amining their methods and have they at last become spiritually independent? There is no trace of all that! The suggestibility of these people has remained as complete as it was before the war. To-day they still believe blindly everything that their leaders show them. But these men have merely changed the battle cry. The methods remain the same.

Before the war Keim, Bernhardi and all those who might be called warmakers urged the people on under the pretext that the war was unavoidable and that one must be prepared for surprise and anticipate the coalition of the enemy. To-day Erzberger, Theodore Wolff, Dernburg, Prince Max of Baden and the other leaders are telling fearful stories about the infamous behavior of the French in the occupied territory, about the enemy's will for annihilation, the hard conditions that must be expected and which an unconquered people would never permit to be offered. And the infatuated German people believe their poison-mixers as implicitly as they always have. More and more do they allow themselves to be driven into a spirit of resistance to peace conditions not yet imposed. And so we find in Germany to-day a population which, instead of feeling repentance for what has happened, believes itself obliged to be obstinate—a mentality that, indeed, bears witness to everything else except knowledge of the true state of affairs and of the true interest of the German people.

It is also evident that the mentality of the German people has remained the same. In that respect

neither defeat nor revolution have

brought to bear any different influence. One must give up the hope that so quick a change might occur. Prolonged educational work will be necessary to banish again the influence of the past ten years on the spiritual condition of this people. A real change of the political system might perhaps have caused this process to speed up. But do we find ourselves then to-day facing a change of system in Germany? Only the politically near-sighted can maintain this. Messrs. Scheidemann and Ebert in reality continue to represent the old system even though under the Socialist flag. As if it depended upon the flag! These gentlemen might just as well unfurl the old Hohenzollern banner again. Indeed, the result would be exactly the same. These present-day prophets in Germany, alleged Democrats and Social Democrats who have suddenly emerged from every corner, can only inspire all true Democrats with horror. One man appeared on the political horizon of Germany who might have rescued the German people-Kurt Eisner. He understood the situation and wished his people to understand it also. He was murdered! But the Ludendorff and the other enemies of the German people walk unmolested in the streets. And that is called the

German revolution!

German revolution! A system, indeed, that might bring no deliverance to this poor people! This pretended new system is in very truth still the old system and it still works, too, with the old methods. One merely needs to put together the telegrams of the Wolff Bureau since November 9. Then he recognizes the effectiveness

of this new system in all its nakedness. But since the old system still remains, since the methods are still the same and the wire-pullers are the same, and since the German people still blindly continue to fall in with these wire-pullers and their methods, it is consequently necessary to declare to-day once for all that the mentality of the German people means danger not merely for the prosperity of this people alone but also for the whole of Europe!

Yes, danger for Europe! Just as this mentality meant danger for Europe in the year 1914, because it made possible the exccution of the plans of the war-makers! If the German people had at that time seen through their leaders-in my "German Chauvinism" I issued a warning about this very thing-and had refused to obey their plans, then we would not have had to endure the war. And the world finds itself again to-day closely facing the same drama. At that time the German leaders brought us the world war. To-day they bring us Bolshevism! It was they who have made possible the rule of Lenine. They are now trying to bring about the spread of Bolshevism over all Europe, simply so that the German people may not be forced to admit their guilt. Rather let all Europe go to destruction! In this desire the representatives of the old system, the militarists, join to-day with those of the pretended new system, the tools of the Scheidemanns. Lenine, however, says to them: "Permit me to be the third in your alliance!" A truly ele vating drama!

If the rest of the world outside of Germany goes to destruction, what concern is it of these gentlemen, Bernhard Dernburg has openly said: "Germany is the Samson fettered to the column, up-bearing western culture and the state-building of Europe, and it will eventually pull down these columns and then wreak vengeance, and also destroy with them in the abyss those who sit at the table above. Germany must direct resolute eyes toward the East where perhaps she may find more understanding and a more favorable future."

Herr Dernburg, we thank you! Not only we in Switzerland but also those in Europe who do not wish to know anything about a rule of Bolshevism! If you and your people are content to have no sense, then that is definitely your affair. It is also your affair if you and your people through your own guilt are thereby obliged to go to destruction. But that you wish thereby to drag down all Europe with you, against that we protest! A mentality like that which you show to-day and with you Theodore Wolff, Erzberger, Naumann and whatever may be the names of all the other leaders of the pretended new Germany, such a mentality means indeed a danger to the world, and this danger is the greater as you very well know, in the degree that the German people assent to your nonsense. May we in neutral lands be conscious of this danger which threatens us from the German mentality! Let us think of 1914 and make provision that in 1919 we may not become for a second time the victim of a misguided people!

PERILS THAT THREATEN Frank A. Vanderlip: What Happened to Europe. Macmillan, 1919. Pp. xx, 188. $1.25.

Julius Henry Cohen: An American Labor Policy. Macmillan, 1919. Pp. ii, 110. $1.00.

Mr. Vanderlip inspected Western Europe for three months. He talked with practically all the Finance Ministers and many financial and industrial leaders, excepting only those of Berlin, Vienna, Budapest and Petrograd. On the homewardbound steamer in May, while the lines of the picture were unblurred in memory, he dictated this description of it. These are, therefore, the firsthand impressions of one of the half dozen men in this country best qualified to comprehend what happened to Europe in its financial and industrial relations. The story is told so lucidly and with such mastery of the subject that he who runs can read and understand.

The premise is that the peril of Europe to-day is more and worse than mere bankruptcy.

