assent to the amendments Bourgeois had offered respecting a general staff and control or supervision of the military force that each of the states was to supply to support the League. As the Commission was to meet again to finish the consideration of the Covenant, he agreed to confer with M. Clemenceau, saying he I would have to learn the other's views. He further said it must be determined how best to formulate the article especially referring to the Monroe Doctrine so as not to conflict with the general provisions.

At the session of the Commission that evening at the Crillon Hotel, which lasted until after midnight, the article as quoted above, specifically mentioning the Monroe Doctrine, was adopted. Colonel House gave me the exact wording of the article, which I at once cabled to the League to Enforce Peace in New York, with the request that Mr. Taft be informed. The same day I received a cable from Mr. Taft and Dr. Lowell, forwarded by Acting Secretary of State Frank L. Polk, to the effect that, in the opinion of the Executive Committee of the League, specific reference to the exclusion of the Monroe Doctrine from the jurisdiction of the Covenant of the League was absolutely necessary to secure confirmation by the Senate. the following day Taft cabled me that the Monroe Doctrine amendment was "eminently satisfactory."

On

On April 23, on the invitation of Professor Stephen Hayes Bush, of the State University of Iowa, who was in charge of the Free Lecture Course of the American Expeditionary Force, I delivered an address in the Grand Amphitheater of the Sorbonne. The great hall was filled with about one thousand of our officers and men who were taking courses at this ancient institution of learning.

I took as my subject "America and the League of Nations," and showed in what respect the Covenant provided definite sanctions to make peace decisions effective. I pointed out that following the war, for the first time in history, the dominant power of the world rested in democratically governed nations, and that theirs was the opportunity and the responsibility to make provisions that such a war shall never happen again;

and that now it was the duty of statesmanship to translate the victory won in war into greater security for the future peace and happiness of the world. I quoted from the speech of President Poincaré in welcoming the Peace Delegates, in which he had described the reasons why America entered the World War. He had said: "It was a supreme judgment passed at the bar of history by the lofty conscience of a free people to

Alexander Kerensky, former Premier of Russia-"he looked more like a student than like a leader who had stood in the storm center of political turmoil"

rescue her mother from the humiliation of thralldom and to save civilization."

That same evening, M. Nicolas W. Tchaikovsky, President of the Archangel Government of Northern Russia, called at my apartment to discuss with me conditions in Russia. I had met him before when he was in Washington in 1907, after his escape from prison in Siberia. During several periods before that time he had lived in Western United States, where he had engaged in farming. He had formerly belonged to the group of social revolutionists. I spoke with him about the Hoover plan of sending food into Russia, to which he replied that if an armed force could be sent there it would be better, but that without an armed force the Bolsheviki would use the provisions for their own Red Guard. I explained to him that that could not be done, since the agents of the Food Administration would themselves supervise the distribution, just as was done in Belgium during the German occupation.

He did not seem to think well of the whole plan, and considered that it would be of advantage to the Bolsheviki politically, and would make the people believe it was a recognition of their régime. He seemed to think that the Bolshevik authorities could not stop fighting in Russia even if they wanted to, as their several generals acted independently.

He spoke of Lenine as an honest, strong-headed, misguided fanatic, who he believed would in time discover his error and would have the moral cour age and honesty to throw up his hands. Trotsky, he said, was quite another sort -an ambitious adventurer.

WILSON ADDRESSES THE PLENARY SESSION

The Plenary Session of the Conference was called to order at the Quai d'Orsay on April 28, at 3 P.M. I again attended with our official delegate, former Ambassador Henry White. The representa tives of the thirty nations were seated as before. I was given a seat just be'hind the American Commission. The Session was presided over by M. Clemenceau, who showed no signs of the effects of his recent wound by an assassin's bullet. He opened the session with a few words, then called on President Wilson, who declared in a matter-of-fact way that, since he had read the articles of the Covenant to the Conference at the previous session (February 14), and since all the delegates had the Covenant as amended before them, he would confine himself to pointing out the amendments and the reasons therefor.

The immense hall was packed, as on previous occasions. After President Wilson had made his statement, which was rendered into French by the official interpreter, he moved several resolutions, one nominating Sir James Eric Drummond as Secretary-General of the League, and one that Belgium, Brazil, Greece, and Spain should be members of the Council pending the selection by the Assembly of the League.

As Chairman of the League to Enforce Peace, I wrote a letter to the President on the following day offering my con gratulations upon the adoption of the Covenant. To this I received the following reply:

Paris, 1 May, 1919.

My dear Mr. Straus:
Thank you with all my heart for
your generous letter of the 29th. It
has given me the greatest pleasure
and encouragement, and I want to
take the opportunity to say how valu-
able in every way your own support
of and enthusiasm for the League of
Nations has been. It is a real pleas-
ure to receive your unqualified appro-
bation.

