The "Times" replies: "But our President cannot declare war at all. Congress alone has that power."

We need not read so very far back in American history to find the quibble. The "Times" has expressed a theory, but the facts have differed widely from it in recent years. When President Wilson went before Congress and asked its approval of his conduct in Mexico he had already declared war on that country. It was to our purpose at the time to proclaim that "a state of hostilities existed in Mexico," but no war, and that we "got away" with it was due solely to the fact that the Mexican Government was impotent to protect itself against that most incontrovertible declaration of war-the infringement of a nation's sovereignty by the seizure of its territory. If we go back to 1898 we find a still more cogent refutation of the "Times" position. On April 25th of that year, Congress passed a joint resolution "That war be, and the same is hereby declared to exist, and that war has

existed since the twenty-first day of April, anno Domini eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, including said day, between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain." In other words, four days after a state of war had existed with Spain and then only at a suggestion from President McKinley, contained in his special message of April 25th, Congress came through with that formal declaration of war on which the "Times" places so much importance. Was it, in this instance, Congress or the President, who first made war on Spain?

The second point on which the "Times" bases its contention is the language in which the Chancellor's telegram to St. Petersburg was couched. Without denying that a meeting of the Bundesrat was held and the declaration of war decided upon by that body, and overlooking the fact that it was made by the Emperor "in the name of the Empire,' the "Times" attempts to read into the form in which it was presented to Russia something autocratic and unAmerican. The truth is that the

Bundesrat was convened and is still in session, and that it voted the war. The Chancellor was but its spokesman in conveying the sense of its action to St. Petersburg. The essentials are not contained in the words of the Imperial Chancellor, but in the action of the Bundesrat itself.

The object of the "Times" is apparently to blind its readers to the fact of the Constitution on which is based the whole structure of German unity and which in essentials differs from our own only in the method of constituting courts and the tenure of the Executive. As a matter of fact, there is less dissimilarity between these two constitutions than there is between the Constitution of the United States and that of any other country of Europe. There is no evidence at hand to show that the German Emperor on any one point has exceeded his legal rights under the supreme law of the land.

The question of Emperor vs. President as a candidate for the Nobel Prize is one on which every American will form his own opinion. The fact is that Austria, and her ally, put up

But

for years with conditions on her borders that would have made General Weyler blush at his own moderation. When out of those conditions came open and flagrant murder not even "the firm mind and hand" of President Wilson would have availed to restrain the righteous indignation of the sufferers thereby. The spirit of 1898, that drove Spain from Cuba, was not one whit more justifiable than that which prompted Austria to demand redress for her wrongs and her ally to support her in that demand.

IT IS NECESSARY TO FIGHT WITH THE WEAPONS OF THE ADVERSARY.

New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, New York.

Herman Ridder.

Among the many able friends of Germany in the United States who have defended their convictions by pen and voice, Dr. Bernhard Dernburg ranks with the first. The second article from Dr. Dernburg's pen, which appeared in The Sun of the 27th inst., leaves little to be desired from the points of view of logic, comprehensiveness and lucidity. I agree with The Sun when it says of Dr. Dernburg that "both in temper and in method of presentation he is by far the most effective of all the advocates now writing or speaking in behalf of Germany's cause. Dr. Dernburg's arguments are all legitimate, and the tone of his expression is so moderate and his line of reasoning so plausible that it is not impossible he may lead many American minds into that very attitude of biased unneutrality which he warns us against (if the sympathy be for England) as incapacitating the United States for a mediatory rôle."

The Sun continues, however:

"We shall therefore content ourselves with saying that if Dr. Dernburg's spirit and skill and tact had directed the unfortunate efforts of some of the organized and volunteer and individual propagandists who have undertaken to create in this country a public opinion favorable to Germany, the sentiment here might be quite different from that of which they complain."

