that provided for the reduction of the German army to 100,000 men and the other that said the police forces must not be greater than in 1913, except in proportion to increased population than ingenious organizations sprang up in Germany for police, gendarmes, and civic guards which were merely military forces in disguise. According to reports published at the same time in Berlin, the army had been reduced to 90,002 men and the armed police force was below the limit required. On the other hand, it appeared that the civilian guard numbered hundreds of thousands. Although it had outwardly ceased to exist in Prussia, it was secretly maintained under various forms, such as clubs and sporting societies, and in Bavaria it was recruited in defiance of the Allies. In Germany, there was much protest against the reduction of the forces on the ground that Germany would thus be deprived of the defense against the Bolsheviki.

ANGLO-FRENCH FRICTION. During the closing months of 1920 the press of all the Allied countries gave much space to discussion of the differences in policy between France and Great Britain. The cardinal points concerned their attitude toward the Russian Soviet government and toward Poland. The French point of view may be briefly summed up as follows: England, after 40 years of a more or less hostile policy toward France, as was indicated by the incident of Fashoda in 1898 and many other circumstances formed with her in 1904 the famous Entente Cordiale at a time when Great Britain felt herself in danger by the world policy of the Emperor William. On the outbreak of the war this understanding was transformed into a war alliance which in turn became at the end of the war an alliance for peace. Now, it was generally admitted that the war had practically ruined France and that peace had especially enriched the British Empire. Again it was also certain that a thorough understanding between France and Great Britain would suffice for the maintenance of permanent peace in Europe whether with or without a League of Nations or the United States or Russia. But it seemed inevitable that a British government on becoming more and more powerful and free from the maritime and colonial competition of Germany would tend to contravene certain interests of France. After 1916, in spite of the war alliance, the British Empire without the knowledge of the French had entered into a long series of arrangements profitable to it and injurious to France. Under Lloyd George this policy had been carried to its furthest limit and had become

actually hostile. For example, English munitions were supplied to the rebels of Cilicia; English instigation roused Feisal against France; English plots sacrificed Poland whose welfare was necessary to French security; English pretentions reduced the just compensation; and English capital worked against France in Silesia. Then as to Bolshevism which was a flat denial of right, of good sense, and of civilization, Lloyd George by an obscure understanding and through the influence of Jewish financiers had attached himself to the Soviet Government. The French government had positive and detailed information in respect to this relation. For example, Great Britain had promised Judenitch to sup. port him on the left flank by occupying Kronstadt and a part of the coast but she had evacuated all these positions at the approach of the

Reds. Thus Poland was left exposed, Judenitch was beaten and Lenin was saved.

As to the United States, experience had shown that no reliance was to be placed upon permanent support from that quarter because American diplomacy depended too much on mere internal party rivalries. Nor could Great Britain be regarded in the long run as a permanent force. The very existence of the British Empire was at present in question. It was at least reasonable to consider the possibility of its decay during the next 50 years. The French so-called empire, on the other hand, was not threatened. So long as the French should hold the Rhine, which they had a right to do alone, so long as Eastern Europe should be closed to the Soviets, which could be insured in part by French action against Berlin, Germany would grumble but would not dare to stir. Association with England on the Rhine and in, Poland would hamper French efforts whereas an understanding with Belgium, Luxemburg and Spain together with a progressive development of French economic resources and her military strength might bring results more satisfactory and less costly. At all events the interest of France must come first and not a fantastic notion based on British pretentions. The course of Millerand was based on these realistic views. It implied that France ought to follow a distinctly French policy and oppose any anti-French tendency no matter what its origin. In short, events since 1916 had shown that it was not possible for France to bind herself by a policy of common interest with Great Britain. The only agreement possible would be one that consisted of specific understandings formed from time to time in relation to the definite purposes that developed. To be sure. nothing should permit the possibility of misunderstanding with Great Britain. The policy of Lloyd George appeared to lack good will. Nevertheless a nation of 90,000,000 inhabitants disposing of an immense colonial empire having rich deposits of iron and other minerals could certainly resist every anti-French policy in Europe from whatever source it came. It was safe to say to the British Premier that France had had enough of concessions and that she intended to apply the treaty of Versailles with the English if they wished but without them if their selfishness obliged her to do so. This was the policy of M. Millerand as interpreted by a considerable body of French opinion and to it was attributed his diplomatic victories over Great Britain.

