'1*1 :i!H!1iiinii!tiriii;!!r^ mmiM jlLki liJ6I3Yl aucl over 3231ft. 1640 ft. 981ft. to 338 tt, \ X \\ «, r'^"*\^ r (Vl° , li I '•iv.MuiiibardC BatamoDd'B 8i 11 Jlap of Belgium •^'— tJC'^''^'^''' Fl WaKH F^T ADVArOCF P5F rv-l Fft P F P IW^ M A P P^ j copyrigbi. i?n6.byc.s.iiamraor.d.^Co.,K.v, SAT/LEYINE MV,»/ BAVLEf|L,iNE APR IL\g.th 191 P ^ ^ 3° O 3^ ^ 4=> Lonqjludc ^ £n The Topography of the Western Battle Fr F >*«v II K Ohio' Suu'-l'-TnV. AVarDurg \ /ip /-j" llelriBberg Geilcukjjchao BuiBoheld Wlrjip'rTuitli f Olpi ^lu^be^g)] ,([i J St. /BilseB" " X'^V/O-^'B"}'^'' t7iAis/la-ChanL:l1e)'7( ^?>^ V_Sa sterol fel CI out coll eim q KoWpexilcb o >*■ .O ^-lilil -;, ,/" 'i-u-^ VT^r^ I OMedar* f -Wr, imieBbeln! EOUTC hTrojB Vli (X n 1^^ Viatadcn (■ UiESlBURG ^enmoclreT O/^f^ .ilhiiiv Ji eu Ajbuteuu \\J ■^ ■■-■■* -"/ 1/^ Ftiuvillerg C\ V . I ,>' /Jr ^ .-.?■ I Jr -Yi'SaarjAijK' ^*-" - S"ificoartv\ / \ VJ^Icticru, j,ahoGtoin ,<'^, it ic dec ho fen ,,.''i;V^iuirlou i /^i^sepdoTf 6ViSJ fc,/,„ ""•'wp^JNar^ SI. Avoid rtJ.bei-Btcin^^^ jT^umholder n llaba' [\ '- v SaarTTLikiD ^/ ^/y t>*-^ MiilTJ?-^ T^Duddftn^eifflS /I f\/\ I E^'^=\ -ffiiidhai Q For bach ^ 1\<$ Anheru I ^ Oberkitoh I H ago Id "3 Ft.?' 1 PoQl^ , , Pigri7 St.TiQcentC ^..:^-- ,r^ \V/, ~"TBaMp! >- 'CcrbJvjllcr V\> iE™b.rvi5Cr.l (ZU ^ ??b«..bl,-'^Mlr..ou,i\f "'«' \sy)i»\iy|£^ /^""Si^-VJ //f^T^^-^ llMlibW „cb /iScbaduat / ElUnbtira NVs.b.™b«fe, ClefmonW >/ ^"5 . P/'^^ ^ .(CT/ )\Gerat3nicr ?^^-J ^ # ^ .^^ //\ Xu ^^ — v^ /,. ,.,..„ Wolfacb ■i-XsyT^^^^^g^^^SLT^ jres 7/ jQehwofcr ol ri.bt. roT73n« ■4^ita V^-"< from ^ Gr«enwiob G- From Sea-level mud and marsh to Mountain-top. A 1 N R E- E FU RTH" N G L I S H H'EST AD'VANCE ,01? THE GILRMAN ARMV BATTLi: LINE MARCH 20th 1918 •■+ + + +■ BATTLi; LINE APRIL 5th 1918 C \H A N N E L ® LO^>LA>DS OF NORTHERN FRANCE BELGIUM SCALE OF MILES Ra lI roads— CanalsL.- Forts. Fortresses HEIGHT OF LAND 656 feet and over 328 to 656 feet 164 to 323 " OtolM " Below Sea Level Hamrrond'6 8 ji 11 Map of Northern Francs Copyncht by C.S.Hammond iCo, N Y Nonveau Brighton^ SLVj Caycax Eur Mer/ Where Germanv's Southwestern 1 _ Rexpo deo soex »"«-'S cp^'^f ^tT> «^n^l"-iP •&1 '^ aneke Ste^nvoorde, Ci oStrajiee'lV ^^•'^''wfytse lSjO s ■4 wulverghent) Wytse Laete^ oNeuve Egli Bailleul° Plocgsteerto , — V —jDVieux Berquin ^^'l&'ei^X^lf^ *''" "i °Proven M^^ Ogoutkerque Elvefi^J^c^ , Poperingheo^''"'**' — oWinn€zeele ^ _ o Ae rsce oArdoyc oBeverenT / oRolleghemcappeIre ,^y; 1 u 1 1 Dadizeetel „ JJ^iaT -^ ' iheluvell Jjede" o^,;^'^ eluwe° * Zandvoorde^__ ^ tr Erquingl , , Calonne ^tVeO ^i ^oRobectj AubereO ? Ai oBDsnc^ Neuve Cbapelleo o„ Ifienyoy I-o«i"o Richebourgo ^^"'^ ,0 Festuberto M3?S,^=^ '!". >Si°y^>^^ 'oBengin "" "IJuiiyi £ren; oHu^^'^^^^Waen ghem Nederzi^r oWortegcTTV Wveghem Halluin\ □Roncti oI;Jeuv]lle B TurcoiftgV *Fi.r '' — * — ■ Herinnea Ve!aines( oCelles Invafngo ""dim °"S^ \_ JpS"«>\ Hollainfl TillXiS OKojlwlirt 5^ ?Ai« ^« *) J1^ "">- »,?:,?>*■"< . Auchy C&utichesO • I "^Rpiivrv jjCaucourt ^'ta^TS "'^l?™,„„w/ oBe.uinont Iv^ igrTiis''^"^ oGavrellp^ "onl-St-EloV Noycletteo "p^^ iRRSS^i, - ;c4,,^yjSfTz'£ i|>0UA(^f"^|r^||^| '!(« SS''"%1«'ir»rti" I Raismesi allers ■^"'chesX ■Pelves fei^V«^Ji ^^.. 5^"->fb# uv Audenarde 1. , ,1 ( dphassett Hemel¥eniegemc>^_^OL,Pf,jg,^^j— ^ TEIlczellGEO p^ lies ^oFrasnes oHacquognies , oVczon OMaubray igelette OrnipiL'nie°\/' /o T*"^ oToiirpiea ChiRTii Camfiro ElljCTiies y^ns-sur-Dendreo\. /Ghlino oOnnamr oSt.Saulvc/ oVendi zoir le Quesn. ^Beaudignies Ft.de HaiimorfC* Ft deBtfui'diau* BerlailTwinior /Boauforto opoix ci ForesT-SiRAulrioyc *>,''■ Locquitnol?K „ _ o oVendegies L^lftA oSt.Rfmy ■ Ndyei^lec/ Wmousiec Croix o cBousies ■* ' ^ ^ PoWor *HeraV^ 'J^mmi«r« ^K^''""^'^""i!« S.ST^^^ (''^^'^^^'''-^J^^&mhX^^V^'''' OA.-hiL-t oC-ucnVlti jrVjET-Bapittiiue °Biiniouri:)ri t*.,^^. T) ° A'uchonvillcrao aJPMiraiwKoni^ Lipnv o/' ei-l""** lit^ru^iDo ^''^''''^oW'""''--''^, tcTri^n5lr,j "^ j_ onrsit-i 91arcoin| Louncc! f Cnatlgny 1 c-MesGll Slalgrnelay Bl in court ancourt falenciennesGr H,«r„ia; tl.-ilri,,, E> Solre. ( ^BCTlia GuU^ard ^In^^'il o,. -t'Ft.Mn nlbtraull iO il i, „*"«"■»!• f>sb..p.;.;i Prill; i-j«';«-, ''■ vnie4rV^i^^?^'7'':I^,:'i^ ♦enchant o QChSTWy- JouMroc%'S-Joj3Qrro _. ...Arto ^Buselcrce TIoli zr^< f^Z C-^^ ■toriSA. IfAori.^-iS"" / FOB.>OF * '^\^ ^XMontiflortJXuA CHAkMOvE TrMigr-y'^l C.S. Hammond i^ C^,.,N.Y. Tnudfly D 2 '30' E in 3°30' 4° Loneifude H FURTHEST ADVAMCE OF THE GERMAN ARMY i...>. MAP A Land upon which the Chaos of Desolation "B" BATTLE LINE KARCH 20tU L918 + 4--1--1- BATTLE LINE APRIL 6th' 1918i has descended through Years of War. MAP "C" 3 U^/2^i^ C/iinaro^ .Pypolii*?^Jtjaiitiano,;, BOitlE ri£;;fj«X<"™" FURTHEST ADVANCE OF THE „„„^_t, \ J?*tel.-fet\= ITALIAN ARMIES ■•-■ AllSlK" ^ ArdJa VtUdtr (N8ttl.'Do , L I^^Ej ]V„,<, SEA Hammoua'y B i 11 Map ut DaluiBtia unci Auat....IlaliiiL FrLtntist ^,^^^ ^ ijaetu^ ' Copyright, lUlO, bj C.S.Haromonii i Ci... N.V. | • - \CariDoli Subiacoi \ noixjaraeo, oForecfiilo '*— -, 10 ;;o 30 Kailroads_,- Canals Capitals of I Capitals of t GciTtjavo Boundaries c Size of ■ l^-vfiguoia "j^i-^X, Sou itvell 3Sy to I >^uvipo/ "wi^^j^S^g ^t.l 984 ft J B c IS"" Lnllgitntle T:) Tbc Cucisl of JLaly's A glance at the shores of the Adriatic shows tlialjM-aetioally all E Bill) APES' Htvtri oAtiiQj rrr — ^r — ^ — ( G H 781(81 ^°';?' Tarosloi BodonkulQ HV^"' i^iV)d i,>^ ../Mun , Ciegled Nagj/Koros / Uunjfld ,ii\.ir' . Jletegtu^ 1 sji>^"yalu yialoS ' Hjj,., HsarKt ^oroBioM^ A-j Wciobegjefi ■parddW Temcrm \ SfA f Modoo/^ /TemeB \ ZflomiJiJl-yB T^Dp^y Skw^ .Blbe?cio Bjtlinn fcj'* Ip E-ruparirX YalkT ;V«breD'k ^ -^aiE I^ E & V I N A V /00ravlralaP5a_U--T'--7--&BaiSj^ C/vSclo aAlJbsaiidrovofi XjiaiJanJiel^ ^i\ _j~J iy\\ PUUoiu' ' 1 -^ ~M^So^ clJagodilia Ewla ^^jy^alBlat lui V -.Tiakovlca J-^V rnvinces S 3untries- ^ Countries — * ype indicates relative rjorliince of places [GET OF LAND 984 to 11640 tol32ai tol 4921 640 ft. 13381 £t.|4931 ft.l and o w G Hopes and Fears, the good harbors lie on the Austrian and Dalmatian side. The Gateway The scene of Great Britain's most humiliating faihires F G- 42' 44° K 46° I'lto the East. ■'and some of her most hrilhanl successes in the Worhi Wav. Petrograd ^ NORTH ml SEA Moscow Par Berlin r"''^'^^ i- \ P ofl a'n'd \ ■ Ct^*^ LembefgV \ ^ ^ PRANCE r-^'^Bal'lV AUSTRIA^ HUNGARY '\ V \ k Odessa ' J^ "sBucharest-^Constantza OiOjAthens ^ N S E T R I p THE SECRET OF GERMANY'S PEACE OFFER The Central Powers Population (in round figures) Germany 68,000,000 Austria-Hungary 52,000,000 Bulgaria 5 500,000 Turkey 19.500,000 145,000,000 The Occupied Territory (Jan'y 1918) Belgium 6,S00,0U0 Northern France 6,000,000 Poland. Lithuania. Courland 18.500,000 Serbia, Montenegro 5,000,000 Roumania 5,000,000 Italy , 1,000,000 '(a,000,000 TO-DAY GERMANY CONTROLS 187,000,000 People RevJBcd from "The New Europe" January 11. 1917 ^^ "tVadi Half^ ^1 .ssuai3\ X- A N G ? ^ ^ E G Y P T J A N/ Khartuix if Ir. h S U D J? n i THE PAN-GERMAN PLAN as realised by War IN EUROPE AND IN ASIA ■■ "Centra/ Europe" ami its Annexe in the Near East {Gernmny, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey) The Entente Powers Territory occupied by Central Powers Territory occupied by Entente Powers m^ GERMANY'S MAIN ROUTE TO THE EAST {Berlin-Bagdad, Berlin-Hodeida, Berlin-Cairo-Cape) ^^^_ Supplementary Routes (Berlin- Trieste, Berlin-Salonica-Athens, Berlin-Constantza-Constantinople) ■ ■■ Uncompleted sectors ^ Ph >, w "1 Pm = ^ ■^ ^ o ^ ^ M w h "IKi )« "- n tf^-_S ikzP'.pnfj p- o h 3 o a, a The '"CKck-pit so° Camp"

in Mediterranean. These Were the British losses, and do not count in such losses as the Audacious, which was sunk mysteriously, but prob- ably not by a submarine. The French have lost the battleship Bouvet, 12,000 tons, sunk March 18, 1915, at the Dardanelles; and the Suffren, 13,- 000 tons, , sunk November 26, 1916, off Lisbon. The Italians lost no battleships by sub- marine action, though they lost a num- ber of large armored cruisers, as did the French and British. Italian! battleship losses were due to explosion and mines. The Germans have lost an armored cruiser atid three light cruisers, all sub- marined in the Baltic in 1913. The Aus- trians have, apparently, lost only one cruiser to submarines. The Turks lost the Messoudieh, and the battleship Kyehr- Ed-Din, torpedoed in the Sea of Mar- mora Sept. 8, 1915. Q. — Can submarines fight subma- rines? A. — Not as submarines — though it is stated that towards the end of 1917 they were being more and more employed to locate the enemy. _ They can, of course, fight each other with guns and torpedoes on the surface, but that is only like other craft. Submerged, they cannot fight each other, because the crew of submarines cannot see under water. It is true that the conning-towers have glazed look-out places, but even in clear water the den- sity of the. water-world is such that men can see ofily a few yards. It is conceiv- able that two submarines might, by guess and luck, blunder into each other, and try to use torpedoes; but it is a remote possibility, Q. — Are duels under seas likely in the future? A. — There remains a chance that sound- transmitting apparatus may be so highly perfected that a submarine can find its prey by sound, and succeed in determin- ing its whereabouts even though it re- mains invisible. In that case, there may some day be under-water hunts by and of submarines. It is the dream, of course, of naval in- ventors to discover some way to make fairly extended sight possible under water. This would make the submarine more than doubly as dangerous to sur- face ships as it now is, for then it might approach a ship without showing its peri- scope at all. But so far there has been nothing to indicate this possibility. 6o Questions and Answers Q. — Were the American destroy- ers really effective in the war- zone? A.— -Very effective, but not, as the American people first assumed, through destroying submarines. The eiiectiveness was by patrol, by covering the war-zone with constantly cruising watching vessels of vast speed, and thus limiting both the time and the radius of action of the sub- marines sharply. Q. — Did our destroyers not sink many submarines? A.— In January, 1918, Commander J. K. Taussig, U. S. Navy, who commanded the first American destroyer squadron that crossed the sea, made a public ad- dress in New York, describing the work done by these vessels during seven months of war. The facts that he gave showed that destruction of submarines was only a part of the real task and importance of the anti-submarine patrol. He said that the effective system (i) was a convoying cordon of destroyers to defend the con- voyed vessels against such submarines as came to them to attack ; and (2) an offen- sive patrol of destroyers to sweep the seas looking for submarines and attack- ing them wherever found. Q. — How about the many reports of destroyed submarines? A, — Commander Taussig said in refer- ence to this matter : "I cannot say that we sank many sub- marines. The submarine, I found, was a very difficult bird to catch. He has tre- mendous advantage over the surface craft. In the first place, he always sees you first. As he was not after destroyers, he avoided us wherever he could. That is, if he saw a destroyer on the horizon, the submarine always went the other way." Q. — Did the Commander say that none had been sunk? A. — He said : "When we saw a sub- marine, which sometimes happened fre- quently, and, at other times, might not happen during several weeks, we would immediately go for him full speed, and open fire with our guns in the hope of getting in a shot before he submerged, but he always submerged very quickly. Only once did my vessel, in seven months, actually succeed in firing at a submarine. He then went down after the fifth shot was fired. At that time he was five miles away." Q. — Is the torpedo the submarine's only weapon? A. — Noj Modern submarines carry guns on deck, which are stowed in water- tight depressions when submerged. But against troop transports their only wea- pon is the torpedo, because, in order to attack a transport by gun-fire, they would have to come to the surface and thus would inevitably be sunk by the convoy- ing vessels. Q. — Just what is a torpedo? Is it anything like the shell fired from a gun? A. — The torpedo is a shell and a craft combined — that is, it acts like an explo- sive shell when it strikes its mark, but, instead of being fired at the mark, it actually propels itself, like a little boat. Q.— What does it look like? A. — Like a cigar, if you can imagine a polished steel cigar from eighteen to twenty feet long, and weighing rather more than a ton, the very big ones weigh- ing 3,000 pounds. Q. — Why is it so long? Does it carry such a huge amount of explosive? A. — No. It_ does carry a pretty big load of explosive, but its great length is due to the elaborate machinery that it contains. Q. — Where does it carry the ex- plosive? A. — In its pointed steel snout, which is known as the warhead. The full-service torpedo carries 250 pounds of gun-cotton there. Q. — Where is the machinery? A.— In its long body behind the ex- plosive. It is a beautifully devised little turbine engine that works with com- pressed air, and gives the torpedo a speed as high as forty miles an hour so long as the compressed air supply holds out. Q.— How long a time is that? A.— Long enough to drive a torpedo through the sea for as much as four miles— quite long enough, therefore, to Man Under Water (The Submarine) 6i hit its mark, for a torpedo generally is fired at a mark very much inside of that distance. Q. — How is the torpedo fired from the ship? A. — It is fired, or, rather, propelled from the ship by a blast of compressed air, or a very light powder charge, that does nothing further than to toss it into the sea. Q. — Does the torpedo always point in the right direction when it strikes the water? A. — It generally does, but it does not need to. The ingenious machinery within it is so set that it steers the weapon to- ward the target for which it was ad- justed. Q.— ^And will it maintain that direc- tion? A. — Not always. Sometimes a big wave may so strike it that it "deflects," that is, turns aside. Q. — When a torpedo deflects, what happens ? A, — The torpedo turns back to its orig- inal direction automatically, because it is fitted with a gyroscope that keeps it per- fectly true or forces it back continually to the original true direction. Q. — Then the torpedo really is not a projectile at all? A. — No. It is really a little automatic torpedo boat. Q.— How does it explode? A. — It explodes when it hits a ship. There is a firing-pin in its tip, and this detonates a small quantity of fulminate of mercury, one of the most sensitive and violent explosives known. The detona- tion of this, in turn, explodes the gun- cotton. Q. — Does the torpedo not have to pierce the ship? A. No. It is not powerful enough to do so. It is the explosion of the gun- cotton outside of the ship that blows a hole into it. The water, bemg non-com- pressible, forms a solid cushion, and this drives the full force of the explosion against the vessel. Q. — How did the Germans manage to turn out enough torpedoes? A. — Their apparent ability to produce all that the U-boats needed was a con- stant marvel to naval experts of the world, who knew how much extremely fine material is needed for a single one. However, it was known that German sub- marine commanders were extremely care- ful to conserve torpedo supply. Extraor- dinarily strict regulations governed their use. It - is understood that every com- mander had to account in detail for each torpedo, being held strictly accountable for wasted missiles. Q. — Did the American patrol force them to expend more torpe- does? A.---If the American patrol did not force them actually to use more torpe- does, it certainly made them waste more, because if forced them to flre_ a larger number at long range, thus wasting many, because they registered no hits. Q. — How did the patrols force this condition? A. — Partly by convoying ships, so _that the submarines could not approach within easy torpedoing distance without the im- minent risk of having a destroyer on top of them, as their periscopes arose above the surface for a sight at_ the prey. Partly by so covering the sea in extended patrol that the submarine had few chances to chase ships and destroy them by shell- fire from the surface, because the wire- less call for help would bring destroyers to the scene. Q. — How many torpedoes could German submarines carry? A. — A minimum of four on the small, old-type submarines. A maximum of twelve on the big super-submarines per- fected during the war. The U-S3, which visited Newport and then sank Allied ships off Nantucket, carried ten. It was said in 1918 that the Germans had insti- tuted the manufacture of two types of torpedoes— one the full-charge,_ highly perfected, long-range torpedo, which costs a great deal; the other a greatly cheap- ened torpedo, which was limited to 500 or 600 yards' range, but was quite ef- fective within that range. Q._Was the Deutschland a war- ship? A.— No. She was a submarine mer- chantman, the first one in the world. She 62 Questions and Answers was unarmed. The Deutschland was about 300 feet long, and carried a cargo of 800 tons. In 1916 she twice sailed from Germany to the United States and returned. Each crossing of the Atlantic took from 16 to 22 days, and each time she ran the British blockade successfully. The German cargo consisted chiefly of dyestuffs. The American return cargo was rubber and nickel. No other such vessel ever reached an American port, although the sailing of a companion ves- sel, the Bremen, was reported. Q.— Do submarines move under water with gasolene power? A. — No. The gasolene engines can work under water only with great diffi- culty. Apart from the combustion of the limited supply of air in a submerged sub- marine, the exhausts cannot operate suf- ficiently against the great water pressure below the surface. Besides this, the ex- haust would send an unceasing stream of bubbles to the surface, and thus betray the exact whereabouts of the submarine to its foes. jQ. — What power do submarines use under water? A. — Power from electric storage bat- teries. Whenever the submarine can lie on the surface, its gasolene engines are operated at top speed, to generate elec- tricity for charging these batteries. In dangerous waters this is often done at night. The storage batteries can store enough power so that a submarine can, if necessary, run submerged for about 24 hours without needing to come to the surface. Such long runs, however, are rarely required. Q.— How does a submarine sub- merge? A. — Partly by taking water into its bal- last tanks, and partly by diving, ft can submerge by taking in water only, but then it simply sinks slowly to an awash condition. It cannot take too much water in, for it would lose its buoyancy and continue to sink till it got to the bottom. Therefore, as soon as it has enough water-weight on board to bring it awash, the engines are started, and, at the same time, the forward diving-rudders or fins are so set that as the submarine is pro- pelled forward, its bow is forced down- ward. It is a very delicate operation, for the engines must work with great force, and any undue operation of the diving- rudders may send the vessel down bow first, plunging it to a dangerous depth, and even turning it end over end. Q. — Can you give a brief sum- mary of submarine warfare questions ? A.— (i) December 24, IQM- Admiral von Tirpitz throws out hints in a news- paper interview of a wholesale torpedo- ing policy. (2) February 4, 1915. Ger- man Government proclaims a war zone about the British Isles, and her intention to sink any enemy merchantmen encoun- tered in this zone without warning. (3) May I (dated April 22), 1915. Ger- man embassy publishes in New York morning papers warning against taking passage on ships which our government has told the people they had a perfect right to take. The Lusiiania sailed at 12.20 noon. May i, and was sunk on May 7. (4) August 19, 1915. Sinking of the Arabic, whereupon von Bernstorff gave an oral pledge for his government that hereafter German submarines would not sink "liners" without warning. (5) Feb- ruary, 1916. Germany makes proposals looking toward "assuming liability" for the Lusiiania victims, but the whole case is complicated again by the "armed ship" issue. (6) March 24, 1916. Sinking of the Sussex, passenger vessel, with Ameri- cans on board. (7) May 4, 1916. Ger- many, in response to the threat of the United States Government to break off diplomatic relations with her, gives her "Sussex pledge." (8) January 31, 1917. Germany notifies our government that she will begin "unrestricted submarine war" on the following day. (9) February 3, 1917. The President gives Count Bern- storff his passports and recalls Ambas- sador Gerard from Berlin. (10) April 6, 1917. American declaration of a state of war. Q. — When was the White Star liner "Arabic" sunk? A. — She was sunk August 19, 1915, while the general submarine situation was under strenuous discussion between the two governments. There had been, how- ever, a distinct impression that the Ger- man Government had already ordered such attacks to cease. Q. — Did the Germans offer any ex- cuse? A.— -They set up the allegation that the Arabic had approached their subma- rine in such a manner as to indicate to the submarine commander that the Man Under Water {The Submarine) 63 liner _ intended to ram. The submarine had just sunk another ship, and it was established by both the German and the British evidence that the Arabic had un- doubtedly approached the submarine. The Arabic's officers, however, swore that they had not done so with any in- tention of attacking, and the German gov- ernment finally accepted their testimony and informed the United States that the act of the submarine was "regretted and disavowed," that it was "undertaken against the instructions issued to the commander," and that Germany was pre- pared to pay an indemnity for the loss of American lives. Q. — Was there not a further prom- ise? A. — ^While the case still was under dis- cussion by the two governments, Count von Bemstorff, the German Ambassador, gave a pledge for his government that "liners will not be sunk by our subma- rines without warning and without safety of the lives of non-combatants, provided that the liners do not try to escape or offer resistance." Q. — What was the "Ancona" case? A. — The Ancona was an Italian steam- ship from Genoa, which was shelled and torpedoed in November, 191 S- As she had American citizens among her passengers, the United States protested energetically". After some correspondence, the Austrian government announced that it had laid down the rule that "hostile private ships, in so far as they do not flee or offer re- sistance, may not be destroyed without the persons on board having been placed in safety." The Austrians also agreed to indemnify the American sufferers. Q. — Have the Germans mine-laying submarines ? A.— They appear to have a large num- ber, and some have been captured. They have specially constructed air-tight cham- bers into which the mines are placed ready to be sown. These mines are some- what smaller than those hitherto used, but are deadly nevertheless. When the sub- marine has reached the desired spot, the chamber is flooded with water and the mines are ejected by mechanical means. The method by which they are anchored to the sea-bottom and then floated to the required height is exceedingly ingenious. According to Italian reports, the Germans have used a very rough sort of subma- rine for mine-laying in the Adriatic, but those captured by the British are appar- ently very efficient craft. Q. — What is a submarine mine? A. — It is a weapon used principally to .defend tlje approaches to harbors and anchorages. There are two main varie- ties — those under direct control from the shore, and those not under control. The former are exploded by electricity from a station on land ; the latter are mechanical, and explode when struck by a passing vessel. Q. — How big is a submarine mine? A. — Submarine mines are usually cylin- drical in shape, some four feet in diam- eter. They are not made larger owing to difficulty of handling, and are quite large enough to contain a charge sufficient to sink graat ships. Q. — Do these mines float about or are they attached? A. — Most of them are anchored, but floating rpines are also sown, and drift about to the danger of all shipping. The anchored ones usually lie some six feet below the surface. Many are made so that when, they break away from their moorings .they become innocuous. A spe- cial contrivance prevents the mine being fired whilst it is being laid ; in fact it does not become dangerous for some min- utes after it has been put into the sea. Q. — How can these mines be dis- covered? A. — Trawlers are used to discover and catch them. The British make use of the steam drifters (fishermen) of the North Sea for this purpose. The method is for four or five of them to steam abreast, sweeping the sea behind them with long hawsers and grappling apparatus. In this way all the trade routes and chan- nels can be got quickly rid of mines. The trawlers themselves are of light enough draft to pass above them. Special appli- ances are used for the trawling. The North Sea fishermen know the set of the currents, the channels and shoals, so are obviously the best men to send after mines which drift with the current. Q. — Did Germany lay mines on the British coast before the declar- atiop of war? A. — Such an assertion was made at the time, but there was never any proof 64 Questions and Answers forthcoming, and it appears entirely un- tenable. Ordinary shipping met no mis- naps before war was declared. Had mines been about, there would have been many vessels sunk. Q. — What is a torpedo mine? A. — It is a contrivance somewhat like a torpedo tube, loaded with a special form of mine, imbedded in the bottom of the channel. No mine sweepers can reach it, for it is buried in the bed itself. It is fired by electricity from the shore when a ship passes over it. This invention is used to defend harbors and straits. Q. — What German submarine op- erated off the American coast? A. — The U-S3, a very modern vessel, which made a sudden appearance in New- port harbor, greatly to the excitement of all America. It arrived in the Rhode Island harbor on October 8, 1916, with letters for the German ambassador, and soon put to sea again. The next thing the American public learned was through big headlines saying that the U-53 was sinking ships off Nantucket. Among the five or six vessels sunk was the steamer Stephana, which carried American pas- sengers. The passengers and crews of all the vessels were picked up by United States destroyers, and no lives were lost. The episode, which was an eight-day wonder, and resulted in a temporary tie- up of shipping in eastern ports, started numerous rumors and several legal ques- tions, none of which, however, turned out of material importance, as U-53 vanished as suddenly as it came, and its visit was not succeeded by any others. Q. — Can a submarine send wireless without high masts? A.— Yes. Of course the lack of high masts limits its radius, but submarines can do very well, indeed. The German submarines were thoroughly fitted with wireless in the very beginning of the war. Indeed, without wireless they would have been pretty helpless — unable to get in touch with any other submarine and quite unable to learn anything, ex- cept what they could see. But, fitted as they were, they could keep themselves and their fellow-raiders so well informed that they managed to warn each other quite successfully of dangers, and they succeeded in operating in unison more or less, besides picking up a good deal of the enemy wireless. Q. — Did" German submarines need no masts at all for wireless ? A. — Oh, yes. They had to have masts, and they had them. The wireless masts were folding or telescopic that could be elevated about twenty feet, and this gave them a radius of from 125 to perhaps 200 miles — the minimum distance being in the day time when conditions were poor, and the maximum being at night when conditions are unusually good. The average wireless range of the early boats probably would be about 150 miles. Q. — Can German submarines com- municate with the German ad- miralty? A. — They did so even in the early days when they did not carry wireless as pow- erful as the equipment in the very new types. When the British battleship For- midable was sunk by one of them in the North Sea on New Year's Day, 1915, the German Admiralty gave out the news al- most as quickly as it was known to the British Admiralty. The submarine had wirelessed her news into the air, and other German submarines had caught it, and relayed it on and on till it reached one that could, in turn, reach Germany. Q. — Have the Germans greatly per- fected wireless on submarines? A.— It has been reported, with much circumstantial detail, that the Germans have pitched on a very simple and effec- tive device for elevating the wireless an- tennae from their submarines to great heights, and thus extending their wire- less radius to as much as 1,000 miles. The device is said to be simply a couple of srnall balloons that are sent up with the wire attached to them. Under favorable conditions they may go as high as 2,000 feet. This method could be used with comparative ease at night when the sub- marines could venture to lie motionless on the surface. Q- — How many different ways can a submarine operate? ,,-^— In (o"r ^^y== (i) running light, that IS, wholly on the surface like any other vessel; (2) awash, that is, just suf- ficiently sunk to submerge her hull but leave her conning tower and bridge above the surface so that her captain can com- mand her from the surface; (3) surface- submerged, that IS, totally under water, but SO close to the surface that her crew can see the world through their periscope • Man Under Water (The Submarine) 65 (4) submerged, when _ the periscope is useless and the navigation must be done entirely by calculation. Q. — Why does oil on the surface in- dicate that a submarine has been sunk? A. — It does not, necessarily. There have been many newspaper statements that a rammed submarine was known to have been destroyed because large patches of oil were seen on the surface after the ramming. As a matter of _ fact, however, oil rising to the surface simply indicates that there has been an injury to one of the fuel-oil supply tanks, which are sit- uated in the outer skin of German sub- marines. The actual hull of the sub- marine is inside of these. A smashed oil-tank would, of course, injure the under-water boat considerably, but it does not destroy her, nor prevent her from voyaging to her base for repairs. A more certain indication of fatal dam- age to a submarine would be the vast rush of air that must spout from her compressed air-tanks if she is really in-' jured badly. This would mount to the surface in a perfect maelstrom of froth- ing bubbles. Q. — How quickly can a submarine's guns be housed? A. — In from twenty to thirty seconds. The Krupp rapid-fire 3-inch guns with which German submarines are armed, are so mounted that by the pull of a single lever they will turn over backward on an axle and lie snugly upside down in the well, which is then closed with a water- tight, hinged cover. The time for the whole operation is 20 seconds. Some of the very latest tjrpes have, in addition to these collapsible guns, smaller deck guns, which do not need housing at all, because they are made of metals impervious to salt-water. Q. — Can submarines escape a storm by sinking below the surface? A. — They need only sink about thirty feet to escape nearly every sense of mo- tion from an ordinarily rough surface sea. If the gale _ is very violent, there may be some motion as far as forty-five feet below the surface, but at fifty feet the water usually is still as death. This is in deep ocean water. In the shallow North Sea and the Baltic, the ground- swells often make a pumping motion that is noticeable forty feet deep, and sub- marines must be handled cautiously when submerged, for fear of being unexpect- edly pounded against the bottom. Q. — How quickly can a submarine submerge? A. — A submarine that is cruising awash, and all clefired for quick action, can shut her water-tight hatches and sink out of sight in less than three minutes. In or- dinary times, the period that has to elapse between running light on the surface with hatches open and gear exposed, to the moment of total submersion is about eight minutes with ordinary speed of crew-work. Q. — How deep can a submarine go? A.— If it were not for water-pressure, a submarine could go to the bottom of the deepest oceanic abyss in the world with absolutely no trouble. But water- pressure is a tremendous thing. At 200 feet the pressure on a man is the same as if he were under a load of 13 tons. To withstand such pressures a submarine must be of extremely strong construc- tion. Any leak, however slight, might fill her wjth enough water to overcome her reserve buoyancy ; and then she would sink rapidly to depths that will simply crush anything made of man. Therefore submarines rarely venture lower than lOO feet, and the usual cruising depth is thirty or fifty feet. American submarines are built by the Navy to withstand test at 200 feet, and they have navigated at greater depths, but only for a "stunt." Q. — What American submarine was lost by sinking too deep? A. — The F 4. She was cruising sub- merged off Honolulu Harbor (Hawaaian Islands), and sank in 250 feet of water. American naval divers performed extraor- dinary exploits in trying to reach her, and, in the end, despite the terrific water- pressure, succeeded in attaching cables so that she could be raised and dragged ashore. Her entire crew, however, was lost, for she was not raised for many days after the accident. Q, — How far can a submarine pilot see through the periscope? A.— On a clear day, with his periscope sticking fifteen feet above the surface, he can see such an object as a battleship five miles away. With the periscope only 66 Questions and Answers just showing above the surface, he can see a ship a little more than a mile away. Q. — How can a man find his way under water? A. — The answer is: how does a sailor find his way on top of the water? All he can see is water and sky. The sun will tell him where east, west, north and south are, but that is all. The sailor on tha surface steers not by sight (except, of course, to avoid some other ship), but by chart and compass. In fog or black nights his eyes are of no more use than if he were under water. The submarine captain steers similarly — by chart and compass. Q. — Can a submarine be steered as easily under water as a ship on the surface? A. — ^Just as easily. The rudder acts in just the same way. In fact, a ship run- ning on the surface in a sea-way or in a high wind is much harder to steer than a submerged submarine which has no waves to disturb it. Q. — How does a submarine com- mander know how deep under water he is? A. — ^He simply looks at an indicator, which is worked by water pressure. The pressure of water increases at a certain positive and accurately known ratio with every bit of depth. The submarine commander can tell his depth to the foot — ^to the inch if he wants to be so ac- curate. Q. — Did our destroyers capture any German submarines? A. — The American destroyers Fanning and Nicholson sighted a periscope while escorting a convoy. They dropped depth charges where the submarine had sub- merged, and in a few minutes she came up bow first. For a moment she was down by the stern, but she righted her- self and seemed to be speeding up, so the Fanning fired three shots at her. The submarine crew then came on deck and held up their hands in token of sur- render. The destroyers got a line to her, but she sank in a few minutes. The sub- marine crfiw jumped into the water, and was picked up by the destroyers. MAN IN THE AIR Q. — Does the term "ace" mean a man or a flying machine? A.^t means a man — a man nearest to the knight of old wars, who fought bat- tles with other knights while the armies looked on, waiting to see which champion should conquer. The "ace" is a fighting air-man ^yhose skill and daring make him a veritable champion of the twentieth century war; Mounted in the swiftest machines that science can turn out, the ace flies forth to attack the hostile lines m every v/ay possible. Many times in this war a cele- brated ace has fought from two to a dozen hostile machines and has not only escaped, but has actually made havoc among his assailants so that, sometimes, brave as they were, they had to yield to superior skill and resourcefulness, and retired, defeated and baffled, often with a humiliating list of killed. Q. — Which side has the greatest aces? A.— The most burning patriotism (and, indeed, even the most jealous partisan- ship) cannot lay claim to distinct supe- riority for either side. All but the most blindly partial observers on the Allied or German sides admit that honors are even. For a long time (and some think even, now) the advantage was with the Ger- man side in one very important, almost vvital, respect. They had the fastest ma- chines that the world ever saw. This gave a naturally dashing ace an immense ■superiority; andj as a result, the figures of these championship combats indicate that in actual results the German aces have obtained a somewhat better record than their opponents. In an article printed by the Outlook early in 1918 it was stated that the offi- cial aviation record shows Germany to be victor in the fight of aces with a score of 1,121 victories won by 66 aces to 1,171 victories won by 125 Allied aces. The author, who says that he is giving all the victories of all the air-forces to Decem- ber, igi7, ascribes part of the result to the competence of the German air-chief. General von Hoeppner, whom he char- acterizes as a wonderfully gifted air- expert. Q. — What are the ruling tactics of German aces? A. — One of the known reasons for their many successes is that the German air- service has laid down a series of accu- rate and severe rules that make the Ger- man ace not a mere "lone hand," trusting to his own unaided ability. The German air-fighters operate under a system of tactics very much like those that are prac- ticed as a matter of course by all cavalry on earth and by all naval men on the sea. The German ace may venture most dar- ingly to draw pursuit— but behind him is team-work, strong support, and an abso- lute system of procedure. He is not permitted to go out for glory. He must go out for tangible success. Just as concealed cavalry waits on land till a flying detachment of its own csui draw a too zealous enemy hot after it, or as naval vessels wait in force till a single scout of theirs can draw an enemy squad- ron into their reach, so the German ace is expected to draw pursuers till his com- rades can §woop down in mass formation with vastly superior force. Q. — Is there a record of the vic- tories won by aces? A. — Yes. The famous aces of the war were : about 60 French, about 40 British, about 65 German, and about 60 Italian, Belgian, American (with Lafayette Es- cadrille), Russian, Bulgar and Turks. The Bulgars and the Turks had only one each. The ten Italians are credited with more than 120 victories, and were said to be all still living at the end of autumn, 1917. Of the French, about fifteen were killed after winning about 170 victories. Thirty- seven German aces were killed or cap- tured after 589 victories. The one Bul- gar was killed after 20 victories. The one Turk was said to be still living in February, 1918, after 8 victories. The American Lafayette Escadrille rec- ord was, as given in the Outlook: living, 12 with 35 victories; dead, 3 with 10 victories. The 33 British aces, of whom 3 are known to have been killed, have 400 vic- tories to their credit. There are more brilliant British airmen than these fig- ures indicate. Great Britain, for some reason, does not make it a regular busi- ness to give details. 67 68 Questions and Answers Q. — Have the Americans a very famous ace? A, — Yes. One of the most famous was an American, Major Raoul Lufbery, of Wallingford, Conn., who in January, 1918, was commander of the Lafayette Escadrille. His record is exceptional even in this exceptional field, for he had seventeen victories to his credit, having brought down that many German ma- chines. After thirty months' air-service he was still unhurt. Q. — What was the record of Guy- nemer, the famous French ace? A.-— Fifty-four aeroplanes put out of commission, 215 combats and two wounds. On one occasion he succeeded in bringing down three enemy aeroplanes in less than an hour. He finally fell himself in a bat- tle with 40 aeroplanes of the enemy after having brought down one of the forty. Q. — Is there a new German super- dreadnaught flying machine? A.-^It has been reported with circum- stantial detail that the Germans are build- ing a monster which they call the "Riesen-flugzeug," meaning literally "Giant Flying Apparatus." The details as given are that this monster is a T)f'- plane with four engines placed two abreast, one set driving a pusher propeller (in the back) and the other driving a tractor propeller (in front). The carrying capacity in bombs alone is said to be more than a ton, — three bombs of a thousand pounds each, — enough to wreak terrific destruction. The biplanes, according to these re- ports, are to be bombers exclusively, with platforms carrying a sufficiently large crew of machine and rapid-fire gunners to fight off any possible attack. Q. — Where can the Germans get airship material? A. — According to a report from Wash- ington (printed with a suggestion that it was official, but not positively saying so) some captured German airplanes had been brought to this country and examined carefully by our experts early in 1918; and this examination showed that the Germans were very hard put to it indeed for material. The most noticeable short- age was in spruce and linen for the wings. The wing beams, instead of being of solid pieces of the finest and toughest spruce, as is demanded in American speci- fications, were made of thin pieces jointed with nails and glue. The wings were cov- ered with fiber cloth instead of the thor- oughly well-woven linen that is demanded in a perfect machine. Q. — Is a special bullet used against aeroplanes ? A. — Yes. It is another development of this war. It has been found that the bullet needed against flying craft must be capable of piercing armor in the first place, and that it must have some prop- erty that shall cause more damage than a mere hole,* which rarely cripples an aero- plane. The United States Army Ordnance Department has turned out a bullet of the regulation American army rifle caliber that will not only pierce the armor of flying craft, but will produce a flame as it leaves the rifle or machine gun. This flame serves as a "tracer," thus enabling the gunner to gauge his shots and correct his aim till he hits the mark. By day the fiery compound leaves a hanging smoke to serve as "tracer." When the fiery bullet hits, it goes through the armor and sets fire along its whole line of flight. The object particularly is to explode the flying machine's gasoline tanks. Q. — Did Allied aviators decorate graves of German airmen? A.— Yes. At the funerals of Boelcke and Immelmann, German military avia- tors in Belgium, British aviators flew over and dropped wreaths. It is one cheering fact in the war that the aviators of both sides performed this chivalrous act more than once. Q. — Does war destroy many aero- planes? A. — The French authorities reported in 1917 that in one period of four months they had brought down 73 German ma- chines inside of French lines. They cal- culated that 188 had gone down behind the German lines, and of these they thought enough had been so badly shat- tered to justify the claim that at least 231 had been destroyed in those four months. Q-— How big is the British naval air-service? A.— It was 700 before the war and by 1918 had increased to 41,000. The United Service Gazette (British) said in 1918: "During one month the aircraft patrol around the British coast alone is five times the circumference of the earlii. Man in the Air 69 During September (1917) 64 raids were made on enemy dockyards, etc., and 2,736 bombs were dropped, totaling 85 tons of explosive." Q. — At the beginning of war, how many aircraft were there? A. — France had 22 dirigibles and 1,400 aeroplanes ; Russia had 18 dirigibles and 800 aeroplanes ; Great Britain, 9 dirigibles and 400 aeroplanes; Belgium, 2 dirigibles and 100 aeroplanes ; Germany, 40 dirigi- bles and 1,000 aeroplanes ; Austria, 8 dirigibles and 400 aeroplanes ; while the United States had only 23 aeroplanes, mostly obsolete. Q. — What was Germany's air strength later in the war? A. — It is estimated by the French that the German air fleet at the beginning of 1918 numbered about 300 squadrillas, or a total of 2,500 machines, each squadrilla being comprised of from five to ten ma- chines. Q. — What is the difference between an airship and an aeroplane? A. — An airship is lighter than air; that is to say, it mounts because it is filled with a buoyant gas. An aeroplane is heavier than air; it carries no ^sls to lift it, but mounts by forcing its wings against the air._ Consequently it must al- ways keep moving at a fairly high speed. Q. — What keeps an aeroplane in the air? A. — Its motion, or speed, developed constantly by an engine. If the engine stops, the forward motion ceases and the' aeroplane falls. By volplaning, or coast- ing, the aviator can often establish a for- ward-downward course and check the fall. Q. — Are there many varieties o£ aeroplanes? A. — Several ; but all are based upon the same type. An Australian (Mr. Har- greaves) may be said to be the man who made the aeroplane possible. He invented the box kite, and an aeroplane is just a box kite, with a powerful engine and pro- peller that, in a measure, may be said to take the place of the string. Aeroplanes fall into two main classes— monoplanes and biplanes. The former have one plane only, the latter two. Q. — Haa the aeroplane much influ- ence in war? _ A. — It has revolutionized warfare, espe- cially by making surprise attacks almost impossible. In maneuvers it has again and again brought opposing forces to an absolute deadlock, and in this war it has enabled both the Allies and the Germans to counter nearly every attack. In the old days, a commander had to rely largely upon his intuition and knowledge of war ; he had to risk regiments to ascer- tain the actual position of his foe, and waste days making feigned attacks all along the line, until he discovered the weak spot. Now the aeroplane scout tells him what he wants to know, often in a few minutes. As Lord French said, we now hav^ to play the game of war with all the cards on the table. Q. — What is a seaplane? A. — It is an aeroplane fitted with floats, which enable it to rest on the water. Great Britain has devoted special atten- tion to this type of machine, and has more of them than any other Power. These planes can fly from the deck of a war- ship. When they return they alight on the water, and are hauled aboard. The Americans have perfected an aerial hydro-aeroplane, a light boat, with wings. The British seaplane is a powerful ma- chine, but it cannot ascend so rapidly, or to such yery great heights as the other types of aeroplanes. Q. — Are there many types of air- ships? A. — A good many. The most efficient of all is the Zeppelin. This is what is called the rigid type; somewhat similar is the Suchette Lanz. The Parseval is a semi-rigid airship, used principally for scouting, although it can drop bombs if required. Similar to it are the Astra- Torres, th*e Clemenf-Bayard, the Lebaudy, and the Gross, There are also little dirig- ibles, of the type of the Alpha, Beta and Gamma British army airships, which ap- pear to be of minor use. Q, — What is the cost of a Zeppe- lin?- A. — It is not known definitely. Count Zeppelin sold an early one to the German Government for $125,000. Great Britain bought a semi-rigid Astra-Torres, in 1913, for £18,000 ($90,000). 70 Questions and Answers Q. — What is the difference between a Zeppelin and a Parseval? A. — Put simply, the difference between the two is that the first is a rigid frame- work of aluminum and light steel, into which a large number of separate gas bags are put. The second is a large gas bag, from which a car is suspended. In the rigid type cabins and platforms are firmly attached to the framework, within which gas bags are stowed ; several of the latter might be punctured and lose their gas wifliout the airship _ falling. In the non- rigid type the car is suspended by wire ropes, and hangs beneath the gas enve- lope. If this is punctured seriously the whole affair collapses at once. Q. — Could Zeppelins cross the sea to bomb American cities? A. — That has been said very often, but it must be remarked that there is a great mass of very powerful technical factors against the assumption. The cruising ra- dius of a Zeppelin is very great, or can be made very great, but a trip across the Atlantic, it must be remembered, also involves a trip back again. If a great effect were planned, it might be assumed that the Germans would try it, and that possibly they would succeed. But a single raid by a single Zeppelin, even if successful, would not be an effect commensurate with the effort expended. To produce real havoc, a whole fleet would be needed. This would, of course, multiply the risks_ of the adventure ex- ceedingly and it is hardly possible that the fleet should escape without very severe losses. The cruising radius of the Zeppelins in service in 1914 was known to be 3,000 miles maximum. Q. — Could Zeppelins ride out a gale over the Atlantic? A. — ^They would not have to do so. They would probably merely need to rise to higher levels in the air until they were above the storm. Storms are all of lim- ited extent — that is, they may seem pretty unlimited to the human beings caught in them, but geographically they rarely cover a very big area; and, as far as height is concerned, they may be very limited indeed. People in mountain country know this. They often find that a climb of much less_ than a thousand ,feet will bring them into a dead calm whereas just below them a veritable tem- pest may be beating the tree-tops. Q. — What was the reason for the greait Zeppelin disaster of 1917? A.— The Zeppelin fleet which drifted helplessly over France, with the result that a number were brought down, is said to have suffered from frozen en- gines. The big airships had risen to_ enor- mous altitudes to prevent observation or attack by aeroplanes, and the intense cold completely froze up their motors, accord- ing to report. Q. — Did a very large Zeppelin come down in France? A. — One Zeppelin, L-49, which came down at Dammartin, was fully as long as an average ocean steamship. It meas- ured 643 feet and had about as much "beam" as most ships of that size, for its diameter was about one-sixth of its length, which would make it all of a hun- dred feet wide at its widest part — truly a monstrous thing to ride the solitudes of air I It carried a large quantity of fuel oil for its motors, of which there were five, each able to produce 240 horsepower. Q. — How much gas could the L-49 carry? A. — According to the French examiners and experts, this type carried 18 gas-bag reservoirs within the metal skeleton of the hull, and the quantity was 55,000 cubic meters of hydrogen gas, enough to lift the twelve-ton ship with all its additional tons of weight in the form of supplies, bombs, etCi This Zeppelin carried a crew of about ao men and was armed like a naval vessel, with machine guns and automatic guns for use against aeroplanes, etc. Q. — Why did the Lt49 have five motors? A. — Two of them were used purely as auxiliary motors, or, rather, as emer- gency motors. They were rarely operat- ed, but wfere in effect spare motors in case of accident. Q. — What is meant by the "roof" of a Zeppelin? A.— It is technical slang for altitude- rising ability. When an aerial expert says that the "roof" of such and such an airship is 4,000 feet, he means that it can rise 4,000 feet into the air at most. The "roof" of the original Zeppelins Man in the Air was probably about a mile. After the war began, we found that Zeppelins had gained ability and could navigate up to 6,000 feet and more. It is said now that the very latest type of this rigid airship can rise and remain under control in heights ranging from 15,000 to 20,000 feet above the surface of the earth. Q. — Why cannot every airship rise to such heights? A.— Because of the meteorological con- ditions. The highly rarefied air at such altitudes makes two immense difficulties: ( I ) The air being thinner and lighter, the airship (whether gas-lifted or _ engine- lifted) has far less support than it has In. the dense air nearer the surface of earth. In other words, it becomes heavier with every foot of ascension into these rarefied regions of silence. Even the propellers lose thrust heavily. All the conditions are severe. The flying machine labors like the men in it, whose lungs and hearts and blood-vessels are all strained. (2) The immense rarefaction and the intense cold combine to destroy all the equilib- rium of the motor, which is an engine built for a certain range of pressures. Q. — Is the Zeppelin really a fail- ure? A. — Not by any means. It has proved a failure in that direction which appealed the most to popular imagination— as an offensive dreadnaught of the air, raining destruction down on hostile lines and an- nihilating armies and their supplies and ordnance. As an offensive force it has failed largely because the aeroplane, with its superior mobility, has proved itself a deadly enemy to it, attacking it in its very vulnerable part — the gas envelope. But though it is truly a failure as a fighting machine, it has remained as an invaluable war-machine. Only the naval men of Great Britain know how tre- mendously difficult the Zeppelin fleet of Germany has made their work — not by attacking them, but by watching day and night, cruising high beyond reach and spying out every corner of sea. The Ger- man Navy has been at least doubly secure because of the endless watch and ward by its Zeppelins— a guard that motor-lifted aeroplanes could not possibly maintain with such utter perfection. Q. — Why has there been so little progress in developing the dirigible airship? A. — The chief difficulty— that of over- coming the effect of varying temperatures — remained long unsolved. The rays of the sun, appearing suddenly on a cloudy day or growing warmer with the approach of noon, would expand the gas, send the airship td higher altitudes, and possibly burst the bag. Disappearance of the sun or the approach of night would contract the gas and cause the airship to descend. Q. — How did Count Zeppelin suc- ceed where other airship in- ventors failed? A.— He covered his gas bag (or bags, there being as many as eighteen in later models) with an outer envelope held rigid by a framework of aluminum, thus keep- ing the sun's rays from the gas bag. Q. — Where does the crew of a Zep- pelin sleep? A, — ^Within the framework is a long passageway for the crew, a mere board- walk nine inches wide composed of wooden slats separated one from another by several inches. Along this passage- way hangs a series of hammocks. This is where the crew is quartered. Q. — What color is a Zeppelin? A. — The under half is painted a coal black to make it invisible at night, the upper surface of the hull is painted white and gray to make it blend with a cloud so as to make it difficult to be seen from an aeroplane. Q. — What is the speed of a Zeppe- lin? A. — The speed of the present Zeppelin is never less than 60 miles an hour and may be developed as high as 100 miles an hour. S^eed saves the Zeppelin from destruction in a gale. Speed has been obtained by trebling the size of a Zep- pelin and by applying the lessons learned in develoi)ing the 130-mile-an-hour fight- ing aeroplane. Q. — When was the first Zeppelin raid made over England? A. — Zeppelins flew over the British Isles for the first time on January 19, 1915. Nine bombs were thrown at Yar- mouth and nine persons were killed. The result of the raid was an_ immediate in- crease in voluntary recruiting. London was first bombed by Zeppelins on May 31. 1915, and six people killed. From the date of the first raid to the middle of March, 1917, about forty Zeppelin raids were made upon England. 72 Questions and Answers Q.— Has America developed a standard motor? A.»— Yes. It is known as the "Liberty Engine." The building of this engine was no inventing job. It was built to be standardized, and was a combination of all approved things. It was made so that it may be assembled anjrwhere and so that each part of one engine is inter- changeable with each similar part of any other engine. The ordinary automobile engine does not run wide open at full speed more than ID to IS per cent of its. life. The Liberty engine must run at full speed, wide open, all the time. It was designed so that there shall be a minimum of waste and of supplies needed, with a maximum of eiEciency. Q. — What is the horsepower of the Liberty motor? A.— The Liberty motor develops 400 horsepower at 1,625 revolutions on a total weight of only 800 pounds, less than 2 pounds for each produced horsepower. This is an exceedingly excellent showing as the celebrated British Rolls-Royce, which weighs 950 pounds, has never de- veloped more than 360 horsepower. Q. — What is the life of an aero- plane engine? A. — Experts say that it is rarely more than 100 hours. That is, it is necessary to substitute some new part after the engine has been running at full speed for 100 hours. An idea of the complicated mechanism of the aeroplane may be gained by know- ing that there are 921 steel stampings, 798 forgings cast, and 276 turn-buckles in a single machine. In a single battle- plane there are 23,000 screws. Seventy per cent of spare parts must be kept on hand for every battle-plane. Q. — Has the war evolved a distinct type of aeroplane? A. — The biplane has become almost supreme. The birdlike monoplane has practically disappeared. More general use of the triplane is a possible develop- ment of the near future. Improvements are constant, and new models soon be- come out of date. Aeroplanes are so fre- quently brought down_ within the oppos- ing lines that secrets in construction are few. Improvements are in the line of speed and responsiveness, rather than me- chanical safety, for the greatest danger is from enemy aviators. Q._What are the principal aero- plane models in general use? A.— (i) The one-seated fighter, carry- ing a fixed machine gun in front of the aviator and a pivotal machine gun slightly above him. (2) The two-passenger re- connaissance or "general purpose" ma- chine, with pilot and gunner or observer. (3) The large, twin-engine bombing ma- chine, carrying three or more men. Q. — How many types of aeroplanes are used in the American army? A. — Aeroplane needs for war purposes may be divided thus, as experience has shown : First, training machines ; sec- ond, advanced training machines; third, battle-planes; and fourth, heavy bombing planes. The training machines, for the purpose of aviators, are low-powered machines — that is, the engines are of from one hun- dred to one hundred and twenty-five horsepower; the machines are smaller than the battle-planes and more agile — especially the advanced training types. The men learn on these. These machines do not use Liberty engines. At present a four- and an eight-cylinder engine is being installed in them, which answers every requirement. Q. — How can a photograph from an aeroplane make a picture that anybody can understand? A.^It doesn't. Very few persons can understand it. Aerial military photog- raphy has introduced a class of speciali-its in "reading" these photographs. To the ordinary human bemg they might be as meaningless as a picture puzzle. There are hundreds of tiny characters in a mili- tary aero-photograph that look utterly un- important to the ordinary person, but that indicate such vastly important things as bomb-proofs, guns, ammunition mounds, etc., to the expert. Q. — What type of camera is used for photographing from aero- planes? A. — The photographic aeroplane merely ascends to a given point, when, by press- ing a button or pulling a string, the cam- era is set in action automatically. Some photographic planes carry several cam- eras attached in such positions that sev- eral groups of pictures may be taken at once. The exhaust from the motor some- times is used to operate cameras that take rapid successive pictures. Photographs Man in the Air n that are perfectly clear have been taken from a height of three and a half miles. By means of color and light filtration, certain things, often invisible to the eye, are made to stand out sharply in photo- graphs of one especial kind. The aviator-observer may not be able to see such objects as men lying still upon the ground, wrapped in camouflage coats, but, by means of light filtration, the cam- era sharply reveals them. Q. — How are aeroplanes able to fly at night? A. — Navigation lights affixed to the edge of the lower plane and under con- trol of the pilot are used for flying at night. The lights are also invaluable in squadron formation as a guide to other machines in the group. German air raid- ers use variegated lights for signaling be- tween different units. Q. — How can an aeroplane effect a safe landing at night? A. — ^This is one of the greatest prob- lems an aviator has to solve, and in the early days of the war many disasters overtook the men who went up at night, owing to the bad landings. It is said that the Germans solved the problem in an ingenious manner. A pit was dug in the center of the aerodrome and covered over with a thick sheet of glass to with- stand the weight of an aeroplane, should its wheels pass over it. A powerful white light was placed in the pit. At a distance of about 250 feet from this light, and also sunk in the ground, were placed four red lights arranged in relation to the cardinal points of the compass. Each of these red lights was connected by underground wires to a wind-vane, mounted on a mast or tower at some convenient point. At night the central light glowed con- stantly, while the only red light that showed was the one in the direction of the wind that happened to be blowing; thus indicating to the pilot the wind con- ditions where the landing was to be made. Aviators landing in unlighted zones at night undertake excessive risks. Aero- plane pilots often drop flare-lights to il- luminate the ground on which they want to descend. Night flying is avoided as much as possible by all the belligerents. Q. — What are anti-aircraft guns? A.— They are guns so mounted that they may be pointed upward to deliver direct fire against objects in the sky. In the first stages of the ^reat war they were very simple, often being merely im- provised. After a period of experience, they became more and more specialized, until they acquired a distinct status of their own, being fitted with unic^ue ap- pliances and firing ammunition quite dif- ferent from that of other guns. Q. — What is the distinctive ammu- nition? A. — Shrapnel-shells that can ascend to great heights, with smoke-appliances so that the gunners could note exactly where the shells exploded, and thus cor- rect their aim continually. Q. — Were these guns successful? A. — They were extremely successful in forcing aircraft to fly high and avoid zones of aircraft fire. They did not de- stroy aircraft nearly so well. The best enemy of aircraft proved to be other air- craft. Q. — Did anti-aircraft guns not de- stroy many flying machines? A. — They certainly destroyed a num- ber. But it has been estimated by experts at the front that an average of 6,D0o shots has to be' expended for each aircraft brought down. Q. — How do gunners find the range of an aeroplane? A. — With an instrument called a tele- meter. It gives the exact altitude of the aircraft, and is as simple as it is in- genious. There are two apertures — one for each eye. In one the aircraft is seen right side* Up ; in the other it is inverted. By turning a thumbscrew the two images are brought together. When one is su- perimposed exactly over the other the al- titude is shown in meters, or feet, on a dial. Q. — Is the aviation service not the most dangerous of any in this war? A. — It was so considered when the war began. It seems likely, too, that in the first monfhs the mortality among avia- tors was enormous. But after a few years, greatly to the surprise of military men, the; aviators had developed such science and skill that instead of being the most dangerous, aviation actually had become the least dangerous service in the war. 74 Questions and Answers Q. — Does this mean that few avi- ators are killed? A. — No. It means only that in pro- portion to the numbers engaged in the work, the losses are small. In percent- ages, infantry suffers the most casual- ties (just as it always has done in every war). Artillery comes next in percent- age of casualty; the medical corps comes third and aviation comes fourth. This fact has now been so well es- tablished that early in 1918 General Pershing, commander of the American expeditionary force in France, recom- mended that the extra pay for aviators, based on the theory of extra-hazardous service, be discontinued. Q. — Has anything new happened to make the aviator safe? A. — No, nothing new, unless we can call vastly increased skill and science new. The aviators have learned how to beat the anti-aircraft gun, _ for one thing; For purposes of destroying aeroplanes, all guns so far devised have been compara- tive failures. They are immensely use- ful for forcing aircraft to fly high and thus they hamper them in observation and bomb-dropping; but as instruments of damage they have not proved them- selves. Thus the only dangerous opponent that the aeroplane has to-day in war is another aeroplane. But, except for_ the extraor- dinary exploits of extraordinary individ- uals, and for the distinct fighting clan of the service, the average army aviator's chief business is not to fight but to scout. Therefore, though there are very many fierce combats in the air, almost daily, the regular daily work of aviation is not combative. Q. — Are there different branches of military aviation service? A. — There are_ four large general serv- ices nowadays in military aviation — ex- ploration, observation, bombardment and combat. There are aeroplanes whose sole duty is to observe, others who protect the observer from hostile attacks, others who are bombarders, etc. The Lafayette Esca- driUe, for example, was mainly a bom- bardment fleet, dropping bombs upon the enemy's munition depots and railway lines before an attack. Q. — How fast does a fighting aero- plane fly? A. — The swift single-seat fighting ma- chines of the Allies at present are flying from I2S to 140 miles an hour._ Each is armed with one or two machine guns, rigidly fastened to the aeroplane, and ca- pable of shooting only in the direction of the axis of the machine. Q.— How does a fighter attack? A. — One of the common maneuvers consists of diving from a sufficient dis- tance to about 300 feet behind the adver- sary; dropping about 60 feet lower, and coming into position for firing by an up- ward dash. If the enemy has_ suspected nothing, it is sure death for him. Q. — Why do the Allies not send aeroplanes over Essen to de- stroy Krupps? A. — Presumably they have tried, and, presumably, Krupps is too well guarded. In view of the fact that this is a war of munitions rather than of men, it is, in- deed, amazing that far more determined efforts have not been made to cripple Germany by destroying Krupps. It must be noted, however, that Germany has been equally unsuccessful in destroying the mu- nitions works of the Allies. Q. — Why do not the Allies resort to reprisals upon German cities? A. — There is much opposition to re- prisals in the Allied countries. More- over, it is much more difficult for_ the Al- lies to bomb German cities than it is for the Germans to bomb England, because traveling the same distance which the Germans travel from their submarine base in Belgium to England would bring the Allies' aviators only as far as Belgium or northern France. They have, however, dropped bombs upon Dresden and Frank- fort with far-reaching effect, both in the destruction of property and the moral ef- fect upon the people. Q. — ^Are bombs aimed, or merely dropped, from aircraft? A. — Much progress has been made in bomb-sighting. The chief difficulty is to establish a true vertical direction. Modern bomb-dropping machines are equipped with instruments not only for sighting, but for determining allowances necessary for speed, height, wind, and so forth, Q. — How much bombing material can a Zeppelin carry? A. — The Zeppelin captured by the French had provision for eighteen 120- Man in the Air 75 lb. bombs — ^more than a ton. When a greater bomb-load is carried (often as much as four tons), fuel-load is sacrificed and safety impaired. Q. — How can aviators safely have glass windows and goggles? A. — In order to keep fragments of glass from injuring the pilot in case of acci- dent, triplex glass is used for windows and goggles. In a recent accident where an aeroplane, going ninety miles an hour, struck a tree, the triplex glass window did not throw off a single fragment. Q. — What changes did 1917 bring in aeroplanes? A. — The most important change is the growth in size. Even the single-seater fast fighting machines are being built larger to accommodate a larger engine with water-cooling apparatus, which also necessitates a greater wing area in order that the machine may be slowed up enough for safe landing. The lighting aeroplanes are beginning to have two ma- chine guns timed to fire between the pro- peller blades, and other guns to be fired at various angles. The slower reconnais- sance type has also increased its engine power. The twin-engine machine is more and more used. Both the Germans and the Allies have the pilot in the front cockpit handling one or two synchronized guns, with a gunner placed in the after- seat managing a gun on a turn-table. Q. — Do aeroplane guns really fire through the propeller? A.— Yes. The gun is regulated by a wonderfully ingenious yet simple appara- tus that times its shots so exactly that each bullet will surely pass between the blades of the propeller, though the latter is whirling as swiftly as it can go. Q. What is the height record for an aeroplane? A.— In 1918 Lieutenant Papa, of the Italian Army, reached an altitude of 23,- 200 feet in a flight lasting one hour and five minutes. A passenger accompanied the operator. He was prevented from at- taining a still higher altitude only by a lack of oxygen. The same pilot broke the record in May, 1917. with a flight at- taining 21,000 feet. Q. Why has Paris been so little attacked by air-raiders? A. — Many various explanations have been given by speculatively inclined minds. One explanation was_ that the French country around the capital, and the capital itself, were so well defended that an at- tack on Paris was more hazardous than the trip across the Channel or the North Sea. This explanation, however, was rather weakened when the Germans made a raid on' Paris, January 30, 1918, with four air-squadrons, according to French reports, which dropped, according to the German reports, fourteen tons of bombs. The German report added that the raid was in reprisal for the air raids over German cities, which had been conducted a short time before by French and British fliers, and, according to some American newspapers, by some American fliers. Thus this raid appeared to indicate that the Germans could raid Paris when they so determined. This gave some strength to the previously offered suggestion that the Germans refrained from raids on Paris as a matter of political policy. Q. — What is a kite balloon and what is it used for? A. — Kite balloons are large balloons controlled from the ground by ropes. They are used for observation purposes on the fighting fronts, and by the Allied navies in detecting U-boats. The balloon is attached to the deck of a trawler, and the observer, in his basket, can easily spot a submarine even when it is below the surface of'the water. Q.— Have airplanes ever made use of smoke devices? A. — Yes. The big German Gotha aero- planes, which raid England from time to time, are equipped with apparatus for producing smoke clouds, which are emit- ted whenever the raiders are seriously threatened by anti-aircraft artillery. As the smoke is white and practically of the same formation as the clouds overhead, it is a hard, matter for the gunners below to find the machines. Q. — Where did the aeroplane first prove its effectiveness? A. — First mention is made by Sir John French at the Aisne, in a report to the War Office in the first week of Septem- ber, 1914. He says, "Sir David Hender- son and the Royal Flying Corps have proved their incalculable value." Q. — What is the status of airmen caught while dropping printed propaganda? A. — There is no specific rule in inter- national law or the rules of war to govern 76 Questions and Answers the case exactly. The circulation of propaganda in enemy lines by air-route is entirely new. In previous wars there was the same effort to circulate propaganda among enemy soldiers and population, but it was attended with such difficulty that it did not reach great magnitude. Q.— What was done in previous wars to men caught circulating such matter? A. — Usually the case was simple, be- cause the men who tried to spread it ha^ to enter enemy lines in disguise, and thus were subject to execution as spies. If, however, a soldier should have stolen into enerhy lines in his uniform with such propaganda, it might fairly be claimed that he should be treated like a soldier attacking an enemy line with weapons. But, presumably, his captors would not willingly take that view of it. Q. — Why is castor oil important to the success of aviation? A. — It has been found to be the only practical lubricant, and it was necessary for the United States to bring a cargo of castor beans all the way from Bombay, India, to speed up the industry of pro- ducing castor oil in sufficient quantities to carry out the big aviation program. Q. — Did the Kaiser have a narrow escape from a bomb from an aeroplane? A. — Yes. While the Kaiser was watch- ing the assault on Ypres from Thielt in Belgium, a British aeroplane dropped a bomb near his position, killing several members of his staff. There was no knowledge of his presence there on the part of the aviator. Q.— -How does an aeroplane rise from a ship's deck? A. — Aeroplane-carrying warships are provided with a skid-way built as a super- structure over the decks and arranged in such a way that it does not interfere with the guns. Usually it is astern. The most modern type of airship-carrying vessel in our navy is thus designed. The aeroplane is lifted to the skidway, where it rests on a sliding platform or sledge. The naval aeroplane, being a hydro-aeroplane, is practically a flsang boat, and, therefore, has no wheels with which it may start itself from the sur- face. Besides, the size of a ship is not sufficient to give a good start. There- fore, instead of projecting itself forward with its own engine power, as the land- plane does, the naval plane is shot from the ship by a catapult, which sends the sledge whizzing into the air with the plane on it. As the flying machine rises, the platform falls into the sea, to be picked up by the sailors. Q. — How does a naval plane return to the ship? Can it land on deck? A. — No. It returns as near to, the ship as possible, and then glides to the water, where it floats on its pontoons or boats. Then it motors on the surface to the side of the ship. Tackles and purchases are lowered with sailors, who fasten the plane into a sling and the whole apparatus, avia- tors and all, is hoisted aboard and swung ■where it belongs, Q. — What is the reason for the shortage of spruce lumber? A. — Spruce has been found to be the only lumber with sufficient strength and lightness for aeroplanes. Uncle Sam has found it necessary to take overthe entire spruce output and has been obliged to go into the forests himself with lumber squadrons of many thousand men to get out sufficient trees to build the thousands of aeroplanes now needed for the West- ern front. Q. — Is there no substitute for spruce? A. — Up to this time no satisfactory sub- stitute has been secured for spruce wood for the frames of the fuselage, the wings, the struts, and so on. It answers the pur- pose better than any other, resists shocks with greater strength, has a greater all- round capability than any other wood or metal that has as yet been tried. Q. — What responsible agency has the American Government for aeroplane production? A. — The Aircraft Production Board, headed by Howard E. Coffin, a part of the Council of National Defense. This board works in consultation with the Army and Navy Boards on designs and specifications. Its chief function is to produce a maximum output of types de- sired by the government. It also equips with machines the government schools and the training fields, which educate 6,000 aviators a year. Man in the Air 77 Q. — Could the Germans send aero- planes from submarines to bomb the United States? A. — No attempt, apparently, has been made by the enemy to combine air-raids with the submarine. An aeroplane which might be used by the Germans for this purpose is the "Brandenburg tractor bi- plane," a standard seaplane, built accord- ing to special German plans. Q. — Is there much bombing from the air? A. — The British War Office reported that in January, 1918, the Germans dropped 1,482 bombs in the area occupied by British troops in France. In the same period British aviators dropped 7,653 bombs in the enemy areas. The Germans dropped only 221 bombs in the dajrtime, while the British dropped 5,900 between sunrise and sunset. OUR NAVY Q. — How many ships are in the American Navy? A. — We had more than one thousand within seven months after America de- clared war. This was an expansion from a navy of 300 vessels, which we had in 1916. Of course we reckon in every type of ship in this aggregate, from the super- dreadnaught type to the submarine chas- ers and scouting craft. The vessels under construction at the end of 1917 were 800 in number, of which 425 were large craft (ranging from all- big-gun ships to destroyers) and 350 were fast types of submarine chasers. Q. — How many men had the Navy before the war? A. — On the day when war was declared there were 64,680 enlisted men in the Navy; in March, 1918, there were 150,000, the total number authorized being 165,000. In addition there were more than 49,000 enlisted men in the Naval Reserve force, 7,000 in the Hospital Corps, 16,000 naval volunteers, and about 5,000 members of the coast guard in service — a total of about 225,000 men. The Marine Corps has been more than doubled, there being about 33,000 men and officers in service, as compared with 13,- 266 enlisted men and 426 commissioned officers in April, 1917. Q. — What was our naval rank in 1914? A. — Third among the great Powers in all-big-gun ships. The navies stood: Great Britain, Germany, United States, France, Japan, Russia, Italy, Austria, Spain, Brazil, Argentine, Chile. Q. — Did we compare at all in 1914 with Germany in big ships? A. — Our Navy, on July 1, 1914, included these completed ships in service: Eight dreadnaught battleships, 22 predread- naughts, 25 cruisers, 51 torpedo-boat de- stroyers, 13 torpedo boats, and 30 sub- marines. We had at that date a naval strength of 66,273 officers and enlisted men. At the outbreak of war the German fleet had 28 dreadnaughts built and build- ing, 20 older battleships, 55 cruisers, 154 torpedo craft, and 45 submarines. Q. — Were we very inferior navally to England and Germany? A. — Decidedly so. In warship tonnage we stood as follows : Great Britain 2,158,256 Germany 9SI,7I3 United States . , 774,353 France 665,748 Japan 519,640 Italy 285,460 Russia 270,861 Austria-Hungary 221,526 Q. — How many German dread- naughts were actually afloat in 1914? A. — It is hard to say exactly, because there is always some uncertainty about ships actually afloat and ships nearing completion. Sometimes naval estimates ■carry all ships (completed, partly com- pleted and even contemplated) to show full strength. At other times, to conceal full strength, they show only the ships actually afloat and even of these they show only the undoubtedly first-cfass ones, relegating older ones to a second line. An apparently conservative list in- dicates that when war was declared Ger- many had at least 16 undoubtedly first- class dreadnaughts and battleships afloat and enough others building, or appropri- ated for, to make a total of 28, of which some very certainly were due soon to be launched. All these 28 were not, how- ever, "all-big-gun" ships. Q. — How did the various Powers compare in big-gun ships in 1914? A. — In big-gun ships Great Britain, ac- cording to the U. S. Navy Department, Office of Naval Intelligence, had in the end of the year 1913, 18 all-big-gun dread- naughts alone, with 14 building. Ger- many had 13 with 6 building. France had 2 with 9 building. Japan had 2 with 4 building. Italy had 2 with 7 building. Austria had 2 with 2 building. Q. — What are all-big-gun ships? A.— They are the very last thing in naval construction, being ships whose tur- rets are loaded to the limit of possibility with the largest rifled steel cannon ever 78 Our Navy 79 made. The battleships of the past had various "batteries" of guns with many calibers. The_ "all-big-^n" ship is de- signed to do its smashing with a hu^e, swift discharge of projectiles of one size — the heaviest projectile ever used either on land or sea. Q. — How do the belligerents com- pare in battle-cruisers? A. — We know only how they did com- pare before the war. In the beginning of 1914 they stood as follows : Great Britain 9 and I building, Germany 4 and 3 build- ing, Russia none and 4 building, Japan I and 3 building, and Italy and Austria none and none building. Q.— How many ships did Japan have when war began? A. — Our Office of Naval Intelligence stated, December, 1913, that Japan then had actually afloat 2 first-class all-big-gun dreadnaughts, 13 battleships^ of about 10,000 tons each, i battle cruiser, 13 ar- mored cruisers, 14 other cruisers, 54 de- stroyers, 28 torpedo boats and 13 sub- marines. Q.— Has the American Navy any dreadnaughts ? A. — We have many ships of the dread- naught and, indeed, super-dreadnaught class; but the term is not used in our navy. These monster ships are called "battleships of the iirst line" by the Navy Department, and the favorite American naval name for them is All-Big-Gun Ships. Q. — What system is used in nam- ing American warships? A, — A very simple one, easy to remem- ber, and having the further virtue that whoever learns the principle can ever afterward identify the type (kind) of each American war-vessel as soon as the name is given. All armored ships (which means battle- ships and armored cruisers) are named after States. Cruisers are named after cities, with the general rule obtaining that a criiser of the first class shall be named for a city of the first class, etc. Gun- boats are named after smaller cities. Destroyers bear the names of naval officers who have won some historic dis- tinction. Submarines are known merely by a letter with a number after it de- noting their place in the class shown by the letter (as A-2). Fuel ships and colliers^ bear the names of Greek and Roman deities and heroes, such as Jupiter, Cyclops, Vulcan, etc. Supply ships bear such names as Supply, Glacier, etc. There are some exceptions in each type to the rule given here. Thus, one Ameri- can ship in the battleship line bears and probably always will bear the name Kear- sarge, to commemorate the famous steam frigate that sank the equally famous Con- federate Alabama, off Cherbourg, France, at the end of the Civil War. Q. — How many States are repre- sented by armored ships bear- ing their names? A. — Every State in the Union is repre- sented by a battleship of the first line, a battleship of the second line, or an ar- mored cruiser. That makes 48 capital ships named after States. But in 1916 our line of armored big ships afloat, de- signed, under construction, or ready to launch had grown so that we had 52 of them planned, 4 more than we had States. This overflow bears the names of four cities. Q. — What system does the British Navy use for naming ships? A. — A leading principle in British naval nomenclature is to immortalize the names of famous British war-vessels. Thus there always is some capital ship in the Bi-itish Navy bearing the name Revenge, after Sir Richard Grenville's famous ship that fought the Spanish fleet, as immortalized in Tennyson's poem. Such names as Agamemnon, Vanguard, Warspite, etc., are examples of this sys- tem. There also are names of enemy ships captured in illustrious actions. This ex- plains why some British vessels today bear French names. There is, however, no deliberate system that controls the naming of British ships throughout. Some bear the names of British Kings and Queens, others have merely charac- teristic names, such as Formidable, Ter- rible, Lion, etc. Q. — Do the Germans name ships for their naval heroes? A.— The Germans have had very little naval history. Therefore only a few of their warships bear names connected with sea-actions or sea-history. Their ships are named partly after Ger- man States or cities (Pommern. Letpztc, etc.), partly for sovereigns, and partly for 8o Questions and Answers famous generals {Luisow, Schamhorst, Bluecher, etc.)- Other ships are named for animals and sea-birds, like some Brit- ish ships. Q. — When was the first American gun fired in the war? A. — The first American gun of the war was fired April 19, 1917, from the steam- ship Mongolia at the periscope of a Ger- man submarine. The Mongolia was com- manded by Captain Rice, who thought at the time that the hostile craft had been. sunk. It was later reported that the periscope had been smashed and the com- mander killed but that the submarine had not been sunk. Q. — What was the first American force in actual war service? A. — A flotilla of American U-boat de- stroyers under Admiral William S. Sims arrived at Queenstown May 4, 1917, and went into immediate service. Q. — Who is the ranking officer of the American Navy? A. — Admiral W. S. Benson, Chief of Naval Operations. Next in rank is Ad- miral Mayo, Commander-in-Chief of the United States Atlantic Fleet. Q. — What is the difference between dreadnaughts and old-time bat- tleships ? A. — The old-time battleship, which was considered the most tremendous thing afloat only ten years before the war, would hardly rank as a "cruiser" now against a modern American battleship of the first line (or dreadnaught). Where the old-time American ba{tle- ship carried only four great guns, the modern dreadnaught type carries from, eight to twelve. Where the old-time bat- tleship's great guns were twelve-inch di- ameter in the bore, the modern dread- naught carries guns that are 14 and 16 inches. Dreadnaughts also are immensely su- perior in speed. The dreadnaught type has not less than 21 knots speed — that is, 24 land-miles an hour. The old-time battleship did not exceed 18 knots at its best. In addition, the armor of a dread- naught is thousands of tons heavier than that of the old battleship type. Q. — Do our dreadnaughts carry as big guns as British ships? A.— The very latest dreadnaught type of our ships — the all-big-gun ship, as American naval experts prefer to call it — will carry the largest naval guns afloat, ior they will have 16-inch guns mounted three in a turret. The navy is building a gun now of the same diameter but of still greater length and powder-chamber capacity. Armed with a main battery consisting entirely of these guns — from eight to twelve to a single ship — our American big-gun ships will actually be armed more tremendously than our big coast fortifications were ten years ago. Q. — Is the battle-cruiser a battle- ship or is it a new kind of ves- sel? A. — It is a very new type of vessel, produced by the efforts of naval con- structors to design a kind of ship that should be mighty enough to fight every vessel except a dreadnaught, and at the same time be so swift that it could escape from dreadnaughts. The result has been something that most naval constructors hardly expected — a ship that is a distinct hybrid type. It is neither dreadnaught nor cruiser, yet it has something of both. Q. — Is it heavily armed? A. — It carries guns so huge that a few years ago no constructor would have dared to suggest mounting them even on ■battleships. Its speed is so great that it actually is greater than that of the swift little torpedo destroyers of a few years ago, and yet, despite this speed, it is simply monstrous with armor-belting — so much so that it has turned out that a hattle-cruiser, while inferior to a dread- naught, has some possible chance of fight- ing off a dreadnaught in any running fight that gives the battle-cruiser sea- room enough to choose and maintain its distance. This does not mean, however, that a battle-cruiser commander will deliberately undertake to fight a first-class dread- naught. The battle-cruiser's business is to avoid dreadnaughts and smash everything else. Q.— Are there any battle-cruisers in the American Navy? A.~Yes. During 1914 and 1915 Ameri- can naval experts were doubtful about the value of the type, and leaned to the belief that dreadnaughts probably would be the Our Navy 8i best part _of_ a big navy, This belief in the superiority of dreadnaughts remains justified, but the naval operations in the North Sea have -demonstrated the im- mense value of heavy ships with vast speeds in additiop. We are now building battle-cruisers with speeds of 35 knots — ^40.3 statute or land miles an hourl These battle-cruis- ers are at least 14 knots (16 miles) faster thaa our best battleships — which means that if a battle-cruiser and a dreadnaught were to begin a fight at maximum gun- range apart, the battle-cruiser could run completely out of gun-range in less than two minutes. Q.^What were the expert criti- cisms of the battle-cruiser type? A. — The chief criticism was that they were heavier than was necessary against inferior ships (armored cruisers, etc.), and yet so inferior to dreadnaughts that they represented wasted power. Technic- ally, this criticism was sound, but it "stacked up" against the actual fact that the two big belligerents (Germany and Great Britain) did use battle-cruisers, and that, therefore, any navy that wanted to maintain its rank had also to produce battle-cruisers. Furthermore, the big fea- ture of the battle-cruiser — speed — has proved in fleet actions to be somethingof enormous importance, almost ranking with gun-fire itself as an actual part of combat. Q. — How do our battle-cruisers compare with the foreign ones? A.— The latest type of American battle- cruiser, on which construction is being- hurried now, is a ship of 35,000 tons with 3S knots speed. This type, of which six are to be set afloat, is S.ooo tons heavier and 13 knots faster than the Ttger type of Great Britain, which was recognized as the biggest battle-cruiser afloat in 1914 and 1915. , , , ,, It is, also, larger and faster than the Queen Elizabeth type of super-dread- naught, and carries almost as heavy a turret-battery. Q. Why do we never hear of tor- pedo boats? A— The torpedo boat has vanished from modern navies. It was a terror to the imagination of naval commanders up to about the time of the Spanish-Ameri- can War, but it never proved itself. At the naval battle of Santiago de Cuba the last attempt in history by torpedo boats was made when the Spanish torpedo boats Pluton and Terror emerged from the harbor with the other Spanish ships and were' sunk almost instantly by the United States ship Gloucester — a con- verted steam-yacht I Q. — If the torpedo boat has van- ished, why have we so many torpedo-boat destroyers? A. — They are torpedo-boat destroyers only in name, and hardly even in name. It is true that they were built originally to destroy torpedo boats ; but they have remained to fill a distinct naval place of their own. They are the "legs" of the fighting navy, and they form an inces- santly flying guard for its armored ship squadrons. Immensely fast, well armed with quick- fire rifled cannon as well as with many torpedo-tubes (both deck and under- water), they are formidable little war- vessels. Battles between destroyer flo- tillas have occurred many times in the great war, because these swift ships have practically taken over the monopoly of marine patrol, scouting and general sea- guard duty. They are known simply as "destroyers" now, and the original duty for which they were designed is prac- tically forgotten. Q. — Does "tonnage" in a naval vessel refer to internal capac- ity? A. — No. The word "tonnage" means two entirely different things , in naval usage and in commercial usage. The ton- nage of a merchant ship really has noth- ing at ail to do with weight. It is a measure of internal capacity pure and simple. The word "tonnage," describing the size of a warship, on the other hand, does actually and very specifically refer to weight. When we say, for example, that a dreadnaught is of 30,000 tons, we mean that the ship when afloat displaces that weight of water. Q. — ^Is any system used in naming the small ships added since the war? A. — It has been impossible to do so. A number of the newly built motor-driven scout vessels are named "Submarine Chaser No. So-and-so," but most of the vessels have had to be named hit or miss. 82 Questions and Answers The converted yachts largely retain their original names. The transports bear miscellaneous names, ranging from Prairie to Hancock (the latter being named for the noted General Hancock). The naval tugs mostly have Indian names, such as Choctaw, Iroquois, Nava- jo, etc., but there are many exceptions to this rule, since the war-expansion. Q. — What kind of warships have we the most of? A. — Destroyers form the biggest nu- merical part of the American Navy. In 1917, when the war began, we had on the list more than 60 destroyers of the type known as "sea-going" — that is, true war- ships which can cruise over seas like any other warship. Our newest and biggest ones approach the tonnage of the early American cruisers of the White Squad- ron, and in speed, rapidity of gun-fire and offensive power generally they would ac- tually outmatch any of those early cruis- ers in a ship-to-ship fight. In addition we have more than a score of secondary destroyers — vessels not suf- ficiently powerful or with a sufficient coal capacity to carry war over seas, but very good ships for coast work, for which rea- son they are known as "coast torpedo vessels." In the third line we have another score and more of torpedo boats. This is the old, original type of small craft, which was supplanted for battle purposes by the bigger destroyers. _ Adding the many big destroyers that have been launched since the war began (whose number it is not permissible to state) we thus have a really powerful fleet of this type alone. Q. — What is the size of our great- est all-big-gun ships? Are they bigger than the Ger- mans'? A. — They are positively bigger than any that the Germans had in the begin- ning of the war, and our experts believe that they are bigger than any in the Ger- man Navy to-day. We believe, with very fair foundation for the belief, that our all-big-gun ships average 25 per cent more in magnitude than the best German dreadnaughts. When war began, we had under con- struction five all-big-gun ships (what the British and German navies would call super-dreadnaughts) of 32,000 tons, with twelve 14-inch turret guns and armoE belting 14 to 18 inches thick. Appropriations were granted after the war declaration for four ships of 32,500 tons, carrying eight l6-inch turret guns; and hardly had naval constructors achieved this daring conception, before naval science leaped forward and at one stroke made possible the design of four monsters of 40,000 tons, mounting twelve 16-inch turret guns. These are the mightiest ships ever de- signed for any navy in the history of the world. Q. — Why do colliers accompany warships? A. — Though modern warships can carry an enormous amount of fuel (coal or oil), they never can have too much, for mod- ern sea operations entail not only enor- mous cruising radius, but they demand such extreme speed that fuel is used up in incredible quantities. Each extra knot of speed demands an increased consump- tion of fuel, rising in extraordinary ratio. Therefore, every modern fleet is accom- panied by ships that are loaded to every inch of capacity with coal or oil. Q. — How do fuel ships load their fuel into warships at sea? A. — Fuel ships are genuine floating ma- chinery depots. The ocean, even on the calmest day that ever was, is in heavy motion. Even when there are no storm waves at all, there is a very big "heave" — mile-long undulations so great that the biggest warship rolls and pitches and j-ises and falls. To attempt to lay two ships side by side would inevitably smash them both. Therefore, the only way to fuel a warship at sea is to main- tain a safe distance between the warship and the supply ship and send the_ fuel across the space of sea by machinery. The fuel ships have huge towers of inter- laced iron, and from these steel cables are sent across to the warship. Electrical machinery sends traveling coal-receptacles back and forth. Q. — Are our sailors really among the best gunners of the world? A. — Yes. 'This is due largely to the fact that we were ahead of other nations (even of Great Britain) in realizing that naval gunnery was not at all what it should be, or what it might be made. We learned a drastic lesson in the battle of Santiago de Cuba. Although our ships smashed the Spanish ships, an actual count and analysis of hits, as compared with the amount of gun-fire, showed that Our Navy 83 the percentage of hits was astonishingly meager. This was especially so in the case of the big-gun fire; Very few big- gun projectiles went home. The result was a great increase in American target practice at battle ranges. It was enor- mously expensive, but it paid. Q. — Can American naval gunners hit something with every shot of a hig gun? A. — By no means. No navy has suc- ceeded in getting anywhere near such a record. In the winter practice in the Caribbean Sea, off the American naval base of Guantanamo, Cuba, our ships made records which are accepted as be- ing very remarkable. Firing at "battle ranges"™ that is, at ranges not less than from 4,000 yards to 7,000 yards (2J4 to 4 statute miles) the all-big-gun battleships averaged 21 per cent of hits at medium battle range and 7 per cent of hits at long battle range. The total average for all the types of ships at medium battle range was 11 per cent. Q. — Is that percentage really- good? A. — It must be remembered that the ships were going at top speed when the firing was done. This means that the ranges were changing every second and the turret crews had to fire at the word of command. You must remember also that one single clean hit by a 14-inch or 16-inch shell at medium battle range is likely to wreck a dreadnaught, and, under any circuni- stances, will be pretty sure to cripple it, either putting a turret out of commis- sion, dismantling its elaborate system of electric transmission or starting a fire. Q. — What do American warships cost? A. — The cost varies very widely with conditions of labor and prices of raw materials. The Pennsylvania, one of our very modern all-big-gun dreadnaught type battleships, cost almost $12,000,000, with- out its guns. The hull and machinery cost 7^ millions alone. The armor cost 4 millions. A highly modern destroyer, such as the Ericsson, cost $874,000, without its_ guns or torpedoes, and a big fleet submarine of the L type cost a little more than $523,000. Q. — Are most of our ships coal- burners or oil-burners? A. — All our modern ships are oil-burn- ers. Indeed, if it were not for the fact that there still is some difficulty in sup- plying ade(]uate amounts of oil, coal-burn- ing warships might be said to have gone wholly out of date. The Secretary of the Navy said in his report of December i, 1916, that "it may be stated tfiat the scouts, destroyers and battle-cruisers authorized by the last naval appropria- tion act could not be built if coal were used for fuel." Q. — How much oil does a fighting navy consume? A.— In active service (meaning active fighting, which kept the bi^ ships well under motion for a good period) the oil- burning vessels of our navy at its present magnitude would require at least three million barrels in a year. This, probably, is a minimum estimate for such a theo- retical condition. Actually, even in a year of great activ- ity, the big ship fleets would lie at bases for a good part of the time or cruise at such slow speeds that consumption of oil would be kept down. However, even at best, the fuel de- mands are great. In 1915 the American Navy burned 521,000 barrels of oil, much more than a thousand barrels a day. In 1916 it burned 842,000 barrels, or 2,300 barrels a day. Q. — What are the tall tower-like skeleton things on our new warships? A. — They are the so-called "cage masts" which have replaced the old-fashioned "£ghtin§ top" mast. The latter was sim- ply a bi^ hollow steel mast with a cir- cular staircase inside leading to the fight- ing top — a lightly armored platform for observers^ and men handling light rapid- fire guns. The "cage mast" is a genuine tower, made of lattice steel, and it is a charac- teristic of our modern ships. The old-fashioned fighting top_ mast was liable to come down in ruin if one big shell struck it. The principle of the cage mast is that its web-like construction will enable it to stand even though a large number of shells plow holes through it. Q. — Is a knot the same as a mile? A.— No. A knot is a nautical mile, and is 6,080 feet. The mile, as known to 84 Questions and Answers landsmen, is the statute mile, 5,280 feet. A ship steaming 30 knots an hour would cover 34J4 of our land-miles in that hour. For rough calculation it is customary to figure a knot as equalling i 1-7 land-miles. Q. — What is meant by a "naval screen"? A. — It means the sending out of scout cruisers and other very fast vessels with enough cruising radius and power to sweep far ahead and abeam of the main fleet (sometimes half a thousand miles ahead) to prevent the scouts and cruisers of the enemy fleet from finding out any- thing. If the screening vessels are suf- ficiently powerful, they may sink or drive back the enemy scouts. If they are weaker than the enemy, they try either to draw them off on a wild-goose chase, or else they race back toward the protec- tion of their own fleet, sending wireless warnings as they go. Q. — What are territorial waters? A.— Territorial waters are the harbors and indentations of a nation's coasts, and, in addition, the open sea to a limit of three marine miles (6,000 yards) from the whole line of coast. This distance of three miles was fixed long ago, merely because at that time the utmost range of a coast cannon was about that distance. It has often been proposed to extend this territorial zone to ten or more miles, but the three-mile limit remains in force. Within that distance of a neutral coast, enemies may not fight or take prizes, etc. Q. — Why are the German naval guns not so big as those of the American and British navies? A. — -The German naval principle was to depend on the very great power (ballistic property) which they deemed was assured by the Krupp method. They believed that this justified their reliance on 12-inch guns against t'.ie 14-mch guns which were be- ing mounted in increasing numbers in other navies. But after the arrival of iS-inch guns in the British Queen Eliza- beth class, the Germans also began to de- sign is-inch-gun ships. It appears rea- sonable to assume that our 16-inch turret batteries would heavily outclass the Ger- man ships of any date earlier than 1916. Q.— Does the term "all-big-gun ship" mean that these monsters carry no other guns? A. — No. They carry plenty of other guns — rapid-fire guns, machine guns, fighting-mast gutis, atiti-aifcraft guns, automatics, and in addition a thousand or more rifles. Nor is that all. _ Peer- ing from armored ports on each side are the "little brothers" of the great turret guns — a rOw along each side of the ship, under deck, of 5- and 6-inch guns. There are as many as twenty and more of these guns in the "secondary battery" — a bat- tery which would have been considered as being super-armament for a cruiser of President Cleveland's time when we be- gan our navy by building the famous "White Squadron." The heaviest ship of that squadron carried no guns bigger than 8-inch, and only a few as big as that. Q. — What is the battleship's most dangerous opponent? A. — Apart from its natural opponent, which is another battleship, the torpedo remains the one great menace to the bat- tleship. In every engagement during the great war, whenever battleships (dread- naughts) or battle-cruisers took part, they were harassed and endangered im- mensely by destroyer squadrons that ma- neuvered under thick smoke-clouds and launched torpedoes at long ranges. Several big armored ships that might have survived the gunfire of their equals were sunk by the little craft. But, on the other hand, it is undeniable that the torpedo has failed to prove itself such "sure death" as its enthusiastic support- ers had foretold. Q. — Are some American naval ships not named for flowers? A. — No. The ships you think of are Treasury Department vessels belonging to the lighthouse service. They are known as lighthouse tenders and are partly un- der naval rules — almost wholly so during war. These tenders bear such names as Myrtle, Golden Rod, Maple, etc. • Q. — Did an American vessel fire on an Italian warship after the United States entered the war? A. — Late in the summer of 1917 the United States gunboat Nashville was in the Mediterranean on cruising duty when a submarine emerged suddenly. The Nashville broke out a signal which should have received an instant reply from a friendly vessel. No reply was made and the Nashville opened fire, killing one of the submarine's crew. Then there were signals which showed that the submarine was Italian. Our Navy 85 Q. — Just what kind of a warship is a cruiser? A. — In the old days of sail, and even in the early days of steam, almost any war- ship that was on active cruising duty was referred to as a cruiser. When steam and armor-plating came in, the term be- came strictly limited to certain types of ships, fairly large, swifter than other types, more or less protected, but not as heavy as the real armor-clads. Now, with, the vast and phenomenally swift increase of our navy, the term has begun once more to be very wide. We have powerful ships known as armored cruisers, ships almost as big, but much less powerful, known as scout cruisers, and very light ships (scarcely protected at all except for a thin plating of extra steel around vital parts) known as light cruisers. In addition we have little mo- tor-driven patrol vessels that are called scout cruisers, though in former days they would have been known merely as patrol-boats. Then there is the new type of ship known as battle-cruiser, which, actually, is bigger than the battleships of a few years ago, mightily armor-belted and laden with turret-guns. Thus we may say that the term "cruiser," used by itself, has quite lost any specific meaning now. Q. — At what range can a gun fired from a battleship hit an object? A.— In the naval battle between von Spee and Craddock, off the coast of Chile, the two squadrons opened fire on each other with deadly effect at 12,000 yards. In the runniiig fight off the Falkland Islands, most of the execution was done at a range of 15,000 yards (8j4 statute miles). Q. — Does the armor protect mod- ern battleships absolutely? A.— No. It protects them only rela- tively. That is, at extreme fighting ranges these modern ships can receive the fire from the heaviest naval guns (12-, 14- and 15-inch guns) and survive. But when the range falls to from 6,000 to 4000 yards the armor-piercmg shell from big naval guns can perforate the armor on super-dreadnaughts. In warship construction, armor and gun have run a race for many years, with the gun always keeping a little ahead. Q. — How thick is armor on Amer- ican ships? A. — On the heaviest all-big-gun ships the armor belting is composed of steel plates 16 and 18 inches thick. A rough and ready naval saying is that armor must always be St least the same as the diam- eter of the gun that may attack it. Thus, 14-inch armor for ships that may have to fight 14-inch guns, etc. Q. — What service is required of a naval hospital apprentice, first class? A. — ^The Hospital Apprentice First Class renders services required from a hospital orderly, with a training of six months in one of the four Hospital Corps Schools. He is enjoined to "study the methods of the Nurse Corps and learn all he can about the care of the sick." At sea during the past few months the hos- pital corpsmen have had very hard work. At shore stations beyond the seas the hospital corpsmen have been kept a little over the usual 18-month period.^ They may serve today on Asiatic stations, in Europe, and with marine forces on expe- ditionary duty. Physical and litter drill and first-aid instruction has been given to all hospital corpsmen. Q. — Have we established marine zones for coast defense? A. — Yes. An executive order of April 13, 1917, established defensive areas at the entrance to chief harbors of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Gulf of Mexico and insular Colonies. No vessel may enter the limits of these areas except by per- mission of the harbor patrol and by fol- lowing certain definite routes.^ No ves- sels not belonging to the United States Navy may enter at night. Vessels djs- obeying a;re subject to detention for in- vestigation, Q. — Why does a sailor wear a black scarf? A. — This scarf is worn in memory of the sailors who have died in previous wars. There are four stripes woven in the edge of this scarf, representing the four great wars in which our Navy has par- ticipated. Q. — Why are a sailor's trousers made wide at the bottom? A.— There are two reasons. One is that in landing through surf from ships 86 Questions and Answers boats, sailors must be ready instantly to leap into the sea when the. boat gets into shoal water, to drag it up before the breakers swamp it. To do this, it is necessary that they shall be able to roll up their trousers above their knees with ease. The other reason is that one of the daily duties aboard ship is to "swab decks," and that is always done bare- foot and barelegged when the weather permits. The very wide, flaring trousers are, therefore, a matter of efficiency. Q. — What is the significance of the thirteen buttons on a sailor's trousers? A. — These represent the thirteen orig- inal states. Q. — What is meant in the navy by the word "brig"? A. — It is ancient navy slang for the ship's prison. Every naval vessel has a group of cells for oifenders. Q.— What other navy slang is there? A. — There is hardly anything in the Navy from the captain to the hold that is not known by a nickname. The captain is always called the "skipper" (except be- fore his face or before an officer). A sailor is known as a "Gob." Hash is al- ways called "Ballast." A battleship is known_ as a "battle-wagon." The ham- mock is called a "'dream-bag." Leaving the ship without leave is "jumping ship." An anchor is a "mud-hook." The elec- trician or wireless man is called "Sparks." The ship's carpenter is always called "Chips." Q. — How has the wireless changed war on the sea? A. — In the old days an admiral sailed away with his fleet, and was entirely responsible for its movements. Each in- dividual ship, in addition, sent on special service, had to rely entirely upon itself. One of the greatest difficulties was that of communication between the ships and diflferent detachments of fleets. Impor- tant actions might take place, but it was often weeks before the Admiralty knew anything about it. Now the govern- ments are in actual touch with every war- ship, no matter in what part of the world it may be. Every torpedo boat, even, has its wireless installation and can receive the admiral's orders direct. The subma- rines are similarly equipped. This makes it possible for the great battleships to lie far away from the coasts and yet be al- ways available when wanted. Q. — Do aeroplanes have wireless? A. — The most up-to-date have, but the range is small; ample, though, for scout- ing work. _ Owing to the noise of the motors it is impossible to receive mes- sages on them, because aerial messages have to be read by sound. Therefore they can only send. Dirigibles, however, are fitted with wireless, which has a wide range, and can both send and receive. Q. — What is meant by "jamming" the wireless? A. — "Jamming" is generally resorted to by weaker ships trying to escape. They send a storm of electric waves through the air with such rapidity and strength that the pursuing ships cannot get mes- sages of warning through to other ves- sels of their fleet. The famous cruisers Goehen and Breslau, which were apparently penned in the Adriatic by a big squadron of British ships, jammed the messages of the vessels that sighted them, and did it so success- fully that they succeeded in getting out of the straits of Otranto and running into the shelter of the Dardanelles. The Karlsruhe, when exchanging shots with the British cruiser Bristol, during a running fight in West Indian waters early in the war, also succeeded in jamming radiograms so that the British cruisers Lancaster, Essex, Berwick and Suffolk, which were all in those waters, did not succeed in getting the Karlsruhe's loca- tion in time to come up with her. The result was that she escaped into the South Atlantic and conducted disastrous raids on British commerce for many months. WEAPONS OF WAR Q. — What rifle are the Americans using? A. — The standard American military rifle is the Springfield army rifle, so named because it is made in the govern- ment armory of Springfield, Mass. There was a sufficient quantity of Springfields on hand to arm fully the ex- peditionary forces that went to France in 1917. When the first draft went into the home camps, the government had about 600,000 Springfield and 100,000 Krags in hand. The Krag was the army rifle used before the Springfield was adopted, and still is a good rifle. These Krags are be- ing replaced with Enfields, and the men who paraded in New York on Lincoln's birthday carried the latter weapon. Q. — Is it better than the British Enfield rifle? A. — The British Enfield is a famous arm; but in January, 1918, Secretary Baker of the War Department testified before the Senate Committee on Military Affairs that just before the outbreak of the European war the British govern- ment had decided to remodel its Enfield rifle to gain some improved characteris- tics such as those that exist in the Springfield, an especial point being a change to enable it to take a rimless cartridge which is one of the notable fea- tures of our Springfield rifle. Q. — Did the country have enough Springfield rifles to arm all the troops ? A. — No. But there has been a quantity quite sufiicient to supply the expedition- ary forces in France from the very be- ginning. Q. — Is it not true that the United States ordered Enfield rifles? A. — ^Yes. There were many American factories that had facilities for making the Enfield model, because they had been filling orders for the British government. To change this machinery so that it could make Springfields would have been in many cases impossible and in all cases a matter of too much time. It was decided, therefore, to order the Enfield model to help out in the quantity. Q.— Was not the Enfield of a dif- ferent caliber? A. — Yes ; but it was found possible to change the machinery to make the En- fields take- the same ammunition as the Springfields. The British rifle was .303 caliber. The Springfield is .30 caliber. The magazine of both rifles is loaded with a single motion by simply shoving in a "clip" with the requisite number of cart- ridges. Tbe clip for the Springfield holds Q. — What is the principle of the Enfield rifle? A. — The British rifle is built on the principle of the famous Mauser rifle — the rifle which the Boers used against the British in* South Africa and the Span- iards against us in Cuba. Q. — Does the Springfield rifle shoot as fast as one can pull the trigger? A. — Noi There are some patterns of sporting rifles which shoot that way, but no army rifles are made on that auto- matic principle. The army rifles are re- peaters, but the soldier must throw each new cartridge into the breech by pulling down a little lever. It is an almost in- stantaneous operation. Q. — Why do armies not use auto- matic rifles? A. — Partly because the automatic rifle has a very much more complicated mechanism than the_ army rifle. This is no great objection in a rifle for sport, because sportsmen generally are experts. The soldiers in an army, however, as a whole, are" not experts. Besides this, the army rifle has to be used much harder than the sporting rifle. Therefore, it is essential that the parts_ of an army rifle shall be as few and simple as possible. Another objection to the automatic prin- ciple is that soldiers are prone to waste cartridges extravagantly once they begin firing. Q. — What weapons in this war are American inventions? A, — The submarine (discovered by an American, Bushnell, in I77S). the torpedo, 87 88 Questions and Answers the Catling gun, the Maxim automatic machine-gun, the Wright airplanes, and the Liberty motor are some of the im- portant contributions of American in- ventive genius to the armies of the Allies — and also to the enemy armies. Q. — Is there an explosive that turns men yellow? A. — Yes. It is an explosive with a name almost as weird as are its effects. It is made of a mixture of T. N. T. and a_ chemical^ compound called hexanitro- diphenylamine. It stains the skin a bright yellow color which cannot he washed off. It also causes highly irritant skin eruptions, but they are not danger- ous. Q.