In Germany, the press threw on Austria all responsibility for the note. Die Tages Zeitung, of Berlin, thought the initiative should have been left to the Allies; the Berlin Tageblatt was sure that "the independent action" of Austria would lead the Allies to increase their military activity.

Keeping up the pretense of independent action by Austria, the Imperial German Government on September 20, through its Ambassador in Vienna, made reply to the Austrian note.

The summons of the Austro-Hungarian Government to all belligerent States to enter into confidential unbinding discussions in a neutral country of the fundamental principles for the conclusion of peace corresponds to the spirit of peace readiness and conciliatoriness which the responsible statesmen of the quadruple alliance and the authorized representatives of allied (Teutonic) peoples have again and again announced. The reception which previous similar steps met with from our enemies was not encouraging.

The Imperial Government, however, follows the new attempt to bring the world nearer to the just and lasting peace which it desires, with the sincere and earnest wish that the statement of the AustroHungarian Government, inspired by profound conciliatory feeling and noble humanity will this time evoke the desired echo.

In the name of the Imperial Government, the undersigned has the honor to declare that Germany is ready to participate in the proposed exchange of ideas.

Our own Government ere that time had answered No! Mr. Lansing, September 16th, had given assurance that such would be the reply.

I am authorized by the President [he said] to state that the following will be the reply of this Government to the Austro-Hungarian note proposing an unofficial conference of belligerents.

The Government of the United States feels that there is only one reply which it can make to the suggestion of the Imperial AustroHungarian Government. It has repeatedly and with entire candor stated the terms upon which the United States would consider peace, and can and will entertain no proposal for a conference upon a matter concerning which it has made its position and purpose so plain.

And so it came about that when the formal note was delivered to the Swedish Minister in charge of Austro-Hungarian interests in our country the words given out by Mr. Lansing were embodied in it.

I beg to say [was the reply of the Secretary] that the substance of your communication has been submitted to the President, who now directs me to inform you that the Government of the United States feels that there is only one reply which it can make to the suggestion of the Imperial Austro-Hungarian Government. It has repeatedly and with entire candor stated the terms upon which the United States would consider peace and can and will entertain no proposal for a conference upon a matter concerning which it has made its position and purpose so plain.

President Wilson's answer, and Mr. Balfour's speech, were held, by the press in Germany, to prove that the Allies sought complete destruction of the Central Powers and dismemberment of their territory. "This cold, cutting scorn, this cool rejection, has a more overwhelming and more annihilating effect than all the official phrases which the man in the White House could have employed," said the Rheinische Westphaelische Zeitung. "What does this mean," said the Deutsche Tages Zeitung, concerning the demand for Alsace-Lorraine and the colonies, "if the Entente do not intend to dismember and crush the German Empire? There is but one thing left for us, victory or destruction." There were two points, the Socialist journal, Vorwaerts, said, which the German people were willing to discuss, Belgium and the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and two points, the retention of the German colonies and Alsace-Lorraine, which could never be yielded save after a complete military victory by the Entente. "If the matter of giving back to us our colonies is a closed incident for England, then peace talk is useless so far as we are concerned," said the Lokal Anzeiger.

From the press the discussion of peace passed to the Chancellor, Count von Hertling, who, in speaking before the Main Committee of the Reichstag, complained that no attention had

been given to his acceptance of the four points of President Wilson's message of February 11, 1918.

As is known, the President of the United States laid down in fourteen points the guiding lines for a conclusion of peace. On January 24 of this year I discussed in your committee all these points, and regarding the last remarked that the idea of a league of nations as suggested had my entire sympathy on the condition that an honest will to peace and the recognition of the equal rights of all States of the league were guaranteed. How necessary was this reservation was shown by the statements of our enemies who, in a league of nations, thought of an alliance directed against Germany and her allies. President Wilson in a message on February 2 (February 11?) took a further step in the same direction and laid down four points or principles, which in his opinion should be applied in an exchange of views. In my Reichstag speech of February 22, I declared myself in principle in agreement with the possibility of discussing a general peace on such a basis. President Wilson, however, has neither then nor since taken any notice of it.

Meanwhile the former idealist and zealous friend of peace seems to have developed into the head of the American imperialists. But the plan of a league of nations yet to be established is not to be discredited by such an action. It has found eloquent advocates in the Swiss President and the Norwegian Premier Knudsen, both of whom dwell especially on the interest of neutral States in such an institution.

