I am sending under separate cover a drawing suitable for an Ivory Soap advertisement.

This drawing is based on an occurrence which was too good for me to let slip by. One of the boys got two bars of Ivory in his 3x4x9 Christmas box and his attitude and joy in receiving it, is by no means exaggerated in the drawing. Ivory leaves a feeling of freshness and cleanliness that can't be equaled. We were able to get it at a commissary down in the Vosges about three months ago, but haven't seen any since.

The background of the drawing will picture somewhat the comfort in which the Army of Occupation is now living. Our quarters are in a former seminary

and we have all the conveniences of a college dormitory.

Though the drawing is

done on the only paper available and not on the usual 30 x 40 illustration board you are accustomed to see, I'm sure it will reproduce well. An advertisement could be written around it for next Christmas or it can be used in the near future, as a good many of us shall remain here for a long time and boxes will come as long as any of us remain.

Yours very truly,

Sgt. George W. Straub,

Co. C, 326 F. Sig. Ba., American E. F., A. P. O. 792.

THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE

N lis

MAY 28, 1919

and the soldiers; the extending of our merchant shipping system; the reconsti

Wilson's Message. It was notable as being the first ever sent by an American President by cable from a foreign country and as being also the first Message from President Wilson at the opening of Congress which he has not delivered in person. The Message deals almost entirely with domestic affairs, the President merely expressing the hope that he will soon be at his post in Washington to report upon the Peace Conference and declaring that "it still seems to be my duty to take part in the counsels of the Peace Conference and contribute what I can to the solution of the innumerable questions to whose settlement it has had to address itself; for they are questions which affect the peace of the whole world, and from them, therefore, the United States cannot stand apart." On domestic affairs Mr. Wilson makes many suggestions and recommendations. Naturally he refers to the appropriations necessary for Government maintenance and the fulfillment of our National engagements, appropriations which were not passed by the previous Congress. This need he speaks of as critical. The labor question receives large attention and stress, but the recommendations are rather as to the spirit of the legislation than as to specific requirements. Thus the President says:

The object of all reform in this essential matter must be the genuine democratization of industry, based upon a full recognition of the right of those who work, in whatever rank, to participate in some organic way in every decision which directly affects their welfare or the part they are to play in industry.

At just this time special interest has been felt in what the President might say as to the prohibiting of the manufacture and sale of wines and beers under the present war measure. He believes that it is now safe to remove that ban, but that he has not legal authority to do so without new legislation, for which accordingly he asks. As to woman suffrage, he declares that the passing of the amendment is called for by "every consideration of justice and of public advantage."

Other points of large interest touched upon in the Message are: Assisting returned soldiers in the most liberal spirit

to enter into the work of the country, with special recommendation of Secretary Lane's plan as to the undeveloped lands

it more simple and less burdensome; the adjustment of the "mainstays" of taxation, namely, the income tax, the excess profits tax, and the estate tax-all of which should be made to yield adequate returns without burdening the taxpayers grievously; the returning of the railways and telegraphs and telephones as soon as it can be done, with the statement that the railways will be handed over to their owners at the end of the calendar year; tariff revision under the new international conditions, with special attention to dyestuffs and chemical manufactures.

There is a good deal in this Message, and particularly the passages regarding prohibition and regarding the return of the railway and wire systems, that indicates new trends of action which the Democratic minority in Congress will doubtless follow if they continue to accept the lead of the President as to National legislation.

MISREPRESENTATION

in the Sixty-sixth Congress is a measure One of the first bills to be introduced providing that hereafter each new Conbefore it assembles, but shall meet on gress shall not wait nearly thirteen months March 4 following election.

This is a very conservative, indeed an excessively cautious, attempt to improve

a condition that is now undemocratic and dangerous.

At present we tolerate in America unrepresentative government. A man is elected President in November. The President whom he displaces nevertheless remains in office for four months. A man is elected to Congress. In the ordinary course of affairs the man whom he dis

places still remains, with power to legis late, for four months, and the man whom the people have chosen in his place cannot take his seat, unless the President wills it, until the last month of the year after

which he has been elected.

The situation which has arisen this

year has called public attention to this

state of affairs. In the elections last November the people withdrew their support from the Democratic party in Congress and gave it to the Republican party. Nevertheless there was no change. Because the last Congress was prevented by the tactics of what was nominally and

legally the minority party (though not the minority party according to the funds for the Government, the President was forced to call the new Congress into special session. Otherwise the representatives whom the people elected last November would not have been able to take their seats and carry out the people's will until next December.