— What is meant by von Mack- ensen's "phalanx"? A. — ^A wedge-like tactic of General von Mackensen's army of attack around Cra- cow (Russian Poland) in the campaign of 1915. By the phalanx tactics, his army was fashioned into a mobile battering ram, battering its way by narrow front breaches, opened by the heavy guns, through the Russian line. The Russian line, which was of long, thin formation, was pierced and crumbled under the wedge-like ram. The tactic was used largely on the Eastern front, where the opposing lines were of great length. Q. — Why is a big gun called "Big Bertha"? A, — It is a slang term invented by the German soldiers (and adopted by the op- posing armies) to characterize large Krupp cannon, because the present owner of the Krupp works is a woman. Bertha. Q. — What sort of weapons were utilized before cannon came into use? A. — There were many engines designed to fire arrows or hurl stones by mechan- ical means. The machines finally pro- duced were very powerful, and for a long time held their own easily against gun- powder. They worked on the catapult principle. One favorite weapon was a gigantic cross-bow, the predecessor of the cannon of today, and another was the ballista, which was the howitzer of the Romans. These weapons were used for siege warfare, and seldom appeared on the battlefield. Small catapults were occasionally used in the field, but the bal- lista was only used when attacking towns and fortresses. It was large and heavy. The largest threw a stone weighing go pounds. The giant cross-bow would itself weigh between 80 and 90 pounds, and would send a 26-inch arrow weigh- ing half-a-pound close on 500 yards, but its man-killing capacity was limited to 400 yards. Other ancient weapons were all modeled on the type of the catapult or the ballista, except, of course, batter- ing rams, and contrivances for protecting men attacking walls and the like. Q. — How were the catapults oper- ated? A.-pThe giant cross-bow was bent by drawing back the "bow-string" of rope or sinews with powerful levers. The bal- lista was a huge beam or plank set in a heavy platform, and it worked on the principle of a modern gun-trigger. To "set" it, it was hauled backward to firing position by men who operated stout haw- sers with levers or winches. When this tension was released, the _ plank was jerked forward with vast violence by a "spring" made of ropes or sinews tiiat had been twisted to the utmost degree possible. Q. — What weapons did soldiers use during recent wars? A. — At Waterloo the British used the old Brown Bess fiint firelock. In the Crimea they had the same gun, converted to use caps. Rifles based more or less on the Mauser mechanism are now mo^t generally used. In fact, the French Army is the only one which has stuck to the far less convenient tube magazine. This French Lebel magazine rifie is an excel- lent weapon, but the mechanism is more liable to get out of order than that of the rnore simple Mauser. The Mannlicher rifle is used by the Austrians, the Italians, the Greeks, the Bulgarians and the Dutch. The Mauser is used by the Germans, the Belgians, the Spanish, the Portuguese and the Turks.' The British use the Lee-En- field, the Russians the Nagant, the Amer- icans the modern Springfield. Q. — When was a breech-loading rifle used for the first time in war? A. — In the Austro-Prussian war, of 1866, the Prussians used what was called a Ziindnadel Gewehr (literally meaning "fire-pin gun"). They used the same gun in the Franco-German war of 1870-71, but the French had a better weapon, the chasse-pot. The German artillery was Weapons of War 89 better than the French, but the latter had the mitrailleuse, the forerunner of modern quick-firing guns. Q. — What is the meaning of the word "camouflage"? A. — ^The French word, freely trans- lated, means "to conceal." The term was taken over from the French slang word signifying the "make-up" of an actor. It was first adopted by the soldiers in the field, who have been wonderfully apt at devising phraseology to fit the novel as- pects of the great war. Q. — How is camouflage used by the navy? A. — Strange designs resembling cubist pictures are painted on the hull and super- structure of merchantmen and troop- ships. The colors are gray, light blue and drab, often dotted with pink to blend with the atmosphere. Imitation billows are painted near the water line, which naturally make the vessel look much smaller than it really is. One large steamship recently came into an Atlantic port with a picture of a destroyer painted on its side, with all the rest of the boat painted in light gray. Since the destroyer is thfe great enemy of the submarine it is obvious why the merchantman wanted to be mistaken for a destroyer. Q. — How can such bright colors as pink conceal a ship? A, — There are two principles of camou- flage. One is the principle of _ conceal- ment, or "low visibility," as it is of- ficially termed. Under it, ships are painted in drab tints to make them blend against the more or less gray background of sea and sky. The other principle, known as that of the "dazzle," entirely abandons the the- ory of concealment and recognizes the fact that every ship, no matter how paint- ed, must inevitably stand out boldly and black when seen against the sun. There- fore, this second principle of camouflag- ing accepts visibility, and aims to paint ships in such broken designs and colors that a submarine observer shall be un- able to make any accurate estimate of the distance of the vessel and shall thus be much hampered in laying his course for it or firing at it. Q. What are the methods of land "camouflage"? A.— It is done by painting, by screens, by boughs of trees, by wisps of raffia tied into nets— like backstop nets on a tennis court. Stacks of munitions) garages, bat- tery emplacements are covered by canvas, painted like the ground, so they cannot be discovered by spying aviators. Canals, roadways, everything is camouflaged. Guns are hidden beneath a mattress of interwoven leaves supported by poles. Animated stacks of straw contain observ- ers who inch forward wherever possible, with telephone wires trailing behind them. Immense dummy cannon, mounted in con- spicuous places, with stuffed men, draw the fire and thus waste the ammunition of the_ enemy. Life-size scenery showing a straight railroad bed conceals an im- portant turn leading to a supply train. "Whole trains, backed on sidings loaded with supplies, have been "painted out" of the landscape; buildings, bridges and all the necessary impedimenta, which go to supply the needs of vast armies, have been lost to the enemy airmen by the scientific use of broken color. Q. — How did "camouflage" origi- nate? A. — Because the aeroplane in war makes impossible the massing of men, guns or supplies behind the lines in the open, in scattered sectors along fighting lines the men who were in artillery or supply soon began attempts at conceal- ment of the great guns and supply wag- ons. This was done crudely at first, with tree branches, canvas screens, etc. So successful- were these efforts that "camou- flage" quickly became a definite and im- portant principle of defense and artists of all sorts were withdrawn from the trenches and formed into a "Camouflage Corps." Q.-— Does "camouflage" service re- quire special qualiflcations? A. — Yes. "Camoufleurs" are, almost without exception, artists, sign painters, scene painters, sculptors, mechanics or carpenters. The work demands a high degree of imagination, initiative and indi- vidual cleverness in planning. The "camoufleur" must learn to see with the "bird's eye," and, to obtain the right per- spective, must fly over the fighting lines with the aviator, taking note of the needs of the sector in which he is engaged, and his work is always on the firing line, so he needs resourcefulness and courage as well. Q. — Are there any American "camoufleurs"? A. — Yes. At General Leonard Wood's suggestion, American artists formed a 90 Questions and Answers corps, at which H. Ledyard Towle is the head. General Wood is quoted as stating that each training camp must organize from its own members a "camouflage" corps. Q.— Whatis tolite? A. — That is one of the many names for trinitrotoluol. T.N.T., Trotyl, Tri- tolo, Trilite and Tritol are some other names of the same substance. It is very safe, for it requires a heavy detonation to make it explode. It can be melted and poured into shells, without any danger. Water does not harm it at all. Yet when it does explode, its violence is terrific. Q. — Why could not gun-cotton be used in the shells? A.— It explodes far too easily. A shell charged with it would generally explode in the gun owing to the shock of the explosion of the propulsive ammunition. Picric acid and T.N.T. do not explode easily, hence they are suitable for shells, but they could not be used as propulsive ammunition. Q. — What is black powder made of? A. — Nitre, sulphur and charcoal. Q.— How is gun-cotton made? A. — Glycerine, nitric and sulphuric acids and cotton. Q. — To what extent is smokeless powder used in the war? A. — Only smokeless powder is used as a propulsive nowadays. Black powder not only dirties the gun's rifling, but it is less powerful. Above all, it immediately dis- closes the position of the gun, to hide which elaborate precautions are taken. Q. — What do we need to make our explosives? A. — Gun-cotton, nitroglycerine, trinitro- toluol (T.N.T,), etc., all compounds, the manufacture of which in this country was in its infancy at the outbreak of the European war. One of the needed im- portant chemicals is sulphuric acid, which is obtained from sulphur and from py- rites, or "fool's gold." The principal source of the latter substance has hith- erto been the Spanish mines, but war has served to direct attention to Cuba, the New England States, Alabama, etc. Sulphur is obtained in considerable quantities from Louisiana. Scarcely sec- ondary in importance is nitric acid. It is obtained from Chile saltpeter. One of the results of the British em- bargo has been to cut off Germany's sup- plies of this substance, forcing her to ob- tain nitric acid wholly from the air by expensive processes. Toluol and ammonia, both ingredients of high explosives, are obtained from gas and coke, distillations of which also lie at the basis of the aniline dye industry. Q. — Are we making Toluol or T.N.T.? A. — ^Yes. By the beginning of 1918 American by-product coke ovens were producing about 11,000,000 gallons _ of toluol, and the quantity was increasing. A difficulty is that the construction of enough by-product coke retorts requires a year. Gas companies can, however, equip their plants to remove the toluol from gas. Q. — Is the same powder used to propel shells as to explode them? A. — No. Propulsive and explosive powders are quite different. For pro- pulsive purposes black powder was at one time universally used, but has now been entirely discarded. Gelatinized mixtures of nitroglycerine and gun-cotton are now used exclusively. For filling the explosive shells picric acid and trinitrotoluol ("T.N.T.) are used. For a detonator, ful- minate of mercury is practically the only compound employed. Q. — Why cannot one kind of pow- der be used for everything? A. — For a_ variety of highly technical reasons. Briefly and very generally, be- cause the "explosive" powder that bursts shells is so powerful that it would be liable to burst the guns if it were used as a propulsive powder. Furthermore, the high explosives generate gases of chemical composition that would "erode" gun chambers and_ gun bores — that is, eat them away. Again, the high explosives explode too quickly, whereas to get the utmost range, a shell must be hurled out of the gun by a "slow-burning" powder. Smokeless propulsive powder is slow- burning — as compared with the high ex- plosives. Q- — What materials are required for explosive powders? A. — Picric acid is made from a product of coal-tar called phenol and nitric and Weapons of War 91 sulphuric acids. _ T.N.T. is produced by similarly "nitrating" toluene, also a coal- tar product. The disadvantage of picric acid is that it attacks most metals, hence a shell filled with it has to be protected in its interior with some material on which picric acid will not act. Trinitro- toluol, on the other hand, suffers from no such disadvantage. Picric acid, how- ever, is mixed with nitrate of ammonium, charcoal, aluminium and trinitrotoluol. The resultant powder is called ammonal. It is largely used by the Austrians, and is very safe. It does not always explode, though, for it is apt to become moist. Q. — How much T.N.T. does a mod- ern army need? A. — It has been estimated that the American mobile artillery (heavy and light field artillery) might require as much as 2,000,000 gallons of toluol in a year. Q. — How much cotton does Ger- many need for explosives? A. — That is impossible to say, as we have no knowledge of the amount of ex- plosives being made in Germany. We must not forget, however, that cotton is used only for propulsive ammunition and not as explosive for filling shells. To make one ton of gun-cotton, half a ton of cotton fiber is needed, roughly speak- ing. A German Mauser cartridge con- tains 48.4 grains of gun-cotton, to pro- duce which would require something over 25 grains of cotton. Assuming that there are 3,000,000 men in the field, and that they average 10 rounds daily for each man, we would have an expenditure of 51 tons of cotton a day, or 18,600 tons a year, for rifles alone. If we assume that the expenditure on machine guns is about the same, we have a total of 36,000 tons a year. The average propulsive charge for field guns is, probably, 50 pounds. Assuming that the Germans are using 5,000 guns, and that each fires ten shots a day, this would demand 1,000 tons of gun-cotton, for which about 550 tons of cotton would be required, or, say, 200,000 tons a year. This, probably, is a large overestimate. These figures are purely speculative and have no value except as furnishing some basis for possible calcu- lation. Q. — Did Germany have cotton stored for war? A.— -It is assumed that Germany used some 100,000 tons of cotton annually for making l8o,ooo tons of gun-cotton. If she had stored this for the last five years before the war, she could have had at least 900,000 tons of gun-cotton available when the war started. During 1913 Ger- many and Austria imported in the ordi- nary way 560,000 tons of cotton. Un- doubtedly a good deal of this could not have been transformed into manufactured articles, and thus would be available. During 1914 it is assumed that some 12,- 000 tons reached Germany via Sweden, and that she also got supplies via Hol- land and Italy, especially the latter. It was calculated atthe time that Germany would have sufficient cotton to carry her through two years' war at any rate, and she may have been able to get hold of enough to last for three years. It would seem inevitable, however, that the time came in 1917, when lack of this impor- tant ingredient in the making of ammuni- tion became a critical problem to Ger- many. A certain amount of cotton is pro- duced in Turkey, but even if the cotton fields there were greatly developed since the war began, nothing like enough could be obtained from that source. In 1912 the total cotton output of Turkey was about 200,000 bales. As there are 400 pounds in a bale this means that the total production of Turkey was only 40,000 tons. Q. — Is there no substitute for cot- ton? A.— Cotton consists of cellulose, the chief constjituent of wood, but cotton fiber appears to be the only form of cellulose adapted for making gun-cotton. There is always the possibility that under the stress of urgent need the German chem- ists have discovered a substitute for cot- ton, as they have for so many other things, but it is unlikely. Q. — What is the biggest cannon used in war? A. — Cannon calibers have increased pro- gressively during the war. The gun of greatest length and power made its ap- pearance in March, 1918, when the great German offensive broke through the Brit- ish St. Quentin front and began the vast Battle of^Picardy. On March 24, projectiles began to fall 5nto Paris, which was 64 miles from the very nearest German line on that date. The greatest range ever achieved by a gun before was 20 miles. The largest American gun in 1918 was the 16-inch coast-defense rifle. It has a range of somewhat less than 20 miles. 92 Questions and Answers The_ big gun with which the Germans BO swiftly destroyed the fortifications of Liege and Namur was a 42-centimeter gun, meaning in inches that its caliber (the diameter of its muzzle) was i6yi inches. For a long time array officers could not credit that a mobile gun o£ such power could really exist. This famous 42-centimeter weapon was on the howitzer order — that is, it did not fire its projectile with a fairly flat trajec- tory as the rifled cannon do, but dis- charged it by so-called high-angled fire : it was pointed toward the sky and thus sent its shell flying in a great arc. Q.— Have the Allies a bigger gun than the German "Big Ber- tha"? A.— The French recently built a mortar of 52 centimeters caliber as against the Germans' 42-centimeter gun. One of these guns was used by the French in the Verdun surprise attack of August, 1917- Two shells fired from this gun were suf- ficient to wreck Fort Malmaison. This French S2-centimeter gun is, in our figures, a trifle under 20^-inch diam- eter. Q. — Are solid cannon-balls used any more? A: — Practically every projectile from every kind of cannon nowadays is an ex- plosive shell— that is, a conical steel shell that has in its pointed head a large hollow chamber filled with high explosive. Some of these explosive shells have a contact primer in their points — a primer that ex- plodes the charge when the projectile strikes. Most shells, however, are fitted with a time-fuse so set that the shell explodes in a certain number of seconds after it leaves the muzzle of the gun. Q. — Is it possible to set a time- fuse accurately? A. — Yes. A modern artillerist knows to the fraction of a second how long it requires for his projectile to go a certain distance. Range-finders and aeroplane observation (spotting) enable him to fig- ure to the foot just how far away the target is. The time-fuse is set in the pointed snout of the shell, and adjusted just right with a key the moment before it is shoved into the gun. Q. — Are. the great twelve and fourteen-inch shells exploded by time-fuses? A.— No. These huge shells are used chiefly against ships or against fortifica- tions. They are made to explode on im- pact—by "percussion," as artillerists call it. There is a firing pin in the sharp point of the shell, and when the projec- tile strikes this pin is driven home and explodes fulminate of mercury, which, in turn, explodes (detonates) the big burst- ing charge. In most cases these firing mechanisms in the big shells are so set that the pro- jectile has time first to smash through the ship's armor, so that it shall explode inside. Q. — What are time-fuses like? A. — They are of a vast variety of de- signs. For many years there have been specialists in every army in the world who studied and designed little else but fuses. Some time-fuses are simply little contrivances that contain a powder-fuse of a determined length. This is lit by the discharge of the gun, and, at about the time that the projectile reaches its goal, the flame reaches the explosive charge. Other fuses are operated by little vanes that revolve as the projectile speeds through the air. Still others operate by clockwork mechanism. Q: — What is the artillery equip- ment of the American Army? A. — The War Department decided in 1917 on the practical adoption of the French 7S-millimeter (2.9S5-inch) field gun; a continuance of 3-inch field guns (American pattern) for use in camps at home ; Colts, Browning, Vickers-Maxim and_ Chauchat automatic machine guns ; 4.7-inch field guns, 6.10-inch, 8-inch, 9.2- 3nch and 10.5-inch howitzers ; Lewis ma- chine guns for aeroplane work. Q. — ^What is a howitzer? A. — Its prototype is the ancient ballista of the Romans, a machine which hurled great stones in a mighty arc through the air, so that, vaulting the defending walls, they fell on the soldiers behind. That is to say, the attack came from above, whilst that of the catapult, the forerunner of the modern gun, came from the side. The howitzer of today is really a development' of the mortar. It is a short piece of ord- nance, designed, like the old ballista, to throw a heavy projectile so high into Weapons of War 93 the air that it can fall from above on objects behind cover, which would be quite safe from the ordinary high-velocity gun. Q. — Does it require a heavy charge? A. — ^A comparatively small charge is needed, just enough to propel a huge shell through the air. It is not the speed of the shell which does the damage, but the bursting of the large amount of high explosive in the shell itself. As all a howitzer need to do is to give a great shell a toss into the air, so to speak, it does not need to be a long or very power- ful weapon, compared to a iield or naval gun, which latter weapon must actually drive its projectile almost straight to its target. Q. — How big is a howitzer? A. — The latest German ones are no less than i6.s inches, inside diameter. These guns are, of course, rifled, and load at the breech. We get some idea of the differ- ence between howitzers and guns by com- paring the two British six-inch weapons. The six-inch howitzer iires a steel shell weighing 122 lbs., including a lyddite bursting charge of 19 lbs., while the six- inch gun has a loo-lb. shell, and a lo-lb. lyddite bursting charge. The howitzer weighs 30 cwts., the gun 7 tons ; the for- mer is 7 feet 10 inches long, the latter 23 feet 3 inches. Q. — What does the 16.5-inch how- itzer weigh? A. — ^They weigh about 14 tons and are about 18 feet long. The British ii-inch howitzer weighs 6 tons, and is 14 feet long. Q, — Does the weight include the carriage? A.— No; the gun only. The equipment of a 12-inch howitzer weighs about 27 tons; that of a i6.S-inch gun would prob- ably be not far short of <,o tons. The carriage can, of course, be taken to pieces for transport purposes. Q. — To transport a howitzer of this size must be a great task? A.— So difficult is it that these weapons are used for siege purposes only. It is said they require specially prepared ce- ment bases, and cannot be used accu- rately without them. The Germans have smaller ho.witzers, which they use in the field. A 12-inch howitzer weighs about 7 tons. |- Q. — How are the great howitzers transported? A. — The great howitzers are pulled by heavy motors called "caterpillars," a mod- ified form of engine with its wheels en- circled by an endless steel band, and driven by a petrol motor. On the outbreak of the war, they were pulled by horses, but later mechanical transport was provided for them. First, "Foden steam wagons," a kind of auto- mobile, were employed, but proved im- practical. Q. — How heavy a projectile would it throw? _ A. — This also is not known. Its ter- rible effects have been seen, for these guns redu.ced the forts at Liege by smash- ing the steel cupolas of the defending cannon as. if they had been egg shells. Four shots sufficed to put one of the Namur forts entirely out of action. As a six-inch naval gun fires a loo-lb. pro- iectile, arid a six-inch howitzer one of 320 lbs., -ftre may assume that a l6.5-inch howitzer has a shell weighing at least a ton._ (The l6,S naval guns_ fire a pro- jectile of 2,200 lbs.) A special explosive is said to be used, which has a terrible effect. In fact, all those wounded found in the forts after the shells had fallen there were deaf. Q. — What is the range of a how- itzer? A. — The-ii-inch howitzer has an effec- tive range of five miles. The 16.5-inch •will naturally have more than that. _A shell from one of these guns might kill an entire company. Q. — Is it true that these immense howitzers can only fire twenty times before wearing out? A. — That is probably incorrect. We know that the great naval iz-inch guns can fire at least ninety rounds before wearing out. This comparatively short life is due to the tremendous heat and the gases generated by the explosion, which, in time, crack and corrode the rifling. As already mentioned, the func- tion of a howitzer is to toss a huge shell into the air; a huge charge is not re- quired, hence the life of a howitzer should be far longer than that of a naval gun. 94 Questions and Answens Q. — Is a big cannon useless after it fires that limited number of shots? A, — No. But it becomes inaccurate and no longer has full range. The trouble, however, is only with the inside of the bore, and this can be replaced in the ord- nance works. It is known as putting in a new core. It is, of course, an opera- tion requiring some time. Q. — Does it take long to make a howitzer? A. — Nothing like as long as to make a naval gun. The latter takes about eighteen months, working during the day only; it must be wire wound, a process which requires much time. Howitzers only take weeks, where the guns require months. It is the mounting which takes so long to make. Q. — Could howitzers be used in naval warfare? A. — No. It would be impossible to hit rapidly moving ships with them. The only vessels armed with such weapons are monitors, which are intended to at- tack land forces and fortifications. Q. — Is the machine gun a cannon? A. — No. Its barrel is practically a rifle barrel, except that it is heavier in weight. Its caliber is no larger than that of the infantry rifle. Every army tries to have its machine guns and its infantry rifles exactly alike in caliber, so that the same ammunition can be used for both, Q. — How does a machine gun fire? A.— It fires semi-automatically, or sometimes automatically. In some pat- terns the cartridges are fed into the breech from a revolving belt. In others, they are fed in a revolving disk. Q. — How fast does a machine gun fire? A. — So fast that the human senses of sight and hearing cannot perceive the separate shots. A modern machine gun fires about ten shots a second, or from 500 to 700 shots a minute. Q. — What is machine-gun range? A. — Its range is about a mile, but in action it usually is used at much shorter ranges than that. Fired at a target a mile away, most of its ammunition would be wasted. Q. — Exactly what purpose does the machine gun serve? A. — The same as that of the infantry rifle — that of killing men. These two are the firearms used by armies for that purpose, whereas cannon are used more Jargely for making positions untenable and thus routing large bodies of men. Q- — Who invented the machine gun? A. — The modern machine gun was in- vented by Richard Jordan Catling. It was first used in the Civil War, and con- sisted of ten revolving barrels. The French in the Franco-Prussian War, also used a machine gun, the mitrailleuse, which was worked with a crank. The modern single-barrel machine guns are Vickers-Maxim, Benet-Mercier, Hotch- kiss, Colt, Chauchat, Lewis and Brown- ing. Q- — What machine guns are used most? A. — The British army uses Vickers- Maxim and Lewis largely. The French use Chauchat automatics. The American army has both Vickers-Maxim and Colt. The army adopted a new gun, the Brown- ing. For aeroplane work and sea service, the Lewis gun has been adopted. The camps in the United States were supplied with some specimens of the French Chau- chat, as well as with Lewis, Vickers- Maxim and Colt. Q- — What is the Browning gun? A.— The Browning type is the very newest type of machine gun. Early in .1918 it was announced that its manufac- ture was being pushed forcefully, and that General Pershing had asked for this type in preference to others. It is to be a wholly automatic gun— that is, its oper- ator need merely pull the trigger and hold it so. So long as the trigger is held m that firing position, the gun will shoot as fast as the cartridges can pour into it. After the first shot, the recoil does it all —ejects the fired cartridge, throws a new one mto the firing chamber, and dis- charges it, repeating the process so long as the cartridge supply holds out. Q.— Do the guns not get hot from such tremendous firing? A.— They get almost red-hot. For this reason they all have water-cooling de- Weapons of War 95 vices, which generally consist of an outer case around the barrel filled with water. One objection to the guns has been that the steam thus generated often betrays the gun-position. The Browning ma- chine rifle has a device to counteract this, and is so constructed that 350 shots can be fired before the gun needs cooling off. The Browning machine gun (a heavier type than the rifle) has a water-jacket like other machine guns. Q. — Can the Brownitig machine gun be used like a rifle? A. — ^Yes. One pattern, known as the Browning machine rifle, can be fired from the shoulder or the hip. It weighs only IS pounds. This new American machine rifle takes 20 cartridges for one load. All that the soldier needs to do is to cock the hammer and pull the trigger. After that he needs merely keep his finger pressing the trigger and the gun will shoot until its ammunition is gone. That is not a long time, however — for the Browning machine rifle will shoot its 20 shots in from 2j4 to 3 seconds. Q. — How is the Browning machine gun fired? A. — It is on a tripod and the gunner kneels or sits behind it. An endless cot- - ton belt feeds the cartridges into the gun. The belt holds 250 cartridges, and the gun fires them as fast as they can be thrown in by the automatic feed. A Browning machine gun, in an endurance test, fired 20,000 shots in 2,896 seconds, or almost 10 shots a second, Q. — Have the Germans many ma- chine guns? A. — It is now known that the Germans had about 50,000 of these guns in the be- ginning, and, despite losses due to wear- ing out, scrapping, or capture, it is said that the enemy has now no less than 75,000. The Germans appear to supply one machine gun to twenty men on the front line. Q. — What is the difference be- tween a rapid-fire gun and a machine gun? A.— The machine gun is of small cali- ber and fires cartridges of the caliber of army rifle cartridges, which are fed into it automatically as quickly as the weapon can shoot. Rapid-fire or quick-fire guns are actual cannon of calibers up to 6 inches, loaded by hand at the breech with large, fixed ammunition; that is, ammunition which is like a cartridge, containing both the propulsive powder and the projectile in one. These guns can be fired as fast as the gunners can snap open the breech, eject a fired shell-casing, and ram in an- other one.' , Rigid practice and team-work make possible an astounding number of discharges in a minute. Q.— What is the difference be- tween these quick-firing guns and the larger guns? A. — ^The difference between these quick- fire cannon and the still larger sizes is that the larger ones are loaded with a projectile first, then with powder. This separate loading (due to the impractica- bility of making the big projectiles in cartridge form) naturally makes their fire slower. Remarkable speed, however, is attained by good gun crews even with the biggest calibers. Naval gun crews can fire a number of shots a minute with the huge twelve- and fourteen-inch tur- ret guns, though each discharge entails the handling of several tons of powder and steel. Q. — Has American shell-making capacity increased? A. — The shell-making capacity for 75- millimeter (2.9SS-inch) and 3-inch shells was reported officially in January, 1918, as increased 50 per cent, and the increase for sizes above that was 25 per cent. At that time the Ordnance Department stated that it had under order S9.8o3.9io shells to be delivered in 1918. Q. — What was our status of can- non production after we de- clared war? A. — In his speech before the Senate Committee: on Military Affairs, January 28, 1918, the Secretary of War said that Lewis machine guns for aerial use were then being, manufactured "in large num- hers"; that the distribution of machine guns to national draft camps was 30 Colt, 45 Chauchat, 65 Lewis; National Army cantonments, 50 Colt, 45 Chauchat, 65 Lewis. He said that during January 620 75-millimeter field-pieces (2.955-inch) had to be supplied by France, while Ameri- can works could turn out only 84, but that by April the ratio would be : French, 73; American, 231; and by December, 1918, the American output would be 433 a month. Against one iss-milliraeter (6.10-inch) howitzer in January, 1918, 96 Questions and Answers American output would be 300 a month by the end of the year. Q. — Has Germany everything need- ed for explosives? A. — She does not produce all the raw materials, but her chemists have been able to get what is needed from other sub- stances. Sulphur, for instance, is hai^ly found in Germany, but in the Hartz and Silesia there are deposits of ores contain- ing sulphur, such as galena (sulphide of lead), blende (sulphide of zinc), and some others. She has no nitre (salt- petre), which comes from India, Peru and Chili. When distilled with sulphuric acid, it yields nitric acid, which is used in "nitrating" glycerine, cotton, phenol and toluene. For fifteen years, however, nitric acid has been won by obtaining the nitrogen from the afr, in Sweden, and it is known that the Germans have extensive plants for the same purpose. Glycerine is a product of the soap works. There is, of course, plenty of coal tar, from which, phenol and toluene are won. Not only have the Germans their own coal mines, they have the Belgian and French ones also. The one important thing they ap- pear to lack is cotton. Q. — Can the copper in fired cart- ridges be used again? A. — Of course it can. The belligerents are all saving the shells of the cartridges used when at all possible. In trench war- fare probably none are lost, either from machine guns or rifles. This fact is usually overlooked by those who make careful calculations as to the amount of copper Germany must import, or mine to keep her armies supplied. They gathered all used material on the battlefields from the very beginning. Q. — Has Germany enough iron? A. — Plenty. In 191 1 the United States mined 443,000,000 tons. The United Kingdom, 271,900,000; Germany, 158,000,- 000; and France, 38,000,000 (the latter from mines now almost all in German possession). In the same year the United States produced 41,000,000 tons of iron ore, Germany 29,500,000, and the United Kingdom 15,500,000. Germany has made great strides in the manufacture of steel and iron. She produced 14,800,000 tons of steel to England's 6,500,000 tons in 1911, and 15,300,000 tons of pig iron to England's 9,720,000 tons. The United States easily leads the world, producing nearly 24,000,000 of steel and almost the same quantity of pig iron. Smce the war the production of iron and steel has, no doubt, immensely increased in Germany; for she is momentarily in possession of all the coal and iron in Belgium and some two-thirds of the total production of France. Q. — What is supposed to be the life of a rifle? A. — It is calculated that a rifle will last about a month in active hard service. This means that 80,000 men would get through 1,000,000 rifles in a year. But jplease note that this is in "active hard service." That is a theoretical condi- tion for which the army command must be prepared, because it may become a fact at any moment. But in actuality it will happen very rarely that any one body of troops actually will fight hard and continually for a whole month. Q. — What size shell does an eigh- teen-pounder gun fire? A. — It fires a shell 3.3 inches in diam- eter, and sends it 35^ miles. The thirteen- pounder used by British horse_ artillery fires a 3-inch shell. Its range is a little greater than that of the eighteen-pounder. The famous French 75-mm. gun fires a shell just a shade less in diameter (2.955 inches). Q. — What does enfilade mean? A. — Enfilading fire is the military term for a raking fire. A gun enfilades a trench when it is placed in such a posi- tion that it can fire straight along it, and enfilades troops when its fire takes them on the flank. Q. — Did turpinite generate poison- ous gases? A. — According to the statements which appeared in the papers and in the cables sent from London and Paris, turpinite, the invention of the French scientist Tur- pin, was used during the early days of the war. According to these rdports, when it exploded reddish fumes were given off, which painlessly killed all in the neighborhood. Many circumstantial accounts of the marvelous effect on German soldiers were cabled and printed in American news- papers early in the war. According to some of these dispatches, whole com- panies of soldiers died so quickly on the explosion of these gas-shells that the dead were found in exactly the attitude* of life. Weapons of War 97 Q. — ^Was this before the Germans used gas? A. — Writing about this explosive when the accounts about its deadliness first came out, in September, 1914, Henry Stead of Australia said in his Review. "It is gruesome to read of the ghastly work of the French shells. The ex- plosive used evidently gives off a poisonous gas, which overcomes all men in the immediate vicinity and leaves them dead, covered with a red powder. In London papers just to hand, M. Tur- pin, the inventor (of melinite and lyddite fame), declares that his invention is of of a terrifying character, which will modi- fy all present military tactics, and render all defensive measures illusory. M. Turpin states further that the French War Min- ister had decided to use his invention. The dum-dum and the explosive bullet have been prohibited by international law, foes are no longer permitted to poison wells and streams, but, apparently, these shells are not under the ban of the na- tions. To use turpinite, however, is ob- viously to invite retaliation by the Ger- mans. Their chemists are certain to evolve something horrible, and when the Allies begin to experience its effects, they will not be able to accuse the Germans of beginning this sort of warfare. Let us hope the turpinite story is greatly ex- aggerated or untrue." Most other • comments at the time showed that the writers rather rejoiced that the French had found so deadly an offensive weapon. Q. — ^What is the composition of the asphyxiating gas used as a weapon? When was it first used by the Germans? A.— The Germans first used it against British soldiers at Hill 60, Ypres, May, 1915. This gas is the product of the volatilization of liquid sulphurous acid and liquefied chlorine, a process which disengages enormous quantities of vapor. It rolls in a heavy greenish yellow cloud. It causes horrible suffering, and leaves pitiable after-effects, greatly injuring the lungs. A British veteran says, "The ghastliest wounds_ were sweet and pleas- ant compared to it." Q. — Did the British use shells with poisonous gas during the Boer War? A.— They used lyddite, but the yellow fumes it gave off were not poisonous, al- though the cables telling of the surround- ing and shelling of Cronje and his force near Kimberley certainly conveyed the impression — an entirely incorrect one as it turned out — that many of the Boers were suffocated where they lay. Q. — What is a lachrymal shell? A, — It is the name given to a German shell whose explosion causes a copious flow of tears and irritation in the eyes. .^ There has been considerable discussion concerning the nature of the tear-exciting substamce employed, but thus far its con- tents do not appear to have been definitely determined. One of the most powerful of tear excitants is acrolein, which is ob- tained when fats of glycerine are burned, but the enemy would certainly not destroy fatty substances in this way. Another acrid gas is formaldehyde, which may be utilized. There is a general opinion, however, that common pepper has been used, the tear-exciting constituent being expelled from the pepper by heat. Large quantities of red pepper are grown in Hungary, so that there would be no diffi- culty in obtaining supplies. Protective measures are comparatively easy to adopt against the tear shells. Q. — Are both sides using liquid fire? A. — The Germans used it first, accord- ing to all reports. The Allies have been using liquid fire and flame projectors for some time now. The British used it for the first tirne at Loos. The Italians have been making use of it also; so, too, have the Russians. The basis both of the liquid fire; and of the flame used in the projectors- is petroleum. The exact com- position has not been published. It is reminiscent of the famous Greek Fire of the ancients. This mixture was_ the invention of one Callinicus, an architect, in the seventh century. What it was com- posed of is still a matter of conjecture. It was presumably made of sulphur and naphtha, with quicklime added. It took fire spontaneously when wetted, was there- fore used against ships, or had_ to have •water thrown on it when being pro- jected. Q. — How is liquid fire used? A.— It is sprayed at the hostile trenches from portable containers, known as projectors. The projectors are brought as close as possible, under concealment, to the point of attack, arranged in groups of from SO to 200 and more, and dis- charged at the desired moment. They squirt the blazing material into the enemy lines, as a fire-engine would squirt water. 98 Questions and Answers Q. — Has poison gas any effect upon horses or dogs? A, — Poison gas is equally destructive to all forms of animal life, and all horses and dogs employed in the war zone are provided with specially designed gas masks. The mask for horses consists of a simple bag placed over the animal's nostrils so that the air breathed is taken through the interstices of the fabric. The bag is treated with a chemical powder, which neutralizes the dangerous gases be- fore they reach the nostrils of the horse. Q. — ^Are there many different kinds of gas ? A. — Yes. Very many. The first gas was a chlorine gas. It was projected in waves, and could be used only when the wind was right. This, however, was soon replaced by chlorine gas inclosed in shells, which liberated the deadly thing when they exploded. Other gas followed in. quick order. One was merely laughing gas, and incapacitated its victims from action for a while, but did no further harm. Another was made from mustard, and affected its victims only temporarily. Q, — How could men in the open be gassed? A.— The gases used are heavier than the air. The gas, therefore, flows into trenches and underground shelters like water, and thus strangles men who hap- pen to be anywhere where air-currents may drive the poisonous fumes. Q. — How can men tell in time when gas is coming? A.: — Most gas shells explode with much less noise than is made by any other explosive shell. The odor also warns of the arrival of most gases. There is a regular signal now to warn of gas. A green rocket is sent up and every man who sees it Icnows that he must put on his gas mask at once. Q. — What is phosgene gas? A. — It is a perfectly odorless gas. If the soldiers are not warned by identify- ing the peculiar exploding sound which the phosgene shell makes, there is no other way to discover it. It cannot be detected, indeed, until the heart stops beating and the victim falls dead. For defense against this, men were spe- cially trained to distinguish the slight difference/ in tone between the detona- tion of a gas shell and other shells, and it became their business to watch for the deadly arrivals. Then the Germans met this with an- other move which for a time seemed to baffle all efforts to counteract it. They mixed gas and explosives in the same shell. This is the form of attack they tried on the Americans in February and March, 1918. As an emergency measure the Allies then ordered gas masks to be worn con- tinuously, but the Germans invented sneeze bombs and tear bombs to force the men to take their masks off. Q. — Is there a defense against gas? A. — Yes — one, and one only. It is the gas mask. The United States is spending millions now on gas masks, and they are as indispensable a part of a soldier's out- fit as cartridges. It is estimated that 20 per cent, at least, of the shells that are fired are gas shells. So vast a part of war has gas become that the United States has a Gas Defense Service in its Medical Department. Q. — Were gas masks invented in this war? A.— Soon after the first German gas attack English and French women sent to the front hundreds of thousands of home-made gas masks. For the most part, they were merely bandages impreg- nated with chemicals to wrap around the mouth and nose. The next thing in gas masks was a cloth helrnet or hood dipped in neutral- izing solution, the bottom of which was tucked in the collar. This hood had two eye goggles. Air was breathed in through the cloth. The chemicals in the cloth fil- tered the incoming air, but there was no provision for exhalation, and within a short time the man was unable to get a proper amount of good air. The next improvement was to put in an exhaust or outlet for the exhaled air. "This type of mask has been used exten- sively. Its disadvantages are that a man cannot hear well, the chemicals in the cloth cause him trouble, and the mask cannot long remain impermeable to gases. Q.— What gas mask are the Amer- icans using? A.— A very scientific respirator mask with a face piece of absolutely impervious material, with glass or celluloid eye pieces, held in place by rubber bands around the head. A canister is carried in a small knapsack and a flexible tube connects with the face piece. Weapons of War 99 Inside the face piece is a small wire clamp with rubber pads, which fits on the nose and forces the wearer to breathe through his mouth. The end of a flexible tube has a rubber mouthpiece, through which the man breathes. The incoming breath comes through the canister, which is filled with several layers of special chemicals of an absorbent nature, that neutralize or render harmless the gas- laden air. The outgoing breath passes outside the face piece through a small rubber valve. Q. — Is the American gas mask like the German? A. — No. In the German mask the con- tainer for the neutralizing chemicals is screwed into a ring in the bottom of the mask. There is no outlet valve for the exhaled air, both incoming and_ outgoing air passing through the container. Q. — How are the gas masks used? A. — The mask is carried in a knapsack , at the left hip, supported by a shoulder band. When troops approach a danger zone, the straps are shortened and the knapsack is shifted to rest high on the chest, ready for instant use. This is known as the "alert position." The sol- dier has merely to open the knapsack, pull out the flexible hose with the face piece attached, put the rubber mouth- piece in his mouth and adjust the bands over his head. The nose clip can easily be adjusted from the outside after the face piece is on. This nose clip insures that even if the fabric of the face piece should be pierced, the soldier would still be breathing entirely through his mouth. Q. — Do the American gas masks furnish absolute protection? A. — The present American mask affords more protection than any other device in existence. The chemicals in the canister will neutralize the heaviest concentra- tions of gases for a period at least ten times longer than the possible duration of any gas attack. For every mask there is at least one extra canister. These canisters are de- tachable from the tube. When a canis- ter has lost its efficiency, it can be de- tached, and a new canister put on. A Gas Defense School has been estab- lished in each cantonment, and a gas mask factory, with 4.00° workers, has been organized. Q. — Was gas ever used before? A. — The Chinese used the famous "stink-pot" ages ago. Devices that made strangling smoke were used in the siege of Troy. Q. — Wh^t is a glacis? A. — The name given to the ground in front of a fortification. It is sloped so that it can be covered thoroughly by the fire from the guns of the fort. Q. — Are the tanks really of much service in the war? A. — ^When they first appeared the tanks seem to have done excellent work, but there has been no weapon ever devised against which more or less effective de- fence has not been found. Had the Brit- ish marshalled a huge array of tanks be- fore the enemy lines they might have pushed their way through, but the few tanks first employed, though very use- ful, could not alone smash the enemy defences. When the British had more of the monsters ready, the Germans had discovered a more or less effective reply to them in the shape of a field gun, which they were able to bring into the trenches. The Germans made the same mistake when they first used poisonous gas. They experimented on a short front, and, when they were ready to utilize the new weapon on a great scale, gas masks had rendered it more or less harmless. Had they be- gun on the entire front at once they might have reached Paris. Q. — How are the British tanks armed? A. — ^There are two types of British tanks. One carries two six-pounder, rapid-fire Hotchkiss guns and four Lewis machine guns. The other is armed with six Lewis guns. Each t3rpe weighs about thirty tons, and is manned by an officer and seven men. The armor plate is of J4-inch steel of a special composition, and has great powers of resistance against rifle, machine gun and shrapnel fire. Q. — What is the best weapon used against the tanks? A. — The most efficacious weapon against the tanks is the armor-piercing bullet. It is feared by the crews of the tanks, be- cause it pierces the armor and produces flame which frequently sets fire to the fuel reservoir. Hand grenades, employed one at a time, are useless. It is necessary to employ a lOO Questions and Answers concentrated charge (several cylinders grouped around a central grenade), and throw it under the tank; but this is a difficult task. Machine guns are useless against them. But the tanks, in turn, are helpless against steel shells from any of the field artillery guns used to-day. Q- — Have the Germans captured any tanks? A. — Yes. In February, 1918, pictures reached America showing a tank captured at Cambrai parading througFi Berlin from the Tempel-hof parade ground to the zoological gardens. Q. — Is the tank not a brand new war invention? A. — They were used exactly 2,157 years before they made their appearance on the British-German lines. In the tremendous siege of the "Queen of Africa" Carthage, the Romans attacked the walls with "tor- toises" — immense tortoise-shaped tanks on wheels, whose backs, covered with timber, iron scales, hides and straw pad- ding protected the soldiers underneath against the liquid fire, projectiles and boiling water that rained down on them from above. They also attacked with a huge armored tower on wheels, the fam- ous "Hellepolis." The attacks failed. The Carthaginians devised a defense against each new apparatus in turn. Q. — What does the word "abatis" mean? A.^ — It is a military term to describe one of the obstacles which, when the war began, were used in defense of field works. Such defense is probably obso- lete now. It was formed of the limbs of trees, twelve or fifteen feet long, laid close together, the larger branches pointed towards the enemy and the stems secured to the ground. The object of an abatis is, of course, to break up the enemy's advance. Nowadays heavy explosive shells sweep such obstacles out of the way with ease. Barbed wire takes its place Q. — Who used barbed wire first in modern warfare? A. — The Boers in South Africa, and then the Russians and Japanese in Man- churia. It is now one of the most im- portant of defensive appliances. Q.— How is barbed wire cut by the soldiers ? A. — The wire is not actually cut, it is swept away by the blast made by special shells. These are not made with thick walls, as it is not the flying fragments which do the damage when the shell ex- plodes, but actually the wind of the ex- plosion. A Dumezil shell will clean up a network of wire over an area of about 100 square feet. These special shells are thrown a distance of about 1,200 feet by small trench howitzers. Q. — Can the most complicated wire entanglements be swept aside in this way? A. — The ordinary entanglements can- not stand against these shells, but there are methods of arranging the wire in spirals, which effectively defy the shells. In fact, the more the spirals are bom- barded the more the different coils be- come entangled, forming an inextricable jungle, on which hostile attacks are vain. The French have greatly developed this method of wiring, which they call Brun networks. Q. — Who invented barbed wire? A. — An American, Colonel Elbridge who, it is said, used his wife's hairpins for barl^s in his early experimental work. Q. — Is gasolene used much in mod- ern war? A. — It has made an immense difference. Owing to its use transport has been greatly accelerated, and guns especially have been moved with wonderful speed. The Germans have perfected steel-clad motor-cars with disappearing turrets, from which heavy, rapid-fire guns pour streams of lead. It is these "moving forts" which have given the Germans an advantage,; and made up, to some extent, the poor shooting of their infantry. The heavy howitzers and field guns are dragged by gasolene or oil-driven engines, and it is used for the ambulance cars, and all manner of transport. Q. — Does anybody know the amount of British orders for munitions placed here? A.— From August, 1914, to the middle of July, 1917 (about 3 years), the British Government placed orders for ordnance of all kmds and all kinds of ammunition, ' totalmg $1,308,000,000, An illustration Weapons of War loi of the scale of American preparation is the fact that in the seven months follow- ing the entrance of the United States into the war (from the middle of May to the middle of December, 1917), the Ordnance Department of the United States Army placed orders for $1,500,000,000. Q. — Were dum-dum bullets actual- ly used in this war as charged by both sides? A. — Probably not, although both sides have accused each other of making use of them. There is no doubt that the wounds men have received on both sides appear to have been caused by this expanding bullet. The explanation is that the Ger- man Army, the British Army, and others use what is called the "spitz" (pointed) bullet. This, when it goes through soft parts, makes a very small hole, but when it encounters an obstacle, like a bone, sometimes turns sidewards, and inflicts a. horrible wound. The scarcity of anti- mony for hardening the lead has probably caused very soft bullets to be made m Germany. Q. — Do the British shells contain far more copper than the Ger- man? A. — They used to, at least. The Brit- ish fuses contain 24 ounces of gunmetal, and the French and German only y/i ounces. The Germans are fully aware of the fact, and offer rewards for all British fuses collected. Assuming that their ar- tillery fired 40,000 rounds into the Ger- man trenches in a day, and only half the fuses were collected, the guns , at very great cost would actually have supplied the enemy with enough copper for 250,000 shells I Q.-^Is it true that Germany was short of shells after the battle of the Marne? A, — Apparently she was, although In those early stages of the war, before the trench dead-lock was established, nothing like the number of shells and guns was needed as is required to-day. Q. — What is meant by bridgehead? A.— A bridgehead is a position which commands the crossing of a river. It is not necessarily at an actual bridge to spaa the stream. Owing to the long range of modern guns a bridgehead may ac- tually have to be a long way away from tiie river itself, as its function is to pre- vent the enemy artillery from interfering with the crossing army, and to hold a position tliat shall enable the big body of the army behind to form in security. Q. — Is the French 75 the greatest artillery weapon? A. — Among quick-firing guns it is said to be pre-eminent. It has this immense advantage that it does not require to be re-aimed after each discharge. The recoil is entirely taken up by the shock- absorbers and the gun points at exactly the same mark all the time. The follow- ing comparison between the 75 and its German riVal is interesting: French 75. German 77. Length 8 feet 7% feet Maximum range 3^ miles 3 miles Shots per minute 25 9 Weight of shrapnel 15 lbs. 14 lbs. W'ght explosive shell 11 lbs. 11 lbs. Initial velocity sec. 1720 feet 1510 feet Bullets in shrapnel 300 300 Weight of cannon 2250 lbs. 1950 lbs. Gunners with each piece 7 8 Guns in battery 4 6 Batteries per army corps 30 24 Total number of cannon (1914) 2520 3600 Q. — Has the shell of the French 75 been altered since the war? A.~The main alteration has been the increased number of fragments into which the projectile breaks. One of these shells now bursts into more than 2,000 pieces, some of them so small as to •wound fatally without making a conspic- uous abrasion on the skin. The tiniest of particles possesses so great a velocity as to inflict grave injuries at 30 or 40 yards from the spot where the shell bursts. Q. — Why have the Germans not mastered the secret of the French 75's? A. — Presumably they do know the se- cret, but evidently do not find it prac- ticable or advisable to replace their own 77 quick-firing gun with the French model. Q. — How fast can the 75 fire? A. — The famous 75 will shoot as many as 16 shells a minute, and many of them have fired 2,000 shells in a single day, although they are seldom called upon for such an achievement. It keeps 500 workmen constantly busy to supply one I02 Questions and Answers of the 7s's with shells once it gets into action. Q. — Is the Ross rifle still used by the Canadian troops in France? A. — No. Although this rifle had stood pre-war tests exceedingly well, Lord French in 1915 urged its entire with- drawal. It appears, however, to have been used till August, 1916, when the equipment of Canadian troops with the regulation British arm, the Lee-Enfield, was begun. Q. — Can shell-torn battlefields be cultivated? A. — There has been a general belief that agricultural lands devastated by shell fire will require a decade of cultivation to bring them to their former fruitful- ness. An American farming expert, how- ever, who has given the subject much study, and who has personally visited the battlefields, says that not only can the lands be recovered, but that they can be made just as fruitful as ever. Q. — What is a communication trench? A. — This trench, known by the soldiers as "C. T.," is a trench leading back from the front or firing line to the rear, as pro- tection to those bringing up supplies, etc. Q. — What are dug-outs? A. — They are the underground shelters or caves in the trenches in which soldiers on duty may rest, relatively safe from the danger of exploding shells or bullets. They constitute also a definite part of the front-line fortifications, as soldiers can be dislodged from such cave-like strongholds only by throwing bombs into them or employing suffocating gas. Q. — Is direct injury achieved by artillery fire against enemy batteries ? A, — It has been thought by some that the only thing that counts is bombardment of the infantry. General LudendorfT, Chief of the German General Staff, in a report dated October 4, 191 7, shows, how- ever, that artillery fire against artillery positions is a very serious matter. The average number of guns lost by a single German Army in a single month were stated to amount to i,4SS, of which 870 were field guns and 585 heavy pieces. Of the total of 1,455 about 655 were lost through wear, and 800 through Allied bombardments. Q.— What is meant by a "Silent Susie"? ■ A. — A German high explosive shell not heard until it bursts. As most of the large shells can be both seen and heard, because their swift flight makes a loud screaming or whistling sound, the "Si- lent Susie" is more to be feared than some of the others. Q. — What is meant by a "Whiz- Barig"? A. — The lightest shrapnel shells used by both sides. Q. — What is shrapnel? A. — Shrapnel is an explosive shell, fired like other explosive shells from a rifled cannon. But, unlike all other explosive shells, which have thick steel walls to make their bursting power effective, the shrapnel shell is only a thin steel casing — a "can," so to speak. The old term "cannister" is based on this very fact. The shrapnel shell is filled with explo- sive like other shells, but, in addition, is packed with bullets by the hundreds. A time fuse is so adjusted that the shell shall explode when it is over a position occupied by troops. The bursting of the shells drives the bullets in a spreading rain of metal with deadly force. It is the most savage form of artillery attack known against troops that are at all in the open. To be truly effective, however, it requires extreme accuracy. Q. — Why is it called shrapnel? A. — It is named for its inventor, a British General named Shrapnel, who served in the early part of the nineteenth century, dying in 1842. Q. — Are trench periscopes like sub- marine periscopes? A. — Very much so, both in principle and construction, being a tube, more or less long, with prisms and mirrors in it which reflect to the observer below the image seen by the great glass "eye" at the top. The trench periscope, however, is easier to hide from the enemy than the submarine periscope. It can be erected among tree branches, or in similar "cam- ouflage" so that no hostile watcher is very likely to sight it. Some of the peri- scopes are small, but others are giants that are moved from place to place on lit- tle carts. These monsters have tele- scopic tubes, which can be raised so high , that the observer can look over all sorts of obstacles into enemy positions. OUR ARMY Q. — '"What officer commands all the American war forces? A. — No officer can ever have their com- mand, because the Constitution of the United States makes the President Com- mander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy. His powers assuch are those of military command and include, of course, the right to dispose the national forces where they can be used to best advantage. In the War of 1812, in the Mexican War, in the Spanish War, in the Boxer rebellion, and, recently, in Mexico, American troops were thus sent to fight on foreign soil. These, however, were all either volunteers or regulars. Q._Who is the Chief of Staff of the U. S. Army? A. — Major-General Peyton C. March assumed these duties in March, 1918, after Major-General Tasker H. Bliss (who had succeeded Major-General Scott in Sept- ember, 1917) had gone to Europe to rep- resent the United States in the Supreme War Council. Q. — What was the peace strength of the regular army? A.— It consisted of 5,014 commissioned officers and 92,973 enlisted men, which in- cluded about 6,000 so-called Philippine Scouts. In November, 1917, the strength of the Regular Army was approximately 7,500 officers and 360,000 enlisted men. Q. — What was the strength of America's army in 1 918? A.— At the beginning of 1918 the regu- lar army consisted of 10,250 officers and 475,000 enlisted men, the National Guard of 10,031 officers and 400,900 enlisted men, the National Army of 480,000 men, and the reserve of 84,575 officers and 72,750 enlisted men, a total of 1,539,485 officers and men. Q. — Is there a National Guard or- ganization in the U. S. army? A.— The National Guard service, ap- proximating 300,000 men, was incor- porated into Federal service August s, 1917- Q. — What is the smallest army or- ganization? A. — The smallest unit or "team" in the Army is the squad. A squad usually con- sists of eight men, one of whom is the leader; he is called the "corporal." The object of the company commander is to make this a permanent unit by putting men together who will work well in uni- son. Two, three, or four squads (usually three) may be joined in the next higher unit, which is called a "platoon." The platoon is not so permanent as a squad, but is formed whenever there is need for it. Q. — How is a company made up? A. — ^The company is made up at full strength of 150 men ; this is about 18 squads or 6 platoons. This number is "war strength" in our old tables of or- fanization; the first division now in 'ranee has 200 men per company. It is probable the strength may become 250 per infantry company. Figures for the number of squads and of platoons are never definitely fixed. A company in the field is seldom at full strength, and it may be convenient at any time to change the numbers of squads and pla- toons. Q. — What is an army division? A. — A division is a group of various branches of the Army, making the whole body complete in itself — that is, able to fight by itself, feed itself, transport its supplies, etc. Thus, the American In- fantry Division, as organized for modern war, has not only infantry, but cavalry, artillery, engineers, signal and quarter- master corps, medical and sanitary troops and supplies, etc. It should be noted that in newspaper articles the reference to a "division" fre- quently means a mere body of men de- tached on some special expedition. This is not an Army division. It is an expe- ditionary force only. But such an expe- ditionary force, if operating far away, may have all the organization of a di- vision on a miniature scale. Q. — How big is an army diyision? A. — A United States Army Infantry Division has two infantry brigades (four regiments.), two machine-gun battalions, 103 I04 Questions and Answers two regiments of light artillery, one regi- ment of heavy artillery, one trench-mortar battery, one extra (divisional) machine- gun battalion, one regiment of engineers, one field signal battalion with all the necessary "trains" for transport. The total strength is 887 officers and 26,265 enlisted men. This is much larger than "divisions" used to be. The size of divisions in most armies used to be about 19,000 men. Q. — How many men are in a Brit- ish division? A. — In pre-war days such a division would have been composed of twelve in- fantry regiments, nine batteries of 18- pounders, two batteries of 5-inch howit- zers, three batteries of 4.5-inch heavy bat- tery siege guns, ammunition column, two field companies and engineers, signal com- pany, two mounted infantry companies, three field ambulances of sixteen wagons each, and a baggage train. In all it would consist of 19,111 officers and men, 6,773 horses, 24 machine guns, 54 field 18- pounder guns, 12 howitzers, 4 "long Toms," 198 ammunition wagons, 8 motor cars, 274 two-horse wagons, 232 four- horse wagons, 241 six-horse wagons, 135 bicycles. In a division in the field to-day there would certainly be much more ar- tillery, far greater numbers of machine guns, and practically all the horse equi- page will have been replaced by motors. Q. — What is the reason for divid- ing an army up into squads, regiments, etc.? A. — Fundamentally, the same reason that leads business men to divide their business organizations into various de- partments. If an army were in one body, it would not only be absolutely unwieldy, but the commanding general and his staflE could not possibly issue orders to it. Under the system _ of dividing it, the commander-in-chief is able to issue his order to the entire army under him with the utmost ease and quickness by simply sending the orders to the division com- manders. These, in turn, do not need to try to reach their entire divisions, which, it must be remembered, may be scattered over many, miles of country. They simply give the orders to their brigade com- manders, and these transmit the command to the regimental headquarters. Thus, an array order, instead of needing to be passed to thousands of officers, needs to be sent to only a very few headquarters, and the commanding general always knows where these are at a given mo- ment. Q.— What is a battalion? A.— In the American Army it is an organized force of about 1,000 men (if composed of infantry)— that is, it is not a full regiment, but it is a body of men formidable in number and yet sufficiently compact to be easily handled. In former times a battalion was of in- terest to army men chiefly as being a con- venient and useful administrative unit of the army organization; but in the great war it has become one of the very im- portant sub-divisions of armies for direct fighting. , , , ,. '. . The strength of a battalion varies in the various armies. Some have expanded it so that it is almost as big as a regi- ment; but the best practice appears to be the one that has been adopted for the fighting organization of the United States. Under this system, a battalion of in- fantry ha;s 1,000 men under 26 officers, the comnianding officer being a major. The other branches of the service have less men in a battalion. There are two forms of American ma- chine-gun battalions. One has 550 nien under 20 officers, and it has 36 heavy machine guns and 12 spare guns. The other form of battalion has 728 men under 26 officers, and it has 48 heavy machine guns and 16 spare guns. A brand new type of American battalion is the trench-mortar battalion, which has 757 men under 17 officers. Other American battalion strengths are : light artillery, 579 men under 17 officers; heavy field artillery, 476 men under 12 of- ficers; engineer battalion, 753 men under 20 officers. Q. — What is an adjutant-general? A. — An officer who keeps the records, orders, and correspondence of the Army. He serves under the direction of the Sec- retary of War and of the Chief of Staff. Through him and over his name instruc- tions and regulations of the War _ De- partment are sent forward to military officers and troops. He is at once a sec- retary and archivist to the Secretary of War, and, to a large extent, rules the legal questions of an army. Q. — What offenses in the American army incur death penalty? A. — Eleven offenses are named in the regulations. Of these, spying, murder, and rape, and sometimes desertion in tile face of the enemy are punishable by hanging. The others are punishable by shooting, but the method is left to the commanding officers. The lesser offenses Our Army loS so punishable are cowardice, in any one of a variety of ways ; sleep or drunken- ness on sentry post; desertion or the in- citement to or assistance in desertion; attack upon a superior officer or insub- ordination ; mutiny or sedition ; mak- ing known the countersign ; aiding the enemy with ammunition "or any other thing," or harboring or giving intelligence to the enemy. In the offense of "neglect of sentry duty," which is a betrayal of responsi- bility whose seriousness has made it an almost unforgivable crime against mili- tary law, the letter of the regulation recognizes no difference between being asleep and being intoxicated. Q.^ — Is it any excuse for a sleeping sentry to plead that he was worn out? A. — The regulations say distinctly that "the fact that the accused had been pre- viously overtaxed by excessive guard duty is not a defense, although evidence to that effect may be received in extenua- tion of the offense." The reason for this severity is that the sentry who neglects his duty may have jeopardized all his comrades and perhaps the fate of a bat- tle or even a campaign. Q. — What is done to a private who punches an officer? , A. — He may be punished by death. He certainly will be punished with great se- verity. The American Army regulation is : "Any person subject to military Taw, who, on any pretense whatever, strikes his superior officer or draws or lifts up any weapon against him, being in the execution of his office, or willfully dis- obeys any lawful command of his su- perior officers, shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct." Q. — ^What is the difference between a brigade and a regiment? A. — A brigade is a force made up of a number of regiments. An American in- fantry brigade, under present conditions, contains two infantry regiments and has, in addition, a machine-gun battalion. Each regiment is commanded by its own officers, the commanding officer of each being a colonel. The whole is com- manded by a general of brigade, better known as brigadier-general. Brigades in old days often were as small as 3,000 men, but with the modern increase of regimental strength, an Amer- ican infantry brigade, at full war strength, has 8,000 men with 232 commissioned of- ficers. There are, also, brigades of field ar- tillery and of cavalry. A field artillery brigade has two regiments of light ar- tillery, one regiment of heavy artillery, and a trench-mortar battery. A cavalry brigade consists of three regiments of cavalry. Artillery and cavalry brigades have about 5,000 men each, counting of- ficers. Q. — ^What is meant by a battery? Does it mean any number of cannon or only a few? A. — "Battery" means to the artillery what "company" means to the infantry regiment— that is, it is the smallest unit of the organization, which is commanded directly by commissioned officers. An American battery of light artillery has four 3-inch guns and 193 men under S officers. The American battery of heavy field artillery has four 6-inch guns, 228 men, and five officers. (Of course, there is the full_ proportionate number of non- commissioned officers, such as sergeants, corporals, etc.) When two batteries of heavy, or three batteries of light, field artillery are com- bined, the organization is a battalion, and a major commands it. Q.— What is the difference between commissioned officers and non- commissioned ones? A. — Commissioned officers hold their position only by virtue of a commission issued to them under authority of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and" Navy. In the old establish- ment of the Army, the regular Army of- ficers were mostly from West Point, with comparatively few officers promoted from the ranks or appointed from civil- ian life. Non-commissioned officers are always men selected from the privates, and, despite their titles _ (corporal and ser- geant), thejr remain distinctly of the status of privates, in so far as their rank compares 'with that of even the lowest commissioned officer. They are appointed by the command- ing officer, of the regiment, usually on recommendation of the company com- mander. They may be degraded to the ranks again, for cause. io6 Questions and Answers Q. — Do commissioned officers in the army not get certain extras beside their pay? A. — They do. There are standard extra allowances for such things as "quarters" (meaning rental for living quarters), "light" (meaning a stated allowance per month for whatever light they need at night), "forage" (feed for cavalry horses), etc. The schedule of these extra allowances is fearfully and wonderfully intricate. It has been the subject o'f in- numerable Congress laws and war-depart- ment regulations, and old army officers, despite all their experience, find it a de- cidedly difficult task to figure out just how the allowances obtain in given cases. Roughly speaking, these extras increase the pay of American Army officers by about $30 monthly in the case of second lieutenants ; $46 for first lieutenants ; $59 for captains ; $73 for majors ; $87 for lieutenant-colonels; $110 for colonels; $114 for brigadier-generals; $127 for major-generals. It must be remembered that the theory is that these allowances are not added pay, but merely allowances to meet actual expenses. Q. — Is an officer on inactive duty entitled to wear his uniform? A. — He may if he desires. He must when on active duty. In the days of peace, a West Point man considered it very much against etiquette to wear his uniform at any time except when he was on actual duty within army limits. So far was this observance carried that of- ficers assigned to duties where uniforms were obligatory, often carried them in suitcases and donned them only on the spot where they had to wear them. It was a very rare thing, indeed, to see an American officer on the streets in uni- form. Q. — What is a private's first pro- motion? A. — Promotion to corporal. These are usually chosen from the first-class pri- vates. Corporals are the squad leaders. They are appointed by the commanding officer of the regiment on the recom- mendation of the commanding officer of the company. In addition, each company may have one lance corporal, a tem- porary appointment made by the com- pany commander for the purpose of test- ing the ability of some private for per- manent appointment. If the lance cor- poral does not make a good showing, he is returned to the ranks when the com- mander sees fit. Q. — Is a sergeant the highest non- commissioned officer? A. — ^Yes. He is next above the cor- poral in rank. There are usually 9 to 11 sergeants in a company. Unless a ser- geant has some other duty assigned to him, he is normally the leader of a pla- toon. There are, however, many special duties assigned to sergeants. The first sergeant (in Army slang, the "top ser- geant") keeps certain company records, forms the company in ranks, transmits or- ders from the company commander, and performs other important tasks. The supply sergeant sees to bringing up sup- plies of all kinds to the company. The mess sergeant looks after food. The stable sergeant is responsible for the care of horses and mules. The color sergeant carries the colors. There are many other grades within the rank of sergeant. Q. — What is the pay of American privates? Monthly pay. Serving Serving Rank. in U. S. Abroad. Private $30.00 $3300 First-class private 33.00 36.60 Corporal 36.00 40.20 Sergeant 38.00 44.00 First sergeant 51.00 60.00 Q. — Is an army corps a whole army by itself? A. — It is ; but a still bigger army, known as the field army, or simply as "the army," may be made of two or many more army corps. The "armies" holding the European fronts consist of dozens of army corps. In the United States service an army corps is formed by combining two or more divisions. Such a corps may con- sist of corps headquarters, 6 complete di- visions, and special corps troops, includ- ing I pioneer regiment of infantry, 2 regiments of cavalry, i anti-aircraft ma- chine-gun battalion, i anti-aircraft artil- lery battalion, i trench mortar battalion, I field battalion, signal corps, i telegraph battalion, 1 aero wing, i regiment of en- gineers, I pontoon train, i corps artillery park, I remount depot, i veterinary hos- pital, I bakery company, i supply train, I troop transport train. In addition, i ar- tillery brigade, i sanitary train, and I corps engineer park may be formed from detachments from the divisional organiza- tions. Its approximate strength is 185,000 officers aad men. Our Army 107 Q. — ^How big is an American army corps in France? A. — In March, 1918, it was decided to make an army corps of six divisions in order to conform to the "three-line" war- fare at the front — two divisions to hold a front line, two divisions behind them for re-enforcement or replacement, and behind them again another two divisions for the same purpose, Q. — Is a staff officer the member of a commanding officer's staif? A. — Any officer assigned to the staff of a commander, large or small, is known as staff officer. But the "staff" of an army is far more important and diversified than that. The "staff" branches of the_ army are all the branches that are not in the three fighting branches, infantry, artillery and cavalry. There are nine other branches, and these are the staff. They are: General staff corps, composed of specialists and authorities in tactics and strategy; adju- tant general's department; judge advo- cate general's department ; engineer corps ; signal corps ; medical department ; quar- termaster corps ; ordnance department. The first four contain only officers. The others contain officers and specially trained enlisted men. Q. — Is an army general as big a man as a naval admiral? A. — He is, in the American service. The two ranks compare exactly alike. We have, however, had very few soldiers of the rank of full General. In fact, we have had only four in our whole history — Washington, Grant, Sherman and Sher- idan. The way the other ranks compare is: Lieutenant-General Vice-Admiral Major-General Rear- Admiral Brigadier-General Commodore Colonel Captain Lieutenant-Colonel Commander Major Lieutenant-Commander Captain Lieutenant First Lieutenant. Lieutenant, junior grade Second Lieutenant Ensign There are no more Commodores, by the way, in active service. It is a title used only in the retired list. Q. — ^Why do none of the army of- ficers we see wear a sword? A. — The sword has gone out of use in field service, and officers now wear swords only in full-dress parade or on full-dress ceremonial occasions. In the field, officers carry a revolver or an auto- matic pistol for side-arm; and in actual fighting they may or may not use a rifle, according to circumstances. Q. — How can a young man get into West Point? A. — Up to 191S every applicant for admission to West Point had to stand physical and mental examinations. Since 191S a candidate may be admitted with- out mental examination on presentation of a certificate showing adequate pre- paratory training. Each Congressman has the naming of two, under the last law providing that two are to be appointed from each con- gressional district, two from each Ter- ritory, four from each State at large, and 80 from the United States at large. The President is authorized to appoint cadets from among the enlisted men of the United States Army and the National Guard, the total number so selected not to exceed 180 at any one time. Q. — ^Just what is West Point? A. — It is the government training school for the officers of the Regular Army. The United States Military Academy at West Point was established by act of Congress in 1802. In 1843 Congress provided that the cor^s of cadets at the academy should consist of one from each congressional district, one from each Territory, one from the Dis- trict of Columbia, and ten froni_ the United States at large, all to be appointed by the P^-esident of the United States. Under this plan, as expanded from time to time, the number of authorized cadet- ships in 1915 was 706, but in that year 79 cadetships were unfilled. The act of May 4, 1916, authorizes an increase of cadetships to 1,332, and pi-ovides that the increase shall take place in four an- nual increments as nearly equal as prac- ticable. Q. — What officers wear spurs? A. — AH those entitled to a mount wear spurs. Q. — What is a soldier's equipment? A. — Besides his extra clothing a soldier carries a blanket, a rubber poncho, a can- teen, a mess kit, including meat can, knife, fork, and spoon, a cup, toilet ar- ticles, a first-aid package, and some minor belongings. io8 Questions and Answers One of the most useful pieces is one- half of a shelter tent, with rope and pins. The shelter tent is said to be a French invention which was introduced into the American Army during the Civil War. In the Army it is often called a "dog tent," because of its shape and small size. Two men can combine their halves and set up a shelter tent in_ a few minutes. While it cannot be described as roomy, it is just what its name implies, a "shelter" from wind and rain. It is used only in temporary camps. Each soldier in a modern army car- ries with him sufficient food, clothing, shelter, fighting arms, and ammunition to take care of himself for a short period in case he should be separated from his comrades. Q. — ^What weight must an Ameri- can infantryman carry? A.— The total weight of his load, in addition to the clothes he wears, is 50 to 70 pounds. The number of articles is surprisingly large. They are so devised, however, that by ingenious methods of packing and adjusting they can all be carried with the least possible effort. This load is much lighter than that of the Germans and the French. It is probably the lightest weight equipment in any army. Q. — -How many cartridges does a soldier carry? A. — The amount of ammunition which an American infantryman carries into battle is usually 220 rounds. In an ad- vanced firing position, where it is diffi- cult to bring up reserves of ammunition, it is necessary to shoot with care pot to waste cartridges. Q. — Do all soldiers carry entrench- ing outfits? A. — All infantrymen do. In modern warfare the intrenching tool is a posi- tively vital part _ of fighting equipment. The eight men in each squad carry 8 tools: 4 shovels, 2 pick mattocks, i polo or hand ax, and i wire cutter. In ordi- nary soil they can quickly throw up a shallow trench which will protect to a great extent from the enemy's fire. After a trench has once been started, it can be deepened and extended, even in the face of thie enemy, without the soldier expos- ing himself to direct fire. Q. — What is the soldier's first work in the morning? A.— The soldier must get up about 6 o'clock, a little earlier in summer and a little later in winter. The buglers sound the call known as reveille. The men dress and fall in. The first thing is military drill which consists of "setting-up_ exercises," and occupies the first few minutes of the day. They consist of certain exercises of the head, arms, trunk, and legs, designed not merely to develop muscles but also to in- crease skill, control of the body, and self- reliance. Then comes "washing up" and break- fast. Usually breakfast is followed by a half-hour for cleaning the barracks and bunks and putting clothing and bedding in order. Frequently the company com- mander will inspect the barracks imme- diately to make sure that every man has attended to his part of the work. There is then often some timewhich the soldier uses for attending to his personal needs, tidying up his_ clothing, and the like. The remaining two or three hours of the morning are likely to be spent in drill, at first in "close order" and later in "extended order" also. During the drill there are numerous short periods of rest. In most camps guard mounting comes about noon. This consists of relieving the men who have been guarding the camp and turning^ over this duty to new men. Each soldier mounts guard not oftener than once a week, unless he is ordered to double duty as punishment. Q. — Are soldiers in camp kept busy all day? A. — They are, in training camps and in garrison. After ^ard mounting the men go to dinner, which comes at 12 o'clock. At least one hour is always allowed for dinner and rest. During the afternoons the work is varied to include additional setting-up exercises and other drills, target prac- tice and bayonet exercises. About 5 o'clock comes the evening parade and "retreat," when the flag is lowered or furled for the night. The band plays "The Star Spangled Banner," while all officers and soldiers stand at attention. Supper comes between 5 and 6 o'clock and is followed by a period of rest. Taps are sounded by 10 o'clock. This is the signal to put out all lights, retire, and keep quiet. SERVICE ARM AND RANK IN THE ARMY. US USR Regular Army National Army Reserve Corps The above letters, plain for officers and enlisted men, dress^niform; as buttons for enlisted men, service uniform,- are worn on collar of coat, or on the collar of the shirt if the coal is not worn; Xbe azmg of the s«i\uce are indicated by service hat cords and by collar Insignia, HAT CORQS. GBNERAL OEFICERS.— Gold.. ALIi OTHER OSyiCEKS- Gold, and WacU, BNIilSTED MEN Infantry- Lrfght^v'v'j&i Cavalry. .YeDoi» -ENLISTED MEN Artillery (P. and C.) Scarlet Hedical Department _jyiaroon, ENLISTED MEK QnartBrmaster Corps- Buff. Corps of Engineers Scarlet and whft&. ENLISTED MEN Ordnance Department Black and scarlet. Signal Corpa. _.Oiange and white. COLLAR INSIGNIA. Plain, ior (itlicer^ and enlisted dress uniform. Buttons enlisted service tmiloml. Infantry FielJlArtillery Medical Judge Advocate Department General's Department termaster Genaria'a Ordnance Cavalry • Coast Artillery Department pepartment ^ iutant General's Jnspector General's Corps of Eagineeis Signal Corps Adjutant General's Bepartment Jnspector General's Department Corps of Eagineeis COMMISSIONED OFFICERS —INSIGNIA ON SHOULDER HSm MH wmm E^^^^^^^^^^^KM ^VWW^^^g^gg^ Kg^^^^^^^g^^jg General Lieutenant General Major General Coat of arms of tho United Ojie Urge silver star and ^^^ jll-ver stars. States, and two sliver stars, two small sllvei stars. , ' h-«;V*S;'ii~W»^-wJv*n£««?S BiigadiBr Cieueral OneiWyer star. Colonel ■ Lieutenant Colonel, Sllvecr spread eagle> A silver leaf. Major A gold laa£. Captain Two silver bBTS. First Lieutenant One silver ban Second Lieutenant ^ laoB is^gola. Chaplain Latin croa^* CHEYRONS AND gPECIALXX, MARKS The more frequent Clievrons, only are given. The colors oi the hat cords are used in the ehevrona. Firait Sergeaml) ^ A Sergeant OorDOTAl Private, 1st fQass* 'Insignia of oolos of axm of servLofik. Casemate UBSSSBS Obeerveji Gminers H^i^MMHp Electrician. Eaglneerfi ITnfSr^rJtfat *^ ' ^^^st Class' Maater Coast Coast ArtUlffiy t-lottcr ^oaat .Commaudto Ooaat Ai-tUlery Qu nnen Artillery Artiitexy Vlffure of Rtorlt Const Artillery Wagoner Bugles UNITED STATES NAVY Mestnea CAP DEVICES Navy- Navy Ctaatmissioned Officer Warrant Officer Navy Chlfef Petty Officer Navy On ribbon V&St AND NMiE OF VESSEL EBTLISTED MEN ' Nawal Militia. , Naval Eeserpa On ribbon KAViL MILITIA. On ribbon^ UiTAl KESKHVE. FOKOE SERVICE COAT COLLAR DEVICES— NAVY (Also used on siroulder devices for ranlis tlirougii Commodoie.' (Marines ^ofr ramk on shoulder loop as in Aanjf.j LTOB QEFIOEES Admiral o£ the Navy Oommodore Admiral Vice Admiral Eear Admiral Captain Commander Lieutenant Cguunauder Lieutenant Junior Q^ada' J]i]£len« STAFF OJ'FICEES Same as equal rank of line officers, but corps devices aippeaT in p'ltefe of anchora CORES DEVICES 'Jledldal Par Praf.^ath.> Kaval Civil Pental Constructor Enginees Officer CHIEF WARHANT OEFICEBg., WARRANT OFFICERS. jyiATES \ cuiaplaln' Ch BoatawalnOh.Gunnor Cli.Maehlni3t CluCarpent«0h.Sailmaft6rCll.Pliaimaelst _ *^^'f ^ MidBiiip-^^ .^ Ch.Boatswainun Machinist Carpenter Sailmalcer PlraimaMm„ P"? Clerk .u^o Mate Boatswain unnnor 11111..U Payaostei's OtoTli OFFICERS' SHOULDER MARKS (Worn with White Summer Service Uniform.) Admiral Vice AdmirSl Reap Admiral Captain. Commandor IjiGutonant Lieutenant Junior Qrad6 Enslgi^ Chaplain. Chief Boatswain Lieutenant Commander Chief G-unnei; Chief Uachinist Gunner Boatswain CarpsAter Warrant Maehiuisfi Mats. Pay Clerk SLEEVE MARKS OF COMMISSIONED AND WARRANT OFFICERS NAVY. Staff offieeia same stripes, but instead of stars, corps colors are used with stripes* Corps eolores Medical, maroon; Pay, white; Prof. Math., olive greeni Civil Eng.,- blue; Med. Res., crimson; Dental, orange. LINE OFFICERS (Also used on shoulder devices fojlauks bejoiw Commotloce) BHBHB Captain Oonuuaader Liei^tenant Li-gtuenant Lieutenant Juuioi; Ensign Midshipman ■. ls.t Class Hidsliipman 2Qd Class Ch.Eoatswain Oh. Gunner Ch. Machinist Ch.CarpentBP ChfSailmaker Gh.Pharamcist Boatswain Gunner Machinist Mate RATINGS AND A FEW SPECIALTY MARKS NAVY G-unner's Mate Storefkeeper ^ Potty Officer 2nd Class Yeoman Petty Off ioea 3rd Class Boatswain's Mate Coxswain ^ Carpenter's Mate Plumber Bitter, Painter Turret Captain. 'Electrician Machinist's Mate Hospital Corps o > o 2: I""*" (II (0 o M o r*j s r w a w a w o o r o N IDENTIFICATION OF FIGHTING MEN Q. — How are our soldiers identi- fied? A,— A "Statistical Division" with a for- eign branch in Paris takes care of this. Every man in the Army, whether officer or private, is indexed by name, and the records filed in alphabetical order for im- mediate reference, should the names ap- pear either in Army orders or casualty lists. With the description of each sol- dier is given the name of his next of kin with emergency address. Each soldier wears about his neck and underneath his clothing a small tag giv- ing his name and company. The foreign branch of the Statistical Division has the fighting forces listed by regiments, as well as alphabetically. Whenever the names of soldiers figure in official dispatches, duplicate sets of records kept at Washington will afford quick refer- Q. — How are our sailors identi- fied? A. — Every officer and enlisted man in the United States Navy wears a metal identification tag which bears the wear- er's name, the date of his birth and en- listment, and, in the case of an officer, his rank and date of appointment. On the other side is etched the finger print of his right index finger. This is a part of what naval officers regard as the best system of identification known, superior to that in use in European armies and navies. Q. — What is the identification tag? A. — The identification tag consists of an oval plate of monel metal 1.25 by 1.50 inches, perforated at one end and suspend- ed from the neck by a monel wire encased in a cotton sleeve. A copy of each finger print on paper is supplied to the Bureau of Navigation, Navy Department, where it is filed in the identification section, this particular work being in charge of J. H. Taylor, finger-print expert, who devised the tag adopted. Q. — What is monel metal? A. — Monel is the alloy used for battle- ship propellers. It was chosen in prefer- ence to brass or any other metal because it is unaffected by heat, not melting until it has reached a temperature of 2,480 de- grees Fahrenheit. It will not corrode, and is not affected by salt water. On each ship and at each naval station a hospital- corps officer has charge of the prepara- tion of the tags. Q. — How are finger-prints taken? A, — The finger-print is taken in ink on the metal. The name and dates are then written on the tag, which is sprinkled with powdered asphaltum and held over an alcohol lamp until the asphaltum melts into the ink. The tag is then placed for an hour in a nitric-acid bath, which etches the finger-print and inscription on the metal. Q. — What is the chance of mis- takes? A. — There is not one chance in 65,000,- 000, the finger-print experts estimate, of a mistake in identification, as there are 65 characteristics in each finger and oiily one chance in 1,000,000 of the fingers of any two persons having the same char- acteristics. Q. — Are our soldiers not numbered, also? A. — The War Department has decided to assign a number to each enlisted man in the armies of the U. S. These num- bers (beginning at No. I and continuing without limit and without alphabetical pre- fix or affix) will be stamped on the metal identification tags now worn by the sol- diers. Q. — How does France tag her sol- diers ? A.— France uses a German-silver iden- tification tag for each soldier. It was intended to be worn on a string about the neck and hidden under the shirt, but the majority of "poilus" prefer to wear the tag on a chain about the wrist. In 191S it was decided to provide two tags, so that for identification purpose, one was to be removed by the authorities and the other was' to remain on the body for fu- ture identification. Q. — Are the British tagged? A. — The British Tommy, at the begin- ning of the war, wore a circular aluminum tag hanging on a string about his neck, 114 Identification of Fighting Men "5 containing his draft number, initials, name, regiment and religion. Owing to the scarcity of aluminum, it was decided in November, 1916, to adopt a new sys- tem. It consists of two tags, one octag- onal and red, the other round and green, and suspended from the first. In case of death, the green tag is removed and the red one left for future identification. The Belgians, in 1915, adopted the French model, fastened to the wrist by a chain bracelet. Q. — What is the Italian system? A. — The Italian identification tag (adopted in 1915) consists of an ornate book-like locket, containing a folded paper record suspended on a string around the neck. This record gives the wearer's full name, military class, recruiting dis- trict, names of parents, residence of im- mediate family, regiment, vaccination rec- ords and wounds. The Serbian soldier, in the beginning of the war, used an identification tag which was simply a metal plate sewed on the inside of his tunic. This method has now been replaced by the French identi- fication tag. Q. — Were Russian soldiers tagged? A. — ^With the exception of those Rus- sians who fought in France, no identifi- cation tags were provided for the Rus- sian soldiers. Hundreds of thousands of fallen Russians, therefore, never have been identified, and untold misery and countless legal tangles have ensued be- cause Russia failed to provide these in- expensive tags. Q. — When did Germany first tag soldiers? A, — In 1870, in the Franco-Prussian War. Germany entered the present war with the same tag that it had used then. This tag contained the numbers of the army corps, the regiment, the company and the draft. It was worn on a string around the neck. Sometimes a leather pouch protected it. Q. — Do the Germans still use the same tag? A. — No. In June, igig, a more com- plete tag of larger dimensions and oval in shape was adopted. It carried the names, residence, dates of birth, mobili- zation data, and a number of numerals and letters. In November, 1916, still another model was adopted by the German Army. It was even larger than the preceding one, and made in a split form. The two halves, one the duplicate of the other, are separ,ated by a serrated line, which makes it easy to detach one half of the identification tag, while the other half remains on the body of the fallen sol- dier. The Turks use a round tag of metal carrying the name, first name, and regi- mental number of the soldier, while the Austrian? use a locket similar to that_of the Italians. This is worn on a string which the soldier wears around his neck. Q. — How are the Chinese soldiers drafted and tagged? A. — They are first put through a thor- ough physical examination by the_ Brit- ish or French surgeon — an event in the Chinaman's life, who, probably, has never seen a European physician before. As all Chinese look alike to the Euro- pean officers who are to control him later, they simply must have a ready and sure means of identification. A steel brace- let with his number engraved upon it is marked with other data about the sol- dier in the official records. This brace- let is riveted about the owner's wrist, and none other than a blacksmith can re- move it. His queue is next shaved off by a bar- ber (for the sum of eight cents), and the celestial is treated to the surprise of his life. He gets a bath, and a brand-new suit of soldier clothes. He is ready then to go aboard the transport with all his belongings in a huge bundle on his back. THE PRISONER OF WAR Q. — Did the Germans intern Brit- ish civilian subjects before the British interned Germans? A. — They interned them afterward. November 8, 1914, Ambassador Gerard wrote from Berlin to Ambassador Page in London, saying that German opinion had been inflamed by the British pro- cedure of wholesale internment. Mr. Ge- rard wrote: "The (German) order for the general internment of British males between 17 and 55, which went into ef- fect on the 6th inst., was occasioned by the pressure of public opinion. Up to the 6th, considerable liberty of movement had been allowed to British subjects in Ger- many, and many petitions were received from them setting forth the favorable conditions under which they were allowed to live and to carry on their business, and urging the similar treatment of German subjects in England." Q. — Did the Germans put British, Russian and French prisoners in separate camps ? A. — No. The American Embassy fre- quently handed the German Government the British protests against putting all the nationalities and races together, but the Germans responded that they were all Allies and, therefore, had no right to de- mand separation. The American inspectors held that this was unjust, and subjected the Englishmen to unnecessary discomfort and humilia- tion, but there was no change. Q.^-Why has Germany refused to exchange prisoners? A. — Apparently for purely economical and strategical reasons. In the first place, the Germans calculated that the compara- tively few Germans who were in British and French hands would not be a very important asset to the big German armies, but that the same number of British and French would be a very valuable asset, indeed, to those armies, which needed men badly in the earlier years of the war. In the second place, they knew that the British labor unions opposed the use of German prisoners of war in industrial labor, whereas in Germany there was no such obstacle to utilizing the labor of prisoners of war, thus giving a clear economic advantage to Germany. 116 In the„ third place, British and, in part, French prisoners of war got a great deal of food from those countries. If these men were exchanged, the returned Ger- mans would have to be fed at home, and thus would make that much more drain on an already limited food-supply. Q. — Is a prisoner of war a convict? A. — His status is absolutely and specific- ally different from that of a convict. A soldier who is captured in honorable war- fare is entitled to treatment that entails neither stigma nor avoidable hardship. Theoretically, the captor has the right only to imprison him and hold him safe so that he shall not become a menace. In practice, however, the belligerents erect so many , safeguards and regulations that the quality of treatment ranges widely, according to the character of those in command of the various camps. A prisoner of war, for instance, re- mains a man who must submit to all mili- tary regulations, and who is as subject to discipline and military law as if he were in his own army. A stern commander who is severe with his own men naturally would be a pretty harsh commander of a prisoner camp. Q. — Were outsiders ever allowed to visit German war-prisoner camps ? A. — The American Embassy made regu- jar and stated inspections of all the camps in Germany, under arrangement with the German Government. In this duty the Americans did not represent the United States. _ They represented Great Britain, whose interests the Americans had taken over when war began. Everything was inspected, the men were questioned, and full detailed reports were made out. Q. — Were the prison camps in Germany as bad as the British alleged? A. — Some of the German camps, as is proved by the very exact and carefully considered report of Professor Daniel J. McCarthy, who conducted the work of inspection for the American Embassy, were frightfully bad — not merely bad from a sanitary and physical point of view, but equally bad because of the bru- The Prisoner of War. "7 talityof the officers and soldiers in charge. Others were excellent. Thus, such camps as Friedrichsfeld, Sol- tau, Parchim, Dulmen, Wahn, Wunsdorf, and many others, were praised by him as very good indeed. The camps of Minden, Limburg, Wittenberg, Schneidemuhl, Lan- gensalzen, etc., were very bad— "the dif- ference between heaven, relatively, and hell, absolutely," as Dr. McCarthy put it. He added that it was difficult to esti- mate the exact proportions of good and bad camps, and that "one might say that taking the problem as a whole, and for the majority of the camps, it was fairly well administered." This judgment, however, had to be qualified because of the many less satisfactory aspects presented by the huge problem of the many thousand scat- tered working camps. Q. — What were the differences be- tween the various camps? A. — In the best type of concentration, or "parent" camp, the prisoners were or- ganized on a military basis under their own noncommissioned officers, who were responsible for discipline, behavior, and clothing and, in some cases, were in charge of the kitchen as well. In the majority of camps, however, such a complete or- ganization was not permitted; in many ca.mps a partial organization was made, with some authority for the noncommis- sioned officers ; in others the prisoners were treated simply as criminals, without any rights, and were guarded at the point of the bayonet by men who were allowed to use almost any degree of brutality in enforcing their commands. Q. — ^To what was the difference in camps due? A.^-The fact that the army corps com- mander was practically supreme, and that he handed over the complete charge of the prison camp to the camp commandant, who was often of the same rank as him- self, gave opportunity for very good treat- ment, as it gave freedom for very bad, of prisoners of war. Dr. McCarthy quotes the saj^ng that was general throughout Germany, "Everything depends on the commandant." To a great extent, he says, that was literally true. Q ^What was Dr. McCarthy's general verdict on the German prison camps? A. — There were so many various _ as- pects that he could not make a summing- up that would be comprehensive. He says that he found prisons appallingly bad, and he found prisons really good ; commandants and guards who were brutal, and others who were considerate, kind, and intelligent. Some working camps were bad, some satisfactory. As an outstanding example of a bad camp, Dr. McCarthy describes that at Minden, which was one of the worst in Germany, and whose conditions he found not only bad but "inexcusable." One of the best of the "parent" camps was that at Friedrichsfeld, which had been remodeled. Dr. McCarthy explains, "so as to make it very qomfortable. There was a splendid organization of the camp and every effort was being made to make the men comfortable, guard their health, give them mental and physical relaxation, and to refit them for more useful work in the future." Q. — How large were the German prison camps? A. — Most camps were built to hold from ten to twelve thousand men, but some were much larger. The big camp at Parchim held forty thousand men in 1916. Q. — Did a big force guard the big number of prisoners? A. — The German practice was to have a guard about one-tenth in strength of the number of prisoners. This guard con- sisted usually of men who had been in the army, but were too old for active service, or else of young men physically unfit for servicein the field. Barbed wire divided most of the camps into blocks of buildings, and thus pre- vented any concerted action by the whole pumber of prisoners, even if there had not been constant watchfulness. In ad- dition, every prison camp was over- looked by many towers with platforms armed with medium-caliber cannon. Thus the prisoners were quite helpless. Q. — How many prison camps are there in Germany? A.-- About 150, counting in big and Ijt- tle. There were 105 big camps for pris- oners of war alone in 1916. In addition to these, which contained the enlisted men and noncommissioned officers, there were many smaller camps for officers. Then there were three great camps for interned civilians, and there was at least one camp for reserve officers. These were only the actual prison or concentration camps. iiS Questions and Answers Q.-^Were these prison camps the only ones in Germany? A_. — No. Those were only the concen- tration or parent camps. As the prison- ers of war were assigned to labor, they went to so-called working camps— camps attached to mines, factories, reclamation projects, etc. In one district alone there were i8,goo of these working camps at the period when the American Embassy made regular inspections. Q. — Did prisoners work with enough willingness to make it worth while? A. — The tedium of prison life made men want to work. In addition, most of them were employed in agricultural labor, and the prisoners soon discovered that the rural population was inclined to treat them well. As Professor McCarthy reported : "The distinction between the German people and the German Government was here very manifest. The prisoner of war, working in the fields with his employer, eating at the same table and often housed in the same house, lost the character of a hated enemy — the British and French prisoners were, as a rule, popular with their farmer employers and their families and, when well treated, made excellent workmen. The prisoner rarely attempted to escape, and rarely requested to be returned to the parent camp." Speaking of 1916, Dr. McCarthy said that the efficiency of war-prisoners in agri- cultural work reached certainly 80 per cent. It was less in industry, but, in a general way, the efficiency throughout ap- peared to range between 50 and 75 per cent. Q. — Who keeps prison camps clean? The captor Govern- ment? A. — No. It is the duty of the prisoners of war to keep their camps clean as the daily routine of their duty. Regulations prescribe what they shall do and how they shall do it, just as if they were in their own army. They must also do any other work around the camp, such as road-mak- ing, erecting fences and barbed-wire lines, etc. Q. — How are prisoners punished in a prison camp? A. — Prisoners of war who disobey or- ders or commit offenses lay themselves liable to trial, and they may be punished according to the regulations and laws of the country that holds them. Such pun- ishment in serious cases such as mutiny, assaulting guards or assaulting fellow- prisoners, may go even so far as death. Other serious offenses may be punished by terms of imprisonment. The offender then ceases to be a prisoner of war, and becomes a convict. Q. — Can war-prisoners be legally compelled to work? A. — Yes. The Hague Convention of 1899 (signed by Great Britain and Ger- many) says : "The State may utilize the labor of prisoners of war according to their rank and aptitude. These tasks shall not be excessive, and shall have nothing to do with military operations." Prisoners _ may be authorized to work for the public service, for private persons, or on their own account. Work done for the State must be paid according to the tariffs in force for sol- diers of the natipnal army employed in similar tasks. When the work is for other branches of the public service or for private per- sons, the conditions must be settled in agreement with the military authorities. The wages of the prisoners shall ?jo towards improving their position, and the balance shall be paid them at the time of their release, after deducting the cost of their maintenance. Q. — What happens to a prisoner who refuses to work? A. — Article 8 of the Hague Convention says: "Prisoners of war shall be subject to the laws in the army of the State into whose hands they have fallen. Any act of in- subordination warrants the adoption, as regards them, of such measures of se- verity as may be necessary." Q. — Can they be set to forced la- bor? A. — Yes. They may be set to forced labor, the only big condition being that they must not be set to work directly at military labor such as munition-making, etc. Q. — Did the Germans force pris- oners to work on munitions? A. — The American Embassy inspectors found that there was little of this. There was, however, much contention between prisoners and the authorities as to what was military labor, in the sense of the Hague Conventions. ' The Prisoner of War Iio Q. — Where did Serbia put her 60,- taken to reduce the rations seem to have 000 Austrian prisoners ? brought tHem to their senses, and I under- , ^ stand most are back at work again." A.—It was reported when von Macken- sen began his drive from Belgrade that Q. — WhTat British representatives all the Austrian prisoners had been re- attended the Anglo-German moved to Corsica, but, m view of the tt n f x-^yiici. immense difficulty the Serbians them- -Hague Conference on prison- selves experienced in getting across the ^^^ Oi war? Albanian Mountains it is pretty safe to A.-Six delegates from Great Britain assume that they took few if any, prison- y^^^^ gir Robert Younger for chairman ers away with them As these Austrians and Lord Newton as next in rank. One practically unguarded, were scattered all „£ the remaining four was Mrs. Darley over Serbia, It IS probable that most of Livingstone, the first woman to sit in a them rejoined the Austrian Army after diplomatic negotiation between nations, the invasion. She is an American, married to a British _, . _ . , . officer, and has been member and honor- V- — Are Crerman prisoners being ary secretary of the Government Commit- used as laborers in England? tee (English) on the Treatment of British ... J. 4. ^.t,, ...... . Prisoners by the Enemy, She is said . A.-According to the latest statements to have niore information and knowledge in the House of Commons, there are 84,- on the subject of British prisoners of wtr 000 German prisoners in British hands, j^ all its details than any other person A good number of these are used in road- j^ the empire making and quarrying. Recently the Bucklow Union Committee of the Ches- Q. — How many civilians were in- shire War Agricultural Committee applied temed ' for prisoners of war for service on the land. Experienced men were to be paid A. — There were at the end of May, 1917, £1 ($s) a week, men without experience 3,6oo British civilians interned in German iSs. ($3-75). Others are employed in prison camps, and 32,274 German civilians making mail bags, being paid 6d (12 cents) interned in British camps. a bag. Some of the civilian prisoners, also, are Q. — How many prisoners of war engaged in making mail bags, others are grg there in Germany? employed in quarrying, and it is planned » » . ^ , ^ ^ to employ them in clearing forest areas A.— August I, 1916, the German Cov- in the near future. ernment gave out the following omcial figures : Q._Did the German prisoners re- F,,„,h ToTr"" 3X731 fuse to work ? Russian 9,019 1,202,871 A.-It was announced in the House of Belgian , 656 4i,7Si Commons that German prisoners of war British 947 29,956 had refused to continue quarry work un- aeroian 22,914 less they received increased pay and ra- This made a total of 1,646,223, ex- tions. It was further stated, however, elusive of the 15,669 officers, up to that that disciplinary action having been taken, time, and it appears to have been con- the prisoners resumed work. sidered correct b}; the American rep- In the annual reports of several of the resentatives who visited the war-prisons larger coal and iron companies reference for the British Government, is made to the fact that German prison- ers are being used. In one of these, Q. — How many prisoners have the with headquarters at Middlesborough be- Germans taken since ? tween three hundred and four hundred German prisoners are utilized, and the A.— Lord Newton, Minister in charge Chairman of Directors stated : "Our man- of prisoners in Great Britain, stated on agement are thoroughly satisfied with the February 6, 1917, that he estimated the experiment, and the men themselves seem, Germans held 1,500,000 Russians, 400,000 on the whole, to prefer regular employ- French, 50,000 Belgians, and 3S,ooo Brit- ment with the allowance they can earn ish. According to that, the Germans rather than the enforced idleness of a would haye captured 300,000 Russians, prisoners' camp. During the past month, 44.000 French, 8,000 Belgians, and 4,000 however, at one of our quarries, they British between August, 1916, and Feb- struck work, but steps being promptly ruary, I9|7. I20 Questions and Answers Q. — What was the British figure at the end of 1917? A.---The British War Office, on Dec. 29,_ 1917, announced that the number of British prisoners held by the enemy, in- cluding those in Switzerland, totaled 46,- 712. The prisoners include members of the regular army, territorial forces, Royal Navy and naval division, held in the fol- lowing countries : In Germany, 43,699 ; in Turkey, 2,299; in Bulgaria, 628; and in Austria, 86. There are 2,257 officers and 44>45S men. This statement, compared with Lord Newton's figures of February, 1917, would indicate that between those dates the Ger- mans had taken about 8,000 more men on the western front. Q. — What was the total number of war-prisoners after two years of war? A. — It seems to have totaled about 4,175,000 men, taking all armies to- gether. Of these, the Central Powers had by far the most, probably holding at least 1,700,000 more men than the Allies — the big difference being due largely to their great captures of Russians. Q. — What prisoners did the Allies hold in 1917? A, — The Russians claim to have taken prisoner some 1,500,000 Austrians and Germans, but they never gave exact fig- ures. The total German losses in prison- ers and missing, according to their state- ment of last August, was 400,000. It is assumed that the French held something like 150,000. The British had 58,000, and the Russians presumably had the rest. The Italians claimed to have captured about 40,000 Austrians. If we add these approximate figures together we get the following result: In England 58,000 In France 150,000 In Italy 40,000 In Russia 1,000,000 Total 1,248,000 Q. — What prisoners did Germany's allies hold in 1916? A. — According to the German report, after two' years' war the Austrians held 781,566 Russians. They soon added to that total, and it would be perfectly safe to put it down as 800,000; if we do this, and include the Italians, we get the fol- lowing totals : In Germany (Lord Newton's es-. timate) ' 1,985.000 In Austria — Russians .. 