the war rests elsewhere, I see no need for any radical change in human nature, nor do I think that it is going to take place. What human nature needs is not a radical change but a fair opportunity, an opportunity for expressing itself not only in the relations between man and man, where it has already established some kind of rational order, but in the relations between States which, as things now are, constitute a mere Bedlam world.

What does need changing is State nature, for State nature is the cause of all these woes. We have been under a monstrous delusion about the State-almost hypnotized by the word-and it is the mission of the war, among other things, to bring this home to our intelligence. For two generations and more the pundits of the western world have been groveling on their bellies before this abstraction, this monster, this idol. It is a worship made, so far as modern times are concerned, in Germany, and it is worthy of its origin. We have been taught that the evolution of the State is the culminating achievement of man's rationality and of his goodness. And so no doubt it might be if a different kind of State from any that is now in existence

had been evolved.

But of the actual

States now in being nine-tenths of what the philosophers teach about the rationality of "the State," of its quasi-divinity, are not only untrue but the flat opposite of the truth.

Whatever the State may be, these States are not something higher than the individual, but something vastly lower than any individual. There is not one of them in which the human interests of its constituent members is not at the mercy of that brute, inhuman, Bedlam world which is constituted by the relations of the various States with one another. There is not one of them which, when standing in the presence of its

neighbor States, can be said to represent human nature in its intelligence, in its affections, or even in its passions. For, as we have seen, they do not even understand one another. The lions roaring to each other in the forests, the starlings chattering on the tree tops are at a higher level of mutual comprehension than are "the States" of civilized Europe. And the proof is that when a quarrel arises which half a dozen sensible - men could settle in ten minutes over a pipe of tobacco, these great powers

have no resource but to tear one another to pieces in a manner of which the lowest of the brute beasts are quite incapable. Are they not stupid monsters? The very monkeys must despise them.

A proposal has been made to insure perpetual peace by a new piece of machinery-a federation of all the States controlled by a World Parliament. It is a proposal which leaves me cold. It reminds me of the reason once given by an Irishman as the crowning argument in favor of home rule. "When we get a united Ireland and a Parliament of our own, faith we'll have some fine quarrels." Were such a federation constituted out of such States as at present exist in the world it would split into two parties over every question submitted to its decision, and would quarrel at once, and quarrel always. The picture so often presented of all the States combining automatically to keep in order any member of the group which might threaten to break the peace is a fiction, which would be replaced in reality by powerful and balanced parties, plotting each other's overthrow and ready to attempt it, if need be, by force of arms. The federation of the world would be a cockpit of civil war. Before any such form of internationalism can be successfully attempted a preliminary step must be a complete change of nature in each of the combining States.

TH

HE Italian Socialist Party is the only one among those of the great nations of Europe that persists in an obstinate campaign against the war. In order to make a true analysis of this curious fact it is necessary to adopt the historical method, that is, to bring into relief the special character of Italian socialism and of the human material of which it is formed.

Official Italian socialism, in contradistinction to socialism in other countries, is in large part agricultural. It recruits its adherents especially in the country, and more definitely in the rich agricultural country that from the hills of the Placentino and of Monferrato slopes down along the banks of the Po to the sea, touching Padua and Venice on the north and reaching as far as Ravenna and Forli on the south.

Of course, the larger industrial cities also contain many soldiers of the socialist army, but the working class population of the cities is not a fertile field for the anti-war propaganda.

In Milan as in Genoa, in Turin as in Bologna, socialism, now occupying important political positions, is no longer the master of the street. Its undisputed rule is found in the country. In the rich Valley of the Po it is absolute master. In the fields socialism does not allow the preaching of any doctrine different from it own, which is against the war, against those who have brought it on, against those who carry it on, against those who see any value in it.

He would commit a grave error who would affirm that misery afflicts this population and is the cause of all this. The richness of the soil and of agricultural industry permits the wage worker easily to obtain in the Valley of the Po increases that the peasants of the south stare at in surprise and envy.

Intellectual conditions have also made

progress in line with the material gains. There is no longer an agricultural proletariat there enslaved by ignorance and superstition and at the mercy of the bosses. There we find citizens, nearly all of whom read the newspapers, are interested in politics, capture the local administrations, and send Socialists to the Chamber of Deputies.

The mind of the farmers is fertile soil for the propaganda of official socialism. Up to the present the country districts of Italy have been absent from our history and our life. Roman society was an urban society. Our communes reinvigorated the Latin spirit and put the districts surrounding the cities under the committees ruling in the cities during the period of our national revolution. The country districts were hostile and indifferent while our national unity was being constituted.