This is not the fault of the Constitution. To remedy this state of affairs it is not necessary to go to the trouble of a Constitutional amendment. All that needs to be done is for Congress to enact a law. There is no real reason why the interval between the election and the inauguration of the President or the sitting of Congress should be more than a month. At the furthest the new Congress should take its seat on the first of January, and the new President should begin his term of office on the first of January, following election.

The measure which Mr. McArthur has introduced and which has, it is said, a fair chance of rapid enactment, is but a step in the right direction.

This necessary reform has been the subject of discussion for years. Not only did we point this matter out on March 19, when we said, "Congress, by law under the Constitution, can change the date of the first session of Congress to the 1st of January next following election day," but we have urged the same reform before. In March, 1902, we raised this question. In December, 1905, we said: "The Congress elected in November should assemble in the following December, not in the year following—that is, one month, not thirteen months, after the election." And again, in February, 1910, we said: "By all means let Inauguration Day be changed; but let it be put back from the 4th of March to the 1st of

December."

We hope not only that Mr. McArthur's bill will be enacted, but that it will be followed by agitation for further legisla tion setting both the Presidential inauguration and the first session of each new Congress not later than the first of January, and preferably the first week in December.

WHAT BEER IS ILLEGAL?

The new National war-time prohibition law prohibits the manufacture, importation, or sale, not of auy kind of beer,

but only of beer that is in fact intoxicating. This has been established by the decision of Judge A. N. Hand in the United States District Court in New York. It remains to be established what beer is intoxicating and what is not.

Though the decision was in a case brought by brewers, and therefore applies directly to the manufacture of beer, the decision would in effect apply also to wine.

As in almost all legal cases, the process by which this decision was reached seems rather complicated to the ordinary man. It came about in this way. Last November Congress passed an act "for the purpose of conserving the man power of the Nation and to increase efficiency in the production of arms, munitions, ships, food, and clothing for the Army and Navy." To this end the act prohibits the manufacture of "beer, wine or other intoxicating malt or vinous liquors for beverage purposes on and after May 1, and the sale of such beverages on and after July 1.

This act must not be confused with the law and the Presidential proclamations limiting or permitting the use of grain in the making of liquors. The act of November 21, 1918, was not a grain conservation measure. It was a measure distinctly for the conservation of man power in industry.

This act, moreover, must not be confused with the Prohibition Amendment to the Constitution. This act was purely a war measure, and its validity depends upon the war power of Congress.

When the 1st of May came, certain brewers continued to brew beer containing 2.75 per cent of alcohol. Expecting prosecution, these brewers applied to the Court for an injunction to restrain the Federal officers from interfering with the manufacture of that beer. The Federal Government, represented by the United States District Attorney, asked to have the brewers' plea for an injunction dismissed on two grounds: first, that the complainants had no right to bring a suit against the United States Attorney; and, second, that the statute prohibited the complainants from brewing any beer, whether it contained 2.75 per cent alcohol or not. Judge Hand decided that the United States Attorney could be enjoined. He also decided that the statute did not prohibit the manufacture of all beer, but only beer that is intoxicating, and therefore that the brewers had a right to ask for an injunction if they could show that the beer they were making was not intoxicating.

Judge Hand distinctly said that in this particular action the question whether beer having 2.75 per cent alcohol is intoxicating was not before him for decision. That is a question which remains to be settled.

That question ought not to be settled

by juries nor by the courts. If the question were submitted to juries, there would be varying verdicts, and no man would know in advance of being tried what the law really meant or what his rights were. If the question were left to the courts, there would be more uniformity, but there might be as many definitions as there are States, since the enforcement of law, when prohibition becomes a Constitutional provision, will be left to both the States and to the Federal Government. The question ought to be settled by Congressional enactment. Two definitions seem to be possible; one stating the maximum percentage of alcohol allowable; the other defining as intoxicating any product of fermentation or distillation. Whatever the definition may be, it ought to be clear and definite.

Even if the war-time prohibition law is repealed or amended (as the President urges), or expires with the end of the war emergency, the same question of defining the word "intoxicating" will have to be settled in interpreting and enforcing the Eighteenth Amendment when that comes into force. It is conceivable that there might be one definition to apply to the whole Nation, and (since the States then will have concurrent jurisdiction in enforcing prohibition) stricter definitions adopted by States that want them stricter.