800,000 Italians . . . 50,000 Serbians . . . 40,000 890,000 In Bulgarja 38,000 In Turkey 14,000 Total 2,927,000 Q. — How many prisoners had the Austrians in 1918? A. — According to the German official reports, the Austrians had 890,000 prison- ers in igi6. They have, of course, added heavily to that total since then. There has been the big drive into Italy, which added heavily to the number of Italian prisoners and, after that, the drive through the Ukraine. It may be assumed that the Austrians hold well over 1,000,- 000 prisoners. Q.— Where did Turkey get her prisoners? / A. — Turkey has, among others, all of General Towhshend's army, which sur- rendered at Kut near Bagdad. Few pris- oners were taken at Galhpoli. Q. — What was the fate of Ameri- cans taken in the trench raids in November? _A. — In February, 1918, six of the twelve missing^ men were reported^ as being pris- oners in the German prison camp of Tuchel, West Prussia. The report showed that with these six were two others, who had been captured in a later raid. CASUALTIES OF WAR Q. — ^Arc the losses in this war really greater than ever be- fore? A. — That was the general belief, and the news dispatches told almost daily of appalling numbers of dead after even a small engagement. However, in 1917, the Committee on Public Information (Washington) made the following state- ment: "There is probably little basis for the idea that the number of casualties in this war is any greater, in proportion to the number of men engaged, than in previous wars. In the French Army during the last six months of 1916 (which included three big offensives), the total losses in killed, wounded, and prisoners are offi- cially reported to have been only 1.28 per cent of the French forces under arms." Secretary of War Baker said, on Nov. ID, 1917: "Up to about June i, the losses of the British expeditionary forces in deaths in action and deaths from wounds were about 7 per cent of the total of all men sent to France since the beginning of the war. It may be added that the ratio of losses of this character to-day, because of improved tactics and the swiftly mounting Allied superiority in artillery, is less than seven to every hundred men." Q. — How did the various Govern- ments report their losses? A. — Each Government organized a big staff of accountants who received the de- tailed lists of dead and wounded from the front, arranged them, and sent official notifications to the nearest of kin. Thus, while every family was fully and promptly informed of any of its members dead or wounded, the information, being scat- tered in detail throughout the whole coun- try, was of no use to the enemy, for nobody could gather all the individual reports, of course. Q. — Have the nations at war tried to hide their total casualties? A. — Yes and no. They have tried sys- tematically to hide them from their ene- mies, of course. They have also tried in various ways not to dismay their own people by too sudden or drastic a state- ment of aggregate losses, especially after heavy engagements. For this purpose they have tried many methods and ways of presenting the facts in what they deemed the most advisable form. In conse- quence, even the most careful statistician with the best accumulations of official statements before him, finds that it is im- possible to give accurate _ and final esti- mates of the total losses in this war. Q. — Did the British Government not report its aggregate losses? _ A. — ^Yes. It issued weekly and monthly lists, and then made it a regular thing to issue a weekly list giving in total the number of officers and men killed, wounded or missing. Q. — How did the outer world get reports of the German losses? A. — The Germans posted printed local lists in all the town halls, post-offices, and other places where the public could see thera and look for the names of friends or kindred. It was easy enough to ascer- tain the lengths of the columns and, by counting the names in one, to estimate the whole number at a glance. As the country was full of neutrals in the early part of the war, this information went out pretty freely. After some time, how- ever, it was discovered that the German system of army corps, divisions, etc., caused many duplications, the same name being given in different lists in different parts of the country. However, with estimates and the figures given from time to time by the Government, a fairly ac- curate estimate was reached. Q. — Have the French made their losses public? A. — No. The French have maintained consistently that it would give the Ger- mans important information, and in March, 1918, they represented to General Pershing that the American custom of making public full details of names, resi- dences, etc., of killed and wounded was dangerous. General Peyton C. March, act- ing Chief of Staff in Washington, in dis- cussing the French attitude, repeated that the Frencli Government has never issued a casualty list of any kind since the be- ginning of the war. The French War Office in Paris transmits the name of every man killed or wounded to the mayor of the town from which he came, and this official notifies the fjimily. 21 122 Questions and Answers Q. — Can a fairly close estimate of the total killed and wounded be made? A. — Yes. After checking and re-check- ing many dozen estimates, and testing the reports and estimates of each side against those of the other side, we find that we can get figures that approximate correct- ness pretty well, so far as the Germans, British and French are concerned. Q. — What are these total figures of killed? A. — The figures that appear the most nearly correct show the following totals for the whole war up to about October, 1917: German killed, 1,500,000; French killed, 1,057,000; British killed, 1,159,000, or a total of 3,716,000 dead for these three nations alone. Q. — How many were lost by Rus- sians, Serbs, etc.? A. — Their figures are wildly conflicting. It is impossible, too, to give accurate fig- ures of Italian losses. Q.-i-Were not hundreds of thou- sands killed in single engage- ments? A. — Dispatches hot from a scene of war are almost always "subject to cor- rection." Generally the correction has to be pretty radical. _ During the Russo- Japanese War, for instance, a well-known newspaper, which was enthusiastically in favor of Russia, announced such killings of Japanese in each of the early battles, that long before the war was ended the entire Japanese army had been utterly de- stroyed. As the Japanese subsequently took Port Arthur, and fought the Battle of Mukden, an unkind commentator re- marked that it must have been done by Japanese ghosts. Q. — What was the total of wound- ed in the whole war? A. — Up to October, 1917, the total wounded appear to have been : German, 3,100,000; French, 3,900,000; British, 2,- 900,000 — or a total of 9,900,000 men for the three big nations alone. Q. — Has there been an estimate of the wounded of all nations? A. — Yes. A report made to Congress in February, 1918, said: "There are at present approximately 13,000,000 wounded and crippled soldiers in the belligerent countries of Europe." Q. — What were the German offi- cial figures ? A, — The casualties reported in the Ger- man official lists were, to the end of June, 1917, as follows: Killed and died from wounds 1,032,800 Died from sickness 72,960 Prisoners 316,506 Missing 275,460 Severely wounded 590,883 Wounded .. 315.239 Wounded, but remaining in service , 263,774 Slightly wounded 1,655,685 Total 4.523.307 Q. — How did their opponents fig- ure the German losses? A. — Almost exactly the same. The French Government made an estimate that in September, 1917, Germany had 6,100,000 men in military service on the front lines or behind them ; had lost as killed, disabled, or prisoners, 4,000,000; and had in hospitals 500,000 more, mak- ing a grand total of I0,6oo,000 men who have been used in war. According to the same estimate, Germany has had 14,000,- 000 men available since 1914 and including the class of 1920 (now in their seven- teenth year). In the 3,400,000 men of military age not yet in the army are in- cluded those physically unfit, and those indispensable to her industries. Q. — Has no reliable estimate been made of total losses for all the nations ? A. — No. It is extremely difficult to gain anything like a clear idea from the confused and very contradictory reports that were made by the Russian, Austrian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Turkish Govern- ments. That the Russian losses from death in battle, wounds and disease were enormous, we know. We know, too, that the Austrian losses have been exceedingly heavy, but we do not know how nearly they approximate to the French. It seems reasonably well established that they are less than were the Russian, and that they must be far less than the German losses, who fought on many fronts. Arthur Henderson, while a member of the British War Cabinet, said that the total losses to both sides in killed, wound- ed and missing were 46 million. i^asuames of War "3 Q. — What proportion of wounded men die? A. — Modern surgery has so progressed that only about eight per cent of the wounded fail to survive. Of the remain- ing 92 per cent, about 20 per cent are more or less permanently disabled. The rest are able to return to the firing line. Thus, about 72 per cent of the wounded recover. Q. — Is it true that more than ninety per cent of the German wound- ed recover and return to the front? A.— The German military authorities declare that 89 per cent return to duty. The Committee on Public Information, in its "Home-Reading Course for Amer- ican Citizen Soldiers," says: "Even in the early months of the war it was announced that of the wounded actually treated in French hospitals, S4-S per cent were returned to duty within a short time ; 24.5 per cent were sent home to complete recovery, and later returned to duty; 17 per cent at the time of mak- ing the report were still in hospitals, with the probability of complete recovery; 1.5 per cent were unfit for further service ; 2.S per cent had died from the effects of their wounds." This would make 79 per cent of the wounded returning to duty, and, adding the 17 per cent who were listed as prob- ably sure to recover, it would make 96 per cent. However, it is extremely unlikely that this great percentage can all return to the fighting work known as "active duty." A big proportion must, no doubt, be as- signed to easier work, behind the lines, guarding communications, etc. Q. — What was the ratio of killed in the third year of war? A. — Much less than it had been in the earlier periods. In March, 1918, a United States Government report said : "It appears that the killed in action and died of wounds have not exceeded one- fifth of the total casualties. Approxi- mately four-iifths survive. Some among these recover completely, developing 100 per cent of their former vocational ef- ficiency; some recover partial efficiency in their old employment; some are inca- pacitated totally for their old employment, but are capable of greater or less effi- ciency in other employments, provided they get the vocational training required to overcome their specific handicaps ; some are totally incapable for any sort of vo- cational training. Q- — Has the rate of casualties de- creased steadily in this war? A.— Yes. In France, for instance, the ratio of casualties was highest during the opening period of the war, in which the battles of Charleroi and the Marne were fought. In each six months of the years 1915 and, 1916 the ratio of casualties to men mobilized in the French Army de- clined : from 2.39 per cent in the first six months of 1915 to 1.68 per cent in the six months following; to 1.47 per cent in the first half of 1916, and to 1.28 per cent in the latter half of that year. Q. — Is every "disabled" man a hopeless cripple? A.— -An official statement made in Washington early in 1917 said: "The popular idea that every disabled man is a cripple is disproved by the fig- ures of the inter-Allied conference, held in Paris in May, 1917. These figures show only 167 cases of amputation in every 1,000 disabilities. Consequently, 833 cases in every 1,000 are injuries of other kinds. The men are classified according to their most serious disability, but in 14 or 15 per cent of all cases there are two or three, or even four, injuries. Blindness is given as low as less than i per cent of the disabilities, and French figures give the percentage of blindness to be .05 per cent of the soldiers engaged in battle." Q. — Must we expect many of our boys to return disabled? A. — Canadian figures, puhjished early in 1918, showed that 10 per cent of the men sent overseas had been returned phys- ically unfit for further military service, and that of this 10 per cent 30 per cent were in hospitals at the time of the re- port. The majority of these patients were convalescing, since men are not returned to Canada until their physical condition permits. On the basis of Canadian and of Eu- ropean experience, it would appear that the United States may fairly anticipate that for 1,000,000 men overseas 100,000 will be returned each year unfit for mili- tary service, and that the number of pa- tients constantly in the hospitals will be from 30,000 to 50,000. 124 Questions and Answers Q. — ^Just what number of men are likely to be disabled? A. — A broad general estimate by Ameri- can Government experts is as follows : fNumber of men in service.... Number of men returned unfit for military service Number not requiring voca- tional re-education Number requiring vocational re- education : Complete Partial 1,000,000 100,000 8o,ooo 10,000 10,000 Q. — What have the British casual- ties been lately? A. — British casualties reported in De- cember, 1917, reached a total of 79,527, divided as follows : Killed or died of wounds — officers, 1,045 > men, 14,805. Wounded or missing — officers, 3,342; men, 60,335. Casualties reported from Decem- ber 26 to 31 were 9,951, divided as fol- lows : Killed or died of wounds — offi- cers, 65 ; men, 2,059. Wounded or miss- ing — officers, 238; men, 7,589. The total British casualties for the last six months of 1917 were 521,373, the lowest figure in any one month being 60,373 for August. Q. — What is the proportion of offi- cers to men killed and wound- ed? A. — That is difficult to say, as only Great Britain gives any particulars as to how many officers are among the casual- ties. It is pretty certain that at the be- ginning of the war the losses of English officers were heavier than those of the French, Germans or Russians. All neu- trals appear to agree that the British of- ficer exposed himself too much, but that fault has been remedied, and they have learned that, after all, an officer is the part of the machinery of an army most difficult to replace. Roughly, there was one officer to every forty men in the Brit- ish Army. In the early engagements there was one officer to every thirty men in the casualty lists, but sometimes the pro- portion was as high as one to fifteen. The proportion of British officers to men killed ran about I to 15 in 1917 and 1918. Q.— What were the Russian losses at Tannenberg? A.' — Seventy thousand men were re- ported to have been captured there, and some 100,000 were killed or wounded. The vastness of the losses was due to the fact that von Hindenburg drove great masses of the Czar's soldiers into the lakes. It is said that his army was num- erically much inferior to that of the Rus- sians, but by the skilful use of the rail- ways, on ground which he had studied for very many years, he was able to de- ceive the Russians as to the size of his forces, and entangle them in the lakes. Q. — What casualties have the Can- adians sustained? A.— Up to the end of June, 1917, the casualties were as follows : Killed or wounded 142,779 Missing 3I>Q55 Discharged 26,000 Q. — What have the Australian cas- ualties been? A. — Up to the end of September, 1917, the casualties were as follows : OFFICERS. Dead .., Wounded Missing Sick Prisoners Casualty unknown Total CHAPLAINS. Dead .... ^Vounded Sick Total NURSES. Dead .... Wounded Sick .... Total i,3S8 1,183 40 1,337 91 69 4.078 3 7 25 35 7 I 142 150 OTHERS. Dead .., 30.4S6 Wounded 43,043 Missing 1,644 Sick . . ., 25,294 Prisoners 2,810 Casualty unknown 180 Total 103,427 The total number of Australians out of action is 107,690. Casualties of War 125 Q. — How many Germans fell in the attack on Liege? A. — The various reports of losses that were spread through the world, if added up, would _ have totaled almost 120,000. As the entire attacking army, under von Emmich, consisted, _ when strongest, of 40,000 men only, this figure is obviously absurd. The Germans say that they lost 10,000 killed and wounded before Liege surrendered. Q. — What were the British casual- ties in the Gallipoli campaign? A. — It was officially stated that up to December 9, 1915, the total number of British casualties at the Dardanelles were as follows: Killed— Officers 1,667 Others 24,535 Wounded — Officers 3,028 Others 72,781 Missing — Officers 350 Others 12,194 A total altogether of ii4,SSS The Australian casualty lists, as pub- lished there up to the end of March, 1916, gave the following total: Dead— Officers 347 Others 6,443 Wounded — Officers 262 Others io,ii8 Missing — Officers 19 iDthers .1,887 A total altogether of. . 19,076 If we deduct this from the II45SS British casualties) we get the losses (95,- 000), which were sustained by British forces, other than Australian, on the Pen- insula. It is reasonable to assume that, as the British losses were five times as great as the Australian, there must have been five times as many British and Indian troops used on the peninsula as there were Australian. In addition, there were a lar^e number of French soldiers used at Krithia. Q. — How much does it cost to kill a soldier? A. — The French General Percin has es- timated that in the Franco-Prussian War of l870-7li it cost $21,000 each; in the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, it cost $20,- 500. It is impossible to make even a rough estimate as to the amount it costs to kill a man in the present war. It is undoubtedly costing more to kill one now than it did in 1914. If we assume that during the first three years the total num- ber of men killed was 3,000,000, and the total amount of cash expended by the belligerents on the war was $75,000,000,- 000, it would work out at $25,000 per man killed. Q. — Is it true that the Germans use moss instead of cotton wool for dressing wounds? A. — The Germans are not alone in using it. Sphagnum moss is used by the British also. Special machinery has been set up in Scotland to prepare the moss for use. It is washed first and freed from any foreign substance. It then is wrung out and passes to the drying room. After be- ing thoroughly dried it is weighed and compressed in powerful hydraulic presses. It is being widely used now, giving in- deed much better results than cotton wool. Its healing powers were discovered quite by accident. A worker met with a se- rious injury in a peat moss litter works in Germany, and, no appliances being handy, his fellows laid moss litter on the wound and bandaged it up. When the man reached a hospital, the doctors were horrified at the dirty-looking litter, and declared that the limb would have to be amputated. They found, however, that far from poisoning the wound, as they had feared, the injury had been actually cleaned by the rude emergency dressing. Thus was. "discovered" sphagnum moss from the surgeon's point of view. Q. — Are all soldiers vaccinated against typhoid? A. — ^Yes. All the British, French, Ger- man and American soldiers are inoculated against typhoid on the American plan, which proved singularly successful only recently when our troops were on the Mexican border. The Japanese used the system, or one like it, in the Russo-Jap- anese War with wonderful results. Q. — Are our soldiers vaccinated against anything else? A. — Yes. They get a series of inocula- tions. They are, of course, vaccinated 126 Questions and Answers against small-pox. In addition, they are inoculated against the pneumonia germ, against measles and scarlet fever, and spe- cialists were working in 1918 to find the germ of the dreaded "trench fever." Q. — What is tetanus? A. — It is the disorder known by the common name of lockjaw. It is caused by the bacilli tetani, a germ having its home in the earth. For this reason the grim affliction is so prevalent among wounded soldiers, who often lie for hours with open wounds, on the fields, or in trenches. In acute cases the chance of re- covery is exceedingly remote. Q..^Is there no cure? A.— There is an antitoxin treatment, first used on an extensive and radical scale during the war. It is not a positive cure, but it has greatly minimized the fatali- ties. Q. — What happens to wounded be- tween two lines? A. — The wounded remain where they fall. It is impossible to remove them. Those who can do so endeavor to crawl away. Succeeding charges go over them. There is no practice in the war of allow- ing the enemy to remove them from the zone of fire. After the attacks have failed, all those who are severely wounded may have to remain where they are, and the majority die. Q. — How does care of wounded compare with the Civil War? A. — The wounded in the Civil War were collected at night by both armies, instead of during the conflict, each side by mutual agreement allowing the other side to carry on the work unmolested. Little was done toward speeding up the treatment of the wounded, except in a few cases that came to the attention of the army surgeon, as he rode about the battlefield in company with mounted staff officers. He would select a few of the less serious cases, carry them to a favor- able place, and give treatment. Only in the latter part of the war were anything like dressing-stations or field-hospitals es- tablished, and then only when buildings near by offered temporary shelter. • Q. — Does the medical service suf- fer heavily in this war? A. — During three years of war the British Medical Corps suffered 11,667 cas- ualties, with a death-roll of 1,200. Q. — Are many soldiers incapaci- tated without being wounded? A.— Yes. Very many. There are big groups who suffer from functional dis- turbances of the central nervous system. These cases present paralyses and other disturbances of locomotion, which are purely hysterical, or they show mental dis- orders which are also functional, but are like true insanity. One of the character- istic cases is that known as "shell shock," due to sudden and unexpected exposure to the vibration and noise of the discharge of high explosives. Much success has been achieved by systems of nerve and muscle ediication, especially in French in- stitutions devoted to this work. Q. — Has the war produced new diseases? A. — Yes — new in the sense that Western and Central Europe had never been af- flicted by them before. One is "spotted typhus," Carried by the body louse — nor- mally found only in Southeastern Europe. Another disease is known as "trench fever," which is a short, very debilitating fever of low mortality, that incapacitates its victims for an appreciable period. Q. — Has antisepsis been developed in this war? A. — Very much so. Dr. Samuel W. Lambert, dean of the College of Physi- cians and Surgeons, says : "The greatest additions to the anti- septic treatment of wounds have come from the studies of Dr. Dakin, who has applied the properties of chlorine prepara- tions to the disinfection of wounds. The problem which he solved was to discover strong antiseptics able to destroy microbes without damaging normal tissues. Dr. Alexis Carrel developed a method of using Dr. Dakin's antiseptics by putting into the wounded tissues a system of multiple tubes, and thus keeping the wound constantly washed with the anti- septic solution." Q. — Can disabled soldiers really be made self-supporting? A. — Of the men returned in Canada unfit for military service, 80 per cent re- turn to their former occupations without vocational training or are incapable of such training, and 20 per cent require vo- cational training. One-half of those re- quiring vocational training, or 10 per cent of those returned unfit for military serv- ice, require complete vocational re-educa- i^asuames of War 127 tion, and one-half partial vocational re- education. Q. — What was the first nation to use her wounded over again? A. — Belgium, whose depletion has been the greatest, was the first nation success- fully to use her men over again. Not only has the large Belgian re-education center of Port Villez been self-support- ing, but it has paid back to the Belgian Government the entire capital cost of in- stallation. The men, meantime, have not only received 43 centimes per day, the regular pay of the Belgian soldier, but also 5 to 20 centimes an hour, according to their work. In addition, surplus prof- its are funded for the men. Forty-three trades are taught at Port Villez under the most competent instructors, A large part of the material for the Belgian Army is made by them. Q. — What are we going to do about men who are disabled? A. — Plans for the rehabilitation and re- education of soldiers and sailors disabled in the war, so that they may actually earn higher wages than before their enlistment, have been outlined in two reports sub- mitted to Congress by the Federal Board of Vocational Education. The reports urged an immediate appropriation for the training of teachers for the work and for establishing great schools near hospitals in all parts of the country. Q. — Has Germany reclaimed many disabled men? A. — The Federal Board of Vocational Education says: "It is claimed that Germany uses 85 to 90 per cent of her disabled back of the lines, and that the majority of the re- maining 10 to IS per cent are entirely self- supporting." Q. — What is the difference be- tween indemnity and repara- tion? A. — In many ways the terms are syn- onymous. A nation sufficiently victorious to lay down terms that its enemy simply must accept, would be very likely to make only very dubious technical distinction be- tween the two. Adhering closely to the narrow mean- ing of the two words, however, there is a decided difference. The payment of in- demnity carries with it a confession that the nation paying it has wrongfully caused a war. No nation acknowledges such z thing as a rule. Therefore in- demnity in its final essence is a payment exacted under duress from a vanquished nation. Reparation, on the other hand, may con- ceivably be a voluntary payment made by a victorious nation. Such reparation would be chiefly a matter of bookkeep- ing, limiting itself to repayment of actual material values destroyed. It might pos- sibly extend so far as to repay even the war-expenses of the_ nation getting the reparation, but that is highly unlikely. Q. — Which would involve the most money — indemnity or repara- tion? A. — Indemnity is an arbitrarily fixed sum which the vanquished nation is ex- pected to pay without argument. A victor might exact an indemnity which is actu- ally less than his own material money losses — that is, it might be less than actual reparation would cost. But indem- nity generally is a huge sum whose basic principle would be that the vanquished must pay first of all the War-expenses of the victor. To this might be added any- thing that the victor may choose, or, at least, as much as he might think the van- quished can pay. Such indemnity might include both material and intangible damages — loss of life, of trade, sufferings of the nation at home, loss of trade, in- jury to national prestige, even injury to national dignity. BATTLES OF THE GREAT WAR Q. — What was the first pitched battle of the war? A. — The first pitched battle of the war was in front of Metz after French forces had crossed the German frontier. It was fought while German forces still were in Belgium, before they had made their way into France. The French were defeated. Q. — How many British fought at Namur? A. — It is estimated by British writers that French's command at that time was about 70,000 men. Q. — Why did the French fall back on Paris? A. — The original French plan called for a stand at the Belgium frontier near Namur. This point was to be held by a smaller force than was thrown against it by the enemy and was to hold out at all costs. Behind the line were to be collected the reserves and forces of maneuvering until they were so organized as to be able to strike a concentrated blow at some point. The force at Namur did not hold out so long as was necessary and they were virtually overwhelmed and came near to being outflanked. Consequently they had to retreat or be annihilated. They re- treated and the whole French line had to fall back with them. It fell back as slowly as possible so as to allow the maneuvering masses to form at its rear. These masses were in fighting trim when the Meuse was reached; here a stand was made and their strength brought into play. -^ Q. — When did a Russian army make a wonderful escape? A. — After the fall of Warsaw in 1915, General Hindenburg tried to smash be- tween two parts of the Russian Army, and capture or destroy it in the Pripet Marshes. The Russian situation was so desperate that for a few days total disas- ter seemed inevitable. But by wonder- fully brilliant tactics (among the most brilliant in the war, during which at one time they actually surrounded two Ger- man army corps even while they were surrounded themselves) they broke their v/ay out. 128 The retreat, under the circumstances, could not fail to be disastrous. The Ger- mans made 100,000 prisoners during a, week; but'ihe Russian Army, as an army, was saved. Q. — What was the most spectacu- lar operation of the war? A.— Perhaps it was the sea and land attack on the Dardanelles. But the one that was clearest and most graphic to the American people was no doubt the tre- mendous attack on, and the marvellous defense of Verdun, the military key to the west front, which the German Crown Prince tried to take in 1916. It has been, since 1871, the most important of the French defenses on the eastern frontier between the Argonne and the Vosges. During the German advance of 1914 Verdun held out under violent attack, although the German were able to push a deep salient to the south at St. Mihiei. In February, 1916, the armies of the German Crown Prince began a furious and sensational assault upon Verdun. At first the German offensive proved irre- sistible and led to the capture of a large portion of the fortified area around Ver- dun and of such important forts as Douaumont and Vaux. But the German losses were terrific. Verdun was called "the grave" by German soldiers, and the final check administered to their attacks by the French marked the end of German offensive for a long period on the western front. A counter offensive, organized by General Nivelle in October, 1916, and an- other in August, 1917, enabled the French at small cost quickly to reclaim practically all the ground they had lost in the great German attack of 1916. Q. — Is the Chemin des Dames a fort? A. — No. It is simply a road, but a most important one, because it runs along a crest of hills overlooking the valley of the Ailette River in northern France. Here the Germans retained a foothold after the battle of the Aisne. The French offensive north of Rheims in the summer of 1917 included attacks on the town of Craonne and the Chemin des Dames. The French success at the Chemin des Dames in June furnished some of the most desperate fighting of the war. Ger- man counter attacks against the ridge in Battles of the Great War 129 July outrivaled their attacks at Verdun. They failed to dislodge the French from their advantage. Q. — Why did the Russians not break into Germany early in the war? A. — They did so twice but the fortune of war went badly against them. Almost as soon as war began they sent a big army into East Prussia, but August 26-31, 1914, General Hindenburg fought and won the famous Battle of Tannenberg and cap- tured practically the entire army. In January, 1915, the Russians moved through the Mazurian Lake regions (in the same general territory and with the same general object of over-running East Prussia). They advanced so rapidly that the world expected the certain investment of Koenigsberg and other fortified Ger- man cities. But in February Hindenburg again countered and the Russians suffered a terrific disaster in the lakes and swamps, being routed in almost complete disorder and losing more than 40,000 men in pris- oners beside the big losses in killed. This great battle ended all Russian attempts to invade Germany. After that the Rus- sians centered their efforts on the Aus- trian front, so far as attempts at inva- sion went. Q.^r-Was Tannenberg the greatest victory so far? A. — tt was the greatest success in a single battle, for this two-days' victory over the Russians on August 29-31, 1914, in the neighborhood of Tannenberg in East Prussia, resulted in the capture of 70,060 Russians, including 2 generals, 300 officers and the equipment of two whole army corps. Q. — Why was there such a fight for the Carso? A. — Because the Carso is a huge moun- tainous plateau that commands the road to Trieste. It is near the head of the Adriatic and on the coast road from the Isonzo to Trieste. The Italians began a mighty offensive in this region late in May, 1917. Its initial success promised to clear the entire front from Tolmino to the sea. A sudden and absolutely ca- tastrophic Austro-German drive began in this region in October, 1917, and pressed the Italians back to the Piave River after a defeat that bade fair at one time to shatter the Italian resistance and give all Venetia to the invaders. But at the Piave the Italians succeeded in holding fast Q. — Was the GalUpoli campaign a failure? A.— Yes. The British and French forces were withdrawn and the attempt to force the Dardanelles abandoned after eight months fighting in which 115,000 British soldiers alone were killed, wounded or captured. Q. — What caused the British fail- ure in the Dardanelles? A. — The main causes of the failure of the Dardanelles campaign of 1915 are con- sidered to be: First, lack of concentra- tion of military forces upon the Penin- sula of Gallipoli, due to the fear of German-Turkish design on Egypt; sec- ond, lack of co-operation between army and navy; third, lack of heavy artillery to assist in reducing the Turkish posi- tions ; fourth, the natural impregnable na- ture of the straits. The first attempt, made by the navy alone, was a total failure and simply dem- onstrated anew that fortifications well armed and fought, cannot be reduced from the sea without land actions to assail the forts simultaneously from the rear. Q. — Has this front been quite abandoned ? A. — Gallipoli was completely evacuated January 8, igi6. Q. — Has there been any really de- cisive battle so far? A. — No — not decisive in the sense of winning the war. A number of battles have beenT decisive as changing the phases of the war. Thus the Battle of the Marne in September, 1914, definitely ended the triumphant sweep of the Germans toward Paris, and made impossible their plans for cutting off the French Army, and thus ending the war in the west quickly, be- fore Russia could get ready in the east. Again the two battles (Tannenberg and the Mazurian Lakes) destroyed the Rus- sian plans for invading Germany. The first battle of Verdun, February to October, 1916, decided the character of Germany's warfare for a long time there- after, forcing the Germans to a defensive holding of their line in place of an of- fensive. The battles of October and November, 1917, on the Isonzo and related Italian fronts swept away the Italian gains of two years and decisively carried the war into the Italian plains. I30 Questions and Answers Q- — When was Jerusalem cap- tured? A. — Jerusalem was taken by the British forces under General Sir Edmund Alien- by on December lo, 1917, and the victori- ous commander entered officially at noon on December nth. The final attacks near the city were made December 8th. Gen- eral Allenby entered the city on foot with a few of the staff, the commanders of the French and Italian detachments, the heads of the political missions and the mil- itary attaches of France, Italy and Amer- ica. Q. — Was there a really great siege in this war? A. — Yes. A spectacular and wonderful siege was that of Przemysl (pronounced Chemisel), a fortified city of Galicia, which was invested by the Russians Sep- tember 16 to October 14, 1914. The siege was temporarily abandoned because of Hindenburg's offensive, but was renewed in November. The Austrian garrison, completely cut off, made underground strongholds and batteries, after the outlying fortifications were destroyed, and for a time aeroplanes supplied food. The siege lasted for s months after the second investment began, the garrison not surrendering until March 22, 1915- The Russian victory was brief. On June 3, 1915, an Austro-German army, under General Mackensen, retook the city and kept it Q. — Were there any other remark- able sieges? A. — As magnificent as the defense of Przemysl and even more romantic was the splendid defense of the besieged Brit- ish army in Kut-el-Amara, a city in Meso- potamia about 100 miles below Bagdad, occupied by the British in November, 1915, during an unsuccessful advance upon Bagdad. The British force under Gen- eral Townshend was besieged for 143 days. In spite of a Russian column pra- ceedjng from Erzerum to Kermanshah trying to make a junction with the British at Bagdad or Kut, and in spite of a British relief force movmg upon Kut from the south. General Townshend was starved into surrender April 28-29, 1916, after such a glorious defense as will hereafter make one of the grand historical land-marks for England's tale of heroism. The city was reoccupied by the British under General Maude., February 24. IQI7. Q. — What was the first time dur- ing the war when no shot was fired? A.— It was on September 7, 1917, when for the first time since the war began, not a single shot was fired along the whole Russian front. It was the beginning of the first ten-days' armistice. Q. — How did the great German , offensive of 1918 open? A. — It began March 21, 1918, after a terrific but comparatively brief prelimi- nary bombardment. About ninety-five German divisions of 12,000 men each were thrown swiftly against the British line on a fifty-mile front from Arras to La Fere. A mist helped the operations of the Germans. March 21-22 they pene- trated the first lines. By March 23 they were deep in the British positions, claimed 25,000 prisoners, 400 cannon, 300 machine guns. The Fifth British Array under General Gough was roughly handled and its commander was super- seded. The British made a splendid de- fense and were not routed, though forced to retire. March 24th the German long-range gun began to bombard Paris, and Peronne and Ham were taken, with German claims of 30,000 prisoners, 600 guns. March 2Sth Bapaume was in their hands. March 26fh the Germans took Albert. By April i2th they were being held on the north by the British, but on the south they had arrived within 4}4 miles of the great railroad from Paris to Calais via Amiens and were making a new attack on the north around Ypres, Q. — What was the German gain? A. — By March 2Sth they had not only recaptured the ground lost in the big Battle of Cambrai, November, 1917, but they had pushed back the Allied lines almost exactly to the old line of the Somme as it stood before the great Al- lied attacks of July, 1916. On this date the Germans had advanced in several places, well beyond the old line of the Somme. South of Amiens they were within five miles of ground reached by them in the first vast rush toward Paris in 1914. They had advanced into the British and French positions in distances ranging from five miles south of Arras to forty miles on the Amiens line. By April i2th, they claimed about 100,000 prisoners — an estimate which Lloyd George declared was exaggerated. SEA FIGHTS OF THE GREAT WAR Q. — What was the first naval battle of the war? A.— The Battle of the Bight of Heli- goland, August 28, 1914, between Sir David Beatty's cruiser squadron and a fleet of German cruisers. The Germans lost three cruisers, the Maim, Kotn, and Ariadtte, and the British one destroyer. Seven hundred Germans perished and 300 •were taken prisoner. Q. — When and what was the sea battle of Jutland? A.— May 31-June i, 1916. It wa» the greatest naval battle in history, in point of size of ships and tonnage of warships lost. Germany's High Sea fleet, which had been for twenty months idle in the Kiel Canal, dashed out a hundred miles or so from the Jutland coast into the North Sea, under command of Admirals von Sheer and von Hipper, hoping to en- gage and destroy a portion of the British fleet before the remainder came to its aid. The British battle-cruiser fleet, under Sir David Beatty, whose business it was to make periodical sweeps through the North Sea for the enemy, gave chase, in the hope of getting between and cutting off the German fleet from its base, while wirelessing for the British battle fleet, the "Grand Fleet," under Sir John Jel- lico, which proceeded at full speed to join Sir David Beatty. The fleets en- gaged, resulting in the loss to the British fleet of six large ships of a tonnage of 104,700, and to the German fleet of six large ships with a tonnage of 57,087. Both England and Germany have ac- counted the action a victory ever since, and their technical writers are stjll dem- onstrating the reasons for the claim. Q. — What ships were lost in the great Jutland battle? A. — The Germans admit the following losses : Ships. Tons. Lutzow (battle-cruiser) 28,000 Pommern (pre-dreadnaught) 13,000 Rostock (light cruiser) 4,820 Frauenlob (light cruiser) 3,667 Weishaden (light cruiser) 4,300 Elbing (light cruiser) 4,300 Five torpedo-boats Total German losses in heavy tonnage 57.087 The British admit the following losses : Tons. 27,000 Ships. Queen Mary (battle-cruiser) Indefatigable (battle-cruiser) Invincible (battle-cruiser) Defence (armored cruiser) Black Prince (armored cruiser) . . Warrior (armored cruiser) Eight destroyers 18,750 17,250 14,600 13,550 13,550 Total British losses in heavy tonnage 104,700 This battle was fought May 31-June i, igi6. Each side for a time declared that the other side had suffered more losses than it wpuld admit, but the United States Naval Institute Proceedings for January, 1918, give the ships listed here, and this list agrees with lists given out some time ago. Q._Was the "Von Moltke" battle cruiser sunk by a British sub- marine? A. — It Wfas reported that she was sunk by British under-water craft, but the Ger- mans denied her loss. In the official Ger- man reports about the Jutland battle men- tion is made of this battle-cruiser as hav- ing taken part. In fact, when the Lutzow was knocked^ out. Admiral von Hipper transferred his flag from her to the von Moltke, according to report. It is well established now that the only big German battleship-type ships sunk in the Jutland battle were the Lutzow and the Pommern. Q. — What German ships fought at theFalklands? A. — The German squadron, under Ad- miral von Spee, consisted of the two ar- mored cruisers Gneisenau and Scharn- horst, both of 11,420 tons, armed with eight 8.2-inch guns ; the Leipzig, Niirn- berg and Dresden, of 3,200, 3,350 and 3,544 tons respectively, armed with _4.i-inch guns. There was also a supply ship. The Dresden, a sister ship to the Emden, was engined with turbines, and, like_ all turbine boats, was able to develop a higher speed than that on her recorded trials. Her speed enabled her to escape, but_ she was sunk later when at anchor in Chilean wa- ters. The supply boat also got away, but all the other vessels were sunk, their reciprocating engines only giving the quickest o.f them a speed of 23 knots. 131 132 Questions and Answers Q. — What was the British strength? A. — Admiral Sturdee's fleet consisted of the dreadnaught-cruisers Inflexible and Invincible, both of 17,250 tons, armed with eight 12-inch guns, and with a speed of 25 knots; the battleship Canopus, 12,950 tons, four 12-inch guns, 18.5 knots; the swift cruisers Glasgow and Bristol, each 4,800 tons, two 6-inch guns ; the armored cruiser Carnarvon, seven 5-inch guns, 23 knots ; and the Kent and the Cornwall, 9,800 tons, fourteen 6-inch guns, 23 knots. The Good Hope, sunk by the German ships ofE the Chilean coast, was an old vessel, but actually larger than either of the Germans, nominally more speedy, and carried heavier guns, but only two of them. Q. — What bounty was earned by Admiral Sturdee and his crews ? A. — They received the ordinary bounty of £$ ($25) per head, for each enemy sailor on the destroyed boats. In the Prize Court, held on August 21 and pre- sided over by Sir Samuel Evans, it was proved that the crews of the enemy ships destroyed were as follows : — Scharnhorst, 872 ; Gneisenau, 835 ; Niirnherg, 384 ; and Leipeig,_ 341 ; a total of 2,432. At £5 a head this made the bounty £l2,l6o ($60,- 800), which was accordingly awarded to Admiral Sturdee and the officers and crews of the Invincible, Inflexible, Car- narvon, Cornwall, Kent and Glasgow. The crew of the Invincible will never en- joy their share of this money, as that bat- tle-cruiser was sunk in the Horn Reef en- gagement. The other two vessels of Stur- dee's fleet, the Bristol and Canopus, took no part in the action. Q. — Did any members of Admiral von Spee's squadron get back to Germany? A. — According to the German papers Lieutenant Otto Schenk, one of the few survivors, did succeed in reaching Ger- many, after a journey of eight months from South America. Q. — Was the "Dresden" really sunk in neutral waters? A. — She was. Great Britain formally apologized for the occurrence to the Gov- ernment of Chile, which accepted the apol- ogy. Photographs which have appeared in the British papers — taken by officers on the British warships before they opened fire — show that the German vessel was anchored quite close inshore. They indi- cate the nearness of the hills. The Dres- den had apparently been asked by the authorities of Juan Fernandez — Robinson Crusoe's island — to leave, and had not done so. That was the excuse given by the British commander for violating the neutrality of Chile. The Dresden does not appeal- to have returned the fire of the British ships. The crew abandoned her and then blew her up. Q._What was the "Emden"? A. — She was a small protected cruiser, 3,500 tons, 24.5 knots, twelve 4-inch guns. She and her sister, the Dresden, were the first light cruisers the Germans fitted with turbine engines, and she made an aston- ishing war-cruise in the Pacific and Indian Oceans soon after war began. Q. — How many ships did the "Em- den" sink? A. — She sank altogether seventeen Brit- ish steamers, and captured several others, but released them as they contained car- goes belonging to neutrals. The vessels sunk were as follows. The values include ship and cargo, and are estimated. It will be seen that the total tonnage lost amounted to 74,881, and the value was $11,055,000. Ship. Tonnage. Value. Indus 3,393 $690,000 Lovat 6,102 300,000 Killin 3,544 215,000 Diplomat 7,615 1,500,000 Trabboch 4,015 130,000 Clan Matheson 4,775 igo,ooo Tymeric 3,314 905,000 King Lud 3,650 2)0,000 Ribera 3,500 180,000 Foyle 4,147 150,000 Buresk 4,350 260,000 Chilkana S,i4o 1,060,000 Troilus 7,562 3,400,000 Benmohr 4.806 815,000 Clan Grant 3,948 640,000 Ponrabbel 478 145,000 Exford 4,542 275,000 Q.— Did the captain of the "Em- den" respect the rules of war? A. — Apparently Captain von Miiller al- ways did so. He disguised his ship by putting up an extra funnel, etc., permis- sible acts in war. The London Times, commenting on the sinking of the ship by the Sydney, said that "no deed of bru- tality or outrage has been recorded against' her, and her commander. Captain von Miiller, is reported to have treated the Sea Fights of the Great War 133 crews of the vessels which he captured with generosity and courtesy." It also re- ferred to the difficulty of the operatio_ns undertaken by the Emden, and said that "she carried out her part with a daring which friend and foe had equally recog- nized." Q. — Did the "Emden" raid Pen- ang Harbor under the Japanese flag? A.^— A British captain, whose ship was in the harbor at the time, said definitely that she was flying no flag at all when she came in, but flew the German ensign when firing on the Russian cruiser. Captain von Miiller himself and his crew assert that they never flew any flag but their own in any of the time, if they showed one at all. The only disguise they adopted was to add another funnel. Penang Harbor was entered at night, and the Russians were almost all ashore. Q. — Did the Allied ships in Penang expect attack? A. — Evidently not. They were relying on the vigilance of two French destroyers, which were patrolling the two entrances to the harbor. The Emden never met the first one, although a pilot boat approached her and fled as soon as it got near enough to see who she was. The first torpedo fired by the Germans did not finish the Zemtchug, and the Emden turned and dispatched another, which proved fatal. The German officers were near enough to see the Russians hastening up from be- low in confusion. The cruiser left by the other entrance, and there met and sank the French destroyer Mousquet. Q. — What became of the "Em- den's" men who disappeared from Cocos Islands? A.— They got away in a sailing boat, and finally reached the coast of Arabia, some 3,500 miles distant from the scene of the disaster which overwhelmed the German raider. From Arabia they went overland to Constantinople. The story of this long wandering through a world of foes is like a modern Odyssey and it has made everybody familiar with the name of von Mucke, the young naval officer who led the little band. Q. — Did von Miiller know that the Australian transports were near the Cocos Islands? A.— He says that he did not; in fact, was not aware that they were anywhere in the neighborhood. It is quite possible that his raid on the Cocos might have been successful, and no message have reached the Sydney, had he not taken down his fourth funnel before the eyes of the islanders. This, of course, gave him away, and resulted in the speedy de- struction of the Emden, Q.— How could the "Emden" hold out so long? A. — She simply went out into the Indian Ocean, and carefully steamed away when- ever she saw smoke on the horizon. She had plenty of coal from ships she cap- tured, and during the whole of her pere- grinations she seldom steamed faster than twelve knots. She had an exceptionally large crew, having on board the men from a couple of gunboats left at Kiauchau. Thus prize crews could be sent off when- ever necessary. Q. — ^Which was the greatest naval disaster of the war? A. — The most serious naval disaster that has been reported was the sinkinp of the French cruiser Provence, which was torpedoed on February 26, 1917. It had on bcfard nearly 4,000 men, and of these 3,130 were drowned. The Provence was a converted liner used as a transport, and carried eleven guns. No submarine was seen. There never has been such loss of life when a single ship went down be- fore. When the Lusitania was torpedoed 1,198 lives were lost; when the Titanic sank l,S9S people were drowned. Q. — Was there a great sea fight in the North Sea, in August, 1914? A.— No. This fight was officially re- ported in India, but was subsequently con- tradicted. The rumor once started, how- ever, has gone on, and constant reference is made to the alleged action in the neu- tral press. A circumstantial report was made in 1916 about an engagement off the Norwegian coast, but this, too, had no foundation in fact. Q. — Why were the German cruis- ers "Goeben" and "Breslau" so famous? A.— Because of their very wonderful escape from the British and French navies in the Mediterranean. This escape has been characterized by the experts of all nations as having been one of the most brilliant naval tactics on record. 134 Questions and Answers Hopelessly outnumbered, practically surrounded, unable to seek any port with- out being blockaded or interned, the cap- tains of the two ships steered Ijoldly out of the Adriatic into the Mediterranean, made feints at attacking enemy territory on the African coast, "jammed" the wire- less of the_ British and French ships, and succeeded in running the cordon and en- tering the Dardanelles. After that they played a part in big international history because their pres- ence apparently had much to do with de- ciding Turkey's action in joining the war. Q. — Was Turkey an ally of the Central Powers? A. — No. Turkey was not then in the war, and occupied the position of a neu- tral nation. Q. — What right did Turkey have to give them asylum? A. — None. Under international law Turkey's duty was to order them out of her ports after a reasonable time for re- pairs, or else to intern them. Q.— Why did Turkey not do this? A. — 'It was very clear to the whole world, and, of course, to Turkey, that sooner or later she would be forced out of her neutrality. Apart from many other reasons that could be conjectured in ad- vance, there was sure to be the demand by Russia and Great Britain for passage of warships through the Dardanelles. Whether she refused or acceded, she was certain to be forced into the war. In this crisis, the accession to her naval force of two such excellent ships was something that had a great deal of weight, and may have hastened her decision. Q. — Did Turkey's protection of the ships furnish the actual casus belli? A. — No. Turkey responded to Great Britain's protest by promising to intern the ships and put them out of commis- sion. After a while, she announced sud- denly that she had bought them and in- corporated them in the Turkish Navy. Q. — Was this legitimate under in- ternational law? A. — It was a point that opened intricate question. The Allied governments, and everybody else, knew very well that the sale was only a pretended one. But there was a big difference between knowing it and proving it. Therefore, a Declaration of War against Turkey based merely on this episode was not considered advisable, Q. — Did the Turks retain the names of the cruisers? A. — They went through all the correct forms, apparently, of placing them into the Turkish service. The Breslau v/a.s re- named Midullu and the Goeben was re- named Sultan Yawus Selim. Q. — Did the two ships play much part in fighting? A. — In some measure they may be said to have brought on the entrance of Tur- key into the war by their activities in the Black Sea. According to Russia, they opened fire on Russian ships. According to Turkey, they were fired on. At any rate, on November 3, 1914, Russia de- clared war on Turkey. This was followed on November s by French and British declarations of war. Q. — Were the two cruisers not sunk soon afterward? A. — They were— in the news dispatches. They were sunk with great frequency. Durmg quite a period the cables brought accounts every few days of their total destruction, Q.— What was the truth? A, — The truth was that they acted with varying success in the Black Sea. They were unable to do^ anything decisive, but they managed to remain in action, to harass the Russian coasts and Black Sea marine, and to escape the heavy Russian battleships;. Q- — Were they of use during the attack on the Dardanelles? „ A.— Very little, except strategically. They did not play much part in the de- fense, so far as gunfire or actual opera- tions went. But they were of great use in helping to guard Turke/s back-door— the Black Sea. Q. — Were they of any service after the Dardanelles campaign? A.— They harried the Russian transport service continually and also kept the Rus- Sea Fights of the Great War 135 sian coast in more or less unrest, their last _ fairly important service being tile sinlcing of many small Russian war-craft and mercliant ships and the bombardment of Russian coast in June, 1917. After that they were not heard from much, until January 20, igiS, when there was a sud- den action outside of the Dardanelles, which ended in the sinking of the MiduUtt (Brestau) and of two British monitors, while the Sultan Yawus Selim (Goeben) stranded, but finally got back into the Dardanelles, badly crippled without doubt. The commander of one of the British monitors was Viscount Broome, nephew of Earl Kitchener. He was drowned. Q. — Did Austrians and Italians ever fight at sea before? A.— Yes. They had one of the very great sea. fights of history. It was in 1866. On July 20th of that year, the Aus- trian fleet, ounder Admiral Tegettlioff, en- gaged the Italian fleet, under Admiral Pessano, in the Bay of Lissa, and though the Italian fleet fought heroically the Aus- trians were so brilliantly handled that they succeeded in completely destroying the Italian fleet. Tegetthoff's exploit has caused many comparisons to be made be- tween him and Farragut, because their swiftness ; of decision and the dashing character of their strategy were much alike. STRATEGY OF THE WAR Military and Political Q. — What was the first act of bel- ligerency that affected outside nations directly? A. — The immediate severance of all methods of communication with Ger- many. By cutting cables the Allies at once made such countries as the United States excellent bases of activity for themselves and precarious bases for their enemies. Q. — Was this fair play? A. — There is no "fair play" in war ex- cept such as individual temperament leads individual men to observe. Fair play toward a nation's enemy might be "foul play" toward one's own nation. Q. — What were the specific advan- tages of cutting communica- tions ? A. — The German naval vessels scat- tered throughout the world were instantly hampered because the German Admiralty could not communicate with them, or, at least, could do so only laboriously. The German Government was cut off from its African colonies, where its soldiers thereafter had to fight on their own in- itiative without any assistance. The entire American continent became sealed to them, and, naturally, since the war was the absorbing subject of the world, the entire continent gladly received all that the cables from the Allied countries could carry about the causes of the war and its aspects. Q, — What could the belligerents gain in neutral countries by making sentiment? A.— They could hope to bring sorne neutral countries into the war on their sidfc They could hope to prevent some neutral countries from abandoning a use- ful neutrality. Even in countries which they could not hope to win as fellow- belligerents, or which they did not need to fear as possible allies of their enemies, they could hope to make such sentiment that the neutrality would be distinctly in their iavpx. Q. — Did either side wish to bring the United States into the war? A. — No. Germany could not hope to, if she wished. The Allies could gain far more, as they frankly said, by American productiveness in food and munitions than by belligerent assistance. Q. — What was the effort of rival activity in Italy? A. — Both Austria-Hungary and Ger- many recognized early that they need not hope for Italy as an ally. Thereafter they worked for the sole purpose of keeping her neutral. The Allies, on the other hand, worked to gain Italy's active military aid. The immediate value of this was that she could attack Austria-Hun- gary in the west while Russia attacked her in the east. Q. — Did the Germans want to keep Turkey neutral also? A. — No. Both sides wanted Turkey to enter the war. The Germans succeeded in getting her to do so on their side. It appears as if this must have been a fore- gone conclusion from the beginning, but for a time there was some reason to hope that she would enter on the Allied side, mainly for the reason that the cause of the Central Powers seemed hopeless. Q. — Why was Turkey considered so important? A. — Mostly because she held the Darda- nelles. Had she joined the Allies, they would have been able to form a united line with the Russian armies, and there is hardly a doubt that this one blow would have forced the Balkan States to make common cause with thetn or at the least permit free use of their territory. In that case, Austria-Hungary would have been invaded positively and forced out of the war. Q. — ^Would not Turkish neutral- ity have served the Germans by keeping the Dardanelles closed? A. — It would. But continued neutrality would have been absolutely impossible ior 136 Strategy of the War — Military and Political 137 the Turks. Sooner or later they would have been forced into the war. There- fore the German policy was to get her aid as an ally without taking a chance. Q. — Were the Dardanelles the great early strategic prize? A. — There were two waterways whose absolute and undisturbed control was ab- solutely vital for immediate war-purposes. They were the British Channel and the Dardanelles. Q. — ^Could the Germans hope to contest control of the channel against the British fleet? A. — They could. They could not hope to contest it with their battleships, but they could hope to do so by capturing the entire Belgian coast and the French coast at least as far as Calais. Had they succeeded, they might have made trans- portation of troops and supplies to France from England exceedingly difficult by using heavy artillery from coast fortifica- tions, by greatly expanding their subma- rine bases and having them close to the British transport lines, and by making serious threats by land against Havre, the port at the mouth of the Seine. Q. — ^What were other important points in the beginning? A. — The control of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, the Kiel Canal, and the Austrian naval, bases of Trieste and Pola on the Adriatic. Q. — Did either belligerent gain a decisive advantage in these? A. — The British gained an almost de- cisive preponderance of control in the North Sea. The Germans succeeded in holding the Baltic almost at their will. The iQel Canal and the Austrian naval bases proved practically invulnerable. Q. — ^Just what was the value to Germany of the Kiel Canal? A*— It- meant that while the British might control the North Sea, they could not completely rob the German Navy of freedom of movement. The best way to understand its value is to understand that the German North Sea coast and the German Baltic coast are separated from each other by a mighty tongue of land that projects northward until it al- most touches Sweden. This is the pro- jection on which Denmark is. Thus the natural geography made it very difficult for naval ships to pass between the Baltic and the North Sea. Enemy ships might easily havie cut them off in the narrow passage between Denmark and Sweden (the Cattegat) or between Denmark and Norway (the Skager Rack). Or, part of the German fleet might be blockaded in a North Sea port (the mouth of the Weser or the Elbe) and another part might be Iblocked within the Baltic, and thus the two fleets rendered permanently too weak for action. Q. — How did the Kiel Canal solve this problem? A.— The Kiel Canal cuts straight across the base of the great projection of land. In effect, it has straightened out the coast line for naval purposes, and made one coast of the North Sea and the Baltic coasts. Q.— What makes the Kiel Canal apparently invulnerable? A. — Immense fortifications on land, commanding all approaches. Difficult coast lines; forcing exceedingly cautious, and therefore slow, maneuvering by enemy ships. Also the outlying island of Heligoland, which is actually one enor- mous fortification, armed with every of- fensive and defensive device of modern warfare, and lying broad in the way of ships that seek to approach the North Sea mouth of the Kiel Canal. Q. — When did Germany acquire Heligoland? A.^In 1890, under the Caprivi agree- ment, Lord Salisbury traded Heligoland to Germany in return for Zanzibar. There was, of course, at that time no thought of Germany's sea rivalry, and the island of Heligoland seemed of little im- portance to England. It was a mistake, however, as the Germans built up the hollow cgast, turning the island into a strong naval fort and making it a front and screen for the German fleet, from behind which they can assemble and make surprise attacks in the North Sea. Q. — Could you give a succinct pic- ture of the war by stating the changing aspects year by year? What, for instance, were the really big military objectives in 1914? A. — In the west,_ German attempt to pierce toward Paris and thus to cut 138 Questions and Answers French armies from British. Unsuccess- ful. German attempt to drive along northern coast to Calais. Unsuccessful. In the East, Russian attempt to over- run Galicia. Successful. Russian at- tempt to invade Germany. Unsuccessful. Q. — What were the political war aims in 1914? A. — Allied efforts to bring Turkey, the Balkan States and Italy into the war. Unsuccessful. German attempts to gain Turkey as an ally. Successful. Q. — What were the great military objectives in 1915? A.— In the West, German attempt to establish a general defensive. Success- ful. In the East, Russian attempt to invade Hungary. Unsuccessful. German at- tempt to occupy Russian Poland. Suc- cessful. Austro-German and Bulgarian attempt to conquer Serbia. Successful. French and British attempt to take Dar- danelles. Unsuccessful. Q.^What were the political aims in 1915? A.— German attempt to bring Bulgaria in as an ally. Successful. Allied at- tempts to bring Roumania and Greece in on their side. Unsuccessful. Allied effort to win Italy. Successful. Q. — What were the vital military objectives in 1916? A.— In the West, German attempts to resume the offensive (Verdun). Un- successful. In the East, Russian attempt to over- run Bukowina. Successful. German and Austrian attempt to conquer Roumania. Successful. British attempt to capture Bagdad. Unsuccessful. In the South, Austrian attempt to m- vade Italy through Trentino. Partly suc- cessful. Italian attempt to break Isonzo line. Partly successful. Q. — What were the political aims of 1916? A.— Allied attempt to win Roumania to their side. Successful. German attempt to induce enemies to meet in peace con- ference. Unsuccessful. Q. — What were the big military ob- jectives in 191 7? A.— In the West, the French and Brit- ish attempt to force grand retirement of Germans. Unsuccessful. In the East, German drive along Rus- sian Baltic coast to Riga and beyond. Successful. British attempt to capture Bagdad (with new army). Successful. British attempt to conquer Palestine. Successful. In the South, Germans and Austro- Hungarians attempt to break Isonzo line and invade northern Italy. Successful. Q. — What were the political aims of 1917? A. — To keep the revolutionary govern- ment of Russia in line with Allied mili- tary and political aims. Unsuccessful. To bring Greece into the war on the side of the Allies. Successful. Q. — Why cannot a landing be ef- fected on Germany between Holland and Denmark? A. — Heligoland defends the Bight. The sea is shallow there, and the channels are difficult. The Frisian Islands are strongly fortified, and all approaches are protected with the latest appliances for harbor pro- tection, sunken torpedoes and other de- fenses. For transports to enter that re- gion would be to invite destruction. Q. — How could armies or spies de- stroy great stores of grain? A. — Great stocks of wheat can of course be fired, but they burn very slowly in- deed. Petroleum assists the fire, but it fails to get far into the stacks. Blow- ing up the grain doesnot get rid of it, and there is seldom time for a retreat- ing army to stop and load the wheat on to trucks, even if these were available to take it away. It is difficult to ruin it with water, because the water does not penetrate far enough. When the Aus- trians abandoned Lemberg to the Rus- sians early in the war, they attempted to destroy the huge stores of wheat they had in the city, but 'the Russians found the wheat practically undamaged, although the sheltering roofs and wooden walls of granaries, etc., had been entirely burned away. Q. — What were the largest battles in the Roumanian campaign? A. — The _ most momentous was fought at Targujiu on November 15 and 18, 1915, when the invading Teutons broke the Roumanian resistance in Western Wallachia. The other decisive battle was fought just a few miles west of Bucha- rest on December i, 2 and 3. In this Strategy of the War — Military and Political 139 fight the Roumanian army was completely crushed. The battle in which the Bul- garians and Turks repulsed the Russian General Shakaroff on December 2 was also important, in the effect it had on the campaign generally. Q. — What is approximately the total area of conquered land held by the enemy? A. — Owing to the British and French successes, the area held in France was a constantly decreasing quantity during 1917. Still the Germans appeared in the beginning of 1918, to be in occupation of at least 179.400 square miles of Allied territory: Belgium 11,000 square miles Poland 49,000 " Courland 10,400 " Kovna iS.SOo " Grodno 14,900 " Vilna 8,000 " Volhynia and Mynsk 8,aoo " Northern Albania . . 6,000 " Montenegro S,6oo " Wallachia and Dob rudja 43.000 " Northern France . . 8,000 " The Allies held a small portion of Alsace, and a narrow strip of Austrian territory on the Izonso, not equal to the area that the Germans had in Montenegro and Albania. Outside of Europe, how- ever, the Allies had acquired all the Ger- man colonies. Q. — What was the object of Grand Duke Nicholas in destroying villages and forcing the peo- ple to leave their homes and go into Russia when he evac- uated Poland and the other provinces? A. — The theory apparently was to re- peat the successful methods employed by the Russians during the Napoleonic in- vasion of 1813— that is, to clear the coun- try before the advancing enemy, so that he should find neither shelter nor pro- visions anywhere. Many critics hold that the military gain was very slight indeed, and that the eco- nomic problem thrust upon Russia by the sudden and unexpected arrival of some 13,000,000 destitute refugees was so great that it would have proved far wiser not to have destroyed this multitude's homes, but to have left them behind when his army retired. Q. — What became of these people who escaped when the Ger- mans took these provinces? A.--"Escaped" is hardly the right word. The invaders, repairing the railway lines as they came, felt the devastation far less than the wretched inhabitants forced to flee at a few hours' notice along the thronged roads towards Russia. It is said that some 10,000,000 men, women and children were thus driven off by the Russian soldiers, and that at least 2,000,000 of them died on the roadside. These figures may be too large, but it ap- pears certain that more than a million perished, and only some 3,000,000 ulti- mately reached Petrograd and Moscow of the ten or more millions who set out for those cities. Q. — What is the greatest mine ex- ploit in history? A. — At the battle of Messines Ridge, on July 7, 1917, the British exploded simul- taneously nineteen mines, containing some- thing like five hundred tons of high ex- plosive, under the German position. The British engineers had been driving tun- nels beneath the hills held by the op- posing forces for an entire year. There was an unprecedentedly intense prelimi- nary bombardment in which a single British division fired 226,000 shells, the cannonade being heard in English towns 130 miles away. The mine was touched at 3:10 A. M. Practically the entire range was thrown into the air as by a volcano, the heavy concrete emplace- ments and deep dug-outs of the Germans spouting up in small fragments. Some of the enemy troops survived the hor- ror, but were so dazed that the British charge took the entire ridge with but little resistance. Q. — Did the term "Allies" include all the nations that entered the war against the Central Pow- ers? A.— Technically, the only "Allies" were France, Russia and Great Britain, who signed the pact of London, September 5, 1917, binding themselves not to make separate peace. Q. — Did not other nations join as Allies? A.— Japan, although entering the war against Germany as a treaty-ally of Great 140 Questions and Answers Britain as soon as it began, signed the Q, — The United States is often re- separate peace pact some time later lerred to as an Ally. Is that Jtaly signed the pact when she entered , ^ the war. Since then most of the smaller Correct. nations that entered the war from time A. — It is inc6rrect. The United States to time became signatories to the peace wages war in conjunction with the_ Allies, pact, and they have all been known as but adheres to its own political principles Allies. and aims. . FOREIGN NAVIES Q-— Who spent the most on navies before the war? A, — Great Britain spent about $245,000.- 000 on her naval establishment in 1913- 1914. Russia was second with about $130,000,000. Third place was held by France with $125,000,000. Germany came fourth with $115,000,000, and Austria spent $37,500,000. Thus the comparative pre-war expenditures of the big opposing forces were: Allies $500,000,000 (about), Central Powers $152,500,000 (about). Q._What are "Hush Hush" ships? A. — They are a new type of very heav- ily armed and armored British ships, built in a novel way, very long and very low, with a squat central superstructure flanked by turrets or barbettes that hold two extremely powerful guns. The speed is said to be as high as that of battle- cruisers, and it is reported that the guns throw a 1,900-pound shell. While the only information about them has come through chance reierences, experts assume thac they are outgrowths of the modern battle- cruiser principle. Q. — What were the German naval losses during the whole war? A. — The list given in the Proceedings of the U. S. Naval Institute, January, 1918, is : I battleship, i battle-cruiser, 6 armored cruisers, 11 protected cruisers, g light cruisers, 11 gunboats, 36 destroyers and torpedo-boats, 24 auxiliary cruisers, 6 small vessels (mine layers, etc.), or 105 vessels in all, not counting subma- rines. The list gives 55 submarines, the destruction of most of which appears definitely established, and it is undoubted that more have been destroyed. Q. — How many Allied warships does Germany claim to have sunk? A. — ^With the sinking of the French armored cruiser Chateaurenault Germany claimed that 300 different warships, with a total tonnage of 1,000,000 tons, belong- ing to the Entente Allies have been lost since the beginning of the war. Auxiliary cruisers to the number of 51, with a ton- nage of 358,000, and other ships comman- deered for war purposes numbering 38, with a registered tonnage of 146,000, which have been sunk, are not included in the above total. The los'ses of the 300 warships are di- vided as follows, according to the Ger- man figures: Ships. Tons. England 177 688,390 France . ; 48 109,000 Russia 36 91,540 Italy ."■. 25 76,450 Japan 8 26,875 United States, Portugal, Roumania 6 8,551 Thus the warship losses of the Entente would about equal the size of the German fleet at the beginning of the war, which was 1,019,417 tons. Q- — What was the total loss of British warships? 1914- 1915. 1916. 1917. Total Gunfire _ 3 16 4 23 Submarined 12 3 10 25 Topedoed- by sur- face ships I I 2 4 Mined 6 5 g 20 Collision 4 4 8 Internal Expio 3 . . i 4 Foundered and stranded 5 . . . . 5 Total . , 30 29 30 89 Add 3 destroyers, the actual cause of whose loss — either mine or submarine — is uncertain. This estimate is made by one writer on naval topics. A list printed in the United States Naval Institute Proceedings for January, 1918, gives as the British naval losses : 2 dreadnaughts, 12 battleships, 13 armored cruisers, 10 light cruisers, 44 destroyers and torpedo-boats, 15 auxiliary cruisers, 8 transports, and about 20 small vessels (coast guard, etc.), making 124 in all, with 14 submarines in addition. Q. — What naval strength have the neutrals? A. — Switzerland, of course, has no ships. Holland proposed recently to build nine dreadnaughts, but she had only nine coast defense battleships in 1917, some cruisers, and forty torpedo-boats ; also six submarines, mostly old. Norway, likewise, intended to build eight great 141 142 Questions and Answers battleships, btit relied actually on a few gunboats and 37 torpedo-boats. Sweden had a dozen coast defense vessels, 53 torpedo destroyers, and three submarines, but during the war added a swift cruiser of 7,000 tons to her fleet. The Spanish navy consisted of three small dread- naughts of 15,400 tons, and half a dozen old cruisers, but an ambitious building program was begun after the war started, Q. — Is there great difference be- tween British battle cruisers and armored cruisers? A. — ^Yes, in size and speed, but espe- cially in gun power. The latest of the British armored cruisers, the Defence, was 14,600 tons, had a speed of 23 knots, and mounted four 9.2-inch and ten 7.5-inch guns. The German Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were of this type, but smaller, 11,400 tons, and' eight 8.2-inch guns. The Australia, one of the smaller battle- cruisers, displaced 18,800 tons, and had a designed speed of 25 knots, which has been considerably exceeded. She carried eight 12-inch guns, and much heavier armor than the Defence. Q. — Is the British super-dread- naught much heavier than dreadnaughts? A. — Yes, very much so, The _ differ- ence between the two types is in fact greater than between the most recent pre- dreadnaughts and a dreadnaught. The first all-big-gun ship was the British Dreadnought, which has given the name to this class of battleship. Admiral Fisher was responsible for her, and the experience of the Russo-Japanese war was the direct cause of her building. The naval battles in that war proved that a heavily armored ship, with big guns, was the ship of the future. The heavily pro- tected Russian Czarevitch survived the smashing gunfire of the Japanese fleet, and was the only Russian ship to escape, those less well armored being sunk. The Dreadnought was 17,000 tons, was en- gined with turbines of 23,000 horsepower, which developed a speed of 21 knots; she had ten 12-inch guns. The Lord Nelson. the last of the pre-dreadnaughts, was 16,500 tons, 18 knots, had thinner armor, and only four 12-inch guns, but carried also ten 9.2-inchers. The difference be- tween the two was not very great. The British call this type "dread- nought" The American custom is "dreadnaught." Q. — Why have British warships not operated in the Baltic? A.— Because the entrance to the Baltic is a "bottle-neck" passage. The British fleet would have to force this very narrow entrance between Denmark and Sweden at immense risk, for the narrowest_ part of this strait (the Cattegat) is so tight that it is only a ferry-trip from Copenhagen in Denmark to Swedish Elsinore or Malmo. Since it would be quite impossible for the British fleet to advance through such a waterway in battle-formation, the Ger- man fleet in the Baltic could practically select its own way of defense and attack. Q. — Is this all that keeps British ships out? A. — Furthermore, the German ships could pour out of the Kiel Canal into the North Sea, steam northward and close the Cattegat from outside after the British fleet had entered, thus locking it up. This would mean that a foray into the Baltic might, even if successful against German forces in the Baltic, end in the total loss of the' British ships. Apart from these two decisive factors, a major naval opieration in the Baltic is practically prohibited by the shoal nature of that sea and its extremely intricate and dangerous channels. Fighting at the ter- riiic speed of a modern naval engagement, the dreadnaughts would almost inevitably run aground sooner or later. Q. — How large a fleet had the Rus- sians in the Baltic? A.— Before the war_ began the Russian fleet in the Baltic consisted of four dread- naughts, which had just been completed. They were all 23,000 tons, and carried 12- inch guns. There were in addition four pre-dreadnaught battleships. The oldest of^ these, the Czarevitch, was the largest ship the Russians possessed when they fought Japan in 1903. There were also six armored cruisers, one of which, the Pallada, was sunk. Q. — Which ships did Japan give back to Russia? A. — The ships "retroceded" to Russia were the battleships Sagami (ex-Peres- viet) and Tango (tx-Poltava), and the cruiser Soya (ex-Varyag). These were all captured in the war of 1904-5. Q. — Has Greece any fleet? A. — During the Balkan wars the Greek fleet dominated the /Egean, owing to the Foreign Navies 143 fact that in the Georgios Averoff the Greeks had a more powerful ship than anything Turkey possessed. This ar- mored cruiser, of 9,680 tons, was the gift of the Grecian millionaire Averoff to the nation. Had this gift not been made the Balkan war might nave taken a somewhat different course. Q. — Has Greece any American battleships? A. — Since that war the Greeks pur- chased the two 13,000-ton battleships, Idaho and Mississippi, from the United States, rechristening them Kilkis and Lemnos. They are only 17 knots, but both carry four 12-inch guns. They also or- dered z. battle-cruiser of 20,000 tons, the Salamis, from Germany, as a reply to Turkey's 'order for two dreadnaughts placed in Great Britain. The Salamis was acquired by Germany, and probably took part in the Jutland battle under another Q. — What are the largest British naval guns? A. — The 15-inch |!uns of the Queen Elisabeth and her sister ships were the largest known to be in use. Larger wea- pons have, however, been made, and may perhaps be mounted on some of the latest dreadnaughts. One 16-inch gun made at Elswick on the Tyne, ' weighs los tons, and fires a shell weighing 2,200 pounds, almost exactly a ton. The Krupp 16-inch gun weighs only 92 tons, and fires a 2,028-pound shell. Schneider, the French maker, has a iS.7-inch weapon, which weighs 102 tons, and has a projectile of 2,183 pounds. Q. — How much does a British 15- inch gun weigh? A.— From 90 to 95 tons. To quote Mr. Winston Churchill: "These guns have proved the best we have ever had. Ac- curate at all ranges, and exceptionally long lived." No fewer than 14 of the new British super-dreadnaughts are armed with this weapon. Its extreme range is 21 miles, but, owing to the curvature of the earth's surface, its effective range would be at the most half that. Even then the gunner would not see the ship he was firing at, which would be below the horizon. The gun would have to be laid by the direction from the lookout high up the mast I Q. — Could the Germans convert existing 1 2-inch gun ships to 16-inch? A. — It would be possible, but exceed- ingly difficult and complicated. At best it would be a patchwork affair. It would hardly be possible to mount two is-inch guns_ where two 12-inch guns had been, and if only one of the larger types were placed where two of the smaller had been, the gain would not be enough. The en- tire mounting, magazine hoists, etc., would have to be altered — renewed, in fact. Q.— Is the "Queen Elizabeth" a superdreadnaught or a battle cruiser? A. — She is a superdreadnaught, but im- mensely bigger than the old Dreadnought. She and her sister ships, the Warspite, Valiant and Barham, displace 29,000 tons. Her oil-driven turbine engines develop 45,000 horsepower, and give her a speed of 22.5 knots. She has ten 15-inch guhs. The Tiger, the largest British battle- cruiser before the war, is larger, 30,000 tons; her engines of 110,000 horsepower give her the immense speed of 31 knots, and she carries eight i3.s-inch guns. Q. — Can naval guns be dismounted and used in the field? A.— It is possible to use guns of com- paratively small caliber in this way, as was done by the British during the Boer war. Some time ago it was stated defi- nitely that the Germans were using some of their ii-inch naval guns among the dunes of Flanders, and had bombarded Dunkirk therewith. It is far more likely, however, that they used army siege guns. It was decided in March, 1918, to use some of our big naval guns on the French front, if necessary, presumably because the United States naval gun works had .superior facilities for turning out the very largd guns such as 16-inch. Q. — How many rounds can a great naval gun fire before wearing out? A. — Twelve-inch guns, and those of still larger size, can fire 90 full charges only. After that they are sent to the foundry, ■where they have a new core inserted, and can fire a further 90 rounds. By the time a gun had fired 180 rounds it used to be considered practically obsolete, but the war has vastly changed conditions and the reclaiming of great, guns has advanced immensely. 144 Questions and Answers In time of peace the big guns were nat- urally spared carefully and only a few full charges were fired in the course of a year. For practice, reduced charges were used, or a small-caliber gun attached, to the big gun was fired. Q. — What weight projectile do big guns fire? A. — Twelve-inch guns fire projectiles weighing about 850 pounds; 15-inch guns up to 2,000 pounds. A rough-and-ready rule for calcula- tion is : Cube the caliber of the gun and divide the result by two. This rule would give you for a 12-inch gun: 1728 divided by 2 equals 864 (pounds). Q. — Is it costly to fire these huge guns? A. — The Iron Duke has ten 13.5-inch guns, and 16 6-inch guns. With all the guns in action she uses up powder and shot to the value of $50,000 a minute. The weight of her broadside is 14,000 pounds, or more than six tons. Q.— What is the penetrating power of a twelve-inch gun? A. — It will send a projectile through three feet of wrought iron at 5,000 yards. The latest 15-inch gun will perforate 42.5 inches of steel at its muzzle. Q. — Was a German admiral in com- mand of the Turkish fleet? A. — The Turkish fleet, such as it is, was under the command of Admiral Souchon, who, despite his name, is a German. Q. — What additions were made to the foreign fleets during the war? A. — Particulars of the ship-building in Great Britain naturally were not pub- lished, but when war was declared there were several super-dreadnaughts of the Queen Elizabeth type building, a large number of light cruisers and many de- stroyers and submarines. In addition there were the Turkish and Chilean dreadnaughts which were taken over. Among the French dreadnaughts were the six Dantons, assumed to be the equals of the dreadnaughts proper France then had in commission. The Danton, which gave its name to this class, was sunk on March 19, 1917, by a submarine. If the French ship-building program was ad- hered to, France in 1917 should have had nine super-dreadnaughts in addition to those in this list. Particulars of the German ships built since the war began are not available. Four Russian dreadnaughts were prac- tically ready when the war broke out, and- three others were building on the Black Sea. One of these has been reported sunk. Presumably the other two are in commission there. If the Italian ship-building program was carried out, there should_ have been SIX more super-dreadnaughts in commis- sion in 1917. One of the dreadnaughts in the list, the Leonardo da Vinci, was blown up. Q. — What ships building for for- eign powers did Great Britain take over? A. — The dreadnaught originally ordered by Brazil, purchased from her by Turkey, which was just leaving for Constanti- nople. She has been re-christened Agin- court. The Reshadieh, another dread- naught just completed for Turkey by Messrs. Vickers Ltd. Two large de- stroyers just ready for delivery to Chile, vessels with a displacement of 1,850 tons, and a speed of over 31 knots ; also three monitors building for Brazil, each mount- ing two 6-inch and four 4.7-inch guns. Q.— Were the Turks willing to al- low their two battleships to be taken over? A. — They objected strongly and, accord- ing to the British ambassador to Con- stantinople, the seizure was partly respon- sible for the Turkish entry into the strug- gle against the Allies. He strongly rec- ommended that the British Government pay the Turks for the vessels, but the British Foreign Secretary objected on the ground th^t it was unwise to pay money to an obviously hostile State, and thus help to provide her with means. Q. — Are the acquired Turkish ships powerful? A. — The Agincourt is 27,000 tons and 22 knots. She has 14 12-inch guns. Origi- nally ordered by Brazil, she was christ- ened Rio de Janeiro. Turkey purchased her, on the stocks, and renamed her Sul- ian Osman. She and the Reshadieh, now called the Erin, were quite completed, and were running their speed trials when Ger- many declared war on Russia. It is said that Mr. Churchill purchased them on, his own responsibility, and had a bad Foreign Navies 145 time in Cabinet in consequence. Had he not done so at once, however, they would have left British waters, and would now be fighting for the Central Powers in the East The Erin has lO 13.5-inch guns, and IS 23,000 tons displacement. Q. — ^What battleships were build- ing in Europe for foreign pow- ers? A. — ^Two huge Chilean dreadnaughts were building at Newcastle; also a pro- tected cruiser for Siam, and destroyers for Brazil and Chile. Germany was build- ing several submarines for the smaller Powers, and also a few destroyers. In addition the Greek battle-cruiser Salamis was nearing completion in her yards. Q. — Were these the only ships which Great Britain took over? A.— No. In addition there were six Chilean destroyers, each of about 1,800 tons and 31 knots. Two of these have already joined the fleet. They are said to have been superior to anjrthing of this type in the navy at that time, with the single exception of the Svinft (2 170 tons). The Admiralty also took over three mon- itors building for Brazil, which have done excellent service off the coast of Belgium and elsewhere. Q. — How was it possible for Great Britain to obtain warships from neutrals? A. — Ships building in British shipyards are liable to purchase by the Admiralty, there being a provision in the agreement to that effect. Article 6 of the Neutrality in Naval War Convention states definitely that "the supply on any ground whatever, either directly or indirectly, by a neutral power to a belligerent power of ships of war or munitions of war of any kind is forbidden." Q. — How many warships has Chile, and which are the largest? A. — For a long time Chile rested satis- fied with the two armored cruisers, Almt- rante O'Higgins (8,500 tons), and the Esmeralda (7,020 tons), completed for her in Great Britain in 1898 and 1897 respec- tively. Just before the war, however, she had ordered two great dreadnaughts of 28,000 tons in England. These were near- ing completion when the war began, and were taken over by the British Admiralty. The only other large ship Chile possesses is the 24-year-old battleship Capitan Prat (7,000 tons). Q. — What is the relative rank of the officers in the British navy and army? A.— Admirals of the Fleet rank with Field-Marshals; Admirals with Generals; Vice-Admirals with Lieut-Generals ; Rear- Admirals with Major-Generals ; Comrnodores with Brigadier-Generals ; Captains with Colonels; Commanders with Lieut.-Colonels ; Lieutenants (eight years) with Majors; Lieutenants (under eight years) with Captains ; Sub-Lieuten- ants with Lieutenants ; Chief Gunners with Second Lieutenants. The Navy is the senior service, and always takes prece- dence of the Array. Q. — Ho# many Australian-born men are there in the Australian and New Zealand navies ? A.— There is no New Zealand navy. New Zealand paid for the New Zealand battle-cruiser, but she is manned by a Royal Navy crew. There may be a small sprinkling of men aboard her born in New Zealand, but they would not amount to more than 2 or 3 per cent. Q. — Are most of the officers in the Australian Navy English? A. — Most of the officers are assigned from the Royal Navy. Nearly all of the executive officers belong to or have re- tired from the Royal Navy; a few have been entered into the Royal .Australian Navy from the British merchant service. All the senior ranks of engineer officers are lent from the Royal Navy, but there are about fifteen Australian officers now serving who have been entered from the Australian Universities, and are holding responsible positions. All the surgeons, except the director of medical service, were obtained in Australia. Practically all the warrant officers belong to the Royal Navy, or served in the Royal Navy prior to joining' the Royal Australian Navy per- manently. As a general rule, petty officers and men with over four years' naval ser- vice are from the Royal Navy. All men with less than four years' service were ob- tained in Australia, but about 25 per cent of these were born in England, having originally^ come out as emigrants or as firemen, stewards, etc., on merchant vessels. 146 Questions and Answers Q. — Who gave the naval order which "saved England from in- vasion" ? A. — Prince Louis of Battenberg it was who, on his own responsibility, in the ab- sence of Mr. Churchill, ordered all ships to "stand fast" instead of demobilizing as ordered. _ Later the opposition press drove this highly efficient sailor from office. Q. — What is a gun-layer? A. — This is the British naval term for the sailor in a gun-crew who "lays" the gun — ^that is, points it when it is ready to fire. In the American Navy he is called "gun-pointer" and the position is one that is eagerly competed for and much envied. Q. — What is the difference be- tween a raider and an auxiliary merchantman? A. — "Raider" is merely the descriptive word for a ship which preys on hostile commerce. It may be any kind of a ves- sel, a warship or an armed merchantman, which latter is usually called an auxiliary cruiser. Q. — Could warships be protected with concrete? A. — Some naval engineers have pro- posed systems for usin^ concrete instead of armor. The essential idea is to use several layers of concrete between steel armor-plates. The concrete would have to be from 3 to 4 feet thick, and for such places as turrets there would be almost equal_ thickness of concrete and armor combined. The idea has not gone beyond theory. Q. — Did the German Government force the Allies to put a neutral officer on hospital ships? A. — The Germans declared in 1917 that they would accord safe passage through certain zones only on condition that a Spanish naval officer were on each ship to guarantee that the vessel was being used solely for the transport of sick and wounded. The British and French au- thorities finally agreed to the arrange- ment. Hospital ships have been attacked, however, since that time. SOLDIERS OF THE ALLIES Q.— Who spent the most money on Q. — How many soldiers were armies before the war? raised in Canada? A.— Germany spent about $340,000,000 A.— Up to the end of 1917, 424,456 had on her army organization in 1913-1914. been enlisted. Of these 329,943 had been Russia came second with about $330,000,- sent across the Atlantic. 000. France followed with $240,000,000, and Great Britain came next with $140,- Q. — What are the military forces 000,000. Austria was behind them all, of the neutral countries? spending "only" $120,000,000. Thus the comparative expenditures of the big op- A.— Switzerland has no permanent army posing forces were: Allies $710,000,000 to speak of. Her citizen soldiers number (about), Central Powers $460,000,000 about 200,000. Particulars given as to the (about). strength of the military forces vary con- siderably. The following is approxi- Q.— What were the armies of the mately correct :— great Powers before the war? Peace War A.-In 1913 the peace and war strengths c„ :„ ^^'^f^s ^^^"'" ^^?^^^ were as follow:- Spam 128,000 300,000 P I . Holland ., 22,000 200,000 Peace War mX Denmark. 14,000 83,000 strength, strength. Son. Sweden 84,000 200,000 Austria... 43S,t^ i,820,5oo 3,500,00a Norway 18,000 70.000 France 700,000 1,400,000 4,500,00a « tr ^i. t» •^- 1. * Germany .. 840,000 lisooiooo tasoiooo Q-— How were the British forces Italy 250,000 800,000 3,220,000 distributed in normal times? Russia .... 1,000,000 2,855,000 5.400,000 A.-I27,400 in the United Kingdom; 77.- U. S. A.... 87,000 100,000 300 ;„ jjjjjj^. ,2500 ;„ cgyion j„^ Qjina; r\ 1I7U 1. • 4.U i i 1 11 4.- 11,850 in South Africa; 6,500 in Egypt Q. — What IS the total enrollment in and Cyprus ; 7,500 in Malta; 4,120 in Gib- the British armies? raltar; and 6,600 variously scattered en A.-At the beginning of 1918 the total I?"'^ *° '****'°"= ^"^ '" *^ Crown Colo- enrollment in the British Armies was ' 7,500.000 men. To this total England con- q What troops had Great Brit- tributed 4530.OOO; Scotland 620,000; ^ • • t_j- 7 Wales 280,000; Ireland 170,000; the do- am in inmaf minions and colonies 900,000. The re- A. — Besides the British regiments, 77,- maining 1,000,000, composed of native 300 strong, there were 162,000 native fighting troops, labor corps, carriers, etc., troops, 28,500 military police, 96400 vol- were from India, Africa and other depen- unteers, reserves, etc. dencies. _, „ , ., . . Q. — What were the Territorials? Q. — How large are the armies m ^ France and Belgium? ^-P^ "Terriers," as they were called, " took the place m England _ of the old A. — ^When Germany's rush westward volunteers. Members of this force had was stopped at the Marne in the autumn to enlist for three years, and during that of 1914, France had 1,500,000 men in the time were liable to be called upon for fighting line and England scarcely 100,000. active service at home. Like our State The Germans outnumbered them by a mil- militia, they could onlj; be sent abroad lion men, the Allies' artillery was out- jf they volunteered. This they did almost ranged, and they were deficient in aero- in a body, and they were the first troops plane service. By 1918 the French army after the regulars to reach France, at the front had grown to 3,000,000 and the British army to 2,500,000, with the Q. — How many "Terriers" were American soldiers coming in. The Ger- there? mans are estimated to have a maximum of 4,500,000 on their west front. The Allies A.— In April, 1913, there were 263.OOO. have also gained superiority in artillery. That is 50,000 less than the figures com- 147 148 Questions and Answers puted for the entire "establishment." Recruiting was, however, brisk _ during 1913, and this deficiency was considerably reduced. Q. — What was Great Britain's total eifective force at the outbreak of war? A. — 596,000, made up as follows : Regi- ments in the United Kingdom, 127,400; Army reserves, 142,000; special reserves, 61,000; territorials, 263,000; and 3,000 more or less unattached. If, however, the British troops in India and oversea be in- cluded, and also the Indian Army, Great Britain had a total strength of just under a million men, and those were standing troops ready for instant service. Q. — Are the Zouaves Frenchmen or colored troops? A. — The Zouaves are the professional soldiers of France, and are basically Frenchmen. They were originally sta- tioned in Northern Africa, hence the semi-Moorish uniform. They are long service men, and are not conscripted, but are much like the men who enlist in our regular army. As in our regular _ army, there may be (and are) Zouave regiments made of colored troops ; but the Zouave organization is French, not foreign. Q. — Has Portugal taken active part in the war? A. — ^Yes. She has sent two full di- visions to France since January I, igi7, and a third division is being trained. In less than a year Portugal has furnished 75,000 soldiers, and has 100,000 more in reserve, trained. Her divisions are joined to the British forces. Q. — What wages do the soldiers of the belligerents receive per day? A. — Great Britain gives is. 2d. (29 cents) ; Germany, 5 cents ; France, 3 cents ; Canada, $1.12; New Zealand, $1.25; and Australia, $1.50. The rate of pay in the Austrian Army is about the same as in the German. Q. — How would the daily army pay-bills of the nations com- pare? A. — That of Great Britain probably would be about' six times that of Ger- many, while Australia appears to be pay- ing every day in wages twice as great a sum as that paid by the Kaiser to his millions of soldiers. The total under arms can, of course, only be estimated, as accurate particulars are not available. The daily wage bill probably is about as follows : Germany, with, say, 5,000,000 in arms $ 250,000 France, with, say, 3,500,000 in arms 105,000 Great Britain, with, say, 5,000,000 in arms 1,450,000 Australia, with, say, 300,000 in arms 450,000 Q. — How are the ranks named in the Indian army? A. — Subadar, Captain; Jemadar, Lieu- tenant; Havildar, Sergeant; Naik, Cor- poral; Sepoy, Private of infantry; Sowar, Trooper of cavalry; Dufladar, Sergeant of cavalry. Q. — Were all the soldiers sent from Australia Australian born? A. — Some 75 per cent, it is believed, were born there, and 25 per cent were born outside of Australia, the great ma- jority in Britain. Q. — Were the Irish first to land on Gallipoli? A. — The3' were the first to get ashore (on April 25, 1915), though parties of naval men had landed before for brief periods. The famous River Clyde had about 2,300 Irishmen on board, the Dub- lins and the Munsters, and two com- panies of the Hampshire regiment, who were brigaded with them. Some Dublins also landed in open boats. The Turkish positions had been shelled for hours by the British fleet, and the enemy had given no reply whatever. The moment the Irishmen approached the shore, however, rifles and machine guns and pom-poms opened fire, and they were practically wiped out. Of the thousand men who left the River Clyde in the morning, 700 were killed, drowned or wounded. How- e-tfer, a landing was forced in the end. A Scottish officer who saw the amazing landing over submerged wire entangle- ments in face of the terrific fire said: "It is but the merest truth to state that there would be no Dardanelles campaign heard of to-day if it had not been for the ex- traordinary services of these Irish troops, white men every one." Soldiers of the Allies 149 Q. — ^^How many British were at the battle of Mons? A.-'-Sir John French had two army- corps with him, roughly 75,000 men with 250 guns. During that fight and in the retreat to the Marne, some 17,000 men were taken prisoners, and the losses in killed and wounded were severe. When the offensive began at the Marne, French had been reinforced by a third army corps, but he probably had only 100,000 men under his command altogether. Q. — Who is in command of the Polish Legion in the enemy's forces? A. — Neutral papers have stated that the commander in 1916 was Field-Marshal Lieutenant von Durski, himself a Pole, who, after the campaign which drove the Russians entirely out of Poland, united the three brigades of the Polish Legions into one command. These brigades had been fighting in different districts pre- viously. One brigade composed of Aus- trian Poles had been fighting continu- ously in Galicia. Another, consisting of men who had been dwelling in Poland proper, was engaged before Warsaw, and the third, consisting of German Poles, was operating farther north. The Polish Legions appear to have distinguished themselves greatly in the field. Q. — What became of the Indian troops who were in France in 1915? A. — They were withdrawn from the west front and sent to Egypt. From there some were sent to Mesopotamia, a few returned to India, and a few appear to have gone to German East Africa. Q. — How many men were with General Smuts? A. — According to General Botha, who gave the information to the House of As- sembly in Capetown, 20,000 men were sent from South Africa to fight in German East Africa. Troops also went from In- dia and a few from England. As the campaign progressed, however, many of the white fighters were withdrawn, and in the end the army consisted heavily of colored soldiers, the majority being Af- rican natives. Q. — How large was the German army in East Africa? A.— There were 2,000 whites. The number of natives is not known, but is estimated at about 20,000. Q. — How many troops had von Mackensen to invade Serbia? A. — It is believed that he had 400,000 men availalsle. In addition a small Aus- trian army entered Serbia from Bosnia, and the Bulgarians swarmed across from the East. Probably by the time the con- quest of Serbia was completed 750,000 enemy troops were in the country. Q. — How many troops did India send to the front? A. — The! exact number has not been published, but in 1916 the Secretary of State for India said that when the war began, India offered seven and one-third divisions of infantry and five cavalry bri- gades. That would appear to mean about 140,000 infantry and 9,000 mounted men, with all neeessary equipment^ horses, guns, etc. In August, 1914, two divisions of in- fantry and one of cavalry were sent to France, and two cavalry brigades fol- lowed later. This would make in all 46,000 men. A division, 20,000 men, was sent to British East Africa. In October, when Turkey declared war, a division was sent to Mesopotamia, and another fol- lowed quickly, making 40,000 men there in all. In November, a brigade of cavalry and a division of infantry were sent to Egypt, 22,000 men. That is 128,000 fight- ing men. All these forces were trans- ferred to their various destinations, com- plete with ambulances and general hos- pital. Presumably reinforcements have been sent to keep these armies up to full strength, although the Minister did not ,say this. Three divisions were mobilized to cope with the troubles on the north- west frontier, and, in addition, British infantry and artillery were set free for use outside of India. Q. — What is the French Foreign Legion? A. — The Foreign Legion is the name by which the world best knows the Regi- ments etrangers in the French service. This legion is composed of adventurous spirits of all nationalities, and has long been employed in colonial campaigns. For a long time it was stationed in Al- geria. All sorts and conditions of men are to be found in it, for courage is prac- tically the sole criterion that_ governs enlistment. No inquiry is made into their previous -careers. French, British, Ger- mans, Americans, Russians — in fact, al- most every nationality is to be found in the ranks. The commanding officers are French. The Legion has done excellent ISO Questions and Answers service during the great war, and has suf- fered very heavy casualties. Q. — Has the color of the French uniform been changed since the war began? A. — Yes. It has been done slowly. A year or so before the outbreak of war, great efforts were made to introduce a uniform less conspicuous than the blue and red that the Republic's soldiers had always worn, but the scheme met with so much opposition that it was dropped. The new uniform is bluish-green, but, ac- cording to statements in technical dye journals, it loses its color quickly. The steel helmet, which has replaced the jaunty cap, is an equally useful change. Q. — How large is the Greek army? A.— The peace strength in 1915 was 60,000 men. The war strength was esti- mated as about 300,000. During the re- cent Balkan wars, Greece put ten divisions of 12,000 men in the field. Most of the artillery was obtained in France, but the rifles were of Austrian make. Q. — What is the population of Greece ? A. — The population of Greece proper, according to the census of 1907, was 2,630,000; at that time its area was 25,- 000 square miles. Since then the Epirus and many ^gean Islands have been add- ed, and also portions of Macedonia, con- quered from Turkey in 1913, which make the total area 42,000 square miles, and the total population about 4,800,000. Q. — Do all the troops at the front wear khaki? A. — The Americans and British do, and the Germans have a field-gray uniform, which is even less visible than khaki. The French troops now have dull green uniforms. The Russians had a dark green uniform with red epaulettes, the Belgians a bluish-gray outfit. Our own troops have worn the standard light brown khaki-color service uniforms for more than 20 years. The American color, while apparently quite pronounced when the uniforms are seen in cities, is excellent for low visibility against nearly every kind of landscape. Q. — Are the Austrians strong fighters? A. — On the whole, the Austrians have made a poor showing in this war. Any victories have been due largely to 6e"r« man assistance or to the weakness of their foe. In one respect the Austrian armies have been second to none — in their heavy artillery. The excellent artillery service of the dual empire forced the Italians to fight theiri way inch by inch through the mountains, and at all times Italy has been inferior to her enemy in this arm. The Austrians have been especially ingenious in developing heavy trench mortars, some of them hurling hundreds of pounds of high explosive into the opposing trenches. Q. — Did Portugal greatly help the Allies before she joined them? A. — As soon as hostilities began she declared her willingness to throw in her lot with the Allies whenever Great Brit- ain so desired. Germany, before Portu- gal formally entered the war against her, protested strongly against the way in which the Portuguese permitted the vio- lation of their neutrality by allowing Brit- ish warships to use their harbors and granting permission to British troops to cross the colony of Mozambique to attack German East Africa. The Kaiser also protested against Portugal's practice in allowing Great Britain to use Madeira as a naval base. Q. — What is meant by the "Bat- talion of Death"? A. — A fighting legion of women and girls of all classes in Russia, organized in 1917, and commanded by Madame Botch- kalov, a Russian revolutionist. They be- came a part of the Russian army and took brilliant part in several engagements. Q. — Did the Vatican spread disrup- tive propaganda among the Italian troops? A. — The New York newspapers of Jan- uary 30, 1918, published the following Statement : Denials from the Pope's Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Prime Minister of Italy, and others that the Pope was re- sponsible for spreading disruptive propa- ganda or for the Italian disaster were made public by Adrian Iselin, Chairman of a committee of Catholic laymen. This information was contained in a letter by F. C. Walcott of the Untied States Food Administration, in retracting a statement which he had made. Mr. Walcott said : "My statement attributed to the Pope a measure of responsibility for the Italian disaster, and for the disruptive propa- Soldiers of the Allies 151 ganda which had brought it_ about. I repeated thoughtlessly and without pre- vious reflection a rumor 1 had heard, which I had not verified, and which I am now convinced and believe was un- true. I have since read the categorical denial of Cardinal Gasparri, the Pope's Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the de- nial of Cardinal Bourne in London, and I have also read the statement recently made by Signor Orlando, the Prime Min- ister of Italy, in the Italian Chamber of Deputies. "I therefore feel that it is my duty to retract the statement I made in regard to the Pope, which I do without reserve, and I would like to correct the unfortu- nate and erroneous impression my re- marks tended to create." Q. — Did the Pope induce the Turks to respect British graves on Gallipoli? A. — ^Yes. He communicated with the Turkish Government in the matter, through the Apostolic Delegate at Con- stantinople. Enver Pasha, in reply, as- sured him that the graves and the religious emblems that adorned them would be carefully protected. As a mark of his esteem for the Pope he had photo- graphs taken of the graves and sent to Rome. Q. — ^What is the origin of the word "Anzac"? A. — It was a composite word used as the name of the British colonial troops in the romantic, though unsuccessful, Galli- poli undertaking. The men were from Australia and New Zealand, and, as their organization was officially known as the Australian-New Zealand Army Corps, the initial letters of this long title were put together to form the new word. Q. — What is the fate of a captured newspaper correspondent? A. — ^The enemy should treat him as a prisoner of war, provided he can produce or obtain a certificate from the military authorities of the army he was accom- panying. Q._What is the fate of a non-com- batant with arms in his hands? A;— The rules of war permit his being shot without mercy. His position is a little better now than it was before the Hague Conference of igo7. It was agreed there that if he carries arms openly and respects the taws and customs of war, he must be regarded as a belligerent. He must, however, wear some sort of a uni- form or a badge, which can be recognized at a distance, and _ which cannot be re- moved at will. This was urged by Eng- land and France, who desired to legalize the position of volunteers and irregulars, who previously were only entitled to be regarded as belligerents by the courtesy of their foe. Q. — If a civilian, to defend his home, used a rifle, would he be shot if captured? A. — Certainly he would, Q. — But is that not murder? A. — War, says General Sherman, is hell. But the rule forbidding civilians to resort to arms is absolutely necessary for the protection* of all non-combatants. If ci- vilians were permitted to fight, no troops would venture to enter a village or town until they had killed or driven out every- one in it. The troops alone must carry on war. The rest of the nation must re- main at peace. Q. — Have reprisals in previous wars brought about desired re- sults ? A.— As a general rule, they have failed entirely, but in previous wars only a very small part of the entire communities of the countries at war were at all concerned. In The Laws and Usages of War, issued by the British ^yar Office in 1914, various examples are given. One occurred dur- ing_ the war between Britain and the United States, a hundred years ago. It reads as follows : "In 1813 the British Government hav- ing sent to England to be tried for trea- son 23 Irishmen naturalized in the United States who had been captured on vessels of the United States, Congress author- ized the President to retaliate. Under this act. General Dearborn placed in close confinement 23 prisoners taken at Fort George. General Prevost, under the ex- press direction of Lord Bathurst, ordered the close imprisonment of double the number of commissioned and non-com- missioned United States officers._ _ This was followed by a threat of unmitigated severity against American citizens_ and villages in case the system of retaliation was pursued. Mr. Madison retaliated by putting into confinement a similar num- ber of British officers taken by the United States. General Prevost immediately re- 152 Questiom and Answers tajiated by subjecting to the same disci- pline all his prisoners. A better temper, however, soon came over the British Gov- ernment . . . and the prisoners were re- leased on both sides." In this connection, it is worth noting that at the conference in 1917 between British and German delegates at The Hague it was decided that all reprisals should be abandoned, and both sides un- dertook to withdraw all prisoners from the war zones in the west. Q. — How do people in the con- quered French provinces ob- tain news? A. — The Germans publish a newspaper called Gazette des Ardennes, 100,000 copies of which are circulated, chiefly through the post, three times a week. Q.— Will the shell-filled battle- grounds not be dangerous for farmers? A. — The danger has been realized. Un- less something is done it would be quite possible for a ploughman to strike a shell with sufficient force to kill him or blow his horses to pieces. Various solu- tions of the problem have been suggested. A French scientist has perfected an elec- trical instrument which will give warn- ing when a mass of metal is near. The apparatus requires the services of two men. They can explore an acre thor- oughly in about an hour, and discover every shell near enough to the surface to do any harm. Q. — What is the British law re- ferred to as "Dora"? A. — "Dora" is the nickname or abbre- viation for the Defence of the Realm Act. Q. — How many English horses were bought for war? A. — The figures for 1916 show that dur- ing that year 400,000 horses had been pur- chased at a cost of almost $100,000,000, which works out at an average of nearly $250 each. Q. — Is it true that the English censor expurgated Kipling's verse? A. — He cut out a couple of words from a quotation from Kipling's Recessional, which a correspondent at the front was ill-advised enough to put in one of his despatches.. The particular lines which fell under the censor's ban were : "The tumult and the shouting dies The captains and the kings depart." The censor put his pen through "and the kings," for it was obviously dangerous to refer to the movements of kings in this reckless way I Curiously enough Kipling got into trouble over the same pair of lines fifteen years ago. It was the censors of language, the grammarians and their devoted followers who pitched into him then, and they objected to the first line on the ground that it is customary to pro- vide a plural subject with a plural verb. The Kiplingites rushed to the defense of their master, and argued that tumult and shouting meant the same thing, and^ that the subject was "psychologically singu- lar." Q. — What do the letters behind English names mean? A. — A few of the most usual are ab- breviated as follows : O.M. signifies Or- der of Merit, and is the only honor con- ferred without the recipient's consent having first been obtained ; K.G., Knight of the Garter; K.T., Knight of the This- tle; K.P., Knight of St. Patrick; K.C.B., Knight Commander of the Bath ; G.C.B., Knight Grand Cross of the Bath ; C.B., Companion of the Bath; K.C.S.I., Knight Grand Commander of the Star of In- dia; C.S.I., Companion of the Star of India; G.C.M.G. and K.C.M.G., Knight Grand Cross and Knight Commander re- spectively of St. Michael and St. George; C.M.G., Companion of that Order ; G.C.L E. and K.C.LE., Knight Grand Cross and Knight Commander of the Indian Em- pire ; C.V.O., Commander of the Victor- ian Order; D.S.O., Distinguished Service Order. The above are given in order of precedence. Other letters used are: P.C., Privy Councillor; V.C, Victoria Cross; L.H., Legion of Honor. Q. — Who were the Franc-Tireurs? A.