by the passions or prejudices of the members. The war in Europe proves this simple, fundamental fact.

May not the greed of England, the anger of Germany, or the pride of Japan-all human passions-precipitate an attack on this country? Who can foretell?

Secretary of State Bryan, loves peace, but, in this respect, he is no different from any other man in the United States. We all want peace-honorable peace-but not peace at any price.

Touching upon the subject of preparedness, the former Secretary said: "If preparedness prevented all war, there would be no war in Europe today, for they were prepared. More than that, preparedness, almost with absolute certainty, will help you into war because you cannot prepare for war unless you are afraid of somebody or hate somebody."

The former Secretary seems to forget that behind every war, as the motive cause, are the passions and prejudices of the people; the hates and fears, their greed and selfishness, their aggressiveness, jealousy, lust for conquest and world power.

With such people, a large and powerful army and navy might prove an active and propelling force for war. But are Americans of this character? Are we greedy, envious, lustful for the possessions of our neighbors?

Did we not purchase from France, the Louisiana Territory?

Did we not buy Alaska from Russia and pay in gold for it?

Was not the United States the only country to return to China the millions in indemnity paid us because of the Boxer Uprising?

Have we not proved our humanitarism by freeing Cuba from the yoke of Spain at the loss of many lives and millions of dollars, and helped to establish in that country a representative government?

The police department is not instituted for the purpose of causing trouble, but instead, as a preventitive for disorders. It tends to preserve peace by being at all times ready to enforce order.

What is true of a municipality, is likewise true of nations.

Disarmament invites attack, for history proves that wars have occurred repeatedly co-incident with conditions of disarmament.

Wise, patriotic and experienced men understand this fact, and, knowing human nature, are naturally alarmed at the defenseless condition of our country.

They demand-and rightly demandthat protective measures be at once put into effect.

On the other hand, the "peace at any cost" advocates, are a menace. If allowed to have their way, they would eventually get peace-and the United States would become "easy picking"

for every nation on the face of the earth. Mexico would be a paradise compared to us.

Peace is a dream and always will be a dream; but sooner or later we wake up.

Then, the deluge.

The nearest approach to peace is to be had by being at all times prepared for war. Washington, in this advice, does not advocate war, but knowing human nature with all its greed and selfishness, suggests a practical method of protecting ourselves against these evils. Was Washington an alarmist? But peace cannot be maintained without definite and adequate provision for its maintenance. Switzerland is one shining example of this wise national policy; China, on the other hand, tried. the "peace at any cost" policy. Look at China! Then at Switzerland in the midst of war! Whose policy should we follow Switzerland, the respected, or China, the despised?

Consider the claims of nations. Every nation asserts sovereignty and holds itself subject to no restraining authority. It acknowledges no superior to whom it must bend its head. Because of this belief and because of the peculiar kinds of government in the world, with all their racial and national prejudices, war between nations may result over night.

History again shows this to be true. Consequently, the femininists and "peace at any cost" advocates, who insist that this country of ours should rely solely upon treaties and the professed friendship of other countries, are a menace to our peace. They do harm when they prevent adequate protective measures for our lives and property.

The history of the world teaches that no nation can save itself unless it is thoroughly protected and prepared to resist rapacious hands.

As well expect the burglar to respect property in a policeless city, as nations to respect our unprotected territory. One is just as perilous as the other.

While the United States never was, is not now and never will be a subjugating nation, still, we must not forget that the United States is wealthyand wealth is always tempting to jealous minds.

Poland, only 200 years ago, by defeating the Mohammedans, was acclaimed the saviour of Christianity in all Europe.

Later, those very countries which begged Sobieski to save them from the Turks, turned on Poland, ravished her land and stole a third of her territory.

What happened to Poland and other countries, may also happen to the United States, if we become like the overfed sparrow in the nest.

TH

HE history of the past teaches. that no treaty, no matter how binding, will alone save us from the rapacious and greedy claws of jealous and selfish nations. We must rely upon our own strength and upon nothing else.

Would England dared to have held up our ships as she has done repeatedly, if we had a powerful navy and a well organized trained citizen soldiery; or would Germany have attacked the Guflight, the Lusitania and other American boats; or would Japan or any of the European nations have ignored our plain warnings, had we been able to enforce it?

Maximilian invaded Mexico when we were too busy to interfere with his attempted robbery, but Maximilian quickly obeyed the demand of our government after the Civil war was over, and left Mexico to herself. At that time we were prepared to uphold and enforce the Monroe Doctrine. Are we today?