Italy appeared to be divided into two different peoples-the bourgeoisie and the artisans in the cities, and the peasants in the country. The cities fomented the insurrections and spread the desire of liberty through the masses of the people. The country remained faithful to the idea of immobility and to tradition. The cities accomplished the revolution; the country endured it. Only during the last few decades have the slow influence of economic environment and the educating effect of the schools been able to bring together the two different peoples that had encountered each other at the gates of our cities.

City and country have now become Italy, and the moral unity of our race is being cemented today with blood upon the Alps. But in the Valley of the Po the development of the agricultural populace into a nation followed a peculiar course. The soul of the peasant, innocent of every sentiment of patriotism, could not help but accept the socialist

message without resistence, the only doctrine descended to him up to today.

All this is neither a justification nor a condemnation. It is the verification of

what causes the present sorry propaganda of official socialism, and it accuses our national revolution of having neglected the country districts.

URING the last two months a

DU

change has come over the people of England so noteworthy, and yet so silent and indefinable, as to deserve attention in these pages; for no outside observer could discover it for himself from our newspapers, nor could he easily interpret it from the external demeanor of the population in street or train or office.

It is a change of which most men and women are aware within themselves and of which, if they are observant and sensitive, they are conscious also in those around them, but which few care to acknowledge, still less to analyze, for to do so would stir the depths, and that the Englishman dislikes.

This silent revolution is the reaction upon Britain of the great advance. *** It is a change which is strangely compounded of the spirit of hope and the spirit of sacrifice of the sense of coming victory and the ache of personal loss. We know now that the empire and what it stands for are saved, that the old country will "carry on " for generations to come. But we know, too, that for tens of thousands life has henceforth lost much of its personal meaning, that there are gaps in the home circle which I will never be filled, and that life will be a lonely pilgrimage to the end.

Personal affections

and

ambitions

have made way for a bigger cause. Life seems wider and more impersonal. Our

fellow-countrymen Rank and class seem to count for less. All have suffered alike and all have served alike, and all have the same world to live in and to repair-a world that seems lonely at times beyond all bearing, yet is lit up with the flame of sacrifice and the undying memory of those

seem nearer to us.

who are gone.

Many have discovered for the first time what every foreigner sees, and what every Briton from across the oceans knows, that the British are not a nation as the French are a nation, because the revolution of social equality has never yet been made.

The great mass of the nation are fighting even now not for an England which is themselves, but for an England which inherits noble traditions and fine qualities, but which is separated from them by the impalpable barrier of caste. This separation, which has added bitterness to every political and economic dispute, has been wonderfully bridged in the trenches. There is a growing sense that it must be bridged at home.

Social superiority and privilege must give way to common humanity and common sacrifice. In future we must be a more united and a more equal people than we have been in the past.

The effects of these tendencies are still obscure, but they are already to be seen in the program of the work allotted by the Government to the Reconstruction Committee, presided over by the Prime Minister. The subjects that are being inquired into by that body, working through a number of carefully manned sub-committees, cover a very wide range of social and economic interest.

The two most important of these are certainly education and the organization of industry. It has already been announced that a committee presided over by Lord Crewe, the new President of the Board of Education, has been appointed to review the whole question of national The education in the light of the war. industrial inquiry, it may be imagined, will be on a similarly comprehensive scale.

A

N official volume of diplomatic correspondence is hardly the place to look for a romance, but occasionally one can be extracted even from these dry reports. The third White Paper of the United States Government on the European war, recently issued, embraces all the correspondence with belligerent Governments relating to neutral rights and duties for the year ended with June, 1916.

The correspondence covering the military service case of Frank Ghiloni relates to the question of dual nationality and develops a real human interest episode. It opens with a cablegram from Secretary Bryan to Ambassador Thomas Nelson Page at Rome, dated Jan. 13, 1915, informing the Ambassador in effect that Frank L. Ghiloni, born at Marlborough, Mass., Aug. 4, 1885, is under arrest at Barga, Italy; that his father had been naturalized in 1886, and that Frank had been a clerk in his father's store.

No reply being received, Secretary Bryan again cabled the Ambasador on Jan. 21, urging promptness, and on Jan. 22 received formal acknowledgment, stating that steps were being taken to obtain the young man's release. On March 25 Secretary Bryan again cabled inquiring the status of the case, and the Ambassador replied next day that his requests for the release of Ghiloni had not been acted on. On May 6 Secretary Bryan again cabled for information. On May 18 Ambassador Page replied

that the Italian Minister of War declined to exempt Ghiloni from liability to military service.