^ — -They were irregular bands of Frenchmen who waged a guerilla warfare against the German invaders in 1871. The Germans did not recognize them as belligerents unless they wore a uniform. When caught without one, they were sum- marily shot. The shooting of non-com- batants who have taken up arms is the military act of force which gives rise to the wildest stories of cold-blooded mur- der in all wars. RAVAGED BELGIUM Q. — Did Germany issue an ulti- matum to Belgium? A. — Yes. At 7 p.m., on August 2, 1914, Herr Von Biilow delivered Germany's ul- timatum, which was in effect an an- nouncement of Germany's intention to violate Belgium's neutrality forcibly if necessary. Belgium's resolve to uphold her own neutrality was given to the Ger- man ambassador within twenty-four hours. Germany, however, had not waited for a response, but had already invaded Belgian soil at Vise. Q. — Did Germany ever confess that entrance into Belgium was a violation of treaty? A, — The German Chancellor acknowl- edged the entrance into Belgium as a violation of treaty and characterized it as a "wrong dictated by military neces- sity." The Kaiser in a message to Presf- dent Wilson, dated August 10, 1914, through Mr. Gerard, speaks of it as "Bel- gian neutrality which had to be violated by Germany on strategical grounds." Q. — Did the United States ac- knowledge the right of Ger- many to annex Belgium? A. — No. Mr. Whitlock remained ac- credited to the Belgian government. Ger- many holds the occupied part of Belgium by martial law alone. Q. — Who was Belgian prime min- ister at outbreak of war? A. — Baron de Brocqueville was the Premier and Minister of War. These two offices are vested in one minister. Q. — Under what rule is Luxem- bourg at present? A. — German troops invaded Luxem- bourg on Sunday morning, August 2, In order (according to the German govern- ment) to assure the use of the railways, which had been leased to Germany, and they now occupy it. Q. — Is Luxembourg a neutral still? A. — Probably she is, technically. Lux- embourg protested against the violation of its neutrality and against the expulsion of the French ambassador on August 4. But the duchy is said to have received about $256,000 indemnity, because it re- frained from armed resistance, and ac- ceptance of this may be held to have clouded the title to neutrality. However, Luxembourg appears still to be considered neutral and independent. Its ruler is Grand-Duchess Marie-Adelaide. Q. — What became of English and French properties in Belgium? A. — The American ambassador, Mr. Whitlock, assumed the French and Brit- ish legations as well as the German and Austrian, protecting as best he could all their interests. The Germans, however, have shown small regard for the property or rights of any other nation, enemy or otherwise; Q. — Was Brussels besieged by the Germans ? A. — No. Mr. Whitlock, the American ambassador, realizing the futility of at- tempting a defense urged upon the Bel- gian General Staff that they surrender the city without resistance, hoping thereby to save not only the lives of the inhabitants, but the historic buildings, art treasures, etc. The Germans took the city without a siege on August 20, 1914. Q. — Was" Belgium an entirely in- dependent country? A. — Belgium is an independent limited monarchy with a national existence dat- ing to so B. C. Julius Caesar speaks of the Belgians as ""The bravest of the Gal- lic tribes." Belgium has a king, a house of Parliament, consisting of a Senate and a Chamber of Deputies elected by popu- lar suffrage. Her cities have burgomas- ters (mayors), and there are three pow- erful political parties : Catholic, Libei-al, and Socialist. Belgian neutrality was guaranteed by England, Russia, France and Germany as a protective measure against invasion by each other. Q. — Are the Belgians a homo- geneous race? A. — There are two distinct peoples in Belgium— the Walloons and the Flemings. The Walloons dwell in the Provinces of Hainault, Namur, Liege, and parts of Luxembourg and South Brabant. A few 153 154 Questions and Answers live in the French departtnents of Nord and Ardennes._ As the name indicates, they were originally strangers in the land — the Welsh of the country. They re- semble the French in vivacity and adap- tabiUty. There were about 2,600,000 o£ them, and their native tongue is French, The Flemings live in Flanders, and at one time were an important industrial autonomous community. Their country was bounded by the Scheldt, the North Sea, and the Somme, and has always been much fought over, but, nevertheless, has always preserved active industrial inter- ests. About 3,500,000 Flemings lived in. Belgium. Their language may be de- scribed as a sort of southern Dutch. Some 2,000,000 speak nothing else, but a large number speak both Flemish and French, Q. — Has there actually been a movement for Flemish sepa- ration? A. — Yes. During 1917 a party was formed in Flanders under the name "Activists." Meetings were held and delegates were elected. The separation of Flemish Belgium and Walloon Bel- gium was proclaimed and the promoters of the movement organized what they appear to have claimed was in effect a government. The reports about it were meager, fragmentary, and somewhat con- tradictory. It seemed pretty clear, how- ever, that the "Activists" did not con- template a sundering of Belgium, but worked on the lines of establishing more or less autonomous governments within Belgium of the two races. They went so far as to designate capital cities for each of the two divisions. There was" violent protest from many prominent Bel- gians such as Cardinal Mercier, Belgian, civil authorities, etc. Q. — Did the B^gian authorities ac- knowledge the separation? A.^No. In February, 1918, the Bel- gian Court of Appeals in Brussels or- dered the prosecution of the "Activists" (as the Flemish promoters of the move- ment called themselves) for treason in plotting against the form of government established by the Belgian Constitution. Two of the leaders were arrested. Q. — Were the Belgian courts actu- ally in force? A.— Evidently so, for the process of the court was executed. However, the Ger- mans did take a hand then. They de- clared that the Belgian judges had ex- ceeded their authority, and finally, when it appeared that the two arrested men were to be condemned, they ordered their release. The judges refused, and they were arrested in their turn. Q. — Would the Flemings and Wal- loons naturally wish to sepa- rate? A. — ^The present movement most prob- ably was deliberately fostered by the Germans. But Flemings and Walloons have from time immemorial had de- cidedly diverging views and aspirations. The Flerriings had felt for many years that they were being dominated unduly hy the Walloons. Some years before the war, there was a great "Flemish re- vival," led by such men as Huysmans. It was largely in the direction of reinstat- ing Flemish literature and language. Q. — Was Belgian neutrality differ- ent from other neutrality? A.— Yes, The neutrality of the hig na- tions like the United States, Great Brit- ain, Germany, etc., in case of a war be- tween other nations, is something for each to decide for itself. It may remain neutral or not just as it chooses. If it chooses not to be neutral, it must, of course, accept the risk that goes with its position, but it has the right to do what it _ wishes. Belgium was different from this ; Belgium's neutrality was an obliga- tion on her part. She was bound by treaty to maintain her neutrality. It was a contract between herself and Great Britain, France and Germany; and these powers, in turn, agreed to respect her neutrality and to prevent any violation of it by anybody. Q— Suppose Belgium, without be- ing invaded, had helped the Allies? . A. — It would have been a clear viola- tion of her obligation, and Germany •would then have been in position to in- vade Belgium legally. Under a strict in- terpretation of the agreement, it might even be held that Belgium had not the Tight that other neutral countries had, to permit the transport across her ter- ritory of supplies that were contraband. Q- — May other neutral nations per- mit transport across their ter- ritory? A.— They may permit the transport of contraband of war, and even munitions, Ravaged Belgium 155 providing they are shipped in the regular way as freight. But, for instance, they could not legally permit a belligerent to transport a single machine gun, or any other material of war, with his own peo- ple or soldiers; nor could they permit any belligerent to transport any of his own actual military equipment and sup- plies across their territory, even though it were only a few hundred yards. They may permit the civilians of belligerent countries to move as they please; but they may not permit soldiers to use their territory at all. Q. — Did the powers guarantee Bel- gian neutrality for her sake? A. — No. So far as Belgium's own in- terests were concerned, the big nations of Europe did not trouble themselves about her, any more than they troubled themselves about Holland, Denmark, Switzerland and so forth. The only rea- son for the neutrality convention over Belgium was her strategic position. It was such that it was equally dangerous to each big nation, because it offered a possible route of invasion or attack. Germany wanted Belgium neutralized in order to prevent France from coming through. France wanted the neutraliza- tion to block Germany. Great Britain wanted it to protect her Channel ap- proaches against either German or French attack from the Belgian coast. Q. — Has Belgium been used as a battlefield often? A. — Every time there was war in west- ern Europe Belgium was a scene of either battles or army-movements, with the exception of the Franco-Prussian War, when the neutralization agreement was reaffirmed and adhered to. The French and British Wars, seven- teenth and eighteenth century, were largely fought on Belgian territory. Many of the famous European battles were around Belgian towns — ^the Battle of the Spurs (1302), Courtrai; Bruges (1745, 1794), occupied by French; Brus-- sels, French, Spanish and Austrian wars; Tournay, English and French (1709) ; Louvain taken by French (1792, i794) ; Liege taken by Marlborough (1702), by French (1792) ; Lierre taken by Marl- borough (1706) ; Namur bombarded by Allies against Napoleon (1704) ; Tirle- mont, Austrians and French (1793, 1794) ; Roulers, Austrians and French (i794)i Waterloo, defeat of Napoleon (1815). There have been many more. Almost all the line held now by the opponents in Belgium has been the scene of many cam- paigns. Q. — Would it be cheaper for Ger- many to restore Belgium than to continue the war for a week? A, — ^The very lowest estimate of Ger- many's war-cost was $127,000,000 a week. That estimate was made early in 1917, before we entered the war, and it did not take into account the steadily rising cost week after week. It is fair to as- sume that even if the German expenses are less than those of the Allies, the weekly cost in March, 1918, had risen to $140,000,000 at least. Assuming that Liege, Louvain, Tournai,_ Courtrai and Vervieres had been entirely destroyed (which is not correct, as the destruction is only partial), Germany could prob- ably pay the total value of these five cities alone out of three weeks' war- costs. An estimate of the values of five of our very important New England manufacturing towns (calculated in 191 5 by military experts to estimate the pos- sible cost of invasion to America) gives their value as $483,000,000. V Q. — What damages could Germany pay Belgian sufferers with one week's war-cost? A. — She could pay each and every in- habitant of Vervieres, Louvain, Tournai, Courtrai, Namur, Mons and Charleroi al- most $1,000. She could pay for almost all the for- ests of .Belgium (estimating their value as based on the Belgian revenues from forests products). Or she could pay damages amounting to more than $10,000 for every square mile of Belgian terri- tory. Or she could pay three times over for every bit of live stock that existed in Belgium before the war. Q. — How many houses were de- stroyed in all Belgium? A. — According to a report issued of- ficially by the Belgian Government, the total number of buildings destroyed in the whole country was estimated on May I, 1916, as 43ii98. Q. — Were these all destroyed pur- posely? A. — The Belgian ofKcial commission said in its report that it was not pos- sible to make distinction between build- 156 Questions and Answers ings destroyed by acts of war and those which were destroyed as punishment for alleged hostile acts of the population. The report added : "It can be admitted at once that the destruction of buildings in West Flanders is due almost entirely to bombardments, and it is estimated, on the other hand, that at least 20,000 build- ings in the rest of the country have been set afire by the German armies under pretext of reprisals." Q. — What sum would cover the damage to the destroyed prop- erty? A. — Assuming that all the 43,198 de- stroyed buildings in Belgium had been destroyed by the Germans, and assum- ing that each building was worth $10,000 (which is a valuation wildly beyond the possible actual values, since most of the houses were small village houses), the total sum needed to pay for the destruc- tion would be $431,980,000. Three weeks' war-cost at $140,000,000 a week would pay even this high sum. If we estimate an average value of $2,000 a house (still fairly high, but approximately near ac- tual facts), we would have damages amounting to $86,396,000 — payable out of 4J4 days' war-cost. Q. — How big is Belgium? A. — 11,373 square miles. Holland is 12,628 square miles. Germany is 208,- 780 square miles. France is alniost ex- actly the same size as Germany, viz., 207,- 054. If she regains Alsace-Lorraine she will be larger than the German Empire by 9,000 square miles. Q. — Was Antwerp fortified? A. — It was regarded as the strongest fortress in the world. Five years before the war it was decided to spend $20,000,-' 000 on remodeling the forts, and provid- ing new armaments. In addition to the great protecting forts, the town was en- circled by ramparts, and completely sur- rounded by wide channels of water. Powerful forts covered the Scheldt (which is also called the Escaut until it reaches the Dutch frontier). As we know, the forts, deemed impregnable, were battered to bits by the huge Ger- man howitzers, their own guns being of too short a range to reply. Q. — Was Antwerp the greatest sea- port in the whole world? A. — New York handled a couple of hundred thousand more tons in 1913, but for a long time Antwerp has been first. The recent immense growth in tonnage of the transatlantic liners has given New York her premier position. The figures are interesting: Entered. Cleared. New York 12,763,765 I3.549.i38 Antwerp 13,233,677 13,272,66s Hamburg 11,830,949 11,946,239 Hong Kong 11,138,527 11,142,117 Rotterdam 10,624,499 10,609,814 London 10,800,716 8,748,008 Monte Video . . . 8,244,375 8,121,543 Marseilles 8,051,321 8,198,874 Singapore^ 7,737,78s 7,7i7,69i Cardiff 6,236,944 9,168,115 Liverpool 7,253,016 7,446,873 Colombo 7,074,152 7,073,170 Rio de Janeiro. 5,212,713 5,198,784 Shanghai 4,183,528 4,155,152 Q. — In ordinary times is Belgium self-supporting ? A. — Not by a very large margin. In times of peace Belgium, like Great Brit- ain, was obliged to import large quanti- ties of foodstuffs, almost two-thirds, in fact, of the total consumption. It is ob- vious enough, therefore, that if the Bel- gians are to exist, large quantities of food must be sent them from outside. Q. — How many Belgian refugees were still in Holland in 1917? A. — According to the last official re- port, January, 1917, less than eighteen thousand were then in Holland who were dependent, on Dutch hospitality. An equal number were estimated to be there, also, who were pajnng their own ex- penses. During the German invasion it is said that a million refugees reached Holland from over the border, but many soon returned to Belgium, and many crossed to England. During 1915 Hol- land spent $3,500,000 for the maintenance of refugees. Q. — Who was Edith Cavell? A.— She was an Englishwoman, direc- tress of a large nursing home at Brus- sels, Belgium. Q. — Why was she executed by the Gerfnans? A. — On Aug. S, I9I5,_ she was arrested by the German authorities and confined in the prison at St. Gilles on the charge that she had aided stragglers from the Allied armies to escape across the fron- tier from Belgium to Holland, furnish- ing them with money, clothing and in- formation concerning the 'route to be fol- Ravaged Belgium 157 lowed. Miss Cavell frankly admitted that not only had she helped the soldiers to cross the frontier, but that some of them had written her from England, thanking her for her assistance. This last admission made the case more se- rious for her, because if it had been proved only that she had helped men to cross the frontier into Holland, she could have been sentenced only for a violation of the passport regulations, and not the "crime" of assisting soldiers to reach a country at war with Germany. Q. — Was it right to call her a spy? A. — No. Technically, under remorse- less application of the exceedingly stern rules of war, her case would come under the general definition of "war-espion- age." But she certainly was not a spy in the common meaning of the word. She was a noble, brave woman, whose name will ever be cherished. The sentence of death had heretofore been imposed only for cases of actual espionage, and Miss Cavell was not ac- cused by the German authorities of any- thing so serious. It was only when pub- lic opinion had been aroused by her exe- cution that the German Government be- gan to refer to her as "the spy Cavell." At S o'clock on the afternoon of Octo- ber i2th, Miss Cavell was sentenced to be shot and she was executed before day- break of the next day. Q. — Was any effort made by the American Legation to stay the execution of Miss Cavell? A. — Yes. As the American Legation was entrusted with the British interests in the occupied portions of Belgium, the American Minister and his staff tried their utmost to get the German authori- ties to agree to allow the legal counselor of the Legation to consult with Miss Cavell and, if desirable, entrust some- one with her defense. This was not al- lowed and, although f rantic_ efforts were made to get the authorities to delay sentence, nothing could be accomplished. Q. — By how many men was Liege defended? A. — About 20,000 Belgian soldiers were in the fortification scheme of Liege, a territory of about thirty miles. Q. — How many men did Belgium have at the front during the in- vasion of her country? A.— Belgium had probably about one hundred thousand men at the front dur- ing the invasion. Q. — Did Gladstone ever uphold dis- regard of treaties? A. — This is what Mr. Gladstone said in Parliaijient in 1870 : "I am not able to subscribe to the doctrine of those who have hel4 in this House what plainly amounts to an assertion that the simple fact of the existence of a guarantee is binding oh every party to it, irrespective altogether of the particular position in which it may find itself when the occa- sion for acting on the guarantee arises. . . . The circumstance that there is already an existing guarantee in force is of necessity an important fact and a weighty element in the case, to which we are bound to give full and ample consid- eration. There is also this further con- sideration; the force of which we all feel most deeply, and that is, the common in- terests against the unmeasured aggran- disement of any power whatsoever." Q. — What are The Hague Conven- tions? A. — ^They are agreements reached be- tween nations regarding certain interna- tional matters. The great ones are: (l) A convention for the pacific settlement of international conflicts. (2) A conven- tion relative to the recovery of contrac- tual debts. (3) A convention relative to the opening of hostiHties. (4) A con- vention concerning the laws and customs of war on land. (5) A convention con- cerning the rights and duties of neutral States and individuals in land warfare. (6) A convention regarding the treatment of the enemy's merchant ships at the out- break of hostilities. (7) A convention regarding the transformation of mer- chant ships into vessels of war. (8) A convention in regard to the placing of submarine mines. (9) A convention con- cerning the bombardment of undefended towns by naval forces. (10) A conven- tion for the adaptation of the principles of the Geneva convention to maritime warfare. (11) A convention imposing cer- tain restrictions upon the right of capture in maritime war. (12) A convention pro- viding for the establishment of an in- ternational prize court. (13) A conven- tion defining the rights and duties of neutral States in maritime war. Q. — Is The Hague Tribunal elected annually? A. — The Hague Tribunal is a perman- ent court of arbitration at The Hague, and is "competent for all arbitrations, unless thte parties agree to institute a 158 Questions and Answers special tribunal." Each signatory power selects four persons, at the most, whose tenure is six years and whose appoint- rnents are renewable. When it is de- sired to have recourse to arbitration under The Hague convention, a special tribunal is selected from this list. The members of the court enjoy diplomatic immunities. The United States was the first power to submit a case to The Hague court. This was the Pius Fund case, with Mexico. Q. — What is meant by the "scrap of paper"? A. — On August 4, 1914, the British Am- bassador in Berlin, Sir Edward Goschen, justified the entrance of England into the war chiefly on the ground that Germany had violated the neutrality of Belgium. In his dispatch to the British Govern- ment, he reported his conversation with the German Chancellor, von Bethraann- HoUweg, who said : "Just for a word — 'neutrality,' a word which in war-time had so often been disregarded — just for a scrap of paper Great Britain was go- ing to make war on a kindred nation." Q. — Was the "scrap of paper" story ever denied? A. — The Committee on PubHc Infor- mation (Washington) says : "When the dispatch was published by the British Government, the Associated Press cor-' respondent obtained an interview with the German Chancellor, who said that Sir Edward Goschen had misunderstood what he had said about the scrap of paper. The Chancellor maintained that what he had said was that England entered the war to serve her interests ; and that among her motives the Belgian neutrality treaty "had for her only the value of a scrap of paper.'" Q. — Did Great Britain destroy the Danish Navy in time of peace? A. — The British fleet, under Nelson, bombarded Copenhagen, partially de- stroyed the Danish fleet then at anchor in the harbor, and took possession of the rest. A. Conan Doyle, writing in the Port- nightly Review (February, 1913), says of this: "It must be admitted that the step was an extreme one, and only to be justified upon the plea of absolute necessity for vital national reasons. The British Gov- ernment of the day believed that Na- poleon was about to possess himself of the Danish fleet and would use it against themselves. Fouche has admitted in his Memoirs that the right was, indeed, given by a secret clause in the Treaty of Tilsit. It was a desperate time, when the strong- est measures were continually being used against us, and it may be urged that sim- ilar measures were necessary in self- defense. Having once embarked upon the enterprise, and our demand being re- fused, there was no alternative but a bombardment of the city with its attend- ant loss of civilian life. It is not an ex- ploit of which we need be proud, and at the best can only be described as a most painful and unfortunate necessity, but I should be surprised if the Danes, on look- ing back to it, judge it more harshly than some more recent experiences which they have suffered since then from their neigh- bors, the Germans." Q- — Were any British soldiers in Belgium before the Germans? A. — It was not until August 16, 1914, that the first British troops reached the Continent., Q. — Did America by treaty pledge herself to the integrity of Luxembourg and Belgium? A. — The United States never guaran- teed Belgium or Luxembourg. She had nothing whatever to do with the Treaty p_f London, by which, in 1839, Great Brit- ain, France, Prussia, Russia, and Austria guaranteed the neutrality of Belgium. In no treaty that the United States ever signed has it in any way undertaken to guarantee the neutrality of any European State. It is often asserted, even now, that the United States was, in some way, re- sponsible by treaty for Belgium, but she had no more responsibility for that small kingdom than she has for Russia, France, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, or any other country in Europe. She was, it is true, a signatory of The Hague Conventions, which, in general terms reaffirmed the in- violability of neutrals in war time, but in signing these she specifically declared that nothing in the Conventions should be binding on her if it involved a violation of the Monroe Doctrine, or would em- broil her in European conflagrations. LITHUANIANS AND POLES Q. — Are the people of Courland, Livonia and Esthonia not Slavs? A. — They are not. They are of a very distinct racial stock known as Letts. The Lettish people claim that they are among the oldest races of Europe, and there is foundation for this assertion. Ethnology finds that distinct Lettish characteristics (language, folk-lore, physical traits, etc.) justify the supposition that the Lettish racial history goes back four or even five thousand years. Q. — Does this fact bear on the modern political situation? A. — Yes. It was used by the Pan-Ger- mans in their arguments to show why the Baltic Sea provinces were not truly a part of Russia — with the deduction, as the Pan- Germans saw it, that, therefore, they might "naturally" be made a part of Ger- many. The Germans did once rule them — very long ago. Q. — Why should Germany desire the provinces? A. — Largely because they contain the very usefu} seaport of Riga. In addition, the coast-line extends to the eastern end of the Baltic, and thus would round out German possession of the whole Baltic coast. Beyond this, their hold would thus extend to the mouth of the Gulf of Fin- land, commanding the approach to Petro- grad. Q. — Has Russia always owned the Baltic Sea territory? A. — No. Lithuania belonged to Poland once. Russia obtained it in the Polish dismemberments during the eighteenth century. Q. — Were the Baltic provinces ever independent? A. — Only in a very general sense. They formed one state, Livonia, but in one way or another it was always ruled or tribu- tary. In is6l the state was finally broken up, part (now belonging to the Russian prov- ince of Vitebsk) being annexed to Poland, part (Livonia and Esthonia) being ap- propriated by Sweden, and part (Cour- land) being constituted as a duchy under the suzeramty of the King of Poland. Thus, though the population remained very independent ethnologically, and still 3s composed of Letts and Esthonians, races of Finno-Lithuanian origin, the rul- ers were always aliens, ending with the Russians. The Germans ruled the Baltic coun- tries the longest and impressed themselves upon their culture most permanently of all. They came there in the thirteenth century, first as colonists and then in the garb of "Brothers of the Sword," a re- ligious order created after the manner of the Teutonic Knights, as conquerors, followed by German merchants and arti- rans. All the chief cities— Riga, Reval, Dorpat — were founded by them, and Christianity was introduced. Q- — Did Russia ever charge the provinces with being pro-Ger- mart? A. — Such charges were made, more or less vaguely, early in the war. The fun- damental truth was, probably, that the Lithuanians were not very enthusiastic in their support of Russia. In addition, there was a very large population that was Gernjan-born or of German blood. Riga was full of German merchants, and its commercial and industrial activity had a decidedly German quality. It is, how- ever, unlikely that the Lithuanians are inclined to become German. They are a race (or small nation) with powerful as- pirations for. political entity of their own. Q. — Was Poland ever a very large nation? A. — At the beginning of the Reforma- tion in Europe (Luther's time, 1483-1536), the area of Poland was greater than that of Germany proper; that is, excluding the various Italian and Austrian portions of the Empire. The Poles were then, and remained for many generations, the most warlike nation in Europe in many senses, wonderfully brave, marvelously skilled in dashing warfare, particularly with cavalry, and extremely restless and fiery. At one time their rulership extended from the Baltic to the Black Sea. They held Livonia, Esthonia and Courland on the Baltic, and Galicia on the Hungarian border, with such cities as Lemberg. They conquered a large part of the Ukraine, threatening the Tartars of the Crimea. 159 i6o Questions and Answers Incessant wars with the Cossacks of the Black Sea and the Don and with the Tar- tars did much to sap their national strength. Q. — When was Poland broken up? A. — Its downfall may be said to have begun when the Swedes and Russians broke into it in 1654 and conquered it. Its final doom came when continual wars ended in the famous agreement between Catherine II of Russia, Frederick II of Prussia, and Maria Theresa of Austria to dismember the kingdom. From that time Poland became subject to successive partitions. Between 1772 and 179s it was thus divided and sub-di- vided, till Russia had all Lithuania, Prus- sia had what is now West Prussia and Posen, and Austria had Galicia. In 1815, at the Congress of Vienna, there was a new partition by which Rus- sia got the greater part of Poland. The Poles have rebelled several times (twice in the last century, 1830 and 1863), but their efforts were unsuccessful. Q. — Was there a Duchy of War- saw? A. — Yes. After the eighteenth-century partitions, there still remained a "free Poland" — a small strip of land around Warsaw. With the fall of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna, the freedom of the Duchy of Warsaw was guaranteed under the protection of Russia, but after the revolt of 1830, it was formally an- nexed and ruled from Petrograd. There have been many tumultuous days in War- saw since. The "loyalty" of Poland in time of war has always been in question, for the Poles have always declared that they will be content with nothing short of a constitutional government of their Q. — Did wars alone cause Poland's downfall? A. — No. Its own inherent weaknesses were great factors. It was in the tyran- nical grip of an aristocracy, consisting of nobles and a turbulent gentry. The serfs were reduced to the lowest position of any in Europe. The Diet or Parliament, which elected the King, often refused to grant the revenues and armies necessary for the public defense. A peculiar privi- lege, known as the liberum veto, by which any measure could be defeated by a single objecting voice, brought the legislature, as well as the monarchy, to a state of im- potence. "The road to Warsaw" became a byword in Europe for "the road to na- tional ruin." Q. — What are the Ukrainians? A. — "Ukraine" means border-land. The Ukrainians are known as Little Rus- sians in Russia and as Ruthenians in Aus- tria and Hungary. There are about 34,- 500,000, distributed as follows : southern Russia, 28,000,000; rest of European and Asiatic Russia, 2,000,000; Galicia, 3,500,- 000; Hungary, 500,000; Bukowina, 400,- 000. The Ukrainians have asserted their right to independent existence for cen- turies. They claim that they own the land from the Carpathians to the Cau- casus, extending well northward into Russia, including parts of Russian and Austrian Galicia and parts of what is known as Russian Poland. They assert that the first alienation of territory occurred when the Poles con- quered all western Russia from the Bal- tic to the Black Sea. Later, when the Poles were conquered in turn by the Rus- sians, the Ukrainians became subject to Russia, but they have never lost their racial sense. The country they claim is said to be the richest agricultural territory in the world. It contains the famous "black- earth belt" that stretches from the Car- pathians to the Urals. Kiev and Odessa are among the big cities that are in this claimed territory. Q. — Does the Ukrainian claim fall under the principle of self-de- termination ? A. — It does. But it is vastly compli- cated because of the political fissures be- tween the people themselves. Thus, the extreme Ukrainians claim that all Rus- sian Poland reaching to and beyond Brest- Litovsk is properly part of the Ukraine. But the Poles also claim this territory as distinctly part of their nationality. In addition, the Ukrainian feeling is strong- est among* the peasants, while the land- holders, the nobles and the middle-classes are largely Polish in birth, political-na- tional affiliation, or both. Q. — Who are the Cossacks? A. — They were roving brigands who in- habited vvhat is now known as the Ukraine. Hunters and fishermen origi- nally, the encroaching Turks and Tar- tars compelled them to take to arms to protect themselves. Later, becoming- stronger, they carried the war into their Lithuanians and Poles i6i enemies' country, and harried them, car- ried on, indeed, a war of extermination. Curiously enough, they borrowed their name from the lower ranks of Tartar soldiery called Kasaki, a word meaning freebooters. The success of their raids induced them to go further afield, and, in time, they became dangerous to the settled western lands they should have protected from Turkish inroads. Q. — Where did they come from originally? A. — When Lublin and Lithuania were incorporated in Poland, in the sixteenth century, many serfs migrated from these provinces to escape the heavy taxes and the cruel rule of the Polish nobles. They settled along the Dnieper, and spread, in time, eastwards to the Don, On the former river they set up a sort of com- monwealth, nominally under Polish dom- ination. However, the relations between the Cossacks and the Poles were often strained, and finally religious differences led to open fighting. The Poles were, and are, Roman Catholics, and the Cos- sacks profess the Orthodox religion. This, at first, led to the loss of all the privileges the Cossacks had enjoyed. But, later, leagued with their old enemies, the Tartars, they defeated the Poles and es- tablished a brief independence. Finally they and their lands were incorporated in Muscovy, and they have been Russian ever since. Q. — Do the Cossacks have special privileges ? A, — They still enjoy some of the privi- leges which were granted them when the migration from Lithuania took place^ In return for these they are bound to give military service to the State for twenty years. They are scattered in ten sepa- rate districts, the most notable lying along the Don, the home of the Don Cossacks, who have played so prominent a part in Russian affairs since the Revo- lution. The Cossacks live in loosely co- operative communities, which own land given by the government. The primary unit is the stahitza, or village, which holds the land as a commune. These village communities elect assemblymen, who di- rect communal cultivation, education, and the like. The villagers appoint a supreme elder, and judges, who settle all minor disputes. Q. — What kind of military service must they render? A. — Every man must serve as a soldier from i8 to 38. For the first three years he undergoes training, for the next twelve he is on active service, and for the last five he is . in the reserve. In times of peace, actually only about a third are on active service, and two-thirds remain at home. When war breaks out, however, all join the army at once. Every Cossack must provide his own uniform, equipment and horse. The State gives the weapons. Q. — Are there many Cossacks? A. — Over three million (half women). They put between 300,000 and 400,000 trained soldiers into the field. AH of them live: on the land. They lease their mines to outsiders, who also run most of the factories in their territories. Q, — Are all Cossacks cavalrymen? A. — Most of them are, only about 20,000 infantry being supplied by them. It is a common practice to call all Russian mounted men Cossacks, but it is incor- rect. Q. — Was Finland always Russian? A. — Finland was a free country from its foundation (about eighth century) to 1293, when Sweden conquered it. In 1809 it was "united" to Russia, but it retained its Constitution and National Assembly until at a favorable moment, in 1899, Nicholas declared it wholly a part of the central government. Finland protested to the Great Powers that the act was a viola- tion of its rights, but received no aid. At the time of the Japanese war, a general strike by all the laborers forced the gov- ernment to grant demands for a constitu- tional assembly. After the crisis had passed, the assembly became a mere fig- urehead again. The Finns, not being Slavic but allies in racial stock to the Magyars (both of. Asiatic origin), never were willing to re- main Russian. Soon after the Russian Revolution they proclaimed their inde- pendence, but the Russian Provincial government under Kerensky would not acknowledge it, holding that it was a mat- ter for the Russian National Assembly to decide. Q. — Was Finland's subjection due to Pkn-Slavism? A.— The incorporation of Finland and Poland both were part of the general movement of "Russification" ; and an at- tempt to suppress racial differences and form one language, one church, and one government. In its wider aspect, it is called Pan-Slavism and includes tTie Slav races of the States in the Balkans. It first l62 Questions and Answers appeared violently on the accession of Alexander III to the! throne in 1881. The Russian Czar, like the former Popes of the Roman Catholic world, united in. himself the rule of the Greek (Slav) Cath- olic Church and the temporal power over the vast areas of the Russian Empire. Q. — Does Germany compel the Poles in Poland to speak Ger- man? A. — It has been reported that she has done so, but the Germans have apparently tried to conciliate the Poles, and have _ promised them autonomy and control of ' their internal affairs. In pursuance of this policy no tribute appears to have been levied on any of the Polish towns captured. The Germans tried to make the Poles in the Polish provinces of Prussia speak German, and even went so far as to pun- ish school children who went on strike because they were compelled to learn their lessons in German. The Russians have also systematically tried to stamp out the Polish language. Q. — Are there many people in the Baltic provinces? A; — Esthonia has an area of 7,600 square miles, with an estimated popula- tion of some half a million) Livonia, the largest of the three provinces, has an area of 17,500 square miles, with a popu- lation of close upon 2,000,000; and Cour- land has an area of nearly io,Soo square miles, with a population of about 800,- 000. The population is divided into Esths or Esthonians, and Letts. There is a percentage of Germans. The remainder of the population in the three provinces is made up of fragments of Finns, Rus- sians, Jews, and Lithuanians. The farmers are, for the most part, proprietors of very small parcels of land, the inadequacy of which compels them to do additional work for the German land- owner as hired laborer or rent some ad- ditional land from him on the metayer system. Q. — ^To what race do the Galicians belong? A. — There are two distinct racial strains in Galicia, both Slavonic — the Poles and the Ruthenians. These peo- ple differ temperamentally, historically and in religion, the Poles being generally Roman Catholics, the Ruthenians Greek Catholics. In the world war the Polish Galicians, for the most part, are pro-Aus- trian, while the Ruthenian sympathies lean toward the Russians, GLAMORING NATIONALITIES Q. — What were President Wilson's peace principles affecting small nationalities ? A. — They were four clauses laid down by the President in a Message to Con- gress, delivered February ii, 1918, and they expressed the following: 1. Each part of the final settlement must be based upon the essential justice of that particular case, and upon such adjustments as are the most likely to bring a peace that will be permanent. 2. Peoples and provinces are not to be bartered about from sovereignty to sovereignty, as if they were mere chattels and pawns in a game, even the great game, now forever discredited, of the bal- ance of power ; but that, 3. Every territorial settlement in- volved in this war must be made in the interest and for the benefit of the popu- lations concerned, and not as a. part of any mere adjustment or compromise of claims among rival States ; and 4. All well-defined national aspirations shall be accorded the utmost satisfaction that can be accorded them without in- troducing new or perpetuating old ele- ments of discord and antagonism that would be likely in time to break the peace of Europe, and, consequently, of the world. Q.^-How many small republics have been declared in Russia? A. — Up to March, 1918, three had de- clared themselves, and had made their declarations good by taking definite steps toward organization and toward foreign recognition. From half a dozen to a dozen other movements had either begun or were struggling along. Of these, the most important were the separatist move- ments of the Cossacks of the Don, and of the trans-Caucasus and Siberian prov- inces. The three really important and decis- ive ones that played a big part in the settlement of peace terms, were the Ukraine, Finland and Lithuania. Q. — When were the Russian re- publics proclaimed? A. — The Ukrainian republic was pro- claimed by the Central Parliament (Rada) on Nov. 20, 1917, and was rec- ognized at the Brest-Litovsk peace ne- gotiations. The same important step was taken by Finland, which formally de- clared its independence as a republic on Dec. s, 1917, and was recognized by Nor- way and Sweden. Lithuania formally declared its independence of Russia on Jan. 8, rgiS. Q. — Did other nations recognize the new republics? A. — No. They remained non-commit- tal. In February, igiS, the Supreme Na- tional Council of Lithuania in Switzer- land presented to the representatives of all neutral and belligerent nations a reso- lution adopted by the Vilna State Coun- cil, proclaiming the re-establishment of the independent status of Lithuania, with Vilna as its capital, but there was no re- sponse up to the time of Russia's sign- ing of the peace treaty. Q. — Did Petrograd recognize the Ukraine republic? A.— No, Both the Kerensky and the Lenine-Trotzky revolutionary govern- ments refused to recognize an independ- ent Ukraine, an independent Finland, or independent Lithuanian States. They sent troops to Finland and the Ukraine. The Lenine-Trotzky Government ordered war on the Ukraine, and continued hos- tilities till they themselves signed a treaty of peace with the Central Powers and •therein bpund themselves to recognize the new republics. Q. — Why did the Bolshevik! op- pose the Ukrainians? A.— The Bolsheviki claimed that the party in the Ukraine that had proclaimed independence was a party composed of the bourgeois population ; and, as the Bol- sheviki plan for Russia was to make it a republic of the proletariat, an attempt by the bourgeois to assert independence was just as obnox;ious to them (and quite logically so) as if the old aristoc- racy had attempted a counter-revolution in Russia. In fact, the "counter-revolu- tion" feared by the Bolsheviki is essen- tially a counter-revolution by the bour- geois. If the Russian question were a per- fectly clear;-cut issue between aristocracy and common people, the situation would be very simple. We would then have seen much less of these apparently con- tradictory actions. 163 i64 Questions and Answers Q. — What is the correct name of the Ukraine republic? A. — The new republic has called itself the Ukraine People's Republic. The re- public was first declared by the Rada, or national assembly, called by the Ukraine people. Subsequent to declaring them- selves an independent state, the Ukrain- ians proceeded to conduct separate peace negotiations with the Central Powers, after the Russian Bolsheviki Government had broken off the first Russian negotia- tions. Q. — How big is the Ukraine re- public? A. — It is a very big country, indeed, but its exact area had not been officially outlined when the treaty of peace was made. It is known, however, that it was the hope of the Ukrainian Rada to take in all the Ukrainian races and sub-races, and that this hope, if realized, would ex- tend the new republic to the land of the Don Cossacks — as far east as the Cau- casus, almost. Northward, it was de- sired to go as far as Brest-Litovsfc, and even beyond, but the Poles immediately raised such a clamor that it was decided to settle that part of the frontier later. With the exception of Bessarabia on the west and what remains to Russia of the Caucasus on the east, this republic quite cuts the rest of Russia from the Black Sea. Q. — When was the Ukraine peace treaty signed? A.' — It was signed in February, 1918, at Brest-Litovsk, with all the Central Pow- ers. It provided for a peace without in- demnities, and appointed a general west- ern boundary for such part of the new republic as did not border on Austria- Hungary. As the northern limit of the western boundary runs into territory claimed by Poland, it was decided to leave its exact settlement to a commis- Q. — What can the Ukraine give to Germany ? A.— Wheat, rye, barley, sugar (beet), meat of all kinds, iron, manganese, mer- cury, timber. The Ukraine is the granary of Europe, despite the very easy-going and anti- quated methods that obtain through a large part of its territory. Its output of wheat, rye and barley alone is one-third of that produced by all Russia. It has amounted in previous years to about 35 million pounds. Q. — How soon could Germany draw wheat from the Ukraine? A.— Of course, the crops are available only when the time of harvest comes. But it is well known that big stores were held there when the war began. One of the big reasons for the desperate Dardanelles enterprise was to open the straits and thus free the wheat crop, which would have fed the Allies and paid part of Russia's debts. How much of this js left and what condition it is in, is not well known. But there assuredly must have been some available when the Ukraine signed the peace treaty, for the Bolsheviki had been clamoring for a re- lease of it for themselves. A more immediate help is the meat which th& Ukraine can furnish. Before the war the immense plains supported about 30 rnillion cattle. Q. — Where is the Lithuanian re- public? A. — It extends from Baltic Russia southward, expanding in the south to ex- tend well into Russia. The area of the republic forms a sort of cushion around the north and east of Poland, separating it from what is left of Russia with a belt about 300 to 400 miles wide. It con- tains the four provinces of Kovno, Vilna, Minsk and Grodno. Q. — About how big is this new re- public? _A. — It contains about 82,000 square miles (about one-third larger than New England), and it has about 9 million pop- ulation (which is also about one-tTiird more than New England), Q. — Does the Republic of Lithu- ania include the Baltic prov- inces? A. — No. These were mentioned sepa- rately in the peace treaty between the Russians and the Central Powers. They were referred to as the States of Esthonia and Livonia. Q. — What did the peace treaty say about the Baltic Sea prov- inces? A. — ^There was a specific agreement as to the eastern boundaries of both Es- thonia and Livonia, and Russia agreed to Clamoring Nationalities 165 evacuate them, while they were to be oc- cupied by "a German police force until security is guaranteed by their own na- tional institutions." Q. — What is the State of Esthonia? A. — It is one of the Russian Baltic Sea provinces inhabited by Letts and Li- thuanians. These provinces run as fol- lows, from west to east: (i) Courland, adjoining Germany, and containing the ports Libau and Riga; (2) Livonia, tak- ing in the Gulf of Riga or part of it: (3) Esthonia, facing the Gulf of Finland, and extending toward Petrograd. Q. — Did the treaty of peace make new boundaries? A. — Apparently the treaty did not es- tablish any very radically changed boun- daries ; but, of course, the radical change was that the treaty did accept the prin- ciple that Livonia and Esthonia were to be separated from Russia. Q. — Was Courland not mentioned in the treaty? A. — No, Courland was not mentioned, but there has long been a custom of re- ferring to all three Baltic Sea Provinces under the general title "Livonia." Q. — What presumably is the size of the Baltic Sea territory? A. — 'The three Baltic Sea provinces — Courland, Livonia and Esthonia — thus separated from Russia, had, under the old subdivision in Russian Government ap- portionment, an area of 36,000 square miles — that is, they would compare about with Indiana in area. Their population is more dense than Indiana, being about 3 million. Q. — Is the Dobrudja a Balkan State? A. — No. It is merely a geographical area. The racial character of its very small population plays no part in the contest over this territory. Its value is due to its position on the Black Sea, and because the great commercial river of Europe, the Danube, empties through the Dobrudja into the Black Sea in a vast system of spreading deltas. Q. — ^Just where is the Dobrudja? A. — It extends along the western part of the Black Sea, from the Bulgarian boundary northward to the mouths of the Danube. It is entirely coastal, and, in a straight line, its Black Sea coast measures .about 200 miles. It thus rep- resented the entire Black Sea coast of Roumania. Q. — Who* owns the Dobrudja now? A. — The Central Powers held it by con- quest until early in March, igi8, it hav- ing fallen into their hands when they de- feated and over-ran Roumania. In March, 1918, the Dobrudja passed to the Central Powers by cession, Roumania having sigped a peace with them which gave them this territory as far as the Danube. That means all of it worth having. Q. — Did the Central Powers assert any right except conquest? A. — Yes. The claim to the Dobrudja was based on Bulgaria's claim to the southern part of it. Bulgaria owned this once, and lost it in the second Balkan War, when Roumania annexed this north- eastern corner of Bulgaria, which she had long desired. Q. — Does the loss of the Dobrudja shut Roumania from the Black Sea? A. — Geographically, it shuts Roumania entirely off from the Black Sea, except for such trifling access as she could have through that part of Dobrudja north of the Danube, which remains to her. The deltas of the Danube, however, make all that territory swampy and difficult. The terms of peace, however, provide that "the Quadruple Alliance will provide and maintain a trade route for Roumania by way of Constanza to the Black Sea." Q. — Where is Constanza? A. — It is the best and biggest port on the Dobrudja Black Sea coast, and is situated about in the middle of that coast line. A railroad connects it with the various important Roumanian places and cities. Q. — Does the Danube run through Roumania? A. — Yes. After the Danube leaves the Austria-Hungarian boundary, it runs for a great distance along the Roumanian and Bulgarian boundary (in fact, forming the boundary), and then it swings sharply north through Roumania, running along the western side of the Dobrudja terri- i66 Questions and Answers tory. It runs almost into Russia, but at the northern Roumanian territory it turns sharply eastward and empties in the Black Sea. Q. — Will Roumania have access to the mouth of the Danube? A. — She can hardly be shut off from using it, though she may be limited in her enjoyment of it. Under the arrangement that was in force before the war, all that part of the Danube from the deltas to the Roumanian cities of Braila and Galatz was under an international commission (Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Italy, Roumania, Russia and Turkey), which improved and maintained it. Q. — What altogether did Rouma- nia surrender by the peace treaty? A. — Besides the Dobrudja, Roumania agreed by the_ peace treaty of March, 1918, to permit "frontier rectifications" between her boundary and that of Aus- tria-Hungary. There were no indemni- ties and no other exactions of territory. Q. — How much area did Roumania take from Bulgaria originally? A. — Almost 3,000 square miles, with a population of about 300,000, most of whom were Turkish. Q. — How much population has the whole Dobrudja? A. — This one of the four historic di- visions of Roumania contains about 381.- 000 people altogether, with Roumanians greatly in the minority. The population is mostly Turkish, Bulgarian, Tartar, Russian, and a fair sprinkling of Ger- man. Q. — Did Roumania sign another treaty of peace? A. — Yes. A few days after signing a treaty with the Central Powers, Roumania made peace with Russia, promising to evacuate all the occupied parts of Bes- sarabia, and agreeing that an international commission was to "take up _ points oi" conflict between the two countries," which was construed to mean that there was to be a discussion of division of Bessarabian territory. Q.— How did Sweden lose Fin- land? A.— As a result of many wars with Russia. She was forced to cede the Grand Duchy of Finland to the Czar in 1809. Though Russia had promised to respect the free institution of the_ Finns and to let them remain under their con- stitution, there soon began a series of reactionary changes till at last their con- stitution was boldly taken away, and they were reduced to a mere subject ter- ritory, greatly to their bitter indignation, for the Finns have long been noted for love of freedom and country. Q. — Does Sweden not want Fin- land back? A. — Sweden has sorely felt the humilia- tion of losing Finland, and the treatment accorded to the Finns has not a little pained the Swedish people, and kept awake their hostility toward Russia. But Sweden always has realized keenly that she herself is quite powerless against her big_ neighbor, and her governments have tried zealously to keep the peace. Q. — Did the Finns retain the right to suffrage? A. — They got it back during the revo- lutionary agitation in Russia in 1905. There was a sympathetic upheaval in Finland, and some measure of her old rights was restored. In 1906 they used their new privileges to elect a chamber of 200 members to make laws for them. Legislation providing for direct voting and woman suffrage was obtained. But Russian governors did what they could to limit the people, and friction with Russia remained constant. Q. — What is Helsingfors? A.— Helsingfors is the capital of Fin- land, and_ one of the old towns of Eu- rope, having been founded by the great Swedish King Gustavus Vasa. It is a fortified town, its water approach being protected by the Sveaborg fortress, which is known as the Gibraltar of the Baltic. Q. — What religion have the Finns? A. — Originally, they were pagans of Mongolian affiliations. The Swedes brought them Christianity. At the pres- ent time they are mostly Lutherans. Clamoring Nationalities 167 Q- — When did Russia agree to evacuate Finland? A. — On March i, 1918, a treaty was signed in Petrograd. Russia agreed to turn over to Finland all claims to terri- tory and property "in the territory bor- dering on the Arctic Ocean," thus giv- ing Finland all the northern part of Russia adjoining Sweden and containing the ancient Lapland. Q. — Is Finland a rich commercial territory? A. — It may not be unusually rich, but it is very much un-exploited, and it con- tains most of the resources that a coun- try needs for income — forest, agricultural lands, minerals and water-powers. It is about one-quarter again as big as our middle Atlantic States. These resources have not been left un- utilized. Finland has a good system of canals, a reasonably good but very lim- ited system of railroads, a small but profitable industrial system, and some shipping. Behind Finland's life is a tra- ditional love for schools, and there is a very sound educational system, which would have been still better had the Finns been permitted to manage their own af- fairs. Finland now manufactures iron-ware, textiles, wooden-ware, paper, leather, and some chemicals. Q. — ^Who sold the most goods to Finland? A. — Germany did. She led all competi- tors so far that had it not been for Rus- sian trade (which came next after Ger- many in volume), Germany would have supplied nearly all of Finland's needs, leaving only a few million dollars for the rest of the word to earn from that country. Q. — How many people are in Fin- land? A. — A little more than 3 million. The Finns are about 2j4 million. There are about 338,000 Swedes, 7,000 Russians, 2,- 000 Germans, and less than 2,000 Lapps. Q. — Is Bessarabia Arabic? A. — No. It is a purely Russian prov- ince entirely within European Russia, in- habited by Slavs, of whom many are Ukrainian. Bessarabia, however, is not actually a part of what the Ukrainians have claimed historically as a part of their territory. Q. — Where is Bessarabia? A. — It is a province of about 17,000 square miles, with about 3 million people, that adjoins the Russian frontier of Roumania, and runs down to the Black Sea. It has a very important coast line on that sea, and Odessa is on its eastern end where the river Dniester empties into the big sea. The fact that the large river runs through Bessarabian territory makes it _ commercially important. The city of Kishinev is in it. Q. — Why did we hear so much of Bessarabia? A. — Partly because through it lay the way to Odessa, and partly because its northern end wedges itself into a corner formed by Roumania and Austrian Buko- wina, and Galicia. The inhabitants of this debatable ground are so diverse in their politics and allegiances that the Aus- trians hoped to gain their support if they could break into Bessarabia. Q. — Is the Ukraine near Bessa- rabia? • A. — The western end of the territory claimed by the Ukrainians adjoins Bes- sarabia. The Austrian operations toward Odessa were conducted through Bessara- bia. Q. — What would be the presump- tive size of an independent Poland? A. — Present Russian Poland is about 43,000 square miles (almost as large as Pennsylvania), and it has 12 million popu- lation, which is 4 million more than Pennsylvania has, despite its big and crowded manufacturing cities. Q. — Can you state the first Ger- man terms at Brest-Litovsk? A. — The Germans agreed to withdraw their troops from all occupied Russian territory, except "portions of Lithuania, Courland, and portions of Esthonia and Livonia." For these territories it was proposed that a special commission should fix the details of evacuation "in con- formity with the Russian idea of the necessary ratification by a plebiscite on broad lines and without any military pres- sure whatever." The reason given by the Germans for making special conditions regarding these territories, was that the population had already, through representative bodies, proclaimed separation from Russia. i68 Questions and Answers The other terms were almost all merely such military and political details as arc common to all peace treaties, to restore relations to the pre-war status. Indem- nities of any kind were distinctly waived. Q- — What was the first announce- ment of German intentions at Brest-Li tovsk? A. — It was the announcement made January 23, 1918, that the future frontier of Russia should be a line east of the Moon Islands to Brest-Litovsk. This meant a complete elimination of Cour- land and the Baltic provinces from Rus- sia. Q. — Did the German demand mean annexation? A. — It was so construed, and with a great deal of reason ; but it did not ac- tually and specifically declare annexation to be an aim of the Germans. There still remained the more or less indefinite program of self-determination, but this again was complicated and obscured by the German refusal to evacuate those provinces before the process of such self- determination should begin. Q. — Will the Jewish question be dealt with in the Peace Con- ference? A. — A principle announced early in the war was "to assert and to enforce the in- dependence of free States, relatively small and weak, against the encroachments and the violence of the strong," and, as the struggle proceeded, this has been assumed to include the liberation of subject peo- ples. The Jews, however, are in different case from other races. The Czechs, the Poles, the Serbs, the Ruthenians, the Rou- manians, live in more or less definite areas, so that their creation into self- governing communities may be possible. The Jews, though, are scattered over the face of the earth ; they do not anywhere inhabit territory where they outnumber the peoples of other races in any extended area. They dwell among other peoples, but yet are not of them. There maybe, however, a real effort to procure just treatment for Jews everywhere, by laying down principles of just government for minorities everywhere. Q. — Are there many Jews in Pales- tine? A. — Apparently there are not very many left there now, but before the war there were some 80,000. Of these, only 5,000 settled in the country as a result of the Zionist movement. They were supported by contributions from abroad, chiefly from Russia. As funds were cut off as soon as the war broke out their condition was soon deplorable, and many escaped to Egypt. Q. — How many Jews are there in the world? A. — That is difficult to estimate, as not every country makes a religious census. There are probably about 13,000,000. More than 6,000,000 live in Russia, more than 2,000,000 in Austria-Hungary, and a few less in the United States. In Aus- tralasia there are 19,500; in Canada, 60,- 000; in South Africa, 40,000; 250,006 in the British Isles. In Germany there are nearly 700,000; in Turkey, outside Pales- tine, 380,000; in Roumania, 250,000; in Holland, 110,000; and in Morocco about the same. France has 100,000, and Bel- gium 12,000. In Italy there are 55,000, and in Argentina more than 30,000. Q. — Who is spiritual head of the Arnienian Church? A. — In the early days the headship was hereditary, and occasionally the "Cathol- icus" and the King were one and the same. Now, hovvever, the Chief Catholicus is chosen by the Synod of bishops and monks, though, nominally, the choice is made by the Armenian people themselves. The seat of the Catholicus is at Echmiad- zin, the convent of Valarshapat, a town in Russian Armenia. There is a rival Catholicus, who has his see at Sic. Q- — What is the difference between the Syrian and Armenian churches ? A. — In earlier centuries both churches were alike, but long ago the Syrian Christians became members of the Greek Orthodox Church. Q.— What faith do the Armenians profess ? A.— They are Christians. The Ar- menian Church is the oldest of all na- tional churches. Tradition credits the evangelization of Armenia to St. Bar- tholomew and St. Thaddeus. This leg- end probably was borrowed from Syria, for it is known that in the fourth cen- tury parts of the liturgy were read in Syriac throughout Armenia. During the early days of the Armenian Church it appears th^t many customs of the pre- Clamoring Nationalities 169 Christian priesthood were maintained, such as the sacrifice of animals under the rites of the old Levitical Law. Q. — Does the Armenian Church more nearly resemble the Ro- man Catholic or the Greek Catholic? A. — It is quite independent, but always has been more widely divided from the Greek than from the Roman. One of the sects is, indeed, practically Roman Catholic. Dominican missions visited Ar- menia in the fourteenth century and a regular order, the United Brethren, was formed. This order is known to-day as the Uniats. They have convents in Ven- ice and Vienna, a college in Rome, and a large following in Turkey. They retain Armenian rites and liturgy, modified to meet Vatican standards of orthodoxy. Village priests in the Armenian Church are allowed to marry, but since the twelfth century the higher clergy have been tak- ing the monkish vow and wearing the cowl. The paschal lamb is still eaten. In baptism they dip three times, not as symbol of the triune name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but in symbol of the three days' entombment of Christ. Until the twelfth century, and perhaps later, they maintained that Christ, until his thirtieth birthday, was a man mortal as other men. Then, because He was righteous beyond all others. He became divine when baptized in the Jordan; but He did not become the equal of God the Father. Holding this belief, they attach immense importance to baptism, and cele- brate January 7, not December 25, as Christmas, holding that Christ was born by way of baptism. Belief in purgatory does not appear to be very general in the Armenian Church. Q. — How many men did Serbia send to the front during the first three months? A.— Serbia sent to the front during the first three months of the war about a quarter of a million men. Q. — Which is the correct spelling — Servia or Serbia? A. — Formerly it was spelled Servia, but now it is officially spelled Serbia. The Slavs spell it with a "h," but as their "b" is pronounced "v," the correct pronuncia- tion would appear to be_ Servia. The Russians, for instance, write Sebastopol, and, in consequence, we pronounce it as we spell it — Sebastppol. They, however, pronounce it Sevastopol. Q.— What is the Sinn Fein? A. — It is an Irish political group orig- inating in 1903. The name means "For Ourselves," or "For Ourselves Alone," in Gaelic, and the movement was originally a group of poets, philosophers and work- ers enthusiastic for the revival of the Gaelic language and literature, and Irish industries in Ireland. Later they became more revolutionary, advocating an Irish national bank, an Irish merchant marine, and Irish consular service — Irish auton- omy, in fact — and opposing Irish taxation by England, emigration, and recruiting for the British Army. This Sinn Fein party joined with Sir Roger Casement in the Irish Rebellion of 1916, and a Sinn Feiner poet, Padraic Pearce, was named as first president of the short-lived Irish Republic. Pearce, Thomas MacDonagh, Joseph Plunkett and other Sinn Fein lead- ers were executed as traitors in the Lon- don Tower in May, 1916, as was also Sir Roger Casement. Q. — How is the word pronounced? A. — It is pronounced "shin fane." Q. — What is the Home Rule ques- tion? A. — It is a demand by Ireland for its own separate political government, with its own Parliament sitting in Ireland. The government of Ireland has never satisfied the Irish. In protest against it, as well as against the conditions of life from which the Irish have suffered, there have been repeated political, educational, and revolutionary movements. The mod- ern history of the problem began about 1880, with Charles Stewart Parnell as spokesman for the Irish, demanding re- form of land tenure and home rule. William E. Gladstone was the first great British statesman to accept the idea of home rule, but no measure to accomplish it was passed until 1914, and this law was at once suspended for the duration of the war. A fundamental difficulty in adjusting a basis for home rule is the existence of two groups in Ireland, which have been mutually distrustful: (i) The Irish, who are mostly Catholic, and gen- erally live in the country; and (2) the Protestant Ulstermen, who are mostly of British blood, live in northern Ireland, own property, and direct the city life and manufactures. 170 Questions and Answers Q. — What parties lead in Ireland? A. — (i) The Ulster Unionists in north- ern Ireland, who demand close connec- tions with England, and fear the control of Ireland by the Catholic Irish ; (2) the Irish Nationalists, who comprise the bulk of the population, and have long main- tained a compact group of representa- tives in Parliament, desiring home rule, but more or less supporting the present war under the leadership of John Red- mond till his death in 1918; (3) a mid- dle group, drawing away from both of these, and desiring a friendly accommo- dation of differences ; (4) the Sinn Fein, extreme nationalists, demanding imme- diate and genuine independence. Q. — Did the Austrians make peace with Montenegro or not? A. — They made a sort of arrangement, not with the king, but with two members of the Montenegrin Cabinet they found in Cettinje, General Becer and Major Lampar. By that time, however, many Montenegrins had fled into Albania, and those remaining were presumably not very hostile to the Austrians. The con- ditions imposed were that all arms had to be given up except those of the Mon- tenegrins who were to assist in the polic- ing of the country. The people were to lend all possible assistance to the Austro- Hungarian forces by furnishing them with food and water, means of transporta- tion and housing, but they were not to be required to enter the territory of their conquerors. The 3,000 Austrian soldiers who had been captured by the Montene- grins were released. Q. — Did America protest against violation of Grecian territory by the Allies? A. — No. True to her ^settled policy when neutral not to interfere in Euro- pean matters, she refrained from protest on this occasion, as when the Germans violated Luxembourg and Belgium. Q. — Did Greece nearly take the Turkish side in the first Bal- kan war in igiz? A. — A few days after the Balkan Allies had begun fighting among themselves, Prime Minister Venizelos was assailed savagely for having allied Greece^ with greedy Bulgaria. He defended himself in a speech which made clear that his preliminary diplomacy had been aimed at getting from Turkey a satisfactory con- cession, particularly on the Cretan ques- tion ; and his speech indicated that if such a settlement could have been reached with Constantinople, Greece would hikve been kept by him out of the war, or might possibly even have opposed the other Bal- kan States. Q._Why did the Balkan Allies fight among themselves? A. — The League of Balkan States had been inspired only by one common pur- pose — that of driving Turkey out of the Balkans. In everything else they were hostile. Serb hated Bulgar, and Bulgar hated Greek, and Greek did not much love either. When the extraordinary victory ■had come, and Turkey's whole Balkan possessions (especially Macedonia) lay in their hands, they immediately became fu- riously jealous of each other. Serbia re- fused to withdraw her troops from Cen- tral Macedonia, which the Serb-Bulgar pre-war treaty had marked out for Bul- garia. Bulgarians and Greeks raced head- long to seize desired portions of eastern Macedonia. The_ Greeks had already snatched Saloniki, and, while Bulgaria still was fighting the main Turkish Army at Adrianople, they took more cities and territory on the sea-coast of Macedonia ■near Saloniki. Q. — Who began the second Balkan War? A. — Bulgaria did. She began it, in- deed, without a formal declaration, and struck suddenly, according to the charges ■made against her by Greece and Serbia. But there had been sporadic- fighting be- tween the various troops occupying con- tested points for some months. Bul- garia had, without doubt, done the big part of the fighting against Turkey. While Greece, Serbia and Montenegro had been defeating Turkish troops within the Balkans, and particularly within Macedonia, Bulgaria had held off the real Turkish Army, and had almost succeeded in striking at Constantinople. Flushed ■with her triumphs, and furious at the seizure of Macedonian territory, which it had been positively agreed should be Tiers, Bulgaria insisted on the pre-war pledges being made good instantly, and declared war as the alternative. To sum up :_ Greece and Serbia had treated Bul- garia very badly. Bulgaria was as greedy as they, however, and was so "cocky" over her great prowess in war that she acted with insufferable arrogance toward her former Allies. Clamoring Nationalities 171 Q. — Who has the best claims to Macedonia? A. — The secret treaty between Serbia and Bulgaria certainly guaranteed Bul- garian possession of Central Macedonia. There is no doubt about that. It has never been denied. That Central Mace- donia is inhabited largely by Bulgarian peoples also is too well known historically to be seriously questioned. The whole history of revolts against Turkey through centuries has had, as one of its chief springs of action, the burning passion of the Bulgars to liberate brother Bul- gars in Macedonia from Turkish rule. But no human being, however gifted, can draw lines on the Balkan map and say, "here and here dwell such and such nationalities." The races are too intricately mixed — and they are not friends. Q. — Would a just settlement divide the Balkans over again? A. — If an international congress were to meet with the purest will to effect a "just settlement," and if it were to call in all the ethnological and other experts in the world, it would probably find it impossible to make a "just settlement" on the basis of dividing the contested Bal- kan territories among Greece, Serbia, and Bulgaria. Those three States might, con- ceivably, be satisfied; but, in the divided territories, there would remain villages and districts wholly, bitterly unrecon- ciled. It might be possible (though ex- cessively difficult) to so arrange it that the unreconciled people would be only minorities — ^but it is the oppressed mi- norities that are making a good part oiT the big trouble just now over the ques- tion of "small nationalities." Q. — Was there an uprising in Greece against the Allies? A. — There was an attack by Greek troops on Allied troops near Athens shortly before the Allies forced Constan- tine to abdicate. In January or early February, 1918, after Constantine's abdi- cation, there was another military upris- ing at Lamia, of which little news was given to the world beyond the announce- ment by Prime Minister Venizelos that: "The Government, believing that it must act without delay, has closed the session of ' the Parliament, so as to arrest, if necessary, those members of Parliament who would be immune on account of their membership were it in session. . . . Every one must understand that the events of Lamia have convinced the Government that it must take an entirely different and firmer attitude toward its adversaries." Q. — Was there a South African re- volt against England early in the war? A. — Yes. De Wet, the famous Boer leader, in- October, 1914, raised the stand- ard of revolt with some five or six thou- sand Boers. By December i, De Wet was a prisoner, and his army dispersed and captured by Boer forces, led by De Smuts. Louis Botha, a Boer leader, was Prime Minister at the time, and main- tained the adherence of the Colony to the British Empire. Q. — How has Great Britain treated annexed nationalities? A.— In , October, 1914, Field Marshal Earl Roberts made the following state- ment: "In India, which is, to some extent, under the control of the British Parlia- ment, such good work has been done for the development of the country, there is such security for life and property, such respect and toleration for the religious and social customs of the people, that impartial observers of all nations have united in a chorus of unstinted praise of British rule in India. Russian, French, and German writers who have been in India have, in turn, paid tribute to the sympathy, tolerance, prudence, and benev- olence of our rule. "Nor is there any sign that British ad- ministrators are tiring of their task, or likely to fail in bearing 'the white man's burden.' In each new dependency which comes under our care, young men, fresh from the public schools of Britain, come eagerly forward to carry on the high tra- ditions of Imperial Britain. We have only to look at the work done recently in Nigeria, in the Sudan, in Rhodesia, and in British East Africa, to see that as a race the British are, if anything, more capable than ever of carrying on the work of Empire." This may be said to represent the gen- eral English view. Q. — What is the cause for revolu- tionary unrest in India? A. — The native opponents of British rule are actuated by two leading motives. One is simply the common desire of na- tionalities and races in this era for their independence. The other is economic. They claim that the mass of the popula- 172 Questions and Answers tion IS kept poor to produce revenues for England, and for the English office-hold- ers and residents in India. Q. — What charges do the Indian revolutionaries make? A. — ^They claim that the taxes on the poor natives, though the sums seem truly petty to the western mind, are excessive, considering the tiny native incomes. Manohar Lai, ex-Professor of Econom- ics in the University of Calcutta, said, in 1916, that the average annual income per head of population in India had been $10 during the past thirty years. Q. — Do British Indian officials get high salaries? A.— The Viceroy of India (full title Viceroy and Governor-General) gets $83,- 000 a year. There also is a list of large allowances for various purposes. The members of the Viceroy's Council get $16,000 each. The Governors of the Provinces get the following salaries : Madras, $39,000; Bengal, $39,000; Agra and Oudh, $33,000; Punjab, $33,000; Bur- ma, $33,000; Bihar and Orissa, $33,000; Central Provinces and Berar, $20,000 ; As- sam, $19,800; Northwest Frontier, $16,- 000; Ajmer-Merwara, $16,000; Coorg, $16,000; Beluchistan, $16,000; Delhi, $12,- 000; Andaman and Nicobar Islands, $12,- 000. Total for heads of government (ex- clusive of Council members, of whom there are some 14), $420,800, for the heads of government alone. Q. — Are the natives very poor? A. — The Indian Government statistics show that weekly wages of agricultural laborers in Bengal are from $1 to as low as so cents a week. In the Punjab, ac- cording to native Indian writers, they range from 33 cents to 35 cents a week. Q. — Do all the native opponents of British rule want independ- ence? A. — No. Their desires are wonderfully various. Some would be content with a reasonable apportionment of the better paid public offices among the natives, oth- ers want simply social equality, and still others would perhaps be content with such reforms as a purely Indian fiscal system, etc. The majority probably would be sat- isfied with nothing short of a very large measure of genuine autonomy. The very patriotic and ardent ones demand com- plete independence, and are willing to re- sort to ^rms. Q._Why has Mrs. Besant been interned? A. — She was interned in June, 1917, for agitating in favor of Home Rule for India. Before she was imprisoned, she sold her newspaper. New India, to a Mr. Telang of Bombay. Q. — Who represented India at the Indian conference? A. — Austen Chamberlain, then Secre- tary of State for India; Sir James Meeston, Lieutenant-Governor of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh; His Highness the Maharajah of Bi- kaner, and Sir Satyendra Prasanna Sinha. Q. — What are the causes of Indian famines? A. — They are given as shortage of rain- fall, with resulting droughts due to the lack of sufficiently extensive water-stor- age systems. This seems to be one of the very big reasons for periodical famines. Students and experts have often stated that in many famine years there had been a heavy rainfall, but it had occurred at the wrong time, and the water, of course, had gone to waste. Over-population is given as another reason. The critics of the government, however, point to the fact that popula- tion statistics, figured to the square mile of national areas, show that European countries have a denser population than India. The revolutionaries say that the true cause is the poverty of the people, which prevents them from having any re- serve for time of need. Q. — Do famines in India occur often? A. — William Digby, in "Prosperous British India," gives the following table, showing famines to 1900 : Eleventh century, two famines, both local; thirteenth century, one famine around Delhi, local; fourteenth century, three famines, all local; fifteenth century, two famines, both local; sixteenth cen- tury, three famines, all local ; seventeenth century, three famines, area not defined; the eighteenth century (1769-1800), four famines, Bengal, Madras, Bombay and southern India. Famines of the nineteenth century and loss of life thereby, divided into four pe- riods of 2$ years : 1800-1825, five famines, approximately 1,000,000 deaths; 1826-1850, two famines, Clamoring Nationalities ^73 approximately 500,000 deaths; 1851-1875, six famines, recorded 5,000,000 deaths; 1876-igoo, eighteen famines, estimated 26,- 000,000 deaths. Q. — Are the famines due to actual lack of food in the country? A. — J. Ramsay MacDonald says, in his "The Awakening of India": "In studying famines, one must begin by grasping what it is and how it pre- sents itself. Even in the worst times there is no scarcity of grain in the fam- ine-stricken districts. At the very worst time in the Gujerat famine of 1900, it was shown by the official returns that there was 'sufficient grain to last for a couple of years in the hands of the grain dealers of the district. It is, therefore, not a scarcity of grain that causes famines.' In recent times, famine has been caused by a destruction of capital and the consequent cessation of the demand for labor. High prices coincide with low wages and un- employment, and the people starve in the midst of plenty." Q. — Does the government not re- lieve famine? A. — The work of the British in famine relief has been praised by practically every observer, even by zealous critics of the British in other respects. Lajpat Rai, one of the most pronounced opponents of English rule in India, who has been exiled because of his agitations, says that this work of the English deserves ungrudging praise. They have reduced it to a science and a small army of splendid men give up their lives to it, and very often cut short their lives by their zealous labors. Q. — What is the relief work? A. — Building of railroads, building of dams and bridges, construction of canals and irrigation works, opening of agricul- tural banks, etc. Relief camps are opened under alert officials and everything pos- sible is done to bring food and means of earning it to the afflicted districts. Q, — Did the British get India by conquest? A. — Only in part, by sporadic, though pretty continual, military campaigns here and there. The real conquerors were the officials and forces of the British East India Company, one of the most extraor- dinary commercial associations^ that ever existed. It was technically a private stock company of merchants, yet it wielded all the powers of a strong national govern- ment, even to the extent of maintaining an enlisted army and making war. Q.— What is the British East In- dia Company? A.— It is the offspring of the "Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies," which was founded by Queen Elizabeth in 1600, and made the first commercial settlement in India in 1.621, after having about 10 years before defeated the Portuguese settlers who were there before them. Q. — What was India when the British came in? A. — It was a country divided into in- numerable governments, whose rulers were practically independent masters, though some acknowledged the suzerainty of a_ central ruler, the Grand Mogul in Delhi. So,me of the rulers were Hindu, some were Moslem, other governments were mixed. Q. — Why did other European na- tions not get foothold in In- , dia? A. — The Portuguese and French were there before the British. The Portuguese lost their hold before 1700. The French fought the English from about 1700 to 1761, when the English won a great final victory (the famous victory of Pondi- cherry)._ That was practically the end of France in India. Q. — How did England acquire In- dia after ousting the French? A_. — Slowly, steadily, by a wonderfully intricate process of native alliances, wars with native Princes, concessions, con- quests, protectorates, and financial ar- rangements, whose complete history fills hundreds of volumes, and still has not been told in all its complex details. Q. — Who was Lord Clive? A. — He was a famous ruler of the conquered Bengal provinces under the British East India Company, and he ruled till 1769. He was a very great man, and one of unusual talents and gifts ; but the power which he had, and the insistent demands of the great company, caused conditions of which Macaulay says : "There was no limit to his acquisition but his own mod- eration. The treasure of Bengal was 174 Questions and Answers thrown open to him, Clive walked be- tween heaps of gold and silver, crowned with rubies and diamonds, and was at lib- erty to help himself. Enormous for- tunes were thus rapidly accumulated at Calcutta, while thirty millions of human beings were reduced to the extremity of wretchedness." Clive was bitterly assailed in the British Parliament when he returned, but he de- fended himself well, and while Parliament criticized certain financial transactions, it also declared that he had rendered meri- torious service. Q. — Was Clive impeached in Eng- land? A. — No. The man who was impeached was Warren Hastings, appointed gover- nor-general of India in 1774. He returned from India with vast wealth, and his im- peachment trial before the 'House of Lords lasted for seven years (1788-1795), and has remained one of the most famous proceedings in the world. During that time England's greatest orators and states- men made addresses that remain as the masterpieces of eloquence. All England was stirred by the tale of exploitation and intrigue that was laid bare. The leader in the indictments against Warren Hast- ings was Edmund Burke. Hastings was finally acquitted, but all his wealth had gone in the struggle, and he lived the rest of his life on an annuity of $20,000 a year granted him by the British East India Company. Q. — Does the British East India Company still rule India? A. — No. In 1784 Parliament passed the first of many laws that gradually curbed and minimized its powers. After the great Indian Mutiny the entire ad- ministration of India passed to the Brit- ish crown (in 1858). Q. — How is India ruled now? A. — By a "Governor-General and Vice- roy," appointed by the English King. He holds oflBce for 5 years, and has su- preme civil and military control with an executive council of a somewhat indeter- minate number oi members, some elected by a very exdusive suffrage, but most appointed by the Crown and always in such a way that the government shall have a majority of at least three. Under this central government are the central departments ; and besides this great, widespread central administration are the very large and elaborate govern- ments of the 15 provinces, each with a Governor and a Council ora "Resident." Under these again is the immense local machinery of government — the districts within the provinces. There are more than 250 of these district governments. The districts again are parcelled out into lesser units, under British officials, magis- trates, or deputy collectors. Q. — Are many natives in the gov- ernment? A. — Practically all the high offices are held by Englishmen. Of the offices that have salaries down to $300 a year, most are held by natives. About 6,500 English- men thus manage, by a complex machin- ery, to rule the 300 millions of Indian people. Q. — What were the India revolt plots? A. — Almost as soon_ as_ the great war began, natives of India in this country, who long had been protesting against British rule in India, began propaganda and engaged in activities which the great British secret service system in this coun- try fought hard to prevent. Many of these Indians were arrested, and finally the government indicted about thirty men, mostly East Indians, for "fomenting a revolution against a friendly power." They were put on trial in San Francisco, and in the last days of the case there ■were put in evidence papers that, in one way or another, brought in such names as Sir Rabindranath Tagore, winner of the Nobel prize for poetry; Counts Oku- ma and Terauchi, former Premiers of Japan, Wu Ting Fang, once Chinese Ambassador to the United States. A great deal of money was spent in the agitation, and it had ramifications in China, South America, the West Indies, Central America, and throughout Asia. RESTLESS RUSSIA Q. — What was the Russian peace treaty? A. — It was signed at Brest-Litovsk in the first few days of March, 1918. A cer- tain territory "lying west of the line agreed on" was declared as no longer under Russian sovereignty. The line was not described in the treaty, but was under- stood to be the demarcation for new Poland, Lithuania, and the Ukraine. The boundaries of the States of Es- thonia and Livonia were specifically ar- ranged. Russia undertook to make peace with the Ukraine People's Republic, and to recognize the peace treaty between the Ukraine and the Central Powers. Finland and the Aland Islands were to be evacu- ated by Russia at once, and Persian and Afghanistan integrity and independence were to be respected by both sides. Rus- sia was to evacuate Asiatic Turkey occu- pied by her troops, and Erivan, Kars and Batoum (the oil and manganese regions) in the Caucasus. Q. — How much of Russia's total imports did Germany have? A. — Before the war she had about one- half of thb total import business of Rus- sia. England came next, but very far be- hind. We came third, and a very bad third. Then came France and Austria- Hungary. Q. — What did Russia import most- ly? A. — Machinery and woollens from Ger- many, machinery and coal from England, and raw cotton from us. Q. — How much machinery did Rus- sia import? A. — About 8s million dollars' worth. German/s whole exports of machinery are about 300 million dollars' worth nor- mally. Russia could possibly absorb all that if she were industrialized on a scale at all commensurate with her possibilities. Q.— Could Germany get rich out of Q._Could the Central Powers and Russia alone? Russia exist by themselves? A.— If a coalition of all other nations obliged Germany to depend on Russia alone as an outlet for her commerce and industry, she would have a field which may be described as follows : European Russia (without counting Poland) is al- most exactly two-thirds of the area of the United States, and it has 30 million more people than we have. Yet this big territory, with its bigger population than ours, imports only one- quarter of what we import — and we are a great producing nation, manufacturing heavily for our own consumption, while Russia needs goods from outside if she is to assume a big place in modern in- dustry. Even at that low figure, however, the world's imports into Russia were about one-fifth the amount of Germany's entire annual export trade to the whole world before the war. It would appear that, with a free hand to industrialize Russia swiftly, expand railroads, etc., Germany might reasonably expect, in a very small number of years, to draw nearly as much wealth from her neighbor as she does now from the whole world. A. — There is one great staple of mod- ern commercial life which they could not produce within their own territories in suflScient amount, whatever else they •might manage to do. They depend on the outer world for enough cotton. At pres- ent their only adequate supply comes from us and from Egypt, with some from In- dia. The trans-Caucasus, Russian Central Asia and Turkey put together produce only about one-sixteenth of the produc- tion of our southern States. While the Turkish production seems to be increas- ing steadily, it is obvious that the supply would fall ever so far short of require- ments for many years to come. Q. — How do Russia's railroads compare with others? A.— Russia (counting European Russia alone) has 36,000 miles of railroad. To have as many, proportionately, as we have, she should have 176,000 miles. As it is, she has less railroads than Germany, though more than half a dozen Germanies could be stuck away in Russia. 17s 176 Questions and Anszuers Q. — Did Russia cede the Caucasus territories to Germany in the peace treaty? A. — The word "cession" was not used. Russia simply agreed to evacuate the "dis- tricts of Erivan, Kars and Batoum," and not to "interfere in the reorganization of the constitutional or international condi- tion of these districts, but leave it to the populations to carry out the reorganiza- tion in agreement with the neighboring States, particularly Turkey." Q. — Did this clause cover the whole Caucasus ? A. — No. It covered only that portion of the Caucasus immediately adjoining Tur- key on the eastern Black Sea coast. It is, indeed, a part that was Turkish until Russian conquest of the Caucasus made it Russian. Geographically, it is small, being only 20,000 square miles (about half the size of New York State), whereas that whole region of the trans-Caucasus (the formerly Turkish Caucasus south of the Caucasus Mountains) is 95,000 square miles. But in wealth it is of tremendous importance. Q. — Is Batoum the richest oil-field in Russia? A. — No. Batoum is the pipe-line termi- nus and the shipping port for some of the richest oil-fields in the world, but the trans-Caucasus province that is the big cil-producer is on the other side of the Caucasian peninsula — the province of Baku on the Caspian Sea, which remains to Russia. The oil-fields in the region generally are, however, quite rich enough to be a tempting and valuable prize. But there is another still greater value to the Ger- mans in control of Batoum and Kars. Batoum and a neighboring city named Poti are the seaport points for what prob- ably are the richest manganese deposits in the world. This district produced almost one-third of all the manganese obtained in 1913. What this means to Germany's iron and steel industry is clear. Q. — Has the Batoum region coal and minerals? A. — It has copper and coal. It is said that one mine alone, very inadequately worked now, has been examined by ex- perts who estimate that it has deposits of probably lJ4 million tons of ore that runs about twice as rich as American ore does. There also is asphalt and rock salt in the region. Q. — Is Russia overwhelmingly im- portant to the world's oil sup- ply? A. — In 1900 Russia produced thirty-one per cent of the oil of the world, but owing to the slackening of the Baku out- put, this percentage, of course, has de- creased heavily. The true wealth of the Russian oil-supplies has hardly been touched, it is said. Q. — Are the Russian peasants very poor? A. — There are large districts where, it is said, the average annual expenditure of a peasant on all his needs is not more than 20 roubles ($10) a year I Even this tiny sum cannot all be spent on him- self. He must buy implements out of it, make repairs, etc., — if he can. In one district of 28,000 of these small peasant farms, io,oco do not own a single horse between them, and the 10,000 farms to- gether do not own fifty modern agricul- tural machines. Q. — Was there a Russian republic once? A. — In the city of Novgorod, south from Petrograd, is a monument erected in 1862 to commemorate the i,oooth anni- versary of the founding of that city. In- cidentally, it commemorates a Russian re- public which held its own for many cen- turies. The people of Novgorod (who probably descended from Danish sea-rovers under Rtirik) obtained a charter from their Prince, Yaroslav, and after about a cen- tury of this semi-free existence, they elected their own Princes through a popu- lar assembly or council called the vyache. The vyache soon became the real ruler, and thrust the Princes out whenever they failed to please. In 1 120 they decided to do without Princes altogether, and after that were governed by their vyache. By the fourteenth century the community (which consisted mostly of powerful merchants) had become so great that it included other large towns, such as Pskov. They fought Swedes and Germans suc- cessfully, and, with the help of the Lithu- anians, beat back the invasion of the Princes of Moscow several times. In about 147s, however, they were overcome and Ivan III of Moscow took away their charter. In 1570 Ivan IV (Ivan the Ter- rible) subjugated them entirely, massa- cring 15,000 or, as some accounts have it, 60,000. Restless Russia 177 Q. — What did the Russian Revo- lutionists want? A. — After the abdication of the Czar, the Provisional Revolutionary Govern- ment announced the following principles : _(l) Amnesty for all political and relig- ious offenses; (2) freedom of speech, press, association, labor, right to strike, and extension of these liberties to troops so far as conditions permit; (3) abolition of all social, religious and national re- strictions; (4) summoning of a constit- uent assembly ;_ (s) substitution for the police of a national militia with elective heads ; (6) communal election with uni- versal suffrage; (7) troops that partici- pated in revolution not to be disarmed, but not to leave Petrograd ; (8)_ severe military discipline in active service, but all restrictions on soldiers in enjoyment of social rights granted to other citizens to be abolished. Q. — Who formed the first Russian Provisional Government? A. — Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior, Prince George Lvoff; Minister of Foreign Affairs, Paul Miliukofl; Min- insters of War and Marine, Alexander Guchkoff; Minister of Finance, Michael Tereshchenko ; Minister of Justice, Alex- ander Kerensky; Procurator of the Holy Synod, Vladimir Lvoff. Q:— Was the Provisional Govern- ment recognized by the Allies? A. — It was recognized quite promptly by all the Allies, by most of the neutral nations, and by the United States, which was not then at war with Germany, but was fast moving toward it. Q. — Who are the Bolsheviki? A. — They are Russian Socialist Demo- crats. They are not a new party, but, on the contrary, one of the older political factions of Russia. The men who now call themselves Bolsheviki were originally the very radical element of the Russian Socialist Democratic party, representing, in a broad way, the political principle that the proletariat must rule, and that the fight of the proletariat is not merely against an autocratic government, but that it is also against the middle class — the class that, wishing to cling to its own possessions, even though these might be meager, must necessarily always oppose the proletariat's demand for communal ownership. Q. — Why are they called Bolshe- viki? A. — In 1905 there was a great split in the party,, and the Radicals, then under the leadership of Nikolai Leiine, found themselves in the majority. They de- manded an immediate effort to secure a maximum of the party's program, and were, therefore, christened "Bolsheviki" — the men who want more^or Maximalists. Their more moderate opponents became known as "Mensheviki" — those who de- mand less — or Minimalists. The name seems to have had nothing to do with the fact that these "root-and-branch" parti- sans controlled a majority of the Social- ist Democratic party. They might be in a minority there, and among the Russian people as a whole, yet still be Bolsheviki. The present Bolsheviki party is com- posed not only of the original faction, but also of the radical faction of the Peas- ants' Social Revolutionary party, which joined the Bolsheviki in 1917. Q. — Were the Bolsheviki backed by the people generally? A. — They showed quite surprising pop- ular strength for a considerable time. At the third All-Russian Conference of Councils of Workmen's and Soldiers' and Peasants' Delegates, which was held in Petrograd^ during the end of January, 1918, the opposition to Bolsheviki rule was so weak, both in numbers and in spirit, that it was almost negligible. This was unexpected, since this conference was attended by men who, under the Soviet or Local Council systems of Rus- sia, might be supposed to represent the people very directly, and it had been be- lieved that they would have marked dif- ferences of opinion with the radical Pet- rograd Socialists. Q. — Did the Soviets support the Bolsheviki peace with Ger- many? A.— The All-Russian Congress of So- viets, assembled in Moscow to act on the peace treaty submitted by Lenine, con- sisted of 1,164 delegates, soldiers, sailors and peasants being in the majority. The assembly voted overwhelmingly to accept the treaty, though voicing its unrelenting enmity toward the German military and capitalistic government. Q. — What is Lenine's political creed? A.— Nikolai Lenine's creed apparently remains the one he has preached all his 178 Questions and Answers life — the Proletarian Revolution. This is unlike the socialism of the men under Kerensky, who fought for a general so- cialism. The Lenine school holds that the class struggle must be fought out first, and that the undermost class is the more numerous, and must, therefore, be placed on top. In following out this idea to practical issues, he holds that the land questibn is the foundation of all poverty in Russia and that, therefore, it must be solved first. The solution, as he sees it, is to proceed to immediate and complete appropriation of all privately owned land. Q. — How much privately owned land is there in Russia? A. — Lenine said recently that of 297,000- 000 acres in the hands of private proprie- tors, 21,000,000 acres alone were owned by a so-called "Department of Appan- ages," really a little group of Romanoff Grand Dukes. One such family, he said, owns more land than is possessed by half a million average peasant families. He enumerates 924 rich families in Russia which hold 27,000 acres each. Q. — Is not much land owned by peasants? A. — One of the declarations of the Bol- sheviki political principles is that there are about several million of men of the peasant class, known as Zazhtochnii (rich peasants), who gamble in land, hold it for debt, etc., and starve the poor peas- ants. These oppressive bourgeois peas- ants were under the Bolsheviki ban like the great land-owners. Q. — Is Russia a true Slav State? A.— A majority of the population is Slav, but Russia is by no means a com- pletely Slav State. The race mixture is as remarkable as that in Austria-Hungary. Of the 132,000,000 population of Euro- pean Russia in 1915, 92,000,000 were Slavs, 12,000,000 were Asiatic Tartars, 5,500,000 were Finns (akin to the Magyars of Hun- gary), 5,000,000 were Jews, 3,000,000 were of Latin and Germanic stock, and 3,000,- 000 Lithuanians. Q. — What races inhabit Russia? A. — Slavs, Lithuanians, Letts, Semites (Jews), Poles, Greeks, Swedes, Rouman- ians, Armenians, Persians, Kurds, Gypsies, Esthonians, Finns, Lapps, Samoyedes, Tartars, Bashkirs, Turks, Kirghiz, Uz- begs, Yakuts, Kalmucks, Georgians, Cir- cassians, and Caucasians (natives of the Caucasus). Q. — What was Russia originally? A. — Originally, the huge territory in eastern Europe now covered by Russia, was divided among separate tribes and nationalities, which had nothing in com- mon. Thus, at the death of Charlemagne (814 A.D.), when the empires of western Europe had attained splendor and a de- cidedly high civilization, the Russian ter- ritory was practically without any con- nection or communication with that west- ern civilization. The Baltic coast was held by a Lettish race, who formed a state there called Esthonia. The west and cen- ter of the area was known as Slavonia, and the greater part of the Black Sea coast, and the land reaching well toward the north of Russia on the Asian bound- ary, was held by the very powerful King- dom of the Khazars, who were Tartars. Q. — What is the Russian Holy Synod? A. — It is the supreme organ of gov- ernment of the orthodox church in Rus- sia. It was established in 1721, and, dur- ing the Czardom, was presided over by a lay procurator representing the Czar. The other members of the , Holy Synod were the three "Metropolitans" of Moscow, St. Petersburg and Kiev, the Archbishop of Georgia, and a number of bishops sitting in rotation. Q. — Are all Russians members of the Greek Catholic Church? A. — In 1905 an estimate was made that of 140,000,000 Christians of various sects, about 87,ooo,ooo_ were members of the or- thodox or Russian State Church. Q. — What are the other chief re- ligions in Russia? A. — Of the population (estimated at from 160 to 180 millions) living in all the Russian Empire, an area about 2% times as big as the United States, about fifteen million are Mohammedans, Bud- dhists, or other non-Christians, about five million are of Jewish faith, and one hun- dred and forty rnillion are of the various sects of the Christian religion. Q. — What does "bourgeois" mean? A. — The word means literally "bur- gher," or the burgher class— that is, the prosperous middle class of Europe. It became a term of opprobrium during the French Revolution, when the middle classes, which themselves had suffered under the tyrannical rule of the monarch- Restless Russia 179 ical aristocracy, became frightened by the excesses of the lower classes, and in their desire for orderly government leaned to- ward restoration of the monarchy — or were suspected of doing so. Q. — What do the Russians mean by "bourgeois"? A. — In Russia the term is now applied to everybody whose interests and leanings differ from those of the masses. All such persons are accused of capitalistic sym- pathies, and are under suspicion by the radical groups. The effect is to class among the bourgeois many so-called in- tellectuals and more moderate liberals, to whom, as a matter of fact, the first suc- cess of the revolution largely was due. It was because of his alignment with this class that Professor Milyukoff lost stand- ing with the radical revolutionaries. Q. — Would not the bourgeois be likely to cling to republican- ism? A. — The Bolsheviki fear and believe that the "bourgeois" element of the en- tire world (and perhaps Russia in par- ticular, because Russian political ambition is extraordinarily small among the mid- dle class) would be guided mainly by the class-desire for an "orderly" government beyond everything else. Business, trade, money-earning, money-making — these are wholly natural (and not in themselves blameable) purposes of the great middle classes of the world. Radical reform- ers, who are willing to suffer privations, and even to die for their beliefs, feel sure that the bourgeois would not be willing to suflfer for a great ideal reform, but would weaken and turn to any powerful party that might assure them of quiet and peace. Q. — Are there separate govern- ments in Russia? A. — Yes, and there always have been, though most of them were simply Uttle autocracies, ruled by governors who rep- resented Petrograd. There are 78 of these local government divisions, and 50 of them are in Russia proper. The local affairs (parish affairs) are in the hands of peasants' committees. Under the revo- lutionary government there were about 17,000 of these parishes or cantons. Q. — What is meant by zemstvos? A. — They are an old form of assemblies elected for each district. A Russian dis- trict corresponds in a general way to a county. Zemstvos were elected by a re- stricted vote, and were purely deliberative local bodies with closely circumscribed rights and duties. Their importance and efficiency differed greatly in various parts of the country, hut, as a whole, they did good work. _ Undoubtedly they spread the popular desire for self-government, and afforded practical experience of it. Q. — Did the zemstvos meet during the war? A. — Prince George Lvoff, first premier of the provisional government, later de- nounced and dismissed, was a strong be- liever and supporter of the zemstvos. It was due primarily to his efforts that a voluntary council of all zemstvos formed under his leadership during the darkest period of Russia's defeats by the armies of the Central Powers. This vol- untary body was chiefly responsible for the improved supply of food, munitions, and medical aid to the forces at the front when the incompetency and corruption of the established government were discov- ered. The fiftieth anniversary of the zems- tvos was in the year before the great war began (1913)- Q. — Did the zemstvos rule cities also? A. — No. They are local elective assem- blies for the population dwelling outside the towns. Established in 1864, they were of two sorts — cantonal, in which even peasants had a limited representation, and provincial, composed of delegates elected from the cantonal zemstvos ; they were to meet annually, and exercise large pow- ers in relation to education, public health, roads, etc. In 1890 their powers were greatly restricted, but in 1905 they re- gained much of the initiative which chey had lost. The role of the congress of zemstvos, composed of leading members of the local bodies, who in November, 1904, and June, 1905, assembled at Petro- grad, has often been compared to that of the Assembly of Notables in the French Revolution. Q.— What is the Duma? A. — A Russian Parliament or Congress created unjJer the old regime. It was an elective body representing the people it large, and was created August 6, 1905, as a result of a popular uprising. In Octo- ber, 1905, it received guarantees of free- dom of speech, conscience, assembly, and association, and of inviolability of the per- i8o Questions and Answers son. These guarantees, however, were not kept by the Government. At the same time the body then known as the Council of the Empire was made a legislative council and became the upper house of Russia's Parliament. Q. — What was the term of a Duma? A. — Constitutionally, the members of the Duma were elected for a term of five years. The first and second Dumas, how- ever, lasted only a few weeks each. The third Duma completed its term. The fourth Duma, elected in November, 1912, was in session at the outbreak of the revo- lution, and, though not actually a prime factor in its inception, was sympathetic toward it, and was a means through which anarchy was avoided. Q. — How were Duma members elected? A. — By a process which is, perhaps, the most complicated in the world. The origi- nal manifesto that brought the Duma into being was altered by Imperial ukase in igo7, it having been found that under the original arrangement the Cadet party — the Constitutional Democrats, which in- cluded the Socialists and exiles returned to Russia when the constitution was promised in 1905 — was in overwhelming strength. The Cadets were so obnoxious to the government that the first Duma was dissolved at once. When the Cadets proved again to be in great majority in the second, it was resolved to alter the electoral law, so that representation should be more conservative. The mem- bers from Siberia, the Caucasus and Po- land were reduced from 89 to 39, the Central Asian Steppes were disfranchised altogether (they had before this sent 23 members), and the number of representa- tives in all was reduced from 524 to 442. The members were to be elected by a complicated system of electoral colleges which cou-d be, and were, so manipulated as to leave the power in the hands of the bureaucracy and landed proprietors. Q. — Had the Duma much power? A. — According to the constitution it had very little. It was allowed to have nothing to do with the army or navy. Legislation was in the hands of Minis- ters, who were responsible not to the Duma, but to the Czar. Members might originate legislation, but not until it had the approval of the Minister of the De- partment concerned. If, by a two-thirds majority, the Duma arraigned the action of a Minister, the President of the Im- perial Council laid the case before the Czar, who decided the matter. The Duma had little real power over finance, more than half the annual expenditure of the country in times of peace being entirely outside the control of Parliament. Min- isters could and did impose taxation with- out consulting the Duma at all, for when it was not sitting the Czar had the power to issue ordinances having the force of law. He had also the power of dissolving the Duma or proroguing it whenever he liked. Despite this, the Duma, during its last three' or four years, established its position so well that it was beginning to take a larger share in public affairs, and began to brook no curbing. The Council of Soldiers' and Workers' representatives assumed superior power soon after the revolution. Q. — Were workmen represented in the Duma? A. — They were specially treated. Every industrial concern employing fifty work- ers or more, elected one or more dele- gates to the electoral college of the par- ticular government in which it was situ- ated. If it were not for the provision that at least one Duma member must be chosen in each government from each of the five classes represented in the college, it is obvious that the progressive elements would not have had any representation at all in the Russian Parliament. This rule, however, made it imperative that a fixed minimum of peasant members must be sent to the Duma, a fixed mini- mum of landed proprietors, and so on. But the Radical elements in the Duma practically all came from the cities of Petrograd, Moscow, Kiev, Odessa, Riga, Warsaw and Lodz. These seven cities elected thejr representatives for the Duma direct, although even in their case spe- cial precautions were taken to give me advantage to the wealthy electors. Q. — What was the Council of the Empire? A. — There was_ of old an Upper House called the Council of the Empire, consist- ing of 196 members, half being nominated by the Emperor and half being elected. The Czar nominated his own Ministers, v^ho were ex officio members of the Coun- cil. Of the 98 elected n.jmbers the Monks selected three, the clergy three, the Cor- porations of Nobles eighteen, the Acade- mies of Science and the Universities six, • the Chambers of Commerce six, the In- Restless Russia l8i dustnal Councils six, the Zemstvos thirty- four, Governments having no Zemstvos sixteen, and Poland six. Another body, called the Senate, had really nothing to do with legislative matters. It was ac- tually a sort of Supreme Court, but per- formed a great variety of functions. All its members were nominees of the Czar. Q.— What does "Soviet" mean? A. — It is the Russian word for council. It appears frequently in the newspaper dispatches as a brief and convenient syn- onym for the Council of Workmen's and Soldiers' Deputies. Q. — What are the various Russian "Councils"? A. — They spring from certain Work- men's, _ People's, Peasants' and Soldiers' Councils that _ were formed in several places in Russia during the disorders in 1905- They were remembered when the 1917 revolution came. The Petrograd Council of Workmen's and Soldiers' Deputies was organized before the Provisional Government was formed. The Petrograd Council was soon supplemented by dele- gates from other councils, and this en- larged council launched the important campaign for the publication of secret treaties, and for a general peace at the earliest possible moment. Then an All-Russian Congress of Coun- cils of Workmen's and Soldiers' Deputies held a joint session to discuss vast and radical economic reforms. The Congress adjourned in July, leav- ing_ a permanent executive committee, to which the Socialist ministers of the coa- lition cabinet were held responsible. The executive committee supported the Keren- sky Government until the Kornilov affair, when, under the influence of the Bolshe- viki, it began to take a more radical line again. The newly elected municipal govern- ments were tending to replace the Coun- cils of Workmen's and Soldiers' Deputies when the Bolsheviki uprising of Novem- ber, 1917, occurred. Q. — What is meant by the "Cama- rilla"? A.^"Camarilla" is a Spanish equivalent for the English "cabal." The name was applied to the group of men and women who surrounded the Czar. Among them were to be found politicians, generals, and priests. Some of them were, very probably, pro-German, and, previous to the revolution, were working for a sepa- rate peace. Others, like Rasputin, were primarily interested in gaining as much power and wealth as possible. The Czar and Czarina were influenced excessively by this group, and nothing of which they disapproved had much chance of reach- ing the ear or eye of Russia's autocrat. Q. — Whb was Rasputin? A. — A Russian monk, known as the "holy devil" of the Russian Court, who is thought to have wielded extraordinary and fateful power over the Czarina, and, through her, over the Czar, and have ma- terially hastened the downfall of the Romanoff dynasty by inciting them to more and more merciless autocratic meas- ures and intolerant policies against lib- eralism. Q. — Why did the Bolsheviki refuse to let Ambassadors draw money from banks? A. — In order to compel the British Government to give the Bolsheviki Gov- ernment complete control of Russian funds in the Bank of England. In real- ity, the object was far greater than merely that of gaining access to funds. To ad- mit their right to the Russian funds meant to acknowledge the Bolsheviki Government. Q. — When was the Russian Con- stituent Assembly dissolved? A.