amined, it proved to be very far from even an approximation of the Allies' considerate demand.

In order to understand how far Germany's offer fell short from what she justly owes it may be well to refresh - one's memory by a recapitulation of the facts which led up to it.

The Treaty of Versailles, signed by Germany and the Entente Allies, authorized the Reparation Commission to fix the amount of damages suffered by Germany's civilian victims. The Reparation Commission, after months of study, fixed the amount at a sum less than the claims of the victims. If paid to-day, the amount set by the Reparation Commission would be somewhat over $32,000,000,000.

Anticipating the decision of the Reparation Commission, the Supreme Council of the Allies scaled the expected sum down to a figure representing not what Germany should pay but what she could pay. So the Council presented to Germany a bill which, if paid at once, would amount to about $21,000,000,000, plus an export tax.

In March the Germans made a counter-proposal of only $7,500,000,000, plus the export tax.

Upon this totally inadequate offer being refused, Germany sought to involve the United States as a mediator and made an offer which, if paid to-day, would amount to about $12,000,000,000. Thus the sums may be represented in billion dollars as follows:

In the second place, the Allies offered Germany the privilege of paying reparation over a period of forty-two years with interest at 5 per cent. What Germany asked is that the period over which payment could be extended should be seventy-two years and the interest be at 4 per cent. So Germany's offer amounts to putting the payment off into a very far distant field with payment of interest at 4 per cent. And France has to pay 9 per cent in order to borrow!

In the third place, Germany demands that the so-called system of sanctions shall cease. This simply means that there shall be no occupation of her territory except, as the Germans hastily explained on hearing from the rest of the world, that she did not mean that the troops at the bridgeheads should be withdrawn. Of course what Germany demands in this case is that the Allies should virtually accept her word and not demand security.. The cool presumption of this proviso is something which the ordinary business man who knows some

thing about credit in business should be able to appreciate.

In the fourth place, there are other provisos in Germany's offer. Among them are that the present basis of production should not be decreased, which means, of course, that the whole of Upper Silesia should go to Germany, results of the plebiscite to the contrary notwithstanding; that the German trade be set free, which means that German coal deliveries under the Treaty stop; that Germany should be subject to an International commission of experts, which means that she should be free from the control of the Reparation Commission established by the Treaty; and that German property abroad should be returned to Germany. In all this Germany acts as if the Treaty were still in the making. If France were to consent to this, the only safeguard she has, the Treaty of Versailles, would be gone. In the fifth place, under the Treaty of Versailles, which was signed nearly two years ago, Germany agreed to pay by this, time, May, 1921, the equivalent of five billion dollars in gold, commodities, ships, securities, or otherwise. On this account Germany has paid some two billion dollars. There is a balance of three billion dollars still owing, which was due on the first of this month. This fact alone is enough not only to justify a refusal to make any more concessions but also justify proceedings to occupy German territory in order. to collect the bill. No business man having experience with such a debtor as Germany has proved to be could be blamed under such circumstances for resorting to a collection agency.

If France is inexorable, there seems to be some reason in her favor. At present the Treaty of Versailles, so far as any

reparation for damage done to France in the past or protection against damage to France in the future is concerned, looks battered. By this Treaty the Germans agreed to disarm, to deliver coal, to bring war criminals to trial, and to make reparations. The Germans have evaded every one of their agreements. So long as that evasion continues, the world will not have peace and the producers of the world will not receive their rewards for their effort. What Mr. Gregg says in his special correspondence in this issue France very well understands: "Every dollar Germany pays in increased wages to her workmen and to France and Belgium for her wanton destruction insures our workmen just so much more wages and work." It would be better for the world if the wage-earners of England and America understood this as well as France does. But the Germans will not do this unless they are required to do so. Force is the only language they understand. The French, who have the habit of thinking clearly, consistently, and in terms of reality, propose that the Allied

Kirby in the New York World

troops shall occupy the entire Ruhr coal region. This region is the stronghold of German production. When France first stood at the Marne, she saved herself, but also, though our people did not understand it very clearly, she served the rest of the world. Again she is saving herself, but she is serving the rest of the world as well, as she stands at the borders of the Ruhr.

THE CONTEST LETTERS

W

E have read many wise editorials upon the effect of the war upon morals and manners. There have not been wanting Jeremiahs who have seen as an effect of the war the total destruction of idealism, and there have been prophets of a more sanguine temperament who have proclaimed that the war has made for the spiritual regeneration of mankind.