The above summary is a fair example of the attitude of many prominent French publicists and doubtless represented the point of view of the class that dominated French policy after the close of the war. That it did not represent several important elements in French society was evident but for some reason their criticisms were not generally cited in the American Press. A part of the British press carried on a systematic campaign against the policy of the French government. In the first place it insisted upon a reconciliation with Germany. It published articles indicating that France aimed at the economic destruction of Germany and that France was embarked on an imperialistic career that was the most audacious that had been known since the excesses of Pan-Germanism. It declared that Europe was covered with French military missions; that Poland had been ruined

WAR OF THE NATIONS

as a result of French encouragement; that peace had been made impossible in Russia by French support of Wrangel; that Hungary had become a French military outpost; and that as a result of the Franco-Belgium agreement, the safety of England was in danger in that quarter. The French replied to this that French imperialism was an invention of German mendacity; that instead of having driven Poland to ruin, France had saved the people in their moment of peril from being crushed by Russia and Germany for if France had not aided the Poles in their resistance, the Red armies would have occupied Warsaw. France had saved western Europe at that crisis, for with Warsaw once under Red control, Bolshevism would penetrate throughout all Europe. In recognizing the government of Wrangel, France was following the only reasonable attitude for nations that wished international relations to be based on right. If Bolshevist Russia were not checked, the most elementary principles of civilization would cease to be respected in the dealings btween nations. As to Hungary, the alleged motives of French diplomacy in Hungary had been formally denied and as to the Franco-Belgian agreement its purely defensive character had been proclaimed by both parties to it. It was formed in order to withstand in the future any new aggression. Nor was it the fault of either France or Belgium, that England had not been willing to take part in the measures undertaken by France and Belgium for the common defense of the west against such attacks as those of 1914. These criticisms of France were all dismissed by the French press as part of a systematic campaign against her, falsely based on desire for peace, while actually tending to compromise peace measures that had been taken. In a British paper renunciation by the British government of its rights to seize the property of Germans was defended and it declared that France in occupying Frankfort, recognizing Wrangel and pursuing her Polish policy, had taken a menacing attitude. It also said that after the conference at Spa it had violated both the letter and the spirit of the agreement reached at San Remo. The paper went on to say that the Entente would break up at an early date and possibly before Christmas for if France assumed the right to act according to her own inclinations, she could not refuse the same right to England. These points are quoted simply to indicate that in both countries strong efforts were being made by certain elements to stir up hostilities between the two goverments. Eminent publicists, especially in France, expressed extreme views. For example, the makers of the Treaty according to Lauzanne were eternally disgraced because there had not been included penalties insuring the execution of the terms and M. Millerand deserved everlasting credit for his attempt to complete it in this respect. It was absurd that a Treaty should contain 222 pages of demands and only a page and a half on the measures for the enforcement of those demands. French policy was at present engaged in creating the necessary sanctions. At the convention of Spa it had created a sanction in respect to coal and the result was that Germany delivered the coal. That is what sanctions meant and they had been completely forgotten in the Treaty. It remained to be seen what penalties would be agreed upon in the approaching meetings at Brussels and Geneva for the failure to

WAR OF THE NATIONS

keep the financial terms. The Germans would pay if they knew that in case of non-payment certain measures would be taken against them such as the occupation of Essen, the seizure of the customs, etc. In other words if the Allies should proceed in the matter of financial reparations as they had proceeded at Spa in respect to coal, France would secure some portion of the booty, but if they proceeded as they did at Versailles and only made phrases, France would get nothing more than a shadow.

GREAT BRITAIN AND GERMANY. Liberal opinion in England was distinctly in favor of the programme of restoration and reconciliation for Germany. In more or less conservative quarters there was a disposition to agree that it was to the best interest of the Allies to follow a moderate course in the matter of indemnity. It was clear that the French and British should stand together and it was also clear that the terms of the Treaty should be enforced. Although Mr. Lloyd George had frequently changed his mind in domestic politics his course in this matter was generally regarded as consistent. While the French showed a preference for military means in insuring the Treaty, Lloyd George and the Italian prime minister believed in methods of diplomacy, and had worked out plans, for the adjustment of differences with Germany by peaceful means. In the matter of the coal question the Allies pointed out to Germany that ament and in regard to the reparations generally, she had failed to comply in regard to disarmand at the conference of San Remo they framed this declaration and included in it the difficulties with which the German government statement that the Allies did not ignore the are faced and did not intend to insist upon the literal interpretation of the Treaty. Furthermore they invited the head of the German governAllied cabinets. ment to confer directly with the heads of the hind this policy and in inducing the French Mr. Lloyd George had been be

minister to meet the German minister he had done much toward restoring normal relations. Moderate British opinion argued that after all the war had ended and Germany had signed the Treaty. They urged her inability to carry it out literally and punctually. The British government was willing to examine that plea and see what could be done. As to the indemnity so long as the amount was left indefinite, Germany had an excuse for saying that she did not know what to do about it. The Allies for their own sake would do well to fix the amount definitely as soon as possible. Germany could adjust her internal conditions to meet this necessity. Generosity in the treatment of a vanquished enemy was not in the long run unprofitable to the conquerors. The above comment fairly rep resents moderate British opinion as indicated in the press at the time of the San Remo conference in May, and in general the same spirit continued throughout the year.