— The Russian Constituent Assembly held its first rneeting on January 18, 1918, and after a single turbulent session was dissolved by armed Bolshevist sailors in pursuance of a degree issued by Premier Lenine. The assembly was succeeded by the AU-Russian Congress of Soviets (councils of workmen and soldiers), which held its first meeting on January 22nd. Q. — What was the personnel of the American mission to Russia? A. — Elihu Root, Charles R. Crane, Gen- eral Hugh M. Scott, Rear-Admiral Glen- non, John R. Mott, Charles Edward Rus- sell, and Cyrus McCormick. Q. — What did Russia owe the United States when she with- drew from the war? A. — At that time Russia owed us $187,- 779,000 — that is, we had advanced this money for Russian account to our l82 Questions and Answers own manufacturers and producers for goods. Many of these had been sent to Russia and were, presumably, piled up in Vladivostock when the Russians signed the peace with the Germans. The United States held Russian bonds as security for the loan, which was part of a total credit that had been established for $325,000,000. Q. — How many prisoners of war were in Russia in 1918? A. — Apparently about l^_ million Ger- mans and Austro-Hungarians, with a sprinkling of Turks and Bulgars. Most of the prisoners were Austro-Hungarians, for the Russian captures of German sol- diers were comparatively small, as fig- ures go in this huge war. Not all of these prisoners were soldiers, either. Rus- sia interned a very large number of Ger- mans and Austrians who were in her pos- session when war began, Q. — Did she send the prisoners to Siberia? A. — She sent most of them to Siberia. Little was said about it early in the war, because the name "Siberia" was recog-, nized by the Allies as possibly conveying a sense of tragic exile and suffering; We must remember, however, that Siberia is not at all the forbidding country that past generations believed it to be. It is undeniable that the long journey through a country with inadequate rail facilities, and with very inadequate places of rest, was very hard ; but when the prisoners arrived at their destinations, _ they were, probably, not badly off. The innate kind- liness of the Russian population would do much to alleviate their lot as far as insufficient resources permitted. Q. — When was the Russian Red Army organized? A. — "The New Workmen's and Peas- ants' Red Arm/' was named in an offi- cial communication, January 31, 1918, of the Bolsheviki Government of Russia, as being ready to "serve to support the com- ing social revolution in Europe," Q. — When was the name of St. Petersburg changed to Petro- grad? A. — It was done by Imperial ukase on September I, IQM- The city then had a population of well over 2,000,000, but after the Grand Duke evacuated Poland this was temporarily increased by almost another million. Q. — How many Prime Ministers has Russia had since the war? A. — Seven : Kokovtsoff, Goremykin, Sturmer, Trepoff, Prince Golitzin, Prince Lvoff and Kerensky. Then came the rule of Lenine and the Bolsheviki party. Q. — How many men did Russia send to the front in the first three months? A. — Russia put into the field during the first weeks of the war about a mil- lion and a quarter, which grew to per- haps two million and a half by the win- ter of 1914-1915. Q. — Did Tolstoy foretell events of the war? A. — In 1910 he wrote an essay ad- dressed to the Czar, the Kaiser, and King George, in which he foretold that com- mercialism would set the world afire with the flames of war and bigotry. He said : "The great conflagration will start about 191Z, set by the torch of war, in the countries of southeastern Europe. It will develop into a destructive calamity in 1913. In that year I see all Europe in flames and bleeding. I hear the lam- entations of huge battlefields. But about the year 1915 a strange figure from the north — a new Napoleon — enters the stage of the bloody drama. He is a man of little militaristic training, a writer or a journalist, but in his grip most of Eu- rope will remain till 1925. The end of the great calamity will mark a new political era for the old world. There will be left no empires and kingdoms, but the world ■will form a federation of the United States of Nations. There will remain only four great giants — the Anglo-Saxons, the Latins, the Slavs, and the Mongol- ians." Q. — Did Tolstoy not also prophesy a new Messiah? A. — Yes. In that same essay he said: "After the year 1925 I see a change in religious sentiments. Bigotry has brought about the fall of the church. The ethical idea has almost vanished. Humanity is without the moral feeling. But then a great reformer arises. He will clear the world of the relics of monotheism, and lay the cornerstone of the temple of pan- theism. God, soul, spirit, and immortal- ity will be molten in a new furnace, and I see the peaceful beginning of an ethical era. The man determined to this mission is a Mongolian-Slav. He is already walk- Restless Russia 183 mg the earth— a man of active affairs. He himself does not now realize the mis- sion assigned to him by a superior power." Q. — What is Brest-Litovsk? _ A. — Brest-Litovsk is an eastern fron- tier town of Russian Poland, about one hundred miles east of Warsaw. It was the scene of the peace parleys between the Germans and the Russian Bolsheviki leaders, Trotzky and Lenine. Q. — When was the Czar over- thrown? A. — The first news of the revolution of the Russian people and the abdication of Czar Nicholas came to the world on March 16, 1917. There were intimations two_ days before this that some political crisis was at hand, but the reports were so vague that they gave little clue to what was going on. On March 18 the Pro- visional Government issued its Appeal to the People, and this date has been ac- cepted as the beginning of the new regime. Q. — How are the Russians off for food and fuel? A. — One of the most reliable writers, who has recently been in Russia, reports as follows: "In Petrograd, though I was stopping at one of the most highly esteemed Rus- sian hotels, often in the morning the waiter would come up to my room with the cheerful tidings : " 'No sugar to-day ; no butter ; no eggs ; no milk.' And he would set before me a pot of clear bitter coffee, and a small chunk of soggy black bread. But when I made trips to the villages, in peasant huts I would be regaled by my hospitable host with white bread, rich, fresh milk, and also eggs and butter. I would fatten on the land for a time, and then would return to my meager li'fe in that starved, elaborate hotel. "Not only was food scarce in the towns, but the people were dreading the winter with the low supply of fuel on hand, especially in Moscow. For, as a rule, the Russians use stove wood to heat their homes and, though the peasants had not seized the forests, they felt that these forests would soon be their own ; there- fore, last summer they refused to cut firewood for the towns." Q. — Wl\at does Russia owe for war loans alone? A. — It owes for loans made during the Czardom alone at least 25 billions. Q. — What did Russia do in the war? A. — Early in the war she invaded east- ern Prussia twice, but was driven back. Then she; drove through eastern Galicia, and started invasion of Hungary through the Carpathians. In 1915 the Germans struck back hard, and pushed Russian armies out of Poland and to the Brest-Litovsk line. The Rus- sians lost Lemberg and Warsaw. In 1916'they drove_ forward again, and made a grand campaign into Galicia and Volhynia, drove the Turks almost wholly out of Armenia, threatened to smash the whole Austrian front, but suddenly were caught by a German counter-offensive and lost most.of their gains. In I9I7_ the progressive weakening of the Russian front was becoming well known, despite the censorship, and sud- denly in March, the crisis came with the revolution which dethroned the Czar. In 1918 various parts of Russia began to declare their independence. On Feb- ruary 10, 1918, Russia was declared out of the war. There was a brief reaction which at first seemed important, but on March 3, 1918, Russia made her initial peace with Germany. JAPAN AND MANCHURIA Q. — How far would Japan have to move troops to attack the Ger- mans? A. — She would have to move them from Harbin or Vladivostock over the Siberian Railroad, which is presumably in no very good condition. The length of the railroad from Vladivostock to Moscow is 5,392 miles. In addition, there are the sea transports from Japan to the Asiatic mainland, and the railroad transport to Japanese seaports from the concentration centers. Altogether, Ja- pan's troops would have to be moved double the distance across the American continent between New York and San Francisco. Q. — Is Manchuria Chinese terri- tory? A. — It is very old Chinese territory. It was the seat of the Manchu dynasty which ruled China for many centuries. But when Russia expanded through Siberia to the Pacific Ocean, and Japan stretched herself and looked toward the nearby Asiatic continent, Manchuria's geograph- ical position turned out to be unlucky — for China. Inland the territory lay in such a way that it blocked Russia's straight road to her Siberian port of Vladivostock, On the sea, its coast was opposite Japan. Q. — Is Manchuria very far north? A.^ — The easiest way to visualize the geography of Manchuria is to understand that the whole China coast, including Manchuria, occupies about the same lati- tudes as does the American coast from Cuba to Newfoundland. China proper extends about as far north as New York is in our hemisphere. Manchuria occupies the latitudes north from New York to Newfoundland. The geographical rela- tion of Japan to this territory may be understood if you will imagine the Jap- anese island empire lying along the American coast with its southern end only a hundred miles from Savannah, Georgia, and its northern end about equally near to Nova Scotia, while all Q. — Was the Russo-Japanese war about Manchuria? A. — Yes. From the time of her war with China, Japan had been watching the Asiatic mainland more jealously with every year. Russia, meantime, was thrusting herself against the northern border of China (Manchuria) with ever- increasing pressure. In 1900 came an opportunity. It was the famous "Boxer" uprising. Russia immediately proclaimed that law and order and the security of her Siberian frontiers obliged her to re- store tranquillity in China, and she moved into Manchuria. 'Then followed four years of intricate Asiatic politics which involved not merely Manchuria but Korea. Russia maintained her hold despite Japan's threats and coun- ter-moves, and the island empire sud- denly broke off diplomatic relations and began war on Russia February 8, 1904. Japan was victorious on land and sea. Q. — How far is Japan from the Asiatic mainland? A. — The northern and southern ex- tremities of the Japanese group of islands swing in close to Asia. The rest of the group curves away in a huge crescent from the Asiatic mainland. Nippon, the biggest island, is 453 miles from Vladi- vostock, across the Sea of Japan. Q. — Was Chinese Manchuria cut up after the Russo-Japanese war? A. — It was not "cut up." It was ar- tistically and scientifically penetrated. By the Portsmouth peace treaty, Russia ceded to Japan not only the Chinese lease of Port Arthur, but also the railroad ex- tending northward into Manchuria for about five hundred miles. This is the railroad that runs northward to Harbin, the town where Chinese, Japanese and Russian interests come to a meeting point. Harbin is on the border between north- ern Manchuria and China proper, and it is, furthermore, on the Siberian railroad. the Atlantic Ocean between these two Thus it is a "strategic junction point." points is an inclosed sea— the Sea of In addition, it is not far from the Siberian Japan. border. 184 Japan and Manchuria i8s Q. — Did Russia take Siberia from China? A. — No. Russia did not, as a matter of fact, take Siberia from anybody. While English and Spanish sea-adven- turers were fighting for the golden lands of the Spanish Main in our hemisphere in Queen Elizabeth's time, a Cossack adven- turer, named Yermak, led a little band of men across the Urals from Russia, and added Siberia to the Czar's empire, practically by discovery. There was fighting with the Tartar tribes, but it was very desultory, and in less than a century the Russian sway touched the Pacific Ocean. In 1700 the autocracy began to "utilize" the wonderful new territory as a convenient place for imprisonment. Q. — Is Port Arthur Russian, Chi- nese or Japanese? A, — It is Chinese — technically. It is in Chinese territory. China fortified the city in 1891. Japan took it in the China-Jap- anese War, 1894. She was not permitted by the Powers to keep it. In 1898 Russia moved in and "acquired" it from China on a lease. In 1905, during the Russo- Japanese War, Japan took it from Russia after a long siege. Q. — How could Japan take Port Arthur from Russia if China owns it? A. — By the treaty of peace between Russia and Japan (signed in Ports- mouth, New Hampshire, in 1905) the Russian Government ceded the lease of Port Arthur and adjacent territories and waters to Japan. In 1915 China ex- tended the lease, making it run 99 years from that date. Thus Japan is secure in her possession of this foothold on the Asiatic continent until 2014. Q. — Where is Korea? A.— Korea is, geographically, a part of Manchuria, being a southern extension that thrusts an enormous peninsula be- tween the Sea of Japan and the Yellow or China Sea, and almost touches the southernmost islands of Japan with its extremity. The island group that has the famous Japanese port of Nagasaki on it is just across the Korean Straits from the Korean extremity. Q. — Is Port Arthur near Korea? A.— On the China or Yellow Sea side of the Korean Peninsula (toward the China mainland) is a huge gulf. Protruding into this gulf, between Korea and the Chinese province Chili (which has Pekin in it) is a big peninsula known as the Peninsula of Liaotung. The fortified city of Port Arthur is at its extremity. From the west coast of Korea to Port Arthur is 191 miles. Q. — Is Vladivostock near Port Ar- thur? A. — No. It is very much farther north, and the two places are separated by the Korean Peninsula and a whole lot of coast-lirie on both sides of the Peninsula. Vladivostock, if situated on our coasts, would occupy about the geographical po- sition of Boston. Port Arthur would be enough farther south to be about where Philadelphia is. To steam from Port Arthur to Vladi- vostock a ship must go down the Yellow Sea southward, then turn northeast through the Korean Straits between Japan and Korea, and then steer north through the Sea of Japan to Vladivostock. Q. — How long has Russia had Vladivostock? A. — More than half a century. Vladi- vostock was made into a great seaport and rail terminus as a logical part of Russia's expansion through Siberia. It is in real Siberian territory, not in Man- churia, though the Russian Siberian coast there stretches itself along the sea in such a way that Manchurian territory forms "hinter-land." Q. — Did Japan always own Korea? A. — Korea was an independent mon- archy, but Japan gradually extended her influence there and in 1910, by treaty, Korea was annexed to the island empire. The Korean Government appealed to the Powers of Europe for aid, but nothing was done. There followed a good deal of rebellion, or rather of revolutionary agitation by young Koreans, many of whom had been educated in Europe and America. These movements were sup- pressed in the usual way, and for a long time nothing has been heard of Korea. Q. — How many islands compose the Japanese group? A,— There are 431 islands. Alto- gether their area in square miles is a little bigger than Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin combined. They have three times the population, however, having 56 million people, a little more i86 Questions and AnsTuers than half the total population of the United States and within 9 million of the whole population of Germany. Q. — How far are the Philippines from Japan? A. — The northernmost point of the Philippine group (island of Luzon) is about 1,200 miles south from the Japanese port of Nagasaki on the extreme southern, end of the Japanese group proper. Japan, however, has a base on the great island of Formosa, which lies off the South China coast. Between this island and the Philippines there are only about 250 miles of sea. Q. — Is Manila very far from Yoko- hama? A. — Relatively those two points occupy about the same geographical positions as do Hampton Roads, the American naval base in Chesapeake Bay, and the southern West Indies. Yokohama and Tokio (both lying on the same big harbor) would about correspond in position with Norfolk and Fortress Monroe (speaking roughly). The West Indian island of Martinique about corresponds in position with that of Manila. The Japanese base of Formosa is about half as far from Manila as our Cuban naval base, Guantanamo, is from Panama. Q. — Has Japan profited greatly by the European war? A. — She has profited immensely. Her war expenses were very slight up to 1918, and her trade expansion was such that a British expert said that the war had cre- ated two especially dangerous claimants to Great Britain's commercial power — the United States and Japan. In 1914 Japan was importing more than she exported, the difference against her being about l6 million dollars. In 1917 she was export- ing so much more than she imported that, instead of owing the outer world money, the outer world owed her 290 million dol- lars. She doubled her foreign trade, or almost doubled it, during the first three years of war. Q. — ^What is Japan s foreign trade? A.— For the calendar year 1917 the figures are : exports, 800 million dollars ; imports, soo milHons. In 1913 her exports were 300 millions and her imports 360 million dollars. Q. — What does Japan import mostly? A. — Iron and raw cotton are the big imports. Wool, machinery and copper come next in value. Q. — How big is Japan's merchant fleet? A. — Government _ encouragement of shipbuilding has given Japan a formid- able merchant fleet in a very short period of time. At the end of 1916 there were 3,759 steamships under the Japanese flag, with a gross tonnage of 1,716,104. The constructive ability of the country had been enhanced to such a degree that there were 224 private shipyards, and 61 pri- vate dry-docks in the islands. Vessels building in the beginning of 1917 were 182, all more than 700 gross tons, and totaling about 638,000 tons. Q. — Do Japanese merchant ships make money? A. — They have been making amazing profits. During igi6 one line, the Oka- zaki Steamship Company, paid dividends at the rate of 720 per cent on the mar- ket value of the stock. It has seven steamships with gross tonnage of about 18,000. Its capital was only 300,000 yen ($150,000), and it earned 1,900,000 yen or $950,000. The Nippon Yusen Kaisha earned $31,400,000. The Osaka Mercan- tile Steamship Company earned $20,000,- 000. The dividends paid in 1916 by vari- ous lines (some quite small) were 345 per cent, 387 per cent, 200 per cent and 165 per cent. All told, the average earnings of the Japanese shipping companies are figured as having been close to 85 per cent, or even 90 per cent, in 1916. They earned almost a dollar on every gross ton in the islands. Q. — Was Japan not weak finan- cially before the big war? A.- — She was slowly recovering from the financial exhaustion of the Russo- Japanese War, and she was considered not a very strong nation financially. But by 1918 she had_ thrived so from the chance that the big war gave her at the world's markets that she was able to lend money to the Allies. Up to about April, 1918, she had loaned nearly 650 million dollars. Japan and Manchuria 187 Q. — Why did Japan enter the Eu- ropean war? A. — Japan explained her entry into the war by declaring that her treaty with Great Britain made it ingjuajaeat on her to do so. This was thf Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902, made before the Russo- Japanese War. Its direct object, accord- ing to its clauses, was the maintenance of the situation then existent in Korea and Manchuria. It stipulated that should either of the parties to the • treaty be- come involved in war with a single power, the other party should maintain "benevo- lent neutrality." If attacked by two pow- ers, the other was bound to come to its aid. In 1905 the treaty was extended to pro- tect British interests in India and Af- ghanistan, while Japan got a free hand in Korea. Q. — What were the famous 21 Jap- anese demands on China? A. — On January 18, 1915, Japan sud- denly laid before China a series of de- mands relating most comprehensively to Shan-tung province, the Yangtse valley, South Manchuria and Eastern Mongolia. The demands were in five sections, and the most serious demands were in sec- tion five, which the Japanese failed to make public to the Allied powers or the world. In fact, there were denials sent out that there was such a section, but the Chinese Government published the fact. After long negotiations Japan de- livered an ultimatum, in May, 1915, and China accepted the four sections, leaving section five for future negotiations. The agreement transferred to Japan all the German rights in Shan-tung province, and extended the lease of Port Arthur and the South Manchurian railroad for 99 years. There was another clause giving Japanese "preference in South Man- churia as foreign advisers, instructors, political, financial, military and police." Q. — What was the Japanese-Amer- ican Agreement? A. — On November 2, 1917, Viscount Ishii for Japan and Secretary Lansing for the United States exchanged notes clarifying the policy of the United States and Japan regarding China. The impor- tant points of the agreement were: "The Governments of fhe United States and Japan recognize that territorial propin- quity creates special relations between countries, and consequently the Govern- ment of the United States recognizes that Japan has| special interests in China, par- ticularly in the ^art to which her pos- sessions are contiguous. The territorial sovereignty of China, nevertheless, re- mains unimpaired, and the Government of the United, States has every confidence in the repeated assurances of the Japanese Government that, while geographical po- sition gives Japan such special interests, they have no desire to discriminate against the trade of other nations. . . . Moreover; they mutually declare that they are opposed to the acquisition by any Government of any special rights or privi- leges that, would affect the independence or territorial integrity of China, or that would deny to the subjects or citizens of any country the full enjoyment of equal opportunities in the commerce and indus- tries of China." The Chinese Govern- ment has issued a statement protesting and refusing to be bound by agreements concerning it entered into by other Powers. * Q. — What active part did Japan take in the war? A. — In November, 1914, she forced the surrender of Kiaou-Chau, the province in China which Germany had acquired as in- demnity for the Boxer outrages, and from which as a base she was extending a rail- way system into China in furtherance of German commerce. Japan was Great Britain's ally in the East. She despatched an ultimatum to Germany August 15, J914, demanding the departure of German ships from Chinese waters and the transfer of Kiaou-Chau to Japan as first step to its return to Chinese control. The time limit of the ultimatum was August 23, and on that day Japan de- clared war upon Germany. After a siege of eight weeks Kiaou-Chau was surren- dered and Germany's rule in the Far East was at an end. Q. — Did Japan agree to return Kiaou-Chau to China? A. — In her ultimatum to Germany, Aug- ust 16, 1914, Japan demanded of Germany that she deliver over her territory of Kiaou-Chau. The second clause in this ultimatum read : "Second — To deliver on a date not later than September 15 (1914), to the Im- perial Japanese authorities, without con- dition or compensation, the entire leased territory of Kiaou-Chau, with a view to the eventual restoration of the same to China." i88 Questions and Answers Q. — Did Japanese participate in the destruction of Admiral von Spec's fleet? A, — No. There were no Japanese ves- sels on the scene at all. They did help in a way, however, for they helped the Australia and other British ships chase von Spec out of the Pacific, around the Horn, to his fate off the Falklands. Q. — Did Japan have a secret treaty with the Czar? A. — ^Japan had a secret treaty with the Czar's GovernmeTit. It was signed in June, 1916, between Sazonoflf, then Rus- sian Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Vis- count Motono, Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs. TJie treaty provided that if any other nation made war against either Russia or Japan over the Chinese question, the par- ties to the treaty should be allies in the war. The Trotzky-Lenine Government found the treaty in the Russian secret files and immediately made it public. Q. — How big is Japan's navy? A. — Japan stands fifth among naval powers, with Great Britain, the United States, Germany and France leading her. In 1917 she had 10 dreadnaughts built and completing, 26 pre-dreadnaughts and ar- mored cruisers, 25 protected cruisers, scouts, etc., 77 destroyers, 26 torpedo boats, and 16 submarines. Q. — How big is Japan's army? A. — Japan has universal obligatory military service, her population being di- vided into various "bans," or reserve lines, much on the German model. The "peace- strength" (which apparently means the standing army and the men serving their military course at the time) is given as about a quarter of a million men. The war strength is about 30,000 men in the regular army, 200,000 in the reserves, one million as reinforcements, and a large force of territorial army material whose size is not stated. Q. — Can Japan support her own population agriculturally? A. — Japanese experts hold that if the people would cultivate land at present un- used which is inclined at an angle of less than IS degrees (terracing and otherwise improving these hill-sides like the Chi- nese) the area of arable land in Japan might be doubled. It is estimated that in Hokkaido, the northernmost island of the archipelago, there is enough uncultivated land to take care of the surplus Japanese population for many years to come. As the people farm now, they are crowded so densely in limited areas that, though the population of Japan actually is less dense than that of England or Belgium, the pop- ulation per square mile occupied is given approximately as follows : England 466, Belgium ^03, Japan 2,688. This would give the Japanese at present less than a quarter-acre of land for each person. Q. — Is the cost of living notably low in Japan? A. — The actual cost of living is not so low as might be thought, but the Jap- anese workman does without the comforts and pleasures enjoyed by his fellow work- man in other lands. Not only is thrift required, but great self-denial, to make ends meerin the Mikado's kingdom. The price of rice is practically the same in Japan as_ it is in America. Sugar and salt cost practically the same in Japan as in England. Tea is cheaper, but fuel is much dearer. Meat is more expensive in Japan, but fish is cheaper. Beef sells in Japan at 25 cents per pound, horse meat at 13 cents, and pork at 14 cents. These are for the cheapest cuts. Butter, cheese, milk and cream are about as expensive in Japan as they are in England. Eggs are cheaper there ; the best grades selling the year round at 18 cents a dozen, but the eggs of Japan are small and of inferior quality. Rent is cheaper, but the houses are of very light construction, and give no protection from the cold of winter. Clothing in the European style costs about the same in Japan as in England. Japanese clothing is actually more ex- pensive than European, and many Jap- anese adopt the foreign style of dress out of motives of economy. But, of course, the poor Japanese spend much less on dress than we do; in fact, during the greater part of the year the climate is such that the lower classes seldom wear much more than the compulsory loin cloth. Q-— Please give some idea of the wages paid in Japan. A. — OfBcial reports in 1913 gave the following: daily wages: Silk spinners, 30 sen (is cents) ; weavers, 21 cents; dyers, 25 cents; tailors, 29 cents; shoemakers, 37 cents; carpenters, 44 cents; plasterers, 46 cents ; stone-cutters, 50 cents ; print- ers, 27 cents. These wages were not for an 8-hour day, but for from 10 to 16 hours. Japan and Manchuria 189 Q. — Is there a Socialist movement in Japan? A. — Yes. It is, however, strongly re- pressed by the Government. In 191 1 twelve leaders of a very radical socialist movement were charged with plotting the assassination of the Mikado. They were executed January 25, 191 1, and from that time the Government has strictly pro- hibited the Socialist movement. In spite of this, it is said that the teaching is spreading among the common people. Q. — Who were the Samurai? A. — They were the military class of old Japan — largely retainers supported by feudal chiefs. Socially they stood next below the throne and the nobles. Below them (very far below) came the com- mon people. They were fierce, giving their enemies no quarter. But they had a decidedly high code of honor of their own. COST OF WAR (AMERICA) Q. — What does the whole war cost the world every minute? A. — Counting the United States expend- itures in, it was estimated early in 1918 (on the basis of the most conservative and exact figures available) that the money cost alone was $8o,000 a minute. A United States Government estimate of the daily expenditures of all the belliger- ents would make the sum per minute $81,- 249. This estimate (published March i, 1918) was that the rate of daily expendi- ture then was $116,700,000. Q. — How does the whole war-cost compare with world- wealth? A.— All the wheat lands of the globe, producing at maximum capacity (say 2,500,000,000 bushels at $2 a bushel) , could not pay the cost in less than a quarter- century. All the gold mined in the last 65 years (from 1850 to 1916) could not pay more than 1/7 of the cost of the first three years of war. All the revenues for a year of all the nations in the world, if they were all put together, would pay only 15 per cent of the mere money cost from August, 1914, to April, 1918. The money that one year of war costs would almost pay all the national debts of every coun- try in the entire world, from the United States to Siam. Q. — What does the war cost Amer- ica alone monthly? A. — In round figures, one billion dollars a month (in February, 1918). The exact figures were: November, 1917, $982,000,000; December, 1917, $1,105,- 000,000; January, 1918, $1,090,000,000; February, 1918, $1,002,878,608; of which $665,400,000 was for war expenses, and $325,000,000 was for loans to the Allies. Q. — How does our war-bill compare with normal expenditures? A. — Frank A. Vanderlip, of the Na- tional City Bank, New York, says that, whereas the total expenditures of the United States Treasury since its first or- ganization under Alexander Hamilton down through the War of 1812, the Civil War, and the Spanish War (including expenses of these wars, and for every other purpose whatsoever connected with the government), have amounted to a lit- tle more than $26,000,000,000, we ate now undertaking to spend in a single year no less than $21,000,000,000 (for all pur- poses, including war). Q. — Are not interest charges on war-debts enormous? A.— The United States, at the end of one year only, had obligated itself to pay $225,000,000 annually as interest on loans. (Much of this would be offset by interest received on money advanced to the Allies.) Great Britain's interest charges at the end of four years exceeded one billion dollars annually^a sum larger than its normal peace expenditures. Q. — To what extent are we lend- ing money to the Allies? A. — Soon after our entrance into the war. Congress authorized loans to na- tions "at war with enemies of the United States." By the end of 1917, $7,000,000,- 000 had been authorized, and more than $4,000,000,000 had been advanced. Of this, Great Britain had received nearly half, France one-fourth, and the rest had gone to Italy, Russia, Belgium, and Ser- bia. These loans took the form of cred- its for the purchase of supplies, the United States Government accepting in return securities issued by the foreign governments. Q. — Is there so much money in the world ? A. — There is not nearly enough actual cash in the world to even begin to pay the running expenditures of the world for war. If all the belligerents were con- fronted suddenly with the inexorable ne- cessity of paying instantly, in actual cash, for everything as they get it or use it, they would simply have to stop right then and there. It would be physically im- possible to find the cash. For instance, the money in the whole United States on March i, 1918, was $6,351,584,056. That is, if the govern- ment could have gotten every cent that every individual owned, if it could have scraped every bank and every business clean, it could not have raised even enough cash to pay out the $7,000,000,000 loans to the Allies authorized by Con- gress. 190 Cost of War (America) 191 Q. — How can the war continue if cash is lacking? A. — Even in peace there is never enougii cash in the world actually to pay "on the nail" for the business that is done by the world. The big fact is that cash (currency) is only a token. Even gold is valuable only because the world chooses to call it so. Credit is the real world-medium. The world pays itself with paper that has credit (trust) behind it. AH the national paper currency of the world is essentially not different from the notes, bills of lading, invoices, and other paper, which form the bulk of the world's commercial structure. Even coins are valuable mostly because of the credit of the government that issues them. In- trinsically they may not be worth much. You might, for instance, have to hawk an American copper cent pretty far and wide if you were forced to use it simply on its value as copper, though the copper is there, sure enough. We have seen what has happened to the Russian rouble, and the German mark. Yet, technically, these values are supposed to be lacked by actual coin. Q. — ^Just what do the billion-figures mean? A.— "Billions" really are so big that even the financial expert does not get a sharp image in his mind. We can all understand hundreds, thousands, and even millions ; but "billions" mean only dead mathematical figures to most of us. We can give you a sort of picture, how- ever — of the significance of our war- loans, for instance. Let us take the ex- act figures, which were (on January 26, 1918) 4 billions, 247 millions, and 400 thousand dollars. That sum (handled within a few months, indeed, almost in a few weeks) was Ij4 times the size of our whole national debt at the end of the Civil War. Q, — Can the huge war-loans pos- sibly be re-paid? A. — That is a question that the world's greatest financiers have not been able to answer. If the debts to us stood alone, they would not be so very enormous as compared with the possible resources of the Allied nations. But, in view of the enormous wastage of the war, it is quite impossible to calculate how normal reve- nues may be restored, and how enough additional revenues may be raised to pay the huge accumulations of abnormal debt. Q.— How did we pay our Civil War debt? A. — Alt^iough the national debt at the end of the Civil War was not altogether three billions of dollars, it was a sum which simply appalled men in that gen- eration, for the world was absolutely pa- rochial in finances as compared with to- day. The" whole world stared aghast at the debt. Many perfectly honorable and talented men saw no possible way out of it except by repudiation. But the war had hardly closed, When an entire new world of wealth was torn open almost over night. The armies that had been fighting turned to a new and wonderful fight. They fought to open the great West. They burst into the plains. They built the Union Pacific transcon- tinental railroad. It was as if a new and bountiful continent suddenly had been added to the earth. By 1893, the great debt had dwindled down to $893,000,000. Forty-two years after the war (1907), the last penny had been paid, and . it had been paid by new and ever-increasing wealth tha.t sprang from the new territory, so that individual citizens hardly even knew that there was a national debt. Q. — Is any hidden world-wealth left to pay for this war? A. — There is a huge amount that is ab- solutely untouched or has been only par- tially exploited. Even in old Europe, crowded and intensively exploited though it seems, there is a great deal. It may be that Germany, France, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom have exploited their natural wealth pretty closely; but the other countries of Eu- rope, each and every one, still conceal treasures that require only concerted and earnest effort to produce very great values. Q; — What are some of the hidden resources of Europe? A. — Spain's mines and agricultural re- sources, especially herds, with the result- ing leather and food products; Italy's Campagna, which, by sanitation (to elim- inate pernicious malaria), can be made to produce at least doubly; Russia's oil- fields, which alone should produce enough under modern scientific development to replace a vast part of the world's coal; the wheat-fields of Russian Ukraine, often said to be the richest black earth in the known world; Serbia's wheat-fields and copper mines ; Roumania's oil-wells ; the forests of Norway and Sweden, and. 192 Questions and Answers > greater still, the wonderful and practic- ally unused water-powers of Norway, which alone could do the work now done for the world by extravagant use of mil- lions of tons of coal, Q- — Is there unused world-terri- tory comparable to our West in 1865? A. — Yes. Siberia is a bigger territory than the whole United States, and it should prove to be even richer in both agricultural and mining possibilities than was the West of 1865. Siberia alone might well pay the debts of all the world. You must get out of your mind the old idea of Siberia as a forbidding country. You must think of it as you think of the United States — a country that has bleak Alaska and semi-tropical Florida within it. Siberia has territory that remains frozen the year around. It also has terri- tories so mild that tropical beasts like the tiger dwell in it. If the European world were working in unison, to build rail- roads on a colossal scale into Siberia and across Russia, the wealth that might be expected to flow back would very prob- ably pay the whole war wastage within two generations, and almost without bur- den on European people. Q. — -How does Siberia compare with the United States? A. — In area Siberia has 4,800,000 (odd) square miles as against 2,974,000 square miles of the United States. The Siberian population is so small that it amounts to only 2 inhabitants to the square mile against 31 inhabitants to the square mile in our country. Siberia has only 15 im- portant cities against more than 125 very thriving and important American cities. All the railroads in Siberia have only 8,000 miles of track against more tEan 355,000 miles in the United States. Q.— Would the Berlin-Bagdad Railroad do much toward new wealth? A. — Yes. It would tap the ancient scene of the only truly scientific agricul- ture that the earth once knew._ In Asia Minor the civilizations of Assyria and the Semites had irrigation works on a. scale that would be considered majestic even to-day. They extracted from that great Asiatic peninsula almost everything that they actually needed — lumber, grains, meats, textile materials. They, or rather their degenerated successors, over-ex- ploited the territory. They cut down the forests, for one thing; and that one thing alone meant the doom of the area, for when the forests (the earth's storage plants for rainfall) were destroyed, the rainfalls made floods that tore the soil from mountain-sides and valleys and left them bare; and when there was no rain- fall, there was no stored water to con- tinue to feed the parched land. The irri- gation works became useless, and were abandoned. The inhabitants became wretched. All these things can be re- stored now. Q. — What is the size of the Asia Minor territory? A. — Asia Minor has 200,000 square miles — an area that compares closely with that of New York, New Jersey and Penn- sylvania put together (245,500 square miles). The Asia Minor territory con- tains 17 million acres under some sort of cultivation. Of minerals it contains chrome (valuable for steel making), as- phalt, coal, lignite, petroleum, salt, iron, salt, emery and meerschaum. The iron mines (worked by very primitive meth- ods) produce 40,000 tons a year even now. Q. — Are there other areas to be exploited? A. — China, exploited in a large and noble sense, could be made to enrich its own teeming multitudes and still to send forth prodigal riches to the rest of us. The same is true of Africa. But such exploitation, if it is to make the world really richer, must not be individual ex- ploitation by any one nation or group of nations. Here we see the great new spiritual, as well as material, value of the American idea of the "open door." It must be made a door that is open to fine and magnanimous world-eflfort, not to rob- bers. Q- — What does America's war share cost an American citizen per day? A. — At one billion dollars a month, and figuring the population of the United States as approximately 100 million peo- ple, one year of war would cost each American $120 a year, or 32^ cents a day. Q- — What does every minute of war cost us Americans alone? A. — At the rate of twelve billion dollars a year, every minute costs us $22,831. ' Take out your watch and look at the sec- Cost of War {America) 193 ond-hand. Every time it moves, the coun- try will have spent $380.50 for the war. Every hour more than a million dollars has been spent ($1,369,863 to be exact). Every day costs more than 32 millions ($32,876,712 exactly). Q. — Does the United States possess nearly all the gold coin in the world? A.— No. Not nearly; but the United States possesses twice as much gold as the country with the next largest store. Extraordinary purchases by the Allied nations since the outbreak of the war have poured gold into the United States. From August, 1914, to the middle of 1917, the United States received $1,000,000,000 more gold than she exported. Early in 1918 the total stock of gold in the coun- try was more than $2,500,000,000. It is held largely in the vaults of the Federal reserve banks, the Government, and the commercial banks, where it makes pos- sible the credit structure which maint^ns industry in the United States. Q.— What is repudiation? A. — Repudiation is a refusal to pay a debt or obligation. National repudiation really does not differ in essence from in- dividual repudiation. But while the in- dividual can be haled to court and be forced to defend his case before a su- perior power (the governmental power of his country) a nation cannot be taken to court because as yet there is no obliga- tory international court. In international observance each nation is absolutely the equal of every other. Therefore, if it chooses to repudiate a debt, the other na- tions have no recourse except to slow and complex diplomacy or to violence. Q. — Do nations ever repudiate their debts? A.— Much of the wor}d's trouble has come from repudiation in one form or another, especially by weak nations— the so-called backward nations. But great nations also have repudiated their debts, or certain debts. Certain of the war-debts of European nations really have never been paid. They were not necessarily re- pudiated outright, but by a successive se- ries of taxations and other revenue laws they were wiped out. Q.— How might the present war- debts be repudiated? A— They might be repudiated outright, but that is highly unlikely— almost im- possible, indeed, considering the internal politics and the external complications, not to mention that delicate point "na- tional honor." There are, however, many ways in which they can be wiped out legally, in a way that would be repudiation to all in- tents and purposes, and still not bear the onus of the name. Thus, income and other taxes could be laid to affect the classes that naturally are the holders of war-bonds. These imposts could be made so heavy that they would not only equal the interest that governments have to pay on the bonds, but they could be made so great as gradually to pay off the war- bonds themselves — a case of making the creditor actually pay out of his pocket what the other fellow owes him. Another form of repudiation would be to issue a new loan with a very big rate of interest. It would not need to be a large loan. The mere fact of such a bond being available would automatically and irresistibly depress the existing war- bonds. As soon as these sank to a suf- ficiently low price, the government might buy up part or all of them, and thus do like a debtor who induces his creditors to take fifty cents (more or less) on the dollar. Q. — Have the big governments ever thus repudiated their debts? A. — Yes. One of the very great gov- ernments of the world (it would not be fair to name it, without explaining at great length the very intricate financial considerations that are involved) has not paid its great war debts incurred during the Napoleonic wars. By successive dimi- nutions of interest and increases of taxes it has happened, slowly but inevitably, that the security representing this national debt fell during the past century from above par (100) to a little over half of par (52). Even before the great war the government could at any time have bought up its ovyn debt at sums as low_ as 65 cents on the dollar. Most of this debt was held by its own people and, there- fore, did not greatly affect other na- tions. Since the great war began, this security has fallen to the still lower figure just mentioned. Thus, quite automatically, and without spending a penny (on the contrary, actually _ by making money through decreased interest payments and increased tax collection), this particular government has practically eliminated al- most one-half of that particular war- debt T94 Questions and Answers Q.— Has the United States ever de- faulted on its obligations? A. — Never. Some of the states re- pudiated bonds and other obligations, but even these cases were based on a plea of justification. Some states repudiated bond issues by negro and "carpet-bag" legislatures during reconstruction after the Civil War. There has been much conflict of opinion about the justice of this attitude, and the general belief ap- pears to be that, whether the pleas in ex- tenuation are sound or not, it would have been far better for the credit of the whole country had the obligations been honored, even though they were fraudulently laid. However, these were purely local debts. The Federal Government has so well met all its obligations that a United States bond is one of the best securities any- where in the world. Q. — Could the war-debts be wiped out without new sources of wealth? A. — Yes, they might be, though no one is daring enough to prophesy that they actually can be. At best, such a settle- ment would have to be adjusted over ^^ long period of years. If a nation could survive economically with war taxes con-' tinued after peace has come, the debt might possibly be wiped out in a single generation. Great Britain, at the end of its third fiscal year, had produced one dol- lar in war taxes for every seven dollars of war expenditure. Some lucrative forms of war taxation would end with the war, and substitutes would have to be found. Q. — What does the war cost the European nations? A. — At the end of the first three years of war (August, 1917), excluding the tfnited States, which had only just begun to spend money, and counting only the actual cash spent by the European bel- ligerents and not the war damages (which are literally incalculable), the total was estimated officially in Washington as a little more than 88 billions of dollars, with the cost per month increasing stead ily. The detailed official figures were : United Kingdom $26,705,000,000 France 16,530,000,000 Russia 14,250,000,000 Italy 5,050,000,000 Other Allies 3,250,000,000 Total $65,785,000,000 Less advances of one power to another 7,992,500,000 Net total for Allies $57,792,500,000 Germany 19,750,000,000 , Austria-Hungary 9,700,000,000 ■ Bulgaria and Turkey .... 1,450,000,000 Total $30,900,000,000 Less advances 600,000,000 Net total for enemy . . $30,300,000,000 Grand total $88,092,500,000 Q. — What were the total war bor- rowings of the European bel- ligerents ? A. — There has been some wonderfully complex financing and this, together with statements made purposely intricate (to mislead the enemy), has perplexed even astute financial experts. The U, S. Com- mittee on Public Information announced early in 1918: "As long ago as- in April, 1916, the ap- proximate amounts of the loans con- tracted for war purposes -by the different belligerent powers were stated to be $19,- 881,731,110 for the Allies (of which sum $7,903,145,000 was for Great Britain and $6,590,053,000 for France), and $9,206,- 750,000 for the enemy powers ($6,415,- 250,000 for Germany). This was a grand total of $29,088,481,110 for all war loans. Many new ones have, of course, been made since the date mentioned. Q. — How do American war-loan subscriptions compare with the British? A. — After two and a half years of war, Britain floated a loan of $5,000,000,000, with 5,289,000 subscribers. In its second loan (limited to $4,500,000,000), the United States (with twice Britain's popu- lation) received applications for $4,617,- 532,000 from 9,500,000 subscribers. Q. — How much does the United States take from individual in- comes? A. — The old income tax levied on in- comes oyer $3,000. The war measure of 1917 levies on incomes of $1,000 (single), $2,000 (married). Additional graduated taxes lie on incomes exceeding $5,000. This taxes incomes between $5,000 and $7,500 I per cent in addition to old tax; Cost of War (America) 195 $7,500 and $10,000, 2 per cent ; $10,000 and $12,000, 3 per cent; $12,500 and $15,000, 4 per cent; over $500,000, from 50 per cent up to 63 per cent. • Q. — What is the purpose of War Savings Stamps and Certifi- cates? A.— To encourage thrift and to enable persons with meager incomes to lend even small sums to the Government. Stamps affixed to a certificate are redeemable in five years at $5 each. They cost from $4.12 in January, 1918, with an increase of I cent for each succeeding month. Thrift Stamps were also issued, costing 25 cents each, bearing no interest, but exchangeable for War Savings Stamps, which do bear interest as shown. Q- — What were our cash assets in February, 1918? A. — ^The total cash assets of the Gov- ernment were $4,027,919,548, which in- cluded $2,401,135,506 gold, $491,673,559 silver, and the balance of the general fund. Q. — How has the United States sought to finance its war. ac- tivities ? A. — ^By increasing national income (taxation), and by borrowing money (do- mestic loans). Q. — What were the principal war- taxes in the revenue measure of 1917? A. — The revenue bill of October 13, 1917, carried a so-called "excess profits" tax, while income taxes and postal rates were increased, and additional imposts were placed on liquor and tobacco. There were also war-taxes «on theater and railway tickets, club dues, and va- rious minor imposts. Q. — How much income can we fig- ure on? A.— The Treasury Department figured that in the fiscal year (July I, 1917, to July, 1918) the receipts from our internal taxes would be $3,400,000,000. Customs and miscellaneous revenue had swelled the ordinary receipts early in 1918 to $768,677,000, and receipts from lib- erty loans, certificates, war savings and other public debt sources had been $9,811,- 668,000, making the government's total receipts iti the first 8 months of war $10,- 583,684,000, The war-savings movement brought $75,000,000 in three months. Q- — How many bonds did the United States issue during its first year of war? A.— Two "Liberty Loans" were issued to the public in 1917, and a third was opened for subscription in April, 1918. The first loan, bearing 3J4 per cent inter- est, was offered in June, 1917, and was limited to $2,000,000,000. The total amount subscribed was $3,035,226,850, an over-subseription of about 50 per cent. The number of subscriptions were more than 4,000,000. The second loan at 4 per cent, was offered in October, 1917, and was limited to $3,000,000,000 and 50 per cent of subscriptions in excess of that amount. $3,808,766,150 worth of bonds were issued. The two loans, covering the first year oi war, yielded $5,808,766,150. Q. — How many Liberty Loan bonds have been sold again by investors? _ A. — The Secretary of the Treasury es- timated on March i, 1918 — after eight months of trading— that about $180,000,- 000 worth of the bonds had been resold. This was approximately 3 per cent of the total then issued by the Government, Many of the same bonds, however, had been sold, over and over again, so the percentage is not really so large as this. Q. — How does the war-cost com- pare with investment in navies? A. — The combined sum spent in 1913 by _ Great. Britain, Germany, and the United States on their navies for con- struction, maintenance, pay, cruising, re- pairs, coal and dock-yard expenses would pay for just 4 days and 8 hours of the war. Q. — Is there a widely circulated dollar coin that has no legal recognition? A. — Yes. It is known as the Maria Theresa dollar, and is widely used throughout Arabia and northeastern Af- rica, though it has absolutely _ no sanc- tion of any government behind it, and, in- deed, has been declared a prohibited article more than once. It is a silver dol- lar with the image of Maria Theresa, the famous Empress of Austria, and it is reported that the Arab traders used to circulate as many as 200 millions of them„ 196 QuesHotis and Answers and were doing so when the war began. This silver coin originally was minted by Austria in Maria Theresa's time. She was beautiful, and her image appealed to the Orientals. When the Austrian Gov- ernment ceased to mint or use the coin, they continued to mint it and have been minting it ever since — a private, unlegal- ized piece of money that still bears the date of the original genuine coins — 1780. Lately great quantities of this curious "people's money" have been coming into the assay offices of the world, because the high price of silver has induced the trad- ers to deliver the coins to be melted. Q. — What have our previous wars cost? A.— The War of 1812 with Great Brit- ain cost us 120 millions, in round figures. The war with Mexico cost us 173 millions, in round figures. The Civil War cost the North alone 3 billions, 480 millions. The Spanish-American War cost I billion, 90s millions. Q. — What did our past wars cost per year? A. — The War of 1812 cost us at the rate of 44 millions a year. The Mexican War cost at the rate of 77 millions a year. The Civil War costs were at the rate of 580 millions a year. The Span- ish-American War (which lasted as an active military war less than a year), cost at the rate of 2 billions, 54° millions a year: — that is, if it had continued actively throughout a whole year, at the rate of expenditure, it would have amounted to that sum. These figures show strikingly how the cost of war has increased with each gen- eration. Q. — What has modern Europe spent for wars? A.— According to the United States Treasury Department, the figures are, ex- clusive of the Franco-Prussian War: 1793-181S England and France $6,250,000,000 1812-181S France and Rus- sia 450,625,000 1828 Russia and Turkey. . 100,000,000 1830-1840 Spain and Por- tugal (civil war) 250,000,000 1830-1847 France and Al- geria 190,000,000 1848 Revolts in Europe 50,000,000 1854-1856 England 371,000,000 France 332,000,000 1854-1856 Sardinia and Turkey 128,000,000 Austria 68,600,000 Russia 800,000,000 France 75,000,000 1859 Austria 127,000,000 Italy 51,000,000 1864 Denmark, Prussia, and Austria 36,000,000 1866 Prussia and Austria.. 330,000,000 1864-1870 Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay 240,000,000 1865-1866 France and Mex- ico 65,000,000 1876-1877 Russia 806,547,489 Turkey 403,273,745 1900-1901 Transvaal Repub- lic and England i,ooo,ioo,opo 1004-1905 Russia and Japan 2,500,000,000 The cost of the Balkan wars 1,264,000,000 The total sura is a little over 15 billions 880 millions. COST OF WAR (ALLIES) Q. — What have all the world's wars cost? . A.— All the wars of the world (count- ing in the tremendous Napoleonic wars and all our American wars) cost 24 bil- lions 100 millions. The present war had cost no billions up to March, 1918. Q. — Is it true that war-expenses are at an ever-increasing rate? A.— In Great Britain during the first four months of the struggle, the expendi- ture^ averaged 41/3 million dollars a day. During the first quarter of 1915 the daily rate passed above 7 million dollars. By July of that year it was 15 millions, and three months later it was 17^ millions. By February, 1916, the rate was 22 mil- lion dollars; by May, 23 millions, and by October, 1916, 28j^ million dollars a day. Since then the daily rate has passed 30 million dollars. On March 7, 1918, Bonar Law, Chancellor of the Exchequer, an- nounced that the Empire's daily war-ex- penses (up to February 9, 1918) had be- come $31,906,362. Q. — How long woiild it be before the British war-debt could be wiped out? A. — A careful (though anonjrmous) published analysis has shown that even with double the ordinary peace revenue, Britain's war-debt (uj) to 1918) could not be paid off until 43 years had gone by — and that would mean, you must note, the_ entire use of the entire revenues for nothing else except to pay off interest and debt. Q. — How much gold is there in sovereigns? A. — Eleven-twelfths of a sovereign is gold and one-twelfth is copper, but the gold in the sovereign is worth the face value of the coin. From one ounce of standard gold (11/12 fine) sovereigns to the value of £3 17s. loj^d. are coined. In other words, a sovereign is an ingot of standard gold 123.27447 grains weight. Being of an established weight of gold, it gives full gold value in whatever form it may be, since Great Britain has free coinage. The State loses the value of the afloy and the workmanship in making sovereigns. Q. — What is Free Coinage t A. — Free coinage means that the Gov- ernment does not make a profit by coining a precious metal. It means that any per- son can deliver any quantity of gold to the mint and receive an equivalent amount of gold back in sovereigns with the alloy given in free. Q. — What is a sovereign worth in American money? A.— It is worth $4.8665. This is the ex- act change; you would get in normal times if you exchanged a sovereign at your bank. For convenience in figuring, the value of a sovereign or pound sterling is usually taken as $S when only round num- bers are required. Q. — Why did sovereigns bring only $4.76 in New York in 1917? A. — Because the exchange rate between Great Britain and America had fallen at the moment to 4.76 dollars, not the usual one of 4.86 dollars. The reasons for ex- change are too complicated to explain in a short answer, but, broadly speaking, fluctuations in exchange are due to fluc- tuations in the indebtedness of any na- tion as against others. The war had caused a tremendous trade balance in favor of the United States. Single sovereigns, in consequence, were actually regarded as token money, just as twenty separate shillings would be ; but if,_ instead of trying to change single sovereigns as a traveler naturally does, he took a couple of hundred of them to the mint in Washington to be melted up, he would get the full value of the gold, viz., 4.86 dollars. It is this failure to obtain full value for gold sovereigns in hotels and shops in New York and other American cities which has caused many people to think that the amount of gold in a sovereign was actually worth less than $4.86. Q. — Is Great Britain's daily war- cost much greater than that of France? A. — Taking a mean sum based on an estimate made in Washington before the costs reached the maximum figures that we have given elsewhere, Great Britain's 197 198 Questions and Answers daily cost does not, under the best cir- cumstances, fall below $30,000,000 any one day. France (on the same basis of medium figures) is spending $15,369,000 a day. The actual figures are greater, beyond doubt, but we are trying to give abso- lutely bottom calculations. Q. — Is not the war-cost small as against England's whole wealth? A. — Never before in England's history has a war (or any other national or in- ternational catastrophe) so much as scratched her wealth noticeably. But this war has almost laid an axe to its very basis. A fair estimate of England's wealth (the United Kingdom) is $85,000,- 000,000. England's war cost by March, 1918, was at least $30,000,000,000 — more than 1/3 of her whole national wealth, or exactly 1/5 of the total wealth of the en- tire British Empire. (On March 7, 1918, a new vote of credit was "moved" in the House of Commons. It was for 500,000,- 000 pounds, and it brought the total since war began to $33,293,000,000.) Q. — What money has Great Brit- ain loaned to its Allies? A. — Up to August I. 1917. the total was: Loans to Dominions $ 730,000,000 Loans to Allies 5,125,000,000 Total $5,855,000,000 Q. — Are all these loans recover- able? A. — No. Bonar Law, Chancellor of the Exchequer, said in 1918 that at that time only $1,300,000,000 were recoverable. The loans made to Belgium probably never will be collected, but will be can- celled as a matter of generosity and jus- tice both. Serbia, Montenegro and Roumania probably never could repay their borrowings even if pressed. Q.— Has Great Britain borrowed much? A.— Much of the British financing _ is done by using so-called Treasury bills and Exchequer bonds (short-term note financing, broadly speaking). Of these, not less than $5,000,000,000 were outstand- ing in September, I9I7- By straight loans the following sums were obtained: Nov., 1914 — 3J4 per cent... $1,750,000,000 'Nov., 191S — 4J4 per cent... $3,t^o,ooo,ooo Nov., 1917 — 5 per cent... $5,000,000,000 Total $9,830,000,000 Q. — How much money had Great Britain borrowed after three years ? A. — Great Britain had borrowed, in one form and another, $17,875,000,000. Q. — Did the war increase Great Britain's national debt? A. — Yes, it increased the national debt enormously. The Chancellor of the Ex- chequer, speaking in Parliament, esti- mated that at the end of the fiscal year, 1917-1918 it would "not exceed 28 billions 709 millions." The national debt of Great Britain before the war had been less than 3 billions 500 millions. Q. — How many British war saving certiRcates have been bou|;ht? A. — Up to January 26, 1918, certificates to the face value of $550,000,000 had been purchased. This was two years after the scheme had been adopted. Q. — Has England considered the conscription of capital? A. — Yes. There has long been a strong party in England which urged that not only should the income taxes be increased, but that the Government should go boldly to property owners and take a percentage of their capital, to help defray the hor- rible expenditure for the war. Even Chancellor Bonar Law and Premier Lloyd George are understood to be sympathetic to the idea. The trouble is that the 85 billions of values is not held as cash, and it would be obviously impossible for a whole na- tion to start selling property at the same time, to raise money for taxes. To meet this difficulty, it has been proposed to col- lect this tax in installments spread over a number of years, but in that case it be- comes substantially just an income tax. Q. — What is the income tax in Great Britain? A. — When the war began, the income tax stood at i shilling 2 pence ; it was in- creased to 2 shillings 6 pence in the pound Cost of War (Allies) 199 m July, 1915; to 3 shillings 6 pence in December, 191s; and to 5 shillings in 1916. In addition, there was a super-tax of 3 shillings 6 pence in the pound for large incomes. Q. — At five shillings, does this not take away one-quarter of one's income? A. — Yes. The weight of the S shilling income tax is, however, made easier to those whose incomes do not exceed ^2,500, as far as the earned part is con- cerned. That earned part will now pay 2 shillings 3 pence to ^500 ($2,500) ; 2 shillings 6 pence to f 1,000; 3 shillings to ^1,500 ; 3 shillings 8 pence to £2,000; and 4 shillings 4 pence in the pound when the earned income does not exceed £2,500, at which figure the super-tax becomes pay- able, if Bie whole .income exceeds £3,000. And so, also, when an unearned income does not exceed £2,000 ($10,000), the in- come tax will be 3 shillings to £500; 3 shillings 6 pence to £1,000; 4 shillings to £1,500; and 4 shillings 6 pence in the pound when the income does not exceed £2,000. This relief is due in addition to any other relief, or where exemption or abatement reduces the taxable amount; but the re- lief must be on account of the claimant's own income and his own income only. In figfuring this, figure 25 cents to the shilling, 2 cents to the penny, and $5 to the pound, and you will have a close idea of the British tax. Q. — What proportion of excess profits is taken by the British Government? A. — Originally 50 per cent, it was then raised to 60 per cent, and for 1917 was to be 80 per cent, calculated to bring the Exchequer £180,000,000 ($878,400,000). Q. — What were the anticipated revenue and expenditure for 1917-1918? A. — Bonar Law expected to get £612,- 500,000 ($2,980,731,250), an increase of $190,000,000 only over last year's receipts. He was imposing increased taxation, which was expected to swell the total to $3,096,000,000. The expenditure for the year was expected to reach $11,145,000,- 000. Evidently, therefore, at least £1,651,- 781,000 ($8,037,000,000) would have to be borrowed during the year. The new year was entered on with $89,000,000 in the Treasury, and over $2,400,000,000 Treas- ury Bills outstanding. Q. — How much was needed to meet inter,est on the British war- debt? A. — In his budget speech in May, 1917, Bonar Law set aside the sum of £211,500,- 000 ($1,029,264,750 at normal rate of $4.8665 American money to the pound sterling) to meet debt charges. Only £17,000,000 ($82,730,500) of this gigantic sum was for pre-war charges, the rest being due entirely to loans raised since the war began. Actually, therefore, the annual amount which Great Britain has to find for the payment of interest on money lent the government exceeds her total an- nual pre-war revenue and expenditure. Q. — What was the exact revenue of Great Britain in pre-war days and what is it now? (in round numbers) 1912-13 . •• $919,000,000 1913-14 947,000,000 1914-15 1,103,000,000 1915-16 .;■ 1,658,000,000 1916-17 .'. 2,790,000,000 1917-18 (est.) 2,980,000,000 Q. — What was the cause of the big jump in 1916? A. — The estimated revenue for 1916-17 was $2,125,000,000, so that actually $663,- 000,000 more was obtained than was ex- pected. This was chiefly due to the Excess Profits Tax, which brought in $680,000,000, instead of the anticipated $375,000,000, and Income Tax which, ex- pected to ' bring in $750,000,000, actually yielded $997,500,000. Q. — How has British duty on tea increased? A. — In August, 1914, it was raised from Sd. to 8d. per pound. In December, 1915, it was raised to is. per pound. The duty on coffee since August, 1914, has been in- creased to 6d. a pound, the duty on cocoa to 4j4d. a pound. The duty on sugar was found at is. lod. per cwt. when the war broke out. It was then advanced to gs. 4d., and in igi6 to 14s. To the original tobacco duty of 3s. 8d., is. lod. was add- ed in December, 1915. A duty of 6d. a gallon was placed on motor spirits, and some special import duties were imposed on what were regarded as luxuries — 33 1/3 per cent on motor cars, musical in- struments, clocks, cinema films and the like. The importation of some of these things has now been entirely prohibited. A duty of 3s. 6d. per 10,000 was levied on 200 Questions and Answers imported matches and an excise duty of 3s. 4d. on locally made matches, with a further addition where more than eighty matches were found in a box. Every tinder box was subject to a duty of Ss. The extra duties levied on beer make the whole tax 25s. per barrel. (Figure the English penny (d.) roughly at 2 cents American, and iiic shilling (s.) roughly at 25 cents.) Q. — Did Russia raise her costs by tax or loan? A. — About half of the money needed was raised by means of Treasury bonds, many of which were taken up by the Allies, among others by Japan. At the end of July, 1916, the war lia- bilities consisted of: Roubles 9,000,000,000 Treasury bonds. ($4,630,000,000) 5,000,000,000 Internal long term bonds. ($2,573,000,000) 7,406,000,000 External long term bonds. ($3,812,000,000) 31,406,000,000 roubles, total. ($11,015,500,000) This, however, does not anything like represent all her liability at that time, as the Czar's Government had arranged for credits in London to the extent of 2,000,- 000,000 roubles ($1,029,200,000) to meet liabilities in respect of the foreign pur- chase of war material. In addition, the Government had issued 4,899,000,000 ($2,- 498,000,000) worth of paper money since the war started. The total Russian loans up to the time of the revolution have been estimated as 25 billion dollars. Q. — What did Fratice expend for the war? A. — Figures submitted to the French Chamber of Deputies stated that from August I, 1914, to December 31, 1917, France had appropriated 87,200,000,000 francs for war expenses. This sum, com- puted at the normal value in American money of 19.3 cents to the franc, is $16,- 829,600,000. Q. — How many war loans has France raised? A. — Only two public loans had been raised to April, 1918. The first realized 15,130,000,000 francs ($2,920,000,000), the second 11,360,000,000 francs ($2,192,000,- 000). Forty per cent of the first loan was in cash, and 55 per cent of the second. The French Government, like the Brit- ish, accepted payment in what was the French equivalent of British Consols, viz.. Rentes. In the first loan this Rentes scrip to the value of 4,430,000,000 francs irre- deemable 3 per cent, and 24,400,000 francs redeemable 3^ per cent was accepted. Holders of Rentes were permitted to transfer to the war loans on condition that they took up a definite proportion of war loan stock for cash in addition. The Government also accepted various other State bonds in payment of war ban stock. The reason why the second loan was smaller, and more of it in cash, was due to the fact that so much of the Rentes had been already transferred to the first loan. Q._What did the first French loan actually realize? A.— The first loan realized $2,920,000,- 000; but, as it was issued at 88, the actual money obtained was only $2,575,000,000. Q. — What financial advances did France make to its Allies? A. — During a discussion late in Jan- uary, 1918, in the Chamber of Deputfes, over a bill authorizing further advances to "Allied and friendly nations," a deputy stated that these advances amounted tc> 408,000,006 francs ($78,294,000), bringing the total advances to 6,421,000,000 francs ($1,239,000,000), and asked the Govern- ment's intention regarding the Russian coupons. He said that the French Gov- ernment already had paid 2,000,000 francs to French holders of Russian bonds, thus favoring them over the holders in other countries of bonds whose coupons had not been paid since the beginning of the war. Finance Minister Klotz replied that the financial actions . taken in the name of Russia were independent of any changes in regime there. The Allies were dis- cussing the question of the Russian cou- pons. Meanwhile, he said, France would pay the February coupons as it had paid those falling due in January. Q. — How is it that France borrows from uSj yet lends to her Al- lies? A. — Neither Great Britain nor France has advanced much actual cash to its Al- lies. Between them they provided the Belgian Government with what it needed for out-of-pocket expenses, but practic- Cost of War (Allies) SOI ally all the loans were given to pay for supplies manufactured in the country ad- vancing the money. That is, Italy might obtain a large amount of war material from Great Britain, but instead of having to pay for it, the British Government set- tles the bill for her with the British man uf acturer. Thus, though Italy is liable for the money, and must pay the interest thereon, the money itself actually re- mains in England all the time. It is the same with the loans which the United States is granting to the Allies. None of the money thus advanced leaves the United States, but remains in the hands of American manufacturers who have filled orders for England, France, Italy, Belgium and Russia. Q.— What war loans have the Ital- ians raised? A. — Their fourth was raised in April, 1917, and realized 3,616,000,000 lire ($697,- 880,000), of which 2,490,000,000 lire was new money. Q. — Did Serbia, Roumania and Bel- gium spend much per day? A. — About $2,968,000 a day between them, and most of this, of course, was money advanced by the stronger Allies. Q. — What is Italy's daily war ex- penditure? A. — It Is about $4,612,000. Q. — Is this greater than that of Russia? A. — No. Russia's daily expenditure up to the tirpe of the revolution in March, 1917, wasi $13,000,000. COST OF WAR (CENTRAL POWERS) Q.— How much is the war costing the paper money required,; regardless of r>...^a^.. Ar,»„-} :inflation, through ftie Reichsbank, and, uermany aauy. j^ ^^^^ ^jg proved insufficient, through A. — It was said early in 1917 in a cable the loan banks ; and second, to leave all from England that it had been officially arrangements for rectifying the finances announced that the daily expenditure of trntil after the war. Germany on the war was $25,000,000. ,.,/-■ t c It was announced in the Reichstag on Q. — How Old Germany S war fi- March 16, ipi6, that the cost of _ the last nance plan work? months of 1915 was two milliards of . , „ 4 . ;j :„ ,„,o. marks monthly-that is, $476,400,000. A.-A financial expert said in 1918: That would make the daily expenditure , "!« December, I9i7, there were, round- just about $15,920,000. The Minister said ly, $1,868 300,000 of the Darlehnskassen further that during January and February notes outstanding, and the Reichsbank the cost had been less; that in spite of ^^'i, $3i7,ooo,ooo worth of them. The the immense shell and gun production, tot?' '^^ues of. paper money m Germany, and increased cost of raw materials, the including Reichsbank notes. Imperial expenditure in January, 1916, was just Treasury notes, notes of other banks, and, about the same as in January, 1915. ^'""^^ established, Darlehnskassen notes On the basis of the official American was as follows at different dates : Decem- estimates for the three years up to Au- b^r, 1913, $700,000,000; December 1914, gust I, 1917, the daily cost for the Ger- $1,629,000,000; December, 1915, $2,377,- man Empire, after America entered the 000,000; December, 1916, $2,912,000,000; war, would figure out $18,036,529. December 1917, $4,783,000,000. The Reichsbank s own notes outstanding, $459,- Q.-What does the war cost Aus- '^Z^l,li^JVX^7:''lT&^ls tna-Hungary daily? are a little larger than as they figure in A,— The daily cost of the war to Aus- German money.) _ .... tria-Hungary was closely figured at $8,- ^ These notes go out into the hands of SsS 447 the public and to a large extent iina them- ' selves on deposit with the joint-stock Q. — What loans has Germany banks, where they form the base for the floated' extension of further credits by the joint- stock banks. Hence the deposits of the A. — Up to March I, 1918, Germany banking institutions in Germany have had floated seven loans, all at 5 per cent, increased to a very large extent, and it is The amounts obtained were as follow: — estimated that the total increase since SVar. ::::::::::::: 3; S:Z $5,000,000,000 we see the sameShing Fourt^'°^" fe± .wKoZr^"sf"'' '" ^'""'^^' ^"' Fifth loan , 2,875,000,000 Sixth loan 3,190,000,000 Q._what was the German Na- Seventh loan ^ . . . 3,125,000,000 ^,. it>.t t-r ■« ^ ^' tional Bank Law before war? Total $18,315,750,000 A.— Under the law before the war the Reichsbank could (and still can) create Q.— Do Bulgaria and Turkey spend credit balances without any limit other much per day? than financial expediency, fixes,, but the " note issues for public circulation were A.— Yes. They spend (combined) limited to three times the cash balance about $1,325,000. on hand, covered one-third by cash and two-thirds by discounted bills falling due Q, — What was the German finan- within three months and bearing (except cial policy for war? ■" special cases of two-name paper) *^ ' three names. The ordinary Government A. — A famous British banker said in Treasury bill was not then a legal bill of February, 1918, that two decisions were exchange for purposes of covering note apparently reached: First, to raise all issues. 202 Cost of War {Centrai Powers) 203 Q- — What new German Bank Laws then in circulation in Germany had passed were passed during war? the $4,000,000,000 mark. AT J- 1 1 ,. ... T"6 details were given as follows : A.— Immediately upon the outbreak of the war, on Aug. 4, 1914, the German law (round numbers) was changed in two important particulars Reichsbank notes $2,800,000,000 to permit of the expansion of credit and Treasury hotes 87,300,000 circulation. It was made legal for the Loan notes 1,565,000,000 Reichsbank to accept Treasury bills with two official signatures as "bills of ex- Total $4,442,500,000 change." The Government also revived _,, by law a system of special "loan banks," These figures, it will be noted, are a lit- er Darlehnskassen, used in I&^ and in "^ lower than others cited by other cal- the Franco-Prussian war. These banks culators. The financial war statements of made loans such as ordinary commercial *'' ^^^ nations lend themselves, of course, banks are unable to make, a class of '° *'^ s"'"*^ °f statements— according to "dead loans," to individuals, firms, and whatever one may want to prove, municipalities to the extent of 40 to 85 per cent of the value of various securi- o T^•J ^i. ■ ^ ties offered, in the form of special Gov- Q—^^°^ *"« war increase Ger- ernment notes. many's governmental ex- These banks were established for the penses? purpose not only of lightening the burden a it u;a - t..»j-i 1 • t, j of the Reichsbank and the joint-stock ^/"AlLfi ^ enlarging burden banks in the necessary credit extensions ^" ^ , f T' .^^^^"y ^f *" of the emergency, but the notes issued by ^"S^,^'^°"',*r/y rf.Tlu^ ^?^'^- !,*■ *''' them were by law made receivable at the "?. w^J^,^!, L^^.A ^ V^u °^'*"'*^ Reichsbank as cash for its necessary one- ««'Pts apd expenditures of the German third cash cover in the issuance of its L"^^^ ^°'" i^iS balance at $1 83o,«do,ooo, own notes ^* compared with approximately $1,250,- 000,000 in the previous year. The increase Q.— Has war financing not seri- ^^^ '^'"^ *° ^"^ ,^"/ '".^'"'y ^° the higher _.._i ;_fl_i J 1^ amount required for interest on the na- ously inflated German cur- tional debt. rency? ^^Tu'-i Havenstein, President of the Q._Will American holders of Ger- Reichsbank, recently said that the banlcs ^ _ ... ^ ^t. • will be continued for four or five years ™^" securities get their after the war, and will be available for money? saTd 'furVer thaf when oelcelomes Se A.-Anf treaty of peace or the sup- "Ji f ?f'Ur1oat wilf find he^ldve te"frthe°S'rs' "llich'^T' ?^' compelled to convert their holdings into l^"!^ .f'i^fiLni ?l"l"i,.Ti''='' "^^ ^"'^ hard cash for raw materials, new ma- ^^^ ^""^^ fi"^""^' relations, chinery, etc., which will throw millions of war loan on the market. The responsible Q._What classes paid the most authorities recognize that there will be m- ^ ;-„„„„ :- t>..„™s« :^ ,„»o3 sufficient buyers, and that the fall in the income in Prussia in 1918? price would depreciate all securities, so A. — The wealthy classes did, as they the plan is to form a consortium, con- weredoing everywhere, in so far as actual sisting of the Reichsbank, the joint-stock individual amounts of money were con- banks, and the Darlehnskassen. The cerned. But the backbone of taxation for .Darlehnskassen and, to an extent, the income was furnished by the people of Reichsbank, will provide the capital for small incomes. Thus 54 per cent of the the absorption of war loans, and the number of taxpayers came from the peo- Reichsbank and branches will take up the pie wTth annual incomes from $225 to stock as it is offered for sale. The stock $750 and the next class (incomes of $750 so absorbed will be gradually redistrib- to $2,375) furnished 19 per cent of the uted over a number of years through the taxpayers. Reichsbank and the joint-stock banks. Q.— What was Germany's financial Q— Had the general German in- condition in 1918? comes increased? A. — It was claimed by British financial A. — Not the general incomes, but there papers that in January, 1918, the notes was a large increase among the trades- 204 Questions and Answers people and certain business men and in- dustrials. It was due, no doubt, to war profitSj as in the other belligerent coun- tries. Thus the increases of Prussia's taxpayers paying on incomes of $6,000 to $25,000 had jumped by 8 per cent, incomes from $25,000 to $125,000 had increased 27 per cent, those of $125,000 to $250,000 had increased by 40 per cent, and the jump in incomes of more than $250,000 a year was actually 47 per cent. Q. — Are German war taxes falling heavily on the small people? A. — The Prussian Kingdom's taxes had begun, by 191 7, to reach further than ever before for the small incomes, while increasing for the larger ones. At the end of the third year of the war the actual number of taxpayers in the income classes up to $225 had increased from 36.7 per cent to 37.5 per cent of the whole. If the incomes above $750 are taken it is found that while the number of tax- payers decreased from 888,000 to 842,000 — that is, by 5 per cent — the total income increased from $1,400,000,000 to $i,goo,- 000,000, or by 7.4 per cent, making an increase in average income for this class of 13.4 per cent. Q. — How did the German people stand the war financially? A. — The figures are very confusing be- cause, in the first place, they were given in elaborately "camouflaging" form by German authorities and in the second place they have been re-shaped and re- stated as they passed through the censor- ship of Germany's European antagonists. We have, however, a fairly reliable indi- cation of the internal financial condition in a report of the Kingdom of Prussia. According to the figures, the year 1916, as compared with the year 1914, showed a decrease of 2.2 per cent in the number of individual taxpayers, and a decrease of 5.3 per cent in the number of com- panies, etc., paying taxes, the latter due, presumably^ to the shutting down, for one cause or another, of many concerns. On the other hand, the total income coming under tax had risen from $4,525,000,000 in 1914 to $4,700,000,000 in 1916, making an increase from $605 per capita of popu- lation to" $625. Q. — Did very many Germans be- come rich through the war? A. — The percentage increases in high annual incomes were surprising, but this did not mean that the increase by indi- viduals was very great. The number of so-called "millionaires" — that is, people with annual incomes of more than' 1,000,000 marks ($230,000) — rose from twenty-seven in iSg6 to ninety- one in 1914, and to 134 in 1916 in Prussia alone. Q. — Did German business increase during the war? A. — The returns of the Reichsbank for January 7, 1918, showed a total clearing business of the Reichsbank for 1917 of $23,000,000,000, as compared with 16 bil- lions in 1916, 14 billions in 1915, 16 bil- lions in 1914, and 17 billions in 1913, the last complete year of peace. The expla- nation given by the Frankfurter Zeitung for the increase in 1917 was the issue of war loans, combined with increased Stock Exchange business and the de- creased purchasing power of money. Further statistics of the Frankfurter Zeitung gave the increase in capital by existing companies and the issue of shares by. new companies as 33 billions for the first half-year of 1917 and 70 billions for the second half, the main part of the rise in the second half-year being due by the increase in capital of 37 billions in November by anilin con- cerns. Q. — Did the Franco-Prussian War cost much? A. — Comparatively little in money ac- tually spent for war. The Treasury De- partment's' experts figure as follows : 1870-1871 j France $1580,000,000 f Germany $954,400,000 Q. — How much did the Franco- Prussian War cost per day? _ A.— From the declaration of war to the signing of peace, the war lasted exactly 299 days. For that period (part of which saw no fighting at all), the daily cost to Germany was $3,182,000, and France's daily cost was $5,267,000. Q. — Did Turkey get much money from Germany? A. — A German expert, Emil Zimmer- mann, estimated in May, 1917, that Ger- many had advanced to Turkey nearly 3,000,000,000 marks ($714,000,000) up to that time. Cost of War (Central Powers) 205 Q. — What are the details of the 2,000,000,000 crowns, and a supplementary Austrian war loans? agreement of April 12, 1915, placed a further 800,000,000 crowns at their dis- A. — The sixth loan was floated in June, posal on the same terms. 1917. The following sums were obtained by loans :— Q. — Did Austria depend heavily on Krone (or Crown) the State Bank? li"oU° loa^- :::;:::::::::: '^X^Z r ^-^' ^i- '- .'\ i^^'^ °* '^'^ the Third loan 4202,600000 £T''"T".1' ^^^'^ ^■f'^ recourse to the Fourth loan 4 S20 300 000 ^f"Jl/"'' ;*^" T^^ '* necessary, for the Fifth loan AAia fimono ''"^ectors to make a general decision on siiS^ loan :::::::;::::::: : tlloS^Z f'r::fY' "f *"t *°^"'"^- Government ^'^^ ' ' applications for loans during the war. Total 22Q24 7noonn '^}^^ only alternative to refusal was to At the pre-war rate of exchange (20.26 i1'X!fL°L*^ TSr'J!"^?* ' ^° ^" ""l cents American to the Krone) this would l^^nflj^'l*^''.*-,, \^vf directors were not r^nrpc^nt «=«...• c..^ ^or. Tn,_ cLrvt,!i P^pared to take the responsibility of a fourth, fifth and sixth for longer periods. „„„ ^^^ practicable. All were issued at S per cent. Ten various agreements have been ^ T^ ^T. A X • -r. • made at various dates from July 15, 191S, Q.— Does the Austrian Empire to November 24, 1917, under each of raise an Imperial Loan? which the Governments have been au- A c 1 1 • J L .1 thorized to borrow 1,500,000,000 crowns A.— Separate loans are raised by the against promissory notes, the definite al- Kingdoras of Austria and Hungary, which location of which is to take place not finance themselves independently of each jater than six months after the conclusion S*^^: F""^"? J'^' ''^'^•^^ 'TJ.?' '°^"'* of peace. The amount actually borrowed the first two bringing in a httle more -,„ .j^i^ue of these agreements by Decem- than $450,000,000. ber 7, 1917, was 13,200,000,000 crowns. Q.— How did the Austro-Hun- Q.—Did Austria ever make any re- garian State Bank help to fi- ports as to internal finances? nance the war? a im /- ^ , r , . A. — The first statement of the Austro- A. — The first direct call which was Hungarian State Bank since the outbreak made upon the bank was based upon an of the war was made on December 7, agreement of August 14, 1914. The two 1917. It was not complete, but it showed Governments (Austria and Hungary) the gold reserve at that date to be $55,- took up 2,000,000,000 crowns_ (at normal 000,000, as against $257,800,000 at the end exchange the Austro-Hungarian crown is of July, 1914, and note circulation to be worth $0.2026) against deposit of treas- $7,375,000,000, as against $433,500,000. ury bills to the amount of 2,666,000,000 This gold reserve was the smallest of any crowns, redeemable in gold and bearing European state bank except those of Nor- interest at S per cent. A second agree- way and Denmark. The note circulation ment (October 7, 1914) allowed the was $2,900,000,000 larger than that of any Governments to borrow not more than other bank except the Bank of Russia. GERMANY (INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE) Q. — What was the internal con- dition of Germany in 1918? A. — The iron-clad censorship of the German Government has prevented us from knowing as exactly as we should like, and individual reports of travelers are varying or conflicting. Some things, however, are certain. The nation was dangerously divided in its sentiment as to the war. The tremendous traffic from east to west and north to south had put the country's railroads in bad condition, both as to rolling stock and roadbed. There was practically no travel except for government purposes, a prohibitive tax being placed upon passenger tickets for all civilians. No freight or express was accepted except for the Government's use against the enemy. Many raw mate- rials, particularly cotton, were lacking, and people were dying of disease and starvation. The Neue Wiener Journal, of Vienna, stated on December 15, 1917, that in the Austrian capital during 1917, 45,000 peo- ple died of all diseases. In comparison, to this there were but 24,000 births. Of the total number of deaths 12,000 were caused by tuberculosis, a disease which was steadily increasing because of the poor food conditions. Q. — ^Just how does all Germany compare in size with us? A. — In size all Germany is not so big as Texas. In fact, Germany could be put into Texas, and there still would be enough of Texas unoccupied to accom- modate New York and New Jersey, or Arkansas and Rhode Island, or all of Illinois except a tiny edge. Or if you want to figure it another way, the United States could take in fifteen German Empires. Q. — How does German man-power compare with American? A. — Germany has about 65 per cent of the population we have. (Germany had 65 million people in 1910, and we had an estimated population of 102 million in 1917.) But, comparing the areas of the two countries, the German population is proportionately 14M times bigger than ours — or, rather, if the United States were as densely populated, instead of having 102 millions we would have 950 millions, or almost a billion people ! 206 Q. — What was the chief feature of German advance before the war? _A.— The systematic and wholesale ap- plication of scientific research to every industrial operation from coal mining to toy-making. Since the Franco-Prussian War, Germany has made industrial science (or scientific industry) the most impor- tant part of her whole structure. For more than a generation it has not been the "shop-foreman" or the "superintend- ent" who played the big part in her in- dustrial establishments. It has been the chemist, the analyst, the "Herr Profes- sor" (of everything from mathematics to astronomy) , whose ability guided the great ■factories and the gr^at operations of com- Q. — With whom did Germany do the biggest business during peace? A. — In I913 and 1912 she did her big- gest all-round business, counting both ex- ports and_imports, with the United States and Russia. Great Britain was a close third. Other countries with which she did a major business were France, Italy, Holland, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Ar- gentina, British India, Australia, Brazil, and Chile. Her trade with British West Africa and Egypt had been very large in 1912, but it had fallen away astonishmgly in 1913. Q. — What does Germany export mostly? , A. — Her exports in 1913 were, in the order of their value: machinery, iron manufactures, coal, cotton goods, wool- lens, sugar (beet), paper and paper goods, furs, silk goods, coke, aniline dyes, rye, clothing, copper goods, leather goods, toys, wheat, books, rails and sleepers, in- digo, chinaware, electric lamps and tele- graph cable. Q- — What does Germany need to import? A.— In 191 3 she imported raw cotton, wheat, raw wool, barley, copper, skins and hides, iron ore, coffee, coal, eggs, furs, nitrate, raw silk, bran, rubber, lard, to- bacco, linseed, butter, oil-cake, horses, rice, maize and rye. Germany {Industrial Structure) 207 Q. — Why do we hear so much of the German dye industry? A. — Partly because dyes are one of the very big articles of commerce. The an- cient city of Tyre, mentioned in the Bible for its grandeur, owed much of its wealth to its dye — the still famous Tyrian pur- ple, which was obtained from a sea-slug. There is hardly an article of manufacture that does not need at least a little color on it somewhere ; and the huge textile in- dustries depend on coloring matter as much as they do on the original raw materials of wool and cotton. It is true that if the world came to a sharp pinch, we could use textiles as they come from the looms— but a great part of the world's beauty and its industrial art would van- ish with the vanishing of dyes. Q. — Did Germany have natural sources of dyes? A.-^Germany had virithin her boundaries practically no natural sources of dyes. Indigo, the leading blue dye of the world, was made from a plant raised in India. Red came largely from the cochineal in- sect of Mexico and Africa. The other colors came from ores, earths and plants scattered over the world. Q. — How does Germany produce dyes? A. — She makes them. Instead of ex- tracting them from plants and color-bear- ing ores, she makes a wholly artificial thing. The foundation for this artificial dye is coal-tar, and this, again, is a by- product of other industries. Q. — How did Germany discover the dye-making method? A. — At about the time of the making of the German Empire, German science had begun to turn itself to industrial projj- leras. While other nations' students still were practicing science as a thing apart from which industry and other fields might profit if they would, the German scientists developed a great and unique field of their own. One of the problems was the utilization of the huge percentage of waste that occurs when coal is used for fuel. That is how the Germans learned so much about coal-tar — ^the fortner waste, which now produces everything from drugs and dyes to explosives. Q. — What is a by-product? A. — A by-product is a product made "on the side" during a process that is in- tended primarily to produce something else. Thus, sawdust is a by-product (purely accidental) from sawing planks, etc. Dripping is a by-product from fry- ing bacon". For a long time all the varied by-products of industry were utilized only as they happened — that is, nobody seems to have thought that they might be worth as much as, or perhaps more than, the main product. Even the most advanced industrial men did little except to save all the by-product possible. Hardly any- body went in heavily to expand by-prod- ucts. To-day, however, we know that the by-product is one_ of the monumental facts in modern industry, and that in the coming years it may well be possible that no industry, however big and rich, will be able to stand unless it is buttressed all around with a system of intense by- product utilization. Q. — What was the first great Ger- man dye discovery? A. — It was hardly a discovery, unless you apply the word "discovery" to a work of almost twenty years of patient, in- cessant search for a certain method to do a certain thing. The first big German dye-discoyery or invention was the way to make indigo — that is, to make "syn- thetically" a dye that, up to that time, had been of purely vegetable origin. One of the big German industrial firms in the southern part of Germany where indus- try and technical science first began their partnership, had kept not one, but a whole corps of chemists at work on the prob- lem before it was solved. It is recorded that the cost to that concern was $3,750,- 000 before the way was found; but it paid. The first man to produce a syn- thetic indigo was Professor von Bayer; but the cost of the product by his proc- ess was pretty high, and it was not until other processes were perfected that the dye industry sprang into a magnitude that amazed Germany. Q. — Did Germany's dye-making af- fect other nations? A. — ^The very first dye that was made by a Gernian struck a sharp blow at Eng- land. In a way, it is correct to say that it was the invention of synthetic indigo that laid a foundation for the present war, in so far as the commercial feuds between England and Germany had some- thing to do with the war. The production of synthetic indigo instantly struck and broke down one of England's sources of Indian wealth. 208 Questions and Answefs Q. — How did indigo help to cause war? A.^ — England, through her ownership of India, had a practical monopoly of the world's supply of this blue, for almost all of it came from immense British plan- tations in the Indian province of Bengal. In the early part of the nineteenth cen- tury the term "indigo planter" was synonymous with "nabob." The British planters in one district alone^ (North Be- har) drew from this plant incomes that aggregated $5,000,000 a year in a coun- try where the laborers' monthly wages were then counted actually by pennies. The area under cultivation throughout Bengal was enormous, and, as the supply of labor was equally unlimited, a golden flood poured in on the planters and into the United Kingdom. To-day the indigo fields have shrunk to 380,000 acres, and the income is only $1,950,000 for all In- dia — a tiny bit more than $5 an acre. Q. — How is synthetic indigo made? A. — The starting point is naphthalene. After intricate processes, there is pro- duced a substance laiown as indigotine. This product again must pass through long chemical processes before the paste or powder is obtained for the market. Q. — ^What is natural indigo? A. — It is a plant that grows from 3 to 5 feet high, doing best in India and Java. Its name is Indigofera Sumatrana. It contains the coloring matter, which is made into the blue dye known as "indigo," and it furnishes two crops a year. Q. — Was the German dye industry really overwhelmingly import- ant? A. — The dye monopoly before the war gave Germany an export trade in fine chemicals of $487,500,000. In addition, it gave her a practically complete monopoly in the output of certain explosive gases, photographic chemicals, drugs, and sources of power derived from splitting up pe- troleum and gas-tar products. Of the dye values, synthetic indigo seems to represent about 40 per cent by itself — an indication of the importance of this initial success in German by-product extraction. Q. — ^What other dyes have Ger- mans discovered? A.— The most notable was alizarin red, formerly made from the madder root. Two German chemists made it from coal- tar in 1869. This date is of historical in- terest, for it was the first instance of the artificial production of a vegetable dye- stuff. It was an Englishman, however, Sir W. H; Perkin, who prepared the first aniline dye in 1856. He produced a mauve coloring matter, but this was a quite new product and did not replace any vegetable dye. It is interesting to know that the bright red trousers which early in the war made the French so conspicu- ous a target for German bullets, could no longer be made, as the alizarin dye which was used for them was a German monopoly. Before the Germans succeed- ed in making it, the dye was a French monopoly, but since then the cultivation of the madder root in France has ceased entirely. Q. — Has Germany accumulated great stores of dyestufFs? A.— The British textile journals appear to doubt it, and it is difficult to know the actual position. The former United States Consul at Breslau informed a meet- ing of the Philadelphia hosiery manufac- turers that dyestuffs were one of three commodities which were being held in surplus in Germany. The others were sulphuric acid and Portland cement. We must remember that the manufac- ture of explosives is a part of the coal- tar industries of Germany, and that in their thrift they probably are missing no opportunity for storing by-products. Q.— Did not the "Deutschland" bring us dye during war? A. — Yes. The submarine freight vessel Deutschland brought about 700 tons — an insignificant amount as compared with our annual consumption of about 35,000 tons, but an eagerly welcomed shipment because of the intense stringency in dyes from which America was then suffering. The price paid was so high that it is said the whole cost of the Deutschland was de- frayed by the profit made from this one trip. Q. — Did natural indigo get a mar- ket again when war occurred? A. — Apparently it did not recover very much of a place. It was reported in March, 1918, that the natural indigo stock taken over by the British Government at the beginning of war had been sold; and the figures showed that the total for the three years of war had been only 267 « tons, which cost the government $1,760,- 000. It was taken over because it had been Germany {Industrial Structure) 209 feared that, owing to the inevitable short- age of synthetic indigo, the natural indigo might get into the hands of a small group. One hundred tons were sold to the French Government, and the remainder gradually disposed of to the domestic trade, both for home consumption and for export. The accounts show a profit of $17,300. Q. — Did the English make syn- thetic indigo? A. — The production of synthetic dye- stuffs in Great Britain was reported in 1918 as three times as large as before the war, so that prices dropped in 1917. Q. — Has Germany increased her coal mining? A. — The coal production of the coun- try — including lignite — rose from 76,200,- 000 tons in 1887 to 259,400,000 tons in 1912. The gain of 240 per cent is equaled by no other country except the United States. Q. — Did Germany aid her steel manufacturers? A. — The steel industry, by sheer virtue of its overwhelming, absolutely vital, ne- cessity to the empire at war, became an object of governmental solicitude as soon as the struggle began. It does not appear that any particular laws were passed to grant government funds to the industry or otherwise to give official financial as- sistance ; but the huge government orders had the same effect. Just what laws were passed, or what regulations were made, to regulate the relations between the steel industries and the public is not clear. So far as labor is concerned, it is known that in the first three years of the war the German iron and steel industry subscribed about 350 millions of marks ($83,000,000) to relief work. Q. — Have steel-workers' wages ad- vanced? A. — That wages have been advanced heavily is known. Government action in regard to wages, which affected many in- dustries, appears to have affected the steel industry most heavily, perhaps because of the big number of men they employed. The steel manufacturers have expressed the view several times at conferences that wages had advanced to a point where they would handicap German/s price-compe- tition with other nations after war. On the other hand, the steel-makers' profits have been enormous (as in every country), and, in addition, the war-profits tax has been lighter than it has been in Great Britain. Q. — Has Germany built more rail- roads than other nations? A. — Not in mileage, as compared with the Unitetf States, but in proportion she did nearly what we did from 1890 to 1910. In that period we increased our railroad mileage 44 per cent, and Germany in- creased her mileage 42 per cent. Q. — What does Germany save by her economies and scientific thrift? A. — One could only guess. Not even the German statisticians, meticulous as they are, have ventured to attempt any specific figures. But we know, in large figures, how coal and by-products are wasted by the other large industrial na- tions, and we know that a large percent- age of such waste has been eliminated in Germany. This alone enables us to make a large general estimate that the German industrial* economies amount to probably more than a thousand million dollars a year. Lord Haldane once said, in a speech on England's technical needs, that if English technicians would devote them- selves to economies similar to the Ger- man, their work would save the United Kingdom at least 2^^ billions of dollars a year — and Lord Haldane is not an ordi- nary orator, but a speaker of scientific precision. Q. — Horint- ing — failed to increase their power more than 100 per cent, while the building trade gained 308 and machinery 557 per cent, and other, industries between 100 and 200 per cent. Q. — Is it true that Germany has no real seaports? A. — She has no great port directly on the sea. Hamburg (with maritime busi- ness ranking next only to New York, Liverpool and London) and Bremen, with their outlying stations of Wilhelmshaven, Bremerhaven and Cuxhaven, are the only ports west of the peninsula of Schleswig- Holstein, and so accessible to large trans- atlantic traffic, and these are both_ some distance from the sea, Hamburg beingj on the river Elbe and Bremen on the river Weser. Q. — Can Germany not reach the sea through the Rhine? A. — ^To use her great river, the Rhine, Germany must go through Holland (where the name changes to the Waal) to reach the North Sea. Much of her shipping is done through the foreign ports of Antwerp and Amsterdam. But where nature has denied them, the Germans have supplied the want by in- genuity. The Rhine has been dredged one hundred and fifty miles from its mouth for navigation by vessels of fair sea-going capacity. The whole of Ger- many is cut by a network of canals, the most famous of which is the Kaiser _Wil- helm Canal from Kiel on the Baltic to Brunsbiittel at the mouth of the Elbe on the North Sea. Q. — How did Germany's marine grow? A. — In the 25 years from 1888 to 1913, Germany's merchant marine grew from 212 Questions and Answers 470,000 net registered tonnage to 2,655,- 000. Her import trade grew from 740 million (dollars) to 2 billion 610 million, and her_ exports grew from 747 million to 2_ billion 165 million. Germany's total foreign trade gained 214 per cent, against 173 per cent gained by the United States, 113 per cent by Great Britain, and 98 per cent by France. Q. — ^Was the German marine en- tirely prostrated by the war? A. — Practically so. There remained, however, a pretty lively sea-trade through the Baltic with Sweden, and the war- profits of the ships so engaged were high. Thus, at an auction sale in Rostock, a German Baltic port, a steamship was sold in 1917 for $637,500. Its cost when built in 1908 had been $122,500. Its earnings during 1912 had been 12 per cent, and during 1913 14 per cent. In 1914 it earned nothing. _ In 1915 it earned 5 per cent. In igi6 its earnings were 60 per cent. Q. — Did the Germans recover their merchant vessels in Antwerp? A. — Yes. When the war began, 37 Ger- man vessels were lying in Antwerp, and, of course, could not get out. It has been one of the mysteries of the war why either the Belgians or the British did not remove these ships. It may be that they delayed because of possible complications with Holland, since to send the ships to England would have made necessary pas- sage through the Dutch-controlled mouth of the Scheldt. At any rate, the ships were left in Antwerp, and when the Ger- mans captured the city they thus recap- tured their ships. Q. — ^Are the German cities as large as ours? A. — Germany has no cities as large as New York and Chicago in population, but Berlin, with 2 millions, has a popula- tion exceeded in America only by those two big cities. Of cities with more than 300,000 people, we have iB^^ while Ger- many has II. Of cities with less than 300,000 and more than 100,000, we have 46, against Germany's 31. When it comes to cities next in rank of more than 50,- 000, we have 51 against Germany's 38. Q. — What are the big cities of Ger- many? A.- — Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Leipzig, Dresden, Cologne, Breslau, Frankfort, Dtisseldorf, Nuremberg, Charlottenburg and Hanover are the cities with more than 300,000 people. Q. — Are most of the big cities in Prussia? A. — Of the 12 largest cities, 7 are in Prussia. The others are in Saxony and Bavaria. Oi the whole list of_ Ger- man cities ranking over 50,000, Prussia has 53 as against 32 in the rest of Germany. Q. — Did Germany get oil from Roumania? A. — In the months of September to December, 1916, German armies conquered a part of Roumania, and occupied the city of Ploechti in the Prahova Valley, the center of one of the richest oil-fields in Europe. The oil-wells, however, were burned, and the oil-reservoirs destroyed. From time to time neutral newspapers have reported the restoration of the Rou- manian oil industry to normal conditions. Q. — How much oil might Germany get from Roumania's wells? A. — In 1913 Roumania exported pe- troleum and so forth, to the value of 26 million dollars. It is known, however, that while some of the wells were worked with thorough science and with the best of modern machinery, a lar^e part of the possible oil-territory remained unde- veloped or practically so. Q. — How much oil might Germany get from Batoum and the other Black Sea regions? A.— The Baku district alone produced 7 million tons of oil in 1915, the last year for which there have been accurate fig- ures. Q. — Has Germany much forest land? A. — Germany has an amazing area of forest land, considering the density of her population. The whole forest area is reckoned at 34H million acres, divided into government forests, communal for- ests, private forests and forests maintained by societies. It is a tiny amount com- pared with the 550 million acres of Amer- ican forest; but Germany manages to get a big income from her small area, to cut it freely and still conserve it and even im- prove it. Intensive forestry is the secret. Gernumy (^Industrial Structure) 213 Q. — Have many Germans emigrat- ed lately? A.— Hardly any. The flood of German emigration, very great at one time, stopped with extraordinary abruptness. In the last few years it has fallen away to almost nothing, and even the small emigration that there was showed a steady diminution annually. In 1913, the year before the war, only 26,000 people emi- grated from all Germany. Q. — Where did most of the emi- grants go from? A.— The largest number went from Prussia, which lost 13,000 people. Ba- varia lost only 2,000. Q. — How many left Alsace-Lor- raine? A. — Only 517 emigrated from that prov- ince. Q.— When did German emigration decrease? A. — In the decade 1881-90, there were 1,342,00a German emigrants, as against a total birth excess of 5,500,000; in the fol- lowing decade there were still 528,000 emi- grants to 7,300,000 net births ; but in the decade 1901-10, when the birth excess rose to 8,670,000 the number of emigrants sank to 220,000, or 22,000 a year. Q- — Who said German technical schools were more dangerous thanKrupp? A.— -You evidently refer to a statement once made in the House of Lords by Lord Haldane. He did not phrase it ex- actly that way. He was discussing Eng- lish educational systems, and, during the course of his speech, he said that while there were only 1,500 trained chemists in England, four German chemical firms em- ployed 1,000 alone. These firms had played havoc with British trade, he said, and added that more than half the boys and girls in England get no education at all after they reach 13, and only 250,000 go to school after 14 years of age. Lord Haldane said that 5,350,000 boys and girls in England and Wales between 16 and 25 get no education at all, only 93,000 get a full-time course, and 390,000 a part-time course at evening schools. Q. — Did Germany pay her war costs by taxation? A. — Germany has raised little money in the way of additional war-taxes. Instead, she has floated two huge loans each year, one in March and one in September. It is now recognized that nations consume in war not money but goods, and that no na- tion need stop, fighting for financial rea- sons alone. Germany's real impoverish- ment is in her shortage of men and of goods. GERMANY (POLITICAL STRUCTURE) Q. — What was the political situa- tion in Germany in 1918? A. — It was fairly clear and rather sharply outlined. The Pan-Germanists, working largely through their new popu- lar party, to which they had shrewdly given the enticing name of Fatherland party, were working on the line of de- manding that the German people must be repaid for their sacrifice of blood and treasure — the good old formula that had been almost invariably successful through- out the history of humanity when ad- dressed to the nation whose military power had proved itself. Opposed to this very solid mass were many parties. They were tied together by the one desire for a just and equitable peace, but, other- wise, they had little or no connecting bonds. For instance, the Socialists, who led in oppositjon to the Pan-Germanists, remained distinctly opposed in all gen- eral political and social matters to the va- rious other parties that were in agree- ment _ with them on the big war-issues, especially on the dictum of "no annex- ations." Q. — Was there any similar divi- sion in other countries? A. — Yes. Speaking very broadly, by the beginning of igi8 there had come a pretty clear division in all countries, both Allies and Central Powers, between a great body of public opinion that still felt that only by successful war could a just and lasting peace be won, and another smaller body of public opinion which took a position exactly the reverse— that the time had arrived when there was a strong possibility of approximating a just peace, and establishing certain international ideals, by negotiation rather than by mili- tary victory. Q.— Can the Kaiser make war? A. — He cannot declare an offensive war, but a clause in the constitution provides that he can declare war if defensive. If war is not defensive, he must have the consent of the Bundesrath, or Federal Council, which is the upper house of the German Parliament. Under the Consti- tution the Kaiser can make treaties of peace. He does not need the consent of the Parliament for any treaties except when they relate to matters regulated by imperial legislation. Q. — How did Prussia become mili- taristic? A. — As a result of being licked too often. Prussia (and the other States of Germany) were for a long time used as a cock-pit for other peoples' wars, just as the Belgian territory always has been used. Whenever France wanted to fight Russia or Austria, the road led through Wiirttemberg, Bavaria or Prussia. The German States were alternately victims of both sides" or allies of one or the other. Some of the greatest battles of history thus were fought out on German terri- tory. At last Prussians determined grimly to fight for themselves, and it was under the inspiration of a burning zeal and love for home and country that the seeds of militarism were sown. Under Frederick the Great the militaristic prin- ciple became part of the woof and warp of national life. Q. — Can the President of the United States make treaties? A. — No.* He can make treaties only "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." It is this simple clause which has saved-us from being embroiled in se- cret diplomacy. The European nations (not excepting even democratic England) have suffered grievously by permitting their rulers or cabinets to make interna- tional arrangements without the knowl- edge or advice of the people's represen- tatives. Q. — What is the true meaning of the Kaiser's title "War Lord"? A. — In German, the title is "Kriegs- Herr," and "War Lord" is only a literal translation that does not actually convey its meaning. The more clear translation is "War Commander." The title signifies ofiicially that whoever is Emperor of Germany becomes by virtue of this office Supreme Commander of the Army and Navy in war. Probably few Americans know that this supreme command is limited by the words "in war," but this is true. The Kaiser has not the absolute command over the forces of the entire German Army. Ar- ticle 66 of the German Constitution pro- vides that the German princes, especially the kings of Bavaria, Wiirttemberg and Saxony, are the chiefs of the troops be- 214 Germany {Political Structure) 215 longing to their territory (six army corps of twenty-four). They nominate the of- ficers for these troops, etc. The absolute disposition of the German Army thus passes on to the Kaiser only in the mo- ment when the consent of the states, who with_ Prussia form the empire, has been obtained for the declaration of a war. This consent is obtained through the German Upper House or Bundesrath, which represents the various States. Q. — What is the German people's attitude toward the Kaiser? A. — ^With the exception of the most radical socialists, the German people hold their Kaiser in the highest esteem. It is this attitude which has caused the Ger- man people to bear, with such wonderful patience, whatever burden the war has brought Q. — Has Germany a constitution? A. — ^Yes. It has a written constitution, which is, on the whole, similar to the constitution of most large nations, defin- ing and limiting the powers of the Gov- ernment and directing the general method of making laws and enforcing laws. It went into effect on April 16, 1871. Q. — Can anybody but a Hohenzol- lern become Emperor? A. — Not under the terms of the Con- federation. When Wilhelm I, King of Prussia, was made German Emperor (by vote of the old North German Confeder- ation Reichstag, on the initiative of all the Princes of Germany), the Imperial dignity was made hereditary in the House of Hohenzollern, and, as the law of primo- geniture also hold!s, it means that when a Hohenzollern dies, his eldest living son ascends the Imperial throne. Q. — Does the old North German Federation still exist? A. — No. This very loose and not effec- tive form of federation was replaced by the present confederation known as the German Empire. Germany as a nation is quite different, you must note, from such a country as France. France is one single governmental organization. Germany is a union of States. Q. — Have the Germans free suf- frage like other countries? A.