Cordially and sincerely yours
WOODROW WILSON.

After the Plenary Session and the adoption of the Covenant of the League of Nations, I felt that my duties in Paris were at an end. The winter had been very strenuous, and the weather had been very inclement-much rain and

very little sunshine. I decided to take a rest, and was advised, because of some slight ailment in my left leg due to inpeded circulation, to take the baths at Bagnoles de l'Orne. The usual régime there is to take twenty-one baths. After I had taken eight, I received a letter from Colonel House saying that he would regard it most helpful if I would return to America at as early a date as possible. He informed me that the counsel for the American Commission, David Hunter Miller, was also returning; that passage had been secured for both of us on the U. S. S. Mount Vernon, which was sailing from Brest on June 2. He stated that it would be rendering a valuable service if I would confer with some of the Senators, so that they might be fully informed regarding the discus sions and details of the negotiations as they progressed.

I accordingly returned to Paris, and on May 27 had a conference with Colonel House, who again impressed upon me the services I might render in returning to the United States, since no one was more familiar than Mr. Miller and I with the meaning and significance of the articles of the Covenant, nor therefore better qualified to answer the criticisms and objections that had been made.

In the course of conversation, he said that, in his opinion, Woodrow Wilson would not become a candidate again for President unless the Treaty were rejected, which might force him to run against his will in order to save the Treaty; but should the Treaty, however, be ratified, there would be no occasion for him to become a candidate.

THE STUDIOUS KERENSKY

The day before this, while I was paying a visit at the Hotel Continental, I met Jane Addams and Lillian Wald, and with them was Alexander Kerensky, the former Premier of Russia. They asked

me to meet Kerensky, which I did. He proved to be not at all the kind of man in appearance that I had pictured. He did not resemble the Russian type. He was clean-shaven, rather spare, a little above medium height, and seemed about forty years of age. He looked more like a student than like a leader who had stood in the storm-center of political turmoil.

Kerensky told me that he did not believe in Kolchak, principally because he regarded him as a tool of the British and Russian nobility. Kerensky expressed himself as opposed to having the Allies recognize Kolchak unless it was conditioned on definite guaranties that a free democratic election be held so that the people might decide what form of government they desired.

We left Paris for Brest on May 30. The Mount Vernon carried some five thousand officers and men of the Sixth Division. We were all very comfortably provided for on the ship, and it was most interesting to observe the system and order with which the five thousand

officers and men were taken care of. They were a jolly lot, happy to return home, and without exception conducted themselves in a correct and orderly manner. We had a delightful crossing; the weather was fine and the sea was calm.

"HONEST BROKERS" FOR THE LEAGUE

Shortly after my return to the United States the League to Enforce Peace called a meeting of the Executive Council to determine what action it could best take to further the ratification of the Treaty, which was now being vigorously debated in the Senate. It was decided that Mr. Vance McCormick and I should be a committee to confer with the President. We subsequently desired to add Dr. A. Lawrence Lowell, President of Harvard University, to our number, provided it would be agreeable to the President, which Mr. McCormick was to ascertain when arranging for the appointment. The President designated August 6 as the day on which he would see us, and accordingly Dr. Lowell, Mr. McCormick, the Secretary of the League, Dr. Short, and I went to the White House.

President Wilson assured us that, while he was somewhat tired, he felt in. good condition. He said he had had a number of conferences with individual Senators who had objected to the ratifiIcation of the Treaty, and that he had given them explanations regarding the main points in dispute, namely, Article X, guaranteeing against external aggression; Article XXI, providing that nothing in the Covenant should be deemed to affect the validity of the Monroe Doctrine; and Article I, providing that any member of the League may, after two years' notice, withdraw from the League. These were the main subjects covered by the reservations formulated by the moderate group headed by Senators Kellogg and McCumber.

We suggested that it might be of good result if the President could in some public and formal way make his explanations and interpretations regarding these points. The question was how this could best be done. The President believed it would be preferable if one of the Senators of the opposition addressed to him a letter of inquiry, so framed as to enable the President to give his views.

After our conference with the President we went to the Senate, and found the Committee on Foreign Relations in session, examining Secretary of State Lansing. Senator Hitchcock suggested that we call on Senator McCumber, but, as he was not then in Washington, Dr. Lowell and I called on Senator Kellogg. The latter told us what we already knew, namely, that he was in favor of the League and was scheduled to make his speech in the Senate advocating the ratification of the Treaty with the reservations his group had formulated, which reservations he felt confident were not in the nature of amendments, but interpretative only, and therefore would

not require resubmission either to the Plenary Session or to Germany.