This implied criticism of the efforts of other and less fortunately situated friends of Germany to counteract the designs of her enemies needs little answer or explanation. It is necessary to fight with the weapons of the adversary. I can sympathize with the point of view of those who have been taunted into possible hyperbole or violence of expression by the evident bias of the Anglophile press. Would that it might be given to us all to maintain an attitude of calm logic and friendly good nature under the extreme provocation of seeing what we respect and admire trampled ruthlessly under foot. Too

often, however, the human hand is directed by the impulse of a superheated collar. Too often we respond to the sting of some glaring injustice, and our pen runs riot. The human element grips us strongly and we react to the beat of our hearts. It is not, however, for those who laid the train to such explosions to criticize the result.

Germany-the German Emperor and the German people is making a magnificent fight for existence. One may differ from her in opinion, but we cannot withhold the admiration that is due a determined nation fighting for all it holds nearest and dearest in life. Surrounded by enemies actuated by the most divergent motives and one only in the desire to crush Germany, overwhelmed by numbers, she, with her single ally, is showing the world an example of patriotism, of united effort and determination, for which history cannot fail to give her full credit.

The German papers in this country have shown a united front in preaching the cause of Germany. I do not refer, of course, to other than bona fide German papers, and certainly not to Mr. Hearst's German editions, in which the word is the word of the German, but the thought the thought of a Hearst. In this connection we quote "Collier's Weekly" as follows:

"The war shows again the brazen effrontery with which Hearst dishes up the stuff he publishes. One day last month the so-called "American" (New York) had a cut with the line: "This is the type of English soldier who is doing such tremendous work on the battle front in France.' On the same day the German edition had the same cut, but gave it this title: 'British troops who are able to sprint so fast that the German soldiers cannot catch up with them.' If you want to be buncoed, just read the Hearst papers. William Randolph will do the rest-and you."

There is no stronger defender of the German side of the war than the German Herold of Mr. C. B. Wolffram. In the columns of this paper Mr. Wolffram has, in a quiet, careful, unobtrusive manner conducted an able campaign for the advancement of German thought and the presentation of German arguments.

The times have given rise, also, to a weekly publication, The Fatherland, which is no less inspired by patriotic motives in its attempt to represent the spirit of fair play. In its issue of the 30th inst., The Fatherland puts the following questions:

"To the fair-minded American citizen, who can't be fooled all the time, even by the newspapers, the following questions are offered for consideration:

"First-Why is Zabern cited, but Kishineff forgotton?

"Second-Why is it a crime against humanity for Germany to maintain the biggest army in the world, but a mere means of defense, just, natural, and proper, for Great Britain to maintain the biggest navy in the world?

"Third-Why is it hysterical or hypocritical for Germany to speak of 'the Slavic peril,' but wise, foresighted, and righteous, all this last decade, for England in every possible way to fill the minds of her people with the idea of 'the Germanic peril?'

"Fourth-Why was it outrageous of Austria to question the sincerity of Servia's acceptance of seven of the eight conditions of the ultimatum, but mere statesmanly foresight on the part of Sir Edward Grey to question the sin

cerity of Germany's efforts to keep the peace?

"Fifth-Why was it disgraceful of Germany to keep faith with her ally, Austria, but noble and heroic of England to keep faith with her ally, France?

"Sixth-Why is Germany's invasion of neutral (?)* Belgium an outrage, but Japan's invasion of neutral China a negligible matter?

"Seventh-Why is every Belgian, French and English account of German outrage to be swallowed, hook, line and sinker, while German accounts of Belgian and Russian outrages are to be sneered at as mere fakes?

"Eighth-Why is it improper and a breach of neutrality for Americans of German descent to express their sympathy with Germany, but proper and commendable for Americans of English descent to express their sympathy with England and her allies?

"Ninth-Why is it fanatical and barbaric of the Germans to believe in the destiny of Germany, but right and natural of the Englishman to believe in the Heaven-appointed destiny of England to rule the earth?"

I have attempted in my own small way to offset as much of the hostile and unfounded criticism levelled at Germany as possible, by presenting the readers of the Staats-Zeitung with the other side of the shield. There is a certain amount of right, of logic and of pure, unquestionable faith in the justice of its own cause to be found in each of the armed camps of Europe. Only when the attempt is made to convince the American people that this is not true of Germany I object—and I object not as a German but as an American, not more because of the direct injustice done thereby to a friendly nation than because the American people are being educated in error. I have been assailed both in the press and by those anonymous letter writers whose views are not worth their signatures. For every letter of that sort which I have received, however, I have had ten from intelligent and sympathetic friends of Germany and fair play.