— The national elections are by ab- solutely universal manhood suffrage with the secret ballot system, and no voter needs any qualification of property, etc., but is entitled to cast his ballot if he is a citizen of legal age. The State elections are different. Each State has. its own laws for elections with- in the State. Prussian election laws are especially* unequal, and this was the subject of a bitter political contest dur- ing the war, and, indeed, became an issue of the war. Q.— What suffrage have the other countries? A.— The United States has practically equal suffrage, except in a few States where suffrage is limited in various ways, chiefly for political reasons. France has universal suffrage. Italy has almost uni- versal suffrage, but the people can elect only the -members of the lower house, the Senate consisting of Princes or of members appointed by the King for life, Great Britain, in February, 1918, en- acted a new suffrage law, which swept away the qualifications previously in force, and provided universal manhood suffrage, besides a. new scheme of distribution on the basis of one member of Parliament for every 70,000 of the population in Great Britain, and one for every 43,000 in Ire- land. It also admitted to the suffrage any wom^n of thirty years or over who is a local government elector or the wife of one (this involves six months' owner- ship or tenancy of land or premises), thus giving the vote to about 6,000,000 women. Q. — Do the Germans elect any of their actual ruling heads? A. — No. The Germans elect the mem- bers of their Reichstag, but the Chan- cellor of the German Empire, who cor- responds to Prime Minister in England, is appointed by the Emperor, and is not responsible by law to the Reichstag. Q. — ^What nations in the war elect their ruling heads ? A.— Only the United States. The Brit- ish Prime Minister is appointed by the King (though, in actual practice, the rul- ing majority in Parliament makes up its mind whom it wants, and the King has always appointed that particular person). The President of France is elected by the Senate and Chamber of Deputies. He has very little power, and the real ruler, the Premier, though appointed by the President, really is appointed only ac- cording to the wishes of the party in power at a given moment. In Italy the Ministry is appointed by the King, usually in accord with the ruling majority. 2l6 Questions and Answers Q. — Is the German Parliament at all like the U. S. Congress? A.— -In some ways it is like Congress. For instance, the Reichstag (which is the lower house or the House of Repre- sentatives, as we call ours) is made up of elected members who come from the va- rious districts of Germany, where they are locally elected as our Congressmen are. The Bundesrath or Upper House, on the other hand, represents not the people of Germany, but the States specifically, as our Senate was supposed to do when United States Senators were selected by State Legislatures instead of being elected by popular suffrage. In fact, our Sena- tors still represent States rather than elec- tors, in political principle at least. Q. — How does the size of the Ger- man Parliament compare with others ? A. — The Bundesrath, or Upper House, has 6i members, as against 96 United States Senators and 660 Peers in the British House of Lords. The Reichstag has 393 members, elected by popular suf- frage, against 435 Congressmen and 670 members in the House of Commons. Q. — Can the Kaiser dissolve the Reichstag? A. — Yes. He has the right either to "prorogue" it (that means to close its session temporarily) or to dissolve it en- tirely. All that he needs is a majority vote of the Bundesrath. But he cannot prorogue the Reichstag indefinitely, and he cannot go on without a Reichstag. If he prorogues the Reichstag, it can be for only a period of 30 days, unless the Reichstag itself consents to a longer pe- riod. If he dissolves a Reichstag, new elections must be held within sixty days, and a new session must be held within ninety days. Q. — Can the President prorogue Congress? A. — No. He can neither prorogue nor dissolve it. Congress is a co-equal body with the American President, and its rights are clearly defined as such in the constitution. Q. — How do the upper houses compare? A. — The 61 members of the Bundesrath are appointive, the governments of the various German States appomtmg the members for each session. Our 96 Sena- tors are elected by popular suffrage lor six years. The 660 Peers in the House of Lords hold their seats by hereditary right, by creation of new Peers by the King, and by virtue of office as English arch- bishops and bishops. Q. — Can the King of England prorogue Parliament? A. — Yes,. Every session of Parliament must end with a prorogation which issues from the King. He can also dissolve a Parliament, but no King in modern times has done so on his own authority. What the King does about Parliament is purely a matter of form. In actual fact, Par- liament is prorogued when the majority party decides to do so, and it is dissolved when the majority party's Cabinet has been outvoted in Parliament on some national measure. An adverse vote (a vote of lack of confidence, as it is called) results by custom in a general election to bring in a new Parliament. As a mat- ter of strict law, a Cabinet could hold out; but it could get no measures passed, and it would antagonize the voters by flouting British custom, which is stronger than written law. The British Constitu- tion really is largely a matter of Na- tional custom; and the King acts accord- ingly, proroguing or dissolving Parlia- ment by advice of the Cabinet. Q. — If the Reichstag refuses to pass the Kaiser's measures, what can he do? A. — He can dissolve Parliament, and thus cause another election. If the new body again refuse to approve of his legis- lation, he can again dissolve Parliament, and a second election would be held. Such a case has never arisen to date, but it is not impossible. The Emperor can declare war without the consent of the Lower House, just as can tlie King of Erigland; but, owing to the fact that the Ministers are all his nominees, he has a very great influence over German poli- tics while the King of England has very little over British politics in practice, though a forceful English King might assume many prerogatives and powers that have been allowed to become dor- mant merely as a matter of custom. Q. — Can the King of England con- trol the House of Lords? A.— He can create a majority for him- self in the House of Lords at any time Germany (Political Structure) 217 hy exercising his constitutional preroga- tive of creating new Peers. He could create so many that they could overcome a vote against the Crown. This power, like other powers latent under Engfish political practice, had fallen into such oblivion that probably most Englishmen considered it practically dead ; but it sud- denly came to life when the House of Commons made its great fight in 1910-1 r to wrest the power of veto from the House of Lords. To force the House of Lords to relinquish this power, the Cab- inet then in office threatened that the King would appoint enough Peers to vote for the measure. The threat was enough. It was not necessary to proceed to its execution. The incident showed what great powers still rest in the Crown— if the Crown should ever venture to use them. Q. — Does the King of England not create new Peers yearly? _ A. — Yes. It is a regular part of Eng- lish political practice; but the Peers that are created are not created primarily for voting purposes in the House of Lords. They are created for political reasons largely, it is true; but the reasons are indirect. Q. — What entitles Englishmen to peerage? A. — Theoretically, _ peerages _ are be- stowed for distinguished service, and a great many Peerages are thus granted. Many, however, are granted for services that are "distinguished" only in the sense that they are valuable to the party in power. The very common English prac- tice of rewarding large contributors to political funds with peerages has been, and remains, a target for bitter attack in the House of Commons. Q.— Is the House of Lords wholly powerless to veto bills now? A. — It has lost its most imminent pow- er, that of refusing its consent to revenue bills ("money bills" as the British term them) passed by the House of Commons. A money bill passed by the House may become a law without the concurrence of the House of Lords, if the King assents to it. Other bills, however, can over- ride a House of Lords veto only by being passed by the House of Commons three times. If the Lords refuse each time to pass it, it becomes a law; without their assent, if the Crown approves. It will be seen that this method still leaves con- siderable power of veto in the House of Lords. It would be extremely difficult to pass a bill three times through the House of Commons, especially as two years must elapse by law between the first passage and the third passage. Q- — Have the Germans a system of second ballots ? A.~Yes. Unlike Great Britain or the United States, they have a system for the Reichstag elections, by which, if absolute majority is not obtained by one candidate overall the others who are contesting the election, a second ballot is taken between the two candidates who have received the greatest number of votes. Q. — What is the German Reichstag representation? A.— Each member represents about 130,- 000 inhabitants. This compares roughly with our Congress, each Congressman rep- resenting about 200,000 people now. The members of the British House of Com- mons represented counties and boroughs, many of widely diflfering areas and popu- lations un*til the passage of the new law above referred to; and there are also 9 university members elected by the uni- versities. Q. — How is the Bundesrath ap- portioned? A. — Prussia appoints the largest num- ber of members — 16. Bavaria appoints the next larger number — 6. Saxony and Wiirttemberg each appoint 4. Baden and Hesse eath appoint 3. Mecklenburg- Schwerin appoints 3. The other States appoint 1 each. Thus, no one State has a majority; but it is claimed that Prus- sia, partly by having 16 votes to begin with, and partly by controlling many other votes, can always control the 61 members of the Bundesrath. Q. — How many States are in the German Empire? _A. — There are 26 States, some being Kingdoms, some Duchies and Principali- ties, and others Republics, known as Free Towns. Q. — Are there really republics in Germany? A. — Yesi There are three little, but powerful, republics — the three free towns or cities of Liibeck, Bremen and Ham- burg, each of which proudly calls itself Freie or Hansestadt (Free or Hanseatic 2l8 Questions and Answers City). The freedom of these independent cities really dates back centuries to the Hanseatic League, but they are under modern constitutions, adopted in 1848 and 1849, and often revised to make them highly up-to-date. Q. — Do these German republics really rule themselves? A. — They are exactly as independent and powerful in their own right as are the big Kingdoms of Germany. They are ruled by Senates elected for life and by big bodies of burgesses, elected by all the citizens for terms of years ranging from four to six. Liibeck has 120 burg- esses, Hamburg has 160, and Bremen has 140. The head of the Republic is Burg- ermeister (Mayor), who is elected by the citizens. Bremen has two burgermeisters, elected at the same time, and governing together for four years. Hamburg has two, a first and a second. Lubeck con- tents herself with one. Q. — Are the republics important in the empire? A. — Bremen and Hamburg are the two shipping ports of the empire. Through them flows the commerce of the nation, and the lyi millions of citizens are among the richest and most influential in the country, wielding an enormous political and financial power. The great German steamship lines are owned directly by Bremen and Hamburg men. Both ports count their shipping by the million tons, and Hamburg has often been described as the most advanced and elaborate port in the world. Q. — Have all the German States Parliaments of their own? A. — All have separate representative as- semblies, except Alsace-Lorraine and the two grand duchies of Mecklenburg- Schwerin and Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Wiirttemberg, Baden and Hesse have the two-chamber system. The smaller States have one House only. The smallest principality, that of Schaumburg-Lippe, has only 15 members, Brunswick, the largest of the smaller States, has a chamber of 48 mem- bers. Q. — Just what is a "Junker"? A. — It is a term that dates back to feudal times, when it meant a junior nobleman, a "young Herr." That mean- ing, of course, has long since disappeared. with the English term "squire," _ which meant practically the same thing, a "squire" being one of gentle blood who had not yet been made knight. To-day, while the term "Junker" may be applied to any member of a hereditary nobility, it is directly applied to the firmly conserva- tive and aristocratic land-holders. Be- cause these men represent most drastically the undemocratic, privileged classes, the terra "Junker" has come to signify al- most a political party in Germany. It is used by the liberal opposition as a term of satire and reproach, and in its slang use it has come to be applied to any swaggering, haughty fellow. It is used mostly as referring to Prussians. Q. — Is it only politics that give Prussia her big place in Ger- many? A.— No. Prussia is the "hustler" of Germany. Before the Franco-Prussian War, the various German States were very easy-fgoing, both politically and so- cially. They were content with a loose national federation that left them a ready prey to any other nation. They had done little to develop commerce or manufac- tures. Their science was excellent, but it was limited largely to the laboratory or the university. It was the crude but intensely alive Prussian who gave all the latent German powers their vitalizing im- petus. Prussia made an iron whole out of the maay widely varying State armies. Prussia flung railroads through the em- pire. Q. — Do the other States like Prus- sia? A.— Perhaps it is a good deal like the attitude of our smaller States toward the bigger ones. As a rule, the general interests of all are so closely knit with the Federation, that they do not raise the issue of Prussian hegemony. But whenever there arise questions with sharply defined State interests, there is always a very positive opposition to the big State. The most decided jealousy ex- ists between Prussia and Bavaria, the lat- ter State being extremely insistent on its rights and dignity. Q. — Are the Prussians like the other Germans? A.— They are very unlike the rest. It IS essentially the Prussian of the flat north country who has given the world the idea that the Germans are all a very blond type, with light blue eyes and fea- Germany {Political Structure) 219 tures that, on the whole, express a stren- uous and not particularly amiable char- acter. As a matter of fact, while the Germans, like all the Germanic races, in- cluding the English, are, as a race, fair and blue-eyed, the great mass of Ger- many, to the south of Prussia, is far darker than the Prussians or the "Platt- Deutsche," as the other Germans call the northernmost Prussians. The Bavarians' hair and beards incline to a golden brown. The Wiirttembergers are extremely dark —brunette, and even black-haired, look- ing rather Spanish in many cases. There really is a far greater difference between the northern and southern Germans than there is between our northerners and southerners. Q. — Do the southern Germans hate the Prussians? A. — No. They do not. But there has always been a very general feeling of in- tellectual disdain for the Prussian. His marked material abilities were recognized, though not always admired, and his faults also were recognized and pretty sharply characterized. He was accounted crude and sordid by the idealistic and romantic southern Germans. Indeed, it is not at all far-fetched to say that tne attitude of the South German toward the North Ger- man Prussian is much like the old-time attitude of the American southerner to- ward the northerner, with the difference that all the German dislikes are subordi- nate to the mighty passion for maintain- ing national unity. Q, — How is Prussia governed? A. — The State government _ of Prussia is by a House of Representatives (Land- tag), consisting of two chambers, the upper being known as "Herrenhaus" (House of Lords), and the lower as Chamber of Deputies. The King, as ex- ecutive head of the Government, is as- sisted by a council of ministers whom he himself appoints. Q. — ^Are Ministers In Prussia re- sponsible to Parliament? A. — No. They are appointed by the Crown, and are not necessarily members of either House, although they have the right to speak in either of them whenever they so desire. But they may not vote. They are not responsible to Parliament for their actions, but are indirectly curbed by the fact that no laws can be passed without the consent of both Houses of Parliament The members of Parliament have control of the finances, and can vote or refuse taxes. The King can, if he wishes, originate legislation, but it must be introduced into the Landtag by a re- sponsible Minister. Q. — Is the Prussian Herrenhaus like the British House of Lords? A. — Somewhat. But while the British House of Lords is almost wholly heredi- tary, the Prussian House of Lords is partly appointive. The members of the Prussian body are: (i) royal Princes; (2) 50 heads of territorial nobility; (3) a number of life-peers chosen by the King from land-owners, manufacturers and "national celebrities"; (4) eight noble- men elected by land-owners of all degrees ; (S) representatives of universities, heads of university chapters and burgomasters of towns with more than 50,000 popula- tion; (6) an unlimited number of mem- bers nominated by the Kin^;. Q. — How does the actual member- ship of the two Houses of Lords compare? House Herren- of haus. Lords Agriculture 48 Commerce and industry. . . 48 Trade 12 Labor 24 Education 16 Clergy_ 17 26 Municipalities 36 Hural communities 36 Land-owners 24 Mayors of large towns 20 Appointed by the King 94 Princes 24 3 Hereditary peers 621 Law 6 Totals 399 656 Q, — Is the Prussian Lower House elected by universal franchise? A. — Yes. By universal franchise, but not by equal franchise. Every Prussian citizen is allowed to vote, but he elects "electors"— an indirect method, like our method of electing a President by first electing the electoral college. These elec- tors, in turn, are divided into three classes, according to the amounts of taxes paid, and it is this method which became the point of attack for the politicaf re- formers in Germany during the war, with the result* that the Emperor, as King of 220 Questions and Answers Prussia, supported a reform bill to make the suflFrage really equal. Under the tax- classification method, the biggest taxpay- ers were automatically able to cast the biggest vote. The Chamber of Deputies (Abgeordne- tenhaus) has 443 members, sitting for five years. Any Prussian citizen is eligible to sit in the Chamber of Deputies. Q. — Is education compulsory in Germany? A.-^It is general and compulsory. The elementary schools are supported by local rates in every town and village, and the school age is from six to fourteen. Q. — How do schools compare in the warring nations? A. — Germany (population 65 millions) had 10 millions of pupils in elementary schools in the last school census. The United States (population 102 million) had 20 million pupils. Great Britain (pop- ulation 47 million) had 714 million pupils. France (population 40 million) enumer- ated a little less than S million pupils. Italy (population 36 million) had 3^ million pupils. Q. — What is the proportion of il- literacy in the warring Euro- pean Powers? A.— According to the U. S. Census Bu- reau figures it runs as follows : illiteracy among German army recruits, .05 per cent; illiteracy among army recruits in United Kingdom (Great Britain), i per cent; French army recruits, 4.3 per cent; Italian army recruits, 3i-i per cent; Rus- sian, 61.7 per cent; Roumanian, 41.0 per cent; Serbian, 43.4 per cent; Bulgarian, 25.4 per cent; Belgium, 7.9 per cent. There are no figiires for Austro-Hun- garian army recruits. Q. — Does Germany lead in educa- tion? A.— Before the war, tHfere was a general acceptance of the statement (rnade by nearly every writer and sociological stu- dent of the world) that Germany was eminent in advanced education— particu- larly that sort of scientific education which is international in character to the extent that it draws advanced students from other countries who wish to com- plete their special knowledge. Q. — How did German universities compare with the famous Eng- lish ones? A. — If universities, technical schools, production of books, and the like, be taken as guides, Germany leads. Ger- many has 22 universities, with an enrol- ment of 53,000. England's 18 universities nave an en- rolment of 35,000, drawn almost exclu- sively from the upper classes. Germany has, in addition, 11 technical schools rank- ing as universities, with 16,000 students, and 32 other technical academies. In addition, there are some 430 commercial schools, and more than a hundred schools where students are prepared for the tex- tile and other great industries. In Eng- land, technical schools, supported by pub- lic funds, had in 1913 an enrolment of only 1,485. It is estimated that 46 out of every thousand of the population in Eng- land, attend secondary schools; in Bel- gium, 47 ; in Switzerland, 72 ; and in Ger- many, no. Q. — Does Germany publish more books than Great Britain? A. — Roughly, in ordinary years there are some 12,000 works published in Great Britain. The annual German production is 35,000. Q. — Is there a State religion in Germany? A. — The Imperial Constitution provides for entire liberty of conscience, and for complete social equality among all relig- ious confessions. In the different States there are various minor differences in the relations between Church and State. The majority of the religious population is Protestant, and the majority of the Prot- estants are Lutheran. These Protestants form about 63 per cent of the church cen- sus. Catholics form about 36 per cent. Roman Catholics are in the majority, however, in three of the States — Bavaria, Baden and Alsace-Lorraine. Q. — Has Germany more boys than girls? A. — In normal times more boys were born each year than girls. In the last year for which we have orderly figures (i9i3)_ there were 60,000 more boys born than girls. It is said that war tends to change this ratio, but there is no scientific warrant for the belief, and no statistics have ever been kept to enable anybody to figure it out. Germany {Political Strvfcture) 221 Q- — Can Germany get more sol- diers out of its population than any other nation? A. — Many figures have been given in the first three years of war to prove tliat this or that nation can or cannot extract from hs population as much human war material as some other nation can. Most of these mathematical exercises were val- uable only as intellectual pastimes. It seems true to say that Germany can, with- out doubt, extract from her , growing young male population at least! as many men as any other nation can draw. And it may be assumed, as a further element of calculation, that Germany's very up- to-date hygienic care for her population will have given the growing males a max- imum chance for physical efficiency. This does not mean, however, that they are supermen. There is a big proportion of each generation who are physically unfit, as in every country. Q. — Have the German Socialists always opposed militarism? A.; — ^They have done so consistently and continually. As recently before the war as 1912, there was a big Socialist anti- military explosion in the Reichstag. It was on October 20, igi2, and on that same day demonstrations were made in Dus- seldorf, Dortmund, Bremen, Kiel, Leip- zig, Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden, Spandau, Cassel, Frankfurt and Stuttgart. Simi- lar ones occurred on November 17, 1912, in Bremen and Hanover. In October and November, 1912, pro- tests against the advances of Austrian di- plomacy in the Balkan situation were made in the Bavarian Parliament, and in the Austrian Parliament. Protest meet- ings were held during these months at Prague and other Hungarian towns, Vi- enna, and throughout Austria. The German Socialists protested in Par- liament (Reichstag) against the Zabern Affair on November 28 and December 3 and 4, 1913, and again on January 23 and 24, 1914. Q. — Did the Socialists ever vote for iVrmy and Navy appropria- tions? A.— Yes. They did so once— the year before the war. Before 1913 the Ger- man and Austrian Socialists, in their Par- liaments, had voted at all times against the Army and Navy budgets, and against all increase in taxes for military purposes. In September, 1913, however, the German Socialists voted in favor of such a tax, and defended their action in their party press. Q.— What did the Socialists do when war came? A. — At the outbreak of the war, the German Socialist party issued a "Procla- mation," in which occurs the following: "Not one drop of a German soldier's blood shall be sacrificed to the lust of power of the Austrian rulers and to the imperialistic profit-interests." Mass-meetings were held in Berlin on July 28, 1914--28 meetings in all, with an attendance estimated at 70,000. Similar meetings were held in nearly all the other large cities, often dispersed by police and soldiers. On July 29, 1914, the Vorwaerts, the Socialist daily in Berlin, placed the blame on Austria. In July, 1914, the Austrian Socialists protested in Parliament and in mass-meet- ings against the policy pursued by the Austro-Htmgarian Government towards Serbia. When war was declared, however, the Austrian and Hungarian Socialists sup- ported their Government. Q. — What was the Reichstag's politics when we declared war? A. — On March I, 1917, the following parties were represented: Center party, 91 ; Social Democrats, 89 ; National Lib- erals, 44 ; Radicals, 46 ; Conservatives, 45 ; German party, 26; Poles, 18; Social Democratic Labor Union, 19; Independ- ents, 15. Q. — Has no party a majority in the keichstag? A. — The total number of Reichstag del- egates is 393, with no one party haying anything like a majority. The various factions line up in perplexing ways on various questions. The general rule has been that ' in close questions the Center party (which used to be called the Cleri- cal party, and still is heavily Catholic) often had the deciding vote, because it could throw its big group of votes to one side or the other. The Social Democrats have a similar power, but they have, as a rule, not ac- cepted the tactics of throwing their votes to any side, preferring to vote solidly and single-mindedly for their own particular purposes. 222 Questions and Answers Q. — How many Socialists are in Germany? A. — The general German elections of 1912 showed 4,250,000 Socialists in a total number of 14,400,000 voters. They had 2j4 million adherents more than the next most powerful party, the Center party. The parties that followed in numerical importance were : National, Liberals, Rad- icals and Conservatives. Each of these had more than a million adherents. Thus, while the Socialist element among the German voters is far from a possible ma- jority of the popular suffrage, it is easily the most powerful party in the empire, so far as massed solidarity is concerned. Q. — Who first proposed "No An- nexations, No Indemnities"? A. — It was the peace formula of Philip Scheidemann and the majority of German Socialists, and it was quickly adopted by the Council of Workmen's and Soldiers' Deputies in Petrograd, who, moreover, added "the right of all nations to deter- mine their own destiny." The Council of Workmen's and Soldiers'_ Deputies protested against the continuation of the war for the annexation of peoples against their will or for imperialistic ends. The minority German Socialists adopted the Russian formula. Q. — When was there a mutiny in the German fleet? A,— The trouble, which, no doubt, really did reach the magnitude of a mutiny, or almost mutiny, appears to have occurred early in the summer of 1917. Very little actual fact reached the world. There was a discussion in the Reichstag, but, while it was fairly full about the political as- pects of the disorder, there was little said about the actual happenings. Many long and elaborate dispatches reached Amer- ica from neutral and Allied countries, some so circumstantial as to be quite con- vincing. These told of officers being killed and throwm overboard on a num- ber of ships, bombardment of the mutin- ous ships by the coast batteries, etc. Q. — Were these stories not true? A. — Many of them were obviously made of whole cloth, for the various detailed accounts were so utterly different from each other as to prove this. That does not mean, however, that we can tell which account was untrue, or which, may have been true. The mutiny was undoubtedly serious, for a number of sailors were condemned either to death or long impris- onment, and the Government declared its intention of prosecuting three Socialist Reichstag members, for their share in spreading propaganda that caused the un- rest. Q. — When did the strikes against war-aims start in Germany? A.— In the last days of January, 1918. On January 30, 1918, dispatches reached the United States from Zurich that the great Socialist newspaper of Germany, the Vorwaerts {Forward), of Berlin, had an- nounced that the strikers had addressed to the Government an ultimatum with the principal demands : (1) Accelerated conclusion of a gen- eral peace without annexations or indem- nities. (2) Participation of workmen's dele- gates of all the countries in the peace ne- gotiations. (3) Equal suffrage in Prussia. (4) Release of arrested labor leaders. Q. — Did the German Government imprison the strike leaders? A.-^Apparently the strike did not have sufficient sanction of the Socialist party and similar bodies behind it, to become more than a very striking and forcible demonstration. The military government, however, did take punitive measures in some parts of Germany. Wilhelm Ditt- mann, a prominent Radical Socialist mem- ber of the Reichstag, was accused before an extraordinary court-martial of incit- ing to high treason, and sentenced to fort- ress confinement of five years. Q.— What is "Fortress Confine- ment"? A. — It is imprisonment that does not carry with it the stigma or onus of im- prisonment in jails or penitentiaries. In fact, in a sense it gives the imprisoned person a certificate of personal honor, andmen wJio have suffered this form of punishment need feel no sense of shame. They are not convicts, either in the legal or the moral sense. Officers of the Ger- man A_rmy=_are punished for military of- fenses in this way. Men accused of moral crime are never sent to fortresses. Q- — Does fortress imprisonment differ in actual details from other imprisonment? A.— Wholly so. A "fortress," in the legal sense, may be a very wide area, in-* Germany {Political Structure) 223 deed. It is not necessaril^r limited to the actual limits of a fortification. There are degrees of fortress imprisonment. A man may be sentenced to "close confinement" in a fortress, in which case he may not be permitted to go beyond the exact limits of a walled fort. In very severe sen- tences he may even be confined largely to a casemate, but this is unusual. Most cases permit the arrested man to move practically at will throughout the utter- most limits of a fortified area. In some cases, this may give him practical free- dom of a whole town. Q. — ^Are fortress prisoners treated like convicts? A. — No. In fact, pains are generally taken to avoid any similarity between their treatment and that of convicts. They may associate with the officers of the fortress, may be invited to mess more or less like other guests, and have prac- tically all their liberties except that of physical freedom. A great deal depends on the character of the prisoner and his offense. A Socialist strike-leader is not likely to receive studied politeness from his military hosts in a fortress I Q. — Were the dissensions in Ger- many local? A. — No. There were strikes and agi- tation against the militarist war-makers in all parts of the empire. While_ the General Staff in Berlin proceeded _ rigor- ously against the strikers, the militarists did not dare do so in Bavaria and other southern States of Germany. Q.— -Were the southern States against Prussia? A.— According to all indications, they were in favor of the Austrian policy of holding out a hand to their opponents. It seemed to be a fairly sharp division— the smaller German States and the big cities of the south (Munich, Stuttgart, Dresden) against Prussia. The three Re- publics, too (Hamburg, Bremen and Lii- beck) appeared to be against Berlin, which means Prussia. Q. — How long are Germany's land frontiers? A.— The Russian frontier is 843 miles. The French frontier is 242 miles. The Swiss frontier is 256 miles, and the Hol- land frontier is 377 miles. Q. — Are the frontiers all guarded by forts? A. — Yes. The fortress system on the French frontier is based on Metz, and the Cologne-Koblenz system north of it. The Alsace-Lorraine front is guarded by the Strassburg-New Breisach system. Q. — Is Berlin guarded by forts? A. — The Berlin system of fortifications is Spandau, Magdeburg Torgau, Kustrin. They form a protective zone about sixty miles outside of and around Berlin. Q. — What are the distances in the European battleground? A. — The comparative scale of the areas involved is shown by the following dis- tances : Miles. Dover-Brussels 140 Brussels-Cologne 115 Paris-Belgian Frontier 115 Paris-German Frontier 170 Dover-Calais 21 London-Wilhelmshaven 400 Strassburg-French Frontier 30 Berlin-Warsaw 330 Berlin-Constantinople 1,699 Paris-Lille 1:50 Calais-Lille 55 Berlin-Petrograd 1,150 Berlin-Paris 550 Berlin-Munich 315 Munich-Paris 430 Munich-Petrograd I,300 Munich- Venice 190 Munich- Vienna 230 Vienna-Belgrade 210 Venice- Austrian Frontier 45 Galatz-Odessa 140 Riga-Petrograd 300 Q. — How can an American get out of Germany? A.— Under the rules of international law resident alien enemies may be_ de- tained, especially those subject to military service. They may be interned. For an American to quit Germany, a legal and an "illegal" way is open. The American may ask the Ambassador of Spain, who is rendering "his good serv- ices" to the U. S. A. during the war, and who is protecting Americans in Germany, to intervene in his behalf, and obtain per- mission f pr him to leave._ This has been done on previous occasions _ with good success during the Maximilian war in Mexico, the Franco-Prussian war, the Chinese- Japanese war, the Spanish-Amer- 224 Questions ^nd Answers ican war, and _ the Russo-Japanese war. If the American is detained he might prefer to end his captivity by adventur- ous escape. Escapes of this kind have been most successful into Holland. The case of the American, private dentist of the Kaiser, who received a passport from the German Government, and arrived here — March, 1918 — is a special one, and can- not be compared with others. Q. — Did the Germans use negroes against General Smuts in Af- rica? A. — There were only 2,000 Germans in East Africa, but they had drilled about 18,000 natives, and they used them against the South African forces. There were also African natives under General Smuts' command, although he chiefly re- lied upon Afrikanders and Indian troops. The Belgian Army, which advanced from the Congo, was almost entirely composed of _ natives, and the Portuguese forces which entered German East Africa from the south were native, too, for the most part. Q. — Is it true that the German Government has been willing to spend large sums of money in the United States to sup- press evidence that the Kaiser planned the war? A. — It has been stated with authority that an American journalist, during a yachting trip with the German Emperor ten years ago, got an interview in which the monarch expressed ideas that seemed to imply a plan of something like world- domination. The journalist prepared a magazine article for a New York maga- zine. The German Ambassador, von Bernstorff, heard about it after the mag- azine was printed and before it was pub- lished. The German Government bought all the sheets of the magazine, packed them in tin-lined cases, and sent a German warship for them. The article has never been published, but one copy of the mag- azine has found its way into the hands of Secretary of State Lansing, and has been added to the evidence in the case which will probably be published at the con- clusion of the war. Q._What is the "Hymn of Hate"? A.— A German poem of hatred against England, written by Ernest Lissauer, in 191 5. It has been set to music and appears in some of the German school song books. Q. — Why are the Germans called "Boches"? A. — "Boche" appears to be an abbre- viation of "Alboche," an Alsatian word for "Allemand" (meaning German). In Alsace-Lorraine, it has been for some time used as a synonyin for drunk- ard, liar, barbarian, and adjectively for "unmentionably cruel." The French adopted the word in the beginning of the war as typifying the Prussians. Many other explanations are given from time to time of what the slang-word really means, and how it came to be applied. It was probably used also in the Franco- Prussian War in 1870, for Zola, in his novel La Debacle, a story dealing with the war, puts the term in the mouths of French soldiers to designate the Ger- mans. The term ce boche was used, before the Franco-Prussian War at least, as equivalent to "that chump," and tete de boche is given by French dictionaries of slang as equivalent to "wooden-pate" or "blockhead." It is, perhaps, for this rea- son that some French scholars derive the present use of boche from caboche, a French word meaning head. Q. — Are outside newspapers cen- sored before they circulate in Germany? A. — There does not appear to be any atternpt to censor the Allied journals go- ing into Germany. The Germans, no doubt, regard them much as we regard the Teutonic newspapers, that is to say, as inaccurate_ and misinformed, and take no more notice of our comments on the war than we do of theirs. Q. — Was the German Emperor on a cruise when war began? A.- — He was away on his cruiser yacht when the crisis began. He got back, how- ever, before war broke out, and imme- diately sent personal telegrams to the Czar and King George. Q- — Who signed the order for mobilization in Germany? A. — Presumably it was signed by von Moltke, who was at that time chief of the General Staff in Germany. Q.- — Did the Germans have con- crete gun emplacements in France and Belgium before the war? A.—That was one of the romantic tales-' supplied to the world early in the war. Germany (^Political Structure) 225 It was the sort of thing that appealed to the popular imagination, and during the time that the story enjoyed the greatest belief, similar concrete gun-emplacements were "discovered" in scores of places in this country, even as far away from the seat of war as the mountains of Cali- fornia. The knowledge that has come to the public since then regarding the meth- ods and strategies of war, has served to indicate that even the most skilful plot- ters cannot quite plot out beforehand just where a big engagement will be fought or just where the hostile position is going to be. Military men knew that the story was probably fiction of a rather a_bsurd_ kind, but it was no part of the Allied military experts' duty to disabuse the world of the idea. Q. — Were German soldiers worse than others in the march on Pekin? A.— According to revelations made by correspondents who managed to get through to Pekin, and by officers after the trouble was over, there seems to have been very little to choose between the con- duct of the various troops. Of all, the Japanese emerged with the cleanest rec- ord, and the Tonkinese troops of the French with the worst. The Kaiser's message to Count Waldersee, who com- manded the expedition, has, however, been everywhere reproduced, and conse- quently it has been assumed that_ the atrocities attributed to the international troops were all committed by the Ger- mans. Q.__What was the object of Ber- lin's gigantic Hindenburg statue? A.— The object of it was the same as that of the raffles and similar ingenious devices we see every day, namely, to raise money for certain funds. People paid a mark, or more if they liked, for the privilege of hammering a nail into )t. The money thus obtained was devoted to assisting the dependents of those who have fallen in battle. Q. — It must be pretty solid to stand all those nails? A.— It is. The wood used weighed 26 tons. Three solid blocks were used, the statue being carefully carved under the direction of a well-known sculptor. George Marschall. No less than 87 ex- pert wood carvers worked on the hard wood night and day. As it was expected that at least 30 tons of nails would be driven in, special steel reinforcement weighing six tons was deemed necessary. A smaller statue to serve the same ob- ject was erected to von Miiller of the famous raiding ship Emden, in the town of Emdeh. Q. — Did the Dutch claim damages from England for a ship sunk by Germany? A. — Yes; in the case of two ships, the Bernisse and the Ehe. The cases were similar. The Dutch claim was as fol- lows : The Bernisse was stopped by a British auxiliary cruiser. A British officer boarded her, and then, on a signal from the cruiser, proceeded to navigate the ship to the British porti of Kirkwall, where the cargo could be examined. The Dutch captain protested, "because the ship would then enter into the area blockaded; by Germany, stating that there was no ground for such an order, the ship being entirely Dutch property and of Dutch nationality, the shippers being a French concern, the cargo being con- signed to a Dutch company." The protest availed naught, and the Bernisse continued on the way to Kirk- wall, still flying the Dutch flag. On May 23 she was attacked by a German sub- marine. According to the account of the Bernisse's skipper: "The submarine con- tinued to fire while the boats were being lowered, without, however, hitting either the ship or any of the crew. She then launched a torpedo, which struck the ship starboard near the stokehold." The Elve case was almost identical. The British Government declined to recognize the claim, but said it might be presented to a prize court. Q. — How much power has the Crown Prince of Germany? A. — Technically he has none (except of course such military power as is given to him by virtue of commanding an army). Politically he occupies about the same officially unimportant position as does the Heir-Apparent to the British throne (Prince of Wales). His importance in the national and in- ternational politics of the day comes from two main causes: (l) he might at any moment become Emperor through the 226 Questions and Answers death of Wilhelm; (2) he can gather around him, or be used as a rallying point by, factions that want the Empire to hold by the sword what it has gained by the sword. This would make a sharp rift be- tween his father, the Emperor, and him- self, should the Emperor lean to the lib- eral and moderate factions in Germany and declare for concessions and more or less democracy. Of course it might prove a double-edged weapon. The Crown Prince's faction might win; but should it lose, or should it involve the Empire in ruin, it might end the reign of the Hohen- zoUern dynasty. Q. — Did the present emperor, while Crown Prince, try to over-ride his father? A. — Yes. It did not reach the! extent of a quarrel or even a serious disturb- ance of family relations; but the present Kaiser's father was altogether too placid an Emperor to suit his very strenuous son. Friedrich III (lovingly called "Unser Fritz" by the Germans) was a singularly tolerant, kindly, easy-going man, very simple and old-fashioned. His Germany was the old, deliberate Ger- many. The son, Wilhelm, was intensely modern — a foremost exponent of the "strenuous life" made famous by Roose- velt. He was eager to build up the great economic and social structure that he did succeed in building up. It was inevitable that he should urge his ideas, and that he should become desperately impatient with the mild Friedrich and with the stiff con- servatism of Bismarck. Q. — What would happen should the Kaiser be killed? A.— The present Crown Prince would succeed to the Imperial office by virtue of the Constitution. There is hardly a doubt that the military party would proclaim him Emperor instantly, in order to pre- vent any possible move by the Socialists and others to change the existing provi- sions of the national law. Q. — Is it true that the Germans are officially encouraging polyg- amy? A. — The charge was based on the circu- lation of a curious and absurd pamphlet advocating" not only polygamy, but big- amy and various other forms of union which were even more unsavory. The author was one Carl Hermann Torges, who appears to have been an elderly man of eccentric mentality, as is suggested by the title of his pamphlet: "The Second- ary Marriage as Only Means for the Rapid Creation of a New and Powerful Army and the Purification of Morality." He says of himself that he is "over 70 years old and has worked through life with open eyes." The pamphlet was ap- parently circulated free, and this fact gave color to a charge that it had been pub- lished with the connivance of the Ger- man Government. As such a policy (quite apart from the question of moral- ity and the love of husbands and wives) would shatter the very foundation of any such economic State as Germany, it seems hardly important to expatiate on the matter. GERMANY (FOOD) Q. — What did a German get to eat in igi8? A. — The German bill of fare was about as follows : Meat : In Berlin, 250 grams — about one- half a pound — per peraon per week; in Munich, 200 grams ; in Saxony, 150 grams. Bread: 250 grams per day per person; all persons performing manual labor, 500 grams. Potatoes: In Berlin, five to seven pounds per person per week; in Bavaria, usually ten pounds per person per week. Butter and Fats : In Berlin, from so to 75 grams per person per week; in Leip- zig, from 30 to 90 grams; in Bavaria, between 60 and go grams. Milk: Babies and patients in hospitals now receive from one-fourth to one-half quart per day each. A year ago every child and every sick person received one liter (J4 quart) per day. Sugar: 800 grams per month per per- son. Vegetables : In season. Fish: Whenever obtainable. Jam or marmalade: About one-fourth of a pound per month. No coffee, tea or cocoa, but small quan- tities of coffee and tea substitutes. No pure beer, but only beer substitutes. Q. — What were the military ra- tions? A. — The soldier's food ration was as follows : Breakfast: Coffee or a substitute, with dry bread. Lunch : Soup with occasional small pieces of meat; vegetables and bread. Supper: Bread and marmalade. One pound of war bread daily was al- lowed. Q. — What is the "iron ration"? A. — The "iron ration" is the emergency ration which the German soldier carries in his pack. It is called "iron _ ration" because iron-like rules surround it. The soldier must carry it always, and no sol- dier must ever, under any circumstances, touch it except in the last extremity. When the starvation-blockade began to squeeze the people hard, and they were reduced to their smallest portions of the poorest food-materials, it became a grim jest among civilians to refer to their "iron rations." Q.— Was the German bread ticket intended to effect an equal dis- tribution? A. — No. It was issued, at first, that the poor might have cheap bread and that those who were willing to buy more food than the bread ticket prescribed should have to pay heavily for the indulgence. Q.^Is Germany's bread very poor? A. — The official regulations provided for a bread that may or may not be highly palatable, but that consists of per- fectly healthful and nourishing mixtures. "War bre,ads" were a prominent part of Germany's* early defense against starva- lion when the oceanic blockade began. As we have found, these various war breads were awful only in name, and actually have turned out to be decidedly good, on the whole, so that it may be that the United States, as a mere matter of health, pleasant variety, and perfectly profitable economy will retain most of these various bran, oatmeal, rye, corn and wheat mixtures in its normal dietary. However, during the "peak" of the ce- real famine pinch in Germany, the war treads were decidedly not nice or good, and in very many places throughout the empire th^y were quite terribly bad. Some reports say that they were made of less than 40 per cent wheat, the other 60 per cent being sawdust, powdered straw, and other such organic but vile admixtures. That kind of bread means that a part, at least, of the German population was re- duced almost to the situation of German peasants in the Thirty Years' War, when they often ate straw. Q. — Is it true that the Germans made many food substitutes? A. — Yes. The German newspapers have carried masses of advertising of substi- tutes for all the various kind of food that are short. According to the reports gen- erally circulated through the outer world, there were as many as 7,000 substitutes in 1917, but expert analysis of the avail- able lists shows that this hlige number is arrived at by lumping the following four chief _ classes of substitutes :_ (i) normal substitutes like oleomargarines, syrups, etc., such as are used in all countries ; (2) natural, though unusual, substitutes, such as potato. meal for flour, vegetable and 227 228 Questions and Answers spice, or fish and vegetable mixtures for sausages, sweetened vegetable mixtures for jams, etc.; (3) chemical substitutes, some of apparent utility, many of doubt- ful value, and some, no doubt, harmful, such as fat extracts from chemical com- pounds, chemical sweetenings, and chemi- cal compounds aiming to give a more or less balanced artificial ration of proteids, carbohydrates, etc. ; (4) swindling sub- stitutes, which the Government prosecutes rigorously (more so than in times of peace even), but which thrive naturally owing to the craving of people for long- denied foods. Among such fraudulent substitutes were "soup cubes," which turned out to consist of 96 per cent cook- ing salt and 4 per cent coloring matter. Q. — Is Prussia much bigger than the other States? A. — Very much so. Prussia contains 13S1OOO square miles, against the 29,000 square miles of Bavaria, which is the next larger kingdom of the Federation. It has 40 million people as against Bavaria's 7 million — that is, it compares in man- power with its nearest neighbor about the way the Middle Atlantic and Great Lakes States compare with the South At- lantic group. Q. — Have our States less popula- tion than Prussia? A. — No single American State com- pares with Prussia even remotely. Prus- sia has more population than New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin com- bined though in area it is not larger than New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Q. — How do the people find room? A. — ^I'hey live 224 to the square mile. This is a denser population than we have anywhere except Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Jersey. Q. — Is the rest of Germany densely populated? A.— Even more densely than Prussia. In Saxony, 829 people live to the square mile. No other German State quite equals that I But everywhere the populations range around 300 to the square mile. Q. — How can there be any room for farms? A. — There is plenty of room for farms and forests— but there is no room for wild lands, or waste lands, or unproductive lands. That density of population is one of the secrets of Germany's intensity in economical industries. The people had to do it, or starve, or emigrate. "The result was intensive agriculture, intensive indus- try and now, alas, an all too intensive and "practical" deadliness of purpose in war. Q. — How does Germany's agricul- tural area compare with ours? A. — Germany has about 88 million acres arable land (farms, pastures, vineyards), as against more than 600 million acres in America, of which latter, however, only 358 million are cultivated. Q. — Ho-w do we compare in farms with Germany? A. — We had more than 6 million farms in 1910 when the last census was made. In Germany, in 1907, the number of farms cultivated each by one household was 5,736,000. Our farms, of course, were much larger than the German farms. Q. — What were the chief crops of Germany in peace? A. — The biggest crop was rye. The next biggest was hay. Then came oats, potatoes, wheat, barley and beets. The smaller crops were vines, tobacco and hops. Q. — Could human beings live on rye flour alone? A. — Yes, Indeed, dietary experts hold that while white wheat flour is one of the large elements for a perfect human diet, mankind (and especially Americans) would do well to use a great deal of rye flour and cut down heavily on the highly bolted and unnaturally whitened wheat flours. Rye flour is coarse, and this has an excellent effect on the intestines, which absolutely demand a certain amount of coarse material. For many generations the people of Germany, France, Switzer- land, etc., ate hardly anything except "black bread" — bread made from rye flour exclusively. Q. — What has German intensive agriculture done? A.— Statistics collected by Dr. Helf- ferich in 1913 show that the yield per acre of wheat,, rye, oats, barley, potatoes, and hay has increased 77.7 per cent in twenty- five years; and the aggregate yield of these crops increased 87.7 per cent, not- withstanding an increase of only 5.8 per Germany (Food) 229 pent m their acreage. In all these crops Germany is getting a larger yield per acre than any other of the large agricul- tural countries. At the same time Ger- many has increased production of beet sugar about two-and-one-half fold. These remarkable results in agriculture are the more striking because the number of per- sons engaged in agriculture has remained practically stationary. Q. — Did the privileged classes in Germany escape food restric- tions? A. — One would imagine, naturally, that they did. But the fact that the Socialist newspapers and the Socialist members of the Imperial^ Parliament and the va- rious State Parliaments have voiced prac- tically no serious censure of the govern- ment's enforcement of food regulations, indicates that the law was applied in about the same measure to everybody. It is known that several times highly placed persons appealed to the Emperor himself, but without avail. The live stock and other materials of high officers in the field have been taken from their estates and a Princess was not allowed to have all the milk from a special cow, which she had bought for her child. Q. — Is corn native to Europe? A. — Not if you mean what we call "corn" — the American plant which pro- duces its fruit in large cobs covered with a green sheath. This is one of the com- paratively few important foods that were added to the world's supply by the dis- covery of America, potatoes being the other great addition. In Europe the name for this western crop is maize, and that is the correct name. "Corn," in European terms, means wheat, rye, etc. Maize is raised quite extensively now through Europe, but it is nothing like the agricultural leader that it is in Amer- Q. — ^What coffee substitutes were used in Germany? A. — Coffee substitutes were made of chicory (the root of the dandelion), burnt or roasted, and ground beans or crusts, vegetable husks, etc. "Chicory-coffee" is not an unusual suostitute in Europe. Many of the French and German lower classes _ have preferred chicory even in peace times — indeed, many French people of the better classes hold that a certain proportion of chicory in coffee improves It. Chicory has a bitter flavoring element m It. It is, as a matter of fact, health- ful, but lacks the stimulating properties of coffee. The other substitutes, how- ever, are of qualities ranging from un- satisfactory to nasty. Q. — Can Germany get fed by Rus- sia? .A. — The food situation in Germany for given years preceding the war was as follows (each year): (i) Rye: enough produced for Germany's consumption and a small surplus to export. (2) Wheat: 1/9 was imported from overseas and from Russia. (3) Barley: yi was imported al- most wholly from Russia. (Used for fat- tening pigs.) (4) Maize (corn) : i/g came from Russia and across the Atlantic. (Used for fattening pigs.) (s) Bran: imported 1% million tons, 54 from Rus- sia (for cow feed). (6) Oil-cake: im- ported j4 million tons from Russia and America (for cow feed). (7) Artificial nitrogenous manures ; H came from Chile, none from Russia. (8) Rice: J^ imported from British India, none from Russia. (9) Eggs: half the supply from Russia and enemy countries. Q- — Has Russia accumulated any food-stuffs? A. — A considerable amount of various cereals have been stocked in Russia. Over the first tjiree years of war this accumu- lation was about 24,000,000 tons. In 1917, about 8,000,000 tons were available. The production of food cereals, however, has declined steadily since I9IS, and the cha- otic economic conditions, no doubt, have impeded the production considerably since March, 1917. The opening of the Russian food markets to Germany, no doubt, brought the Germans and Aus- trians some sorely needed relief in the early part of 191 8, but nothing had then developed; to prove that it could restore normal conditions in the Central Empires. Normally, the Ukraine wheat fields should De able to feed all Europe if they were cultivated with modern machinery. Q. — Can the Germans get much meat from Bulgaria? A. — They could not have obtained a great deal, although the Bulgars, during recent years, have devoted a good deal of attention to the raising of sheep. These had become so numerous that shortly before the war a beginning was made with a huge slaughterhouse and freezing establishment at Varna, from 230 Questions and Answers which mutton was to be exported to Tur- key, Greece, and even Egypt. Still, what would be over-abundance for the Bulgars would not go very far for Germany. Bulgaria had 8j^ million sheep in 1910, the date of the last animal census. Her cattle amounted to 1,600,000. Altogether she had about 12 million head of stock to S million population. Thus she had a surplus. Q. — Are there any figures on Ger- many's live stock? A. — According to the animal census in April, 1916, the number of cattle in Ger- many had been reduced to 19,900,000, and there were only 13,300,000 pigs left. A further census appears to have been taken in September, 1916, and shows a remark- able increase, especially in the number of pigs. The figures are as follows : Horned Apr. 15, Sept. i. Inc. per Cattle. igi6. 1916. cent. Calves under 3 months 1,974,434 1,982,891 0.4 Young cattle, 3 months-2 yrs. 6,092,718 6,307,504 4.6 Bulls and oxen over 2 years . . 1,365,877 1,451,122 6.2 Cows and heif- ers over 2 yrs. 10,552,154 10,597,433 0.4 Total 19,921,18320,338,950 2.1 Pigs. Under 6 months 9,055,382 11,204,976 23.7 6-12 months 2,857,041 4,230,89048.1 Over 12 months 1,424,779 1,825,242 28.1 Total 13,337,202 17,261,108 29.4 Q. — What live stock had Germany before virar? A. — According to the official German figures there were in September, 1912, 20,- 182,000 cattle; in September, 1913. 20,994,- ooQ. On those dates the numbers of pigs were 21,821,000 and 25,659,000 respectively. Q. — Did Germany have more live stock than other countries? A.- — Ger*many had in 1916 about 50^^ million head of food-animals (cattle, sheep, swine, etc.) for a population of about 68 million. The United States had in 1917 about 176 million head of live stock for a popu- lation of about 102 million. Of course, it must be remembered that the United States is a meat-exporting country, virhile Germany is not. Comparing Germany's live stock per head of population with that of non-ex- porting countries, we find: France, about 29 million head of meat animals to 40 million population; United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales), about 45 million head to 45 million popu- lation. Q- — How does German milk pro- duction per cow compare? A.— In the United States the average yield among 11 million cows is 420 gal- lons of niilk per cow a year. In Den- mark (1,500,000 cows), the average yield per cow per year was 550 gallons before the war when feeding conditions were normal. In Germany before the war the average yield was 750 gallons per cow per year. Q- — What supplies has Austria- Hungary? A.— That empire, with a population just about the same as that of the United Kingdom, had, when the war broke out, 17,000,000 cattle, 12,000,000 sheep, 13,000,- 000 pigs, 3,500,000 horses, 2,000,000 goats. THE SELECTIVE DRAFT Q. — When was the selective draft law passed? A. — The "Select Service Law" is an Act of Congress, which came into full force May i8, 1917. The law is entitled : "An Act to authorize the President to_ in- crease temporarily the Military Establish- ment of the United States." Its purpose was the raising of troops to carry on the war against Germany. It was drawn to create a "National Army." Q. — Was the first draft really a ser lective one? A. — It was, of course, hoped and in- tended to raise our new army in a way that would leave as many agricultural workers as possible on the farms to keep the world from starving, and to take men, as much as possible, from the occupations which were less essential. The actual re- sults, however, owing to our haste and inexperience, were not by any means in- telligently selective, as the table below of the numbers and percentages accepted from different occupatiolis will show: Called. Accepted. Pet. Beverage industries 5,752 i,472 25^. Agriculture 782,503 205,731 26^ Forestry 24,507 7,984 32j^ Clay, glass, etc 24,928 6,022 24 Animal husbandry. 15,642 4,570 29 General trade iii,54i 24,892 22 Q. — When was the first drawing for the selective draft? A. — The official drawing of numbers to determine the men of the country to con- stitute the first draft for the National Army was July 20, 1917, in the Office Building of the United States Senate, in the presence of the Secretary of War, many array officers of high rank. Senators and Representatives and many citizens. Numbered slips incased in capsules were drawn by two blindfolded men and these were announced and unofficially transmitted over the country by the press. The official list was announced later by the Secretary of W,ar. The first number drawn was 258. After that the numbers were drawn, at the rate of 600 an hour. It required 22 hours to complete the work. Q. — What is meant by the "master list"? A. — A drawing of numbers from I to 10,500, both inclusive, was made in Wash- ington under the direction of the Secre- tary of War. A schedule or master list was prepared by the Provost Marshal General contain- ing all of such numbers from i to 10,500, both inclusive, placed in the exact order in which they were drawn. The first number drawn was placed at the top of column i of the master list, the second number drawn was placed next below in such master list, and this order was followed until all the numbers drawn were so placed in such master list in the exact order in which they were drawn. The master list controls and determines the exact order in which the persons whose registration cards are in the pos- session otthe respective Local Boards, or may hereafter be received by said Local Boards, are liable to be called by the Local Board for Military Service, Q. — Is provision made to notify families of boys in training camps if they are ill? A. — The American Red Cross has agreed to .establish in the camps and can- tonments in the United States the service (already furnished in France) to keep families in America in personal touch with their boys, ill or wounded m the field. This action is in response to a request made by the Secretary of War, who wrote that "American Red Cross representatives at the carnps here, as _ in France, would have access to daily lists of admissions and evacuations from the hospitals, and, so far aSi it is in accord with necessary medical rules, would be allowed to talk with sick. men. They would be expected to keep families constantly informed as to the condition and progress of men in the hospitals, to write letters for men unable to. write themselves, and in gen- eral to fulfill that clause of the Red Cross charter which designates the society as 'a medium of communication_ between troops in the field and their families at home.' " Q. — Can a man be drafted who has had previous service? A. — Yes, he is a civilian and liable to draft 231 232 Questions and Answers Q.— What is the ratio of death in Secretary Baker said : . til. TT a Armw? "The death rate in our forces in the tne u. £>. Armyr- ^^^.^^j g^^^^^^ ^^^^ mid-September to A.— Figures compiled at the office of the end of December averaged 7.5 per Surg. Gen. William C. Gorgas, U. S. A., thousand, and is slightly less than would and made public on Dec, 29, 1917, show have been the death rate of men of the that with more than 900,000 soldiers in same age at home. In 1898 the death rate training in this country from Sept. 21 to per thousand was 20.14, of nearly_ three Dec. 14, there were only 1,391 deaths from times as great. Our death rate in the all causes, an average rate of less than Army during the year 19I6, just before two per 1,000. Among the 202,009 Regu- the war, was five per thousand. Leaving lars there were 144 deaths. There were out the deaths due to measles and its com- 494 deaths in the 387,233 National Army plications, our rate among all troops in and 753 deaths in the 327,480 National the United States since Sept. I has been Guardsmen. about two per thousand." Q. — Where are the draft army cantonments? Place. Name. Designation. Alexandria, La ^ Camp Beauregard National Guard American Lake, Wash Camp Lewis National Army Annapolis Junction, Md Camp Meade Do. Anniston, Ala Camp McClellan National Guard Atlanta, Ga Camp Gordon National Army Augusta, Ga Camp Hancock National Guard Ayer, Mass Camp Devens National Army Battle Creek, Mich Camp Custer Do. Charlotte, N. C Camp Greene National Guard Chillicothe, Ohio Camp Sherman National Army Columbia, S. C Camp Jackson Do. Deming, N. Mex Camp Cody. National Guard Des Moines, Iowa Camp Dodge National Army Fort Riley, Kans Camp Funston Do. Fort Sam Houston, Tex Camp Travis Do. Fort Sill, Okla Camp Doniphan National Guard Fort Worth, Tex Camp Bowie Do. Greenville, S. C Camp Sevier Do. Hattiesburg, Miss Camp Shelby Do. Houston, Tex Camp Logan Do. Linda Vista, Cal Camp Kearney _ Do. Little Rock, Ark Camp Pike National Army Louisville, Ky Camp Zachary Taylor _ Do. Macon, Ga Camp Wheeler National Guard Montgomery, Ala Camp Sheridan ■. Do. Palo Alto, Cal Camp Fremont Do. Petersburg, Va Camp Lee National Army Rockford, 111 Camp Grant Do. Spartanburg, S. C Camp Wadsworth National Guard Waco, Tex Camp McArthur Do. Wrightstown, N. J Camp Dix National Army Yaphank, Long Island, N. Y Camp Upton Do. Q.— What is the size of, the aver- Q. — Has a decision been given on age American cantonment? the constitutionality of the Sc- A.— A camp accommodating 37,000 men lective Draft Law? is about two miles in length and one and A.— Yes, The United States Supreme a half miles m breadth. Each camp con- Court on January 7, 1918, passed seven tains about 1,600 buildings, the construe- cases arising under the selective draft tion of which requires 34,000,000 square law and decided adversely to the men feet of lumber. For heating and lighting drafted, these camps, 400 miles of electric wiring and 60 miles of heating pipes were re- quired. The Selective Draft 233 Q. — What total number of Ameri- cans are subject to draft? A. — There are estimated to be in the United States (in round numbers) 10,000,- 000 men between the ages of 21 and 30 inclusive. This number represents very nearly 10 per cent of the estimated popu- lation of the country — ^between 103,000,000 and 104,000,000; The figure (10,000,000) is reached by taking the number of males between the ages of 21 and 30 inclusive, on the date of the last census, April 15, 1910, and on July I, 1917. The figures for the later date are estimated on the as- sumption that the annual numerical in- crease since igio in each state has been the same as the average annual numerical increase between 1900 and 1910. Q. — How many registrants under the first draft were called? A. — The total number of registrants was 9,586,508. Of these 3,082,949, or 32.16 per cent were called by the various regis- tration boards. Those not called num- bered 6,503,550, or 67.84 per cent of the total number of men between the ages of 21 to 30 who registered under the law. A total of 1,057,363 men were certified for service and 687,000 were named in the first call. Q. — How many of the men called by the first draft failed to ap- pear? A. — ^The total number of men called to colors was 9,586,508. Of these 252,294 failed to appear. Q.— Were many drafted men re- jected at the camps? A. — ^T*he percentage of rejections at camp varied between 0.72 per cent and 11.87 per cent, and, as the physical con- ditions of the men from the different regions cannot account for this, it is at- tributed to differences in strictness in the examinations by the camp surgeons. The valuable mass of data now latent in the record has not been Studied in its entirety. But of 10,000 men spread over eight camps, the sources of defect show- ing the largest percentages were eyes, teeth, hernia, ears, heart _ disease and tuberculosis in the order given. Q. — What proportion of men went unwillingly? A. — "The actual state of mind, of course, cannot be known," says General Crowder, "but the filing of an unsuccess- ful claim for exemption or discharge is, at least, an index of unwillingness, and figures show that of the 1,057,363 certified for service, those who filed no claims for exemption were 639,054, or 60.44 per cent — the 'involuntary' conscripts being 418,- 309, or 39,56 per cent." Q- — How many aliens were draft- ed? A. — A total number of 1,243,801 were registered. Of these, 772,744 were Allied aliens, 148,274 were neutral aliens, 40,663 were enemy aliens, and 282,120 were al- lies of enemy aliens. The number called was 457,713, and of this 76,545 were fi- nally accepted for service — only 17 in a hundred. Q. — Is a man subject to draft if he becomes thirty-one before the draft call? A. — This provision of the act reads, "Persons shall be subject to registration who shall have attained their 21st birth- day and who shall not have attained their 31st birthday on or before the day set for the registration, and all persons so regis- tered shall be and remain subject to draft." Q. — How many unmarried physi- cally fit men become twenty- one years of age each year? A. — The number of males arriving at the age of 21 each year is estimated to be 960,000. As shown by the percentages of acceptance in the first draft, this esti- mated proportion of those unmarried and physically fit will be 96 per cent unmar- ried, and 76.3 per cent fit phyisically. Q. — Is the class of draftable per- sons to be enlarged? A. — The following suggestions have been made by a majority of the boards: that young men who are under age should come within the law when they reach the minimum d«aft age ; that young men of 18 or 19 years should be enrolled and trained so' as to be ready for service im- mediately ■ upon attaining draft age ; 19 and 34 are the limits most frequently sug- gested, though some recommend 40 to 45 years as the upper limit. There is a distinctly stronger demand for raising the maximum age than for lowering the min- imum. Provost Marshal General Crow- der, discussing the enlargement of the age limits for selective military service said, 234 Questions and Answers early in 1918, that such suggestons had been made in his report to the Secretary of War. Q. — How many claims for exemp- tion were granted in the first draft? A. — Of the total number of men called for registration by the first draft (about 3 million) 1,560,570, or 50.62 per cent, made claims for exemption. Of this number, 77.86 per cent were granted. 895,- 150, or 73.9^ per cent, were on the grounds of dependency; 228,452, or 19.67 per cent, were on the grounds of alienage ; 3,877, or 0.34 per cent, were on religious grounds, and 2,001, or 0.17 per cent, were decided on grounds of moral unfitness. The state having the highest percent- age of claims allowed was Connecticut, and the lowest was Mississippi. Q. — What percentage of men are physicsJly fit? A. — Using the results of the draft law as a basis, it is estimated that 76.3 per cent are physically fit. Of all the men called for physical examination by the draft, 730,756, or 23.7 per cent, were re- jected on account of physical deficien- cies. Q. — Were all the citizens in the first draft sent to the camps at once? A. — No. They were sent in increments, and early in 1918 72,000 men still re- mained to be assigned to cantonments. The full strength of men contemplated in the first draft was 687,000. The assign- ment of the full quota to camps was fin- ished March, 1918. Q. — Did the draft prove country boys superior to city boys? A. — The common belief that the aver- age of physical soundness is higher among country boys than among the city bred was not supported by the records of the selec- tive draft. For the purpose of comparison, selec- tion was made of a typical set of cities of 40,000 to 500,000 population distributed over ten different states, and a corres- ponding set of counties of the same total size, located in the same states and con- taining no city of 30,000 population. The total number of registrants in the two areas was 315,000. The comparison resulted as follows : Of 35,017 registrants in urban areas, 9,969 were rejected. Of 44462 registrants from rural areas, 12,432 were rejected. In other words, 28.47 Per cent of the city boys were rejected against 37-96 per cent of the country boys. Q. — How are local draft boards compensated? A. — Section 195, Selective Service Reg- ulation was repealed January 30th, igiB, and in lieu thereof the following was promulgated by the President : Section 195 (Amended) Local Boards— Compensa- tion : "The rate of compensation for mem- bers of local boards up to and including the completion of the final classification of the registrants within the respective jurisdiction of said boards shall be on the basis of 30 cents as aggregate compensa- tion to the membership of a local board for each registrant to whom a question- naire shall have been mailed and who shall have been finally classified in ac- cordance with the provisions of these regulations. "Money due for said work shall be paid in proportionate amounts to each member of a locaf board claiming compensation for his service, unless it shall be requested by the unanimous vote of the local board that the moneys due should be paid in some other proportion. In such case no one member shall receive more than 15 cents of the allowance of 30 cents for each classification, and no two members shall receive more than 25 cents for each classification to be distributed between them." Q. — What was the cost of the first selective draft? A. — The total cost of the first selective draft was $5,211,965.38. The number of registrants was 9,586,508, and the number of men called for examination was 3,082,- 949. The cost per man called was $1.69. The number of men who were accepted was 1,057,363, making the cost per man finally accepted $4.93. Q. — What was the cost of Civil War recruiting? A.— General James B. Fry, Provost Marshal General, in a report, March 17, 1866, said that the cost of recruiting men in the Civil War was $11,027,751.21 for 168,649 men drafted, or $9.84 per man, as against the cost per capita of the I9I7 selective draft $4.93,_ making the Civil War system much higher. The money value of Civil War days also was much" lower than now. The Selective Draft 235 Q. — Are answers made by draft registrants open to public in- spection? A. — The answers of any registrant con- cerning the condition of his health, men- tal or physical, in response to Series II of the questions under the head entitled "Physical Fitness," in the Questionnaire, and other evidence and records upon the same subject and the answers of any reg- istrant to the questions under Series X of the questions under the head entitled "Dependency" in the Questionnaire, ex- cept the names and addresses of the per- sons claimed to be dependent upon such registrant, shall not, without the consent of the registrant, be open to inspection by any person other than members of local and district boards, examining physicians, members of Medical Advisory Boards, Government Appeal Agents, and other persons connected with the administra- tion of the selective service law, and United States Attorneys and their assist- ants, and officials of such bureaus or de- partments of the United States Govern- ment as may be designated by the Secre- tary of War. Q. — May a man subject to draft go abroad? A. — If a person is subject to draft, he does not need a passport from the State Department, if he wants to go to Canada. In that case he only needs a "permit" from a local board. For any other coun- try, he must apply to the local board for a permit. The local board investigates the case. If the person is not likely to be called within the period of the pro- posed absence, or if the board is other- wise assured that favorable action will not result in evasion of or interference with the execution of the law, the local board takes from the applicant his ad- dress while absent and issues a permit, which, if approved by the Provost Mar- shal General, entitles him to a passport from the State Department. Q. — What are the rules as to phys- ical unfitness? A, — Physical deficiencies must be pres- ent in such degree as clearly and unmis- takably to disqualify_ the man for milj- tary service. Much is left to the physi- cian's final judgment and discretion. Temporary effects of acute disease or of an injury are not regarded as justi- fying a finding that the person so affected is not physically qualified for military service. Such conditions justify a rea- sonable delay In completing the physical examination in order that an opportunity for recovery may be afforded. If the de- ficiency is of such a nature that the serv- ice in the army will improve the physi- cal condition of the selected man in gen- eral and eliminate the deficiency, the man is selected, entrained, and put into such kind of service as best fits his case. Q- — Can a drafted man demand that he be sent to France? A.— No; registrant under the provision of the selective service law (and no vol- untary enlisted man) can make any con- dition that affects his service after he has been selected or after he has been ac- cepted for entrainment. The United States will not make any "proviso" to send any soldier or sailor anywhere at any time stipulated by the selected man or the volunteer. This rule applies to com- batant and non-combatant service alike (for instance Red Cross). Q. — How long after war will draft- ed men be held? A. — It is reasonable to assume that en- listed and drafted men will not be held any longer in the service of the United States than is necessary for the safety of the country, and that soldiers and sail- ors will Be sent home as quickly as de- mobilizatio'n can be effected after the war. The "Selective Service Law" provides that the selected men shall remain liable only four months after the conclusion of peace. Q. — Are skilled technical workers exempt from military service? A. — There are circumstances in which the need of military establishments for men expert or highly skilled is such that the national interest is better served by selecting such men into military service. The engagement in industry and agricul- ture is no reason for exemption. Q. — Is a man whose wife can sup- port herself and children exempt from draft? A. — The "Selective Service Law" ex- empts no person from military service on the ground of dependency. It only au- thorizes the exclusion or discharge from draft of "those in a status with respect to persons dependent upon them for sup- port which renders their exclusion or discharge advisable." 236 Questions and Answers Q. — What can a person under age do if he registers by mistake? A,— He should report the case im- mediately to the local board. The board will investigate the claim that he is under age, and, if he is right, the local board is empowered to discharge him. Q. — Will the draft boards accept a man before his turn comes? A. — The men to be ordered into mili- tary service by a local board in filling any part of its quota are to be selected in the order of their liability within their class as shown on the classification list, includ- ing non-combatants. _ Any registrant whose order number is so early that, though not within the early part of the quota, he is within the total quota, may make application to the local board to be ordered into military service and en- trained with that part of the quota of the local board to be sent next after such ap- plication. If the granting of the application would increase the number ordered by the Adjutant General to be entrained by more than two men, the application will be de- nied. Q. — What will exempt from prose- cution a man who failed to register? A. — Being at sea on registration day and registering as soon as practical after landing, or when the person had been refused the opportunity to register by the local boards. Q. — Is a sailor of the Lakes mer- chant fleet likely to be draft- ed? A.— The sailors on ships plying the Great Lakes come under Class IV. They are, therefore, far removed from the first call. It must be borne in mind that the grain-carriers on the Great Lakes are in- dispensable for the feeding of the nation, and their crews are employed in a voca- tion necessary to the pursuance of the war. Q. — Who are subject to the second call? A. — The second summons to service under the Selective Service Act of May 18, 1917, was issued by the President in November, 1917. No change was made in the essential obligations of the men who were, on June 5, subject to selec- tion. Q. — Is a drafted man regarded as a deserter if he fails to report for the camps? A. — Persons who are selected for mili- tary service and who absent themselves with an intent to evade military service are deserters. They are reported to the police authori- ties and, if caught, are brought before the local board, which decides if the of- fense was willful or not. If not willful, the selected man is sent to a camp and the commanding officers of the camp fur- nished with all details of the case. If the offense is considered willful, the de- serter becomes subject to the military laws of the United States. Q. — How are drafted men sent to the camps? _ A. — Local boards procure one "party ticket" for the number of men who are to be sent. A leader is provided for the party. He keeps in his personal posses- sion the railroad and meal tickets of the party. He accompanies the conductor through the train, identifies the men of his party and, before delivering the ticket to the railroad agent or conductor, must indorse the ticket as to the correct num- ber of the men to whom transportation is furnished. The leader is responsible for the proper feeding of the party, and may not allow liquor to be sold to any of his men. Be- fore arrival at a mobilization camp he must inspect them to see that they are ready to leave the train, and that each man has attached to his lapel sthe badge given to him before starting. On arrival at the camp, the leader must hold his own group together until they are taken in charge by an officer or a non-commis- sioned officer, in whose hands he must safely deliver the mobilization papers of each and all of his men. Q. — How does the Government find out about a drafted man in a foreign country? A. — Either before or upon receiving a notice to report for physical examination, a registrant residing in a foreign country in a place too far for a journey to the United States may, at his own expense, apply by- mail, cable or telegram to be physically examined by a nearby physi- sian appointed by the American Consul to make the examination. The consul must indorse his appointment upon the face of a "Form" sent to him by the local board in the United States residence of The Selective Draft 237 the applicant. The examination is made, the physician signs a detailed report, and the local board decides as to the physical qualifications of the registrant. Q. — Can a man appeal from the decision of a district board? A. — The decision of the district board is, in ordinary circumstances, final. A person may appeal to the President in in- dustrial and agricultural cases, when the appeal is accompanied by the written and signed recommendation of one member of the local board, and either the Gov- ernment Appeal Agent or the Adjutant General of the State. In dependency cases, the appeal must be accompanied by a signed statement of one member of the local board and either the Government Appeal Agent or an Ad- jutant General of the State certifying that the case is one of great and unusual hard- ship, stating the circumstances of hard- ship that will follow the going of the registrant into military service, and spe- cifically recommending a reconsideration of the case. The claim is examined first by the local board as to the compliance with the above rules, after which the local board forwards the claim to the Provost Mar- shal General. The President may rule, upon record of the case, that the appeal shall operate as a stay of induction Into military service, pending further orders. Q. — How is any insufficient quota filled? A. — Immediately after the time of en- trainment the local board must proceed to call and entrain a sufficient number of selected men to fill the deficiency, if any, in its quota. Upon receipt of notice from the mobi- lization camp that any selected men of the contingent of a local board have been rejected, or, though entrained, have failed to reach such camp, the local board proceeds to call and entrain a suf- ficient number of selected men to fill va- cancies in its quota. Men sent to fill deficiencies get at least 24 hours' notice to appear for entrainment. Q. — Are feeble-minded persons ex- empt? A.— There are various degrees of feeble-mindedness. The Selective Serv- ice Law says that "lack of normal understanding" is a cause for rejection. What is meant by normal understandmg is left in each case to the discretion of the examining physicians. Insanity, epilepsy, and organic nervous diseases are causes of rejection. Q. — Do men with bad teeth need to serve under the draft? A.— A man must have at least eight serviceable, natural masticating molars, four above and four below opposing, and six serviceable natural incisors, three above and three below opposing. These teeth must be so opposed that a person can cut h|S food and chew it. Teeth restored by crown or fixed bridge work, when such work is well placed and thoroughly serviceable, are considered as serviceable natural teeth. If dental work will restore the teeth to meet the requirements outlined in the pre- ceding paragraph, the man will be ac- cepted and sent to his cantonment, where dental work needed by him will be car- ried out. Q. — Is a man previously rejected by the Regular Army exempt? A. — Previous physical examinations are not considered valid in any case where the Selective Service Law is involved. Q. — How about defective eyesight? A. — In this case, the local board can rule that eyeglasses will correct the de- ficiency in vision. Men may be accepted, whose vision is 20/100 or better in each eye, correctable by appropriate lenses to 20/40 or better in at least one eye, pro- vided no organic disease exists in either eye. Q. — Which officials are exempt from draft? A.—The Secretary to the President, heads of divisions of the various depart- ments of the government, members of Presidential boards, Interstate Commis- sions, Civil Service Commission, Federal Reserve Board, Federal Trade Commis- sion, Panama Canal Chief Officers, Sec- retary of the Smithsonian Institution, the Public Printer, Officers of the National Homes for Disabled Volunteers, Direc- tor General of the Pan-American Union, Vice-President of the United States, Sen- ators, Secretary, Sergeant-at-Arms, and Chaplain of the Senate. Representatives, Territorial Delegates, Resident Commissioners, Clerk, Door- keeper, Sergeant-at-Arms, Postmaster and 238 Questions and Answers Chaplain of the House of Representatives, the Superintendent of the Capitol. Librarian and the Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds of the Library of Congress. Judges, Clerks, Marshals and Reporters of the Supreme Court, the Court of Claims, Court of Customs Appeals, Cir- cuit Courts of Appeals, District Courts. Q. — Can a man be exempted on re- ligious grounds? A. — Any registrant found by a local board to be a member of any well-recog- nized religious sect or organization, J)t- ganized and existing May 18, 1917, whose then existing creed or principles forbid its members to participate in war in any form, and whose religious convictions are against war or participation therein in accordance with the creed or principles of said religious organizations, may be fur- nished by the local board with a certifi- cate to that effect and he can be required to serve only in a capacity declared by the President to be non-combatant. Q. — Can a farmer claim exemp- tion from draft? A. — Any registrant found to be engaged in a "necessary" agricultural enterprise, and found to be "necessary" to such en- terprise in the capacity of sole managing, controlling, and directing head of the en- terprise, may be exempted. Q. — Will the draft law continue in effect after peace is made? A. — The "Selective Service Law" (draft law) is framed only "for the pe- riod of the war." The men selected are liable for that period, and for four months after peace is signed. Q." — Is an alien who has taken out his first citizenship papers sub- ject to draft? A.— By the Act entitled: "An Act to authorize the President to increase tem- porarily the Military Establishment of the United States," approved May 18, 1917, the President was authorized "to draft into the Military Service of the United States, all male citizens or male persons, not alien enemies, who have de- clared their intention to become citizens, between the ages of 21 and 30 years, both inclusive." This authorizes the drafting of all aliens other than German and Austrian. Q.— Are alien enemies exempt from registration? A. — Many persons confuse registration with draft. Each is a distinct process. Exemptions are granted after draft and not before. Even convicts and alien ene- mies (both of whom are exempt from draft) are obliged to register. There are no exceptions to the rule that all male persons in the United States between the ages of 21 and 30 inclusive must register, except those already in the Federal Mili- tary or Naval Service. Q. — What was the Alien Draft Bill? A. — It was a bill introduced by Senator Chamberlain in 1917^ to draft into the Army aliens resident in the United States, and it was in response to a general de- mand that British, French, Italian and other subjects of the Allied Powers be obliged to give military service as Amer- ican citizens did. The bill was not pressed, because the State Department feared that it might lead to a great dispute about treaties, and impel Allied Powers to impress Ameri- cans then resident in their territories. The State Department, however, immedi- ately began diplomatic negotiations with the Allies. Q. — Was it intended to impress Germans and Austrians to fight their countries? A. — No. Such a suggestion was never even entertained. They were specifically excepted in the bill, and a clause pro- vided that they might be drafted for non- combatant work only. The- chief purpose was to draft those Nationals on whose side the United States was fighting. Q. — Were there so many of these aliens? A. — Senator Chamberlain estimated that the bill would bring 1% million men into the service. Q. — Did the Allied governments do anything about these "Slack- ers"? A. — The British authorities acted cir- cumspectly and skilfully. They issued a great many cleverly worded declarations, which voiced the conviction that all Brit- ish subjects would gladly volunteer, bijt which also hinted positively that if they failed to do so they would be drafted.^ The Selective Draft 239 Q. — Could the United States not compel them to serve? A. — Not under existing treaties. The Administrarion, however, realized from the beginning that the American people, subject to the draft themselves, would ob- ject strongly_ to immunity of Allied sub- jects, and diplomatic negotiations began at once with the Allied governments. Q. — Were agreements made finally to draft them? A. — The conclusion of an agreement with Great Britain and Canada was an- nounced January 30, 1918, through a let- ter written by the Secretary of State to Vice-President Marshall as President of the Senate. The important provision of this agreement was that subjects of Great Britain or Canada were to have a stated time in which they might return to their own countries to serve. If they remained in this country beyond that time they would come under American draft regu- lations. Q. — Can America draft British sub- jects even if outside American age limits? A. — Yes. By the American-British agreement, it was provided that British subjects drafted by the United States should be drafted between the British limits, which take in men of twenty and men up to forty-one years old, while the American age limit is from twenty-one up to thirty years. Q. — How many British subjects in America had not volunteered in 1917? A.— It was estimated by various British authorities late in 1917 that there were about 200,000 British subjects in the United States who would come under the draft Q. — Arc women alien enemies? A. — The term "alien enemy," as at pres- ent defined by statute, includes all na- tives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of a foreign nation or government with which war has been declared, being males of the age of fourteen years and upward who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized as American citizens. Females are not alien enemies within the present statutory definition ; but a re- cent regulation under the Espionage Act has extended its provisions to them. Q. — Is an alien who has taken out first citizenship papers classed as an alien enemy? A. — The Department of Justice author- izes the statement under the definition of alien enemy. Section 3: "A male native, citizen, denizen or subject of a foreign nation or government with which war has been declared is an alien enemy, even though he has declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States by taking out first papers of naturalization or has been partly or completely natural- ized in any country other than the United States." Thus a German who had, let us say, become a citizen of Mexico (a neutral country) would still be consid- ered an alien enemy. Q. — What is the best way to send presents to France? A.— Money may be sent at domestic rates, payable at a "United States Mail Agency in France." In drawing order the oifice of payment should be desig- nated as "U. S. Army Postal Service," and in the coupon the name of the payee should be followed on the next line by the regiment and company, or other or- ganization to which the payee belongs. All articles admissible to the domestic parcel post may be sent to the Expedi- tionary Forces overseas, if carefully packed and properly addressed, and if they do not include intoxicants, poisons, inflammable articles (including friction matches), or compositions which may kill or injure another or damage the mails. Regimental commanders must endorse requests for transmission of parcels. Q. — How does America protect its soldiers financially? A. — The government provides a com- pensation of $25 a month to the wife (during widowhood), child, or widowed mother of any man killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty. In addition. Congress authorized, on October 6, 1917, the offering of insur- ance, secured by the government, to all officers, enhsted men, and memoers of the nurse corps in the Army and Navy who should apply before February 12, 1918 (this time being afterwards ex- tended to April i3th) — or within 120 days after enlistment. Q. — Are all soldiers eligible to gov- ernment insurance? A. — This bill makes all officers and men in both branches of the service eligible. 240 Questions and Answers The policies range from $i,ooo to $10,000, and the age limit is 15 to 65. The prem- ium is based on age; a man of 30 on a $1,000 policjr pays 69 cents a month, etc. The policy is payable in monthly instal- ments to the insured, if wholly disabled, and to the heirs, at his death. Q. — What are the Government In- surance provisions? A. — Annual renewable term insurance for the period of the war, with the option of changing to some other form within five years after the close of the war. It was not attachable or assignable. Each $1,000 gave $5.75 a month for 20 years to the beneficiary — who might be wife, husband, child, grandchild, brother, sister, adopted brother or sister, step- brother or sister, parent, grandparent, step-parent or parent-in-law. The amount taken could be from $1,000 to $10,000, the premium ranging from 65 cents a month for each $1,000 at the age of 21, to 70 cents at 31. 82 cents at 41, and so on. Q. — Was protection limited to in- juries in line of duty? A. — No. It was unlimited by any such provision. Even those who might leave the service could still carry it-— with the condition that within five years after the close of the war they must change to an- other form". Q. — Did the men take advantage of the insurance offer? A. — They did so enthusiastically that by February i8th over a million men had been insured for a total of $8,879,104,000 ; and the indications were that the entire military force would improve upon the unheard-of record already made of being nearly 90 per cent insured for the max- imum amount. CONSCRIPTION ABROAD Q. — When was conscription adopt- ed in the German Empire? A. — The German Empire has always had conscription, but this Empire did not come into existence until 1871. Prussia adopted conscription early in the -nine- teenth century, and Napoleon was directly responsible for her action. After the bat- tle of Jena, where the Prussian power was utterly broken by the French, Napoleon endeavored to crush Prussia altogether, and limited her_ to a standing army pi 42,000 men, besides imposing heavy in- demnities. The arrangement concerning the army was cleverly taken advantage of by the famous Generals Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. They kept, it is true, a stand- ing army of only 42,000 men, but the per- sonnel was changed continually. Directly one lot was trained they were disbanded and passed into the reserves and another lot entered the army. This method was known as the Krumper system, and is practically conscription as it is known to- day. Q. — Is German conscription uni- versal? A. — ^By law, every able-bodied man is liable for military service in Germany. In practice, however, as there are in or- dinary times far more young men than are actually wanted, a big percentage does not serve at all. It is said that 2,000,000 of these untrained men volunteered for active service during the first month of the war. By passing_ an examination, any German can have his training cut down from two years to one. That is to say, a well-educated German seldom serves for more than twelve months consecutively. Roughly, of the able-bodied men avail- able, so per cent never enter the army at all. Of the remainder who are con- scripted, 20 per cent serve for one year, and 80 per cent for two. Q.-:— Is the position the same in France? A. — No. Practically every available man receives military training, and, under the new law, brought in just before the present struggle began, every one must serve for three years with the army in- stead of for two as formerly. France, in fact, far more fulfils the description of "a nation in arms" than does Ger- many. Q. — How long must a German serve? A. — Two years with the army in the ranks and five in the reserve. During the period of reserve the soldier is still re- garded as belonging to his corps, and is obliged to join it twice during the five years. The duration of training during the entire period is limited by law to eight weeks, but in practice is seldom more than six. After the five years are up the soldier joins the first "ban" of the Landwehr, or Second Line Army. While in the. first "ban," he is twice called out for training for from eight to four- teen days on each occasion. Five years after entering it he leaves the first "ban," and joins the second "ban," where he re- mains until he is 39. Finally, he passes into the Landsturm, and at 45 passes out of military control altogether. Q. — Are all the men in the Land- sturm trained? A. — No. Only those who at 39 enter it from ^he Landwehr. It also contains all the men from the ages of 20 to 45, who havfe received no military training at all. These amount to 50 per cent of the fit men of military age. Q. — In what countries, before the outbreak of the war, was con- scription in force? A. — In all European countries except Great Brjtain. The only one, however, which had really universal conscription was France, where practically the only exemptions granted were to those physi- cally unfit. In Germany not half the available men were conscripted. In Rus- sia the siipply far exceeded requirements, and many special exemptions were granted. ,In Holland, selection from those available is made by lot. Somewhat the same syste,m is adopted in Sweden. Swit- zerland and Norway have a scheme sim- ilar to the Australian ; in fact, the Com- monwealth Defence Act, providing for the training of cadets, was, to some ex- tent, based upon the Swiss plan. In the Balkan States there are comparatively few exemptions, most of the available men being obliged to serve in the army. In Italy, although all men are liable, only about a third receive two years' mili- tary training. In Spain there are many 241 242 Questions and Answers exemptions, and a money payment in lieu of active service is permitted. The same system exists in Portugal. Q. — When was conscription adopt- ed in France? A. — During the French Revolution the principle was adopted. On July il, 1792, every able-bodied man was ordered to consider himself liable for active serv- ice, but the enforcing of the law was so imperfect that barely 60,000 were gained. It was not until August of the following year that real conscription was forced on the country. All able-bodied men be- tween 18 and 25 were compelled to serve. No exemptions whatever were granted. In 1798 the law was modified to include only the able-bodied between the ages of 20 and 25, and the right of exemption by payment of a substitute was conceded. This scheme remained in force until the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, after which the Prussian method was adopted. Q. — How many young men does France call to the colors every year? A. — Compulsory military service begins at 21, and about 320,000 men have to re- port themselves on reaching that age every year. Of these, about 33,000 failed (in peace time) to pass the medical ex- ination. About 25,000 enlisted voluntar- ily, 70,000 were put back for re-examina- tion, and about 160,000 were incorporated in the army. Q, — Is conscription in force in any country outside Europe? A. — In Japan, in Australia (for home defense), in New Zealand, in the Unipn of South Africa (in a modified form), in Turkey, and in several of the South American Republics. In Peru the num- bers are obtained by ballot, and exemption can be purchased. In Chile there are few exemptions allowed. The army there has been trained by German officers. In Ar- gentine, service in the military is com- pulsory, but the majority train for three months only. Q. — How long had conscription been in force in Russia? A.^^It was introduced in 1874, after the Franco-Prussian War. At first a six- years' service was required, but this had been reduced to three in the infantry and to four in the cavalry and artillery. There were many exemptions, however. Q. — Were the French on Gallipoli conscripts or volunteers? A, — They would certainly have been conscripts, though some of them may have beeii conscripted men who volun- teered for that particular campaign. That is to say, volunteers may have been called for, and may have offered from various regiments; but the numbers required would have been obtained in any case whether there were volunteers or not, You are probably thinking of the French Colonial Army, which is recruited by vol- untary enlistment. In times of peace, 27,- 5oo_ men of this army are permanently maintained in France. In addition, 18,- 000 French soldiers of this army are in the colonies, and 35,000 native troops. Algeria is garrisoned by 40,000 men of the regular or "conscript" army, and 27,- 000 native conscripted troops. Q. — How has Australia voted on conscription ? A. — The first referendum on conscrip- tion was held in October, 1916. The ma- jority against conscription was 6i,ooo. The second referendum was held on Dec. 20, 1917, and resulted in a vote of 1,013,- 000 for and 1,178,000 against, the ma- jority against conscription being 165,000. Q. — Is it true that German school- boys are forced to take long route marches? A. — The military authorities have noth- ing whatever to do with German boys. They do not exert as much authority over school-pupils, in fact, as is exerted under the Australian system. In Australia a boy has to register himself for military training when he is 13, and he remains in effect, if not in deed, subject to mili- tary control until he reaches the age of 60. In Germany conscription begins only when the youth reaches the age of 20. Q. — Then why do we hear of boys of 17 and even 16 in the trenches? A. — There probably are few of 16. There may be a few of 17, and, no doubt, there are numbers of 18 years old. But, as the German Army laws have not been changed, it is altogether likely that these youthful soldiers have not been con- scripted, but have volunteered for serv- ice. It is true that liability (Wehrpflicht) begins at the age of 17, and ends at 45, but actual service (Heerpflicht) begins at 20. When he is twenty every man re- Conscription Abroad 243 ceives a notice from the military order- ing him to report himself at such and such a place at specified time. He is then ex- amined medically, and drafted into the army, put back for a year for re-examina- tion at the end of twelve months, or passed definitely into the Lanjdsiurm, where he receives no military training at all. Q. — Are all able-bodied persons liable to serve for the defense of Australia? A. — Yes. They are called up in classes, as follows : Class I. — All men from 18 to 34 who are Unmarried. Class II.— All men from 35 to 44 who are unmarried. Class III. — All men from 18 to 34 who are married. Class ly.— All men from 35 to 44 who are married. Class V. — All men, married or single, from 45 to 59. Q. — What classes are exempt un- der the Universal Service Act in Australia? A.— The Commonwealth Universal Service Act, which was in force before the war began, compels every male be- tween the ages of 12 and 25 to attend a certain number of drills per year, and to spend a certain number of days_ in camp. Every male is liable for service, within Australia, up to the age of 60. Those exempt are: The medically unfit (the examination is not at all severe); members of Parliament (State and Fed- eral) ; ministers of religion ; judges (Fed- eral and State) ; police, special and sti- pendiary magistrates; doctors, conscien- tious objectors, persons not of European origin or descent. The last three groups can, however, be called to render service of a non-combatant nature. Q. — How many Australians of en- listment age are unmarried? A.— When the census was taken there were approximately 477,000 unmarried men in the Commonwealth between the ages of 18 and 45. Q. — What is the conscription age in Great Britain? A.— In the new act the ages are fixed between 18 and 40 inclusive. Men who attain 18 after the act was passed have to serve, and men under 40 years and eleven months old are also liable. That is to say, every man who had not turned 41 within 30 days of the passing of the act must become a soldier. Q. — What is the number of men who voluntarily enlisted in Great Britain? A. — It does not appear that the figure ever has been given. It was generally as- sumed that before the Derby scheme was tried, some 2,600,000 had volunteered. When Lord Derby began his campaign, he calculated that there were 5,000,000 men left between the ages of 18 and 41. This total included men who had joined the navy, "men who had been discharged from the army and from the navy, those who were.physically unfit, those who had died since the register was taken, minis- ters of religion, and others who had not thought it necessary to go into a recruit- ing office. The Derby volunteers appear to have niimbered 215,000; 2,000,000 men attested, 428,000 were rejected as medi- cally unfitj and 1,600,000 were in "starred" trades. According to the published fig- ures, 2,700,000 were unaccounted for. It was estimated at the time that conscrip- tion of the unmarried — which was the first measure tried — would bring in only some 200,000 men. Q. — How many Australians are witljin the enlistment age (18- 45)? No. of Total enlistment State males. age. N. S. W 857,698 376,000 Victoria 655,591 268,000 Queensland 329,506 I4S,500 South Australia .. 207,358 90,S00 West Australia .... 161,565 80,700 Tasmania 97,59i 38,800 Total 2,309,309 999,500 These are the figures from the last cen- sus — 191 1. Q. — Did conscientious objectors ever receive any consideration in conscript countries? A, — No. They do not receive any at all; that is why people who have strong feelings in this matter have gone to Eng- land and to the United States, countries which did not compel everyone to serve in the army. During the American Civil War, whfen conscription was adopted by 244 Questions and Answers the North, the Quakers, who had origi- nally come to America in order to avoid persecution in England, were very harshly treated, and had to suffer as they Have so often suflfered elsewhere for their prin- ciples. Q. — How were conscientious ob- jectors regarded in England? A.— The Times (London), no doubt, expresses the view of many people, and it is interesting to follow the change that has come over it: "The essence of freedom, as we know it and value it, is that the individuals of a nation shall be able to think what they believe to be true, and to do what they believe to be right." — Times lead- ing article, November 2i, 1914. "In war, even more than in peace, there is need for the free play of intelligence, for the free exercise of conscience." — Times, Literary Supplement, April, 1915. "The third stage is to make conscien- tious objectors ineligible for the franchise and for public office, It seems to us to be a measure of simple justice that those who refuse to recognize the citizen's first duty should be excluded also from their privileges as citizens." — Times, July 6, 1916. The Manchester Guardian better sets forth the way in which the conscientious objector should be regarded: "The final test of sincerity is the will- ingness to face consequences, and the supreme test the perseverance to death. The conscientious objector has been mocked and flouted as a slacker and a coward. We think him a mistaken man, but we have never been in doubt that, in many cases, he is perfectly genuine in his views. We hope that people will now be satisfied that the conscientious ob- jector may, at least, be what he professes to be, and is not necessarily a mere cow- ard masquerading under a fine pretence." — Manchester Guardian, June 27, 1916. Q. — Is it true that genuine consci- entious objectors were tried by court-martial and sentenced to death? A.— According to The Daily News re- port of the debate in the House of Com- mons, on Monday, June 26, 191S, 34 con- scientious objectors were sent to France, after imprisonment in England. There they were sent to the front, and, refusing to obey orders, were formally court-mar- tialed and sentenced to death. All sen- tences were, however, cotnmuted to ten years' penal servitude. In some cases imprisonment for a lesser period was given. Among these men were four Quak- ers. Q. — Have conscientious objectors been subjected to severe pun- ishment? A. — ^J. M. Robertson, in the House of Commons, replying on behalf of the Home Secretary to a question put by Ramsay McDonald, said : "I think we are agreed all round the House that some of the kinds of persecutions which have been inflicted on conscientious objectors are truly shocking." Q. — If a Britisher in Germany mar- ries a German, could Germany compel his sons to join the army? A. — Not unless he became naturalized. The German law differs from the British. It is based upon the jus sanguinis, which regards the son as a citizen of the coun- try of which the father is a citizen. The British law has as its basic principle the jus soli, and regards any person born in Great Britain as a British subject, even if his parents are both unnaturalized for- eigners. Australia has th'e same law as Great Britain, consequently the son of an unnaturalized German born there would be regarded as an Australian sub- ject. Q. — ^Are married men with children conscripted in England? A. — All married men up to the age of 40 have been conscripted, whether they have children or not. The separation allowances (weekly) granted are as fol- lows: Wife 12/6 ($3.12) Wife and one child .. 17/6. ($4.37) Wife and two children 21/- ($5.25) Wife and 3 children 23/- ($5.75) Wife and four children 25/- ($6.25) Motherless children .. 5/- ($1.25) These weekly allowances were granted in 1915. Pensions were increased. Wid- ows got 5/- ($1.25) a week at first; this was increased to 7/6 ($1.87), and finally to 10/- ($2.50). The grant to a totally disabled soldier was increased from 15/- ($375) to 25/- ($6.25) a week. These increases added about $25,000,000 to the pensions' bill in 1915. Conscription Abroad 245 Q. — Does England protect drafted men's business interests? A.^A Civil Liabilities Grant is made to tradesmen to enable them to close their shops temporarily and pay rent, taxes, etc., whilst on military service, and assure them a business to return to after the war, and security against their creditors. The maximum grant, how- ever, is only £104 ($520), and many de- mands for increase have been made on the government, which refused, however, declaring that the experience of the Mil- itary Service Committee, after having dealt with nearly 250,000 applications, in- dicates that the present limit is rarely in- sufficient to meet cases of serious hard- ship. Q.— What allowance does the wife of a French soldier get? A. — ^While her husband is on service she is allowed 1.25 francs a day (a little less than 25 cents), and each child gets 50 centimes (about lo cents). If the sol- dier has no wife, his mother or other de- pendent can get the 1.25 francs a day, and if he has no children a dependent may re- ceive the so centimes the child would have had. This grant, however, _ is not made to everybody; it is' only given in necessitous cases. Q. — What is the pay of the Can- adian soldier? A. — The Canadian private receives 4s. 6d. ($1.12) a day, the New Zealander ss. ($1.25). Q. — What pay does a Russian sol- dier! get? A. — In peace time he gets 50 kopeks (about 27 cents) a month. In war time this is doubled, and thus he gets a rouble. His wife has an allowance given her of three roubles a month, and each child under fourteen gets a small amount, de- pending oft its age. Nothing is given for children more than 14. Q. — What pension goes to the widow of a Russian soldier killed in battle? A. — She_gets nothing at all. The three roubles a month is stopped also. POPULATIONS AND RELIGIONS Q. — What is the population of the whom there were 10,000 or ir.ooo. Chil- United States'* dren are not included in these iigures. Of this total of 75,000, 21,000, principally A. — At the census of 1910 the total women, were repatriated, or allowed to go population was 91,972,266, of whom 81,- to other coimtries; this left 54,000. Of 732,000 were whites and 9,828,000 were these 32,000 had been interned, leaving negroes. The Indians numbered 308,000. 