I also do not hesitate to express my opinion again to-day on this question and to indicate publicly the aim and basis of such an association. It is a question of promoting universal, equal and successive disarmament, the establishment of obligatory courts of arbitration, freedom of the seas and the protection of small nations.

Regarding the first point, on February 24, I described the idea of restriction of armaments as thoroughly discussable, adding that the financial position of all the European States after the war would give the most effective support to a solution of this question.

Regarding the question of arbitration, my standpoint has long been history. I will not go into details, but interesting material which I have before me shows that Germany in the past repeatedly suggested arbitration of disputed questions, the carrying out of which in several cases, however, was prevented by opposition raised in Great Britain or America. If an international understanding could be reached that disputed questions of law between various States must

always be submitted to arbitration courts, and if this were made obligatory for members of a league of nations, it would undoubtedly be an important step toward the attainment of the general aim. More precise prescriptions, especially regarding requisite guarantees for the recognition of verdicts made by arbitration, need careful and thorough consideration.

I have expressed myself before this on the question of freedom of the seas which forms a necessary prerequisite for the unrestricted intercourse of states and peoples. Here, however, the greatest difficulties, naturally, are not raised on our side. On a former occasion I pointed out that there must be unhindered access for all nations to the inland seas, no predominant position of Great Britain at Gibraltar and Malta and in the Suez Canal. . . . An English newspaper has called this impudence.

Finally, there is a protection of small nations. Here we can forthwith and without reserve state that in this matter we have an entirely clear conscience. May, therefore, a league of nations be no mere dream of the future. May the idea deepen and may the people in all countries zealously concern themselves with the means for its establishment. The first and most important prerequisite will be

an energetic will to champion peace and justice.

At this stage of the peace debate the British entered Strumnitza, the Italians, French and Greeks took Krichevo, and the Bulgarians asked a suspension of hostilities.

A high Bulgarian official, General d'Espérey reported to Paris, had come in the name of the Bulgarian commander and asked for an armistice of forty-eight hours to permit the arrival of two delegates from the Bulgarian Government, and that the Minister of Finance and the commander of the Second Army were on their way to arrange for the armistice at the French headquarters. Fearing that the request might be a ruse to enable the Bulgarians to rearrange their forces and perchance obtain reënforcements, General d'Espérey replied:

I can accord neither an armistice nor a suspension of hostilities tending to interrupt the operations in course. On the other hand, I will receive with all due courtesy the delegates, duly qualified by the royal Bulgarian Government, to which your excellency alludes in the letter. These delegates to present themselves in the British lines, accompanied by a parlementaire.

An official Bulgarian statement announced that:

In view of the conjuncture of circumstances which have recently arisen and after the position had been jointly discussed with all com petent authorities, the Bulgarian Government, desiring to put an end to the bloodshed, authorized the commander-in-chief of the army to propose to the generalissimo of the armies of the Entente at Saloniki a cessation of hostilities and the entering into of negotiations for obtaining an armistice and peace.

The members of the Bulgarian delegation left yesterday evening in order to get into touch with the plenipotentiaries of the Entente belligerents.

The Berlin newspapers denied that the delegation had gone to meet the French commander, and asserted that German troops were on their way to aid the Bulgarians. "It must, therefore, be hoped that the King and pro-Germans must soon again be masters of the situation," said the Berlin Deutsche Zeitung. "Premier Malinoff is supported by only a part of the Bulgarian General Assembly," said the Berlin Tageblatt, “and such efforts as are now proceeding were proposed while the Kings of Saxony and Bavaria were visiting Sofia. Malinoff's plan is to give up the territories taken from Sofia and to demand compensation in Turkish territory." Admiral von Hintze, the German Foreign Secretary, was reported to have explained the situation in a speech before the Main Committee of the Reichstag. It was not clear, he said, whether the Bulgarian government had acted in accordance with the wishes of the army or of its own accord. There were indications that Premier Malinoff's act would be disavowed later. The peace delegation reported to have left for Saloniki on Wednesday was, he said, in Sofia Thursday, and some counter action was evidently coming. The German High Command threw all reserves at its disposal into Bulgaria when the bad news came from Macedonia. Austria also sent reserves and these forces would restore the military situation. It was serious, but would be clearer in a few days, and there was no reason to give up the game in Bulgaria.