we have referred. In this Mr. A. H. Smith, the Regional Director for the Eastern Division of the Railway Administration, compares the congestion and shortage during the stress of last winter, and draws hopeful conclusions for the coming trying season. Then follows an enumeration of nearly twenty things actually done. We can name only a very few of these things to illustrate what may now be done under National control which would have been absolutely impossible before. For instance, over two million miles a month of unessential passengertrain mileage has been eliminated; over three hundred and fifty locomotives originally meant for France or Russia have been put to work in this division, and over a hundred locomotives have been arbitrarily transferred from roads in the South and West to the Eastern roads-that is, all have been put just where they could do the most good; terminal facilities have been used in common by the railways at big commercial centers; freight trains have been run through to distant terminals without any reference to their make-up or place of starting; repair shops have been used almost as common property of the roads; labor has been interchanged between the roads when there was an advantage; troop trains have been handled as if all roads and all locomotives were at their disposal. It was due to such combined effort that the delivery of anthracite at tidewater rose from 820 cars in January to 1,109 in May, and to this also was due the reduction of 41,000 cars of freight for export waiting their chance to be unloaded to 28,000 cars.

As Mr. McAdoo well says in acknowledging this report, it gives evidence of being "a record of railroad achievement of the highest order in the face of difficulties of unprecedented char

acter.'

MEAT SUBSTITUTES

A correspondent writes to us as follows:

Great pressure is being put upon the country to save food. There is restriction in the use of meat. We are urged to eat fish. But a little investigation will, I believe, convince you that fish, and also poultry, are inexcusably and unreasonably high in price and not by any means reasonably abundant in supply. Is it not possible to do something in the direction of seeing that fish and poultry are available at fair prices?

Upon the receipt of this communication The Outlook wrote to that unfailing source of information, the Federal Food Administration. In its reply the Food Administration admitted that the fish programme had been a source of considerable worry to it. Fish, it explained, is naturally the substitute most acceptable in place of meat, because of its quantity and because also of the fact that all fish taken from the sea are pure gain, an addition without feeding cost to the dietary of the American people. It was natural, then, that the Food Administration should look hopefully to that field in outlining a meat-substitute programme. Unfortunately for it, however, the Army and Navy had commandeered the best fishing vessels, and the Government activities even took the flax thread, essential to the fishing industry for the manufacture and repair of nets. The immediate consequence of the commandeering of fishing vessels and the drafting of some of the best fishermen was the discouraging of further ship construction; for unless some reasonable guaranty might be obtained to the effect that, if new ships were built for the fishing trade to replace those taken over, they would not be commandeered, the ships would not be built.

The result of all this was that last year the catch was necessarily very low. Moreover, the breakdown in railway transportation still further interfered with distribution plans. The Food Administration, furthermore, was also confronted with the fact that the States had jurisdiction over their own waters within certain limits the State laws have been largely made in favor of the game fishermen and against quantity fishing. It is true that proposals were made for bringing some of the shipping down from the Great Lakes to go into coast fishing, but since no guaranty could be given that these vessels would not immediately be taken over for war work, the owners were naturally reluctant. All this did not get us very far.

So much for last year's catch. This year's, we are glad to say, is expected to be double that of last year since the fishing

trade has been licensed, and in that way Federalized, so that State licenses disappear, and the general Federal regulations, which are being applied under the licensing plan, overcome the State restrictions.

Moreover, heretofore only the choicest varieties of fish have been saved for market. Many other varieties, almost equally nutritious, have been discarded or used for fertilizer. Som varieties of these the Food Administration expects will be place at least twice a week, if not daily, in the retail market throughr out the country and at a cost to the consumer not to exceed tes cents a pound. Such an outcome will of course be of muc benefit to the consuming public, especially in the greater dis tribution through a stabilized system of marketing in the interior sections of the country.

It will be noted that The Outlook's correspondent also spok of poultry, the next most acceptable meat substitute. During the past season the drain on poultry has been very heavy as a substitute for beef. This drain on poultry was responsible for the rigid restrictions placed upon the sale of hens during the hatching season this year.

The high prices of poultry do their part in conservation. But these, the Federal Administration hopes, are of short duration, since poultry, like swine, increase very rapidly.

COSTA RICA

On May 25, 1918, the Costa Rican Congress declared war on Germany. This excited the angry comment of German newspapers. The " Rheinische-Westfälische Zeitung" declared that the Central American states were being forced into the fray because the United States, as in the case of Mexico, refused loans otherwise.