22,000 un-interned. Of the un-interned. The total foreign-born population was, in 4,000 belong to friendly races, viz., Alsa- that year, 13,515,886. Of these, 2,501,181 tians, Italians from the Trentino, Czechs, had been born in Germany, 1,602,702 in and the like. Russia, 1,352,151 in Ireland 1,343,070 in Italy, 1,174,924 in Austria, 1,201,143 in Q. — How many Germans are there Canada, 876,455 in England, and 665,183 jjj Brazil? in Sweden. The present population of . the United States is estimated at a little A.— Ihe total population of Brazil is more than 102,000,000. "°* accurateay known, but it is estimated at 24,400,000. Between 1820 and 1907 Q.— How many native-born Ger- 93,ooo German immigrants reached the rv,or,., =«^ A..=t^;or,c ^^= it, couHtry, and tterc has bceH 3 slow ihAux ^ans and Austnans are m si„ce. In 1912, for instance, the immi- America? grants from' Germany numbered 5,773 A.-According to the Federal census of I'f^ttfU^rl^^'"^ ^^TT ^^f .'" *^ 1910 (the last official and authoritative t^^^"nrl\?Z i r""^ ^^^ total num- enumeration made in the United States) „[; "LPh " \i of German parentage is there were the following native-born Aus- ff *™^*f,'^: *°:,^i, about 400,000 Some- trians, Germans and Hungarians in the '"""■ " '' ^iven as half a million. a es .— Q — jy^ ^j^g Germans live in sepa- rative Austnans i,i74.973 rate communities? Native Germans 2,501,333 a ti. ,• , , Native Hungarians 495,609 A.— Ihey hve for the most part m separate communities, though there is Total 4,171,91s considerable intermarriage. Their pres- „ , ^. . . . . , ence, and that of the Italians, who are Of native-born Americans, with one or still more numerous, has made the south- both parents born in Germany or Aus- ern provinces of Brazil far the most pros- tria-Hungary, there were at that time m perous. the United States : — Americans with one or both Q- — Do they take much share in the parents born in Austria — 826,635 government of the provinces Americans with one or both where they dwell? parents born in Germany. . . 5,781,437 a Tt, Americans with one or both A.— They are most numerous in the parents born in Hungary 204,627 province of Rio Grande do Sul, their number there being estimated at 250,000. Total 6,812,699 "They form," says Lord Bryce, of Great rru- • X i. 1 r i.- u /- Britain, "a compact community which This gives a totd of native-born Ger- preserves its national habits and man- nians and Austro-Hunganans and their ages its own affairs with little inter- children of the first generation of lo,- ference by the central Government. It ^°'*'°''*- is, in fact, disposed to resent any such -. „ ^ ,. interference, and to 'run things' in its Q.— How many Germans were liv- own solid German way." Hirim Bing- itlg in England when the war ham, who is an English authority in broke out? South American matters, said in 191 1: "The Germans in Southern Brazil are a A.— H. Samuel, on June 29, 1916, gave negligible factor in international affairs the following figures :— At the beginning but the well-educated young German who of the war there were 7S.ooo Germans is being sent" out to capture South Amer- and Austrians living in the United King- ica commercially is a power to be reck- dom, excluding British-born wives, of oned with. He is going to damage Eng- 246 Populations and Religions 247 land more truly than dreadnaughts or evenly in France, A curious fact Is that gigantic airships." less than 2 per cent of the population is enumerated as among the "liberal pro- Q. — It is said that for ten years fessions," meaning law, medicine, liter- there had been 400,000 German ^ "'^^' ^^ > ^'^- Reservists in Rio Grande do Q._Has the German birth-rate Sul and Sao Paulo. Ts that so? ^ fallen _ while infantile death- A. — The number of people of German rates increase? descent in Brazil is less than half a mil- * n«:„: 1 c ^ ■l^ • lion, according to official stPtements by ,ht'~hT,f thl fT^' "^ not obtam- the Brazilian Government. This being accurate _ foUowmg are said to be the case, it is impossible that there could "^^ be anything like 400,000 Germans of Year. Births. Infant deaths. fighting age there. The immigration of 1913 1,839,000 277,000 Germans — men, women and children — 1914 1,820,000 207,000 into Brazil during the last ten years has 191S 1,416,000 216,000 averaged less than 4,000 per annum. igi6 1,103,000 167,000 These figures would appear still further —, „ ,, , ,, , . to minimize any possible number of re- , These figures would show that the m- servists-that is, men trained in the Ger- *a"'*'« death rate has not increased, but man army. ^f\ remained pretty constant at about I5-I per cent of the new births. But the n Tiri- i • ii. u- it. 4. • decrease in births is striking and it would Q._What is the birth rate in indicate the war has heavily checked the the fighting countries? nation's normal increase of population. A. — In 1912, it was 19 per thousand. ^ ,,,, , The; death rate was 17.5. Even in the first V-— What were the comparative six months of 1914, there were no less rates in Germany before war? than 17,000 fewer births in France than . „, , ,,. a t iu u- ^t. there were deaths. Since the war began y,A\Jfl ^,^"'"2 "« °^ the birth rate the number of marriages has fallen off ^^^ begun to cause concern. In Dres- greatly. For the last six months of 1914. tn. !?%.,«?!' ^^^.J'^^'^' ^"r^ these totalled only 43,s8s, as against 122.- l^°tut^^l]!':j£°^ j"',,*'' '/f^^' .J" 754 for the last six months of 1913. This '^'i, ^'^iPh? ^fo", 1 "^^"f,!*" '^'^*'''' is a decrease of no less than 65 per cent! 7,3^, births, 11,297. In 191S there was a From April to August, 191S, there were ^""'i^^uji^^S^ '" proportion: deaths, one-fifth fewer births 'in the 26 largest ^'^^^ „*"^'^f,' ^jSJi- German cities than during the same time ^^fX^jlrh I ^ "^T '"f w^T in 1914. The British Registrar-General °f deaths each year the ratio of births reports that the birth rate in Great Britain ^^. f ^"'^^ "^^^^^^ '^"'"^'^ ^ '^^^"^ d^" for the second quarter of 191S was the y. ". , . , , .„ , lowest since civil registration was estab- J^ is oMious that the war will have uXIa changed this proportion still more and "^"^^- much for the worse. Q. — Is the French population ^ ti/i,,* • ,.i,„ „„„ , ^- . chiefly agricultural or Indus- ^""Z^f^V PoP^l^tion of trial? . -,,, A. — ^20,330,000. The country is rather A. — More than one-sixth of the whole sparsely peopled — only 104 to the square population is engaged normally in liianu- mile. In Germany tliere are 324, in the facturing industry. This is without United Kingdom 378. Holland, with counting those engaged in affairs closely 6,200,000 inhabitants, has 493 to the related to manufactures, such as mining, square mile. Norway, with a' population quarrying, transportation, etc. Counting of 2,4i6,opo, has a density of only 19, these in, the total represents almost one- but Sweden's 5,960,000 dwell 32 to the fifth of the population. The Frenchmen square mile. Switzerland is a very small engaged in commerce number less than country, but manages to get 239 people one-half of those in manufacturing in- to the square mile, and has a population dustries. The people engaged in agri- of 3,830,000. Only 2,780,000 people live culture and forestry represent another in Denmark. The land is poor, but in- one-fifth of the total population. Thus tensely cultivated, there being 180 folk to agriculture and manufacture lead about the square mile. 248 Questions and Answers Q. — What is the population of Rus- sia? A. — The Russian Empire has about 170,000,000 inhabitants. Of these 27,000,- 000 live in Asia. There are, of course, very many races in Russia, but the Slavs predominate. They mostly belong to the Greek Church. About 11,000,000 Moham- medans, 12,000,000 Roman Catholics, 6,000,000 Jews, are the other notable re- ligious bodies. It is estimated that only 50,000,000 Russians can read and write; the rest are illiterate. Q. — Which country has the largest birth rate? A. — Russia (44 per thousand), but Rou- mania and Bulgaria run her close. Fol- lowing these come Hungary (36.3), Japan (33-9), Italy (32.4), Austria (3i-3), German Empire (28.3), Commonwealth of Australia {28.3), Holland (28.1), Scot- land (25.9), England and Wales (23.8), Ireland (23.0), Belgium (22.9), France (ig.o). Q. — Are the death rates in much the same proportion? A. — Not the same. Russia is highest (28.9), but France (17.5), is nowhere near theJjottom of the table. Germany is 15.6, England and Wales 13.3. Q. — What is the population of Scotland? A.— 'At the last census, in 191 1, it was 4,760,904. Particulars of the number of volunteers from Scotland are not obtain- able, but it is known that when it came to conscription it was found that but few available men were left. iTie great ma- jority had already joined the colors. Q. — What is the exact population of Japan, and what that of China? A. — The number of persons in Japan and her dependencies, including Korea, is estimated at 73,440,000, which works out at 279 per square mile. The population of China and dependencies is estimated at 320,650,000, only 82 people to the square mile. The number of people in Japan proper, in 1910, was 50,750,000. Some 1,700,000 babies are born there every year. In Russia it is interesting to note that the number of births in 1912 was estimated at more than 7,000,000. Q. — Is the population of Japan in- creasing rapidly? A,— The annual increase is 600,000 (births 1,700,000, deaths 1,110,000). That of the United Kingdom is about _400,odo ; that of France about 20,000. In Germany the surplus of births over deaths was about 900,000 every year. In Russia the annual increase was no less than 2,500,000. In Austria it was 300,000, and in Hun- gary 250,000, that is, 550,000 for the whole of the dual empire. The Bulgarians are a most prolific race^ the balance of births over deaths being about 85,000 annually. Q. — What is the German-born pop- ulation of Australia? A. — According to Mr. Knibbs, 32,990. The same authority states that 590,722 people who were born in the United King- dom are now in the Commonwealth — 20,775 Chinese, 14,775 Scandinavians, 6,644 British Indians, 6,719 Italians, 6,642 Americans. Q. — Does life, morally, in Germany, compare unfavorably with other great Powers? A. — The figures are interesting. The following table gives the number of illegi- timate births per thousand births in dif- ferent countries for the quinquennial pe- riod, 1901-190S : — Netherlands 23 Ireland 26 England and Wales 40 South Australia 41 West Australia 42 Spain 44 New Zealand 45 ♦Switzerland 45 Italy 56 ♦Tasmania 57 Scotland 64 Queensland 65 ♦Finland: 66 Belgium 68 New South Wales 70 Victoria 70 ♦Norway 74 Germany 84 France 88 Hungary 94 Denmark loi ♦Sweden 113 ♦Portugal 121 ♦Austria 141 Those marked (*) are for the period 1896-1900. The United States has no national system of registered births, and the Russian figures are so incomplete Populations and Religions 249 aS to be quite unreliable. If we divide the above figures by five, we get the yearly number of illegitimate babies per thou- sand birtbs. Q.— Is it really true that there are an immense number of war ba- bies in Great Britain? A. — In 1915 there was a great agitation in England to reform the illegitimacy laws, to legalize the position of the girls who were "giving themselves to the country." Charity was asked for in order to support the children of the "absent- minded beggars at the front." The Gov- ernment was urged to adopt these chil- dren as the nation's wards. Cold sta- tistics prove that all this was much ado about nothing. The Registrar-General gives the number of illegitimate births in England and Wales, for the months of April, May and June, 1915. as 9,644. This,_ although a deplorably large num- ber, is 333 less than for the correspond- ing period of 1914. That is to say, the call to arms has reduced the evil, not in- creased it. It is the same in France. Q. — What was the population of Great Britain at the time of the Napoleonic wars? A.^In 1801 it was 10,943,000. The population of London at that time was 864,800, that of Glasgow was 77,000. In 1850, just before the Crimean war, the population of Great Britain was 20,936,- 000, and of London 2,360,000. Q. — Has Germany been drained of her people by emigration to anything like the extent of the United Kingdom? A. — Men and women are not one of Germany's principal exports. The yearly departure for the last decade has only once touched 30,000, and averages about 20,000. Practically all these went to the United States. "The average emigration from Ireland for many years has been more than 30,000 per annum, and in the sixty years from 1851 to 1909 the island lost no less than 4,154,986 of its inhab- itants in this way. The total emigration from the United Kingdom has reached 500,000 a year and has averaged more than 200,000 a year for the last decade. This means that, after making all allow- ances for immigration into the country, the United Kingdom has lost more than 2,000,000 men, women and children dur- ing the last ten years by emigration. Q. — Is it true that every natural- bom German, no matter where domiciled, is declared a Ger- man subject whether he has sworn allegiance to another country or not? A. — So far as can be ascertained, no German proclamation of this nature has been issued since the war began. The belief probably is based on the Delbruck Law, which came into force in January, 1914. The Delbruck Law did not apply to German citizens who were already naturalized, but only to those who took out naturalization papers after the Act came into force, and only to those who had obtained the permission of the Ger- man authorities in Europe before taking out their papers. As the law came into force in Germany only in January, 1914, and as the war broke out at the begin- ning of August, one would imagine that Germans naturalized in this country who still remain citizens of Germany in virtue of the new Act must be few indeed, if any. Q. — Most British emigrants go to British colonies, do they not? A. — They do not, although during the last quinquennial period before the war something more than half went to Can- ada, Australia and other parts of the Empire. But 100,000 at least, often 200,- 000; have been steadily going to the United States every year for very many years. Q.— Is it true that a naturalized German in Australia ceases to be a British or Australian sub- ject once he is beyond the three-mile sea limit? A. — Any foreigner naturalized in Aus- tralia ceases to enjoy the privileges of British citizenship as soon as he leaves the country, as the British Government does not recognize its responsibility for anyone naturalized in the colonies. An attempt to alter this anomalous state of affairs was made in the British Nation- ality and Status of Aliens Act, which received the royal assent on August 7, 1914, and came into force on January i, 1915. It is, however, specifically stated in the Act that it does not apply to, nor does any certificate of naturalization granted thereunder have any effect in the Commonwealth, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland, unless the Act is there adopted. As tiiis has 250 Questions and Answers not been done in Australia, any foreigner naturalized ther« is under the same dis- abilities as formerly — he ceases to enjoy the privileges of British citizenship as soon as he leaves the country. Q. — Have the Germans cancelled the naturalization papers of enemy subjects who are still residing in Germany? A.— There is no absolutely authentic in- formation on the subject, but apparently they have not cancelled them. As far as can be gathered from reports there are no foreigners who have acquired German nationality interned in Ruhleben, al- though a good number of the "Austra- lians" who are interned there are Ger- mans who became naturalized here. Their naturalization is therefore apparently recognized by the German authorities. The irony of the situation is that if these Australians were liberated and sent back to Australia, they would prob- ably be interned as Germans. Q. — What are the populations of the South American republics? Brazil 24,400,000 Argentine 7>SOO,000 Colombia 5,100,000 Peru 4,500,000 Chile 3,550,000 Venezuela 2,760,000 Bolivia 2,520,000 Ecuador 1,500,000 Uruguay 1,300,000 Paraguay - 800,000 Panama 400,000 British Guiana 300,000 Q, — Is this a war of religion? A. — This is not, in any sense, a relig- ious war, for Roman Catholics are fight- ing Roman Catholics, Protestants are furiously struggling with Protestants, Greek Catholics are opposed to Greek Catholics, and in a few cases even Mo- hammedans are slaying Mohammedans. The figures are interesting:— Roman Catholics 164,000,000 Greek Church 113,000,000 Protestants 95,000,000 Mohammedans 24,000,000 Q. — Are more Roman Catholics on the side of the Allies or of the Central Powers? A. — There are far more on the Allies' side. It is estimated that the number of Roman Catholics in Germany and Austria is 24,o0Oj00O and 31,000,000 respectively. There are a few thousand Roman Cath- olics only in Bulgaria. France and Italy are Rort^ Catholic, and in the United Kingdom there are 6,000,000 professing this faith. The Poles are Roman Cath- olics ; so are the Portuguese. The Serbian religion Is Greek Orthodox; so is the Russian. Q. — What is the number of adher- ents to the different religions of the world? A.— There are estimated to be in the world : — -i Roman: Catholics 272,860,000 Greek Catholics 120,000,000 Protestants 171,650,000 Jews 12,200,000 Moharrimedans 222,000,000 Buddhists 138,000,000 Hindus 210,500,000 Confucianists & Taoists 300,000,000 Shintoists 25,000,000 Animists 158,000,000 Miscellaneous 15,000,000 That is, of a total of 1,646,000,000, roughly two-thirds are non-Christian and one-third Christian. Q. — What are Animists? A.— They are the races that have a primitive form of religion, which ex- presses itself in such practices as worship of the spirits of the dead, worship of ani- mals and plants, belief in a sky or under- world inhabited by corporeal beings, etc. Q- — Are there many Mohamme- dans in India? A.^At the census taken in 191 1 the total population of India was found to be 315,156,396, of whom 217,586,892 were Hmdus, 66,647,299 were Mohammedans, 10,721,453 were Buddhists, and 3,876,203 were Christians. Of the total only 18,- 539,578 persons could read and write. Two million persons were employed in takmg this census, which cost only £l-?5,- 000 ($680,000). Q- — Is there religious freedom in Germany? A.— In Germany there is entire liberty of conscience, and complete social equal- ity among all religious confessions. The Populations and Religions 251 Jesuit Order, however, is interdicted in all parts of Germany. The Roman Catholics are in a majority in Alsace- Lorraine, Bavaria and Baden, and form more than 20 per cent of the population in Oldenburg, Wiirttemberg, Hessen and Prussia. Q.^^Is there a religious revival in France similar to that in Ger- many? A. — There appears to be a great revival throughout the length and breadth of France. It is real, say those who have studied it; the most real, tangible, pon- derable thing in the war. In Germany, too, the churches are thronged, and a fervent religious spirit is shown. Q. — Was the Great Mosque of St. Sophia in Constantinople orig- inally a Christian Cathedral? A. — It Was built by Justinian in 538, and replaced two earlier churches of the same name. The first one, built by Con- stantine, the founder of the city, was burnt in 404 ; the second, erected by Theo- dosius II, in 415, also was destroyed by fire. St. Sophia, until the Turks took it, was under the control of the Greek Church, which was not definitely sepa- rated from the Latin Church until the great schism of the ninth century. The beautiful paintings and mosaics of the saints inside the building were not all destroyed by the Turks, but wings were painted over their faces, as such figures were prohibited by the Mohammedan re- ligion. SHIP DESTRUCTION Q.— How much shipping has sub- marine warfare destroyed? A.— During the first 3l4 years of the war, the most conflicting figures were given to the world. Spokesmen for the British Government made statements that were alternately encouraging and alarm- ing, but that never gave specific and au- thoritative facts. The vague figures given were far below the figures claimed by the German Admiralty. American ex- perts, by close calculations, arrived at figures that lay between the British and German, and indicated seriously alarm- ing diminution of the world's tonnage. On March 21, 1918, the British Admir- alty Suddenly made public its figures, kept secret until then, and they bore out the American opinion. The Admiralty fig- ures showed that the loss of world ton- nage from the beginning of war to the end of 1917 (thus including the first year, less a month, of unrestricted submarine warfare) amounted to 11,827,572 gross tons. It was stated that the figures in- cluded losses from the regular risks of the sea and also Allied tonnage interned in German ports. The latter amounted to 132,829 tons. Deducting it, we have 11,694,743 gross tons lost utterly to the world. Q. — What is the normal ship loss through storm and other risks? A. — The average of total losses for twenty years shows a loss in peace time of about 156,000 tons a year, but as the world's tonnage has increased every year, of course this average loss must be fig- ured as increasing year by year. After war began the demand for tonnage caused many old ships to be put into service, and, as a good proportion of these probably was not highly seaworthy, the losses from storm, etc., must have increased quite beyond the normal average. Lacking pre- cise figures, only a guess can be made; but if we guess that the loss from natural causes was a million tons from the be- ginning of war to March i, 1918, we are probably making an exceedingly gener- ous estimate. This would make the total sunk by submarines 10,694,743 tons. Q.^What was the total ship loss before unrestricted warfare be- gan? .A — ^The British Admiralty figures of March 21, 1918, show the following: 1914—498,534 tons; 1915 1,724.720 tons; 1916 — 2,797,866 tons, making a total of 5,021,120 gross tons. As the submarine warfare through that period was only against Allied shipping, with oiily such neutral ships sunk as were carrying con- traband, the heaviest part of the loss was British and French. Q. — How much tonnage loss was Britfeli up to the beginning of unrestricted warfare? A. — The British losses (counting only the ships registered as belonging to the United Kingdom) were given by the Admiralty as follows: 1914 — 285,899 tons ; 1915—1,108,379 tons ; igi6 — 1,497,- 848 tons ; making a total to January i, 1918, of 2,^92,126 gross tons. Q. — Did the first year of unre- stricted submarine warfare in- crease the British loss heavily? A. — A little more than four million tons were sunk from January i, 1917, to December 31, 1917— that is, in the first year of unrestricted submarine warfare the British merchant marine lost one and one-third times as much tonnage as it had lost in all the previous years of the war. Unrestricted submarine warfare began on February i, 1917. Therefore these figures, while taking in one month before it began, and leaving out one month (January, 1918), are close enough. The total British tonnage sunk in 191 7 was exactly 4,009,537, according to the Admiralty figures. Q.— How much shipping of all na- . tions was destroyed in the first year of unrestricted warfare? _ A. — British, 4,009,537 tons ; other na- tions (including both Allies and neutrals), 2,614,086 gross tons. Total of world's shipping destroyed in the first year of unrestricted submarine war (from Jan- uary I, 1917, to December 31, 1917), 6,623,623 tons. Q. — Did Great Britain's Allies lose heavily? A. — According to the neutral figures, the losses of neutral tonnage in the first year of unrestricted warfare were 1,335,- 000 tons. This would leave a destruc- 252 Ship Destruction 253 tion of i,27g,o86_ tons to be accounted for as bein^ Allied merchant tonnage — French, Italian, Russian, Japanese, Por- tugese, Greek, etc. The losses of Arner- ican tonnage were comparatively slight in proportion, and mai^s only a very small part of this total. Q. — How many American vessels were sunk? A. — It was announced in January, 1918, that during the twelvemonth up to Jan- uary 25, 1918, submarines, raiders and mines had sunk 69 American vessels total- ing 176,061 tons. A good number of these were sailing ships. The loss of life was more than 30a Among the ships sunk were German vessels that had sheltered in American ports while this country was neutral, and which were requisitioned later and put into American service. The Actaeon, formerly the Adamsthurm and the Owasco, formerly the Allemaniaj were thus sunk. Q. — What shipping did the neu- trals lose? A. — The figures given by the neutral nations were : Norway, 680,000 tons ; Sweden, 200,000 tons; Holland, 175,000 tons; Spain, 80,000 tons; other neutrals, 200,000 tons, or a total of 1,335,000 tons. Q. — ^What figures do the Germans claim for submarine sinkings? A. — The Germans, according to state- ments made by some officials, expected to sink one million tons a month or twelve milUons in the year of unrestricted war- fare. In November, 1917, the German Admiralty gave out figures that asserted a total destruction in the first nine months of 7,518,000 tons, or almost a million tons more than the British fig- ures give for a whole year. Calculating the remaining three months' sinkings on the basis of the lowest month's German calculations, the German figures would claim a total sinking in the first year of unrestricted warfare of nine and one-half million tons. Q. — What does Germany claim as the total destruction of mer- chant tonnage since war be- gan? A. — An unofficial statement at the end of 1917 asserted that up to that time 18,000,000 tons had been destroyed. This was to the end of November, 1917, and without counting in December. These figures claimed as the total sinkings be- fore unrestricted submarine warfare a tonnage of 4,560,000 gross. This is less than the British Admiralty statement of 1918, which admits a loss of a little more than five million gross tons. Q. — Has ship construction kept pace with destruction? A. — It has not. For a long time the world _ was curiously misinformed about the situation. Sir Eric Geddes, First Lord of the Admiralty, gave out many figures -vyhich puzzled experts. The American Government from the first maintained a consistent attitude, warn- ing the nation that the submarine peril was very real and very acute. The cor- rectness of this American position was proved on March 20, 1918, when Sir Eric admitted in Parliament that submarine destruction amounted to more than six million tons during the first year of un- restricted warfare. The figures that he then gave as to construction to meet the loss, wer£ much less optimistic than those he had been issuing. However, he still claimed that the world had forty- two million tons of shipping left and that seventy-five per cent of the losses was being replaced by new construction. Q. — What did American figures suggest as to the tonnage shortage? On March i, 1918, two weeks before the British Admiralty figures were pub- lished, the executive board of the Na- tional Patriotic Societies made public fig- ures asserting that the shortage in world tonnage was almost seven and one-half million tons — that is, equal to a shortage of 1,500 five-thousand-ton vessels. It was declared that the total tonnage really available to the United States and the Allies was four and one-half million tons less than it had been in 1914. Attention also was called to the fact that this short- age was aggravated by the demand for at least three million tons to transport and maintain one and one-half million men in the war zone. Sir Eric Geddes claimed on March 20, 1918, before Par- liament that the world shortage was only two and one-half million tons. Q. — What is the new ship con- struction of the world? A. — When the British Admiralty made its secret figures of submarine sinkings public on March 21, 1918, it gave also w estimate of the amount of new construe- 254 Questions and Ans'hers tion by all the nations of the world ex- tons. These include the Columbus and elusive of the Central Powers. The fig- the Hindenburg, each of 35,opo tons, much ures showed that at the end of 1915 there larger t}ian the giant Vaterland. Uf the had been built a little more than two company's 25,000 employees, some_ 6,000 million new tonnage. In 1916 there was were thin serving at the front or m the built a total tonnage of 1,600,000. The navy, tonnage building in 1917 was a little more than 2,700,000 tons. Altogether, in exact Q. — What was the effect 01 war on figures, the new tonnage (part of which America SO far as ship-move- it will be observed was only laid down rnpnt wa<5 rnncerned' in 1917 and not ready to launch) was '"^"^ ^^^ concernea. 6,606,27s tons. That meant that the sub- A.— The records of the Department of marines were sinking merchant tonnage Commerce show that for the period be- almost twice as fast as new tonnage was ginning February i, 1917, and ending De- being produced (one and three-quarter cember i, 1917, the clearances from Amer- times as fast, to be exact). Jean ports were 17,738,000 tons net (about 28,834,000 gross). This total, of course, Q. — Did not Norway lose more was produced by many repeated voyages tonnage than some of the bel- °^ *^ ^^""^ ^'^'P^" liferents? Q.— In what months of the year A. — Norway's loss of 680,000 tons can submarines act most ener- caused her a bigger loss in tonnage than getically? that of France, Italy, Russia, Greece or Japan. As, however, Norway was a great A. — The figures of tonnage lost by the merchant-marine nation, her losses com- month will give an indication. A more paratively were not so heavy as those of graphic: one is offered by the following such belligerents as originally had only table showing numbers of ships lost in a limited merchant marine. each month from February i, 1917, to It is known, also, that Norwegian citi- February i, 1918. zens built and bought a huge number of g^itish Losses in Ships, ships throughout the war for the spe- Nuniber ciai purpose of trading through the dan- Shins gerous war zone, and that the profits so Februarv ua ga.ined probably more than paid for the March 0'? tonnage lost in the trade. April ' i8c May 113 Q. — What is Norway's rank in June no ownership of merchant ton- Ju'y 81 nage? August 104 ° September 73 A. — Norway has a population of only October 87 2,390,000. Her mercantile tonnage as re- November 61 corded last was 2,770,000 — more than one December 70 ton per head of population. Germany, January (not wholly complete) 52 with a population of 68 millions, had 4.150,000 tonnage. Great Britain, with Total 1,169 46^^ million population, had 19,130,000 tonnage before the war. Q. — Why was the ship "Frye" Q. — Are the Germans building many merchant ships? K.—Tht William P. Frye was an American ship that was captured by the A. — Neutral visitors reported that many German-raider Prinn Eitel Friedrich, Jan- merchant ships had been laid down since uary 28; 1915, while carrying a cargo of the war began, and the reports of Ger- wheat to the British Isles. The raider man shipping companies show that there took off her crew arid sank the ship on must have been many new ships on the the ground that the cargo was contra- stocks. The North German Lloyd re- band. The United States Government ported that since 1914 it had taken over protested against the sinking, urging that ten vessels in course of construction, with it was in violation of the treafies of an aggregate tonnage of 70,000 tons, and 1799 and 1828 with Prussia, and pre- that there still were eight steamers being sented a claim for the value of the ship, built, of an aggregate tonnage of 135,000 The German Government acknowledged Ship Destruction 2SS its liability under the treaties, but con- that the q'uestion whether there had been tended that the sinking of the ship was a violence of international law should be legal if its value in money was paid. An referred for decision to The Hague tri- agreement was finally reached, providing bunal. AMERICAN SHIP SEIZURES Q. — How many German and Aus- trian ships did we requisition? A. — Requisitions in American ports after American declaration of war added 107 vessels with a tonnage of 686,494 gross tons to the merchant marine under the United States flag. This leaves out of account such Ger- man and Austrian ships as were taken over for naval and army purposes. Q. — What was the value of these ships ? A. — It was estimated to be more than $100,000,000. This great aggregate value was produced, of course, by the many magnificent liners among the requisitioned ships, and the greatly increased ship- values. Q. — Did the United States add other ships to the merchant service by requisition? A. — Through the Shipping Act the United States requisitioned in American shipyards 426 vessels totalling more than 2,000,000 gross tons, which were building for neutrals and for Great Britain, France and other of the Allied nations. Q. — •What was the capacity of the German liners? A. — Fifteen of the ships were ocean liners ranging from 10,000 to 54,000 tons. These fifteen ships had an aggregate ton- nage of 280,000 tons, and a combined car- rying capacity of 60,000 troops. Q. — .When did requisitioned Ger- man ships carry supplies to the front? A. — On January 2g, 1918, announcement was made that sixteen former German ships had reached France within a pe- riod preceding the announcement. Among these was the great Vaterland, re-named Leviathan. Among the others were : Cov- ington {Cincinnati), America, {Amer- ika), President Grant, President Lin- coln, Powhatan, {Hamburg), Madowaska, {Koe'nig Wilhelm II), George Washing- ton, Mount Vernon {Kronprinzessin Ce- cilie), Agamemnon {Kaiser Welhelm II), Aeolus {Grosser Kurfiirst), Mercury {Barbarossa), Pocahontas {Princess Irene), Huron {Friedrich der Grosse), Von Steuben {Kronprins Wilhelm), De Kalb {Prim Eitel Friedrich). The names in parentheses are the origi- nal German names of these ships. Q. — What other German ships were re-named? German name. American name. Andromeda U.S.S. Bath Breslau ...* U.S.S. Bridgeport Frieda Lecfnhart U.S.S. Astoria Geier U.S.S. Schurit Grunewald . . U.S.S. Gen. G. W. Goethals Hermes U.S.S. Hermes Hohenfelde U.S.S. Long Beach Kiel I U.S.S. Camden Liebenfels U.S.S. Houston Locksun U.S.S. Gulf port Neckar U.S.S. Antigone Nicaria . . » U.S.S. Pensacola Oldenwald » U.S.S. Newport News Praesident U.S.S. Kittery Rhein = U.S.S. Susquehanna Rudolph Blumberg U.S.S. Beaufort Saxonia U.S.S. Savannah Staatssekraetar Solf U.S.S. Samoa Vogensen ".=. U.S.S. Quincy Q. — WaS; it possible to repair all the German ships? A. — It was announced officially that by 1918 every damaged German ship had been fully tepaired and was in active use, some having made three or four round trips through the war zone. Q. — Why did the American Gov- ernment not prevent damage of these ships? A. — Before the American declaration of war, the German and Austrian ships were sheltering in American ports under full right, and their masters and crews were in complete charge. The American Gov- ernment had only such rights over them as every government may exercise over foreign ships in its waters. This right did not extend to interference with any acts of master or crew that did not en- danger the security or peace of the United States. The owners and crews were at perfect liberty, both legally and morally, to dismantle these vessels entirely, even to break them up for junk, if they so de- sired. So long as the damage they did '■56 American Ship Seisufes 257 to their own ships did not block Ameri- can channels or otherwise affect the rights of any except the owners of those ves- sels, they had the right to do what they wished with their own property. Q. — Then they could not be pun- ished? A, — A good way for Americans to get the legal and even moral point of view in this matter is to consider what the Amer- ican feeling would be toward an Ameri- can ship-master and crew lying in Ger- man waters when warwas declared. If such Americans had dismantled or dam- aged their ships to make them worthless to the German Government, we would, without doubt, and quite properly so, fully approve it. Q. — What German ships were in- terned in New York? Tons. Adamsturm S.ooo Allemannia 4,630 Armenia 5,464 Barbarossa 10,984 Bohemia 8,414 Clara Menig 1,685 Friedrich der Grosse 10,771 George Washington 25,570 Grosser KurfUrst 13,102 Harburg 4,472 Hamburg 10,531 *Indea 1,746 Kaiser Wilhelm II 19,361 Koenig Wilhelm II 9,410 Magdeburg 4,497 Maia 2,555 ^Matador 1,468 Pennsylvania I3,333 Pisa 4,967 Porionia 2,778 President Grant 18,072 President Lincoln 18,168 Prinzess Irene 10,893 Prins Eitel Friedrich 4,650 Prins Joachim 4,760 Katerland 54,282 Breslau Andromeda NEW ORLEANS 7,624 2,554 SAN FRANCISCO BALTIMORE Serapis 4,756 Bulgaria 11,440 Neckar 9,83S Rhein 10,058 CHARLESTON, S. C. Liebenfels PORTLAND, OREGON *Dalbek Kurt Arnoldus ' Vinnen SAVANNAH 4,525 2,723 1,731 1,860 2,974 Hohenfelde WILMINGTON, N. C. Nicaria 3,974 Kiel 4,494 PHILADELPHIA Rhaetia . , Franconia , Prim Oskar SEATTLE Saxonia . *Steinbek HONOLULU Prins Watdemar Pommern Gouverneur Jaeschke Holsatia Loong M'oon Staatssekretar Kraetke Letos O. J. D. Alhers Hermes 6,600 4,637 6,026 4,424 2,164 271,503 Q. — ^Were many ships interned in other ports? BOSTON Kronprinzessin Cecile 19,503 Cincinnati 16,339 Amerika 22,622 Wiitekurd 5,640 Willehad 4,761 Kohn 7,409 Ockenfels 5,621 3,227 6,557 1,738 5,644 1,971 2,009 4,730 7,490 1,180 SAN JUAN, P.R. Odenwald 3,537 Praesideni ; 1,849 TAMPA Rudolf Blumberg 1,769 Frieda Leonhardt 2,789 Vogensen 3,7i6 NORFOLK Appam 7,781 Prins Eitel. Friedrich 8,797 Kronprins' Wilhelm i4,9o8 * Sailing ships. Q. — Must belligerents pay for use of enemy ships used during war? A. — According to international law, 81,89s payment must be made for the use of all 258 Questions and Answers enemy ships which were in harbor when war was declared or were taken on the high seas before the captain knew that war had broken out. It is even customary to obtain the formal permission of the enemy company owning the ships before making use of them. Such permission is, of course, granted, because the ships would be commandeered whether or no. The terms of hire are, as a rule, settled by the courts. In the last report of the Nord Deutscher Lloyd Company mention is made of there having been five of its ships in Italian harbors, four in Portu- guese, and five in Australian, "which have all been requisitioned, and will be duly paid for." It stated further that two large and three small ships had been lost in government service, and five had been captured on the hig^ seas. Q. — If the Germans sink requisi- tioned German ships, who will pay for them in the end? A. — If this matter were not complicated by public feeling, quarrels over mutual charges of violations of international law, etc, the answer would be very simple. We should have to pay for them. The legal argument is as follows: (i) the Ger- man ships sheltered in American ports when the United States was neutral. In so doing they exercised their good right and it was the duty of the neutral to so shelter them. (2) When the United States declared war on Germany, the Ger- man merchant shipping in her ports thus occupied the position of being vessels en- titled to immunity from prize capture, under the international law that a bellig- erent may not make prize of enemy mer- chant vessels that lie in his ports at the time of declaring war. (3) The only right that the United States thus had as against these vessels was to requisition them. This right was exercised. Requisition does not carry ownership with it. Requi- sition carries with it, on the contrary, re- sponsibility both for safety and for the use of the requisitioned property. Under international law, the owners of the Ger- man ships therefore have the right to col- lect from the United States after the termination of the war, whatever may be justly due for the use of their ships, de- preciation and damage. Q. — But is it fair to pay for ships that the enemy sinks? A. — It would hardly be possible for public opinion in the United States to see anything but crying injustice in any claim by Germany for payment. No doubt this public opinion will play a great part in the final adjustment of the question. Q. — Ar& there no legal points to justify non-payment for ships thus sunk? A. — There are many; but before we enumerate them we must explain that the legal points that justly tell against the German tjovernment do not necessarily tell against the private German owners of the ships ; and it is the private German owner who has the claim under interna- tional law. However, even this _ matter may develop an interesting point, viz., that possibly iSie German Government is part owner in. at least some of these vessels, by virtue -either of stock ownership or of laws designed to encourage German ship- ping. As against the German Government, the United States could maintain that what- ever ships were sunk were so sunk ille- gally. To this the German Government would respond, no doubt, that (i) the German war zone orders were justified as reprisal against Allied violations of laws of blockade; (2) that armed merchant vessels, and merchant vessels armed or unarmedj under convoy were subject to attack without previous visit and search. Q. — Why did we not seize the Ger- man ships in the Danish Is- lands? A. — It had been generally assumed that these vessels, like other enemy craft shel- tering in= American harbors, ctould be commandeered when the United States declared war against Germany It has been fourfd, however, that in the deed of sale it was specifically stipulated that the German vessels in the harbors of the Danish West Indies should not be com- mandeered in the event of the United States going to war with Germany. They remain, therefore, in the harbors of what are now known as the Virgin Islands, and cannot be touched. Q- — What happened to German ships in the Suez Canal? A. — There were seven, and as they could not get away they remained in the Canal. Ultimately, the British Govern- ment insisted that the directors of the company should instruct them to leave as they were obviously not utilizii:g the canal for jts proper purpose, but were sheltering 'themselves there in the sanctu- tuary created by the internationalization American Ship Seizures 259 of this waterway. As they were not granted right of passage to home ports, and yet had to leave the canal, they have, presumably, passed into British hands. Q. — What British ships were seized in German ports? A. — Seventy-four, with a total tonnage of 170,000. Q. — What German ships were seized in British ports? A. — One hundred and two, with a ton- nage of 200,000. In addition, 88 were capv tured, aggregating 338,000 tons, and 16^ of 283,000 tons, were detained in the ports of France, Belgium and Russia, chiefly at Antwerp. Q. — Did the Allies seize German ships in Greek harbors? A. — It was announced that when the Allies occupied the wireless station, tele- graph offices, the post-offices, and the Cus- toms at the Piraeus in 1917, a launch from a French cruiser visited the four German East African steamers which had lain in the harbor since the outbreak of war, hoisted the French flag on each ship, and left a detachment of French soldiers on board, after arresting the few Germans found on the vessels. At the same time, the Hamburg-American liner, Marienbad, was seized in the Gulf of Salamis, and another ship was taken over in the har- bor of Lyra. Q.— Who purchased the "Dacia"? A. — This is the ship about which there was so much controversy during 1915. She was a German vessel, and was pur- chased by an American of German descent named E. M. Breitung. He paid $165,000 for the ship, loaded her with $750,000 worth of cotton, which was to be carried to a German port for $190,000 freight money. At that time cotton was not contraband of war, and it was gener- ally understood that Great Britain recog- nized as legal the transfer of an enemy ship to a neutral citizen. The matter was solved, however, by the Dacia being cap- tured by a French cruiser, as France does not recognize the transfer of an enemy ship to a neutral during war time. Q. — If a British ship is sunk, will the British Government make good the loss? A. — It is hardly probable. In any case the loss would not fall on the shipping company, but on the underwriters, and as the government has offered insurance on lower terms than Lloyds, much of the loss has actually been borne by the gov- ernment already. The Admiralty does not guarantee protection to_ merchant- men. They put to sea at their own risk. Q. — How many German ships were in Portuguese and Italian ports? A.— -There were 36 at Lisbon and 8 at St. Vincent, Cape Verde Islands, and 2 at Goa. There were 37 German vessels in Italian ports. Q. — Have any German ships es- caped from neutral ports? A. — About the middle of February, 1917, the Bahrenfeld got away from Buenos Ayres, and the Turpin from Punta Are- nas, Chilii The Asuncion endeavored to escape from Para, but was prevented by Brazilian cruisers. Rumors of other ves- sels stealing away have been many, but probably most of them are incorrect. Q. — How many German ships did the Allies capture in the Cam- eroons ? A, — There appear to have been sixteen steamers lying in Duala harbor when the place was occupied. Eleven of these were Woermann Line steamers. As these are properly prizes of war, some of them have since been sold. The Elder-Demp- ster Company, which has lost nine steam- ers at the hands of the enemy, including the Appam and the Falaba, purchased one of the Woermann liners at a prize sale, and renamed it the Gold Coast. Q. — What was the "Appam" case? A. — The British merchant ship Appam was captured by the German raiding crui- ser Moewe (Gull) on January 15, 1916. A German prize crew was put aboard, and while the Moewe continued her cruise, the Appain was brought safely westward and succeeded in passing the British cor- don off Chesapeake Bay and anchoring safely in Hampton Roads. Q. — Did the Germans have the right to bring a prize into American ports? A. — They did. But the question arose whether they had the right to keep her there, and thus use American ports as an asylum for prize ships. The Germans 26o Questions and Answers claimed that provisions in the United by the capturing vessel. This view was States-Prussian treaties of 1799 and 1828 upheld by the Supreme Court ma decision conferred this special right. The United handed down March 6, I9i7- The result States claimed that the clauses cited did was that the Appam finally was turned not permit the entry of a prize unattended back to her British owners. THE WORLD'S SHIPS OF PEACE Q. — How fast is our Atlantic mer- chant fleet growing? A. — In July, 1917, some ships in the Pacific were transferred to the Atlantic. In August, 1917, the Shipping Board asked Congress for another appropriation of $915,000 for its building program. This amount would be used for purchase and commandeering of materials and plants and for ship construction. Legislation was asked to permit ships of foreign reg- ister to engage in coastwise trade. On August _ 24, 1917, nearly 3,000,000 tons of shipping was ready to be con- tracted for, and 1,281,000 more under ne- gotiation at a total estimated cost includ- ing cost of commandeering and the pur- chase of available vessels of $915,000,000; of this fully two-thirds are for the At- lantic fleet. June_ 15, 1917, all power- driven cargo-carrying and passenger ves- sels above 2,500 tons deadweight capacity under construction in any yard, and ma- terials, equipment and outfit thereto, were requisitioned by the United States. Q. — How much shipping did this give us? A.— On September 26, 1917, the United States had 458 ships of over 1,500 dead- weight tons with an aggregate tonnage of 2,871,359. There were also 1 17 ships of German and Austrian origin, totaling 700,285 tons. Four hundred ships of 2,- 500,000 tons had been commandeered and 636 ships with 3,124,700 tons were con- tracted for by the U. S. Emergency Fleet Corporation. It was at this date expected that the United States would have near the end of 1918 a merchant fleet of more than 1,600 ships, aggregating 9,200,000 tons, as compared with an overseas ma- rine of 1,614,222 tons on June 30, 1914. Q. — How did we get Great Lakes ships to the Atiantic? A. — By the astonishing process of cut- ting the ships in half and towing the pieces through to the St. Lawrence river, and then patching the ships to- gether again. In the last part of 1917. the United States Government comman- deered about 20 ships from the coast- wise trade and then went to work to re- place them with steamers from the Great Lakes fleet. The latter were from 275 10 300 feet long, whereas the locks of the canals would not accommodate vessels of more than 250 feet. The big iron ships were cut in two and the halves were brought through the locks separately, to be spliced together again in the St. Law- rence River. Most of the ships were brought together again and made whole in the water without dry-docking. Diver^ bolted the. halves together and the sides were securely united by heavy steel tie- plates. Q. — How much money has been in- vested in American shipping? A. — Since the war began a total of $401,749,000 has been invested in ship firms in this country. For January, igi8, alone the amount was $21,274,000. There were nineteen new ship firms incorporated in January. Of the $21,274,000 invested, $6,650,000 was designated for shipbuild- ing and $14,624,000 for other shipping projects. The development over the en- tire war-period is shown in the follow- ing table compiled for The Journal of Commerce, which sets forth the author- ized capital of new concerns : Five months, 1914 $1,844,000 Year 1915 37,662,000 Year 1916 69,466,000 Year 1917 271,503,000 Q. — How many shipyards have we? A. — Six years ago the United States had barely seven shipyards. To-day these seven yards and 132 others are working night and day, two and three shifts at a time, turning out vessels for the Emer- gency Shipping Board. The shipyards are scattered throughout tlie United States from Fore River, Boston and Newark Bay, Delaware, New York, Philadelphia, Newport News, clear around Mobile on the south; to Seattle and Tacoma on the west. Q. — ^What is meant by a "stand- ardized" ship? A. — It is a ship the parts of which can be manufactured in multiples of tens and hundreds of thousands, then assembled in a shipbuilding plant. In Great Britain, standardizing of ships has been in vogue 261 262 Questions and Answers for a quarter of a century, decreasing the cost of ships so per cent. Under this plan, one shipyard may limit itself to only one size and type of ship. The parts, all alike, can be manufactured in many dif- ferent factories in any desired quantity — plates in one, boilers in anothery engines in another, rivets in another. The ship- yard thus would be the assembling plant merely. The benefits gained from stand- ardizing are decreased cost and increased speed. Q. — What were the chief difficul- ties in the way of the immense program? A. — It might be accurate to say that a number of difficulties were so great as well to make them all "chief" in rank. The supply of man-labor was a vast prob- lem. The production of enough material was another. The transportation of this material was still another. Each of these great problems was independent of the rest, yet not one of the problems could be solved satisfactorily without solving the others simultaneously. Other difficul- ties, minor in comparison, but actually enormous in specific aspect were : ^i) lerecting shipyards, (2) providing housing and food supply for labor, (3) financing the vast expenditures, (4) fuel, (5) ad- justing all these imperative needs to the equally imperative needs of other indus- tries, and to the absolutely imperative needs of the army and navy. Q. — What was the "Great Shipyard Drive"? A. — On January 28, 1918, the United States government employment service began a nation-wide campaign to enlist workers for the shipyards. State direc- tors of the Public Service Reserve con- ducted the drive in the various states. Q. — Have we a training ship for the merchant marine? A. — Yes. The first training ship of the United States Merchant Marine, the Cal- vin Austin, brought its first graduates to New York in March, 1918, and the men were placed in their first positions. The Calvin Austin is stationed regularly at Boston, where the Recruiting Service of the Shipping Board has its headquarters. Q, — Is it true that ships can be built of concrete? A. — Yes. The Shipping Board gave contracts in February, 1918, for ten such craft to be constructed by the Ferro Con- crete Shipbuilding Corporation of Re- dondo Beach, Cal. The vessels were to be of 3,500 tons. In March, 1918, the first large concrete ship was launched on the Pacific coast. The craft was S.ooo tons and named Faith. Q. — When was the concrete ship invented? A. — The first craft made of reinforced concrete was a small one, built by a Frenchman in 1849. Before 1900 some barges of about loo tons were in use in Italy and Holland. In 1900 a large 200- ton barge for river traffic was built in Germany, and by 1918 concrete barges varying in capacity up to 700 tons were being used in the Panama Canal, the Wel- land Ship Canal, the Manchester Ship Canal in England, and in the harbors of San Francisco, Baltimore, and Sydney, New South Wales. Q. — Who built the first big con- crete vessel? A. — Norway. A 400-ton ship was launched in 1917, and it has been an- nounced that regular ocean-going cargo vessels are to follow. They are to be as big as 5,000 tons, though those now being designed or constructed appear to be from 3,000 to 4,000 tons. Instead of using steam, they will be propelled by gigantic Diesel oil-motors. Q. — What was the result of nego- tiations with the Swedish Gov- ernment over shipping? A. — Late in January, 1918, preliminary agreement was made with Sweden through conferences in London, provid- ing for the charter of Swedish ships to the United States, to be used principally for South American trade. It was an- nounced that some of the Swedish vessels which had been held in American waters would be allowed to sail with their cargoes. Q. — How many ships of 10,000 tons are there in the world? A- — A good number have been sunk during the war, and a few may have been launched." In 1914 there were 130 British ships of this size afloat, and some 15 launched or building. There were 40 German afloat, and half a dozen building or just launched. The United States had The World's Ships of Peace 263 O, France ig, Holland 7, Japan 4, and Belgium 5. Altogether, afloat, launched and building, there were about 250. men, gives the information up to the war; — Q. — What is the increased capacity of British ships owing to sanc- tioning of deck loads? A. — Some shipping experts assert that by deck loading, and the permission given to load ships down to the "Indian Sum- mer" PlimsoU mark, no less than 500,000 tons was in effect added to the British mercantile marine. Q. — What is the PlimsoU mark? A. — It is a government mark painted on the sides of British ships to denote the maximum depth to which _ they may be sunk by loading. There is a "summer mark" and a "winter mark," the loads permitted for summer being greater be- cause the better weather permits less free board. The name "PlimsoU" comes from the name of the member of Parliament who worked for the law, Q. — When a ship is said to be 5,000 tons, does that mean its cargo capacity is 5,000 tons? A. — That is generally assumed, and, on that assumption, various very wild calcu- lations have been made and are made by laymen. As a matter of fact a ship's "tonnage" is really its displacement, that is to say, the weight of the water it dis- places when afloat. This measurement is used for all warships, which always carry their full load. A different method of measurement is generally employed in cal- culating the tonnage of a merchant ship, and as a rule a warship of exactly the same size as a merchant ship will be reg- istered at a considerably higher tonnage. Roughly, but quite roughly, the cargo ca- pacity of a boat is just about double its registered tonnage. That is, a steamship of S,ooo tons register would have a_ cargo capacity of about 10,000 tons. This is a case where a quart can apparently be put into a pint pot 1 Q.— Is the draught of the largest merchant ships greater than that of dreadnaughts? A.— The biggest merchant • ships are a great deal larger than the most powerful dreadnaughts, and have a considerably deeper draught. The following table com- paring pre-war battleships and merchant- « 4 t S to ^ 1 U) 0) •d H J « Q 0^ 0) 0. Feet. Feet. Feet. Knots. Dreadnaught battleship — 22,500 545 88H 27.5 27,000 23 Battle-cruiser — 26,350 660 86j^ 27.S 70,000 347 Titanic — 46,000 882 93j^ 34-6 47,000 20 Britannic-^ 54,000 924 94 35 60,000 23 Imperator^— 50,000 90s 98 35 60,000 22 Q. — Are French shipyards making good shipping losses? A. — Apparently nothing very definite has been done. The shipbuilders and shipowners complain that the Government has, as yet, taken no measures to enable the shipyards to secure the necessary raw materials, and the Committee of Ship- owners has decided unanimously "once again to call attention to the danger that threatens the French merchant marine of disappearihg, if the shipyards are not in a position to construct vessels with the shortest possible delay." The Italian Gov- ernment appears to be fully alive to the need of adding to its merchant marine, and voted' a sum of 165,000,000 lire ($30,- 000,000) for the construction of merchant vessels during 1917. Q. — Are many foreign sailors in the British mercantile marine? A.-^The figures for 1913 were as fol- lows : — British 212,570 Lascars and Asiatics 46,848 Foreigners 32,639 Of these 70,622 were engaged exclus- ively in home trade, 25,000 being on fish- ing vessels ; 10,244 were in vessels en- gaged partly in home and partly in over- sea trade. We may assume that practically all these 70,000 were British, which would leave 142,000 British for foreign trade, and 79,000 Lascars and foreigners. It appears, therefore, that the proportion in the British oversea mercantile marine is not quite two British seamen to one for- eigner. 264 Questions and Answers, Q.— -Was the "Lusitania" the fa- the better pleased the Dominions were. ^^iic. A^^f,^^■■,^ ",^^,.u^,,^A"o The German ships earned much cargo mous Atlantic greyhound ? b^t^gen Great Britain and the outlying A.— Yes. This was the first great Brit- parts of the empire, and one such port ish ship built for the American trade, at any rate owed its prosperity very which was fitted with turbine engines, largely to German ships. She and her sister ship, the Mauretania, German vessels running along th^ east won the blue ribbon of the Atlantic from coast of Africa took the produce of Brit- the Germans, who had held it for some ish East Africa to England at a price years. The Lucania, with the Campania, which allowed a profit to be rnade. The held it before the Germans captured it, rates charged by the British ships, on the with the Deutschland, in 1900. The Lusi- other hand, made it not worth while send- tania was built in ipo7, and displaced ing the produce of this particular de- 31,550 tons. The Britannic, sunk in the pendency home. war, had a tonnage of 54,000. Much of _ the West Indian trade was ,_..,■ in German" ships, notably the trade be- Q. — How were the losses of British tween New York and Jamaica. ships and cargo covered when sunk by submarines? A.— Both ships and cargo were insured Q- — Is Germany's great merchant by the Government, and this is how it fleet based OJl government Sub- happens that the loss of ships has actually sidv?' shown a profit on some of the ledgers of "' British shipping companies. Bonar Law A.— That= is the generally accepted ex- made a statement m the House of Com- pknation that is advanced for the fact mons concerning the profits he had made that the Germans have in many cases on his shipping investments. He invested beaten British shipping companies, but, the sum of iS.ioo in fifteen shipping com- like so many other accepted ideas, it has panies running tramp steamers. Five per little or no: basis in fact, cent on that amount would be £405, but he received £3,615 in dividends in 1915, and £3,847 in dividends in 1916, after pay- .^ -», , <- , ing excess profits. V- — Do not the German companies _. ^. , ^ . . , ^ - receive large grants? Q.— Did British Colonies limit Ger- *^ ^ man ships trading to their , A.— The grants they got were in the nnrf-R? form of payments for the carriage of V^^^- mails, as the British Orient and P. and O. A.— There was no limitation at all. and as American ships do or may. The The more ships came into Dominion ports following comparison is interesting : Subsidies Paid to Steamship Companies in Connection with Australian Service Voyages Total No. of Amount of Company. per Miles run Subsidy. Subsidy Year. per Year. per Mile. Norddeutscher Lloyd 13 342.420 £95,000 5s. 654d. P. and O. Line 26 652,860 146,500 4s, 5j4d- Orient Line 26 692,640 173,400 5s. Messageries Maritimes 13 315,198 48,760 3s. id. From this table it will be seen that there is not a very great difference be- tween the British and German "subsidy." Still more interesting is the foUowmg comparison between the subsidies _ for the carriage of mails paid to the different companies in connection with their Eastern services. Voyages Total No. of Amount of Company. per Miles run Subsidy. Subsidy Year. per Year. per Mile. Norddeutscher Lloyd 26 675,246 £171,000 ss. oj^d. P. and O. Line 26 73i,i20 164,500 4s. sJ^d. Messageries Maritimes 26 528,372 228,950 8s. 7 J^d. Gesellschaft Nederland 26 494>ooo 26,500 is. o^A. Rotterdamsche Lloyd 26 468,000 26,500 is. ij^d. The World's Ships of Peace 265 Oesterreichischer Lloyd 12 235,7X5 34,6oo as. if/iA. Sodeta Marthina 13 ii7>499 68,400 11$. 7^d. (Genoa-Bombay) Nippon Yusen K^isha 26 639,808 316,900 9s. lOjjd. According to these figures the Norddeutscher Lloyd is not a "hot house" product unless the French, Italian and Japanese lines be accused of being arti- ficially fostered. EUROPEAN TRADE ARTERIES Q.*-Is the Danube the longest river in Europe? A. — No. The longest^ is the Volga (2,000 miles), a river entirely in Russian territory. Authorities differ as to its ex- act length. Strelbitsky, the greatest au- thority on European rivers, puts it at 1,977 miles, but General von Tillo, another expert, says it is 2,107 miles long. It drains a huge area, no less than 560,000 square miles, and the most fertile part of Russia is in this basin, which supports no less than 40,000,000 people. It empties into the Caspian Sea, but, by means of canals linking up with other rivers, it is actually connected with the Baltic. Q. — How long is the Danube? A. — The Danube is 1,644 miles long, but has a basin of only 315,000 square miles. It is, however, a far more notable stream than the Volga, has a much greater dis- charge of water, and has an international importance greater than any other river in the world. Q. — What are the next longest Eu- ropean rivers? A. — The river next in size is the Ural, 1,446 miles ; then the Dnieper, 1,164 miles, in whose basin dwell 28,000,000 people; then the Kama, 1,115 miles; then the Don, 1,110 miles; and then the Pechora, 1,024 miles. All these are Russian rivers, so, too, are the Oka, 914 miles, and the Dnies- ter, 835 miles. After them comes the Rhine, which is only 709 miles long, but the position of which makes it second only in importance to the Danube among European streams. Q. — Is the Danube navigable for heavy tonnage? A. — The central channel, called the Su- lina, is the one now used through the Delta. From its mouth to Braila the Danube is navigable for sea-going ships up to 4,000 tons register. From Braila almost to the Iron Gates sea-going ships of 600 tons can use the river, and barges of some 2,000 tons capacity navigate it. From the Iron Gates to Vienna barges drawing five feet of water are used. From Vienna to Regensberg it is possible for barges of 600 tons register to be towed up against the rapid stream. A canal connects the Danube with the Mainz, which flows into the Rhme at Mainz. It is said that the Germans are already engaged on a scheme for join- ing the Rhine and the Danube by a deep canal, which will permit the passage of very large barges, and thus link the Black and the North Seas. Q. — How wide and how deep is the Rhine? A. — At the Swiss frontier it is only 189 yards wide. At Mannheim it is 429, at Mayence 402, at Coblenz 399, at Bonn 532, at Cologne 433, at Dusseldorf 409, and at the Dutch frontier 909. From Mayence to Dusseldorf it varies from 9 to 76 feet in depth, Above Mayence it is never deeper than 25 feet, and it shoals to as little as three feet in places. Q. — What is the Rhine Navigation Treaty? A. — It is a convention which gives to Germany the right of conveying ship- ments through the Netherlands by way of the Rhine without let or hindrance. The Dutch authorities are not permitted to examine the cargo at all, their privi- leges being limited to an examination of the ship's papers. Q. — Is the Scheldt a Dutch or a Belgian river? A. — It is a Dutch river. The Scheldt enters Holland eleven miles after it leaves Antwerp, and runs for fifty miles through Dutch territory to the sea. It is, there- fore, in Dutch territorial waters, and, although it is a trade-free river, its neu- trality must be respected. Q. — What is a trade-free river? A. — A river on which no tolls are charged, and which is entirely free to the shipping of the world. Up to 1863 Holland "had the right to, and did, levy a toll of 3 shillings (about 75 cents) a ton on all ships using the Scheldt to reach Antwerp. This absolutely throttled the port of Antwerp, and, after many at- tempts, a. conference of twenty-one Pow- ers and States held at Brussels, was suc- cessful in arranging a treaty freeing the Scheldt. Belgium and the other inter- ested Powers bought the toll right from Holland "for about $7,200,000, of which sum Belgium paid about $2,400,000. Since 266 European Trade Arteries 267 then Antwerp has gone ahead by leaps and bounds. With its suburbs it had a population of about 360,000 before the war. Of these, 16,000 were Dutch, and 10,000 Germans. Q. — How long is the Kiel Canal? A. — Sixty-one miles, a few miles longer than that of Panama. The Suez Canal is almost 100 miles long, and cost about $125,000,000 to build. The Panama Canal, fifty miles long, cost $372,000,000. Q. — What was the cost of the Kiel Canal? A. — The proper name of the canal is the Kaiser Wilhelm Canal. Its original cost was $39,000,000. The reconstruction cost $55,000,000. It was 29j4 feet deep, but has been deepened and widened, so that it Can take the greatest dreadnaught afloat. The sluices at the Baltic end are 1,072 feet long, and 145 feet wide, and are the largest in the world. Q.— Who owns the Suez Canal? A. — The shareholders of the Egyptian Company, which was formed by M. de Lesseps to build it. The original capital was £8,000,000 in 400,000 shares of £20 each. France originally took 200,000 of these, the Ottoman Empire took 96,000. Of the remaining shares the Viceroy of Egypt obtained 85,506. England, Aus- tria, Russia and the United States would have nothing whatever to do with the pro- jected canal, the cutting of which was strongly objected to by the British Gov- ernment. Lord Palmerston told de Les- seps, when he went to London to raise money, that, in the opinion of British ex- perts, the making of a canal between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea was a physical impossibility, the levels of the two seas not being the same. However, in 1875, when the Khedive of Egypt, being hard pressed for money, tried to sell the shares he held — those of the former Vice- roy and those taken up by the Turkish Government— to a French sjmdicate, the British Government stepped in, and pur- chased the lot, 176,602 shares in all, for £3,976,582. This was about their face value at the time. Those shares are now worth £30,000,000! Q. — Who was responsible for this purchase? A.— Lord Beaconsfield generally gets the credit for this coup, which gave Great Britain virtual control of the canal. Q. — How do the railways of Eu- rope compare? A.— -According to the latest pre-war figures, Germany had 39,000 miles of rail- way; France, 31,000; United Kingdom, 23,420; Russia, 46,000; and Italy, 11,000. Since 1880 the total receipts of the Ger- man railways have gone up nearly four times, and' the ton mileage more than four times. In that same time the British receipts and ton mileage have just about doubled. Q. — Is the telegraph used as much on the Continent of Europe as in England? A. — Much more than in England. Ger- many has 142,000 miles of telegraph line ; France has 114,000, the United Kingdom 61,000. There are 50,000 postoffices in Germany, 14,000 in France, and 24,000 in the United Kingdom. There are 72 let- ters per head written in Great Britain and only 49 per head in Germany. In France there are 40, in Russia 10, and in Italy II per head, Q._What is the line of the Berlin- Bagdad Railroad? A. — It starts really at the Elbe North Sea port of Hamburg, running down Elbe valley to Berlin. Thence it goes south- ward through Prussian Brandenburg, largely continuing along the Elbe val- ley. Stiir directed southward, it crosses Saxony, touching the Saxon city, Dres- den, and then pierces the Erz Gebirge (Ore Mountains), descending into Bo- hemia, and passing through the Bohemian city of Prague. Thence- it goes southeasterly to Vi- enna. From Vienna it follows the Dan- ube valley to Budapest and, passing along the northern side of the Danube, in Hungarian territory, it goes to the Serbian capital Belgrade. Continuing southeasterly, it crosses Ser- bia and reaches the Bulgarian capital So- fia. Traversing southern Bulgaria, it reaches Turkish Adrianople and then Con- stantinople. From Haidar-Pasha on the Bosporus, opposite Constantinople, it ex- tends through Asiatic Turkey into Meso- potamia, touching Mosul, and so to Bag- dad. Q. — When was the Berlin-Bagdad Railroad begun? A.— It was begun about 1900 when a German company obtained concessions 268 Questions and Answers from the Sultan for the line from Con- stantinople to Bagdad. The intention was ultimately to extend from Bagdad to the Persian Gulf. Qj — Does it tap rich country? A. — It taps thousands of miles of neg- lected country with big possibilities, but, to bring these possibilities into being, vast projects of reclamation, irrigation, colo- nization by agricultural laborers, etc., are necessary. Many of these projects have been begun. Q. — How many miles is it from Berlin to Bagdad? A. — In direct air-line it is 2,000 miles. By rail, when the missing link in the Bag- dad railway is completed, it will be about 2,650 miles. The Germans propose build- ing a great bridge across the Hellespont, and, if that were done, it would be pos- sible to travel in one of the carriages of the Compagnie Internationale des Wagon Lits from Calais in France, on the Eng- lish Channel, to Koweit, on the Persian Gulf, a distance of some 3,000 miles, with- out a change, as the Bagdad railway is of standard gauge. Q. — Has the Bagdad railway really been completed? A.— Various statements have been made about it. It is known definitely that the connecting link through^ the Taurus Mountains was completed in 1914, and at that time the section from Aleppo to Ras- el-ain — 86 miles — ^was finished. When the war broke out, or shortly afterward, the rails had been laid from Bagdad to Sa- marra, 88 miles. It is probable that the link between Ras-el-ain and Mosul (200 miles) has also been finished, but it is im- probable that the line from Mosul to Sa- marra, a distance of 160 miles, has been laid. Q. — Does a direct railroad line con- nect Odessa with Bucharest? A.— No. A railway runs from Odessa to Bender, where the Dniester is crossed ; from there it runs south to Reni, on the Danube, from which place a boat is taken to'Galatz, a distance of some eight miles. The railway to Bucharest from that port runs through Braila, Buzen, and Ploesci. Another route can be taken, but it is a long way round, through Kishinef — the capital of Bessarabia — to Jassy, crossing the frontier of Ungheni, where the break of gauge necessitates changing trains. From the present capital of Rou- mania, either of the north-south rail- ways can be taken to Bucharest. Q. — Have all railways in Europe the same gauge? A. — All have the standard 4-ft. Sj^-in. gauge except Russia, where the gauge is 5 ft. In Argentine they have the largest gauge in the world — ^viz., 5 ft. 6 in. This is due to the fact that the Argentines pur- chased the railways and rolling stock which were laid down by the British and French during the Crimean War. The gauge used was 5 ft, 6 in. Q. — Is the Euphrates a navigable river? A. — Not for commercial purposes. Sailing graft manage to traverse it from the Persian Gulf to Hit, due west of Bag- dad, but beyond that town even they can- not go. Hit is about _ 500 miles from Kurna, where the Tigris and Euphrates meet and flow to the Persian Gulf in one stream, known as the Shat-el-Arab. The Euphrates rises near Erzerum, and is about 1,800 miles long. When the snows melt in the Armenian mountains in March and April, the river overflows its banks, but, otherwise, it is a sluggish stream. In November, when the water is low, rocks, dams, and shallows make naviga- tion exceedingly difHcult. WORLD TRADE Q.— Has our entrance into war of the ou|cry against the importation of caused much upset to Ameri- *" "»any German articles which, it was fan hiicinffcc? **'"• were far inferior to the British, can Dusinessf ^^ caused unfair competition. A.— No. The adjustment of business _ , , . throughout the country to war conditions Q. — ^What was the result of this was effected with very little trouble. law? R. G. Dun and Co. reported that dur- . r^ ^^ j * ^u x »i.- a ^ ing 1917 there were fewer business .^^— ^' *"r"«^ °"* that this Act was failures than in any one of the three years *« greatest advertisement for German previous. The liabilities of the failures f °°°s imaginable. When it came into that year totaled $183441.371, smaller than 'O""" P/ople were amazed to find that the corresponding figures for any one of *o«"e «>f the best articles they purchased the last ten years. *^''* made in Germany instead of, as they had supposed, in Great Britain. Q.-Was there a decline in Amer- S.^;-" i^sTead'of "atwa^a'tic!" lean foreign trade as the imme- pated, a brand of inferiority, became diate result of the submarine actually a recommendation. The German blockade? manufacturers and merchants were quick to seize the opportunity and "Made in A.— The German submarine blockade, Germany" became their slogan which they announced as beginning February i, 1917. sent around the world. The Act never had the following efifect: Exports for ^vas repealed, but has been modified in January, 1917, from the United States, various ways, $613,000,000. Exports for February, $466,- 000,000. The decline in tonnage arriving Q, Did America's foreign trade in February at the port of New York was ^ nrnfit nr lnB»> hw th^ war? 23 per cent below the arrivals in January. P'°^^ '=>^ *°SC °y »e wari- The drop in tonnage cleared was 20 per A.— Th? total foreign commerce of the cent United States for 1917 established a rec- ord. The following are the official fig- Q. — Did England levy heavy duties ures for the years before and after the on German goods? outbreak of the European war:- ... Exports and imports from the United A.— Great Britain made no discnmina- States for the calendar year 1915, and tion whatever. All goods — with but few f^r ^ series of calendar years, compare exceptions — could enter the country with- 35 follows: out paying any customs duty at all. Du- T„„„rt^ ties were levied on a few commodities, ^^ Exports. Imports, but without the slightest reference to m? ..... $6,226,000,000 $2,952,000,000 AeirXw of origin Sugar, for instance, I9i6 ,. 5,480,^0,000 2,39i,7i6,33S whether from the West Indies, Australia! IPIS •..,.• 3.554,670.847 J.778.S96,69S India, Russia, France or Germany, had 1914 J'i3,624,05o .787.276,000 to oav a duty of from 10 pence (about '913 2,484,311,176 1,792,183,64s ^ «nts) to 4 shilling 12 pence (about 1912 2,399,217,993 i.8i8,073,0S5 $1.25) a hundred pounds, according to its Excess of quality, irrespective of where it was pro- . exports over duced. imports. 1917 $3,274,000,000 Q. — Did all German goods entering igi6 3,089,184,596 England have to be labelled 191S 1,776,074,152 "Mide in Gennany"? ;^i4 • ■ • • • .......... • • - - - - 3^4.348.049 A.— It was done under an Act known 1912 581,144,938 as the Merchandise Marks Act, which was „ . , , ^ passed in 1887. At that time the Con- Q. — Does Great Britain control the servatives were in power, Lord Salisbury trade of Holland? being Prime Minister. The Act was . _. . . ■ a . .u u .u passed because of the manner m which A.— She does so in effect through the trade marks were falsified, and because Netherlands Oversea Trust. The Dutch 269 270 Questions and Answers were induced by this means early in the war to divide their exports equally be- tween Germany and the Allies— that is to say, if they wished to send a thousand tons of potatoes to Germany they had to send a thousand to Great Britain, de- spite the fact that the Germans would probably have been willing to pay twice as much for the supplies. Later the Allies insisted that the Dutch send the British share to England in their own vessels. The Germans, on the other hand, refused to supply coal to the Dutch unless an equivalent in foodstuffs were sent across to Germany. Q. — Is it true that German goods reached this country after war began? A. — Yes, but the amount was exceed- ingly small compared with that which crossed the Atlantic in ordinary years. For the seven months, March to Sep- tember, before the war, in round figures the value of imports into the States from Germany and Austria was $120,000,000. Prom March to September, 1915, the value of imports from these countries dropped to $22,000,000. This sum includes the goods which were already in neutral ports in the way of shipment or in transit. Q. — Why did Great Britain allow any goods through? A. — As the object of the policy of blockade was to injure the enemy, not neutrals, the Allied Governments in cer- tain cases permitted the export of goods which had been ordered before March It 1915 (when the famous Orders-in- Council were promulgated), and had been either paid for before that date or or- dered on terras which made the neutral purchaser liable to pay whether the goods reached him or not. It is clear that in these cases no harm could be done the enemy or pressure be put upon him by not allowing the goods to pass. Q.— Will there be prosperity or de- pression after the war? A. — That is a question no one can an- swer. This struggle has shattered most financial shibboleths, and has touched the industries and trade of the world as no other conflict ever did. If precedent is anything to go by, there will be great prosperity. The Napoleonic wars, the Crimean War, the American Civil War, the Franco-Prussian War, and the Boer War all involved relatively great increase in the debts of the belligerent nations, and yet they were all followed by low interest rates, advancing security prices and great trade activity in the markets of the defeated as well as those of the vic- torious countries. Q, — How does German trade in general compare with British? A. — Forty years ago the exports of Great Britain were nearly three times those of Germany. In 1913, Germany had almost caught up. The figures were:— Great Britain, £525,000,000; Germany, £496,600,000. Great Britain's exports in 1912 were £487,200,000, actually less than Germany's in 1913. In 191 1 England ex- ported goods to the value of £454,000,000. Germany jn that year exported £398,000,- 000. Q. — When was the Paris Confer- ence held? A. — Allied representatives met in Paris in June, 1916, to formulate economic principles which should govern their con- duct after the war was over. The con- ference projected what was practically an economic boycott of the Central Powers, President Wilson, in his reply to_ the Pope's peace note, definitely committed the United States against any such spe- cific principle. Q. — What were the specific propo- sitions of the Conference? A. — So far as trading with the enemy after the war is concerned, they were as follows : "Whereas the war has put an end to all the treaties of commerce between the Allies and' the enemy Powers, and where- as it is of essential importance that dur- ing the period of economic reconstruction which will follow the cessation of hos- tilities, the liberty of none of the Allies should be hampered by any claim put forward by the enemy Powers to most- favored nation treatment, the Allies agree that the benefit of this treatment shall not be granted to those Powers dur- ing a number of years to be fixed by mu- tual agreement among themselves. "During this number of years the Allies undertake to assure to each other, as far as possible, compensatory outlets for trade in case consequences detrimental to their commerce result from the applica- tion of the undertaking referred to in the preceding paragraph." World Trade 271 Q. — How would this hit the Central Powers? A; — The Allies declared themselves agreed to conserve for the Allied coun- tries before all others their natural re- sources during the whole period of com- mercial, industrial, agricultural, and mari- time reconstruction, and for this purpose they undertake to establish special ar- rangements to facilitate the interchange of these resources. In order to defend their commerce, their industry, their agriculture, and their navigation against economic aggres- sion, resulting from "dumping," or any other mode of unfair competition, the Allies were to fix by agreement a period of time during which the commerce of the enemy Powers should be submitted to special treatment, and the goods origi- nating in their countries be subjected either to prohibitions or to a. special re- gime of an effective character. Q. — Was it contemplated to do more? A. — ^The Allies were to determine by agreement through diplomatic channels the special conditions to be imposed dur- ing the above mentioned period on the ships of the enemy Powers. The Allies were to devise measures to be taken jointly or severally for prevent- ing enemy subjects from exercising in their territories certain industries or pro- fessions which concern national defense or economic independence. Q. — Do economists approve of the plan for cutting our German trade? A. — No.- Although at the time the Paris resolutions were hailed with en- thusiasm by many who misjudged after- war conditions, it was not long before thoughtful men everywhere began to see how utterly impossible it will be to put them into 'force. One of the first to raise his voice against the economic blockade was Yves Guyot, most distinguished of French economists. He was Minister of Public Works for some years. Many of his works have been translated into Eng- lish, and are regarded as text books. M. Guyot, speaking in London, said that "any attempt to suppress free exchange of goods between France and Germany could be advantageous only to smug- glers." Dealing with the drastic measures proposed, he said that "a treaty of peace could not be a treaty of war." EUROPE'S FOOD Q.— What rations are allowed to an Englishman? A. — A system of rationing went into effect in London and the English counties on meat, butter and margarine on Feb- ruary 25, 1918. The allowance for meat is 20 ounces per mature person per week. Children over 10 are entitled to only one- half a pound weekly. Meat, butter and margarine may be obtained on ration-cards only. On the meat cards are four coupons for each. Of these only three may be used in buy- ing butchers' meats, such as beef, mutton and pork. The butter and margarine ration is four ounces per person weekly. Q. — Were meatless days ordered in England? A. — Not until January, 1918, when Lord Rhondda, the Food Controller, issued an order applying to all hotels, restaurants, boarding houses, and public places, to begin forthwith. It specified two meatless days weekly — Tuesdays and Fridays in the London district, and Wednesdays and Fridays in other parts of the kingdom. It ordered that between the hours of 5 and 10:30 o'clock in the morning no meat, poultry, or game rnay be consumed on any day, and no milk may be con- sumed as a beverage except by children under ten years of age. A guest must provide his own sugar for sweetening beverages except that resi- dents of hotels, clubs, and boarding houses may be supplied with not exceed- ing six ounces of sugar weekly for this purpose, if they do not possess the ordi- nary sugar rations. Q. — Had England done anything else in food regulation? A. — In 1916 it was made illegal for bread to be sold unless it were at least twelve hours old, and in the shape of a one-piece oven bottom loaf, or a tin loaf or a roll, no currant, sultana, or milk bread to be sold, and no sugar to be used in making bread. Bakers were also pro- hibited from exchanging new bread for old. All bread was to be sold by weight, and the loaves had to weigh under i pound or an even number of pounds, and loaves net weighing the prescribed amount were to be cut up and sold by weight. Rolls had to weigh 2 ounces. Q. — What was the price for pota- toes fixed in Great Britain? A. — ^The fixing of prices created a good deal of criticism and protest in England and ultimately it was decided that the prices named should not be regarded as contract prices, but as minimum prices, guaranteed by the Government for pota- toes of thfe first quality. Prices were as follow : is iss. per ton for delivery from De- cember IS to January 31, 1917. i6 per ton for delivery in February and March, 1917. 16 IDS. per ton for delivery for the re- mainder of the season, for quantities of not less than six tons, F.O.B. or F.O.R. Q. — Were meat prices high in Eng- land in igi8? A. — It was reported in March that the prices ranged from about 43 cents a pound for "the best cuts to about 25 cents a pound for inferior cuts. Q. — Did the British nation's whole food cost increase very heav- ily? A.— England's imports of foodstuffs in the whole of 1917 increased $198,500,000 in cost over the preceding year, the in- crease being very largely due to higher prices. Q. — ^Is it possible to purchase sugar in England without buying other provisions at the same time? A.— It is illegal for anybody to make conditional food-sales in Great Britain. Food Order, 1917, provides that, except under authority of the Food Controller, no person, may impose any condition, when selling any article of food, to neces- sitate the purchase of any other article. Grocers may not sell any article of food in excess of the customer's ordinary re- quirements'. 272 Europe^s Food 273 Q.— Whence does England draw most of her supplies in peace? A. — She obtained the following sup- plies of wheat in 1913, 1914 and 1915 in cwts. : — Place. 1913 U. S. A. 22,000,000 A r g e n- tina .. 16,000,000 India ... 21,500,000 Canada 19,000,000 Russia . 10,700,000 A'stralia 12,000,000 Roumania 896,000 Chile .. 511,000 1914- 191S- 34,200,000 41,600,000 - 6,500,000 12,200,000 10,700,000 13,900,000 31,500,000 19,700,000 7,200,000 800,000 12,100,000 200,000 343,000 51,000 Total 102,607,000 102,594,000 88,400,000 This would seem to suggest that dur- ing 1915 England must have drawn on her stores for at least 14,000,000 cwts., and, therefore, had to enter 1916 with a more slender margin between importation and consumption than is customary. Q. — What foods does England im- port and raise? A. — It is somewhat difficult to answer that question as there are so many items, and given in such different measures, while no estimate even can be made as to the local production of many articles of food. The main staples can, however, be given ; — Produced in U. K, Imported. Tons. Tons, Wheat and flour.. 1,600,000 6,100,000 Butter 84,000 200,000 Potatoes 5,500,000 200,000 Cheese 140,000 120,000 Margarine 70,000 Sugar 1,800,000 Maize 2,200,000 Rice 300,000 Rabbits ? 20,000 Beef 800,000 480,000 Mutton 200,000 250,000 Bacon and hams.. 390,000 280,000 Eggs ? 2,225,000,000 eggs (worth £7,300,000) . The total value of food imports in 1913 was $1,381,000,000. Q. — ^Just what proportion of wheat is imported? A.— The Prime Minister told the House of Commons in 1916 that between 70 and 80 per cent of the staple cereal supply was imported every year. He said then that the existing food stocks were alarm- ingly low, and urged that every effort should be, made to increase that year's harvest and the next. If the area under cultivation was not increased at once, he said, the nation might have to choose be- tween diminishing its military efforts and underfeeding its population, Q. — Were there heavy imports of wheat into England during 1916? A. — The imports for what is called the harvest year (September i, 1915, to August 31, 1916) were practically the same as for the previous one, 1914-15, viz., 106,000,000 cwts., as compared with 110,000,000 cwts. for 1913-14, but the home production was 41,500,000 cwts., as against 31,300,000 in 1913-14, and 36,700,- 000 cwts. in 1914-15. During the last five months of 1916 viz., from June 17th to December. 16th, the imports were as fol- low: June 17- June 17- June 17- Dec. 16, Dec. 16, Dec. 16. 1916. I915. 1914. Cwts. Cwts. Cwts. Imports 49,271,200 50,897,000 64,502,300 Home grown 18,416,500 16,059,600 17,876,300 Total 67,687,700 66,956,600 82,378,600 It would seem, therefore, that the im- ports during the twelve months of 1916 were a good deal behind those of 1914. Q. — Is it true that supplies — nota- bly sugar — shipped to the Al- lies have been resold to Amer- icans? A. — Food shipped to the Allies is, from the moment of its arrival, under super- vision or control of Government^ agencies. In Italy such an agency exists since 1915, under control of a "Commissary General ai Supplies." Especially drastic regulations govern the use, import and export of sugar. In France, a special "Ministry of Pro- visioning and Maritime Transports" takes care of all imports and exports. In England the "Ministry of Food" and the "Royal Wheat Commission" look after such matters. To re-sell supplies exported from America to the Allies is, therefore,; next to impossible. 274 Questions and Answers Q. — Has the amount as well as the value of meat imports into Great Britain greatly increased since war began? A. — During 1916, 533,811 tons of frozen and chilled meat were imported into the United Kingdom, as against 662,925 tons in 1915, and 694,427 tons in 1914. It is probable that the amount consumed in England was nearly the same in 1916 as it was in 1914, because large quantities were diverted to the British armies on the Continent, and do not appear in the statistics. The total amount of meat con- sumed in 1916, including the home-killed supplies, was 1,677,548 tons. The value of meat imported in 1914 was f 30,059,527 ; in 1915, £39,576,930; and in 1916, £36,484,- 143. Q. — What sheep, pigs, and cattle are in the United Kingdom? A. — In 1914 there were 12,184,505 head of cattle ; 27,960,000 sheep ; 3,952,600 pigs. Sheep had increased in number by 200,000 in 191S, but cattle and pigs had decreased to 12,000,000 and 3,860,000 respectively. Of the pigs 2,400,000 were in England and Wales, 100,000 in Scotland, and 1,300,000 in Ireland. Ireland had 4,850,- 000 of the cattle and England 5,300,000. There were 1,850,000 horses in 1914 and 150,000 fewer in 1915. Q.— Has the British War Office called agricultural laborers un- der the Compulsory Service Bill? A. — Apparently it called up 30,000 men before 1917. Lord Derby, the Minister of War, says that about 180,000 agriculturists have joined the forces since the beginning of the war, and that in 1918, 30,000 men of military age were employed on or about the farms of England and Wales. From that number the War Office had been authorized to take 60,000 men who had been refused exemption by the tribunals. The War Cabinet, however, re- duced this number to 30,000, and pre- sumably no more will be taken off the land. Obviously it will be difficult for the farmers of Great Britain to produce increased crops when almost half their laborers have gone to France. Q. — Are children much used in England in agricultural work? A. — There has been a good deal of pro- test concerning the way in which children have been* working in the fields, thus los- ing many months of their school educa- tion at a time when it was most neces- sary to them. The need for labor, how- ever, induced educational authorities to release large numbers of children from compulsoty attendance at_ school. The Kent Educational Committee, for in- stance, in January, 1917, released ^638 children for agricultural work, and simi- lar action' has been taken all over the country. Q. — Could England, Scotland and Ireland together produce enough to feed the United Kingdom? A. — Probably they could, but it would be at the expense of some of their great industries. Millions now engaged in manufacturing work would have to go on the land. Great estates would have to be cut up and up-to-date methods would have to be employed. At present the United Kingdom produces enough wheat to last its people for three, pos- sibly four, months. To provide a full wheat supply 6,000,000 acres would have to be cultivated instead of 1,850,000, acres as before the war; or the yield per -acre would have to be increased as it was in Germany. Sugar* beet factories would have to be erected and great areas would have to be planted with this root crop. The dairying industry would have to be immensely developed; fisheries, too; and the working classes would have to revert to their one meat-meal a week, to which they were accustomed before cold stor- age brought lamb, mutton and beef within their reach. Thus, to become self- supporting. Great Britain would have to turn herself into an agricultural country and cease to be a great industrial center of the world. Q. — Does England get much food from Holland and Scandinavia? A.— The value of the imports from Holland before the war was about £19,- 000,000, ffom Denmark about £20,000,000, from Nonway about £7,000,000, and from Sweden about £12.000,000 per annum, a total of £58,000,000 every year. Practic- ally the whole of the imports from Hol- land were foodstuffs : Peas, rice, eggs, fish, cheese, butter (£1,000,000), mar- garine (£2,000,000), sugar (£2,000,000), hides, poultry, condensed milk. From Denmark too, little but food was im- ported, butter accounting for more than half the total, the rest being made up of eggs, bacon and other dairy produce. Europe's Food 275 From Norway the largest food export was fish (£938,000 in 1914) ; butter, ice, fish-oil together amounted to barely £500,000. The chief items were paper, wood-pulp, and timber. From Sweden not only about £2,000,000 worth of butter, eggs, and the like were obtained, but over £1,000,000 of iron and iron ore was sent from Sweden to Great Britain. Wood- pulp, paper and timber amounted to more than £8,000,000. Q. — Does Great Britain produce most of the pork she requires? A, — No. She relies heavily upon Den- mark, Holland and the United States for supplies of bacon, pork and ham. The President of the Board of Agriculture has, however, urged the breeding of large numbers of pigs, and has suggested the starting of "Pig Clubs" in every district. The object of these clubs is to get in touch with those who are willing to keep a pig, and to find out to what extent they need financial assistance in the purchase of the animal. This method had already been in good working order for some time in Germany. Pigs, there, are always very numerous, and form one of the greatest meat supplies of the country. Some time ago, it is reported, everyone able to do so was required to keep a pig. The piglet was supplied by the authorities, and when it had grown up, was taken away, and replaced by another small pig- let. In this way, the Germans have greatly increased the number of pigs available for market throughout the whole empire. Q. — Why do European nations not use more corn? A. — They are not accustomed to it What they call "corn" is wheat and rye. Their name for our corn is "maize," and that, by the way, is the correct name. In reading European articles, it is well to remember that the word "corn" means the real cereals in Europe. Many a writer on Europe has made queer mis- takes by not being aware of this. Q. — Could we not induce them to use our corn? A. — In 1918 the Europeans decided to do so. Their food shortage was such that the Allies consented to much greater use of corn than had been anticipated. The Allied countries normally raise 121,- 109,000 bushels of corn and import from the United States 10,811,000 bushels, and 135,670,000 from other sources, their total consumption in pre-war times being 266,- 596,000 biishels. Of a crop of 3.124,000,000 bushels the United States expected to have a surplus of about 370,000,000 bushels, and Canada a 62,000,000 bushel surplus. Q. — How many nations in Europe are self-supporting? A. — Every European nation relies to some extent upon imports, and if these were suddenly to stop, it would entail great hardships on certain countries, while some would suffer heavily. The producing; countries could exist after a fashion, but in others the people would starve quickly. The two countries most dependent' on supplies from beyond their borders are the United Kingdom and Italy. Great Britain largely lives on im- ported foodstuffs, and gets copper, oil, cotton, wool and other essential raw ma- terial from overseas. Italy has to rely entirely on' other countries for coal, and imports immense quantities of wheat, meat and other foodstuffs. France could ,exist without imports even more easily than Germany has done. Countries like Denmark, Holland, Norway and Sweden, although they import foodstuffs, probably could make shift to support themselves. Great poverty would result, however, if the condition should last long. Almost all these countries lack coal. Probably the most self-supporting coun- tries in Europe are Spain, Austria-Hun- gary, Bulgaria, Serbia, Turkey and Rus- sia. Switzerland lives largely on import- ed cereals; and has to get coal and other minerals from abroad. Q. — Has the productivity of France decreased since the war? A. — There has been a notable decrease. Edmond Thery made a special study of French agriculture, and published the fol- lowing remarkable tables. The first of the tables deals with cereals, and is as follows (the figures representing thou- sands of quintals and covering the total production of France) : — Years Mean Wheat. Rye. Barley. Oats. 1905-1914 87,970 12,869 9,862 48,995 1913 86,919 12,715 10,438 51,826 igi4 ...... 76,936 11,147 9,753 46,206 1915 , 60,630 8,420 6^921 34,626 igi6 ,. 58,411 9,116 8,579 41,280 The second table gives similar figures 276 Questions and Answers for potatoes, wine, sugar, and is as fol- lows : — Pota,toes. Wine. Sugar. Millions Millions Millions of of Hecto- of Years. Quintals, litres. Kilos. Mean 190S-1914 134 53 70s 1913 136 44 878 1914 120 56 717 1915 94 18 303 1916 88 33 136 Thery considers the state of affairs will be worse after the war, because of the anticipated competition of manufacturers and traders for labor. Q.— Have the French restricted food consumption? A. — Yes. M. Heriot, the wonderful organizer of Lyons, who was made Food Controller in France, issued a decree that food consumption must be reduced. Ac- cording to this decree no person in any public feeding place could be served with more than two dishes, only one of which could be meat. Apart from these two dishes the consumer was entitled to soup or hors d'ceuvres, and cheese or dessert, but not both. Vegetables, whether cooked or raw, were to be counted as separate dishes if served separately. In order_ to reduce the consumption of flour, milk, eggs and sugar, entremets were sup- pressed. All restaurant menus had to be radically simplified, and were subject to ofBcial inspection and control. They could not include more than two soups and nine dishes, which were as follow: One dish of eggs of various sorts, two varieties of fish, three varieties of vege- tables. Q. — Is less French land cultivated now than before the war? A. — Under wheat in the early part of 1917 there were 4,207,530 hectares, as against 5,205,620 in I9i6j, which was less than normal. Under millet there were 84,485 hectares, as against 101,205 in 1916; under rye 809,735 hectares, as against 925,600 in 1916, and under oats 2,605,070 hectares, as against 3,044,760 in 1916. Only in barley was there a slight increase, 596,705 hectares in 1917 to 586,- 285 in 1916. The average yield per hec- tare was much less. Q.— Does Chile export wheat? A. — Chile once supplied Argentine and California with wheat, but after these countries became producers themselves the Chileap output declined. The value of the wlreat exported the year before the war was about $5,000,000. Most of it went to Great Britain. Q. — When were the European sugar bounties abolished? A. — They were abolished by the Con- vention of Brussels in 1902. An object of this Convention was to put an end to the bounty war for the British market, which the Continental Powers had been waging amoiig themselves. In England it was hoped that the sugar cane growers of the West Indies would benefit. The Continental Powers agreed to the aboli- tion of the bounties only on the distinct understanding that special tariffs equal to the bounty should be levied on sugar produced in countries not signatories to the Convention. Great Britain, however, in igo8, when the treaty came up for renewal, declared that she would sign only if she were allowed to import boun- ty-fed-sugar on the same terms as she imported sugar not bounty-fed. The Continental Powers strongly protested, but only by being relieved from the un- dertaking to penalize bounty-fed sugar would Great Britain re-sign the Conven- tion. Q. — Did the price of sugar go up in England in consequence? A. — In igo2 the price of sugar f.o.b. Hamburg was 6s. 7>^d. per cwt. ; next year it went up to 8s. 3j^d., and in 1908 it was 10s. 554d. In this connection it is worth quoting what Mr. Chamberlain said on the question of sugar, before he be- came a protectionist: — "The policy which this country has been applying for many years is to pre- fer the lar=ge consuming interests of the whole community to the small producing interest of any single class. ... It is to the interest of the sugar consuming pub- jicto have raw and refined sugar cheap; it is to the interest of the English sugar refineries to have raw sugar cheap and refined sugar dear, and it is to the interest of the West India sugar growers to have raw sugar dear." Q. — Did Germany pay larger boun- ties than any other country? _A. — The_ French bounties were the highest of all, averaging 4s. 6d. per cwt. Then camfe the Russian with 3s. ; then the German with is. 6d. ; and then the Austrian with is. 3d, Europe's Food 277 Q.— Give particulars as to where Q. — What sugar was imported into sugar imported into Great the United Kingdom before Britain before the war came war? from. A. — 27,900,000 cwts, in 1910, 30,300,000 A— Tlip ran*- «ipar wa^ all imnfirted ^W'*" '" '^H, 26,600,000 CwtS. in I9I2, rfu f^u -^ ^ imported j 31,106,000 cwts. in 1913. Just over ll7o- f°"°^'"8 fis""« ^"^ f"-- half of fhe annual import came from ' T?aw Patip ^iiirar Germany and Austria. Beet sugar was Kaw Lane sugar. ^j^^ imported from Holland and Russia. J TiR-jn.) Cane sugar was obtained from the West i?V nA,,^ Indies and India. It is interesting to p„u I6206 "°*^' though, that, although the British g ji ti'460 West Indies are regarded as mainly Ma„ritiiiV Aj'^m sugar-growing countries, the value of w.ct T„^!« tkii^ their cocoa and fruit exports is greater Ser'cottHeV::::::::_S ^'^^ ^'^^V'^^ '^^^ -^- --<^^^^- -j-Qtgj 553,291 Q- — ^s Canada asking British sol- diers to go there when war is Raw Beet Sugar. over? D„55;. Q, A. — The Canadian Commissioner of Germanv 220 070 Immigration visited England, and on his Holland 20 204 return to Canada announced that he an- ^ , ■ _ ,„'S< ticipated a tremendous immigration of FrlncT. ::::::::::::::: 'S ^-p^"-' — -" -^"• ■^"'^"* ^^'^'^ Q.— What are the Metropolitan Total 319,707 Public Kitchens of England ? Great Britain, however, got most of .A~'^\^''LZ^' t°.^^"^'' ^^ °""" her sugar ready refined, and practically ^^^ '" .^ay, 1917. It can serve 10,000 all of this was made from beet. The ^^als daily. The menu on the openmt . . " „ f „ii„,,, . day was : Scotch broth, 2d. and id. ; roast imports were as follow.- ^^^^ beef or mutton, 4d.; fruit mould, Hce or „ .. 2 2gg date pudding, i^d.; maize scones, i^d.; J^ ,^,\n% greens, id. ; no potatoes, tea or coffee. HoS . ; '.'.'.\'.\'.'.'.'.'.'.'. filfiTi (The English penny is about 2 cents.) Fri^cT. :::::::::::::;: 6^;S q— Did the Chicago beef packers Austria 199,466 protest against British confis- Other countries 80,707 cations ? rp . . 816862 ^- — '^h^y objected to the seizure in the first place, and to the long delay of the The value of the raw cane sugar was British Prize Courts in the second Meat f6,689,345; of the raw beet sugar, =£3,728,- *« *? ^^lue of $15,000,000 wa held up 93i : id if the refined sugar, £13.161,023. "^^ts 'anf ^somT ca'ef Tear y Tyea in the two years 1909 and 1910. ^ed before tTe P?e Courts' ^ave their decisions. In giving his judgment Q.^Was all this sugar consumed about some cargoes of meat destined for in the United Kingdom? Denmark, Sir Samuel Evans said that the ° _ meat was obviously intended for German A. — Great Britain exported in 1910 consumption. 31,416 tons of refined sugar, and con- sumed 1,728,730, of which 1,166,569 tons Q. — What did the Americans con- were beet sugar and 562,161 tons cane tend' sugar. The year 1910 is hardly a truly . „, ' . . , ... representative one, as there was a bad A.— The American packers contended drought in Europe, and sugar was scarce, that no proof whatever was produced that In igoo 1 467 764 tons of beet sugar were this was so, and quoted Mr. Asquith's ex- consumed in the United Kingdom, and planation that the increase of coal exports 292 393 tons of cane sugar. from Great Britain to Scandinavian coun- 278 Questions and Answers tries "was not so much due, and indeed was not due at all, to their being ulti- .mately destined for Germany, as the fact was that these countries were deprived for the time being of the supplies that they have been accustomed to receive from the enemy countries." Q. — What have European countries done about the use of alcohol? A.^France and Italy abolished the fa- mous and deadly drink known as absinthe. Russia prohibited the noted distilled brandy-like _ drink known as vodka. Great Britain greatly limited brewing. Q. — Was drunkenness in England really great? A. — The figures of convictions for drunkenness in the sixteen English cities which have a population of over 200,000 show a notable decrease since the war. In the year 1913 the conviction in these sixteen large towns were .107,316. In 1915 the convictions were 80,091, and in 1916 they were 46,638. In London the drop has been from 65,488 in 1913, to 29,453 in 1916. In Liverpool the con- victions in 1913 were 14,894, and in igi6 only 5,926. Of course millions of men have gone into the army, but this is to a great extent balanced by the fact that the working classes have been fully employed at high wages, which fact, in ordinary circumstances, would tend to increase drunkenness ; so that the decrease may reasonably be credited to the way in which the sale and consumption of liquor have been regulated. Q. — Was the decrease due mostly to restrictions on liquor? A.— Notably. The _ Central Control Board states that during the five years 1909-13, there was a steady rise in the number of convictions for drunkenness. A rapid decline set in immediately after the orders of the Board came into op- eration. In December, 1913, the total con- victions in the London areas numbered 5,701 ; in December, 1914, they were S,29S; in December, 1915, they were 3,105. In February, 1916, they had fallen to 2,506. From statistics gathered by the Board it would seem that the reduction of drUnkenhess throughout England was from 40 to 50 per cent. Results in Scot- land had not been so satisfactory. The Board was taking special steps to deal with the increase of drunkenness among women, especially those in receipt of separatioti allowances. Q. — Was the English order for re- strictions of beer intended for temperance? A. — Lord Devonport in explaining it specifically stated that the object, was to increase the amount of certain commodi- ties available for food, and to economize in tonnage, transport, fuel and labor. During the last few years, owing to vari- ous restrictions, the consumption of beer, wines, and spirits had been falling rapidly in the United Kingdom, but the consump- tion of other beverages showed a corre- sponding increase. The Board of Trade returns give the imports of tea, coffee and cocoa, as follow : — Tea. Cofifee. Cocoa (raw) lbs. cwts. lbs. 1913 .. 365,000,000 847,000 78,000,000 1916 .. 377,000,000 1,647,000 196,000,000 The imports of tea in 1915 reached an even higher figure, the amount being 431,- 000,000 pounds. That is to say, that in 1916 room; had to be found in ships for 2,000,000 cwts. more tea, coffee and cocoa than in the year before the war. Q. — Did restrictions on beer in England save much barley? A.— According to Lord Devonport the regulations, which reduced the output of beer to 50= per cent of the pre-war total, saved 286,000 tons of barley, 36,000 tons of sugar, and 16,500 tons of grits. It was really, he said, a question of bread versus beer. The regulation actually provided for the malting of 70 per cent only of the output of beer for the financial year ending on March 31, 1917, which is equivalent to a reduction of SO per cent on the pre-war production. Before the war the output was 36,000,000 standard barrels; for 1917 it was expected to be 18,200,000 only. Q.— Has Congress restricted the manufactyre of whiskey? A.— Yes. Under the provisions of the Food Control Act passed in August, 1917, the manufacture of whiskey was pro- scribed for an indefinite period begin- ning September 7, 1917. This provision is a grain-saving measure and 40,000,000 bushels of gram a year is the estimated saving. AMERICA'S FOOD Q. — Did the Food Board under took more than half of the entire total, Hoover have power to fix retail ST enough to feed about 8,000,000 men, nrirpe? r ranee was next, with enough for 4,200,' prices r 000 n^g„^ ^^^j j^^^jy sufficient for more A.~No. Congress declined to give than 2,000,000 men. The three together such powers, and it is probably correct received an excess of protein capable of to say that the Administration did not supplying; this portion of the diet to strongly desire them, because of com- some 20,Qpo,ooo additional men. plications and opposition that could be_^ ■ foreseen readily enongh. Q- — Did. we ship much food abroad in February, 1918? Q.— How, then, did the Govern- A.— The exports of grains and cereals, ment succeed in regulating re- including flour, to the Allied nations and tail dealers? fo"" Belgium relief work totaled 553.425 A Ti j-j i I. J.. -^ I. « to'is ^t"" the month of February, 1918. A.--It did not succeed, if by sue- a tabulation of the exports of grains ceed you mean in keeping retail prices ^nd cereals by weeks was : down to prescribed levels. It did, how- Tons ever, succeed in a very large sense, for pg], i to 7 84 6i;8 it established not only a strong and in- pg^l g jg 1/ /__.'/_ _'_'/,/,[['_'//_[ iSo'oos telligent public opinion but also a general Peb. 15 to 21. ............. .'.'.'.'. 143*820 clear perception among the retail mer- Feb! 22 to 28. ! ...!.!!!.!.! !!.!. I74'847 chants of the whole country that they must exercise discretion and moderation. Total 551420 Q.— Did the Food Board exercise Q.—Did our total food exports rise only moral influence? in 191 7? A.— Technically and legally speaking. A.— Th6 Bureau of Domestic and For- yes. But in actuality Hoover's machinery eign Commerce reported early in 1918 had a very real and very powerful wea- that during 1917 dairy and meat product pon to compel observance of rules that exports had jumped to new high figures had no statute law behind them. This but cereal exports had declined. The ex- weapon lay in the legal control which ports of meat, dairy products and food Congress had given to the Food Board animals in 1917 exceeded $400,000,000, over the wholesale system of food sup- against less than $150,000,000 in the year plies. Under a licensing system for before the war, and against $255,000,000 wholesalers, the Food Board was able, in in the high record year 1916. Part of actual practice, to divert supplies from this increased value is due, of course, to retail dealers who transgressed the rules, the vastly, higher prices ; but the actual quantities have increased enormously. Q. — How many European soldiers The exports of wheat for 1917 were 106,- rniilH wp fppfl? 202,318 bushels, for which the foreign couia we teea.- ^ interests paid $245,633,541- These exports A.— The Food Administration an- were 48 million bushels less than for nounced in March, 1918, that food suf- 1916. To.tal shipments of corn in 1917 ficient to furnish a balanced ration to an were 52,169,583 bushels, against 55,548,- average of more than 16,000,000 men 298 bushels in 1916. yearly was shipped from the United 'r n States from the beginning of the war to Q, — What quantity of flour did we January I, 1918, to Great Britain, France, ship' since war began? Italy, and Russia. In addition, there was a n,, ^ ^ , ^ r i,„ i. „„j a surplus of some 625,000 tons of protein .^..-The total exports of wheat and anH ^fiSnnn tnnS7s,36o pounds (more than half a_ million tons) and they had been run- nmg at the rate of more than 2,240,000 pounds per day during February, 1918. Q. — How much copper did we re- fine? A. — The country's refineries produced in 1917 a total of 2,300,000,000 pounds, an increase of 102,600,000 pounds over the output of copper in the preceding year. When the war began in 1914 the refinery capacity o*f the United States was esti- mated at 1,778,000,000 pounds a year. Since then additional facilities have been created which should enable the refining works to produce 2,780,000,000 pounds a year. Q. — Did we use much more copper after we entered the war? A. — The, consumption of copper in 1917 which -passed through the refineries of the United States is estimated to have absorbed all the metal prepared for mar- ket in the twelve months and nearly 20,- 000,000 pounds in addition. That is, the stocks of refined copper held over from 1916, which amounted to about 128,000,000 pounds at the end of the year, were not only not increased during 1917, but were reduced to a level in the neighborhood of 100,000,000 : pounds. Q. — What is the monthly copper prodiiction of all America? A, — The copper production of the Western Hemisphere in January, 1918, is estimated to have been approximately 173,000,000- pounds, an increase of 4,000,- 286 Questions and Answers 000 pounds over the December output. If this extreme rate of production could be maintained the year around (which is highly improbable) the total output of copper for this hemisphere alone would be more than a million tons in the year. Q.— Is much copper found in Chile? A. — At one time Chile was the greatest producer of copper in the world, but her mines have been neglected. The great war demand for copper has, however, caused much activity, and Americans have invested largely. Q. — Whence does Great Britain get most of her copper? A.