The appeals of revolutionary leaders to the emotional qualities of the people are, no doubt, made with perfect sincerity, without a shadow of cynicism, even if it sometimes looks as if the effect was well calculated beforehand. It happened during the revolt of the Fortress of Sveaborg, outside Helsingfors, that one of the commanders of the revolutionary forces became convinced that only a miracle could save the situation. Then why not arrange a miracle? He hurried to Helsingfors, chose the prettiest girl among the revolutionists, and explained to her his plan: She should dress in a white flowing robe, and he would bring her a white thoroughbred Arab steed. With a red flag in her hand, she should ride to the soldiers, urging them to win or die. The commander knew his soldiers, their superstitions, their love for melodramatic spectacles, and he apparently considered a Joan of Arc much more in her right surroundings leading soldiers in a revolutionary revolt than, for instance, in a suffrage parade. But the girl in question would not follow him. She thought the plan ridiculous and laughed at the whole idea. Sveaborg was lost. The average person is somewhat ashamed of emotions and unwilling to build plans on them. Perhaps if he were not, there would be too many revolutions in the world. "OUR BROTHERS" BY BESSIE BEATTY The author was in Petrograd as special correspondent of a California newspaper at the time of the counter-revolution which resulted in the triumph of the Bolsheviki.-THE EDITORS. 46 S TOP firing." The Germans asked for soap, and clothing. Also, they "Nicolai Rogachoff, preparing his battery for another would sell for rubles-old picture rubles of the Czar's régime. charge, turned in the of the command. He found himself looking into the trench-tanned face and wide, round blue eyes of a soldier. Through the low doorway beyond he saw a line of men in coarse dun-colored coats and shaggy sheepskin hats. It was a gray November evening at a point on the Russian front not far from Dvinsk. Fighting had practically ceased and through the Russian trenches the word had gone that peace was coming. An armistice was to be arranged in a few days and Germany and Austria and all of Russia's allies were to be asked to take part. Nicolai Rogachoff knew it was coming, but he paid no attention. Each day he fired his usual number of noisy salutes to the trenches across the way and watched the cloud of dust and smoke curl above the farther edges of No Man's Land. Each day the Germans replied in kind. Sometimes the shots struck home and sometimes they missed. Sometimes there was work for the stretcher-bearers and the doctors. Sometimes there was none. Nicolai Rogachoff glanced at the soldier in the doorway, shrugged his shoulders, and once more saluted the German line. 66 Stop firing, I said." This time the command came in a sharp, incisive tone and there was that in the wide, round blue eyes of the little soldier that made Nicolai Rogachoff hesitate. "Who says so?" he asked, defiantly. "We say so," the soldier answered. His companions pressed closer to the low opening, and an ominous murmur like the growl of a wild beast ran through the crowd. "Those are our brothers over there," the spokesman continued. "The war is finished. It was the Czar's war. Those are workingmen and peasants, like us, over there in the trenchesthey don't want to fight us, and we don't want to fight them. Stop firing." Nicolai laughed a short, derisive, mirthless little laugh, and turned again to his battery. "If you don't stop shooting, we will shoot you-I tell you, you're killing our brothers," said the soldier again in the same quiet, final tone. Nicolai stopped. From that hour the battery was silent. It was still November. The armistice had been declared. The great parley at BrestLitovsk had commenced. Down from Berlin came a supply of tobacco, accordions, flashlights, bad whisky, Hindenburg schneights (knives), and the samples of a wonderful wrist-watch to be delivered, upon order, in three days' time. Behind the German lines the soldier merchants set up their wares, and the Russians with the worn boots and the faded, coarse, dun-colored coats walked out across No Man's Land to trade with them. They turned up their noses "Kerensky" money, and have none of the new Bolshevist issue. The Russian soldiers had little bread to give them-they had all too little for themselves-and less clothing. But they told their German brothers, with shining, thankful eyes, how glad they were that peace was coming; that they would no longer have to kill each other. They advised them to go home and make a revolution, as they had done, and promised that in this new world of brothers there should be an end to wars. It was January, and Petrograd. The great chaste white hall of Smolney Institute was packed with men in faded dun-colored coats; unshaven men-dirty, uncouth, uneducated men; men with the gift of tongues and the faith of little children. There were hundreds of them, with wide, round, simple, credulous eyes, full of a great dream and a greater trust. It was of peace they talked-always of peace and the coming of the wonderful new world of the brothers. "What will you do if the Germans will not accept the Russian terms?" I ventured to ask one of them. "But they must accept," he answered me, with finality. "Our brothers in the German trenches will never advance against us." "But suppose they do?" I insisted. "Suppose they try to take Petrograd-what will you do then ?” 