The latest addition to our allies is welcome, but causes a curious situation. In January, 1917, the former Minister of War, Federico Tinoco, by a coup d'état unseated President Alfredo Gonzales, of Costa Rica. The "revolution" took twelve hours and was without bloodshed.

Shortly after our declaration of war on Germany Tinoco offered the ports and waters of his country to the United States. The value of this, especially in view of the necessity of protecting the Panama Canal, is evident, and particularly when the attitude of the Canal's nearest neighbors to the south, Colombia and Venezuela, is considered. Senator Gallinger, of New Hampshire, has now introduced a resolution in Congress declaring that the United States should accept this offer of the use of Costa Rican ports, and also any other assistance in the war.

In accordance with President Wilson's policy of refusal to recognize revolutionary governments in Latin America, however (because of a purpose to influence the peoples concerned to appreciate constitutionality and not force whenever they want a governmental change), Tinoco was not recognized as call a convention and have himself declared elected. President of Costa Rica, even though he took the trouble to

Now Señor Tinoco has brought a new argument to bear on the situation. He has brought his country in as our latest ally. As such it calls for special consideration.. The question is. Costa Rica? The latter evidently expects that when two allies Will Mr. Wilson now recognize Señor Tinoco as President of are marching together towards a common goal one will take off his hat to the other.

THE GERMANS CONTRADICT THEIR KAISER

The other day at the German Main Headquarters William II celebrated the thirtieth anniversary of his accession to the throne. As reported in press despatches, he proclaims that "either German principles of right, freedom, honor, and morality must be upheld, or Anglo-Saxon principles, with their idolatry of mammon, must be victorious.

Some Germans in Frankfort and Munich have had the hardihood to protest against this Imperial saying. The " Frankfurter Zeitung" is one of their spokesmen. "The German people were not told on August 4, 1914," affirms the Frankfort paper, ac

cording to the despatches," that they were going out to fight the Anglo-Saxon conception of the world until it was conquered. Had that been said, even in veiled terms, the high unity of will of the German people would have been rent asunder on the first day, for the German did not think of this or that kind of world conception. He thought only of the Fatherland's need, of home and wife and mother.'

Moreover, the Frankfort paper goes on to say that, though "there are many dark passages in English history, they are not the result of any particular perversity in world conception." Nor will the "Frankfurter Zeitung " have the worship of money confined to Germany's enemies. "Unfortunately," it says, "our world conception has not protected us from making heavy sacrifices on that same altar. There has been no lack of service to mammon in Germany even in time of war."

Another spokesman is the Munich "Post." According to the telegraph, it has declared that "the anniversary of the Kaiser's accession could have been celebrated by a measure of clemency and humanity instead of by a speech of warlike tenor against England without containing words of thanks to his own people." The Munich paper concludes that "the Anglo-Saxon races are powerful enough to accept the Emperor's challenges."

The war is indeed between two sets of principles. But the point at issue is that what the Kaiser calls German principles of right are Prussian principles of wrong. Principles that justify the bloody mire of Belgium, the wrecking of Rheims, the outraging of women, the massacre of children, the defiance of law and humanity, cannot prevail.

When we find that two well-known German papers rise up in complaint and contradiction of the Emperor, we welcome these signs of healthy reaction.

WISCONSIN'S RECORD IN THE WAR

66

So much has been said and published concerning disloyalty in Wisconsin that the State has suffered in reputation. In particular, the case of Senator La Follette, of Wisconsin, has given the State a notoriety which it does not welcome. It has even been said by a representative of the Chamber of Commerce of one of Wisconsin's cities that, unless Wisconsin can show that she is misrepresented by Senator La Follette, goods labeled Made in Wisconsin" will meet the same fate as goods bearing the stamp "Made in Germany." In brief, the loss of her good name is affecting Wisconsin's purse. This evidence that a reputation for patriotism and loyalty has a tangible value will undoubtedly have a wholesome effect. It is, moreover, welcome as showing the overwhelming sentiment of the country in support of the cause for which it is fighting. But Wisconsin has undoubtedly been made to suffer unjustly because the people of the country as a whole have not wholly understood the facts. Wisconsin people become resentful when they hear reports that juries in their State cannot be counted on to convict disloyalists, for they know that Wisconsin has a record for loyalty that challenges the records of other States.