On June 18 Secretary Bryan cabled Ambassador Page protesting against this decision. He said Ghiloni had resided ten years in Italy during childhood, but had returned to the United States at the age of 12, and lived here continuously until June, 1914, when his physician had ordered him to Italy for his health. His father had been naturalized when Ghiloni was less than 1 year old. Mr. Bryan pointed out that, according to our laws, Ghiloni was born a citizen of the United States; that he was domiciled in this country when he became of age in 1906; had evidently made practical election of American nationality, and was visiting Italy only for a temporary purpose. Ambassador Page cabled on June 11 that the Secretary's message had been presented to the Foreign Office with a request for early action.

On July 20 Robert Lansing took up the case and sent a long cablegram to Mr. Page, asking an early decision in the Ghiloni case. He repeated that Ghiloni was born a citizen of the United States; that he chose American nationality, and that this choice "should be recognized in cases of persons born of dual nationality, whether or not the municipal laws of the countries concerned prescribe definite modes of election. This Government has no desire to intervene in cases of persons who were born in the United States of Italian parents, but were domiciled in

Italy upon attaining their majority, are still domiciled there, and have evidently elected Italian nationality."

Aug. 13 Mr. Page reported that Ghiloni was under arms, but that his case was being investigated. On Aug. 27 Mr. Page cabled that the Foreign Office sustained the Minister of War, holding that Ghiloni, "even if he had during his minority lost his Italian citizenship, in consequence of the naturalization obtained in the United States by his father, the fact would not have exempted him from military service in Italy under Article XII. of the Civil Code."

On Sept. 4 Secretary Lansing asked further news of Ghiloni, adding: "His friends are importunate." Mr. Page cabled at once that as Ghiloni was said to be in poor health, it was hoped he would be exempted from military duty on this account. On the 5th he reported, however, that the Italian War Office refused to release Ghiloni because he had been born prior to his father's naturalization.

State messages on this case continued to pass under the Atlantic during October, but Ghiloni's release was definitely refused by the Italian military authorities.

In the meantime the young man was wounded and taken prisoner by the Austrians and was interned in an Austrian prison camp at Mautheusen. Acting Secretary of State Polk on Jan. 8, 1916, cabled the facts in the case to Ambassador Penfield at Vienna, directing him to inform the Austrian authorities that Ghiloni was an American citizen, though this was not conceded by Italy, and asked that he be released and returned to this country.

On Feb. 18 Secretary Lansing again cabled Ambassador Penfield to emphasize the fact that Ghiloni was 66 born an American citizen, was impressed into the Italian Army, and was serving against his wishes. His mother is seriously ill because of his plight."

Mr. Penfield cabled on March 14 that the Austrian Ministry inquired what guarantee could be given that Ghiloni "will not bear arms against monarchy or allies during present war in case of

his release." The Secretary of State asked what guarantee would be required, and again called attention to the records showing that Ghiloni was impressed into the Italian Army and did not volunteer.

Secretary Lansing also cabled Ambassador Page on March 23, calling attention to the Italian law on citizenship promulgated June 30, 1912, which provides that "an Italian citizen born and residing in a foreign nation which considers him to be a citizen of its own retains still Italian citizenship, but he may abandon it when he becomes of age." He asked whether "this provision is not applicable to persons born in the United States of Italian parents, provided such persons were domiciled in this country upon attaining their majority, and evidently elected American rather than Italian nationality."

On March 27 Ambassador Penfield cabled that Austria would not release Ghiloni "except under assumption that American Government first cause Italian Government to recognize Ghiloni's American citizenship; otherwise, after being discharged he might again be compelled by Italy to perform military service against Austria or her allies."

Secretary Lansing cabled on March 31, asking the release of Ghiloni upon his sworn statement that he would return to the United States immediately and not leave this country during the continuance of the war.

On April 25 Secretary Lansing asked whether Austria would release Ghiloni on the assurance of the United States Secretary of State that a passport would not be issued to him to leave the United States during continuance of the war.

Ambassador Penfield cabled May 5 that Austria agreed to release Ghiloni on his affidavit that he would not again bear arms against Austria or her allies; that he would be repatriated by way of Scandinavia, Holland, or Germany, and that a guarantee should be given by the United States that the Entente Powers should not seize Ghiloni and compel him to do military service.

On May 8 Ambassador Penfield was authorized to agree to the first two conditions for the release of Ghiloni; the