the artillery, each laying the blame for the deadlock on the other. In consequence of the weight of artillery, at any rate, says the expert last named, and in consequence of the large numbers of guns used against the trenches, it has been necessary to make them very narrow and to use up much of their interior space in protections against lateral or oblique fire. This construction results in a weak firing line which is sometimes unable to inflict sufficient loss on an attacking force that has but a short distance to cover. The complete subordination of the infantry, once the undisputed queen of battle, is thus admitted by the expert

of the London Nation:

"Owing to the numbers of the hosts on both sides, and to the terrors of applied science, the armies, instead of moving visibly over the plains, remain hidden and almost stationary in subterranean labyrinths and caves. Thousands of miles of interlaced barbed wire prevent the movement of cavalry, and, caught in its entanglement, the dead hang like scarecrows. Reconnaissance and rangefinding are carried out by aeroplanes, dropping bombs and iron arrows. Motors and railways bring up supplies and reinforcements, where horses or marching feet brought them before. Hidden behind woods or other concealment, guns of various sizes are throwing shells day and night without stopping. The commonest sizes can throw 13 or 18 lbs. for 6,000 yards, about ten times a minute, or rather more bursting in air or on contact, as desired. The largest is believed to throw 2,000 lbs. for 12,000 yards. A German gun of only about 101⁄2 inches in bore is known to throw 760 lbs. for 10,900 yards; and if for a moment we consider the sea, Sir Percy Scott tells us that a 12-in. naval

THE MAN BEFORE THE GUN

gun, firing a shell of between 900 and 1,000 lbs. at an extreme range of 15 miles, must throw it to a height nearly 7,000 ft. above the summit of Mont Blanc, traveling at the rate of about half a mile a second.

"Time would fail to tell of the starshell, which mounts like a 'Roman candle,' casting a liquid searchlight on all around, or of the Flying Mine,' flung silently by compressed air into neighboring trenches; end of a 2-ft. stick and thrown as from or of the hand-grenade, fixed at the a sling. Sunk in muddy ditches, men stand with rifles pointed through holes in a low parapet, and ready to speed the sharp-nosed little bullet with deadly accuracy up to 1,400 yards, and with possible aim up to twice that distance."

A war with artillery dominant has ended in deadlock. That is the impression of this competent observer. The aeronauts insist that their flying machines, abolishing all secrecy in movement, have put this new face upon warfare. The French and the British bid the world wait for the infantry stage of the conflict, now about to open. Kitchener, organizer of victory for the British, acts upon the theory that infantry is still the queen of battle. That is why, when he was told that neither uniforms nor brass bands nor manuals of drill were adequate in quantity for

6

TRENCH WITH BOMB-PROOF SHELTER (a) Loophole for rifle fire.

(b) Bomb-proof shelter for men resting.

"Never mind all that. Teach them to the newly-raised levies, he replied: shoot." This is the Joffre theory, also. In communicating these details, the expert of the Figaro dwells upon the fact that the Germans have not "the infantry temperament.' They lack that "elan," that forward impulse, which made the Napoleonic armies irresistible. They must as a consequence depend upon movement in mass, backed by heavy artillery. Hence, their victories remain indecisive because artillery can not of itself seek out an army and destroy it. Not until the army of the foe has been pursued, beaten from a field and destroyed is a campaign won, and this last, perfect triumph is denied to the artillery. Some dim notion of this has already begun to permeate the German mind, suspects this authority, as may be seen by the efforts, making in the fatherland, to train the newer levies in open formation. The experiment comes too late. Germany staked everything strategically upon a short and swift campaign. She miscalculated. She staked everything tactically upon the theory that artillery is the

341

queen of battle and we are invited to believe-by the Allies-that she miscalculated on this point likewise.

COMMON TYPE OF FIRE TRENCH (a) Biscuit tin filled with earth. (b) Narrow elbow rest for firing. (c) Protection against back fire.