The Outlook has already recorded the action of the Legislature in formally condemning "Senator Robert M. La Follette and all others who have failed to see the righteousness of our Nation's cause, who have failed to support our Government in matters vital to the winning of the war;" and The Outlook has also recorded the vote in the Senatorial election which revealed the fact that the pro-German element in Wisconsin, though aggressive and in certain localities dominant, was a small minority. It may be well to add to these facts others which may not be so well known.

Wisconsin claims the distinction of being the first State in the Union to organize a State Council of Defense. Now every State has such a Council, working in co-operation with the Council of National Defense at Washington; but Wisconsin took the lead. Wisconsin was the first State to provide for the dependents of its soldiers. It was Wisconsin that suggested to the Washington authorities the use of election machinery for registering men subject to draft, and it placed its entire election machinery at the disposal of the United States in the first registration for selective service. Wisconsin was the first State in the Union to file in Washington a complete report of regis

tration. Indeed, Wisconsin filed its report four hours earlier than the District of Columbia.

Repeatedly the Provost-Marshal General has praised Wisconsin's efficiency in raising her share of the National Army. One quotation from his letters must suffice; "We have had constant occasion to place Wisconsin at or near the head of our lists in nearly every step that has been taken in the execution of the Selective Service Law."

Of the men of military age failing to respond to the draft, the percentage throughout the United States was 8.2; in Wisconsin it was only 2. Wisconsin's volunteer enlistments place her ahead of all but ten of the States, Territories, and Districts. Wisconsin has furnished 14,690 men under the draft-an excess of 1,814 over the required quota. Wisconsin has more boys on the fighting front, it is claimed, than any other State in the Union, with the possible exception of Massachusetts. One out of every twenty men in France to-day is a Wisconsin boy.

It would be possible to quote figures showing how liberally Wisconsin has subscribed not only to the Liberty Loans, which are investments, but to funds for the Red Cross, the Y. M. C. A., and the like, which are gifts; but the record given above is more convincing, because what counts is not what a State does with her dollars, but with her sons. Wisconsin has shown her loyalty by pledging what mankind everywhere holds dearest.

A

NO NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE HUN GAIN the German Government is making an effort to retard the efforts of the Allies by holding out a hope of peace. As we go to press comes the report of a speech by the German Foreign Secretary, Richard von Kühlmann, in the Reichstag, in which he denied that Germany ever had any intention to dominate Europe. And he deplored the condition of mind in which peace proposals were unwelcome.

This is the crux of what the German Foreign Minister had to say:

66

Önce the moment arrives-when I care not to prophesy that the nations which are at present locked in battle will exchange peace views, one of the preliminary conditions must be certain degrees of mutual confidence in each other's honesty and chivalry.

"For so long as every overture is regarded by others as a peace offensive as a trap or as something false for the purpose of sowing disunion between allies so long as every attempt at a rapprochement is at once violently denounced by the enemies of a rapprochement in the various countries, so long will it be impossible to see how any exchange of ideas leading to peace can be begun."

Dr. Kühlmann understands correctly why peace negotiations have failed, and, until victory crowns the Allies' cause, must fail. There can be no negotiations without mutual confidence. And Germany has made such mutual confidence impossible.

How can England believe in the chivalry of the nation that murdered Edith Cavell?

How can Belgium believe in the chivalry of the men who shot civilian men, women, and children as they marched toward the Meuse?

How can France believe in the chivalry of the men who ground the very bricks of French homes to powder, and cut down the very fruit trees, that France might in the future find it an agony to recuperate?

How can Italy believe in the chivalry of the bombers of Venice?

How can America believe in the chivalry of the men who massacred the defenseless passengers on the Lusitania? How can mankind believe in the chivalry of the Hun? And Kühlmann says that an exchange of ideas is impossible so long as every peace overture is regarded as a peace offensive. Does he wonder? He need not. He cannot have forgotten Brest-Litovsk. He cannot believe that we have forgotten. The Russians believed that a German peace overture was a real offer of peace, and they are now suffering the consequences of their faith in the faithless, their confidence in the perfidious.

No. So long as Americans retain their memory and their

sense they will enter into no negotiations with men who have shown that they count chivalry a weakness and fidelity a vice.