*Read the following articles printed elsewhere in this book. (The index gives their exact location): "Belgian Neutrality," "Has Germany Violated "BernBelgian Neutrality?," hard Shaw Points Out England's Factor of Responsibility for Europe's War," "Belgium's Change of Policy," "More English Faithlessness," and in "Germany and the Great War," the paragraph headed "What is the justification for the violation of the Belgian neutrality to which Germany was party?"; also "An Authority on Neutrality," "War or Vandalism," and "An Excuse for a Minister's Mistakes."

THE ALLIES.

a

Sir John French: Through my glasses I see distinctly, mon Général, that the retreating columns are French.

General Joffre: Take my glasses, sir, and you will see that they are English.

GERMAN WAR SUBSCRIPTION.

Military Fund of $1,125,000,000
Quickly Raised by
Public.

The Daily News, Chicago.

[By The Associated Press.] Berlin, Germany, Sept. 28 (via London, 2:50 p. m.).-The response of the German public to the efforts of the government to raise a war fund of 5,000,000,000 marks ($1,250,000,000) has, it is asserted here, removed all anxiety the nation may have had regarding its ability to meet financial obligations due to the war. Already 4,500,000,000 marks has been subscribed by the public without straining seriously the financial resources of the empire.

Had $125,000,000 at Start. According to military authorities, the war is costing Germany about 20,000,000 marks ($5,000,000) day, inclusive of the money spent on behalf of those who have been deprived of their bread winners.

a

The means of the government at the beginning of the war, not including the permanent war treasure, but including the reserve funds of the reichsbank, amounted to about 500,000,000 marks ($125,000,000), which, however, has been considerably increased through the issue of notes.

It is thought, therefore, that the money available for the purposes of the campaign can be increased, if necessary, by several billion marks.

Count on $2,000,000,000.

The amount which the government could borrow from the reichsbank is unknown, but it is estimated at about 3,000,000,000 marks, making a total of about 8,000,000,000 marks ($2,000,000,000). At the rate of 20,000,000 marks ($5,000,000) a day, this sum would permit Germany to carry on the war for more than a year.

It is said here that these esti mates concerning Germany's financial resources are low rather than high.

From "Chicago Daily News," Feb., 1915.

Berlin, March 13, 3 a. m.-The Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, in an editorial, referring to yesterday's petition by economic organizations, reasserts the inadvisability of discussing peace terms at this juncture.

The paper says that such a discussion might weaken the impression abroad of complete German unanimity in the determination to persevere to the utmost.

It would be better, says the editorial, to gain a definite victory before talking about the reward for all the sacrifices made and the shape a peace treaty should take. The polemical attitude of the associations against the decision of the highest military and civil authorities is inopportune and will not hasten victory in the field, asserts the paper.

CONGRESSMAN BARTHOLDT'S PLEA FOR GERMANY.

The Fatherland, New York. (On September 27, before a packed house in Terrace Garden, Representative Bartholdt, of St. Louis, made one of the strongest addresses yet made on the war here. Because it boldly upheld the Teuton cause the speech was denied that prominence it deserves. We are glad to publish in substance the entire address.)

"Germany wants peace, as her history shows. For forty-three years she has consistently maintained it, in spite of many irritations as well as numerous opportunities to make gains by aggression. The sole purpose of the triple alliance was for defense and for the preservation of the peace of Europe. German militarism was purely for defense, and Germany would never disturb the peace if let alone by her neighbors. The efficiency, thrift and culture of the German people would easily make them the master nation of Europe if only they were permitted to enjoy permanently the blessings of peace.

Calls Press Unfair.

"The hostile attitude of a large part of the American press toward Germany is the most bitter disappointment of my life. While on German Day we usually point with justifiable satisfaction to the proud history of the American Germans, today we are obliged to ask the humiliating questions whether our diligent cooperation in the upbuilding of this country has ever been noticed by our non-German contemporaries.