It is disorganized and paralyzed industry, due to the break-down of transportation by land and sea, the lack of raw materials for manufacture, the disappearance of credits, the destruction of customary markets, the demoralization of labor and the rise of wages, the lowering of the morale of whole peoples, the destruction of machinery in the war areas, the coal shortage in some countries and the chaos of currencies in others.

The argument is that, as the United States gave its strength to save Europe and the world from the danger of military domination, so now we must exert our full strength to save Europe and the world from complete financial and industrial wreck. The solution, in Mr. Vanderlip's opinion, is to apportion an international loan among the borrowing nations, a loan based upon securities supervised by an International Loan Commission. Those who

have noted the demagogic talk among cheap politicians and evil-minded agitators about the influence of Big Finance at the Paris Conference should learn from this book how international unity in business is the best hope for a peaceful and orderly reconstruction, a dyke against the waves of revolutionary unrest.

Mr. Vanderlip nowhere mentions the proposed League of Nations, yet his volume is a mighty plea for the essential principle of such international cooperation.

In passing, one may regret that Mr. Vanderlip should have advertised the absurd defenselessness of the Bank of Spain.

The doctrine of get together and keep together, which has become embodied in the Covenant of a League of Nations, is a seed of promise for all kinds of social relations.

Mr. Cohen points out the analogies between international war and industrial war. His thesis is that, as international agreements are to compel the substitution of arbitral and judicial processes for war, so occupational agreements must enforce the

substitution of similar solutions for industrial disputes instead of strikes and lockouts.

"The absence of legal power to enforce the observance of agreements has precisely the same result in industrial relations as it has in international treaties." Agreements between organizations of employers and organizations of employees, guaranteeing immunity from either strikes or lockouts, must therefore be validated by law, and become enforceable by constituted organs of Government. Those who break such contracts must be regarded as those who break treaties, offenders who will feel the arm of the Law.

The author does not discuss the problem of enforcing such agreements in a city like Lawrence, where public opinion might not sustain the possible action of the courts. If the employees' organization were the offender, it might be the major part of the community and imbued with a spirit of Rule or Ruin.

It would have been appropriate to include in this volume, at least as appendices, the report of the International Labor Commission at Paris, and the plan of the London Conference for a British industrial parliament.

C. H. LEVERMORE.

"The League of Nations and Its Problems." By L. Oppenheim, Whewell Professor of International Law in the University of Cambridge. Published by Longmans, Green and Company. 1919.

Though the sudden termination of active hostilities and the sitting of the Peace Conference have somewhat dulled the edge of interest in Professor Oppenheim's presentation of the aims, organization and administration of the League of Nations, yet his three lectures still have a definite value. The historical conception of a League of Nations is as old as international law and the author follows from antiquity to the present time the growth of the idea in its interlocking with the growth of international law. He notes especially the early schemes for guaranteeing permanent peace. Prophetically he declares that without the utter defeat of the Central Powers no League is possible, because (1) the ante-bellum map of Europe was too full of potentialities for trouble, and (2) unless Germany's militaristic spirit should be stamped out the menace of jingoism would be ever present. Professor Oppenheim's definitions of nations as differing from States and his denial of the possibility of a Federal World State because of the divergent interests of the component parts make good reading. The second lecture on the organization and legislation of the League of Nations is of only moderate appeal now that the actual formation of the League is in process. The presentation of details of a scheme for establishing an international Court within the League has the same unfortunate lack of timeliness, yet has a value because of its ingenuity. The author believes that dis

armament will not prevent war but that when wars are rendered fewer by the organization of a League of Nations then disarmament will follow naturally. Concerning the much debated question of the loss of sovereignty of members of the League, he says: "Is the assertion really true that States renounce their sovereignty by entering into the League?" According to the modern view sovereignty is a natural attribute of every independent State as a State. Now, do you believe that the independence of a State is really infringed because it agrees never to make war on account of a judicial dispute, and in case of a political dispute not to resort to arms before having given opportunity of mediation to International Councils of Conciliation? In my opinion the independence of a State is as little infringed by an agreement to submit all its judicial disputes to the judgment of a Court and not to resort to arms for a settlement, as the liberty of a citizen is infringed because in a modern State he can no longer resort to arms on account of a dispute with a fellow citizen but must submit it to the judgment of the Court."

M. C. S. S.

"Selected Articles on A League of Nations." Compiled by Edith M. Phelps. Published by The H. W. Wilson Company in The Handbook Series 1918. $1.50 net.

This compilation is destined to secure a just popularity among those who argue for or against the or a League of Nations as well as those who merely want to know for their own soul's sake what it is all about. Light to the hand and a pleasure to the eye, the book holds between its covers the presentations, spoken and written, of the men, women and governments that have been presenting the historical background of such an alliance, describing the organized efforts to promote it, endorsing the project and discussing it. Not the least valuable part of the volume is that devoted to bibliographies of books and periodical references brought down to December, 1918. Phelps's work has distinct value.

Miss

From R. R. Bowker, of Publishers' Weekly. "I take pleasure in sending check for subscription to THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS MAGAZINE sent to my country place, in addition to that for which I subscribe in New York, and I am glad that the title has been changed to indicate the wider scope. I wish indeed that the several organizations supporting the League of Nations might be consolidated into one and that all efforts

might be concentrated toward making the covenant of the League broader and more generous. In my judgment the peace covenant is in much the same position as our original Articles of Confederation and needs to be thoroughly re-worked to make it comparable with our Constitution, comprehensive of all nations, and just "to those to whom we do not wish to be just." Glendale, Mass.