DECLARE WAR ON TURKEY

There are three reasons why the United States should declare war on Turkey: The main reason is that we should have long since declared war in the name of humanity. When the Armenians were massacred, we should have declared war, just as we should have declared it against Germany when the Lusitania passengers were massacred. Because we did not take such action, the brutes who inspired the massacres, and who take no account of words, but only of deeds, were inspired to think that perhaps, after all, those atrocities might be justified. The next reason why we should declare war on Turkey is that, as in the case of Austria and Bulgaria, we should be merely recognizing the existing fact. If we needed any reminder of this, it came a week ago. The American Board's latest announcement (taken from advance sheets of the "Missionary Herald" for July) told us that "in general the situation in Turkey is easier than it was a year ago. The Turkish officials are, for the most part, friendly, and are co-operating with the missionaries in relief work." This information seemed too good to be true. Close on its heels came news of a startlingly contrary nature. Turkish troops, it was reported, had attacked the American Consulate at Tabriz.

As the Brest-Litovsk Treaty between the Teutonic allies calls for the cession to Turkey of a considerable section of Russian Transcaucasia, a section adjacent to northern Persia, the Turks have a free hand in Transcaucasia and over the border, where American medical and missionary work in Tabriz and the neighboring Urumia must necessarily suffer. Since the attack on the Consulate and hospital occurred in Persia, it might appear that our Government should hold the Persian Government responsible for the safety of foreigners and their properties within its borders. But because of Persia's inability properties within its borders. But because of Persia's inability to resist the Turkish troops and because of Turkey's activity in northern Persia, Turkey must be held responsible. Some critics immediately declared that the attack probably came from Tartars, not from Turks. As no denial has come to hand of the charge that the attack was made by Turkish troops, Representative Kelly, of Pennsylvania, has introduced a joint resolution in Congress declaring that a state of war exists between the American and the Turkish Governments. Congress must face that fact. Finally, we should declare war on Turkey because Turkey is a principal part of the Pan-Germanic plan. By making war upon Bulgaria and Turkey we should be threatening PanGermany at its vitals.

War with Turkey, however, has been opposed all along by those who say that we would endanger the lives of our missionaries, medical men, educators, and our American schools in Turkey. The missionary boards have been inclined to feel that Turkish atrocities would increase rather than diminish if the United States should incite the Turks to anger by declaring war on them. This reason has doubtless restrained the Government from precipitate action. The question is, however: Is this reason sufficient always to restrain us?

CRITICISM OF THE COURTS

Judges have divine right no more than kings. Americans laughed at the pretensions of monarchs to arbitrary authoritylaughed until this war made plain the menace in those pretensions. But the sacrosanctitude which Americans have denied to princes they have been inclined to attribute to courts of justice. Criticism of a judge's decision is widely felt to be almost a species of lese-majesté. In America it has almost come to pass that the judge can do no wrong.

And judges have it in their power to make criticism of themselves in many cases actually dangerous. It is the arbitrary power of kings that makes the doctrine of the divine right of kings something to be reckoned with. It is the arbitrary power of judges that makes the belief in the peculiar sanctity of judges something more than a superstition.

In this belief, widely held and sustained by the courts themselves, there is some danger to the liberties of a free people.

The judge, whether he be a city magistrate or a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, is a public servant If he is attacked, he has the same right to defense that any other public servant has; if he suffers injustice, he has the same right to redress that any other public servant enjoys; if he finds himself obstructed in the performance of his public service, he has the same right to seek and obtain relief from the hindrance that every other public servant should be able t exercise. When, however, a judge resorts to a use of his pow-T to defend himself, to find redress for a wrong done him, or t obtain relief from interference which is not open to other publ servants, he comes dangerously close to acting like a master and not a servant of the people.

confined to tribunals is the power to punish for contempt. It is The power which a judge can use or misuse that is practically absolutely necessary that judges should have this power, becaus

without it occasions arise in which the administration of the law and the enforcement of its decrees would be impossible. T exercise this power, however, for any other purpose than to pr tect the processes of the law is to substitute the will of a individual for the ordered liberty of a free people.