Even the German military experts agree that in its coming phase the war will witness an accentuation of infantry tactics and relatively less insistence upon artillery action. That fact proves to the German experts (notably that of the Vossische) how absurd is the British impression of a Germany out of copper. There is much less expenditure of ammunition by the Germans just now, he says, because the artillery phase of the war has passed and there is less occasion for it. He predicts terrible losses for the allies when they order frontal assaults upon the entrenched German positions in the west. That point is controverted by the greatest living English writer upon the art of war, Mr. Spenser Wilkinson. The Germans will enjoy no tactical advantage when the crisis of the campaign comes this summer, according to him. He says in the London Westminster Gazette:

"It has sometimes been inferred, from the strength of a front defended by modern weapons, that these weapons give the defence an advantage over the attack. But it is possible for the assailant to obtain for himself this advantage. Suppose two continuous fronts forming two enclosing the other. Neither side will be concentric circles, one army enveloping or

able to break through the other's line. The surrounded army then can have no communication with the outside world. So soon as its ammunition is exhausted it will be helpless, and so soon as its supThe ideal of a modern crushing victory is ply of provisions fails its men will starve. that of surrounding the enemy's army, as was done by Napoleon at Ulm and by Moltke at Sedan.

Ο

NE of the most striking illustrations in Sir Douglas Mawson's recently published "Home of the Blizzard," notes Professor J. 'W. Gregory, is a photograph of a cliff containing great coal veins On the northern coast of the Antarctic continent. Mawson's navigating officer, Captain Davies, frequently obtained fragments of coal while dredging off that coast.

The Australian expedition has, therefore, strengthened the impression left by the work of previous expeditions that coal is very widely distributed in Antarctica.

These discoveries, notes Professor Gregory, further, who writes in the London Geographical Journal, raise a vision of the Antarctic continent when it was covered by forests, before it had been buried under its present pall of ice. This fundamental change in the south polar climate may appear to demand a revolutionary change in the geographical conditions of the earth as a whole. Suggestions have, therefore, been renewed that the earth's axis of rotation was once shifted so that the present Poles passed into the warmer zones of the earth and other regions took their turn as the frozen polar wastes. Such a displacement of the Poles, it has often been held, is mainly required to explain the removal of the polar regions from the long winter night. It has been claimed that this prolonged darkness would absolutely prevent the growth of the coalforming vegetation. The experience of the Petrograd conservatories, where the trees are kept in artificial darkness throughout the winter, shows that this argument is invalid. The case for former migrations of the Poles rests, therefore, on its supposed necessity to account for a sufficient change of temperature to allow of luxuriant vegetation growing in the Arctic and Antarctic regions. The most unexpected fact in the distribution of coal is that it is not characteristic of the tropics. There is comparatively little coal in the tropical regions, and such as occurs there is of inferior quality. The main coalfields are in the temperate zones, while coal is already being worked commercially in Spitzbergen, which is much farther from the Equator than the coal discovered by Sir Douglas Mawson.*

"The theory that the Pole has wandered to lower latitudes is a revival of the speculations of Alessandro in the fifteenth century. He adopted it to explain how such a tropical animal as the elephant could have once lived in Europe. * The Home of the Blizzard. By Sir Douglas Mawson. Philadelphia: Lippincott.

The theory has been most strenuously glacial belt. But if the Pole had been opposed by the mathematicians. They equidistant from these three glaciated reject it on the ground that the great areas they would have been so far from it that they would have been in the temequatorial bulge of the earth renders any appreciable displacement of the axis of perate and tropical zones; whereas Ceyrotation quite impossible. It is, however, lon, southern India, and eastern equaconceivable that the earth, during shrink- torial Africa, tho they would have been age, may have altered its shape and once nearer the Pole, have yielded no evidence have been spherical; and, if so, a further that they shared this glaciation." change of shape might have led to a displacement of the axis around which the earth rotates.

"The astronomers would probably be albut it is, fortunately, unnecessary to rely most unanimous in dismissing this view; on mathematical probabilities. The theory of the movements of the Pole can be tested by reference to the actual geological facts as to the distribution of climate on the earth during those periods for

THE ADVENTURER OF THE ANTARCTIC

Sir Douglas Mawson went into the home of the blizzard and the penguin, emerging as one of the world's great explorers owing to the scientific importance of his discoveries.

which, at first sight, there is most to be said for the shifting of the Poles. Thus, either at the time of the formation of the chief British coalfields or but little later, glacial conditions existed in Central India, South Africa, and Australia. To explain these three glaciations, it has been suggested that the South Pole was then somewhere in the Indian Ocean and that they were part of a circumpolar

