of the iron deposits for national use whenever Americans have sought development rights, and that consequently the

the next twelve months to the United States and our allies. Their spruce will go out not only to American factories, but to Italy, France, and Great Britain. They will make important contributions to the anticipated Allied victory in the air.

We Are Not Dependent Upon Germany for Potash

Tcently

HE American Chemical Society, recently assembled in annual convention in Boston, brought one message of cheer to the American people. Our farmers, contrary to general belief, are not necessarily dependent on Germany for that potash which is so indispensable for fertilizer. Potash has played an important part in German-American relations, and, at times, has occupied practically all the attention of our diplomatic representatives at Berlin. Until this present conflict, German-American combats have passed into history under rather inglorious titles. In Bismarck's time we had a "hog war" with Germany, hostilities hanging upon the imperial determination to exclude American meats in the interests of the junkers. As recently as 1910 a "potash war" raged between the two countries. Only the other day a German professor declared that this present struggle must end in Germany's favor, because American agriculture could not live long without German potash.

Providence favored the United States in natural resources, giving us more than our fair share of oil, coal, iron, silver, gold, water power, and farming land. We thought that it had neglected us in potash. But the pressure of war has made us open our eyes a little wider. In San Bernardino County, California, Searles Lake, covering 25,000 acres, according to Government geologists, will yield ample supplies. Moreover, there are plants on the shore ready to begin work. Added to this the chemists now say that the spirit of conservation, properly applied, will give us a large amount. We make 90,000,000 barrels of cement a year. These contain 100,000 tons of potash-half our annual exports from Germany before the warwhich can be easily redeemed for agricultural purposes. Enormous quantities also go to waste in wool wash, kelp, the waste liquor of beets and other things. Moreover, we are beginning to act on this information. In 1915, the United States produced 350 tons of potash,

and, in 1916, this had grown to 36,000 tons. If the war lasts a year or two longer, there is little doubt that we shall produce all we need. And, as in case of dyes, after the war we may not be so dependent upon Germany.

Our Growing Place Among the Nations N 1880 more than 70 per cent. of the people of the United States belonged to the rural class; were largely engaged in raising foodstuffs stuffs to feed the nation. Only 30 per cent. lived in towns and cities. When the last census was taken, in 1910, less than 54 per cent. of our population was rural; 46.3 per cent. was urban. This trend from the farm to the city has been evident since 1820. It is the manifestation of an economic change which is of great importance at this time, when the war is opening up for us a larger place in the family of nations. It means that the labor of a smaller proportion is now being expended to feed the total population. The development of farm machinery, in which this country is the leader, has been an important factor in making this possible. Just at this time, when we must feed half the world, there is need for more help on the farm; but labor-saving devices will largely overcome this shortage. A steadily growing percentage of our people is engaged in transforming our own raw products into finished articles, and we now reap the full profit where formerly we often sent the raw material abroad and bought back from there the manufactured articles.

While 46 per cent. of our population was classed as urban before the war, as much as 78 per cent. of England's was so classed. Of course, the remaining 22 per cent. there do not raise enough to feed the rest. But it is the fact that three fourths of the English people are more or less identified with manufacturing pursuits that has made Great Britain the greatest commercial nation in the world. Until now few American manufacturers have felt the need of foreign markets. Our great industrial expansion due to the war, however, requires broader markets if it is to be sustained. Those who know the American manufacturer and his selling methods have little doubt but that he will command them. The Government's comprehensive shipbuilding plans will be of great aid; and the new Federal Reserve system makes