When, therefore, a judge in the exercise of his power takes matter of very grave importance. This is what a judge in a action that is wholly unwarranted by even color of law, it is a district court of the United States is declared to have done. I It is not we who say this of the judge; it is a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

In Toledo there was a controversy between a street railway and the city over a question of fares. A newspaper of the city the Toledo "News-Bee," had advocated the city's side. A city ordinance had been passed requiring the railway to accept three cent fares. The creditors of the railway company asked the District Court for an injunction to prevent the company from obeying the ordinance. The newspaper cartooned the Judge, and ordinance which the suit assailed, and expressed opinions on pending, avouched the right of the city to have enacted the another case growing out of that suit. On technical grounds the Court denied the injunction in March, 1914, but on September 12, in view of intervening circumstances, awarded the injunction. Then, on September 29, the Judge took action against the news paper, and in December tried the newspaper summarily without jury, and in the following year imposed a considerable fine.

in news, editorial comment, and cartoons, while the case was

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which, in a decision supported by an opinion_read by the Chief Justice, upheld the District Judge. In upholding the Judge the Supreme Court dismissed three propositions put forth by the counsel for the newspaper: First, that there was want of judicial code; second, that there was want of power to abridge power in the Court as the result of certain provisions in the the freedom of the press by punishment for comments made upon matters of public concern; and, third, that there was entire absence of proof to sustain the inferences upon which the Court based its conclusion. In dismissing the first proposition. the Supreme Court interpreted the provision of the statute which provides that the power of judges of United States Courts to punish for contempt "shall not be construed to extend to any cases except the misbehavior of any person in their presence, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice." The Supreme Court holds that this means that it is not neces sary to show that the act done actually obstructed justice, but tended to obstruct justice. In dismissing the second proposi tion, the Supreme Court declares that the freedom of the press does not mean "freedom to do wrong with impunity," or "to frustrate and defeat the discharge of those Governmental duties upon the performance of which the freedom of all, includ ing that of the press, depends." In dismissing the third proposi tion, the Supreme Court decided that it was not necessary to show that the mind of the Judge was influenced by the news paper, because “the wrong depends upon the tendency of the acts to accomplish this result.'

In dissenting from this opinion Mr. Justice Holmes (with whose dissent Mr. Justice Brandeis concurred) spoke with a vigor which a newspaper, in commenting upon this case, would hardly venture to indulge in. We quote the following sen

tences:

"The statute in force at the time of the alleged contempts

defined the power of courts in cases of this sort to where there had been misbehavior of any person in their presence, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice.' Before the trial took place an Act was passed giving a trial by jury upon demand of the accused in all but the above-mentioned instances. . . . When it is considered how contrary it is to our practice and ways of thinking for the same person to be accuser and sole judge in a matter which, if he be sensitive, may involve strong personal feeling, I should expect the power to be limited by the necessities of the case to insure order and decorum in their presence.' And when the words of the statute are read, it seems to me that the limit is too plain to be construed away. To my mind, they point and point only to the present protection of the Court from actual interference, and not to postponed retribution for lack of respect for its dignity not to moving to vindicate its independence after enduring the newspaper's attacks for nearly six months, as the Court did in this case. I think that so near as to obstruct' means so

O

near as actually to obstruct and not merely near enough to threaten a possible obstruction. . . . Misbehavior means something more than adverse comment or disrespect. . . . A judge of the United States is expected to be a man of ordinary firmness of character, and I find it impossible to believe that such a judge could have found in anything that was printed even a tendency to prevent his performing his sworn duty. . . . I would go as far as any man in favor of the sharpest and most summary enforcement of order in Court and obedience to decrees, but when there is no need for immediate action contempts are like any other breach of law and should be dealt with as the law deals with other illegal acts. Action like the present, in my opinion, is wholly unwarranted by even color of law." Our only comment upon this opinion is that Congress should promptly amend the statute so that it will unmistakably mean what Justice Holmes believes it means and should mean. The power of contempt should be used, not for retribution, but solely for the protection of the court.

NE of the best histories of the Russian Revolution that has yet appeared in print-although one that has attracted little attention in the United States-is "Russia's Agony," by Robert Wilton, formerly special correspondent in Petrograd of the London "Times." Mr. Wilton has lived nearly half his life in Russia; has long been able to speak, read, and write the Russian language; has known personally nearly all the statesmen, generals, and prominent leaders who have recently been active in Russian affairs; and has been for the last fourteen years a close and attentive observer of events, both in the Russian capital and in the Russian army at the front. Few men, therefore, are better qualified by knowledge and experience to tell the story of the Russian Revolution, and to explain its causes and results in such a way as to make them intelligible to Western readers. His book, as he says in his preface, “ is a living record of personal experience of Russia, among the Russians, dating back nearly half a century. I claim no credit for it other than sincerity and freedom from race or party bias. I have no interest to serve except my British birthright, which is perhaps dearer to me because of my long exile."