Unluckily for the theory, as Professor Gregory thinks, there was a simultaneous glaciation in Brazil, which, with the assumed position of the Poles, would have been equatorial, while the North Pole would have been situated somewhere in the neighborhood of Mexico, and that part of America, instead of having been covered by a Polar ice cap, was then enjoying a normal climate and had a rich vegetation. In later times the existence of tropical conditions in the arctic region has been assumed to explain the occurrence of plant beds in Greenland and Spitzbergen. Greenland is even said to have had a tropical climate about the date of the deposition of English chalk beds. This claim is based on some fossil land plants. However, the available evidence as to the temperature of the adjacent seas at that period gives no indication that they were occupied by a tropical or even warm-water fauna. The evidence from the distribution of life shows that throughout geological time the climatic zones have run around the world in belts approximately parallel to those of the present period:

"There have been many great fluctuations in the boundaries of these zones, which projected in one place far to the north and in others were pushed southward. Such anomalies have perhaps never been greater than those which exist today, when on one coast of America, in Alaska, dense fir forests grow upon the beds of earth that actually rest upon the glaciers, while the same latitudes in eastern America are barren Arctic wastes. The test of the former climatic zones was applied by Haughton, who discussed the question in a series of papers published between 1878 and 1882. He claimed that the geological evidence is convincing that the North Pole cannot have shifted its position, at least during the later half of geological time. He especially considered whether the shifting of the Pole would explain the formation of the Arctic coals, and he claimed to have proved that during this coal period a belt containing a climate similar to that of Lombardy completely surrounded the North Pole, which must then have been in its present position. 'I claim,' he said, 'to have surrounded the North Pole with such a network of Lombardic plants, requiring Lombardic heat but not Lombardic light, as to render the escape of the Pole from its present position as difficult as that of 'a rat in a trap surrounded by terriers.""

T

HE European war has made familiar to everybody the distinction which nations draw in practice between an ethical standard for individual conduct and an ethical standard for national conduct. To say that national expansion creates its own ethics in peace and in war is one method taken to justify the difference; to declare that national expansion is essentially non-ethical is another. And when among modern nations expansion is considered only another name for economic self-defense, ethics seems to play hide and seek.

Suppose that the victor in the European war challenges our Monroe Doctrine, which we originally set up in national defense. Or, try to draw a line where our peaceful penetration under that doctrine would become unethical from the standpoint of a South American state. Practical questions are thus forced on our attention that the United States must prepare to face, according to Professor Roland G. Usher, in his startling new book on "Pan-Americanism."* That as a nation we are concerned about the ethics of the situation and desire to do the right thing is unquestioned. That pacifist and individualist ethics will not be considered adequate seems to be equally clear to Professor Usher. For ethical values are not only comparative but relative. The conduct of nations for the increase of their economic welfare or the preservation of their territorial integrity cannot very well be judged by rules intended to promote the peace of mind and the spiritual salvation of

individuals.

"We have to deal to-day with a very subtle type of self-defense, which does not assume direct aggression in arms nor yet any injury of the sort hitherto recognized as a justification. Does a desire to ensure the future economic welfare of the nation stand upon the same footing as its right to repel armed invasion of its own territory? Has a nation a right to regard as hostile a series of economic developments, which no individual or nation created or originated, which are entirely impersonal, and which affect nearly all nations in some degree, because they seem likely to interfere in the future with that nation's

degree of economic prosperity? The danger is of course contingent; it is in the next place impersonal; and, in the third place, it is not an intentional injury even altho it may conceivably involve great peril to national integrity. This is the danger which the demand for expanding

THE FORECASTER OF OUR CLASH WITH EUROPE

Under the Monroe Doctrine a contest is inevitable, says this 34-year-old Professor Roland G. Usher, whose interpretation of Pan-Germanism proved prophetic. He boldly takes up the

ethics of Pan-Americanism.

markets, territorial expansion, and imperialism pleads."

It is pretty generally agreed, continues Mr. Usher, that it would not be in accordance with international ethics for one nation to assail another's domain simply for the sake of increasing its own territory or to add forcibly to its own movable property. Is the ethical aspect of the situation altered when. it is possible to allege a plausible future economic difficulty?

"Can economic 'threats' justify reprisal in arms? May one nation draw into its hands the trade and the consequent profit which another has at present, so long as the trade itself is not the actual object or the direct result of an armed invasion? Above all, does even a great and impend

ing economic catastrophe justify a nation in defending itself by the conquest of those individuals or nations who are not themselves in any conceivable way responsible for the economic forces likely to produce this calamity? Such a defense Germany has alleged for her invasion of Belgium; such a defense must France give for her rights in Morocco; such must be the defense of the United States in the maintenance of its supremacy on the western hemisphere, of the Monroe Doctrine, or of any degree of intervention in Latin America."