In December, 1919 a White paper was published saying that the money due to or the property acquired by the Germans as a result of transactions following the authorized resumption of commercial relations were not subject to sequestriation in England. On October 8, 1920 the British embassy at Berlin repeated this engagement and reassured the Germans that from that moment the only thing

demanded of them would be to make an honest effort to pay their debts. In that case complete immunity was assured them in respect to their deposits in bank or their goods in Great Britain. On October 21, the Board of Trade published the information that the government of Great Britain had informed the German government that it had no intention of exercising the right conferred upon it by paragraph 18, Annex II of the eighth part of the Treaty, to seize the property of Germans who left the United Kingdom, in case of voluntary violation of these obligations by Germany. In France this policy was condemned as encouraging the Germans to resistance in the matter of indemnity. It was pointed out that the German press was saying that German commerce was not in any danger. On the occasion of the fair at Frankfort, purchasers came to Germany from all countries and during the months of April and May the excess of exports was very considerable. For months Germany had ceased to publish statistics of products and exports. Finally the government decided to publish statistics for the whole of 1915 and the first five months of 1920. These showed the excess of exports in April to have been 576,000,000 marks and for May, 1,100,000,000 marks. According to French commentators, this proved that Germany was in a position to pay her debts. Indeed, some of the German newspapers condemned the government for publishing these figures on the ground that it played into the hands of those who wished to press for payment.

OCCUPATION OF THE RHINE. In the autumn several German newspapers conducted a campaign in regard to the cost of the army of occupation on the right bank of the Rhine, with a view to relieving Germany of part of the burden. The French Finance Minister in the autumn published figures showing the expenses that France was obliged to pay. The total contribution to the support of the army of occupation on the part of France amounted to 1,800,000,000 francs. The installments paid by Germany for reimbursal amounted on July 31, only to 402,813 francs. Certain German papers however, added to this figure very large sums spent by the German government for indemnification of its own people on account of requisitions, etc., resulting from the occupation. Many instances of French requisitions were cited by these German papers, notably at Kaiserslautern, with a view to proving that the French occupation was an intolerable burden upon German finances. There was no opportunity during the year of determining the right of this matter, since the German charges as published in the press were not accompanied by proof and since the answer of the French was simply a flat denial, also unaccompanied by convincing information.

FRENCH-ITALIAN FRICTION. In spite of the interview between the French and Italian premiers at Aix-les-Bains, there was much criticism of French policy on the part of the Italian press. In general the French Russian policy was condemned and there was a tendency to insist on easier terms for Germany. Moreover, the socalled Little Entente among the Balkan states was approved by the Italians as a check on the French designs. In France this criticism was attributed to Italy's disappointment in the terms of peace and to the serious economic crisis that

she was undergoing. In spite of the overthrow of her hereditary enemy, Italy was much dissatisfied with what the peace had brought her. Moreover, there was a political crisis resulting from the acknowledged necessity of modifying and simplifying organs of administration, financial methods and the electoral system. Then the economic crisis, due in the first instance to the disorganization of the ratio of production to consumption, to the lack of agricultural resources and to the failure of raw materials for manufacture, which was all the more serious as the result of lack of means of transport and the reduction of emigration. Finally there was the enormous increase in the cost of living. These elements which had marked the history of the year 1919 had given impetus to the more radical movements and the Chamber elected November 16, 1919 was a distinctly radical body. The dominance of this class did not tend to cordial relations with countries in which, like France, the more conservative classes were in control. But while the French attributed the Italian attacks upon them to these causes in part, they saw no reason for the violence of these attacks and did not admit their justification. The main grievances against France according to Italian writers were, in the first place, that France had emerged from the war enormously rich. She controlled in Europe the iron market and the market of chemical fats and to a certain extent the market for colonial raw material on account of her territorial gains in Africa. Italian industry in effect depended upon the good will of France. The French had occupied the coal fields of the Saar from which they granted to Italy only a small proportion and they would not relinquish the mines of Heraclea in Asia Minor. French policy paralyzed Italian industrial activity and deliberately drove Italy toward anarchy and ruin. A contrast was drawn between the new wealth of France resulting from the war and the poverty of Italy which was the direct result of French policy. To these attacks French writers replied that if they did not furnish cast-iron and steel to Italy it was because they required them in the reorganization of their own metal industries. Many of the French blast furnaces in fact could not operate on account of the lack of coke. France had the first claim naturally on her own products in order that she might bring the balance of trade in her favor. The restrictions on the exportation of phosphates, for example, were due to internal needs and to the difficulties of transportation. As to coal, it should be remembered that the coal fields in the north of France had been made unproductive for a long time to come by the Germans and the output was by no means equal to the needs. Instead of monopolizing the Heraclean basin, France as a matter of fact had granted Italy a right to take part in its exploitation. Moreover, France had sent a delegate to Rome to facilitate direct purchase by the Italians in her African colonies. The charge that France wanted to cause a social revolution in Italy by unemployment and famine would not bear examination. Moreover, in most cases commercial relations between the two countries were not under government control but pertained directly to the industrial groups concerned. The agreement at Turin, May 30, 1917, permitted Italian merchants and