Is it not self-evident that the warning to all European nations, embodied in the Monroe Doctrine-"Keep off the

grass" will be effective only so long as we have the power to enforce our decree?

Is it not the part of wisdom to so increase our defenses, that we can say to England, Germany, Japan or any other country, "Hands off," and compel them to respect the power behind that command?

But battleships cannot be built in a day nor can armies of experienced fighting men be welded in a short time. This means that the United States must have time, for above all, time is essential in preparing for defenses. If war in Europe were to end today and we were called to account tomorrow by England, Germany, Japan or any other country, for some fancied grievance, in Mexico or on account of our own neutrality position, we would be unprepared to adequately defend ourselves.

This fact has been made clear by many army and navy authorities; consequently, while it is coldblooded to even think so, a prolongation of the European war, with the consequent exhaustion of the European armies, would give us the necessary time to prepare our defenses.

UR first duty is to ourselves.
This is a natural right which

we are bound to observe. But some advocates of "peace at any cost," in their demand that the United States place an embargo on all munitions of warfare, seem to forget this duty to our own people. An embargo would throw out of employment millions of men, women and children, the innocent victims of this war, and cause them to suffer untold misery.

Should we suffer for the sins of others? Should we voluntarily increase our own misery brought on us by the war, in which we had absolutely no part in creating?

On the grounds of humanity, you say? But, I ask, will an embargo help hu

manity? Would not an embargo aid in destroying an innocent and helpless nation?

Germany claims to have plenty of ammunition and guns.

Belgium, on the other hand, has no ammunition and only an inadequate supply of guns. In a lesser degree, this is true of the other nations engaged in war.

The question now arises; is it right, is it the duty of the United States to refuse to sell war materials and thus permit Germany to point a loaded revolver at Belgium or any other country and demand, "Throw down your empty gun and put up your hands!" Belgium and every other country must submit or be destroyed!

An embargo on munitions of warfare would render these countries defenseless and Germany would march through Europe unopposed and demand its own terms.

The Allies, with unloaded guns in their hands, would be compelled to submit to any terms demanded by their conquerors.

Instead of being strictly neutral, therefore, the United States, by placing an embargo on munitions of warfare, would be helping one country against others.

Would that be right?

Would such a course help humanity?

If all warring nations depended on us for supplies, then then an embargo might be the proper thing; but would it be right under present conditions?

An embargo on munitions of warfare would be damnable; just as the threats and the attempts of Great Britain to starve out Germany were damnable; just as the whole war is damnable and just as the attempts of the "peace at any cost" advocates and other femininists to prevent proper and adequate defenses, are damnable.

The writer wishes it clearly understood that he is not taking sides for or . against any of the nations at war. He does wish it clearly understood, however, that he is an American first and last, and, as an American, demands that the United States institue at once,

such protection that will properly safeguard his life and property.

This is the demand by every true American on the Congress of the United States.

Is it asking too much?

HERE is no season of the year when diet is not an important matter to the woman who would look her best, but especially in warm weather it is essential that she shall exercise some care as to what she eats if she wishes to keep her complexion clear and herself in the best condition. The extreme heat of summer is in itself trying to the blood, which may show by eruptions of the skin due solely to high temperature. If a person who has this tendency eats food that incerases the temperature the trouble is naturally aggravated sometimes, even to causing sickness.

¶ All persons should try as soon as the weather turns warm to eat those things which should not heat the blood. Beef and other caloric producing food so necessary in winter when the blood requires heating should be banished in summer or partaken of sparingly and only occasionally. Cold drinks in moderation and food served cold are not only appetizing but are

beneficial, unless one goes to an extreme in using them and reduces the temperature of the stomach below the point necessary for digestion. When that happens, cramps and intestinal troubles ensue.

The natural foods of summer are in themselves wholesome and refreshing. Fruits, vegetables and salads act in a desirable way upon the whole system, and for that reason alone should be caten. Then also, and here is where a woman inclined to embonpoint must take heed, are fleshproducing, and combined with lack of exercise, are the cause of most persons acquiring extra pounds during warm weather. Some vegetables are less likely than others to do this, and it is therefore possible to regulate the diet with a good deal of

care.

From now on to September meat should not be eaten more than once a day at most, and when summer heat begins in earnest, three times a week is