66

The volume in which this personal experience is set forth omprises 350 pages, and is divided into four parts, viz.: I-Slavdom, the Tatars and Autocracy; II-"Democracy," Socialism," and "Freedom;" III-Russia at War; IVKornilov and the Cossacks. The part most likely to interest American readers at the present time is Part II, in which are lescribed with great clearness the formation of the Russian Workmen's Council, the rapid development of pacifism and adical Socialism, the influence of the German propaganda in orrupting and disintegrating the army, the weakness of both the first Provisional Government under Prince Lvoff and the ater coalition Ministry under Kerensky, the rise to power of he Bolsheviki, the patriotic but ill-fated attempt of General Kornilov to save Kerensky, and the final triumph of the fanatical f not traitorous forces which brought about anarchy, chaos, he Brest-Litovsk Treaty, the loss of Finland and the Ukraine, he ascendency of Germany, and the disruption of Russia.

Mr. Wilton does not think that the Russian people in the early part of 1917 were weary of the war. Kerensky, in a peech made in the Duma about two weeks before the outbreak of the Revolution, said:

We think that the man power and material resources of this country are exhausted and that the time has come for a termination of the European conflict. It must be settled on a basis of the self-determination of all nationalities. All governments must forego to the same extent their imperialistic aims.

1 Russia's Agony. By Robert Wilton. Longmans, Green & Co., New York. 34.80. The Birth of the Russian Democracy. By A. J. Sack, Director of the Russian Information Bureau in the United States. Russian Information Bureau, New York, 1918. $2.90, postpaid.

This statement Mr. Wilton regards as misleading and untrue. Russia's man power and material resources were not exhausted. Her losses, in proportion to population, had been smaller than those of any European Ally. The Russian people, moreover, were not war weary. They were only "discouraged by the blind or willful stupidity of their rulers, who were acting like tools of German influence and ambition." This discouragement was shared to some extent by the army; but the soldiers still respected and trusted their officers, and were keen and eager to fight if they could feel sure that they would receive adequate support and would not be betrayed to their enemies by German agents and sympathizers in the highest military circles.

The demoralization of the people and the disintegration of the army began with the usurpation of authority by the Workmen's Council. It is a curious fact that in the beginning this Council, which was composed largely of self-elected delegates and "jail-deliveries," was so weak and had so little prestige that if it had not pretended to be acting in co-operation with the Duma it might not have had any support at all outside of German agents and workmen in the Petrograd factories. And yet the first Provisional Government was apparently afraid to deal with it in a resolute way, even when it issued its famous "Order No. 1" to the army and began to break down discipline by depriving officers of authority and putting all power into the hands of soldiers' committees. Weak, however, as the Council was in the beginning, it soon gained the necessary physical force by corrupting the Petrograd garrison; and then, as Mr. Wilton "the task that had been undertaken in all sincerity by the moderate groups in the Duma became utterly hopeless, and the overthrow of any coalition government that might be formed was practically certain."

says,

As the Council of Workmen's and Soldiers' Delegates (the Soviet) gained power, it became more and more radical in its political attitude and adopted more and more generally the views of the Bolsheviki. This change is attributed by Mr. Wilton mainly to Lenine and the "handful of pseudo-Jew extremists" who supported him. These renegade Jews-"hateladen product of the Pale"-concealed their identities under assumed Russian and Polish names. Among the most prominent of them were Bronstein (Trotsky), Apfelbaum (Zinoviev), Rosenfeldt (Kamenev), Goldman (Gorev), Goldberg (Mekowski), Zederbaum (Martov), Nahamkez (Steklov), Himmer (Sukhanov), Feldman (Chernov), and Krachman (Zagorski). "Without these men," says Mr. Wilton, "and without the help of German agents like Robert Grimm and German gold conveyed through well-known banks in Petrograd, Lenine could never have secured the ephemeral triumph of Bolshevism. Without these adjuncts there would never have been a separate peace negotiation at Brest-Litovsk, conducted by two Jews (Joffe and Trotsky) in the name of Russia. There is no doubt that Lenine deliberately entered into an arrangement with his coun