WILL GERMANY SIGN?

may

No treaty drawn up by the Allied Powers would have been received by Germany with approval. The fact, therefore, that the Germans are complaining against the terms of the treaty that has been presented to them is not in the least surprising. Ebert, the German President, who be called a chosen successor to the Kaiser, has declared publicly that Germany would "never sign the peace terms." He has characterized them as the "product of the enemies' revengeful hysteria." The German newspapers complain that Germany was hoodwinked into agreeing to a cessation of hostilities by a promise that the peace would be in accordance with President Wilson's Fourteen Points, and then has been subjected to the imposition of conditions that belie the promise made. The Germans complain that Germany is not admitted as an equal among peoples into the League of Nations; that the payments which she is called upon to make in reparation for the damage she has done will subject her to economic servitude; that she is called upon to disarm, while the nations she has fought retain their weapons, their armies, and their navies; that territory occupied by Germans has been taken from them; that she is deprived of her colonies and is not allowed to become a mandatory Power like France

and England; that by the taking away of her merchant marine, men accustomed to the sea will be thrown out of employment. In brief, Germany feels injured in not being treated as a civilized Power on equal terms with the nations against which she has made war.

Meetings have been held in various parts of Germany protesting against the Treaty. Some of these meetings, held by German Socialists, appeal to the French Socialists and the Socialists of other countries of the Allies. Their protest is based upon the common interest of the workers in all parts of the world. There is fertile ground in the minds of a certain type of internationalist in England, France, Belgium, and Italy, and even in the United States, in which this German seed may sprout. The basis of all these appeals is the assumption that both sides in the World War were fighting for the same thing, that all the nations are virtually equally guilty, and that hostilities ceased by mutual agreement. Certainly what the Germans have been saying, and what some of their sympathizers have said also, could not have been said if the armistice had been the result of what was obviously to their minds an unconditional surrender.

Of course Germany is not helping her case with the great majority of people by her complaints. It is reported that the Allies in answering the German contentions tried to show Germany that she has got to bear her share at least of the economic losses and burdens that have resulted from the war she has made, and that they tried to get into the heads of the Germans that Germany's complaint concerning the loss of her merchant marine because it will throw people out of work is preposterous, in view of the fact that the illegal and murderous attacks of the German submarine have had the unfor tunate effect of throwing seamen out of work throughout the world.

It seems to be generally assumed that the Germans, after using every means to ameliorate the terms, will sign the Treaty. The German Government is undoubtedly put into an extremely difficult position. If it approves the signing of the Treaty, it will be accused of consenting to bondage. If it declines to sign, it will be accused of opening the whole country to occupation by foreign troops and to administration by foreign rulers. It is a predicament, however, that is the inevita ble consequence of the crime which the German Imperial Government, with the consent and support of the German people, committed. One American doughboy has made a comment upon the Peace Treaty that is terse and to the point. The staff correspondent of the New York "Globe" interviewed some Americans who fought the Germans, and asked them

what they thought of the Treaty. And this is one of the comments he received: "I don't see how they can sign this thing, and yet I have a feeling that it isn't altogether strict enough, in some things. They ought to make the Heinies build up every house they destroyed in France, and they ought to put their officers at the work, with buck privates superintending the job."

LUDENDORFF SPEAKS

If any Americans think or imagine that the German believers in militarism have been disillusioned by the outcome of the war, it is because it is hard for an American to appreciate the German military man's state of mind. Whether Americans understand that state of mind or not, however, it is important that they should realize that it still is a menace. As a means to this end, service has been rendered by the New York "Evening Post" in printing an interview by Charles Victor, its foreign correspondent, with Field-Marshal von Ludendorff.

"The man who lost the greatest war in the world's history," writes Mr. Victor, "is the embodiment of senseless, brutal force.... His square, reddish face would be handsome except for the expression of pugnacity and brutal cynicism which rarely leaves it." In summing up at the outset what this German general said Mr. Victor writes: "He refused to concede that the entry of America into the war made the slightest difference, and stubbornly held to the conviction that except for the revolution Germany would have won the war.'

After refusing to be interviewed, beyond giving out a printed statement that he stood aloof from any movement among the German people and was living the life of a private citizen, writing his book, he was drawn into a statement on the military advantage of tanks. He rejected as nonsense the opinion that the materials used in the construction of U-boats should have been used for tanks, tanks, and more tanks, and then added: "U-boats

were absolutely necessary. They brought England to the verge of economic collapse."

66

"But," the "Evening Post's" correspondent intervened, "they also brought America into the war."

"Ha! America would have come in anyway," he said, angrily.

When he denied that America's entrance made any difference in the result, Mr. Victor exclaimed, "Two millions of troops, and no difference?"