This purely economic issue is exceedingly subtle and without precedent in previous international disputes, Mr. Usher asserts. No nation can be proved to be the aggressor, and, in addition, the solution is to be obtained at the expense of those people least involved in the production of the crisis itself.

"If we limit ourselves to methods employed rather than the thing done and adopt the position of most pacifists that the really objectionable thing is armed warfare, we shall justify and permit a great variety of practices by which nations may impoverish and conquer each other without the firing of guns, much more effectively than they could have in the past by means of actual armed conquest. This logic also deprives the nations thus assailed by economic weapons of all right to defend themselves. By declaring the use of arms unjustifiable in resistance to anything except armed aggression against the national territory, the nation appealing to arms against the new economic weapons becomes the aggressor, and is promptly called upon to shoulder the blame for the war."

Moreover, Professor Usher remarks that Europeans and Americans have declared that any variety or degree of interference or control over undeveloped peoples was beneficial to them, lenient and entirely ethical so long as it did not actually involve the assumption of technical sovereignty. They have continually taken everything but the fiction of political independence from natives and deemed it internationally ethical, even tho obtained by the actual use of force. In practice, the white race, despite the individualist Christian ethic of human equality of men, has arrogated the right to rule all other races and has thus far made good its title to supremacy and superiority. The attitude of the United States on that issue has not been dif

ferent from that of other white nations. The quasi-religious tinge, so marked in present ethical teaching, has its effective origin in the blending of certain features of Christianity with certain aspects of Greek and Roman philosophic teaching. Thus, international ethics, to Professor Usher, appears to be a subtle and most peculiar mixture of the law of individual selfdefense, the ethics of business, and the ethics of the Crusaders.

In substance, Professor Usher warns us that in the matter of ethics the United States with its Monroe Doctrine is in no position to throw stones at warring European nations. International economic struggle is back of the military struggle; international aggression will not cease after the war; we shall inevitably be involved in the international economic strife. The Monroe Doctrine will surely be challenged by the European victor, in Professor Usher's opinion. What are we going to do about it? Probably nothing essentially different, ethically speaking, from what nations have done and are doing.

A peculiarity in the attitude of both Europe and the United States towards

Ο

South America, which has assumed a kind of Christian white man's burden relationship to lesser developed peoples, is pointed out by Professor Usher:

"So far as we are concerned, we can

hardly claim to-day a real necessity for self-defense against actual aggression from South America, such as would in any sense justify us in taking military and naval control of the western hemisphere. In order to base our supremacy upon the necessity of the continuance of guardianship by a Christian nation, we must assume that the intellectual attainments of Latin Americans are yet too rudimentary to permit their real comprehension of the tenets of Christianity, to say nothing of the imputation that the offices of the Catholic Church are entirely unable to ensure their salvation. To state such a proposition is to show its present absurdity as a basis of American policy. Unless we can justify our expansion by the ethics of business, the ethics of peaceful penetration, the ethics of future markets, or of territory to develop, we shall

not be able to justify it at all."

Logically, political economy may claim that it is non-moral and nonethical. Whether conduct be considered ethical or unethical depends upon one's definition of ethics. What ethical prem

ise will justify peaceful penetration? asks Professor Usher.

"There is only one such standard: the actual conduct of nations in the past. If take as its standard the present conduct then we consider ethics right conduct and of nations, as well as Our own past actions and those of the greater European nations, employing actual cases as against hypothetical assumptions, we shall have little difficulty in concluding that the expansion of the United States into Central and South America for the purpose of assuring its economic welfare in the future would be entirely in accordance with international ethics, as applied by white men in their relations with the lesser developed countries during the last three centuries. The practices of the past justify such ambitions. We can demonstrate the consonance of any sort of conduct with ethics if we only assume the right premise."

Nevertheless Professor Usher raises

this pertinent query: "Is it not pos

sible after all that a search for the principles by which certain conduct could be proved ethical would not only bear a close resemblance to the ancient logical fallacy of arguing in a circle but would be also scarcely recognizable as an ethical inquiry?"