Dr. Lowell and I outlined our plan regarding the letter to the President, asking for his interpretation of the articles above referred to. While Senator Kellogg personally favored this plan, he said he would first have to confer with the members of his group, and he believed they would be favorably inclined. We then inquired whether the President's interpretations and clarifications might not serve the purpose of making the reservations unnecessary. The Senator said "no," but that the reservations could recite the fact that they were based upon the President's interpretations. We arranged that Senators Kel logg and Hitchcock should confer upon the subject with a view of preparing such a tentative letter of inquiry, which might be shown to the President in advance, and to which the President could reply, giving his interpretations.

In all of these conferences between the Senators of the various groups we acted as the "honest brokers" for the League. Senator Hitchcock thought very favorably of our plan, and believed it would work out advantageously. Dr. Lowell and I felt gratified with our day's work, though, as matters developed, nothing came of this plan.

In this connection I cannot refrain from quoting a story which Dr. Lowell told apropos of the problem. The story, as I recall it, was that a noted colored preacher was holding a service in which he read a chapter from Isaiah referring to the seraphim. After the service one of the colored brethren asked the preacher what was "the difference be tween a seraphim and a terrapin." The latter, rubbing his head, replied: "My son, I grant you there is a difference. but they have made it up."

Unfortunately, while there was, in words at least, if not in context, a difference between the reservations offered by the Administration group, the group of mild reservationists, and the majority group, yet, for reasons that I need not enter into here, they did not "make it up."

THE WORLD'S COMMON NEEDS

In concluding this chapter and in closing these memoirs I cannot resist reflecting how much wiser the Allied Powers and America were in the conduct of the war than in the making of peace, and afterwards. In war they finally pooled their strength and won; in the peace. terms they again drew measurably apart. The men who framed the peace terms subordinated world policies to home politics. The United States, by reason of a contest between the Adminis tration and the majority group in the Senate, allowed its sense of world responsibility to be negated by partisan differences. Reconstruction is being halted. And why? Because the leading statesmen of the Entente Powers still lack the economic wisdom, or, what is

the equivalent, the courage, to shape their international policies along world economic lines. My own country, in withholding its co-operation, is equally culpable. The result is tension and derangement in the relationship of nations.

As the malady from which this and

other countries are suffering is worldwide, so must the remedy be world-wide. And America cannot free herself from the responsibility by isolating herself and refusing to do her part in applying the remedial measures necessary to restore normal conditions. The remedy does not consist in the lessening or

weakening of sovereignty by individual states. It consists in the enlargement of their sovereign functions in concert with and in just relations to other states for the administration of common interests. It requires no surrender of sovereignty for individual states to conform their policies to the world's common needs.

I

'M the fellow who plows the ground, plants the seed, keeps the weeds down and the tilth up, harvests the crop, and starts it on its way to your dinner table.

I put in two or sometimes three years in raising a steer that you and your neighbors eat up in the form of sirloin steaks or roasts at a single meal.

My wife, five children, and myself live on a 160-acre farm in a Midwestern State. The tax assessor says that my farm is worth $25,000, and the man who holds the mortgage thought it was worth $30,000 when he sold it to me several years ago.

I've been farming now for nearly twenty years, and it seems to take about the full time of myself, my wife, and my two oldest children from before sunup to after sundown to make things go. During the summer I have to hire extra help.

We had a couple of fairly good years during the war, but didn't make anything near what the high prices might lead you to believe. The trouble was that the things we had to buy-labor, fertilizers, implements, groceries, shoes, and clothes-all went up more than farm crops did.

And then two years ago our crop prices dropped with a thud. The only way we could get along was to stop buying and save what cash we had to pay taxes. Most of the interest on the mortgage went unpaid that year.

But we went ahead, thinking that it would be only a little while until the prices of the things we must buy would get down to our level again or else that our crop price level would go up somewhat. You folks in the cities can't get along for any great while, you know, unless we farmers keep on buying the things you make. I'm told we buy about forty per cent of all the merchandise sold.

But we were doomed to disappointment. We went ahead and raised nearly as big crops as we did under war-time pressure and our prices have sagged on down. Your prices, on the other hand, have gone up. You had the organization -both to set prices for your labor and to price your finished products—and you did not permit your prices to drop to our level.

a little better in regulating these matters?

You can't prosper when we can't buy; and we can't prosper unless you have the money to buy our products. It does seem as though we ought to be able to manage things a little better and not continually seesaw back and forth, to our mutual loss.

Then there is another thing I want to mention. You go to the store and pay 60 or 70 cents a pound for steak or for lamb chops, and 10 to 12 cents a loat for bread. You say to yourself, "Gee, the farmer must be getting rich these days!"

Would you believe it if I told you that I got only 9 cents per pound for that meat and 2.8 cents for the wheat that I went into that loaf of bread? Well, that's what I got, according to figures worked out by marketing officials.