"They were not sufficiently trained," he said, with a stubborn shake of the head. "You cannot create an army in six months. Individually the American soldier is a brave, sturdy fellow (stammer

Later in the interview Mr. Victor asked whether Germany would not be better off now that her militarism is dead. The interview continued:

Here came another accession of temper. "Militarism, nonsense! What is militarism? What do you understand

'militarism to be?".

"I understand it to be a national policy," I said in my best scientific German, "which follows the dictates of military strategy rather than the cultivation of good international relations. Don't think that in this sense Germany was more militaristic than France or England?"

you

"No," he shot back. "Who do you think made Germany's policy before the

war ?"

"We think the Kaiser did."

"No. Bethmann Hollweg, and more flabby policy could not be imagined,' he added, with an expression of undisguised disgust. "Not a single military man had any influence. It would have been better if the soldiers had had something to say. What is it that made Germany great and prosperous? The strong Government (straffe Regierung) of former years. Militarism! Certainly France was more militaristic than we. It was France that cultivated the revenge idea, that taught its children that' AlsaceLorraine is French.'

"Is it your idea, then, that the war I would not have come if soldiers had guided Germany's policy?"

66

Perhaps not. The war was not necessary. It was necessary for us because it was forced on us."

"You admit, then, that it would have been better if it had not come-for humanity

"Humanity!" he broke in, furiously; "America came into the war to make money and you Americans talk to me of humanity? No, I have no faith in 'humanity."" At the outset of the interview he was peevish; now he was fighting mad.

"But supposing Germany had won..." This restored his equilibrium, and the first smile flitted across his stern bulldog face. "That," he grinned, "would have been beautiful."

Such a statement is valuable because it reminds us that the danger of Germany to the world was not primarily in her guns or her other resources, nor even in her alleged efficiency; but it was in her state of mind. The armistice did not change that state of mind. We have We have abundant proof of that. This utterance of Ludendorff, like the utterances of Erzberger, Ebert, and others in Germany, should keep the rest of the world on guard. It is no time to relax vigilance.

DAVID HUMMELL GREER

One of the great religious leaders of the United States died last week. His distinction was not in the office he held, as the Protestant Episcopal Bishop of New York, but in the service he rendered. It was not because he exercised great

Born in 1844, in Wheeling, West Virginia, educated at Washington and Jefferson College, Kenyon College, and the Seminary at Gambier, David Hummell Greer began his ministry as a rector in Clarksburg, West Virginia, going from there to Covington, Kentucky, and three years later to Providence, Rhode Island, and from there to New York. From 1888, for sixteen years, he was rector of St. Bartholomew's, and then became Bishop Coadjutor, and, on Bishop Potter's death, Bishop of New York.

He was a preacher of power, and, particularly in his earlier career as rector of St. Bartholomew's, his preaching had great virility. In later years, weighed down by the responsibilities of an onerous administrative office, he undoubtedly felt the limitations which other men have felt in the same office. Phillips Brooks felt them when he became Bishop of Massachusetts. Moreover, the world war oppressed his soul and gave him distress because of the magnitude of human suffering it inflicted. And yet this man, who in later years spoke so much in deploring strife, preached, as one member of the staff of The Outlook can testify, during the Spanish War on the Christian use of passion-a memorable sermon showing how combativeness can be made holy and righteous by a righteous and holy cause.

What Bishop David Hummell Greer, however, will be remembered for is, primarily, his contribution to the great movement, characteristic of our time, of infusing the Christian spirit into what is known as social service. In 1888 he was called to two churches. Of the two he chose the one where there were empty pews to fill and where there was the harder work to do. At that time St. Bartholomew's had not the popularity and the attendance that it gained under his ministry. When he left it, it had not only a congregation consisting of many who were rich and resourceful, but a record of human service that is matched

by but few churches in this country. Its great parish house in East Forty-second Street occupies almost an entire city block.

There are a clinic and dispensary, clubs for boys and girls, for men and women, a gymnasium, an employment bureau, a fresh-air mission which conducts a farm and vacation home in Connecticut, a penny provident fund, a rescue mission, a tailor shop, a sewing school, a kindergarten, a bureau- for the distribution of coal and wood, a boys' brigade, a training school, and other organizations, all serving a great population, or, rather, providing means by which this great population can find access to the things

As Bishop, Dr. Greer had not the characteristics of the traditional, conventional ecclesiastic. He did not wear the dress of his office as he moved about among men. He was not a party man. Neither the High Church nor the Low Church nor the Broad Church could claim that he was its advocate, though all his tendency and influence were for breadth. It was characteristic of him to be an advocate of every measure that would make his own communion accessible to all Christians, and at the same time to be one of the chief builders of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, which is a distinctly ecclesiastical monument in a rather commercially inclined city. He had faith in his fellow-men. He undertook big things because he believed in the capacity of men and women to carry them through to fulfillment. It can be fairly said of him that because of his character it was not the bishopric that honored him so much as he that honored the bishopric.