We have read these opinions and pondered upon them, without any very great temptation to be pontifical upon the subject ourselves.

Within the last few weeks we have had a chance to study an extraordinary amount of first-hand evidence as to the effect of the war, for in The Outlook's War Prize Contest more than half a thousand readers have made The Outlook their confessor for the revelation of their intimate personal reactions to the great conflict. To judge by these letters, many of which we shall, in this and subsequent issues, share with our readers, it seems obvious that each man and woman took out of the war what he or she put into it. Those who gave themselves whole-heartedly, whether in Red Cross work at home or in bitter combat in France, received in return a broader understanding of human nature, a greater depth of character, and that strength to face danger and disaster which is much more than callousness or indifference.

ACCURACY

EW greater compliments come to an editor's desk than those which

call him to account for some inaccuracy. When an ecclesiastic makes a mistake, he can usually escape censure by pointing out that that mistake occurred in a field in which he is not regarded as infallible. When a physician makes a mistake, it is not counted seriously against him unless there can be traced to it consequences of physical pain or death. When a lawyer makes a mistake, it may even be accounted to him for righteousness on appeal, and, if not, it is forgotten provided he wins his

easily. He is expected to know everything, observe everything, foresee everything, in all fields of knowledge. And he not only must not make any mistakes himself but he must not allow anybody else whose writings he permits to appear in print to deviate from the straight line of perfect accuracy. The evidence of this accumulates from day to day in the letters which are laid upon the editorial desk.

We therefore say that letters of protest against inaccuracies are among the greatest compliments that an editor receives. They indicate the high standards to which he is held and they prove that readers expect of editors more than they expect of any other men.

For example, we have received a letter from A. I. Loop, of North East, Pennsylvania:

Referring to lower corner page 685: If this sketch is correct, Colon and Panama City have been moved across the Canal since 1915.

We refer to the sketch in question. It is as follows:

It is evident that the author's typewriter when it made the periods which indicate the location of these two cities on his sketch map failed to skip a space. We have also been called to account by Mr. Glen Buck, of Chicago. He notices with exasperation that Miss Edith Lacy, in her account of a visit to John Bur

roughs seven years ago, reported a late neighbor of his as calling Mr. Burroughs "Johnny;" said that she went across a swamp from stump to stump and from the last stump regarded the back of Woodchuck Lodge; and described the lodge as a low cabin of slender boles (though she did, we note, add "one could not say 'logs' to them"). Mr. Buck says that no one who ever knew "Oom John," particularly the people of Roxbury, could have called him "Johnny;" that, as Woodchuck Lodge stands against the side of the mountain facing the village, no one could approach it from the rear; and that, as Woodchuck Lodge is an old farmhouse substantially clapboarded, it is not built of logs or boles; and he says that these "glaring inaccuracies" are an indication of the "new slipshod tendency in magazine editing generally." We referred the matter to Miss Lacy herself. We hope we will not be accused of attempting to "pass the Buck;" because we think it only Miss Lacy's due. In reply we have received this very nice letter:

Thank you for your letter of April 21. I have delayed answering in the hope of seeing a picture of Woodchuck Lodge, but so far have not been able to find one. My landlady in Roxbury spoke of and to John Burroughs as "Johnny"-quite naturally, I thought, since she told me they were school-fellows. As to the approach to Woodchuck Lodge, I but recorded the way I took to it-over a swamp and fields in the rear to the highroad. My impressions of Woodchuck Lodge are of a low, rough, cabin-like building, very rustic, and with slender boles in its makeup. But, as I only saw it once, nearly seven years ago, and for a few moments, and as my interest during that brief visit was centered, of course, on John Burroughs's personality, it may well be that surrounding details were not photographically impressed on my memory.

The real regret is that the slight sketch, meant only to portray a delightful glimpse of John Burroughs, should so unhappily have stirred any of his friends to protest over a detail that, to them, would appear real carelessness. That I would not knowingly have done.

To Mr. Loop and to Mr. Buck we wish to extend our acknowledgment and thanks. We have not only derived profit from the corrections, but a sense of gratification that we were supposed to know so much and observe so meticulously.