ONLY those who have access to the church periodicals of Germany can form a fair conception of the extent to which the churches and the Christians of that land regard the present war in the light of a religious crusade. A good typical example of this is found in a recent article published by the influential pastor, Rev. Dr. G. Bronisch, of Barmen, in the Reformation, of Berlin. Under the title, "In a Hopeful Struggle" ("Im aussichtsvollen Kampf"), and with Second Timothy 2:5 as a text (“if a man strive for mastery yet he is not crowned except he strive lawfully"), he continues as follows:

"On what do we Germans base our hope of victory? This hope was all-powerful in us from the beginning, and is as firm and fixed as is our faith in the gospel. No matter how often it is figured out to us that the entire hostile world alliance against us commands a population six times as great as the one hundred and one millions in Germany and Austria; that their armies outnumber ours by the millions; that their fleets are overwhelmingly more powerful than ours; no matter how often we are told that their money-bags are inexhaustible; that they have sworn to stick together to the end and are determined to destroy us, we do not despair. Without getting excited, we read of the horde of the black children of Africa, of the brown chaps from India, of the yellow

RELIGIOUS CRUSADE

horde from Japan, of the white farmer from Canada and Australia, who are brought to fight the wars of the English type of civilization in Europe. With a grim humor we hear our German soldiers heathen' they are called upon to fight; talk of the 'menagerie of barbarians and they are ready for them all, and our hope of victory is not in the least bit shaken. This hope indeed is being tried, but every test only makes it more certain. After the first storm of victory we are learning the lessons of patience, and in this case too 'hope will not be put to shame.""

On what is this hope of victory founded? asks Pastor Bronisch. He proceeds to answer:

"We are opposing value and worth to mere masses; strength to mere material; spirit and discipline to mere plan; the trained soldier to the hireling. We have the best equipped armies under the ablest leaders, under the leadership of the best of Emperors, and, above all, first and foremost, we have a good conscience and the certainty that we are in the hands of a righteous and just God. All this is the ground of our hope in this fearful war. We in all humility bend our knees before the holy God. War has taken us into his school of trial and discipline; but we will never bend our necks before the threats of a boastful foe. We are anxious and concerned about the lives of our brethren in the field; but we do not worry about the victory. The right kind of a soldier is engaged in a righteous cause. Let them call us Huns and barbarians; yet we are

Otherwise

only sharp where duty calls. our soldiers are as tender as a mother.

With our faith, our prayers, our encouragement, we will hold up the hands of our men in their righteous work."

As far as known, not one voice has been raised in the German church or ministry seriously questioning the righteousness of the German cause. In the first weeks of the war, Prof. Rade, the brilliant editor of the Christliche Welt, of Tübingen, expressed a mild doubt as to whether Germany was entirely blameless in the matter; but the expression has not been repeated. In some religious periodicals there are frequent declarations of the conviction that the decline of positive religious faith and life in Germany is now being punished by God. The strongest expression of this sentiment we find in the Philadelphia, where we read:

"It is God who has sent this war; and the Christianity of Germany is not without guilt. We needed this as a scourge and a punishment for having neglected our Lord. Infidelity, rejection of the Word, works of the flesh, social democracy, Monism and a rationalistic theology were eating their way into the vitals of the church and have called down on us the wrath of God. We, the people of Germany, are to be blamed and this war had to come. It will and must lead to repentance and to a spiritual regeneration and a religious revival."

This latter purpose is already being attained. Many plain evidences of it are reported. The churches of Germany are too small to hold the crowds that flock to the services; religious literature is flourishing as never before; Luther's battle hymn, "A Mighty Fortress is our God," is as popular as "Die Wacht am Rhein," even among the Roman Cath

A

ico.

345

PLEA for a more tolerant attitude in the United States toward religious questions in Mexico is made by Dr. John W. Butler, dean of the Protestant missionaries in the City of MexCurrent charges of confiscation of Roman Catholic church property, he says, should be viewed in the light of the provisions of the Constitution of 1857 which separated church and state. Reported outrages in the course of the civil war, he tells us, are traceable to irresponsible mobs or degenerate soldiers, condemned alike by Mexicans of all faiths and revolutionary factions. Dr. Butler's statements regarding the situation have been published in a number of our religious and secular papers. In an article in The Missionary Review of the World he says it is not correct to charge the leaders of the revolution with ruthlessly confiscating church property.