Of course I know that my steer was not all sirloin steak, and that wheat had to be ground into flour, baked into bread, and delivered to your kitchen door; but some of our experts have been looking into this matter, and it is perfectly plain that the costs of distribution are excessive.

You see, we farmers have been organizing a bit ourselves. You may have noticed some of our activities in Washington during the last session of Congress. But our chief aim is to find a way to distribute our products more economically. Of course we are going to try to get more for our crops. That is very natural. Yet we want to see that you get them for less. We know you would buy more if you could get things cheaper. And there are lots of folks who go hurgry because foods are so high by the time they get them. Now the only possible way for us to get more at the same time you pay less is to cut down the costs of distribution.

So here, again, is a place we must work together. We farmers are forming co-operative selling organizations to reach out as far toward your table as we can. Isn't it about time that you did something to reach out and meet us? In England and Scotland half the population buys through co-operative purchasing societies. Maybe co-operative purchasing organizations would be a good thing in American cities.

Think it over. Meet us half-way.

HE great difference between the play that is seen and the play that is read is the difference between direct emotional appeal and imaginative visualization. John Galsworthy's "Loyalties" is an excellent illustration of this, for it is now being played in New York, and it has just come from the press in book form. The cast is an unusually long one, there are five changes of scene, and seven shifts, all in the compass of a tensely stirring three-act drama. If there is one thing about Gaisworthy as a dramatist, it is that his types are always clear cut and his purposes always well defined. And, what is more, these purposes are indissolubly bound up in the web and woof of his characterization. Therefore in reading him you have to do some portraiture on your own part.

There are of course several aids that a dramatist can render, the most distinctive being the full and literary stage direction which at the entrance of a character offers you a chart of the main psychology of the human being as suggested by feature, dress, and manner. These are the novelist's elements which the playwright, since the early days of Shaw, has brought in to help the printed play. And, as in this instance of Galsworthy's "Loyalties," since the plotwhich is one of an adventurous kindhinges on the architecture of the house and the position of the characters, the first aids to reading are further drawn upon by the printing of diagrams locating the architecture and furnishing of every scene.

These are the mechanical devices which insure the ready fixing of the necessary "atmosphere" before a play is read. On the stage all this is visualized at the rise of the curtain. Some years ago it would have been impossible to interest the reading public in what might be called the shorthand script of a story where vital "talk" is set down as representing vital moments in the lives of characters. It happens that in "Loyalties" there is more external action than is usually found in this dramatist's discussion of abstract principles which govern society. You will recall that "The Silver Box" is concerned with two standards of justice; there is indelibly stamped on our minds the poignancy of "Justice" which helped to reform the prison laws in England. In these plays Galsworthy does not fail to resort to external action; that is necessary in the theater. But it strikes me that "Loyalties," which studies the tendency of man to act in groups, to stand by class strata and professional bonds of interest, is a little more the

1 Loyalties. By John Galsworthy. Scribner's Sons, New York. $1.

DIANA BOURBON AS MABEL DANCY AND CHARLES QUARTERMAINE AS RONALD DANCY IN "LOYALTIES," AT THE GAIETY THEATER, NEW YORK CITY Galsworthy's new play is a searching study of the loyalties of profession, affection, race, and class, and their effect upon human lives. Captain Dancy's theft of money from a Jewish fellow-guest at a house party is the pivotal point of this keen-edged piece of social analysis

atric than usual: This is not a fault; the plot calls for it. Bound up in the social fabric of English life, Galsworthy presents the play as a study which calls for the most active constructive imagination the reader has.

"Loyalties" is a success on the stage; it will be eagerly read in print. That the latter case is true brings me to the point which makes me feel that Mr. Granville-Barker is justified in enthusiastically planning for "The Exemplary Theatre." The printing of plays and the reading of plays measure the awakened state of the public interest in the theater. If some of our most astute minds turn from the theater of triviality with well-reasoned and justified disgust, they do not turn from the drama, but rather toward it, in a form where it can be judged closely and studied as an art.

2 The Exemplary Theatre. By Harley Granville-Barker. Little, Brown & Co., Boston.

Charles

net.

$2

The publishing of plays is coincident with the increased study of drama in our schools and colleges and with the establishment of Little Theater groups throughout the country. When Mr. Granville-Barker came to America several years ago, this phenomenon of playhouses in the arid plains of Arizona and on the wharves of Provincetown broke over him as a revelation. Everywhere he went he found workshops, leagues for the betterment of theater audiences, amateurs crying in the wilderness-not for the vapid parlor farces of a bygone generation, but for dramas they had been reading, which probably had been rejected in managerial offices as too "highbrow." Knowing Mr. GranvilleBarker's enthusiasm, which must always be converted into action, is it small wonder that he should return to London and deliver himself of a profound treatise outlining the many ways in which an Exemplary Theater might arise on