-^^From the United States, mostly in the form of un wrought copper. Of the total British import in 1914 of 147,700 tons, 94,800 was from the United States. Q. — Could the Allies get enough gasoline in their own hemi- sphere? A. — The need of the Allied nations in Europe for American gasoline was dis- played in the January, 1918, figures of exports, reported by the Bureau of Com- merce. The amount of gasoline, naph- thas and other light refined oil products shipped abroad was 41,686,142 gallons, compared with 35,335,977 in the same month, 1917, and 38,065,244 in January, 1916. Crude oil, fuel oil and residuum, lubricating and illuminating oil exports declined substantially in comparison with the preceding January. Gasoline for ex- port in barrels was advanced 20 points in price by the Standard Oil Company of New York on February 27 last. The price in 1918 was reported at 12.70 cents a gallon when shipped in barrels. Q. — Does the British Admiralty own oil fields in Southern Per- sia and Asia Minor? A. — Yes. It was to protect this source of supply that early in the war a British warship appeared in the Persian Gulf, and a very strong Indian contingent was landed, which speedily took Basra (the old Bassorah of Sinbad the Sailor in the Arabian Nights Tales), the port from which the oil is shipped. Q. — From which countries is petro- leum drawn? A. — Most of it comes from the United States, but Mexico's yield is steadily in- creasing. During 1915 the recorded pro- duction was as follows : — Gallons. United States 11,806,372,368 Russia 2,879,018,604 n ?l% ■ V VJ- 1.382,241,336 Uutch llast Indies 520,245,936 Roumania 505,256,346 British India 310,800,000 Galicia I74,673,7S8 Q. — How much oil is being ob- tained from the Mexican oil- fields? A. — It seems certain that hardly a start has been made toward the actual full development of the Mexican oil-fields, which are in the Tampico district. Fif- teen of the wells now operated there have a capacity «f 250 million barrels a year. When we note that the total yield on oil in the United States in 1916 was 307 mil- lion barrels,; we are led to credit the as- sertion thai the full capacity of the Tam- pico territory probably would equal the output of all other oil regions in the world combined. Q. — Who owns the Tampico oil- fields=? A. — They belong for the greater part to four great companies, although there are about 275 smaller operators. The big companies are: the Mexican Petroleum, controlling 700,000 acres, incorporated in California; the Aguila, holding 700,000 acres close to the coast, a British cor- poration, controlled by Lord Cowdray; the Royal Dutch Shell Trading and Transport Company, holding 1,000,000 acres in two blocks, in which Queen Wil- helmina and the Royal Family of Holland are interested, as are the Rothschilds; the Penn Mex Oil Company, owning 600,000 acres just south of Tampico, a Standard Oil concern. Q.— Does Great Britain depend greatly on imports for raw ma- terial? A. — She depends almost entirely upon them for everything except coal and iron. She produces about 5,000,000 tons of iron from her own ore, and about 4,500,000 from foreign ores; in addition, in ordi- nary times, she imported about 5,000,000 tons of iron and steel from abroad. She has to import all the copper she needs, and practically all the tin and lead. No cotton is grown in England, or rubber. Silk must all come from overseas, and The World's Raw Materials 287 almost all the petroleum, too, must cross the water. Much wool is produced, but far more has to be imported, and there is, in ordinary times, very little timber hewn in the United Kingdom. Leather, in the form of hides and skins, comes from abroad, and immense quantities of oil- seeds, fats, gums, and the like, have to be imported. _ The value of the raw material brought into the country in 1913 was £281,000,000 ($1,400,000,000). In all, some £668,000,000 worth of foodstuffs and raw and semi-manufactured material went into the United Kingdom in 1913. Q.— ^How many paper mills are there in Great Britain? A. — In ordinary times there were 270 mills usually engaged in making paper. Many of these must have closed down owing to the shortage of supplies. Q. — Does Great Britain ordinarily draw most of her wood pulp from Sweden? A. — Roughly half. The rest comes from Norway and Canada. _ Lord North- cliffe owns large forests in Newfound- land, and has an up-to-date pulping plant not far from St. Johns. He turns the pulp into paper in his mills in England, however. By no means all the paper pro- duced in Great Britain is made from wood pulp. Much of it is produced from esparte grass, huge quantities of which come from Algeria in ordinary times. Q. — Has the English prohibition of wood pulp severely hit the Swedes? A. — It must have done so. Before the war some 30,000 workers were employed in the wood-pulp mills, and since the struggle began the production of pulp should have increased materially, as the German supplies were no longer avail- able for the world's markets. Q.-^How much wood pulp does Great Britain usually import from Sweden? A.— About £i,soo,ooo ($7,500,000) worth annually. Q. — Is wood pulp the principal ma- terial exported to Great Brit- ain from Sweden? A.— No. It comes sixth on the list. The main thing exported is timber. More than $50,000,000 worth is exported annu- ally, £3,000,000 worth going to Great Britain. The other notable purchase from Sweden is butter. Nearly £2,000,000 worth is sent across the North Sea for British consumption. Q. — Is there a Controller of the timber of the United King- dom? A.— Sir Dampfylde Fuller was appoint- ed by the War Office Controller of Tim- ber in February. He. is concerned with the supply of timber for the use of the army and ^ the control of use of timber in the United Kingdom, with a view to effecting economy in its use for all pur- poses, and the stimulation of the felling of timber in the United Kingdom. Sir Dampfylde was Lieut.-Governor of East- ern Bengal, and has had a long experience in India in various capacities. Q. — Were the forests of England felled to provide wood for trench building in France and mining in England? A. — Lloyd George has said that more labor would be required for the felling and sawing of timber than for the mining of iron ore, which was making a very heavy demand on the labor market. He mentioned that Great Britain irnported 6.400,000 tons of timber. Of this total 2,000,000 were pit props for the colleries, and the bulk of the remainder was used for military purposes in England and France. We have to remember that freshly felled trees do not give much wood suitable for use in mining, where seasoned yvood is required. It is said that none of the trees being felled in British or French forests will be fit to use for any purpose for at least eighteen months after cutting. Q. — Is it true that wooden clogs are being worn in England? A. — Owing to the great scarcity of leather wooden shoes came into demand in the United Kingdom. The old indus- try of making them was revived, and when the Belgian Government attempted to place an order for 100,000 pairs of sabots it was found that the English workers were so busy making wooden shoes for home use that no one could undertake to produce any for other needs. Q,— How much cotton does Egypt produce? A. — The Nile yield is about 800,000,000 pounds. In a good year the crops might 288 Questions and Anstvers possibly be increased by about lo per cent, but this is the utmost that can_ be expected with the area under cultivation. It is said that the production could be increased by about lOO per cent if all pos- sible irrigation works are executed in Egypt and in the Upper Nile region, but that result could not be attained for an- other 25 or 30 years. When it had been attained, however, the agricultural re- sources of the country would have been developed to their fullest extent, and the limit of yield would have been reached. Q. — Does Australia lead the world in wool production? A. — Yes. There are indications, how- ever, that eventually the combined produc- tion of Argentine and Uruguay will be greater than hers. Uruguay is a territory where the merino flourishes as well as in Australia. There are said to be about 21,000,000 merinos in all in that country. There also are many in South Africa, but the South African wool is said not to be quite as good as Australian, though some of it brings almost as much in the English markets. Taking the production of 1912, we find that Australasia was re- sponsible for 840,000,000 pounds of the world's wool clip. Argentina for 415,000,- 000 pounds, Russia for 380,000,000 pounds, the United States for 322,000,000 pounds, the United Kingdom for 145,000,000 pounds, Uruguay for 130,000,000, and South Africa for 112,000,000, In 1904 the wool clip in Argentina was only 330,ocKr,ooQ pounds, AMERICAN CONDUCT OF WAR Q.— What is war tax on excess profits? A. — Under the act of October 3, 1917, a tax is levied on the net incomes of in- dividuals, partnerships, or corporations which (after certain permitted deduc- tions) are in excess of certain percentages of the invested capital of such individ- uals, etc. The rates are as follows: 20 per cent of profits not inexcess of 15 per cent of the invested capital; 25 per cent of profits, IS per cent and not in excess of 20 per cent of invested capital; 35 per cent of profits, 20 per cent and not in excess of 25 per cent of invested cap- ital; 45 per cent of profits, 25 per cent and not in excess of 33 per cent of in- vested capital; 60 per cent of profits, 33 per cent and better of invested capital. In addition, in the case of a trade or business (a term which includes the pro- fessions as well) having no invested cap- ital or only a nominal capital, a tax of 8 per cent is levied on all net incomes, of individuals, above $6,000, or of cor- porations, above $3,000. Finally the tax of 12^ per cent which was levied by the act of September 8, 1916, on the net in- comes of all persons, corporations, etc., manufacturing munitions, electric motor boats, submarines, etc., or parts of same, is reduced after January i, next, to 10 per cent. Q.— What is the war tax on in- comes? A.— Under the act of October 3, I9i7. new income taxes are imposed. The pre- ceding law taxed the net incomes of in- dividuals in excess of $3,000 for an un- married man and $4,000 for a head of a family. The war tax bill reduces the exemption of unmarried persons to $1,000 and of heads of families to $2,000, but grants an additional exemption of $200 for each dependent child. The sur- taxes on incomes of $5,000 and over are the same for all, as follows : Between $5,000 and $7,500, i per cent; $7,500 and $10,000, 2 per cent; $10,000 and $12,500, 3 per cent; $12,500 and $15,000, 4 per cent; $15,000 and $20,000, 5 per cent; $500,000 and $750,000, so per cent; $7S0,- 000 and $1,000,000, 55 per cent; $1,000,000 and $1,500,000, 61 per cent; $1,500,000 and $2,006,000, 62 per cent; over $2,000,- 000, 03 per cent. Q.— What is the Trading with the Enemy Act? A.— The; trading with the Enemy Act provides that a person who is "an enemy" or ally of enemy "doing business within the United States" may apply for a license to continue to do business in the United States. This act prohibits and imposes severe penalties on communicating with the enemy, but licenses may be granted for relief, from the various "communica- tions." Q. — Who is ofHcially an enemy of the United States? A. — (a) An enemy, according to the Trading with the Enemy Act, is "Any individual, partnership, or other body of individuals of any nationality, resident within the territory (including that occu- pied by the military and naval forces) of any nation with which the United States is at war, or resident outside the United States and doing business within such territory, and any corporation incorpo- rated within such territory of any nation with which the United States is at war or incorporated within any country other than the United States and doing business within such territory. (b) The government of any nation with which the United States is at war, or any political or municipal subdivison thereof, or any officer, official, agent, or agency thereof. (3) Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, other than citizens of the United States, wher- ever resident, or wherever doing business as the President, if he shall find the safety of the United States or the successful prosecution of the war shall so require, may, by proclamation, include within the term "enejny." 1,000 and $40,000, 8 per cent; $40,000 Q- — What is a person holdmg and $60,000, 12 per cent; $60,000 and $80,000, 17 per cent; $80,000 and $100,000, 22 per cent; $100,000 and $150,000, 27 per cent; $150,000 and $300,000, 42 per cent; $300,000 and $500,000, 46 per cent; property of an enemy expected to do? A. — Any person in the United States who holds or has custody or control of 289 zgo Questions and Answers any property himself or in behalf of an enemy or an ally of an enemy is ex- pected to report the fact to the Alien Property Custodian by written statement under oath, containing such particulars as such custodian may require. Q.— Is a citizen of the United States bound by a contract with a citizen of one of the Central Powers? A. — Any contract entered into prior to the beginning of the war, between any citizen of the United States and any citizen^ of the Central Powers, the terms of which provide for delivery during or after the war, may be abrogated by serv- ing a thirty days' notice in writing, upon the Alien Property Custodian of his dis- trict Q. — What happens to money be- longing to enemies of the United States seized under the Enemy Alien Act? A, — All money paid to the Alien Prop- erty Custodian belonging to the enemy is deposited in the Treasury of the United States and invested by the Secretary of the Treasury in United States bonds. At the end of the war, any claim of an enemy alien or ally of an enemy to any money or other property received or held by the Alien Property Custodian or de- posited in the United States Treasury shall be settled as Congress directs. The President and the officials whom he ap- points to assist him in administering the Trading with the Enemy Act have very broad authority to seize all property of whatever kind and hold it during the period of the war. Q. — What was President Wilson's Cabinet when war began? A. — Secretary of State, Robert Lan- sing; Secretary of the Treasury, William Gibbs McAdoo; Secretary of War, New- ton Diehl Baker; Attorney General, Thomas Watt Gregory; Secretary of the Navy, Josephus Daniels ; Secretary of the, Interior, Franklin Knight Lane; Secre- tary of Agriculture, David Franklin Houston ; Secretary of Commerce, Wil- liam Cox Redfield; Secretary of Labor, William Bauchop Wilson. Q, — Were women called in by the American government to help? A. — A group of ID representative women of the United States was ap- pointed by the Council Of National De- fense, April 21, 1917, to coordinate and centralize the war work of women. The members are Dr. Anna Howard Shaw, of New York; chairman; Miss Ida Tarbell, of New York, vice-chairman ; Mrs. Philip N. Moore, of St. Louis, secretary; Mrs. Stanley McCormick, of Boston, treas- urer; Mrs. Josiah E. Cowles, of Cali- fornia; Miss Maud Wetmore, of Rhode Island; Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, of New York; Mrs. Antoinette Funk, of Illinois; Mrs. Joseph R. Lamar, of Georgia; and Miss Agnes Nestor, of Illinois. The organization has State (Hvi- sions in 4S States, and acts as a mouth- piece of the Government, sending mes- sages to women, stimulating patriotic service, and supplying a channel for ef- fective prosecution of war work. There are 10 departments or sub-committees finding their counterpart in State, county, and civic units, namely, registration, food production and home economics, food administration, women in industry, child welfare, maintenance of existing social service agencies, health and recreation, education. Liberty Loan, and home and foreign relief. Headquarters at 1814 N Street NW., Washington, D. C, is clear- ing house for war activities through organizations and through individ- uals. Q.— -Did Congress assume any part in the question of peace terms? A. — Congress, by common consent, and with the_ undoubted _ approval of the na- tion, avoided discussion for a considerable period after the Declaration of War, and left the matter entirely in the hands of the President. In the session of Congress which passed the Declaration of War, a few sporadic attempts were made to begin discussion but they went no further than isolated speeches and resolutions, which were tabled. The next session of Congress also re- frained from any discussion until after the famous Message by President Wilson outlining peace terms and war aims. On January 3i,„i9i8, Senators Borah of Idaho and Owen of Oklahoma each offered resolutions covering the subject. The resolution^ were supported by speeches, and were referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. These may be held to have been the first actual and really important steps by Congress to reassume its share of activity. American Conduct of War 2gi Q. — Would the use of a base in South America by a German raider infringe the Monroe Doctrine? A. — It has been freely asserted that the existence of such a base would be a violation of this Doctrine, but that asser- tion, like many others, is due to a mis- conception, or, at best, is a great stretch- ing of the principles laid down in the Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine, in its original form, only aimed at preventing European Powers from interfering in the territorial arrangements on the continents of America. The scope of the Doctrine has been enlarged from time to time, and it has come to be regarded as meaning that the United States of America has assumedly a protectorate over all the Latin-American Republics,^ and is respon- sible for their doings. This is, of course, not the case. The United States might interfere in the event of one of these Republics doing something which brought it into direct conflict with some European country. Only in the danger of such a thing happening could the creation of a base for a German raider in South America distinctly have any connection with the Monroe Doctrine. Q.— What is the Monroe Doctrine? A. — ^Washington recommended that the United States should avoid entangling itself in the politics of Europe. That policy has been_ consistently followed, and in our own time was reaffirmed for- mally when the United States delegates signed The Hague Conventions with the proviso that nothing contained therein should be so construed as "to require the United States to depart from its tradi- tional policy of not intruding upon, inter- fering with, or entangling itself in, the political questions, or policy, or inter- nal administration of any foreign State, nor shall anjrthing contamed in the said Conventions be construed to imply a re- linquishment by the United States of its traditional attitude towards purely Amer- ican questions." This "traditional atti- tude" is the second great American prin- ciple, ranking next after Washington's policy. It is known as the Monroe Doc- trine because it was officially and fully declared for the first time by President Monroe in 1823. At that time jt was feared in America that the combination of European Powers known as the Holy Alliance meant to interfere in South America to restore the Spanish colonies to Spain, these having asserted their in- dependence. The Monroe Doctrine de- clared that there must be no intervention by foreign powers in the political affairs of independent American States, and also warned off European Powers desirous of founding colonies on the American con- tinents. Originally aimed to prevent the overthrow of independent republics, the Doctrine has become a permanent part of the foreign policy of the United States, and has come to be regarded as a sort of general protectorate over the whole of the New World. In brief, it means that the United States will not tolerate any European interference whatever in any part of the American continent. Q. — What was the famous Senate bill for creating a War cabi- net? A. — It was a bill made public by the Senate Committee on Military Affairs establishing a War Cabinet to be com- posed of "three distinguished citizens of demonstrated ability," to be appointed by the President, with the advice and con- sent of the Senate. Its powers were to be very great, both as to advice, investiga- tion, and control. Q. — What was the attitude of the President regarding the war cabinet proposal? A. — ^He objected unqualifiedly and sharply. He declared his objection to any form of interference with the executive conduct of the war. Q. — When did Secretary Baker make his famous statement be- fore the Senate? A. — He. made this statement before the Senate Committee on Military Affairs on January 28, 1918. It followed charges made by Senator Chamberlain that the war departjnent had failed to do all that it should have done. The_ Secretary of War had appeared some time before to testify before the Committee, and his statements then had lacked circumstantial- ity and fullness. The statement of Jan- uary 28 was one of the most elaborate ever made by an officer of government in this country, and it ^ave the nation a most vivid and clear picture of the mag- nitude of- the problem confronting the government and people, and of the vast undertakings and efforts that were nec- essary to conduct the war. Q, — What was the gist of the sec- retary's statement? A.— That while errors had been made, and shortcomings existed, the work of 2g2 Questions and Answers the War Department as a whole had been extraordinarily good and successful Q.— When was the post of Sur- veyor-General of Army Pur- chases created, and why? A.— Secretary Baker announced this appointment on January 25 after Senator Chamberlain's public criticisms. The officer thus created was appointed to be in charge of the procurement and pro- duction of all supplies by the five army bureaus, viz., Ordnance, Quartermaster, Signal, Engineer, and Medical. It was to be his duty to co-ordinate such pur- chases and properly relate the same to industry to the end that the army pro- gram be developed under a comprehen- sive plan which should best utilize the resources of the country. Q. — Was an army officer ap- pointed to the new post of Sur- veyor-General? A. — ^A_ civilian was appointed — Edward R. Stettinius, who had been in practical charge of purchases for the Allies during the war while the United States was neutral. He was a member of the firm of J. P._ Morgan and Company, having entered it about two years before. He was born in St. Louis in 1865, was grad- uated from the St. Louis University, and entered business in 1883. From 1906 to 191 S he was president of the Diamond Match Company. Q. — What new American govern- mental agencies were created? A. — Leading agencies were: shipping board, food administration, fuel adminis- tration, war industries board, raw ma- terials board, aircraft production board, Allies' purchasing board, war trade board and a director-general of railroads. There was also a board controlling prior- ity of freight shipments. Q. — What acts, not financial, were passed to authorize war meas- ures? A. — Following the declaration of war (April 6, 1917). Congress passed, first, an act granting the President authority to take over enemy merchant vessels in American ports. On May 18 there was passed the Selective Draft Act, authoriz- ing the drafting of American citizens into a great National Army, and also bringing the Regular Army to full lyar strength. besides placing the various National Guards (armed militia) of the States into the Federal service. Q. — Did: other acts confer further authority on the President? A. — An^ct, called the "espionage act," gave the Federal Government immensely large powers over the people, and inci- dentally authorized the President to lay embargoes on exports at his discretion, an authorization that gave the Government enormous powers of control over the na- tion's and the world's commerce. Then followed a food and fuel bill for exer- cising control over those great economic necessities. There were also the act reg- ulating trade with the enemy and the law for insuring men in the military and naval service of the country. Q. — What was the early effect of government operation of the railroads ? A, — After a month of government op- eration the figures showed that there had been a decided reduction in accumulations of export freight at the seaports, caused by the increased fuelling of ships and by the embargoes placed on certain kinds of shipment. More than 4,000 freight cars thus were emptied and released for further use. The Regional Director of Railroads re- ceived the following detailed report showing the car situation at six North Atlantic ports on January i, 1918, when the government took the roads out of private control, and on February 1, after a month c|f government control: Ports. Jan. i. Feb. i. Dec. P. C. Boston 1,190 998 192 16.14 New York 24,971 ,19,723 5,248 24.02 Philadelphia .. 3,531 3,307 224 6.34 Baltimore 7,164 5,878 1,286 17.95 Newport News. 1,653 1,284 369 22.32 Norfolk ...... 2,592 2,403 189 7.29 All ports ...41,101 33,593 7,508 18.27 Q.— What is the Council of Na- tional Defense? A. — It was established by Congress in 1916, and consists of: Secretary of War, Newton D. Baker, chairman; Secretary of the Navy, Josephus Daniels ; Secretary of the Interior, Franklin K. Lane; Sec- retary of Agriculture, David F. Houston ; Secretary of Commerce, William C. Red- field; Secretary of Labor, William B. Wilson. American Conduct of War 293 Its function as specified in the act of Congress creating it is stated as the "creation of relations which will render possible in time of need the immediate concentration and utilization of the re- sources of the nation." Q. — Was there any addition to it? A. — Yes. The act establishing it pro- vided for an Advisory Commission to be nominated by the council and appointed by Ae President and for such subordinate bodies as the council saw fit to organize "for its assistance in special investiga- tions."_ The members of the Advisory Commission were originally: _ Daniel Willard, chairman, Transporta- tion and Communication ;_ Howard E. Coifin, Munitions and Manu- facturing (including standardization) and Industrial Relations; Julius Rosenwald, Supplies (including clothing), etc.; Bernard M. Baruch, Raw Materials, Minerals, and Metals ; Dr. Hollis Godfrey, Engineering and Education ; Samuel Gompers, Labor, including con- servation of health and welfare of work- ers; Dr. Franklin Martin, Medicine and Surgery, including^ general sanitation. Much of the advisory committee's work has been absorbed by other newer bodies such as the War Industries Board, etc. Q.— Who purchases supplies for the United States Navy? A. — The Bureau of Supxjlies and Ac- counts purchases stores and issues all sup- plies for the naval establishment. _ Pay- master-General Samuel McGowan is the head of this Bureau, Q. — Was January, 1918, really the coldest month on record? A. — It was for a great many regions in the United States. It was the coldest month on record for such cities as New York, for instance, where the daily aver- age was 9 degrees below the average for 38 previous years. Q. — Is America rebuilding the ruined French towns? A.— In the Alsace district the Ameri- cans are assisting notably. Noyon has been adopted by the city of_ Washington, and is being rebuilt by contributions from the people of that city. The American fund for French wounded has taken full charge of the hamlet of Behericourt, and the Comfesse de Chabrannes has under- taken to irebuild the hamlet of Maucourt. The village of Vitrimont in the Vosges region has been rebuilt by Mrs. Crocker, of California. The place was a desert when she began, but her representative found herself at the head of a small army of eager- villagers, who undertook the heaviest tasks of house-building under her leadership. _ Already a church and rows of attractive two-story houses have risen. Houses, farms, publio buildings are all erected according to a plan which gives them a logical grouping. Q. — Did the stock markets rise in the early part of 1918 because of peace rumors? A. — There were many minor causes that served to account for advance in market quotations, but presumably these minor causes would not have been suffi- cient in themselves. While it is not safe to assert unequivocally that the January rise in prices was a reflection of belief that peace was prognosticated, it is cer- tain that with the beginning of actual talk about a possible settlement of the great war, a quiet, steady, slow advance began in prices, and that it continued daily with very few fluctuations. Q.— Why is America nicknamed Uncle Sam? A. — After' the declaration of war with England in 1812, Elbert Anderson of New York, a contractor, visited Troy, where he purchased a large quantity of provi- sions. The government inspectors at that place were Ebenezer and Samuel Wilson. The latter was universally known as "Uncle Sam" and the articles passed by him were marked "E. A. — U. S." A humorous fellow, being asked the meaning of the initials, said he did not know, unless it meant "Elbert Ander- son and Uncle Sam," alluding to "Uncle Sam" Wilson. The joke became a stock topic and thus "Uncle Sam" was finally adopted as a nickname. It is, accurately speaking, a nickname for the United States Government, not for the nation. Q. — Does America intern alien ene- mies? A. — America has adopted a magnani- mous and tolerant attitude toward the subjects of hostile States who are now in this country. A Presidential proclama- tion issued April 6, 1917, assured them 294 Questions and Answers that as long as they refrain from acts of hostility they would be left undisturbed. This attitude has been maintained. During the months following the declara- tion of war, alien enemies (or, to speak more accurately, enemy aliens) were pro- hibited from entering certain districts, such aswater-fronts, camps, etc. A num- ber, guilty of inimical acts or suspected as being potentially dangerous, were in- terned. In February, 1918, there began a general registration of enemy aliens, with finger-print records, etc. Q. — Has America the right to in- tern all enemy aliens, even if they behave themselves? A.-r-Yes. Every country engaged in war has the right to imprison all sub- jects of the hostile country, if it chooses to do so. They may even be put to work under conditions prescribed by The Hague Conventions. The treatment of enemy aliens in any belligerent country is simply a matter of policy. Q. — Is it permitted for a belligerent to purchase weapons of war from neutrals without let or hindrance? A. — The laws of neutrality permit this to be done without any interference on the part of neutral Governments. French agents bought revolvers, etc., in Great Britain during the Franco-German war, and the British Government answered the German protests with the statement that no purely mercantile transactions could be considered a violation of neutrality. The Allies purchased huge quantities of war material from the United States, and in reply to Austria's protests President Wilson took the same point of view as did the British Government during the Franco-Prussian war. Q.— Is German taught in all the public schools throughout the United States? A. — According to statistics compiled late in 1917 by the Bureau of Education of the Department of the Interior, after inquiries had been sent to the superin- tendents of many of the elementary schools in the United States, there are only nineteen cities out of 163 of 25,000 population or over reporting to the De- partment of Education that teach foreign languages below the seventh grade. Q. — What proportion does German bear in relation to other foreign languages ? A. — In t^velve of these cities German is the forejgn language taught. In three cities German, French, and Spanish are all taught in the elementary grades. In one city German, Italian,^ and Polish, •while in tWe three remaining cities the languages taught to the elementary school children are French and Spanish, alone or in combination. In a few cities the foreign language is taught in all grades, from the first to the eighth ; in others the instruction does not begin until the fifth or sixth grade. The number of elementary school children taking German ranges from 40 in one city to 22,000 in another. Q. — What is Pan- Americanism? A. — For . a long time there has been manifested" a stronger and stronger feel- ing that the American republics consti- tute a group which is more closely bound together than other nations of the world, because of their common ideals and com- mon aspirations — a feeling which has un- doubtedly been emphasized by their geo- graphical isolation from other countries. It is the bond of sympathy which draws together the twenty-one republics of our western world and makes of them the American family of nations. Q. — Did the Government send money to Americans caught in the warring countries ? A.— Yes. The battleship Tennessee went in August, 1914, with ^2,500,000 in gold for the relief of American citizens in Europe. This money was distributed through the American legations. Q. — Has our Government an au- thori-zed censorship? A.— Yes. The Trading with the Enemy Bill, passed^ September 12, 1917, includes a provision for censorship of mail and telegraphic, .communications with foreign countries. Also, it has an amendment requiring German-language newspapers to publish an English translation of all comment on the war. SOME PAST CAMPAIGNS Q.— When was the battle of Water- loo fought? A. — It was fought on Sunday, June i8, i8is, between Napoleon, with 72,000 men (246 guns), and Wellington, with 67,700 Allies (156 guns). The day was de- cided by tiie arrival of Bliicher with 50,- 000 Prussians (104 guns). There were in all only 24,000 British on the field. Q.— Where is Waterloo? A. — It is about 10 niiles_ south by east from Brussels. Waterloo is a very small and unimportant place in itself, with only about 3,000 inhabitants. Q. — Was there a battle of Water- loo in the present war? A. — No. It was not a strategic point. Napoleon and Wellington fought their battle there only because the British army had concentrated on Brussels. In the present war, no stand was made near Brussels and the Germans entered unop- posed. Q. — What were the losses in the battle of Waterloo? A.— The British, who only numbered 24,000, lost 2,000 killed and 5,000 wounded. The Allies lost altogether, including these, 4,200 killed, 14,500 wounded, and 4,230 missing. The French loss was more than 40,000 killed, wounded and prison- ers, but accurate details have never been obtained. Q. — How old was Napoleon at Waterloo? A.— He was only 46. Wellington was the same age; so were Ney and Soult. Grouchy was 49, Murat 44. Nelson died at 47. All these men had achieved their greatest fame before they reached 40, Alexander the Great died when he was 33. Hannibal was 30 when he crossed the Alps. Sir Francis Drake, with a great career behind him, was 48 when he met the Armada. Q.— Who said that "God is on the side of the biggest battalions"? A.^-Napoleon. It was he also who said that an army "marched on its belly." Nowadays he would, no doubt, slightly alter both these trite remarks, and, in- stead, would say that "God is on the side of the biggest factories," and that an army "marches on petrol." Q. — Has war ever produced so muc^ hatred as this one? A. — Much_ the same sort of comment about enemies has been made b^ pub- licists in time past as is appearing to- day. The following quotation from Thackeray's work) "The Four Georges," gives some idea of how belligerent na- tions wrote and spoke during the Napol- eonic wars. He says: "We prided ourselves on our preju- dices; we blustered and bragged with ab- surd vainglory; we dealt to our enemy a monstrous injustice of contempt and scorn; we fought him with all weapons, mean as well as heroic. There was no lie we would not believe; no charge of crime which our furious prejudice would not credit. I thought at one time of mak- ing a collection of the_ lies which the French had written against us, and we had published against them, during; the war. It would be a strange memorial of popular falsehood." Q. — Who were the Huns? A. — They were a people of Tartar or Ugrain stock, who, three centuries be- fore Christ, appear to have dominated the whole of what is now known as Siberia. They first appeared west of the Volga in 374, and proceeded to attack the then all- powerful Gothic Empire. They were soon supreme between the Danube and the Volga, and expanded through into Persia and Syria. In 446 the mighty "Scourge of God," Attila, began his_ tremendous drive to the west. Civilization collapsed before his onslaught, and five years later he Was outside Paris. There, at the tre- mendous battle of Chalons-sur-Marne, the combined armies of the Romans, under Aetius, and the Visigoths, under Theodo- ric, defeated him and saved France. , Q. — Why are the Germans called Huns? A. — It is a term of opprobrium, and has nothing to do with their race, for the Germans are of entirely different stock. The cruelties and barbarisms of the Huns, combined with their great bravery and ferocity, gave a terror to tEeir name, 295 296 Questions and Answer s which has lasted to this day. A few of them are said to have settled in northern France, and a few in Central Europe. They gave their name to Hungary, which is, however, now peopled by a different race. They were slowly assimilated by the peoples around them, or retired across the Volga, whence they came. Q.— Which are regarded as the greatest battles of the world? A. — According to Creasy, there were fifteen "decisive" battles — that is, battles which decided the fate of nations and per- haps of the world. The early ones were: Marathon, where the Greeks defeated the Persians, B.C. 490, and stopped the Asiatic invasion. Syracuse, where, B.C. 413, the Athenian invaders of Sicily were routed, Arbela, where Alexander the Great fi- nally crushed the Persians, B.C. 331. Me- taurus, where the Romans defeated Has- drubal, who was hastening to the aid of the Carthaginians under Hannibal, B.C. 207. (As a military achievement, Han- nibal's victory over the Romans at Can- nae was much greater, but the victory at Metaurus was the beginning of the end of Carthage.) Teutoburg, where, in A.D. 9, the German Arminius defeated the Ro- man legions under Varus, and freed Ger- many from the Roman yoke. Q. — Was one of the decisive fam- ous battles fought in Chalons, France? A. — Chalons, where the last of the Ro- man generals, Aetius, and Theodoric, King of the Visigoths, defeated the Huns under Attila, "The Scourge of God," A.D. 451. After Chalons, the Hun- nish invasion ebbed, and Attila's vast em- pire crumbled away after his death, two years later. Then came another great battle in France, the battle of Tours, where Charles Martel, Duke of the Aus- trasian Franks, defeated the Saracens un- der Abderrahman, in 732, and freed France and Europe from Moslem domi- nation. After these came Hastings, whfere Norman William defeated Saxon Harold, in 1066, and laid the foundations for the present British Empire, and Orleans, where in 1429 Jeanne d'Arc defeated the English and delivered France. Q. — What was the greatest sea battle? A.— The fight with the Spanish Ar- mada, which, in 1588, was destroyed by the British fleet. Spain's dominion of the sea was broken, and after that her mighty eifipire began to crumble. Q.— What were the other battles? A. — Blenheim, where, in 1704, Marl- borough, commanding German, British and Dutch troops, defeated the French and thus destroyed the vast fabric of power built up by Louis XIV. It is in- teresting to recall that the Irish Brigade, fighting for the French, almost turned de- feat into victory. Pultowa, where Peter the Great defeated Charles of Sweden in 1709. This victory marked the entry of Russia into history as a European power, and with it began the decline of Sweden. It also marked the beginning of rivalry between Slav and Teuton, one of the deeper exciises for the world-devastating struggle of our day. Saratoga, where, in I777p the Americans, under Gates and Ar- nold, defeated the British under Bur- goyne and captured his army. "Though few men were engaged, the victory was immediately important. Valmy, where the armies of the French Republic won their first victory in 1792. The battle saved Paris and the French democracy. Water- loo, where, in 1815, the British, Dutch, Brunswicfcers and Belgians, under Wel- lington, and the Prussians, under Bliicher, defeated Napoleon, and completed the destruction of the mighty empire he had built up. At that time a von Bulow, by the way, commanded one of the Prussian army corps. Q. — How do numbers of ancient armies compare with to-day? A. — There is no comparison at all. Never before in the history of the world had armies so been used. The largest armies of modern times before this war were the American armies of the Civil War. When the Civil War ended there were 2,000,000 Northerners and 1,000,000 Southerners under arms. In the Franco- Prussian War the Germans had 1,124,000 soldiers, the French 1,000,000. At Water- loo, Napoleon had 72,000 men, Welling- ton 67,700, and Bliicher 50,000. Napol- eon's Grande Armee, which invaded Rus- sia, crossed the border 600,000 strong. Only 20,000 men returned. In ancient times Hannibal invaded Italy with 60,000 men. Alexander the Great conquered the known wodd with 50,000. Charles Mar- tel smashed the Saracens and saved France from Mohammedan domination with an army of 20,000. The Turks were defeated by the brilliant Pole, Pan So- bieski, before the gates of Vienna, in 1683, Euro"pe on that occasion being saved Some Past Campaigns 297 by an army 70,000 strong. At Marathon the Greeks numbered at most 10,000, the Persians 100,000. At Pultowa there were 12,000 Swedes and 12,000 Cossacks against 60,000 Russians. Q. — When was gunpowder first used? A*. — So far as is known, cannon were first employed by the Germans at the siege of Oividale in Italy in 1331. Edward III used artillery at the battle of Crecy in 1346, but it is recorded that there were only 12 artillerymen and gunners in the ordnance establishment of the King. At the siege; of Harfleur, 1,415 guns were used by Henry V, but in those days can- non were; confined almost exclusively to siege operations. It was not until the Hussite Wars, 1419-25, that field guns were used; with effect in open warfare. Field guns were also used in the Wars of the Roses. The Turks proved them- selves very formidable in the use of siege artillery, and utilized great num- bers of guns in the siege of Constanti- nople, in 1453. THE RED CROSS OF MERCY Q. — ^Tust what is the Red Cross? In other words, no expenses of admin- A mf. . . -r^ . ^ ■ istration in the United States were paid A.— The American Red Cross is an as- i^r out of the Red Cross War Fund, sociation of more than 3,600,000 Amen- ^n administration was more than met by cans, forming local chapters, branches, membership dues. Thus, every dollar and auxiliaries and governed by a central contributed for relief went to relief, committee m Washington, D. C. Its ac- counts are audited by the Wm Depart- Q.— Is it true that many very high ment. Any resident or citizen 01 the * . . • j u . tx. -n j United States may become a member by . salaries are paid by the Red sending his address, and dues to the Cross? American Red Cross, Washington, D. C, . _rhe avprawp ealarv naid at tin. f^^r^i^tr^^^lf^^:^ re Nalirnd RedTr^o^s's nXfrte's fs £ \Jr, jlr f n^.,ln..A ^ T. f= f ^.,^^ th^u $6s a mouth. The average salary of ^orn'ien^t^f ^ge^ncrf^r" th^ 'coUeS gzhT^lSTT^L'\h^^h L"r'rfK±o"sef """^^ '"' "^'"" Ino^a'momh" ThrRed Cr^ D viS for relief purposes. managers/ as well as many of their as- Q.— What did the American Red sistants, are volunteers, but it is necessary r'-^oc A^ ,,.!*u *u^ ^»«».> ;* to employ on salaries stenographers and Cross do with the money it ^ther clerical help. The same is true at collected? National Headquarters, where there are A.— On February 3, 1918, the Red Cross more than 75 volunteers, whose salaries War Council published a statement in ^t the figures these men are accustomed Washington showing that up to January to receive would increase the pay-roll 9, 1918, there had been appropriated a hundreds of thousands of dollars annu- total of $44,657,795.99 for foreign relief, ?lly- , Appreciating the necessity of hav- $2,612,532.60 for United States relief, and "^S the best j)ossible administration of $24,323,181.12 for supplies either for for- Red Cross affairs, the Red Cross, in one eign shipment or for distribution or re- 9^^^' P?y? $5,ooo, m another, $6,000, and sale to chapters in this country. *" 3. third, $7,500. This latter item included $7,063,649.12, ^ tt which was also included in the $30,519,- Q- — How was the money for for- 259.60 for work in France, as well as eign relief apportioned ? $11,288,417 for material for resale to _ chapters. It was thus to be considered as ^'■?'1'=e $30,519,259.60 a working fund and as a liquid asset ^elgmm I,999>63l.oo rather than an expenditure. All appro- Russia _..-.• 751,940.87 priations from the Red Cross War Fund Roumania 2,617,398.76 up to Jan. 9, 1918, amounted to $77,843,- "»'y 3,146,016.00 435.25. Including appropriations from ^erbia 871,180.76 the general fund and the miscellaneous threat Britain ._ 1,703,642.00 fund, the total appropriations were $79,- "ther foreign countries.... 2,536,300.00 450,727.35. E*"" .P"soners, etc 343,627.00 Equipment and expenses... 68,800.00 Q. — How much of the money went _ , for expenses ? ^°*^' foreign rehef $44,657,795-99 A.— The total appropriation for admin- Q.— What was the "United States istration at National Headquarters and at relief"? division headquarters amounted to $1,- 289,292 during six months. This included United States — $365,000 for divisional administration ex- Army base hospitals $54,000.00 penses and $250,000 donated for telegraph Navy base hospitals 32,000.00 and cable service by the Western Union Medical and hospital work 503,000.00 Telegraph Company. _ Sanitary service 364,500.00 These appropriations did not come out Camp service 996,715.00 of the War Fund. They were more than Miscellaneous '.W 662,317.60 covered from the portion of membership ' dues received at National Headquarters. Total U. S. relief........ $2,6x2,532.60 298 The Red Cross of Mercy 299 Q._What (Jid the Red Cross do for France? A.— On January 27, 1918, the American Red Cross announced that the total amount of money appropriated for relief work in France from the date of the American declaration of war was $30,- 519,259. Additional appropriations of $7,063,649 had been made to purchase supplies to go to France. A little more than 14 millions of these sums was for military relief, g]4 millions for civilian relief and the rest for vari- ous bureaus and expenses. This sum_ is the largest ever expended by one nation for relief activities in another. Q. — How does the Red Cross spend the money specifically? A. — ^The public's money given to the Red Cross is being spent in France and other countries in the war for such pur- poses as the following: infirmaries and rest stations for the sick; disinfecting rooms and dormitories for the soldiers ; for hospital equipment, medicines and dressings (nearly 4,000 o_f the 6,000 hos- pitals in France are now receiving sup- plies from the American Red Cross) ; for food for the sick and needy; for ambu- lances for the wounded ; for motor trucks which make the American Red Cross in- dependent of the overburdened railways in France; for medical research; for the building of homes and schools for or- phans and the helpless; for the relief of destitute families; to fight tuberculosis, the deadliest enemy of the civil popula- tion of France; for general relief work in Belgium, and for other purposes. Q. — What was the ambulance ser- vice under the American Red Cross in France? A. — Eliot Norton, director in America of the Harjes-Norton (American Red Cross) Ambulances in France, makes the following statement: "When the American Army took over, in August, 1917, the ambulances which had been operated in France by the Amer- ican Red Cross and which were popu- larly known as the Harjes-Norton Sec- tions, there were 648 men in this service. Of these, 210 were over or under mili- tary age, or otherwise exempt from mili- tary service. This left 438. Of these. 283, or 65 per cent, are known to have enlisted, without waiting to be drafted, in one branch or another of the army, by November 14. Since then at least another IS per cent have done or are in process of doing the same thing — ^viz., enlisting without waiting to be drafted." Q. — How many American Red Cross nurses are in active ser- vice? A.— More than 3,000 Red Cross nurses are in active service, 2,000 abroad, and they are volunteering at the rate of 1,000 a month. Q. — What were some of the big or- gani2ations formed to help Eu- ropean war-sufferers? A. — Apart from the Red Cross there were: National Allied Relief, which, up to 1918, had collected more than $1,000,- 000; Belgian Relief Fund, approximately $1,100,000 to 1918; New York Committee of the Fatherless Children in France, $329,000; American Committee for Ar- menian and Syrian Relief, more than $7,- 000,000; Franco-Serbian Hospital; Amer- ican Military Hospital in Paris ; Cardinal Mercier Fund (for the destitute in Bel- gium) ; Polish Fund; Lafayette Fund; Commttee of Mercy; American Girls' Aid (to clothe French sufferers) ; French "Tuberculosis War Victims' Fund; Chari- tee Maternelle de Paris; Duryea War Relief; War Babies' Cradle; Emergency Italian Refugee Committee ;_ Comforts Committee of Christian Scientists ; Amer- ican Committee for' Training Maimed Soldiers of France; the Secours National Fund (for women and children of France). Q. — What branches are open for volunteer war work? Voluntary Marine Corps Reserve. Voluntary Naval Reserve. Serve without retainer pay and with- out uniform gratuity. All forms of Red Cross work. Reconstruction work in France. "Y. M. C. A." work. All "Labor Reserve" work. Certain positions in the "Belgian Re- lief Committee's" work. If you are qualified, all war work. WHO'S WHO IN ROYALTY Q. — Is Belgium's king the sop of Leopold? A.— Albert I (born 1875), King of the Belgians, came to the throne December 23, ipog, in succession to his uncle, Leo- pold II. Becoming heir apparent at the age of 17 by the death of his elder brother, he passed through the educational steps regularly marked out for Belgian royalty — the _ military school, extensive travels, participation as member of the Senate in national politics. Q.— How long has the Kaiser ruled? A.— William (Wilhelm) 11, King of Prussia and German Emperor, has ruled since June 18, 1888. William II's grand- father, William I, achieved German unity, established the German Empire, and greatly influenced the ideals of his grand- son. William II's mother was the eldest daughter of Queen Victoria of England. At his accession he declared to the array: "So we are bound together — I and the army — so we are born for one another, and so we shall hold together indissolu- bly, whether, as God wills it, we are to have peace or storm." After forcing Bis- marck's resignation on March 18, 1890, William II telegraphed to the Grand Duke of Weimar: "To me has fallen thepost of officei of the watch upon the ship of state. We shall keep the old course; and now full steam ahead!" Endowed with an active mind and extraordinary energy, he sought to lead the way in political, social, and economic matters, to furnish the inspiration in literature, art, and science, and to develop the intensely mod- ern materialistic Germany, with its over- whelming discipline, its progressive effi- ciency, and its expanding power beyond the seas. Q. — How old is he? A.'— He was born Jan, 27, 1859, and became Emperor June IS, 1888. Q. — Are the HohenzoUems an an- cient dynasty? A.— Very old, although it was not until 1701 that one of the family became King of Prussia. The castle of HohenzoUem is said to have been built early in the ninth century, but the first historical men- tion of the family was when Burkhard and Wczil, counts of ZoUern, were killed in 1061. A direct descendant of Burk- hard became Burgrave of Nuremburg in 1 192. The divison of the House of Hohenzollern dates from the sons of this Conrad, who divided his lands between them. The present Emperor of Germany belongs to the younger branch, the King of Roumania to the elder. On the whole, the Burgraves of Nuremburg were good rulers, although they took their full share in the turbulent doings of the Middle Ages. They appear to have encouraged commerce and protected the Jews. Hav- ing inherited Brandenburg, Frederic in 1427 sold his right as Burgrave to the town of Ifuremburg, and from that time the family of Hohenzollern is identical with that of Brandenburg, until 1701, when the Elector Frederick became King of Prussia. Q. — Is it true that Emperor Wil- liam II was appointed Admiral of the English fleet? A.— Yes: On August 5, 1889, he was created Admiral of the English fleet by Queen Victoria. Q. — How many sisters has the Kai- ser, and to whom are they mar- ried? A. — He has four sisters. The two eld- est and the youngest are married to Ger- man princes. The third, Sophie, is the wife of King Constantine of Greece. He has only one brother. Prince Heinrich. The Kaiser has six sons and one daugh- ter, who recently married the Duke of Brunswick. Q. — When did George V ascend the throne? A. — George V (bom i86s), the present King of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British lands beyond the seas, came to the throne at the death of his father, Ed- ward VH, in 1910. Q. — What was the family name of King George V before he changed it to Windsor? A.— King George I was a Guelph, and as his dynasty still reigns in England King George V presumably is held to be a 300 Who's Who in Royalty 301 Guelph also. The descent, however, came through the female line — Queen Victoria — whose husband. Prince Albert, was a member of the Wettin family, from which many of the Royal Houses of Europe have sprung. Had he not been of royal blood. King George V would be regarded therefore as a Wettin, not as a Guelph. It is interesting to note that the name Guelph was associated more particularly with Italy than with Germany, and for centuries the fend between this house and the Ghibellines raged throughout northern Italy. In fact, Guelph is held to be the Italianized form of Welf, and Ghibelline is the Italian name for Waiblingen. The feud is said to have originated in 1 140 in a war between Conrad III, King of Germany, and Welf, Count of Bavaria, whose soldiers used the battle-cry, "Hie Welf." To this the King's men replied with the shout of "Hie Waiblingen," one of the titles of Conrad, who resided at a castle of that name. Q. — How did the present Aus- trian Emperor succeed to the throne? A.— The Archduke Charles Francis Joseph became Charles I, Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, on the death of his great-uncle, Emperor Francis Joseph, on November 21, 1916. He is the eldest son of the late Emperor's nephew. Otto, the younger brother of the Arch- duke • Francis Ferdinand, murdered at Serajevo on June 28, 1914- . Charles I married, in 191 1, Princess Zita, of the Bourbon House of Parma, and has two sons. He received a democratic education in the public schools of Vienna, which shocked sticklers at etiquette of the Viennese Court, but which has secured him much popularity with his subjects. It also appears to have impressed upon his mind the importance of constitutional government and democratic reforms for Austria. His first public utterance as Emperor made a very favorable impres- sion in the constitutional countries of Europe by his apparent sincerity and by his expressed determinaton to observe the forms of constitutional rule. Q.— Is Roumania's king a Hohen- zoUern? A.— Ferdinand I (born 1865), who be- came King of Roumania in succession to his uncle Charles I on October 11, 1914. is a member of the Catholic branch of the German Hohenzollerns. Q. — What race is King Peter? A. — Petpr I (born 1844), King of Ser- bia since June 15, 1903, is a member of the Karageorgevitch family. He ascend- ed the throne as the result of a palace revolution, in which the rival dynasty, the Obrenovich, was exterminated. Ow- ing to his feeble health in recent years. King Peter has practically abdicated, and the Crown Prince Alexander has acted as regent. Q.— Is Constantine still a king? A. — No. He abdicated. Constantine I (born 1868) married Sophia, sister of the German Emperor, and, partly because of her influence, attempted to manipulate Greek policy in the interest of Germany. On June ii, 191^, he was forced to abdi- cate by (Jreat Britain, France, and Russia, who justified their action on three facts: (1) Greece had been created a kingdom in 1830 through their intervention; (2) they had placed the present dsmasty on the throne in 1863 ; (3) they had guaran- teed a constitutional government. The new King, Alexander, second son of Con- stantine, invited M. Venizelos to resume office and consented to the reassembling of the Parliament, dissolved in 1915. Q. — When was the ex-Czar bom? A. — Nicholas II was born in 1862. He ascended the throne October 20, 1894, and married Alexandra, Princess of Hesse, the same year. Nicholas inaugurated his reign by a rigorous repression of all lib- eral movements and then embarked on a policy of adventure in the Far East, which ended in the war with Japan (1904-5) and the defeat of Russia. During the war a revolutionary movement manifested it- self at home, which, culminating in the general strike of October, igos, forced the Czar to grant a constitution. But Nicholas distrusted the liberals and gave the bureaucracy a free hand in crushing liberal movements. At the beginning of the European war the Czar proclaimed the solidarity of throne and people, there- by securing a considerable measure of popularity; but once again, he relied too exclusively on the bureaucracy, with dis- astrous results, for these reactionaries soon lost interest in the war, and when the Czar refused to displace them he was compelled by the revolutionaries to abdi- cate, March 15, 1917. Q. — Was Francis Joseph a Haps- burg? A.— Yes. Francis (Franz) Joseph (1830-1916), late Emperor of Austria and 302 Questions and Answers King of Hungary, came to the throne on December 2, 1848, when the polyglot lands of the Hapsburg monarchy were on the point of dissolution. His task during his entire reign was essentialljr dynastic, the holding together of his dominions. Under his rule the Austrian Provinces in Italy, except Trentino and Trieste, were lost to the hew Kingdom of Italy (1859-1866) and Austrian influence in Germany was destroyed by Prussia in the war of 1866. But in his task of holding together the Austrian dominions proper he secured a relative success. Hungary was pacified by the agreement of 1867, which granted autctoqmy in local matters and an equal share in the government of the monarchy. Opinions differ as to the native ability of Francis Joseph, but it would at least ap- pear that long study of _ men had given him great fitness in dealing with the pe- cuHar problems of Austria-Hungary. His private life was a pilgrimage of sorrow. His wife was murdered by an anarchist, his son perished in an obscure affair, and lastly, his nephew and heir was murdered at Serajevo in 1914. Q. — Is Bulgaria's ruler king or Czar? A. — He is a Czar. Ferdinand I (born 1 861) was the younger son of the Prince of Saxe-Coburg, and in 1887 was elected by the Bulgarians to be their prince. Dur- ing, the next years his policy was aimed at two things — (l) to promote the well- being of Bulgaria, and (2) to create an army strong enough to make Bulgaria the leading State in the Balkans. In both of these aims he was highly successful; in 1912 Bulgaria was a prosperous Siate, and in the first Balkan war the Bulgarian army proved its worth. Q. — Where was Queen Alexandra, the Queen-mother, bom? A. — She was born on September i, 1844, in Denmark, being the eldest daughter of King Christian IX of Denmark. Her brother, Frederick VII, was King of Den- mark for six years. The present sov- ereign, Christian X, is her nephew. An- other brother was King George of Greece. Thus ex-King Constantine is her nephew and a first cousin of King George of Eng- land. Q. — What relation is the Emperor of Germany to King George? A. — Cousin. The Emperor's mother was the eldest daughter of Queen Vic- toria, and sister of Edward VII. The Emperor is, in fact, as much English as King George, whose mother was a Danish Princess. Q. — What nationality is the Prince Consort of the Queen of Hol- land? A,— He belongs to the Mecklenburg family, being an uncle of the present Grand Duke of Mecklenberg-Schwerin. The Grand Ducal House of Mecklenberg is the only reigning family in western Europe ol Slavonic^ origin, and claims to be the oldest sovereign house in the west- ern world. In their full title the Grand Dukes style themselves Princes of the Wends. Their genealogical table begins with Niklot, who died in 11 60, and com- prises 25 generations. Q. — Is the Queen of Roumania an English Princess? A. — She is so regarded, being a daugh- ter of one of the sons of Queen Victoria, Prince Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh, who, in 1893, became Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in succession to the brother of the Prince Consort. Prince Alfred married the Grand Duchess Marie Alexandrovna of Russia, and had four daughters— the present Queen of Rumania being the eld- est — and one son, who predeceased him. The Duke of Connaught became heir to the Dukedom of Saxe-Coburg when Prince Alfred died, but he and his son renounced the succession. It then passed to the son of the late Duke of Albany, Queen Victoria's youngest son. This son, a grandson of Queen Victoria, and brother of Princess Alexander of Teck, and therefore the brother-in-law of Queen Mary, was recently deprived of his Eng- lish titles by King George, on the ground that he was a German Prince. The Queen of_ Roumania is his cousin. Other first cousins of her are King George, the Queen of Spain, the Queen of Norway, the Crown Princess of Sweden, Prince Arthur of Connaught, the Kaiser, the ex- . Queen of Greece, Prince Henry of Prus- sia and Princess Henry, the ex-Czarina, Princess Louise of Battenberg, and Prince Albert of Schleswig-Holstein. Q. — Is the wife of the ex-Czar Nicholas a Gertnan princess by birth? ^ A. — She' is almost always spoken of as a pure§ German, but though she was born in Hesse, her mother was Princess Alice of England, the favorite daughter of Queen Victoria, sister of Edward VII, Who's Who in Royalty 303 an aunt of King George V. Her sister married Prince Louis of Battenburg, who was First Sea Lord when the war broke out. Her father was Grand Duke Ludwig of Hesse. Q.— Is it true that the Kaiser, by virtue of his English mother, has a claim to the British throne? A.— Certainly not. Although women may sit on the throne of England, the male members of the family inherit first. Consequently, although the Kaiser's mother was the eldest child of Queen Victoria, she could have come to the throne only if her brothers, King Ed- ward VII, the Duke of Edinburgh, and the Duke of Connaught had died. Had they all died, their children would have succeeded to the throne of Great Britain before the children of the Empress. Far away from the throne of England as he is, the young son of the King of Norway, whose mother is King Edward's daughter, is nearer to it than is the Kaiser. Q. — Was Hanover ever under British rule, and for what pe- riod of time? A.— Hanover was never under British rule, but an Elector of Hanover, George Louis, became King George I of Great Britain and Ireland in 1714. From that time until 1837 the Kings of England were Electors, and, later. Kings of Han- over as well, but Hanover was not ruled from London, any more than the United Kingdom was ruled from Hanover. Brit- ish Ministers always took care to keep the interest of Great Britain distinct from those of their King's other kingdom on the Continent. Because of this connec- tion with England, however, Hanover had a bad time before, during, and after the Napoleonic wars. It was regarded as a vulnerable outpost of Great Britain. Q,— Did Hanover fight Prussia? A.— The Hanoverians fought against Prussia, in 1743, were allied with Fred- erick the Great during the Seven Years War, and in 1757 were compelled to abandon their country to the French. Next year, thanks to English gold, the French were cleared out. Hanoverian troops fought with the Allies against France from 1793 to I79S, when a treaty between France and Prussia forced neutrality upon them. The Prussians oc- cupied the country in 1801, on the sug- gestion of Napoleon, but two years later the French were again in occupation. After Jena, Napoleon divided Hanover in two. The southern half he added to the Kingdom of Westphalia, and the northern to France. With his final de- feat, Hanover became again independent. Q. — When was Hanover separated from the British throne? A.— When William IV died in 1837 and was succeeded by Queen Victoria, the sov- ereign of Great Britain ceased to be also ruler of Hanover, because under the dy- nastic laws of Hanover a woman was not allowed to ascend that throne. Ernest, Duke of Cumberland, obtained the suc- cession, therefore, instead of Queen yic- toria. The two crowns had been united for 123 years. The growing power of Prussia was a bitter thing to the Han- overians, and, in the war between the for- mer and Austria, blind King peorge V of Hanover threw in his lot with the Aus- trians. He was defeated in the field, and Hanover was formally annexed to Prussia in 1866. Q.^ — How are the rulers of Europe inter-related? A.— King George is first cousin of the ex-Czar and also of the Czarina. He is first cousin of the King of Denmark, bro- ther of the Queen of Norway, first cousin of the Queen of Spain ; of the ex-King of Greece, of the Duke of Brunswick (who married the Kaiser's daughter in 1913) ; of the Duke of Coburg, and is related to many other reigning princes of Germany, now in the field. The King of Italy and the King of Serbia both married daugh- ters of the King of Montenegro, other daughters of that monarch marrying Ger- man and Russian princes. Ferdinand of Bulgaria is a nephew of Prince Albert, King George's grandfather. King Albert of Belgium is closely related to the Hohenzollerns, and Saxe-Coburgs, and the Bavarian Royal House. The Queen of Holland is a Princess of Nassau, and married frince Henry of Mecklenburg- Schwerin, whose niece married the Crown Prince of Germany. The King of Sweden is a graiidson of Napoleon's Marshal, Bernadotte, and married the daughter of the Grand Duke of Baden. The Emperor of Austria is the head of the House of Hapsburg, with relatives in every Court in Europe. The King of Spain belongs to that House. 304 Questions and Answers Q. — How many kings have reigned all of the kingdom of Belgium under in Prussia since Frederick the '°^^^ ''"'^■" <^eat? Q._Is ex-King Constantino of A.— Six. The first King of Prussia Greece a great soldier? was Elector Friedrich of Brandenburg. , T^ T>fi it j u-^ tu^ «.,».t-i>- He assumed the crown as Friedrich I in A.-Dr._ Dillon called hun the worlds 1701. He was followed by Friedrich Wil- greatest hvmg strategist, but that is no helm I in 1713. Then came Friedrich 11 doubt a great exaggeration. Still there is (Frederick the Great) in 1740. He was P'e ^^J* *at he led the Greeks to victory followed by Friedrich Wilhelm H in 1786, w both Balkan wars, and it is due to his then came Friedrich Wilhelm HI in 1797- military achievements that he had such (This is the King who fought Napoleon.) B^eat influence in Greece. Friedrich Wilhelm IV followed in 1840, _ __„ ,, . , _ then Wilhelm I in»i86i. He became Ger- Q.— What are the incomes of Eu- man Emperor in 1871. His son, Fried- ropean monarchs? rich III, succeeded in 1888 and reigned . m, ,• . • .. ^ ■ for three months. His son, the present , A.— The_rulmg kings get certain grants Kaiser Wilhelm II, began his reign in ^1°^ th* State, and in addition most of j8gg_ them have large priyate estates, which bring them in great incomes. King _. __,. . ^, ,, J George gets most of his money not be- Q.— What was the so-called cause he is King of England, but because "Three-Emperor Year"? he is Duke of York, of Lancaster, etc. A 000 'pu T? J J Each monarch has a civil list paid him by A.-1888. . Three Emperors succeeded ^^,^ gj^t ^^^ o„t of this he has to pay each other in Germany that year, owing f^r his various establishments and make t?t''^**, ;., Wilhelm L his son Friedrich allowances to sons, daughters and other III, and the present K:aiser Wilhelm II. members of his family. In England spe- cial grants are made by the State to mem- Q. — Who is the wealthiest SOVer- ^^ers of the Royal Family. Queen Alex- eio-n in thf worlrf? ^""^""^ Sets £70,000 ($350,000) a year, the eign m tne wona.- P^j^^ ^^ Connaught £25,000 ($125,000) A. — The Mikado. His revenues, how- annually, and some half-dozen others get ever, are administered by the Elder i6,ooo ($30,000) a year each. The Prince Statesmen. He owns about 5 million of Wales gets about £90,000 ($450,000) a acres, more than one-twentieth of the area year revenue from the Duchy of Com- of Japan. He holds shares in the Bank of wall. The revenue the King draws from Japan, Yokohama Specie Bank, Industrial his Duchy of Lancaster is about £70,000 Bank, and the Shipping Company Nippon ($350,000)= a year. The civil lists of the Yusen Kaisha. His land holdings prob- reigning sovereigns were as follows: ably reach 500 million dollars and his in- „ , _ . ^r, dustrial holdings 250 millions. The Ger- g^^"" «* Russia. $8,000,000 man Kaiser's property is believed to ag- Emperor of Austria 4,7io,ooo gregate about 125 millions in value. Both German Emperor 3,8SO,000 Kaiser and Mikado have to pay many pen- ^FS °l England 3,080,000 sions and other grants out of this income. ^P^ °j l^fX ^'^'^ King of Belgium 660,000 King of Greece 400,000 Q. — Does the Belgian Royal Fam- Queen of Holland 400,000 ily still reside in Belgium ? Czar of Bulgaria . ; 400,000 •' King of Sweden 391,250 A. — The village capital of La Panne King of" Denmark 275,000 shelters the royal family. It is in that King of Serbia 240,000 ever famous little northwestern corner King of Roumania 500,000 which for two years and a half has been King of Norway, 190,000 WAR'S WHO'S WHO IN FIGHTERS Q. — Was General Wood a doctor at first? A. — Major-General Leonard Wood, wounded early in 1918 by a gun-explosion in France, served through the Geronimo Apache campaign in the American south- west as a "contract surgeon" — meaning that he was not regularly in the service. He was soon made a lieutenant and was one of the captors of Geronimo. In the war with Spain he was Lieutenant- Colonel of the Rough Riders. He became Brigadier-General, won great fame for his work in regenerating the city of San- tiago-de-Cuba, and was made Major-Gen- eral when Roosevelt became President. He then served in the Philippines ( Gov- ernor of Mindanao and Commander of the Department of the Philippines) and became Chief of Staff of the U. S. Army later. Q. — Was General Joffre in the Franco-Prussian War? A. — General Joseph Jacques Cesaire Joffre (born 1852) was second-lieuten- ant during the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71, commanding a battery in the siege of Paris. He served with distinc- tion in Asia and Africa. Appointed chief of the general staff of the French Army in 1911, he assumed chief command at the beginning of the war. He was succeeded in active supreme command at the end of 1916, after two and a half years, by Gen- eral Nivelle, whose reputation was made in the defense of Verdun, but who was soon superseded by General Petain. Gen- eral Joffre was then made marshal of France, and is now chief military adviser to the French Government. He was a popular hero in America in 1917 when he was here as the head of the French mission. Q. — Who was Lord Kitchener? A. — The foremost British soldier of modern times, and at the time of his death beyond doubt the most dominant personality in the British Empire. His achievements — the conquest of the Sudan, the completion of the South African cam- paign, administration of Egyptian affairs, and, above all, the building up of a vast British fighting force for Britain's great- est war— place him in the front rank of the world's great men, as a soldier, ad- ministrator and military organizer. He was drowned in the sinking by mine or submarine of the British warship Hamp- shire off the western coast of the Orkney Isles June 5, 1916, while on his way to a consultation in Russia regarding details of the Allied offensive of 1916. His body was never recovered. Q- — What was Beatty's command in the Jutland fight? A. — Sir David Beatty, who was made Commander of the Grand Fleet of the British Navy in succession to Sir John R. Jellicoe, was present and played a gal- lant part in the battle of Jutland in 1916 as commander of the First Battle Cruiser Squadron. In 1901 he married a daugh- ter of Marshall Field, of Chicago. Q. — Who was the chief of the Eng- lish Navy when war began? A. — Admiral Sir John R. Jellicoe (born 1859). He had seen service in all parts of the world, and in August, 1914, was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet. He commanded in the bat- tle off Jutland in 1916. He relinquished his place to Sir David Beatty, becoming First Sea Lord at the Admiralty, which place he retained till nearly 1918. Q. — Who succeeded Admiral Jelli- coe as First Sea Lord? A. — Jellicoe was succeeded by Vice- Admiral Sir Rossyln Wemyss, who stepped into his new appointment on De- cember 26, 1917. Wemyss commanded the squadron which in the early part of 1915 protected the landing of the troop.? in Gallipoli. He is 53 years of age and entered the Navy in 1877. Q. — Is Petain really a great gen- eral? A.^He is. Verdun is by no means the first victory he has to his credit. He was a colonel when the war began, but was at once put in command of a brigade, and was General of Division before the battle of the Marne began. He was thus men- tioned in the army order of September 21, 1914 :— "Petain, General commanding the Sixth Division of Infantry, has, by his example, his tenacity, his calm under fire, his incessant foresight, his continual 30s 3o6 Questions and Answers intervention at the right moment, ob- tained from his division during fourteen days of consecutive fighting, a magnificent effort, resisting repeated attacks night and day, and the fourteenth day, in spite of his losses, repelling a very violent final attack." Q.— What else did he do? A. — He was placed in command of an army corps, and later a division of Mo- roccan troops joined him. He was then ordered to take Carency and pierce the German front. After three days' prepa- ration he did so, and broke clean through the enemy lines, so it is reported. So impossible had his colleagues thought suc- cess to be that they had not the neces- sary reserves available. Consequently, in- stead of being a possible turning-point of the war, Carency remains only a brilliant local victory. Petain also was responsible for the notable French advance in the Champagne. Again, it is said, reserves he ought to have had failed to appear at the crucial moment. Petain is 59 years old, and is unmarried. Q. — Is Haig a commander-in- chief? A. — Sir Douglas Haig (born 1861) is field marshal and commander-in-chief of the British forces in France and Flan- ders, being promoted when Sir John French was recalled in 1915. He was for many years in the cavalry, becoming ma- jor-general in 1904, lieutenant-general in 1910, and general in 1914. He was at Khartum with Kitchener, fought for three years in the South African war, and saw much service in India. He was made field marshal after the Battle of the Somme in 1916. Q. — Was Hindenburg famous as a general before the war? A. — He was not famous at all, appar- ently not even in Germany. He was noted, if at all, only because military cir- cles knew that he had a "fad" for study- ing the Mazurian Lake region of East Prussia. When the Russians invaded that prov- ince in August, 1914, Hindenburg was suddenly called from retirement, and, by brilliant strategy, destroyed their army at Tannenberg. That victory made him fhe idol of Germany, and led the Kaiser to create him field marshal. The following summer he drove the Russians out of Poland. After the Battle of the Somme, which reflected little credit on General von Falkenhayn, that general was deposed as chief St the general staff and Hinden- burg put in his place (1916). Hinden- burg's chief exploit as chief of staff has been the retreat from the Somme in March, 1917, a maneuver which was a very extraordinary masterpiece of strate- gy, and niade an end to the Battle of the Somme and established the famous Hin- denburg line. It is often asserted that Hindenburg is not so great a general as his assistant, Ludendorff, the first quar- termaster-general. In March, 1918, he began the great German offensive in Picardy and Flanders. Q. — Was General French a cavalry- man? A. — A very noted one. Field Marshal Sir John French, later Viscount, became celebrated as commander of the cavalry division in the South African war. He commanded with skill the British expe- ditionary force in Belgium and France from the beginning of the war until he was replaced in 1915 by Sir Douglas Haig. He was chief of the imperial general staff in 1912-14. His title is Viscount French of Ypres, in testimony of his gallant and magnificent services in that battle by which the Germans were frustrated in their design to reach Calais. Q. — Who was the sternest Get man commander in Belgium? A. — Probably that doubtful honor be- longs to General Freiherr von Bissing (1844-1917), who was German military governor of Belgium, 1914-1916, and re- sponsible, under the higher German au- thorities, for the scheme of reprisals and deportations. General von Bissing fa- vored the retention of Belgium by Ger- many, and sought to disrupt Belgian unity by dividing the Flemings and Walloons into separate administrative districts. He died early in 1917. Q. — Who commanded the big Rus- sian drive of 191 6? A.^General Alexis Brusilov. He was born in the Caucasus some 60 years ago. After the removal of the Grand Duke Nicholas he took command of the south- western army, and was in charge of the Russian drive in the summer of 1916, which cost the Austrians 300,000 men. He accepted the revolution of 1917, and was made commander-in-chief of all the Rus- sian armies. He was in charge of the Russian drive of July, 1917, but when the Russian armies broke down under the Austro-German counter drive he resigned. War's Who's Who in Fighters 307 Q.— Is Cadorna Italian command- er-in-chief? A. — General Luigi, Count Cadorna, wai commander-in-chief until the great defeat of the Isonzo in November, 1917, when he was replaced by General Diaz. A na- tive of the extreme northern part of Italy, the borderland of Lake Maggiore, between Lombardy and Piedmont, he is a son of the General Count Cadorna who entered Rome with the Italian troops in 1870 and gave the city as a capital to Victor Emmanuel, Q. — Did a German manage the Turkish army? A. — ^Yes. General Kolmar von der Goltz went to Turkey in 1883 and did much to reorganize the Turkish army. In 1908 he returned to Turkey and spent two years in building tip the Turkish army after the Young Turk revolution. When disaster overtook the Turks in the Balkan wars, two years after his departure, von der Goltz received no_ small blame for the failure of his pupils. This is prob- ably unjust, for the failure seems due to causes over which von der Goltz had no control. He returned to Germany in igio, became field marshal, and, after the outbreak of war and the invasion of Bel- gium, military governor of the latter country. After the entry of Turkey into the war, he went to Constantinople to direct the Turkish armies, and died, while at the Turkish front, April 19, 1916. Q. — Was Boy-Ed a sailor? A. — ^Yes. Captain Karl Boy-Ed was in the German Navy and was naval attache of the German embassy in Washington. He was dismissed by our Government pn December 4, igis, fijr "improper activity in naval matters." Q. — Was Kornilov a Cossack? A. — ^Yes. General L. G. Kornilov was a Siberian Cossack general, commanding one of the armies in the invasion of Galicia. During the Russian retreat he was captured by the Austrians, but es- caped. When the revolution broke out in March, 1917, he was appointed com- mandant at Petrograd, and later detailed to the southwestern army under Brusilov. He commanded one of the armies in the advance of July, 1917- After Brusiloy's resignation he was made commander-in- chief of the Russian army, and inaugu- rated a series of strong military meas- ures against deserters and slackers. In September he began a march on Petrograd apparently with the object of changing -the personnel of the govern- ment. The movement collapsed, and Gen- eral Kornilov was sentenced to be tried as a rebel. Q. — Does a woman own the great Krupp works? A. — Yes. The Krupp works were in- herited some years before the war by Bertha, the daughter of Frederick Alfred Krupp, who died in igo2. The founder of the works was Alfred Krupp (1812- 1887). These great plants at Essen em- ploy an army of men. In 1902 the various Krupp works employed 43,100 persons, 24,000 being in and around Essen. Q.— Was Nivelle ever French com- mander-in-chief ? A. — General Robert Nivelle succeeded Joffre as commander-in-chief in Decem- ber, 1916, and relinquished the post a few months later to General Petain. He was a colonel of an artillery regiment in the Battle of the Marne at the beginning of the war. By conspicuous gallantry he turned the tide at the Ourcq River and distinguished himself in subsequent en- gagements. He was called to Verdun in March, igi6, in the midst of the Crown Prince's "drive" on that stronghold. It has been said that he was "the heart and soul" of the French resistance in the months that followed. Subsequently his armies" failed in a great offensive and there has been much political excitement in France about this affair. It was the great offensive on the Aisne front whose culmination came April 16, 1917, with terribly heavy French losses, though signalized by brilliant deeds. Q. — Why was General Robertson retired? A. — Ostensibly because he would not agree with the Versailles Conference. General Sir William Robertson has been called "the brains of the British Arrny," Since 191S he has been chief of the im- perial general staff. He came out of a humble home in Lincolnshire, where he was born in i860. Entering the service as a trooper, he saw active service in many parts of the British Empire, _ and was severely wounded in one of his colonial campaigns. Before being called to his high office he commanded the first in- fantry division in France and was chief 3o8 Questions and Answers of staff to Field Marshal Sir John French. He was knighted in 1915. Q.— Who led the British army that captured German West Africa? A. — General Smuts, a Boer from Cape Colony, and a Boer leader against Eng- land in 1903. He succeeded to command of the East African Expedition in March, 1916, and within a year had driven the German forces out and become the con- queror of Germany's colonies in West Africa. Q. — Is Von Tirpitz a Junker? A. — No, except in opinion and sympa- thy. Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz is a fighting man pure and simple, and his political competence never would have made him important. But as an admiral he became a great power. The present German navy was built under his direction, and he inspired and directed the German Navy League. He continued to hold office while other min- isters were dismissed. When he was finally retired as Secretary of the Navy, he became a leader of the Tory Vaterland party, a Pan-German party that demands victory and annexations. Q. — Which general reduced Mau- beuge? A. — General von Zwehl. According to American correspondents, that fortress fell in the anticipated ten days, and the prisoners numbered 40,000. Q. — Who is General Baden-Powell? A. — He is an Englishman, son of the Rev. Prof. Baden-Powell, of Oxford, and of the daughter of Admiral W. H. Smyth. He retired from the army in igo8, and devoted himself to the Boy Scout move- ment, which he originated. The scquts have done splendid service in England during the war, largely under his direc- tion. His name is pronounced Bayden- Poel. Q. — What was General Sarrail's command? A. — He was in charge of the army in the Verdun region, and it was he who reconstructed that famous fortress, for he was quick to learn the lesson of Liege and Namur. Before the European strug- gle he had seen service in Algeria and Tunis. He is one of the youngest of the older French generals, being only 39. His name became a familiar one to the whole world when he was placed in charge of the allied troops that seized the Greek- Macedonian port of Saloniki and estab- lished the allied front across the south- ern Balkans. Q.— Who is Enver Pasha? A. — He is the Minister of War in Tur- key. He is described as a man of dic- tatorial temper, without any of the attri- butes of a< dictator. Yet, he aims to be the dictator of Turkey; he already is dic- tator of her policy. Of_ Polish descent, he is Prussian by training and sympa- thies. He married a daughter of the Sultan. Q. — Is he a good soldier? A.— Physically he is dauntless and dashing. He fought well against the Ital- ians in Tripoli, but made a ghastly mess of things when he opposed the Bulga- rians. He is apparently a fine fighter but without much talent for scientific strate- gy. It was he who led the revolution during th^ Balkan war when Nazim Pasha was assassinated — it is said by Enver himself. He_ was also prominent in the movement which led to the deposi- tion of Sultan Abdul, in 1909. He has worked in absolute compliance to the wishes and aims of the Germans. Q. — Who was the von Moltke who was Chief of the German Gen- eral Staff when the war broke out? A.— -The, von Moltke who was Chief-of- Staff in 1914, and who died recently, was a nephew of the great strategist Count Helmuth von Moltke, who defeated Aus- tria in 1867 ^nd France in 1870. This field marshal was born in 1800, and was, therefore, 70 years old when France and Prussia went to war. Q. — How old are the leading sol- diers in this war? A. — It is a war of young soldiers but of old leaders. When the struggle began Kitchener " was 63; French, the greatest cavalry leader in Great Britain, was 61; Lord Fisher was 72; General Joffre was 62; General Pau came out of his retire- ment at 66, and took the second position in the French Army; General Castelnau, third in command, was about the same age; and General Gallieni, the defender of Paris, was 70. Von der Goltz was 71 ; von Hindenburg 67, and von Emmich, who took Liege and has since died, was 64. Von Kluck was 67, and von Moltke 66. War's Who's Who in Fighters 309 The struggle) as k progressed, how- ever, gave younger men a chance. Von Ludendorff, who appears to share su- preme command with von Hindenburg m Germany, was only 50, but von Mackensen, the greatest fighting general the enemy have, was nearly 70. Sir Douglas Haig was 54; Sir David Beatty is one of the youngest admirals. He is only 45. Sir W._ Robertson, Chief-of- Staff in Great Britain, was 56. On the whole admirals are considerably younger than generals. There is no notable gen- eral in the English army as young as Beatty. The former commander-in-rfiief of the Grand Fleet, Admiral Jellicoe, is 56. Compared with the majority of the leaders in the field to-day, the brilliant soldiers of the Napoleonic era were youths. Q. — Was Bernhardi a political power in Germany? A. — No. General Friedrich von Bern- hardi (born 1849) was a military writer whose technical knowledge was undoubt- ed. His political importance js due _only to his expression of militarist political ideas. He achieved prominence through his volume "Germany and the Next War" (iQll). In this he sets forth with frank cynicism the advantages, the necessity, and the inevitability of a war between Germany and England. His argument is : Germany can acquire that "place in the sun" which is her due only by war, be- cause the Triple Entente— Russia, France and England^each and all endowed with vast colonial possessions which they can not adequately use, have been surround- ing Germany with a ring of iron. "In one way or another we must square our ac- count with France if we wish for a free hand in our international policy." For Germany the question is, "to be, or not to be." It is either "world power or downfall." While his book was too ex- pensive to be read by common people, it had, nevertheless, gone through eight edi- tions before the war. Q. — What war experience did Gen- eral Pershing have? A.— A great deal, before he went to France. In the year of his graduation from West Point (1886), John Joseph Pershing (bom i860 in Missouri) was sent to New Mexico and Arizona to fight in the Apache campaign. H« re- mained in active Indian service till the Sioux campaign in Dakota (1891) practi- cally ended Indian warfare. In 1898 he commanded the Tenth Cavalry in the fighting around Santiago de Cuba in the Spanish-American War. From 1899 to 1903 he served in the Philippines. He was American military attache in Tokio, 1905-1906,. and as such was with Kuro- ki"s army in Manchuria during the Russo- Japanese War. In 1906 he returned to the Philippines and had the very arduous task of governing Mindana and the re- bellious Moros. It was a long cam- paign, partly military and partly diplo- matic, and "Jack" Pershing became equally famous in Washington for his talents in both directions. He finally ended Moro opposition by administering a decisive defeat to them in the famous Battle of Bagsa^. In 1915 he corhmanded the Presidio in California, and there came a tragedy in Tiis life when his wife and three daughters were burned to death there. In March, 1916, General Pershing be- came freshly famous when he commanded the celebrated expeditionary force that penetrated into Mexico and ended Villa's power for disorder. In 1917 he became Commander-in-Chief of the American Expeditionary Forces in France. Q. — When did General Foch first become known? A. — At the Battle of the Marne, Sep- tember, 1914, when he led the 7th French Army Corps. He was assigned, under General Joffre's strategy, to oppose the victoriously advancing German line at a point south of Chalons — almost exactly rnidway between Paris and Verdun. Foch's army represented the French cen- ter. The Germans struck at it desper- ately on September 7 and drove the French south, inflicting heavy losses. Foch ral- lied his forces and on September 9, by a brilliant piece of strategy, assumed an utterly unexpected offensive himself, and drove his army clear through the Ger- man line, routing the famous Prussian Guard. It is held that this battle decided the Battle of the Marne. It forced the swift retirement of the whole German line. Later Foch's troops, with the Brit- ish, fought the tremendous Battle of Ypres. Foch was 67 years old when, in March, 1918, he was made supreme com- mander of not only the French, but the British and American forces to oppose the furious thrust of the Germans to- ward Amiens in the great Battle of Pi- cardy. WAR'S WHO'S WHO IN CIVILIANS Q. — Was Asquith in power when war began? A. — He was Prime Minister, a post he had held since 1908. It carried with it, under English political custom, the leader- ship of his party. He had been Home Secretary in Glad- stone's last ministry, Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1905, and Prime Minister in 1908. His attitude toward foreign affairs was largely the moderate imperialism of Lord Rosebery. In domestic politics, while opposing the Radicals, he advocated social reform, home rule for Ireland, the democratization of the electoral system, and especially restrictions on the legisla- tive veto of the House of Lords. The Parliament act of 191 1, by which the House of Lords lost its power to stop legislation passed by the Commons, was passed_ when he was Premier. In 1915, to avoid a general election, he established a coalition cabinet. The Dardanelles fail- ure and the Mesopotamian fiasco put his Government on the defensive. The op- position of the Northcliffe newspapers, the unwillingness of Lloyd George to support him, and the widespread feeling that his Government was not sufficiently energetic forced his resignation on December s. 1916. Q. — Had Lloyd George not de- nounced the Boer War bit- terly? A. — So bitterly that he was nearly mobbed more than once. David Lloyd George, a Welshman (born 1863), entered Parliament in 1890. He drew public at- tention by his vigorous opposition to the Boer War, which he denounced in public meetings at decided personal risk. Never- theless, he entered the Liberal Cabinet of 1905, and in 1908 became Chancellor of the Exchequer. His first budget proposed a heavy tax on unoccupied land and was forced through the House of Lords only by the threat of the creation of new peers. He then championed the cause of social reforms, being the chief advocate of measures such as workingmen's in- surance. In May, 1915, he undertook^ the difficult task of directing the munitions production, in which labor difficulties had arisen. For this task a new department, the Ministry of Munitions, was created. As Minister of Munitions Lloyd George was a success, and when Asquith resigned in December, 1916, he became Premier. Q. — Is Balfour a statesman of the democratic type? A.— Arthur James Balfour (born 1848) is a very distinguished and skilful statesman distinctly of the old-fashioned British type. He entered Parliament in 1874, held several cabinet positions, and became head of the Conservative Party and Premier in July, 1902- He resigned in December, igos, just before a crush- ing defeat of his party at the hands of the Lib^als in the_ elections of January, 1906. His leadership of the party in op- position was disliked, and he later re- signed this leadership to Bonar Law. When -the coalition cabinet was formed in May, 1915, Mr. Balfour became head of the ak), finger (flii'gSr) ; indicates the elision of a vowel, or a mere suggestion of a vowel sound, as in Ypres (e'pr'). Accents; The principal or primary accent is indicated by a heavy mark ('), and the secondary accent by a lighter mark (') ; thus, Bouvinea (boo'ven'); Massachusetts (mSs'd-choo'sSts). Note.— French names have the primary accent on the final full syllable, but this accent should generally be very slight. The other syllables are marked with equal stress. In German names, the principal accent is placed earlier in the word, as in English. In Hungarian and Bohemian names, the accent is on the first syllable. In Polish, as in Italian, the accent is on the penult. Id Russian, the accent is capricious but very marked. Aachen (or Aix-la-Chapelle), a'Efo Aalst (or Alost), alst Abbeville, ab'vel' Abee, a'ba' Acheuz, a'sbQ' Achiconrt, a'shETtoSr' Acbiet, a'shya' Acosaee, a'kS'sa' Acoz, a'ko' Acq, ak Adelsberg, a'dfls-bSre Adlgd (river), a'de-ja Adinkerke, ad'en-kSr'kS Adria. a'drf-a Aerscbot, ar'sKot Aerseele, Si'sa'le Aettirycke, at'fre-ke Aebre, a're Agincouit, a'ahSsTioor' ; Eng. Sj'In- kort Agordo, a-g8r'd3 Anrdorf , ar'dorf Ahiweller, ar'vl-ler Aidin, I-den' Aincreville, SNTtr'-vel' Aintab, in'tab' Aire, £r Aisne (river), &n Aivenne, k'vin' Alx-la-Cbapelle ior Aachen), Sks'la'- sha'pS' Ala, a'la Albeek, alHiak Albert, al'bar' Albesdorf , al'b£z-dorf Alboua, al'bo'na Aleppo, d ISp'o Alexandietta (or Iskanderun), Sl'Sf- zSn-drSt'a Aiken, al'k&i AUarmont, a'lar'm&N' Alle, al'S Allennes, aHSn' Allensteln, Sl'Jn-shtin' AUondreUe, 4'lON'drSl' Alost (or Aalst), a'lSst Alsdorf , iilz'derf Alssmberg, al'z9m-bSiK Altboten, alt'bo'f& AltWrob, iilt'kIrK' Altzingen, alt'ztng-& Amance, a'm^Ns' Amanwellar, a'man-vi'ler Ambacooit, SN'ba'kssr' AmbUmont, aN'blS'mSN' Ambresin, SN'br'-siN' Amel, a'mSl Amiens, a'mySN' Amoblnes, ii'mS'en' Amont, a'mdN' Amougies, a'moo'zhe' Auipezzo, Sm-pSt'so Ancle (river), SsTir' Anderlecbt, an'dSr-l&t Andenne, aN'dSn' Angres, aN'gr' Anta^e, iiN'a' Anicbes, a'nesh' Anller, iiN'lyS' Anloy, aN'lwa' Anneux, a'nfl' Annevois, an'vwa' Anor, a'nSr' Anould, a'nSol' Anoiuf, a'Qoo' Atts, ilNs Ansauville, aN'so'vel' Antbie, aN'ta' Antheit, an'tlt Antbelupt, aN'tS-liip' Antilly, SN'te'ye' Antioch, £n'tf-ok Antreppe, aN'trSp' Auvln, aN^v^N' Any, a'nS' Anzelln, Snz'ISn' Anzin, aN'zSN' AppUly, a'pe've' Apremont, a'pr'-mSN' Arbe, arb Arcey, ar'sE* Arcbennes, ar'shSn' Arches, arsh Arco, Sr'k3 Ardaban, ar'da-hiin' Ardoye, ar'dwa' Argenteau, ar'zhan'to' Argonne, ar'gSn' Aileux, ar'lfl' Arlon, ar'18N' Aimentiires, ar'maN'tySr' Amavllle, ar'na'vel' Aiaues, ark Anaconit, a'ra'keor' Arras, a'ras' Arraye, a'ra' Arry, a're' Ars, arz Arsdorf , Krz'dSrl Artes, art Artois, ar'twa' Arville, ar'vel' Asch, ash Ascq, ask Asiago, a'zya-g3 Asolo, a'zS-15 Assche, as'Ke Assweller, as'vi-ler Atb, at Atbesans, a'te-siiN' Atbies, a'te' Athus, a'tii' Attainvllle, a'tSN'vel' Attigny, a'te'nyS' Atweiler, at'vi-ler Aube (river), ob Aubel, o'bSl' Aubencbeul, o'baN'shfll' Aubenton, o'ban'taN' Auberive, ob'rcv' Aubers, o'bSr' Anbiguy, o'be'nye' Aublain, o'bllN' Auchel, o'shEl' Auchy, o'she' Audeuaide (or Oudenarde), ou'di- nar'dS Audincourt, o'daN'koor' Audun, o'diiN' Auge, ozh Augustowo, ou'g56s-to'v5 Aulnois, ol'nwa' Auluoye, ol'nwii' Aumetz, ou'mStz AurODZO, ou-r8nt's3 Autel-Bas, o'tgl' b£' Autoing, o'tw^N' Autrey, o'trg' Auvillers, S've'lSr' AvecapeUe, av'ka'pSl' Avelgbem, a'vSl-gem Avennes, a'vSn' Avesnes, a'vSn' Aviano, a-vyii'no Avion, a'vyON' Aviotb, a'vyS' Aviicouit, a'vte'koor' Avrll, a'vra' Ay, a'E Ayette, a'ySt' Awenne, a'vSn' Azerailles, a'zS-i^'y' Azoudange, at'sou-dang'! Baccarat, ba'ka'ra' Badia, b'i-dS'i Baelegeiu, bU'lS-gSm Baelen, ba'l^n ; ba'laN' Bagdad (or Bhagdad), bag-dad'; £710, bSg'dSd Bagnenx, ban'yfl' Bafleux, ba'lQ' Baillenl, ba'yQl' Baisleux, bii'zyQ' Baku, ba-koo' Bale (or Basel), bUl Ballersdorf , bal'erz-d3rf 338 Pronunciation of War Names Bambnwge, bam'br^g'S Bannonvme, ba'nBN'vel' Bapaume, ba'pom' Baibaiano, bar^a-rS'nS Bai-l8-Duc, bar'-15-diik' Baionconrt, ba'roN'koor' BaionviUe, ba'rSN'vel' Baionweiler, ba'iSn-vI'l& Barst, barst Barvanx, bar'vo' Basooup, ba'kfiQ' Basel (fir BSle), ba'zJI Basra (or Busra), bus'ra Bassano, bSs-sa'n5 Bass§e, La, la' ba'sS' BastognO. bas't^N'y' Batllly, ba'te'ye' Batum, ba-toSm' Baudiecourt, bS'dr'-koSi' BanSe, bof Baugnies, bo'Dye* Baulon, bo18N' Bautersem, bou'ter-s^m Bavay, ba'vS' Bazeules, ba'za'y' Beaucourt, boOcdor' Beaumetz, bo'mSs' Beaumont, bo'moN' Beanquesne, bolLSa' BeamainE, Wr^M' Beaurevoir, bo're-vwii' Beaavals, bo'vl' Beauval, bo'val' Beanvillers, bS've'iar' Beblng, ba'bing Becby, bSK'S Becldngen, bSk'Ing-?n Becquevooit, bSk'vort' Beenngen, ba'ring-en Beernem, bIr'uSm Beerst, bSrst Beine, b^n Beinbeim, bTn'htm Beirut (or Beyrout), ba'rSBt' Belfott, bSl'foi' Belgrade, b^'gtld' Bellefontalue, bSl'foH't£n' Bellegbem, bSl'e-gSm Bellem, bSl'Sm Bellevaux, ba'vo' Belllconrt, b£l'£^eoi' BeUignies, bS-le'nye' Belluno, bel-lfio'no Belosl, b£-lo'se Belval, bH'val' Belveme, bSl'vKm' Beney, bS-nF Beuniiigei), bSnTng-^a Bensdorf, benz'dSrf Berchem, bSi'KSm Berg, bSrs Berlaimont, bSr'lS'mSN' - Bemecourt, bSmtSBr' Bemlssart, b?r'nS'sar' Bemweller, bErn'vMEr Berqnette, bSr'ka' Bertuicourt, b?r'taN'ko5t' Bertogne, bSr'tan'y' Bertncliampa, bSr'tie'sbaH' Bertrlx, bSr'tre' Beizie, bSr'zS' Beaaneon, bl'zaN'sSN' Betbonvllllers, be-t8N'vS'ySr' Bitlmne, ba'tUn' Bettalnvlllers, bg'tSN've'iar' Benthen, boi'tSn Bettemberg, bSt'lm Mnc Beverloo, bSv'Sr-lo' Beverst, bSv'Srst Beyrout (or Beirut), ba'rSot' Bbagdad (or Bagdad), bag-dad' Blalystok, bya'll-stik Bienville, bySN'va' Blesme, bFam' Biestre, be'Es'tr' Blevre, be'tv'r' Bibain, be'Su' Bllsen, btl's^ BUly, be'yS' Bincbe, bSCNsh Bioncourt, bySN'kSSi' Bionville, byaN'vel' Bisten, bVt^n Bltburg, btt'bd6rE Bitscbweller, btt'shvl'ler Biwer, bE'vS' BUndaln, UShMSn' Blagny, bla'nye' Blamont, bla'mdN' Blaregnies, bla'rS'nye' Blaton, bla'tSN' BleiaU, bll'alf Blelbnrg, bll'bdSrE Bleid, blld Blenod, bl£'n&' Bloemendaele, bloo'm^n-da'le Blumenthal, bloo'men-tal Bockryok, bSk'rek Boelbe, boBl'g Boesingbe, bos'stng-g Boevange, bo8'vang-S Bobalu, bt'ts' Boisleus, bwa'lQ' Boismont, bwa'mSN' Boltweller, bolt'vl Kr Bomal, bS'mal' Bomy, b6'me' Bonconrt, bds'kBot' Bonbome, bS'n$m' Bonlez, bSM'lS' Bonnes, bSa Bonneville, bSn'vel' Bonuevoye, bSn'vwa' Bonviller, bSti'vPya' Boom, bom Borg, b6rK Borgo, bSr'go Borsbeke, bSrz'ba-ke Bospboms (or Bosporus), biis'pfi-riis Bosseval, bSs'val' Botosbanl, bB-tS-shan'y' Botzen, bSt's^n Bonchaln, boo'staSN' Bouobout, bis'sha' Bouconvllle, boo'koN'vel' Boucq, b5Sk Boudour, boB'dssr' Bougnles, bSS'nye' Bouillon, boo'ySN' Boulers, boa'l^r' Boulogne, bSo'lSn'y' ; Eng. b£6-lon' Boult, bSBl Bouquemaison, bSok'ma'zSN' Bourbourg, bfioi'baor' Bouroy, biSSr'se' Bourdonnay, bSSr'dS'na' Bourg-Brucbe, boBrK'-brefiK'S Bourg-Fidele, boor'-fS'dtl' Bourgogne, b€Br'g3n'y' Boursies, bssr'se' Boussy, bra'se' Bousval, b6os'val' Bouverie, bfiBv'rE' Bouvignes, bSS'ven'y' Bouvlgny, bSo've'nye' Bouvines, hS5'\tn' Bouvron, boo'vr8N' Bonxlires, bSB'zySi' Boves, bSv Bovigny, bfi've'nye' Bovmnes, bS'vrln' Bra, bra Brabant-le-roi, bra'baN'-lE-rwa' Braffe, bta{ Braila, bra-e'la Bralne, brSn Braiue-le-Oomte, br£n'-lSf-k8Nt' Bralves, briv Brancbon, braN'shSN' Brand, brSnt Braquis, bra'ke' Bras, bia Bratte, brat Braunsberg, brounz'bSnc Braux, bra Bray, brS Bray-sur-Selne, brK'-siir'-sSn' Bray-sur-Somme, brS'-sUc'-ESm' 339 Breganze, bra-gant'sa Brenta (river), brgn'tS Brest-Litovsk, brSst'-lyS-tSfsk' Bretton, brSt'Sn Bile, bre Briey, fare's' Btin, brilH Biionl bri-o'ne Brixen, brlk's^n Brouay, brS5'e' Brouck, brouk Bronckllk, brou'kirk BrouveUers, btSBy'lySr' Bniay, brii'f' Bruges, briizh Bruly-de-Fescbe, brii'le' de-pash' Brusa {or Brussa), broS'sa Brussels (or Bruxelles), brus'^k Bruxelles (.or Brussels), brii'sfl' Bruyeres, brii'yar' Bry, bre Buoquoy, bii'kwB' Buczacz, boo'chach Buderscbled, bSS'dJr-shet Budin, bes'din Bug (river), bd£g Bubl. bS31 Bulre, bwSr Buironfosse, bwe'rfiN'fSs' Bukbarest (or Bucharest), boo'kA-r&t' Bukowina (Bukovina), boo'kS-ve'na Bulllngen, b"' nationalities }9 prisoners IJ^ war loan "^"^ Austro-Itallan frontier...... Map Plate ^"^ ,„„ Baden-Powell, General 308 Baker, Secretary 291 Balance of Power s Balkans 10, 12, 170, 171 Map Plate IX Baltic Sea territory. 142, 159, 164 Bank Laws German 202, 203 Barrage 46 Batoum 176-212 Battalion ..; 104 Battalion of Beath 150 Battery 105 Battlefields cultivation 102 Battles 128-130, 296 naval 131-135 Battleships (see Warships) Beatty, Sir David 305 Beer 278 Belgium 153, 158, 304 king 300, 304 Map showing Franco-Ger- man frontier. ...Plate IT Berlin 212^ 223 Berlin-Bagdad Bailroad. ..6^ 192 Bernhardi, General 309 Bessarabia 167 Bethmann-HoUweg, Br. T... 310 Big Bertha 88 Birth rate 247 Black Sea... 11 Blockade 33, 38 Boche 224 Boer War (see Africa) Bohemians 19 Bolo Pasha 317 Bolsheviki 163, 177 Bombs airplane 70, 74 Bosnia 17 Bounties 131, 276 Bourassa, Henri 318 Bourgeois ' 178 Boycott 319 Boy-Ed, Capt 307 Brazil 246 Bread 227, 272 Breech-loading 88 Breslau 133 Brest-Litovsk 167, 183 Briand, Arlstide 311 Bridgehead 101 "Brig" 86 Brigade 105 British East India Co 174 British Empire (see Great Britain) 5 Browning gun 94 Brussels 153 Bulgaria 14, 302 Bullets dum-dum 101 Bulow, prince .'311 Bundesrath 216, 217 By-products 207 Cabinet, IT. S 290 Cadorna, General 307 Cameras aircraft 72 Camouflage 89 Camps cantonments . .\ 232 prison 116 Canada 26, 277 army 147 casualties 124 French population 31 Cannon 88, 91,^ 95 349 Cantonments 232 Plate XTII Cartridges 108 Casualties of War 121, 125 Catapult 88 Cattle 230, 274, 281 Caucasus 176 Causes , 1, 5, 17, 33 Cavell, Edith 156, 157 Censorship 224, 294 Central Powers (see Germany and Austria- Hungary) Chalons 296 Charles Francis Joseph 301 Chauvinism 7 Chelmsford, Lord 317 Chemin des Dames 128 Chief of Staff 103 Chile 276, 283, 145, 285 China 26, 31, 115, 187, 321 Chronology 327 to 336 Civilians 151 Clemenceau, Georges 312 Clive, Lord 173 Coal.. 26, 176, 209. 210, 284 Coast defense 85 ^Coffee 229 Colliers 82 Colonies England's 26 Germany's 27 Commerce (see trade) Commercial development ... 8 Commissioned oficers. . .105, 106 Communication line 53 Communication trench.. 102 Congress of Berlin 17 Congress of Vienna..... 5 Company 103 Company clerk 51 Conscientious objectors 244 Conscription 231 to 241 Constantino 301 Constantinople 11 Constanza ,. 165 Continuous voyage 41 Contraband 33 Copper 96, 101, 285 Corn.., 227, 275, 281 Corps 53, 106 Cossacks 160 Cost ..I, 125, 190 to 205 Cotton 90, 91, 210, 287 Council of National Defense 292 Courland 159, 165 Court Martial 322, 323 Crops 228, 229, 274,280 (hrown Prince of Germany, . 225 Cruisers 79, 84 Currency 203 Cyprus 27 Czar of Bussla 183, 301, 302 Czech 19 Czernln, Count 313 Dacia 259 Dalmatia Map, plate VIII 5 Danish West Indies 27 Danube 165, 166,266 Dardanelles 11, 134, 136 Daylight Saving 320 Death penalties 104, 322, 323 Death rate 232, 246 de Bloch, Jean 317 Debts 181, 193, 194, 197 Index Declaration of IiOndon 33 Declaration of War 214 Defensive army 50 Demobilization 235 Denmark 28, 158 Depth-bomb 56 Deserters 236 Destroyers 81 Destruction of ships 252 of vlUagea 139 Deutschland .61, 208 Dictionary of War names 338 to 346 Dirigibles 71 Disabled soldiers 126 Division-army 103, 104 Dobrndja 165, 166 Dora 152 Draft 231 to 240 "Drang nacb Osten" 3 Dreadnoughts .79, 80 Dresden 132 Drunkenness , 278 "Dud" 49 Dug-outs 102 Duma 179, 180 Dumba, Dr 37 Dum-dum bullets ,,, lOl Duty 50, 199, 269 Dyes 207 Education 220 Egypt 26, 29, 287 Elections 215 Emden 132 Emigration 249 Emperor William II (see Kaiser) Enemy 289 Enemy Alien 290, 294 Enfield rifle 87 Enfilade , 96 England (see Great Britain) Entrenching outfit 108 Enver Pasha 318 Equipment (see outfit) Espionage 322, 323 Esthonia 159, 165 Euphrates 268 Europe, Hap of Plate II Plate XIV Exchange of Prisoners 116 Exemptions 234 Expansion, foreign 2 Explosives ,,, 88, 90, 96 Exports of Germany 206 of Japan 186 of TTnited States 279 Eyeglasses 52 Factories 321 Falklands 131 Farm Loans. 280 Farmers 238 Ferdinand 1 301 Finger-prints 114 Finland 161, 166, 167 Fire-trench 49 Flume 5 Flags of Allies Plate XVIII Flemish Belgium 154 Foch, General 310 Food Administration 281 Food blockade (see blockade) Food conditions 226 to 229, 272 to 282 Food requirements of army 51), 52 Foreign Legion 149 Forests 287 "Forlorn hops" service .... 45 Fortress confinement 5 222 France 30 army ..101, 121, 147, 24f, 285 conscription % 241 debt 197 food 276 Foreign Legion 149 loans 200 Hap showing lowlands of No. France, Plate V Map showing highlands of Xo. France, Flats VI. president 312 prisoners 116 ships 263 Franco-Prussian war 24, 204 Franoo-Susslan Alliance .... 9 Franc-Tireurs 152 Free Coinage 197 French 75s 101 French, General =. 306 Frojntiers t 223 "Frye" 258 Fuel ships 82 Galicians '. 162 Galllpoli 14, 125, 129, 148, 242 Gas masks 98 Gas, poisonous 96 to 99 Gasoline 100, 286 General ; 107 George V 300, 302 Germany 26, 30, 31, 206, 21S>, 249 airplanes 67 army 95, 96, 97, 101, 115, 121, 125, 127, 149, 240 conquered land 139 conscription . . . .- , 241 costs of war 202i 205 cotton needs 91 emigration 213 exports 206 food 227 frontier 223 Imports 206 industrial conditions 206 to 213 iron , 96 loans 202, 213 nationalities, map show- ing, plate II. navy 8, 78; 141 political structure. .214 to 223 population 206, 220, 228 prisoners 116 to 120 Prussia 6, 212, 214, 218, 228 seaports • 211 Gifts to soldiers 50, 52; 239 Glacis 99 Goeben .' 133 Gold coin .^ 193 Grain 139 Great Britain 5, 26, 171 airplanes 68 army 114, 121, 124, 147, 243, 245 debt ' 197 food 272 tn 278 king 300 munitions 1 00 to 320 navy 26, 78 prisoners 116 Greece 13, 143, 150, 170, 301 Greek Catholic Church 178 Grenades .s 49 Grey, Viscount 313 Gun-cotton 90 Gun-layer ; J46 Gunners American naval > 82 Gunpowder 297 Guns 44, 73, 75, 85, 92, 94, 95, 96, 101, 143 Hague Conventions 157 Haig, Sir Douglas 306 Hanover 303 Hapsburg .301 350 Harden, Hazlmilian 318 Hegeminy 3 Heligoland 137 Helsingfors 166 Herrenhaus 219 HertUng, Count 311 Herzegovina 17 Hindenburg, General ...225, 306 "Hindenburg Line" -. 51 Hohenzollems 215, 300 Holland Belgium refugees In.. 154 claim for damages 225 trade 269, 284 Holy Synod 178 Home Rule 169 Honors conferred. frontispiece 152 Hoover, Herbert 278 Horses 152 House of Lords 216, 217, 219 Howitzers 92 Huns 295 "Hush-Hush" ships 141 Hymn of Hate 224 Identification of fighting men 114, 115 Imperialism 7 Imports of Germany 2O6 of Japan 186 of Bussia 175 Income tax Great Britain ;. . . . igs United States 289 Income, V. S 195 European Rulers 304 Indemnity 36, 127, 222 India 147 to 149, 171 to 174 Industrial conditions Germany 206-213 Infantryman 1O8 Inoculation 125 Insignia 109-113 Insurance 239 Interned German ships 257 Inventions American 87 Irish 148, 169 Iron 23, 96, 216 Iron ration 227 Istria 5 Italia Irredenta 3 Italy 5, 136 identification of men 115 possessions 31 war costs 201 "Jam Pot" 49 Jameson Bald 30 Japan 184 to 189 navy 79, 188 population 248 JeUlcoe, Sir John B 305 Jerusalem 130 Jews 168 Jingoism 7 Joffre, General Joseph 305 Junker , .218, 308 Jutland 131 Kaiser ...214, 226, 300, 302, 303 Kameruu 32 Eerensky, Alexander .' 313 Xlau-Chau , 187 Kiel Canal 137, 267 Killed ..121, 122, 125 King of England 216, 300 gtapa 300, 304 Kipling 152 Kitchener, Lord 305 Kite balloon 75 Knitted articles '.'.". 52 giot 83 Korea 135 Komllov, General .... 307 Krupp works ^lO, 307 Labor laws 319 Index Labor Unions 319 Laohrynial skill 97 Landsturm 241 Language 20, 23, 294 Lenlne, Nikolai 177, 315 Lllerty Loans 195 Liberty motor 72 Llebknecht, Karl 314 Llego 125, 157 LUuid fire 97 Listening posts 49 Lithuania 159, 164 Livonia 159 Lloyd George, David 310, 317 Loans 186, 191, 194. 198-201, 202, 205 Lorraine (see Alsace) Lusltania 36, 264 Luxembourg 1 53, 1 58 Uacedonia 12, 13, 171 Macbine-gun ■ 44, 94 Uackensen, Gen 49 "Kade in Germany" 269 Magnitude 1 Hail matter to soldiers 50, 52, 239 Maltese 29 Mancburia 184 Manila 186 Maps World at War Plate I Europe Plate 11 Subject Nationalities of German Alliance Plate III Belgium and Franco-Ger- man frontier Plate IV. Iiowlaiids of Northern France and Belgium Plate V Highlands of Northern France Jlate VI Alsace & Lorraine Plate VII Dalmatia and Austro- Italian Frontier Plate VIII Balkan States Plate IX Asia Minor Plate X Western Bussla and Po- land Plate XI BuBSia-European Plate XII Fan-German Plan Plate XIII Physical Map of Europe Plate XIV Baoial Map of £urope Plate XV Distribution of Nation- alities Plate XVI V. S, Army... Plate XVII Flags of Allies Plate XVIII Marine Zones 85 Master list 231 Maubeuge 308 Meat 272, 277, 280 Medals of Honor frontispiece Medical Service 126 Merchant Ships American ^b\ arming 39 Japab's 150 riehts of 40 sinking 40, 252 Mercier, Cardinal ..••■ 315 Military alms 136 to 40 Military honors 152 Milnor, Lord 3,18 Mine fields „^^ Minerals ••• f'^. ^^geg 63, 284 Minister's and Ambassadors. 317 Moltke, Gen 131,-308 Monel Metal 114 Mens 149 Montenegro 170 Morocco ., 3-4 Moss use for dressing vounds. . 125 Motor cars 319 Muller , 132, 133,^225 Munitions 100, 210 Mutiny 222 Namur 128 Napoleon , 295 National Army ." 231 National Guard 103 National power, comparison of I Nationalities, distribution of Map Plate XVI Nationalities of German Al- liance, Map of.... Plate II Nations at war 1 Naturalization 249 Naval battles 131 to- 135 Naval screen 84 Navy camouflage 89 Chile ! 145 Germany 78, 141 Great Britain, 78, 141, 145, 305 Japan 79, 142 188 neutral 141 slang 86 United States 78, 293 Negroes ' 224 Neutrality rights ...33, 39,294 New Guinea 26 Newspaper correspondents.. 151 New Zealand 26 Nicholas II 183, 301 Nickel 284 Nietzsche, Frederick W.... 316 Nile, French and English clash 9 Nitrogen 283 Nivelle, General Eobt .-307 No Man's Land 49 Non-combatants 151 Non-commissioned officers . . 105 NorthcUffe, Lord 316 Norway 254 Nurses 299 Offensive army 50 Officers 105, 106,107 Oil ...83, 176, 212,286 Okuma, Count 312 Orders 152 Orlando, Vittorio 312 Outat cost of 51 soldiers 107 weight of 52 Pacific Ocean possessions in 31 Palestine 130, 168 Pan-Americanism 294 Pan-Germanism . ., 6 Map of Plate XIII Pan-SUvism 3, 12, 161 Paper 287 Parcel Post packages to sol- diers 50, 239 Paris conference 270 Parliament English 216 German 216 Parseval 70 Pay, army. 52, 106, 148, 239, 245 Peace terms suggested by Pros. Wilson 37, 163 Peace treaty Busso-German 175 Peers 217 Pension 245 351 Periscope ..S4, 65, 102 Pershing, General 310 Persia 28, 29 Petain, General . ., 305 Peter I 301 Fetrograd 163, 182 Petroleum 286 Phalanx 88 Philippines . .' 186 Phosgene gas 98 Photography aircraft 72 Picardy Battle 296 Place in the Sun 2, 26 Platinum ,. . . 284 Platoon 103 PlimsoU mark 263 Poland 159, 167 Map Plate XI Poles 21 Polish Legion 149 Political aims 136 to 140 Political structure German 214 to 223 Bussia 176 Polygamy 226 Pope 151, 316 Population 246 Germany 206, 220, 228 Japan 185 Bussia 247 United States 206, 246 Pork 275 Port Arthur 185 Portugal 150 Postage 50, 52, 239 Potash 283 Potatoes 212 Powder 90 Premier of France 311 Presents to soldiers 50, 52, 239 President of France 312 President of United States 37, 163, 214, 292 Prices, food 272,281 Prisoners of War 43, 116 to 120, 201 Privates equipment 107 pay 106 promotion 106 Prize court 40 Pronunciation of War names 335-346 Protagonists 7 Provisional Government ... 177 Prussia 212, 214, 218, 228 Prussians i. . • .6, 218 Punishments 104, 105, 118 Bacial Map of Europe Plate XV Eaids 43, 70, 75 Eailroads 25, 175, 192, 209, 267, 268, 292, 321 Bajah of Sarawak 36 Eapid-flre gun 44, 95 Basputin 181 Bations (see food) Beoonstruction work 293 Becord of Events in War. . 327 to 336 Bed army 182 Bed Cross 298, 299 Begiment 105 Eelohstag 216, 221, 313 Eeligions 15, 178, 246, 250 Separation 127 Beprlsals 151 Bepudiation of debts 193 Beserve troops 46 Beservlsts 246 Betaliation 41 Eeventlow, Count 316 Bevenue measures 195, 197, 198, 289 Index Sevolutlonists 177 KhiM 210, 211,266 Hlbot, Alexandre 311 Eifle 44, 87, 96, 102 Blvalrles, pre-war 2-12 Elvalrje, military 8 Bivers, 9, 165, 166, 210, 211, 266, 268 Bobertson, General 307 Boman Catholics 250 Boss rifle 102 Boumania 13, 138, 165, 166, 201, 212, 301 Eoyalty 300 Bubber 211 Balers 300 to 304 Buaaia 163, 175 to 183 army 115, 122, 128, 224, 242, 245 Czar 301 debts 181 food 229 map Plats XI peace treaty 175 premier 3i3 prisoners 116, 182 population 247 war costs 200, 201 Bye 228 Sabotaes 319 Sailors gunners . , 82 Ideutiflcatlou 114 Boarfs 85 trousers 85 St. Petersburg 182 Salandra, Antonio 312 Saltpeter 283 Samoa 31 "Sapper" 49 Sarrail, General 308 Scheldt Biver 266 Bclentifio development 8, 206, 209 Scotland 248 "Scrap of paper" 158 Sea fights 131 Seaplane 69 Seaports German 211 Sea-power, Germany's ..... 8 Seas control of 5 freedom of the 38 Secret diplomacy 2 Sector 48 Selective Draft 231 Serbia 13, 16, 149,312 casualties 122 king 301 prisonens 119 war coats 201 "Shell shock" 47 Shells 96, 97, 101 Ships construction 253 destruction 252 fuel 82 Interned 257 merchant 39, 186, 261 seizures 255 Shoes .52, 287 Shrapnel 102 Shrapnel-shells 73 Siberia 182, 185, 192 Sickness 231 Sieges 130 Signals 56 Silent Susie 102 Sinn Fein 169 Slackers 238 Slang 86 Slavs 3, 19, 178 Smoke-bos 56 Smuts. General 149,308 Socialists 321, 222, 315, 316 Soldiers allies 147 duties 108 equipment 107 identification 114 pay 52, 106, 148, 239, 245 rank 106 S. 0. S. signal 56 South African War (see Africa) South American Eepublics. .,250 Sovereign 197 Soviets 177, .181 Spain 247, 285 Springfield rifle 87 Spruce lumber 76 Spurs 107 Spy 322, 323 Squad 103 Stafr officer 107 Steel 209 Strategy of the War 136 Strikes 222 Submarine war-zone decree . 35, 38, 40 Submarines 35 to 40, 54, 55, 57 to 66, 79, 252 Sudan 26, 30 Suez Canal ~267 Suffrage 215 Sugar 272, 273,281 Surveyor-General of Army' Purchases 292 Sussex, sinking of 36 Sweden 166 Switzerland 50 Sword 107 Tag identification 114, 115 "Tagging" 51 Tanks 99 Tannenberg 129 Taxation 29, 198, 204, 213,-289 Teeth 237 Telegraph 267 Telephone operators 51 Territorials 147 Tetanus 126 Thomas 316 Three-Emperor Year 304 Thrift stamps 195 Time fuses 92 Tirpltz, Admiral 308 Tisza, Count Stephen 313 Tolite 90 Tolstoy prophecies of 1 82 Tonnage ........ 81 Torpedo mine 64 Torpedoes 55, . . 60 Trade arteries 266 Trade, world 8-26, 9 to 271 Trading with the Enemy Act 289 Traitor 322, 323 Transports capacity of 52 defense of 54 Treaties Bussian peace 175 Treaties, secret 2 Japan and Bussla 188 Treaty of Paris 11 Treitschke 316 Trenches 42 communication 102 mortar 48 outfit 108 periscope 102 Triple Alliance 16 Tripoli 29 Trotzky 314 Turkey 134,136 army 307,-308 Islands 31 navy 144 352 119 prisoners «" Turpinite "" Typhoid ,25 vaccination • • • " Ukraine 160, 163, 164, 167 Uncle Sam fj^ TTniforms '■'"' United States army 42, 53, 54 103. 108, 231 Map Plato XVII citizens in Germany 223 cost of war 190 to 196 Danish West Indies pur- chase 27 entry into war. 33, 136 food 279 to 282 Income 195 Japanese agreement 187 munitions 100 navy 78, 293 neutrality 33, 35 Vaccination 125 Vatican 150 Venice • 4 Venizelos 317 Virgin Islands 28 Vivianl, Bene 311 Vladivostok 185 Volunteer War Work 299 Von Bernstorft 317 Von Bethmann-Hollweg, Dr. T 310 Von Bu'.ow, Prince 311 Von Hertling, Count 311 Von Mackensen 149 Von Moltke 131, 308 Vcn Muller 132, 133, 225 Von Tirpitz, Admiral 308 Von Zevehl, General 308 Voting in army 52 Walloon, Belgium 154 War babies 248 War debts 193, 194 War certificates 195 War Chancellor 310 War factor, single 2 War loans 186, 191, 194, 198, 200, 205 War Lord 214 War Savings Stamps 195 Warships ..78 to 86, 141 to 146 Wars, since Franco-Prussian 9 War-zone decree 35, 38, 40 Water for armies In France 48 Waterloo 295 Weapons of War 87-101 Weather 293 West Point 107 Wheat 273, 276, 279, 281, 282 Whiskey 278 Whiz-Bang 103 William II ..214, 226, 300, 302 Wilson, President ..37, 214,292 peace principles 163 Wire barbed 100 Wireless 64, 86 Women's work ...290, 319, 320 Wood pulp 287 Wood, Major-General Leon- ard 305 ■Wool 210, 211,288 Workers 319 to 321 World Map Plate I Wounded 122, 126 Yokohama jgg Zabern affair ' * * 23 Zemstvos J70 Zeppelin .......69 70 Zouaves ' , .g Zwehl, General ....,[ 303 .i'^^is n