"All church property was confiscated under the Constitution of 1857, and now

the Church can not legally hold property as an investment. Mexican historians make clear why such drastic measures were incorporated into the Constitution and emphasized by the reform laws of 1859. It was, as one of them says, 'because the Church became a very prominent factor in politics and could upset and establish governments at its pleasure, fomenting the many revolutions which were constantly breaking out.' Therefore, it was that the political power of the Church was destroyed by effecting a complete independence of Church and State, and the confiscation of all. Church property-from the most magnificent cathedral to the smallest chapel, and from the most expensive convent to the humblest shrine in the country. All Church property not built in recent years belongs to the government, which, in turn, gives a free lease to the Church of such edifices as are required for public worship. All this was brought to pass by the Liberal Party, most of whose members lived and died in the Roman Catholic fold, tho they were decidedly opposed to the Church as a political institution. Rare indeed was the case when a Liberal declared himself opposed to Christianity. Reports of the confiscating of Church property in these days is a mistake-such confiscation occurred nearly sixty years ago. As to the destruction of convents, it is only necessary to say that, according to law, no such

convents have existed in Mexico for over fifty years."

Dr. Butler further points out that Mexican reform laws of 1873 expelled all secret religious orders, so that, if members of them have been recently found in Mexico, they were there against the law, of the existence of which they certainly were not ignorant, and the present authorities were fully authorized in reminding them of the law. Moreover, citing the guarantees of full religious liberty in the Constitution of 1857, together with grant of power to authorities to expel, without process of law, any foreigner found meddling with politics, Dr. Butler reminds us of the revolutionists' claim that clergy who have left in fear or have been expelled were foreigners and had given provocation.

Two concrete instances of damage to church property by mobs are described by Dr. Butler to show the general attitude of Mexicans toward such excesses. In the one case, after the burning of a confessional stall in Queretaro, the Constitutional forces restored order; in the other, after looting and burning contents of the Methodist Mission School and Church in the same city, the townspeople, probably 90 per cent. of them Roman Catholics, organized to drive off the mob and put out the fire. When Generals Villa and Gutierrez arrived they sent men to repair the buildings, arrested two of the ringleaders, and would have shot them but for the pleadings of the pastors.

The substance of Dr. Butler's plea is that the masses, in Mexico, have never had what we, in the United States, call "a square deal." He contends:

"First, that our Mexican brothers deserve a more sympathetic hearing on the part of the American public than they have hitherto received. Armed intervention is the last thing that ought to be considered. Secondly, historic Christianity in Mexico needs to be vitalized before it can adequately fulfil its sacred mission among the Mexican people. Historic Christianity, with its splendid cathedrals and religious pageantry alone, in the centers of the country, is not sufficient. Roman Catholics and Protestants alike must go into the towns, hamlets and rural districts in the simplicity of primitive Christianity."

A pamphlet issued in New York by I. C. Enriquez, who writes "as a faithful Catholic and Mexican revolutionist," has also attracted considerable attention. His contributions to the discussion of religious issues in Mexico have been published in the New York Times and other papers. His pamphlet endorses Dr. Butler's statements, which he first read in the New York Evening Post. He gives translations of letters from several archbishops in Mexico to Huerta's Minister of the Interior as proofs of political activity and unwarranted claims for alleged damages to the Roman Catholic Church, and he insists that they thus became lawbreakers. The priests who fought for the liberty of the Mexican peons from Spanish domination, he recalls, are not the high Church dignitaries of today. He declares that the Mexicans are faithful believers and the soldiers devout worshippers. But

"The greatest tragedy of the Catholic Church in Mexico is that it is a house

very much divided against itself. It possesses no unity of purpose, it has no honest desire to uplift, to educate and alleviate the needs and sorrows of the masses. The true condition of the Catholic Church is that it is composed of wealthy, foreign, high clergymen and of poor priests who are native Mexicans and Indians. Those native priests have a complete understanding of the hopes, aims and desires of the poor people. The wealthy, foreign high church dignitaries have always brought naught but sorrow upon Mexico. They were responsible for French intervention, it is they who in the present struggle are trying to bring about the intervention of the United States. Instead of ministering to the soul needs of the Mexicans, they shamelessly indulge in the low game of politics. They intrigue, they scheme. They are the friends of the reactionary forces; they kow-towed with Diaz when he was in power and used Huerta and his henchman, Dr. Urrutia, when they reigned supreme. It will be seen from this that the Mexican people can have no love for those high church dignitaries, who always allied themselves with their enemies. In fact, they were the enemies, for they always upheld the benighted forces of Mexico."

Mr. Enriquez avers that "the cries of the clergymen that the United States swoop down upon Mexico and at the