has been forced into our hands," and he has never tired of repeating this, in the belief that it would become axiomatic for his hearers that two and two make five.

It has not become so in any case, for the President of the United States, who was saying the other day, in his memorable speech at Buffalo: "The war was started by Germany. Her authorities deny that they started it. But I am willing to let the statement I have just made await the verdict of history."

Speaking of the invasion of Belgium, I may quote a personal souvenir. I was, in the early days of the war, at Havre, trying to return here. I desired, before sailing, to get maps. I could not find in all the city one of our frontier bordering on Germany; the answer was the same in every shop: officers have bought them all. But there were plenty of supposedly useless maps of the Belgian frontier; so I bought one and, contrary to expectation, could follow the events on it for a long time.

I never was more tempted to publish an answer than when Dr. Dernburg made public, once for all, the reasons why Germany had dominant rights over Belgium. The statement is of importance because we have it, in one and the same sentence, from a man of standing and education, considered a moderate in his country, that for Germans two and two make five, and for the Belgians three. Here are the words of the Doctor in an article by him, published in the Independent, December 7, 1914:

"Geographically, Belgium does certainly belong to the German Empire. She commands the mouth of the biggest German stream.”

My answer would have been: One should yield to good reasons, even when given by an enemy. As soon, and so long, as Belgium commands the mouth of the chief German stream, she should be handed to the German executioner, but not before. For the present, however, if we trust school books, Belgium does not command the mouth of the Rhine, which flows to the sea across Holland; nor of the Meuse, nor even of the Scheldt; she commands, in fact, the mouth of no river at all.

This example of serene false assertion is a typical one, reinforced even by what follows in Dr. Dernburg's article from which we learn that "Antwerp is most essentially a German port . .

That Antwerp should not belong to Germany is as much an anomaly as if New York had remained English after the war of Independence."

Of any Germanic War of Independence, liberating Antwerp as New York had been liberated by you, the Doctor, for reasons of his own, says nothing. Only those can wonder who fancy that two and two make four.

IV

How can this system of force-worship and false pretences be accepted by any nation? It has been accepted by one only, the Prussian, but through it, by degrees, since the war of 1870, by the rest of Germany. The means has been militarism.

Militarism does not consist, as some continue to repeat now and then, in having many soldiers. We have as many soldiers as we have inhabitants able to bear arms, and we are not militaristic. One proof among many others: we never at any period of our national life, celebrated the anniversary of any of our victories. The same with you.

Militarism consists in the whole nation, male and female, young and old, soldiers and civilian, laymen and priests, blindly accepting to be ruled over in military fashion: all obeying whatever the order; all believing the word received from the people above them, whatever be that word. Magister dixit. The whole forces of the nation are thus placed in the hands of a single man, responsible to nobody, who may use them at his pleasure, the whole machinery thus possessing an extraordinary destructive force; and all the individuals composing it having to act, speak and believe as they are told. They were told of Nuremberg, of the sword having been forced into the hands of their sovereign; of Belgian maidens gouging out the eyes of kindly German soldiers; of the mouth of the Rhine being wantonly commanded by impudent Belgium. All that was accepted as a matter of course; of this is made the German "morale." The imperial authorities take pride in allowing British papers to be read in Berlin cafés; they can do so without fear. The contents are not believed; the readers find in those sheets that two and two make four; they know very well that it is not so.

V

When I returned here in August, 1914, I had to make up my mind as to what line of conduct I should follow. The enemy was filling the air with high-sounding statements, spending millions, engineering the most astounding propaganda, the aims of which were not all of them persuasion, as was shown in the Welland Canal affair and similar ones.

I was not long in deciding: I would leave the whole field to the adversary; would take no part in the fray, let him have all the spotlight, save the French millions (I never spent so much as one cent), and so that he be better heard, never myself say a word. This was considered by some very bold; some blamed me; I would not change, and without swerving one way or the other, persisted.

What made me so bold was my unshakable faith in our good cause and in American good sense; I might add in American sentiment.

Practical efficiency, and soul-moving sentiment are the two poles of the American character. They never showed to better advantage than in this crisis. No Kaiser could lead Americans astray by false calculations, or false geography, nor efface by any insinuations the sentiment they had for France.

Eleven years ago, in the city of Independence, Philadelphia, a grand gathering took place, to commemorate the bi-centennial of Franklin's birth. Presenting to the Ambassador of France the gold medal struck on that occasion, in accordance with a vote of Congress, the then Secretary of State, Elihu Root, delivered a brief address of extraordinary beauty, in the course of which he said:

"Take this medal for your country as a token that, with all the changing manners of the passing years Americans have not forgotten their fathers nor their fathers' friends. Know by it that we have in America a sentiment for France, and a sentiment enduring among a people, is a great and substantial fact to be reckoned with."

I had faith in the truth of those words; I knew they would prove prophetic, and they have. The great heart of America had early spoken; young men from Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Pennsylvania, Chicago and all the great universities had gone as leaders,

as precursors, to France, helping her wounded, fighting for her cause, enlisting in the Legion, or becoming, as Mr. Roosevelt has felicitously called them, the Lafayettes of the air. The American mind had been enlightened by the pen and the word of the best in this land, some of the chief ones are among the orators of tonight. Then the day that had to come, arrived, when the chief magistrate of this Republic raised his voice and said: "We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquests and no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, and no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make." Almost the very words the French had used in 1778. And President Wilson continued: "Civilization itself seems to be in the balance, but right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts, for democracy for the rights and liberties of small nations, for the universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as will bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world at last free."

Memorable words, of far-reaching and lasting consequences. You are a nation that remembers. So are we. The date 1778 is still, as the event shows, engraved in your hearts. I can assure you, Mr. President, you whose "Evidence in the Case" has forecast the decision of posterity, and you all, American friends, that so long as we live, so long as there is a France, all the inhabitants of her soil will keep engraved in their hearts the date 1917, when America decided to come in and to help win the day for Liberty.

Drawn by Frank H. Taylor.

CIVIL WAR PERCUSSION MUSKET

Presentation of the Gold Medal

Address of President Beck

Your Excellency, we thank you heartily for your noble speech. It will long remain in our memories. It is now my most pleasing duty to represent The Pennsylvania Society in recognizing in some formal manner your inestimable service to literature, diplomacy and the welfare of civilization. The Society has, from time to time, given a medal for distinguished achievement. As a slight recognition of all the service you have been to this generation it is my high privilege to present to you our Gold Medal.

Response of the French Ambassador

For an honour so great and so rare, I should vainly seek adequate words of thanks, but your friendly hearts will understand mine. The honour is especially valued by a son of France, being received from the Sons of that great State where Independence was proclaimed, Lafayette enlisted, the Constitution was voted and Franklin sleeps his last sleep. And received moreover at the hands of your President, who fought the good fight from the first and whose action threw light on my path: why should we, men from France, have raised our voices in those early days, when such an American was speaking so forcefully and admirably? Received, too, on an occasion when, among the speakers figure a former President of the United States in whose familiarity it was my privilege to live for a number of years; and it is difficult with such examples of courage, good citizenship, passion for improvement, not to become a better man or (speaking for myself) a less bad one. With him, one who is the embodiment of all that is best in highminded, highly-cultured Massachusetts-and another who is a colleague of mine, long silent, of an even more absolute silence than that I practiced, and who, now liberated, has revealed by pen and speech, for the enlightenment of friend and foe, what he learnt, saw and felt in the most trying circumstances one of our profession can have to go through.