66 He shook his head, wondering at my skepticism. "O thou of little faith!" his eyes seemed to say. "But they are our brothers, they will disobey their officers. They will make a revolution, as we have done," his words answered. I asked the same question many times that night of many men, and always the reply was the same. It was late afternoon again, but February. A shudder passed through the little snow-clad village nestling there behind the Dvinsk lines. Word had come that the Germans were advancing. There was a hurried gathering. Some were for fleeing, others counseled waiting. "It is a mistake," said a white-bearded peasant; "we are not at war. They are our brothers-we must go and tell them." They appointed a committee, as they always do in revolutionary Russia, and they started forth with a white flag. The rumor had been too true. A little distance from the village they met the advancing Germans. They held their white flag bravely aloft, and a soldier spokesman commenced explaining: "It is all a mistake-Russia is not at war-our German brothers do not " The sentence was never finished. The committee did not go back to the village that night. Instead, to the waiting women with the platoks on their heads. the frightened children clinging to their wide calico skirts and with the terrible nameless fear in their eyes, there came the Germans. WEEKLY OUTLINE STUDY OF BY J. MADISON GATHANY, A.M. HOPE STREET HIGH SCHOOL, PROVIDENCE, R. I. Based on The Outlook of April 17, 1918 Each week an Outline Study of Current History based on the preceding number of The Outlook will be printed for the benefit of current events classes, debating clubs, teachers of history and of English, and the like, and for use in the home and by such individual readers as may desire suggestions in the serious study of current history.-THE EDITORS. [Those who are using the weekly outline should not attempt to cover the whole of an outline in any one lesson or study. Assign for one lesson selected questions, one or two propositions for discussion, and only such words as are found in the material assigned. Or distribute selected questions among different members of the class or group and have them report their findings to all when assembled. Then have all discuss the questions together.] I-INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS A. Topic: "Force to the Utmost." 1. What is the purpose of the military masters of Germany? Can you present proofs of President Wilson's statement of their purpose? 2. For what reasons can "the ideals of justice and humanity and liberty" play no part in Germany's programme? 3. If Germany should effect her purposes, what would America be compelled to do? What would you have to do? 4. What led President Wilson to say that America must use "foree, force to the utmost, force without stint or limit"? 5. Write an editorial of two or three hundred words on Germany, taking for your title "By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them." 6. The following books lend weight to President Wilson's Baltimore (Force) Speech: "Face to Face with Kaiserism," by J. W. Gerard (Doran); "The Soul of Germany," by T. F. Á. Smith (Doran); "The United States and Pan-Germania," by André Chéradame (Scribners). B. Topic: A Conflict of Racial Ideas 1. Dr. Vesnitch tells us that races which represent "the spirit of conquest and autocracy" and other races that "represent the spirit of liberty and justice... have been in opposition for twenty centuries." Verify this statement, beginning with the appearance of the Cimbri and Teutones (Germanic tribes) in northern Italy, 113 B.C. 2. Does history prove that the Germans "have never brought freedom to other nations"? 3. From this article what do you learn about the ideals and practices of the Serbs? 4. How much interest have the German rulers had in the creation and preservation of international law? Why so? 5. Trace the influence of Great Britain, France, and the United States upon public law and the cause of right and freedom. 6. Excellent books: "Modern European History," by C. D. Hazen (Holt); "The German Empire between Two Wars," by R. H. Fife (Macmillan): "American Diplomacy," by C. R. Fish (Holt); "Dramatic Moments in American Diplomacy," by R. Page (Doubleday, Page). II-NATIONAL AFFAIRS A. Topic: Is Lynching a Good Way to Fight Germany? Reference: Page 609. 1. According to The Outlook, what is the "at least one redeeming feature" of the hanging of Praeger? What does this feature suggest to you? 2. How is it possible for a person to be a real traitor and not a legal traitor? What changes, if any, would you suggest in the legal definition of treason? 3. Discuss how you think our Government should deal with seditionists, disloyalists, traitors, and spies. 4. Do you think any person should ever be hanged by a mob? Tell why. 5. Do you think American lawmakers should respond to the will of the community more quickly and more frequently than they do? Illustrate. 