Trade of Home-making. Something similar, established before this or since, exists in the States of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Wisconsin, and State-aided vocational schools or classes for girls now exist in nearly every State in the Union, giving instruction in subjects relating to the care of the home. The National Society for Vocational Education has done much to promote this movement. To that Society, and especially to a memorandum sent to me at my request by Mrs. W. A. O'Leary, of the Department of Public Instruction at Trenton, New Jersey, my readers are indebted for the information in this article.

The movement for this development of training for the profession of homemaking is still in its infancy; but the infant, though small, is healthy and is increasing in strength and in public favor. Interest among educational leaders is becoming an enthusiasm. Money is provided by both State and Federal Governments, in sums that are as yet pitifully inadequate, but serve as a basis for beginning and an inspiration to hope.

But it is always difficult to break into an established routine, and our public school work is naturally, perhaps necessarily, an established routine. It is always difficult to create an interest in a new phase of human development, and home-building is a radically new development in education. Where there's a will, there's a way; but to create a will where no will exists is always difficult. Educational reformers find it easier to get the money, the enactment of necessary legislation, and the support of the people collectively than it is to get the girls. The obstacles Mrs. O'Leary thus admirably summarizes:

The Teacher. The regular grade teacher does not, as a rule, attempt to guide her girls to home economics classes. The measure of her success as a teacher is commonly evaluated by the number of pupils she heads toward college by way of preparatory courses in the high school. Too often she regards this as a girl's intellectual salvation; anything less is a fall from grace and not to be countenanced.

The Girl's Mother. However much the girl's mother may have been handicapped by ignorance of household matters, she gives only passive support to any plan which provides this training for her daughter. Present the subject of home economics instruction to a women's club and you will get an enthusiastic response, but press the matter individually to the same women and you will find that each one believes it is highly desirable for some one else's daughter. She has very fluent reasons why her own cannot take this instruction.

The Girl's Attitude. Household work of all kinds appeals to the average girl as drudgery of the crudest and most unattractive sort. She wants no part in it. Again, she knows that skill in domestic

pursuits is absolutely no asset in securing the masculine attention which she craves. As proof of this lack of interest on the

53

flower, to the surgeon who calls his operation a "beautiful operation" because

that it is difficult to find any number of husbands who made a definite inquiry as to their fiancées' ability to cook or who even suggested that marriage be postponed while their prospective housekeepers secured some training for their job.

The Public. In addition to the lack of interest on the part of these three parties there is no well-defined public sentiment requiring that a girl be trained for her share in the domestic partnership. While a man who is not trained to support his household is looked at askance, the girl hopes to "hire some one to do her work." This lack of definite demand for instruction on the part of those most concerned is the chief obstacle in the way of home economics instruction.

Housekeeping may be regarded as a trade for which pupils can be prepared by vocational training. But homemaking is more than housekeeping. The school can give courses in household arts, home economics, domestic science-that is, in the scientific knowledge of materials and their wise use in providing the physical basis of life. They can do something in child psychology and in sociology to equip for the care of children and servants. But these are not enough to make a home. Can the school give love for husband, children, home, without which the home-maker is poorly equipped for her profession? To do this without the co-operation of the homes from which the pupils come is difficult; to do this despite the passive resistance of the homes is almost impossible. the vocational school the girls may receive training, but it is in the present homes that the builders of our future homes must receive their inspiration. A fundamental change in the popular conception of home-making as a profession is essential, and this demands the cooperation of the school and the home and aid from the pulpit and the press.

In

For women have lacked respect for their job. Regarding household work of all kinds as of the crudest and most unattractive sort is not confined to schoolgirls. This distaste, perhaps contempt, for household industry they learn from their mothers. They do not know-how should they?-that all professions involve drudgery; the artisan drudges at his bench, the lawyer in his office, the author at his desk, the minister in his pastorate. The joy of work is in the achievement, not in the achieving; whatever joy there is in the achieving is chiefly in anticipating the achievement. From the groom who spends half an hour in rubbing down his horse and delights in the sleek coat when the job is done, or the gardener who while he is putting the apparently lifeless seed into the brown earth foresees the future

the minister who harasses his brain in the endeavor to so shape his sermon that he shall "get across" to his congregation, the joy of work is in the anticipated accomplishment, and success always comes at the end as a rest, if not as a relief.