"If it had, we could at least have cherished the hope that our AngloAmerican fellow-citizens might have

gained a more favorable conception of the country from which we hail, of its culture and its institutions, than we now find expressed in the newspapers, a conception which we thought might have prevented the American press from printing the many absurd and outrageous stories which emanate from London and Paris to poison public opinion in our neutral country against Germany. We believed that the complete identification of the Germans with American institutions, their unswerving loyalty to the stars and stripes and their diligent and intelligent efforts in all fields of American activity had earned for them at least just consideration and fair treatment, but we must now reluctantly admit that in this we are sorely disappointed.

Germans Entitled to Sympathy.

"The German nation, owing to its traditional friendship for the United States, is even entitled to the outspoken sympathy of the American people. Or have we forgotten that Frederick the Great sent us Baron von Steuben, whose achievements as the drillmaster of the revolutionary army made possible the final triumph of the colonies? Have we forgotten that in the civil war Germany was our only friend, while England, in open sympathy with the South, destroyed our commerce and refused any and all aid to the Union.*

"In the hour of his greatest distress Abraham Lincoln sent three emissaries to Europe to float Union bonds. These envoys were shown the door in both London and Paris, and Gladstone declared openly that

*Nor is it an accident in Prussian History and Character that Frederick the Great was among the first of the rulers to recognize the independence of the United States of America.-Editor.

the English hoped for Confederate success. But when Lincoln's emissaries came to Germany they were received with open arms, and Bismarck, then promoter of Prussia, told the Berlin and Frankfort bankers to advance to the Union all the money they could spare. The purchase of these Union bonds by Germany made it possible for President Lincoln to continue the war and carry it to a successful conclusion.

"Have we not a right to remind our fellow-citizens of this historical fact just at this time and does this not furnish at least one valid reason why in the present war drama, when Germany's very life is at stake, American sympathies should go out to our arch-friend rather than our archenemy?

Japan to Demand Pay. "England's summons to the black men, the brown men and the yellow men to fight her battles against a white and highly cultured nation will not be the end of it. Japan will demand her pound of flesh, which is bound to be cut out of the skin of one Uncle Sam. Even now supremacy in the Pacific may have been promised the yellow man in return for his present aid and for the protection by Japan of India. Who, I ask you, would be America's natural ally, when that time comes? Under her treaty obligations England will be bound to back up the Mikado, hence Germany again will be our only stand-by, as she was when, some years ago, John Hay looked around for support for his policy of the open door and Chinese neutrality.

"England and France came in only after Germany had demonstratively joined hands with our great Secretary of State. For this very act, Japan asserts, the Germans are to be pun

ished now, because it frustrated some fine Japanese plans. This being so, will not the Mikado have it in for the United States for the same reason?

Militarism Protest Insincere. "If the protest against German militarism were sincere, I would rejoice in it, but alas, it is not, for the same papers which are objecting to Germany's militarism are loudest in their support of American militarism. England's navy is the climax of militarism and France's army, too, proportionately larger than Germany's.

"Even the peace advocates, of whom I am one, admit that as long as the world remains an armed camp Germany has more justification in keeping up an efficient army than almost any other country. When divided she was the spittoon of Europe, the battles of all nations having been fought on her soil. It was to protect the Fatherland against being everybody's battle ground that she built up a strong army as soon as her unity had been achieved as a result of the Franco-German war, but it was an army, as her history shows, merely for her defense and not for aggression."

The Peace Programme.

In conclusion, Mr. Bartholdt ventured a prophesy by saying:

"A defeat or dismemberment of the German Empire will mean eternal war; because the Teutonic race will never accept such a result. A victory of the two German nations, however, will signify permanent peace. Both Germany and Austria-Hungary cherish peace, and their two rulers wish for their people the blessings of

VON HINDENBURG AND HIS STAFF (By Courtesy of the "Chicago Abendpost")

fruitful civilization, the growth of industry and trade and the highest development of the arts and sciences, and the condition 'sine quo non' of such progress and the healing of the wounds caused by this horrible war is a secure and permanent peace anchored upon an international agreement providing for disarmament and for a high court of nations which will adjust all the peoples' differences, and whole decisions will be backed by an international police force.