6. Does this lynching affair represent the spirit of America? Discuss the meaning of the spirit of America. 7. You will enjoy and be greatly benefited by reading two books by Henry van Dyke: "The Spirit of America" (Macmillan) and "The Americanism of Washington" (Harpers). B. Topic: Cartoons of the Week. Reference: Page 611. Questions: 1. Discuss the events in current history that serve as the background for each one of these cartoons. 2. Do you think the cartoonist in each case has done well in naming and drawing the cartoon? Give reasons. 3. Rename each cartoon and tell why you selected the names. 4. Can you suggest a proposition for discussion which would include the subject-matter represented by all of these cartoons? Discuss the proposition. 5. What lessons for every American and for the United States as a Government do you see in these cartoons? III-PROPOSITIONS FOR DISCUSSION (These propositions are suggested directly or indirectly by the subject-matter of The Outlook, but not discussed in it.) 1. In a democracy there is no time when public criticism is out of place. 2. America has done all that could justly and reasonably be expected of her after a year at war. 3. President Wilson has not judged the purposes of Germany severely enough. IV-VOCABULARY BUILDING (All of the following words and expressions are found in The Outlook for April 17, 1918. Both before and after looking them up in the dictionary or elsewhere, give their meaning in your own words. The figures in parentheses refer to pages on which the words may be found.) Empire, disillusionment, misprize, righteous force (615); Celts, civilization, importunate, ikons, hate (627); republican, profanation, incarnate, the Druids, cataclysm (628); naturalization, custody, dissemination, reprisal, reaction, seditionists, disloyalists, traitors, spies (609). A booklet suggesting methods of using the Weekly Outline of Current History will be sent on application 24 April "JUSTICE TO THE MOUNTAIN" In a recent issue [August 29, 1917] The Outlook disposed of the long contention over the name of The Mountain in line with the cavalier judgment of Dr. C. Hart Merriam, whose argument led to that of the United States Geographic Board. Had the editors seen that mass of evidence, which included a petition of a congress of representatives of all the Northwestern Indian tribes, they would hardly have offered Whistler's "I am not arguing with I am telling you as the attitude of those advocating the change of the official name. This, following, is their argument: you, Rainier is the name of an English naval officer who fought the colonies throughout the Revolutionary War. He never saw The Mountain nor was identified with it in any way. George Vancouver, who gave his name to it, was not the discoverer of The Mountain. Robert Gray, an American, and two Spanish explorers saw The Mountain two years before Vancouver arrived. Vancouver's maps, carrying the name, were promptly published by Great Britain to further the purpose of King George to appropriate to the crown all this Northwestern country. Vancouver is distinguished in history for a vicious and unreasonable hatred of Americans and for his dishonorable efforts to discredit and rob them of the fruits of their enterprise and toil. (See Greenhow's "History of Oregon," page 256.) The name Rainier, which he bestowed, was fixed to The Mountain twenty-five years ago by the United States Board of Geographic Names, acting at the behest of a United States Senator at a time when the Indian name was in almost universal use. The Senator lived in Seattle, and his only interest in the matter was to work harm to a town which years before had taken as its own name the name of the mountain in the immediate presence of which it stood, but which town had suddenly become a lively competitor of the Senator's home town. Seattle openly gloried in the achievement at the time, nor has it ever denied the truth of this charge, made ten thousand times. A feud resulted which survives to embarrass a new generation. By agreement last year of all parties, expressed through a legisla tive memorial, indorsed by every newspaper in the State and the great newspapers of Portland, Oregon-the newspapers of the now great city of Seattle taking the lead in most generous fashionthe Geographic Board was asked to change the official name. The Board refused. The action was taken at a secret executive session attended by but twelve members of the Board, several of whom had not been present at the open hearing and knew nothing of our case. At this secret meeting and under such circumstances Dr. Merriam made his plea for "sustaining the previous action of the Board." Three of the twelve voted not to sustain that previous action. Our appeal, indorsed by former British Ambassador James Bryce, Theodore Roosevelt, Charles F. Lummis, Bailey Willis, Herbert Quick, John Oliver La Gorce, of the "Geographic Magazine," and scores of men like that, is now to the people of the United States. The question is, Which name the beautiful and descriptive name the Indians gave it, or a name bestowed in hatred and sustained only in jealousy and hatred, "a blot on the whole