WAR OF THE NATIONS

manufacturers to export into France goods to the value of a billion francs although French producers had sent to Italy goods to the value of only some hundreds of millions. France was thus the best customer of Italy and had contributed toward the lowering of her rate of exchange. Again France had foregone 3 % of the German indemnity in favor of Italy. In these circumstances Italian criticism seemed unreasonable to the French. It continued, however, without abatement during the year.

ITALY AND GERMANY. Anxiety was expressed in certain French quarters lest Germany and Italy should be drawn together in a commercial alliance and there was much talk about the intention of Germany to secure economic control over Italy. An interview with the German ambassador of Italy published in November presented some of the points from the official German point of view. Germany, according to the ambassador had no desire to penetrate the economic life of Italy, but only to cooperate with it. But the question in Germany was how to reconstitute her own economic life, and she was obliged to think of her own obligations-the delivery of great quantities of coal and the payment of her indemnities. The peace conditions had deprived Germany of the very basis of her industries. Germany to-day was a totally different country from what she had been. She was poor in all raw materials and in money. The work of economic penetration in Italy or in any other country was impossible to her, even if she wished to engage in it. Germany knew very well that such a policy would be ruinous.

Many Germans began to return to Italy after the armistice and their number was said to be increasing in 1920. Among them were persons prominent in industry, commerce and finance, also Church dignitaries, aristocrats and many persons of the middle class. The newspapers referred to this influx of German pilgrims and in the French press it was regarded with suspicion as indicating a pro-German tendency on the part of the Italians. The Germans were very numerous in the north, especially in Milan and Genoa. Writers and journalists were said to form the largest element. Moreover all were received by the Italians as if nothing unpleasant had occurred, and although at first many of them had passed themselves off as Swiss they now took pride in declaring themselves Germans. Certain Italian papers expressed some concern over this immigration and warned the public against a design on the part of the German government to repeat her past error and endeavor to invade anew the industries in Italy. In certain quarters the fear was expressed that in a few years the Italian market would again be flooded by German goods. At present a large number of commercial travelers were seen displaying their wares in Italian streets. Meanwhile they were not neglecting the political side and were constantly carrying on propaganda in favor of Germany. One Italian newspaper declared that the merchandise offered by Germany was not only of a better quality than the Italian, but was delivered under very advantageous conditions as compared with that offered by the French and English, the Germans accepting easy terms of payment. A large credit establishment at Rome announced in the autumn that two German

bankers had been called to direct a branch which had been opened. It was feared by some that the time was not far distant when Italian finance would be under German domination. It was significant that Germans were already placed at the head of an important Italian bank. WARRE, EDMOND. Former headmaster of Eton College, England, died at Eton, January, 22. He was born Feb. 12, 1837; studied at Eton; graduated at Oxford with honors; became assistant master at Eton in 1860; was elected headmaster in 1884, and held that office till his resignation in July 1905. He was celebrated for his extraordinary memory which enabled him to quote with ease from classic authors on almost any subject. As an administrator he was autocratic but kindly and he made an especial effort to develop public spirit among his pupils. WASHINGTON, D. C. See CITY PLANNING. WASHINGTON. POPULATION. According

to the preliminary report of the census of 1920, there were 1,356,621 residents in the State January 1, 1920, as compared with 1,141,990 in 1910.