"This is the programme to which for many years I have devoted my humble efforts, and the realization of which will, let us hope, be in the near future."

BRITONS IN PROTEST.

Milwaukee Free Press.

F. Hugh O'Donnell, formerly foreign editor on the "Morning Post," the "Spectator" and other leading London journals, writes as follows to the New York "Evening Post":

"Every man who has had a connection with the honorable British journalism of the past ought to thank you for your just and moderate rebuke of the pretended censorship which has passed off such a mountain of falsehoods on the public of both hemispheres. I suppose I am the Doyen of the foreign editors of London, and well I know that under Gladstone and Beaconsfield it would have been impossible to find either writers or censors for the abominable fictions which have been spread in order to inflame the British masses against their German opponents. The

tales of German officers filling their pockets with the severed feet and hands of Belgian babies, and German Catholic regiments deliberately destroying French Catholic cathedrals, would decidedly not have been accepted by any editors of the "Times" or "Morning Post" in the days of Queen Victoria.

"The worst part of these infamous inventions has been that they have stirred up the blind fury of the English populace against tens of thousands of inoffensive and useful foreigners who have done nothing but good in a hundred honest professions, and who are now, in the midst of savage threats and insults, torn from their industrious homes and thrust into bleak and miserable prisons without a single comfort on the brink of the wintry season. The spectacle is a hideous one and the military censorship which has spread the exciting calumnies has gained no enviable place in truthful history."

Mr. O'Donnell is certainly a noble exception to the prevailing spirit in England in the crisis. Nor is he without company, as we have become familiar with such names as Trevelyan, McDonald, Burns, Morley and many others.-Editor.

This goes to show that not all Englishmen are by any means in sympathy with the manner in which the British press, aided and abetted by the government censor, is poisoning and perverting the news; to many indeed it appeals as a sad reflection on the deterioration of British character.

as

for

For our part we incline to the opinion that the great majority of the public wants the truth, wants fair play for its opponents. And we further believe that this public gradually awakes to the double dealing of the government which involved Great Britain in this war and to the cowardly and dishonorable character of its censorship, there will come about a revulsion of feeling against the responsible Liberal ministry that will overthrow it at the first opportunity the war permits.

With enlistments lagging, with colonial rebellion spreading and with the voice of criticism becoming more emphatic this event may be much nearer than any one anticipates.

ENGLAND'S CASE.

By Viscount Bryce in The Times, New York.

Commented Upon by Herman
Ridder, New Yorker Staats-

Zeitung, New York.

The consignments of spoon food received from England during the last two months have glutted the market. We are tired and sick of it all. The "sabre-rattling" and "jack-boots" of Sir Arthur have had their run. We want novelty in this country and nothing could pall more upon us than the repeated dinning into our ears by every English organ from "The Times" up or down, of the few catch phrases, copied by that master of English word-cinematography. I have read Sir Arthur's effusions, along with those of H. G. Wells, Anthony Hope, Rudyard Kipling, Israel Zangwill and the rest of the war-mad English penmen, and for the life of me I am unable to come to any other conclusion than that their readings on Germany have been confined to Bernhadi and Treitschke, those two German writers who were never a part of German intellectual life and were both disowned by the German people. It would be easy to point out writers in England who have advocated theories far more radical than either Treitschke or Bernhardi, who have had their little day and passed into their little grave "unwept, unhonored and unsung." It would serve no useful purpose, however, to do so, for Englishmen are notoriously fond of making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Even Lord Roberts was not above warning England three years ago that her immediate opponent was Germany, but her eventual States.

enemy was the United

It is a relief, therefore, to happen upon a writer for England who is

above the level, intellectually and as a novelist, of the crowd of literary freebooters who have attempted so zealously to force Bernhardi down our throats. Such a writer is James Bryce, whose contribution to "The Times" of Sunday last will do much to raise England's case from the mire out of which the poets, dramatists and fiction writers of the country have tried in vain to drag it. It matters little whether it is "Mr." Bryce or "Viscount" Bryce who writes. Whatever the name of James Bryce is subscribed to Americans will always read with pleasure and seldom without conviction. He has been "among us" and we know him, not simply as a profound and elegant scholar, but as a great, generous, lovable soul.