Northwest"? Will the people of Tacoma have to change the name of their town if they are to see justice done this wonderful mountain? While cities (one in Australia), How to heat a church A new system, cheaper to begin with Its ease of operation, its cleanliness, the fact A CHURCH is the most extravagant, wasteful building in town to heat. One room in use; others silent, and unused. Wasteful low fire, wasteful forced draft, wasteful banked fire! Simply operating the furnace the worst way possible nearly all the week! The trouble is that no furnace is built to heat different parts of a building intermittently. When the trustees are hard-headed business men, they see that a furnace, expressly planned to supply heat constantly and evenly, day and night, cannot be operated intermittently and jerkily, without fearful waste. Therefore they demand a radically different type for heating, their church. The Grinnell Ready-Heat System uses gas in self-regulating and self-ventilating radiators. Grinnell Ready-Heat turns itself on only in the room or rooms to be used. By thermostatic control it heats the room quickly to any desired temperature and holds it there, without any further attention. MARK THIS: Grinnell Ready-Heat is not like any other form of gas-heating. As a matter of fact, it is the most hygienic of any form of heating, because all the products of combustion are drawn into a central flue and carried away. The pastor's residence, churchhouse, etc., at a distance, can be connected to the same duct. 1. Grinnell Ready-Heat is cheaper to install because expensive boilers and furnaces are not required. 2. Cheaper to operate since even an unskilled person can run the system; no ashes to dispose of. 3. Gas bills are generally less than coal bills. Let our experts submit you a heating plan. Address the General Fire Extinguisher GRINNELL EADY HEAT READY Keep the Air Pure 24 April "Justice to The Mountain" (Continued) ships, buildings, parks, the world around, adopt this name because of its sonorous beauty alone, is that which gave the word to the world, the meaning of which word it is-The Mountain-to stand forever as the one thing on earth denied the lawful right to use it its own name? Which name for this "most majestic natural monument on earth," located in the State called Washington-which name (Peter) Rainier or Tacoma (The Mountain)? S. W. WALL, Executive Secretary the Justice-to-the- Tacoma, Washington. JOHN MUIR MISQUOTED Human memory is a treacherous thing, particularly when it ventures to quote, second hand, words uttered many years ago by a person now dead. These remarks are called forth by a short article entitled "A Friendly Act," by Mr. W. H. Hamby, who quotes Mr. John Vance Cheney as his authority, published in The Outlook for January 30, 1918. In this article John Muir, telling of a night spent in the mountains. by a crevasse where steam was escaping, is made to say: In the night I dozed, and waked to feel something warm on my face that did not feel like steam. I did not stir, but opened my eyes very slowly. It was a grizzly bear licking my face! Now Muir never had any such experience as this, and never said that he did, unless joking, and he rarely, if ever, joked in this way. He was a great talker, and loved to tell of his experiences in the wilderness, but he was a truthful man, not given to drawing on his imagination. Having known him for many years, and having been with him on various field trips in California and Alaska, I have heard him relate more than once his experiences with bears-of which, by the way, there were only two. These he published in his book entitled "Our National Parks." The article referred to in The Outlook gives another second-hand alleged quotation from Muir, concerning a bear encountered by him when picking berries. As published in The Outlook the story runs: You know what acres of blackberries grow up in the mountains. They were ripe, and I waded into a patch to help myself. There was a scuffing noise fifteen feet away, and I saw an old grizzly also helping himself. His method was to reach out and rake in an armful, eating berries, tops and all. That old grizzly looked at me in a way that suggested I was an intruder, a trespasser, committing a willful misdemeanor. I returned his look in the friendliest sort of way, trying to convey to him the impression that I had no thought of intrusion; that I admitted the berry patch was his, but in passing had merely stopped to taste a mouthful of berries-and that I was going on in a minute. "I did," smiled John Muir, "in less than a minute, for he did not seem to get my impression, but started to gather me in with his next armful of blackberry vines." By comparing this very inaccurate statement with Muir's own description of the incident ("Our National Parks," pp. 174-177), it will be seen that the distance between Muir and the bear was not fifteen feet, but "a dozen yards or so;" that the animal was not a grizzly, but a cinnamon (a color phase of the common black bear): and that, instead of attempting to gather him in "with his next armful of blackberry vines," it gazed at him for a short time and then withdrew in a dignified manner. Washington, D. C. C. HART MERRIAM. |