And what achievement is comparable with that of the successful homebuilder? For she is a builder of men. Surely it is a greater achievement to make a man than to make a statue of a man; to make a Phillips Brooks than to make the sermon which Phillips Brooks preaches. A country is not rich because it has coal and iron mines and fertile prairies. Honest, industrious, unselfish men make it rich. And to make these men is a more difficult task than to make the tools they use or the laws they enact. A country of many happy homes is a far better country than one of many hovels and a few palaces; a country of many loving and devout homes is better than one of a few great cathedrals.

Are not boys also to be trained to be home-builders? Are they not to share in the responsibilities of the profession and in its great rewards? Surely. From the notion current in Jane Austen's time that home-making was the only profession open to girls we have reacted to the folly that it is no profession at all, and we imagine that by living in hotels and boarding-houses and hiring some one else to do our work for us we can be rid of the cares of housekeeping and retain the joys of home-building.

Home-building is impossible without a partnership; and the partnership is impossible without sharing in the responsibilities and cares as well as in the joys of the home. Boys and girls should be taught by their fathers and mothers concerning the mysteries of birth and life and death and prepared by example, as well as by teaching, to do their share in the greatest work God has given men to do. Marriage should be something more than a ceremonial entrance into a long honeymoon of mutual pleasure. It should be a partnership of love for love's creative work. And love, which does not inspire to service, which shuns self-sacrifice, and finds no reward in the welfare and happiness of others is not love but selfishness, and too often only sensual self-indulgence.

The home is the foundation of all social order, the brooding-place for industry, patriotism, and religion; and the school, the church, and the home should unite in inspiring our boys and girls to see in the profession of home-building its God-given glory.

LYMAN ABBOTT.

T

HE Central Powers nearly won the War by war preparation and low cost of war prosecution.

over the Chinaman-he has personality; he is commercially plausible and diplomatically impressive, with a nation be

CAN AMERICA CONTINUE TO EXPORT MANUFACTURED GOODS?

If Germany can maintain her present labor advantage, it will be hard to prevent her from climbing again into commercial pre-eminence and military power. She pays her machinists about 14 cents an hour. Can England compete paying 45 cents or America 60 cents?

German taxes and charges on business are less than in America and England. I will agree that more taxes are assessed there, but, as one man there said, "Not one German is paying the full tax."

England and the United States were stupid in 1914. They could not see the real Germany. The United States obstinately refused to see until 1917. Are these two countries to be equally stupid in 1921?

Will our wages to machinists come down to German prices, or will German prices come up to ours? On the answer depends the future of our manufacturing trade in South America.

We have sometimes been afraid of China. Are we overlooking Germany, the Chinaman of Europe, industrious, inning, and trained to the minute? The German has one great advantage

I consider the present political confusion in Germany only temporary and condoned or welcomed by the Germans themselves because it helps, like the cry of starving children, to create divisions among her enemies, her business rivals.

I am here considering the raising of German labor prices rather than the reduction of ours, which, no doubt, must also be accomplished. The cost of living in Germany and Austria is one-half the cost of living in the United States. The price of German labor is one-fourth, Austrian one-seventh of what we pay our workmen. Germany for several months has been underselling us in South America and elsewhere by forty per cent. No such cutthroat prices are necessary to get her fair share of trade. She has margin enough to pay higher wages and also export taxes to the Allies for reparations.

Every dollar Germany pays in increased wages to her workmen and to France and Belgium for her wanton destruction insures our workmen just so much more wages and work. There are too many smoking factory chimneys in Germany and too few in America.

Suppose we help to reverse this situation. Will any man in the United States object? If he does, just pull up his indignation by the roots and examine it. You will find a seed of selfishness or disloyalty at the bottom.

I see no objection to the Allies placing

Photograph by W. C. Gregg

a fifteen per cent export tax on all German exports. I think it would be accepted by the world with a minimum of grumbling. I agree that the purchasers would pay this tax. And the Allies would get some indemnity. A fifteen per cent export tax would not kill German business. It would pay Germany's war obligations.

Germany will not pay one mark unless compelled to. The sooner she starts to paying, the sooner Europe will settle down. Some occupation and control will be necessary to accomplish these ends. General acceptance of this situation will speed the desired result.