BOY SCOUT WEEK

The Nation-wide campaign to be carried on during the week of June 8-14 for the Boy Scout movement is part of a larger and continuous effort to make the Boy Scouts stronger by arousing the interest of the whole community. The Boy Scouts have done wonders. It is possible for them to do still greater wonders if the individual citizens everywhere stand back of the organization, not merely with money support, but with intelligent advice and direct co-operation. Even on the financial side the effort of Boy Scout Week is not so much to get money into the treasury for immediate needs as it is to secure pledges of regular and wise support.

It is said that there are about ten million boys in the country between the ages of twelve and twenty-one. As only about a third of a million are now enrolled in the Boy Scouts, it is evident that there is boundless room for growth. It is hoped that this campaign will add a million associate members and will be a perma nent and valuable increase in the moral and personal support which the organization needs and should have.

The training of our boys through the Boy Scouts organization, largely through outdoor exercise and nature study, has already brought forth notable results in good citizenship and helpfulness. The Boy Scouts, for instance, in the first four Liberty loans obtained subscriptions amounting to over $275,000,000, although their canvassing could follow only after the regular Loan Committees had covered the ground pretty thoroughly; the boys

The thing the Boy Scouts need most is not enthusiasm among the boys, for that is abundant, but intelligent aid in organizing and managing the branches everywhere and in spreading the knowledge of the movement among all American citizens. President Wilson in his proclamation of Boy Scout Week recognizes this when he recommends that "in every community a Citizens' Committee under the leadership of a National Citizens' Committee be organized to co-operate in carrying out a programme for a definite recognition of the effective services rendered by the Boy Scouts of America; for a survey of the facts relating to the boyhood of each community, in order that with the co-operation of churches, schools, and other organizations definitely engaged in work for boys, adequate provision may be made for extending the Boy Scout programme to a larger proportion of American boyhood."

THE SALVATION ARMY DRIVE

What the Salvation Army did in France every soldier knows. What it has done and is doing at home is to use the same human, friendly, cheerful methods that endeared it to the soldier in furnishing comfort, help, sympathy, to those who sorely need them. A "drive" for $13,000,000 for Home Service may sound like a huge undertaking, but a glance at some of the records of things done the last year, entirely outside of the splendid service with soldiers and sailors, shows that the work is on an enormous scale-and every one knows that the Salvation Army does not waste money. Thus the Army's hotels gave beds to 1,656,528 persons, the industrial homes gave beds to 1,742,815 persons, 43,345 prisoners were visited, work was furnished to 100,000 persons, and there are hundreds of rescue homes, hospitals, slum settlements, and other hospitals, slum settlements, and other centers of social service. The Salvation Army has nearly a thousand separate corps and outposts in the United States, and maintains halls and headquarters in every part of the country. Its work is unselfish, warm-hearted, and its help is given to men and women of every race and religion. It goes straight to the people, and it has a place of its own in the hearts of the people.

The other day at the great mass-meeting of the Salvation Army in New York

AN AMERICAN MINSTREL

Some day, when ragtime and kindred forms of music become recognized as distinctive and valuable material for the artist, such a man as the Negro band leader James Europe, who was murdered the other day, will be considered as more than a mere entertainer.

A few years ago James Europe came to New York, unknown. When he died he had made a name for himself in France and England as well as in America. He started his career with a small band or orchestra that grew into popularity be cause of its inspiriting power in playing dance music. James Europe's band was in great demand for dances. At that time Mr. and Mrs. Vernon Castle were all the rage, and the dances that they introduced and made popular fitted the kind of music that Europe's band could play to perfection. There was a sort of partner. ship between Europe and the Castles.

It so happened that there was a fire in the Negro quarter up in the northern part of New York City, and most of the Negro "talent" were assembled to give an entertainment to raise funds for relief, and Europe's band was the chief attraction. There were very few white people in the audience, and not a white person on the stage until the end, and then it was that the Castles came on and gave an exhibition of dancing. It was partly their expression of appreciation for what Europe's band had done to make their art popular. After America went into the war, James Europe became a bandmaster in the American Army and acquired the grade of Lieutenant. His Negro band became renowned throughout the A. E. F., and people of distinction in France and England gave it notice.

It was while this band was on a tour