So logically and truly deduced are the conclusions of Viscount Bryce that Bernhardi was in but not of Germany that it is difficult to reconcile with them his assertion that it was the teachings of Bernhardi that moved Germany to war and controls her present conduct of it. This condemnation of Germany, however, vis-à-vis of England, cannot be effected by the statement that her policy was dictated by a military caste of which Bernhardi was the spokesman. England has had her own war party, which for years has urged upon her the crushing of Germany and to which Sir Edward Grey has shown himself to have been no insignificant adherent. In the circumstance of the actual conflict "the Gerpeople generally," to whom least of all Viscount Bryce would attribute any acceptance of Bernhardi's principles, have shown themselves far more in sympathy with the decision of their Government than have the British.

man The fact that he

is the author of "The Holy Roman Empire" and "The American Commonwealth" is scarcely the basis of our affection for Viscount Bryce. It is rather the fact that as British Ambassador to Washington he showed himself big enough to serve his own country without losing the good will of ours.

I know of no one better qualified to present England's case to the American people than he surely no one in the motley throng that rushed into the first breach with no other equipment than their quivering goosequills. Their mighty efforts are adumbrated by his quiet logic and the faith which we have in his knowledge of his subject.

I have no more sympathy for Bernhardi than any other free-born, liberty-loving American has no more than the quiet, industrious German has, who looks upon militarism as the Englishman regards navalism, as a national necessity and a national evil-and therefore I can welcome these words of Viscount Bryce: "What are these doctrines? I do not for a moment attribute them to the learned class in Germany, for whom I have profound respect, recognizing their immense services to science and learning; nor to the bulk of the civil administration, a body whose capacity and unrightness are known to all the world, and least of all to the German people generally. That the latter holds no such views appears from Bernhardi's own words, for he repeatedly complains of and deplores the pacific tendencies of his fellow-countrymen."

As a matter of fact Bernhardi is not even read in Germany. Of his works, published by Cotta, only 800 copies have been given to the public to date! And that to a public of 65,000,000! The writings of Treitschke, as a historian, are regarded by Germans as brilliant, but Treitschke is remembered by them as a man of intense party feeling, who labored under the spirit of 1870 and was incapable of true sympathy with their racial aspirations. If Americans are in search for a German historian whose ideals are one with those of his people and whose work will live when that of Treitschke, Bernhardi and the rest of their ilk has long been forgotten, I would suggest Professor Lamprecht, of Leipsic.

It might almost be suspected that Viscount Bryce has said so much of Bernhardi, simply to hang on a text chosen from "Germany and the Next War," a sermon to the German nation on the duty of greater to lesser states. If Bernhardi is followed, says Bryce: "They (the smaller and weaker nations) will be absolutely at the mercy of the stronger, even if protected by treaties guaranteeing their neutrality and independence. They will not be safe, for treaty obligations are worthless, 'when they do not correspond to facts,' i. e., when the strong power finds that they stand in its way its interests are paramount."

It

As the learned writer of these lines has repudiated Bernhardi as a spokesman for Germany, it cannot be assumed that he looks to Germany to work upon any such principles. may be assumed, however, that they were penned to offset some of the suspicions which the history of the last century has cast upon England's attitude toward her smaller and weaker neighbors.

"If a state hold valuable minerals," continued Viscount Bryce, "as Sweden has iron, and Belgium coal, and Roumania oil, or if it has abundance of water power, like Norway, Sweden and Switzerland; or if it holds the mouth of a navigable river, the upper course of which belongs to another nation, a great state may conquer and annex that small state as soon as it finds it needs minerals or water power or river mouth."

Precisely. The inference, however, which we are asked to make is that Germany will reach out for Belgium, Roumania, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland as soon as it finds it needs minerals or water power or river mouth.

I do not wish to question Viscount Bryce on the history of the distant past. The author of "The Holy Roman Empire" is a much more learned man in such things than I. I wish only to mention a few facts and to ask a few questions having to do with those years which both he and I can claim as our own.