Germany can be forced to pay her workmen more money by being compelled to retire and cancel part of her enormous issues of paper money. She is still increasing it by unnecessary governmental expenditures and failure to collect taxes. The deficit is made up by printing more paper marks. No wonder the purchasing power of the mark is small, and labor gets the worst of it.

The process must be reversed-goernment expenditures held down to income and some of this almost worthless paper money canceled. The mark will then go up and its power in the hands of the German workman to buy food will increase.

Somebody says, "That's all fine, but food will cost more too."

Not so much, because food is now much more on the gold basis than labor is in Germany.

"But," says another, "you can't do such things to a nation not at war."

Not at war? Well, she is not at peace, that's certain!

If I have received any impression from my studies in seven countries in Europe, it is that the Great War is not over.

The present state is an armistice which the Central Powers are using for the purpose of evasion, causing the Allies to threaten invasion.

The interest of the United States in the outcome should be just as keen today as in 1917. There is absolutely no reason for us to shift our sympathy or criticise our old associates.

CENTRAL POWERS STILL UNITED

I found myself several times behind the lines of the Central Powers.

I noticed Turkish bootblacks in Vienna and asked why Austria allowed them to take that kind of work away from the Viennese. The answer was, "They are our allies, you know; they are welcome here." Again, when funeral services were recently held at Berlin over the remains of that Turkish butcher Talaat Pasha (who ordered the massacre of the Armenians, and was not able to escape a revenger's bullet, though he hid himself in the German capital) the German Foreign Office placed a wreath on his coffin with this touching tribute: "To a great statesman and a true friend."

A dozen times in Vienna I heard men say that their hope depended on Germany. Some wanted to see "Germany control Russia and again become the greatest power in Europe." Some said, "Germany is the backbone of Europe." I suggested that if they meant the central force for justice and order, I thought France, not Germany, filled the rôle.

THE WORLD DELIRIUM OF EXTRAVAGANCE Extravagance is the heritage of the war-personal, corporate, municipal,

and national.

People are eating more, drinking more, wearing better clothes, seeing more theaters, movies, and cabarets. In the tragic average many are poor who once were rich, but they too spend what they can lay their hands on.

Municipalities are borrowing to make up deficits. All nations spend more than their income. The difference is met by printing paper promises. Every nation is paying interest on its bonds, but also in paper. It is paper, paper, paper everywhere, smeared with a little ink. We laugh at the poor heathen who puts his confidence in a stone image. Should we have more respect for a paper image?

Neither treasuries nor banks can keep adequate metal reserves. International exchange indicates whether or not they are worth trying. There are over ninety billion paper Austrian crowns in existence. They have practically no metallic money behind them. Yet the wording of the promise, printed rather handsomely on each bill, is "One crown, payable on demand in metal currency."

Photograph by W.C.Gregg

FRANCE, BURDENED, PERPLEXED, AND WAR WORN, IS CARRYING ON
A French woman in the Argonne

I wish I could write cheerfully of Europe. I have spent nearly three months digging under the surface sixteen hours a day in England, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Austria, and Hungary, uncovering the cost of living, wages, taxes, governmental expenditures, incomes, debts, and gold reserves; and I have noted the agricultural equipment and activity, the political sanity and otherwise, the honesty of peoples and their intelligence. And I am coming home to America with a heavy heart. I criticise every country in Europe, as I do my own beloved land. I excuse only France.

French intrigue is as active to-day as ever. Each move, each hope, of the Central Powers hangs on crippling France. France bears the brunt of guaranteeing European order, and is recompensed by a world of suspicion or hatred. She does not deserve criticism from her former associates; she does need their advice and their firm support in her plan to settle the war.

What would happen if France were to economize by disbanding the bulk of her army? Germany would change her tone immediately. Not one mark more would she pay and her own army would rapidly take form. In one year she would again be the principal military power of Europe, with greater resources than any two other nations. There would then be no doubt as to who won the

war.

A HORIZONTAL REDUCTION OF HATRED AND EXTRAVAGANCE

No one knows the absolute motive of Germany in trying so many Socialistic experiments and depreciating her currency while negotiating a war settlement, but her tax laws are enforced only in a half-hearted way. In addition to income taxes poorly collected she has a tax on capital beginning at 10 per cent on, say, $5,000 worth of property, 20 per cent on $15,000, 30 per cent on $30,000 and so on up to 60 per cent of the capital every German had in 1920. Any