AGRICULTURE. According to the census of 1920, the number of farms was 66,288, an increase of 18.0 per cent since 1910. The following table was compiled from the estimates of the United States Department of Agriculture for the years, 1919 and 1920:

MINERAL PRODUCTION. The value of the gold, silver, copper, lead, and zinc produced from mines in Washington in 1920, according to the estimate of the United States Geological Survey, was about $1,193,000, an increase of $224,039 over that in 1919. The decrease in the value of the gold and silver was more than offset by the increase in that of the copper, lead, and zinc. The output of copper from the Chewelah district, Stevens County, was slightly less, but there was an increase in the output from Snohomish County. Most of the ores except those of lead and zinc were smelted at Tacoma, Wash. The mine production of gold decreased from $252,862 in 1919 to about $142,000 in 1920, a decrease of nearly 44 per cent. Nearly all the gold came from the Republic district, where the shipments of ore were comparatively few. From this district approximately 10,200 tons of siliceous ore was shipped during the year, as compared with 25,537 tons in 1919. The mine output of silver decreased from 259,384 ounces in 1919 to about 193,000 ounces in 1920. The value of the output decreased from $290,510 to about $210,000. Most of the silver was obtained from copper ores and from ores mined in the Republic district. No silver ores were either shipped or treated. The mine output of copper increased from 1,676,576 pounds in 1919 to about 2,394,000 pounds in 1920, and the value of the output increased from

311,843 to $409,000. The mine output of lead increased from 2,146,157 pounds in 1919 to about 5,079,000 pounds in 1920, and the value from $113,746 to about $415,000. Most of the product came from the Electric Point property near Northport, in Stevens County, the shipments from which were greatly increased. In the same district much lead ore was opened in the Gladstone mine, from which several shipments were made during the year. Several hundred tons of zinc ore were shipped from the Northport district in 1920. No large output of zinc ore had been made since 1917.

FINANCE. The Treasurer's statement for the biennium ending September 30, 1920 was as follows: Balance on hand, Oct. 1, 1918, $5,370,697; gross receipts during biennium, $43,240,707; gross disbursements, $42,953,825; balance on hand, September 30, 1920, $5,657,579.

EDUCATION. For the year ending June 30, 1919, 272,325 pupils were enrolled, the average daily attendance was 197,595, and the number of teachers employed 9,770. The total enrolled in high schools was 37,317 and the number of teachers 1,612. See EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES.

TRANSPORTATION. Of steam trackage the Northern Pacific maintains 2,966 miles, the Great Northern 1,798 miles, the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul 1,138 miles, the Oregon-Washington Railroad and Navigation Company, or Union Pacific, 1,133 miles, and the Spokane, Portland & Seattle 512.41 miles.

ELECTIONS. The vote in the presidential election of 1920 was: Harding (Republican), 223,137; Cox (Democrat), 84,298; Christensen (Farmer-Labor), 77,246; as compared with the following vote in the presidential election of 1916: Wilson (Democrat), 183,388; Hughes (Republican), 167,208; Benson (Socialist), 22,800. The vote for governor was: Hart (Republican), 210,622; Bridges (Farmer-Labor), 121,371; Black (Democrat), 66,079; and for United States Senator: Jones (Republican), 217,069; France (Farmer-Labor), 99,309; Cotterill (Democrat),

68,488.

WASHINGTON, UNIVERSITY OF. A co-educational State institution at Seattle, Washington, founded in 1861. The enrollment for the summer session of 1920 (first term) was 1506, and for the regular fall session, 5191. There were 275 members of the faculty. The income for the year ending June 30, 1920 was: appropriations $1,133,978; local fees and tuitions $464,917; Federal $7746; other income $46,880; total $1,653,521. The library contained 120,530 volumes and 547 periodicals. The Philosophy Hall was completed at a cost of $366,000. President, Henry Suzzallo, Ph.D., LL.D.

State

WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON COLLEGE. A non-sectarian institution of higher learning, at Washington, Pa., founded in 1802. The enrollment for the summer session was 97 and for the regular fall session 408. The faculty numbered 22, including 2 new members. The productive funds amounted to $1,000,000 and the income for the year was $147,000. There were 31,214 volumes in the library. President, Samuel Charles Black, D.D., LL.D.

WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY. A non-sectarian institution of the higher education at Lexington, Va., founded in 1749. The rollment for the regular fall session was 695. re were 36 members in the faculty, includ

ing 8 additions. The productive funds amounted to $969,000 and the income for the year was $190,000. There were 55,000 volumes in the library. An addition was made to the Department of Education, and a new dormitory was finished costing $116,000. The McCormick family of Chicago gave $200,000 toward the endowment fund. President, H. L. Smith, Ph.D. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY. A non-sectarian co-educational institution, at St. Louis, Mo., founded in 1853. The enrollment for the regular fall session of 1920 was 2520 and 1457 in the extension courses. There were 295 teachers on the staff. The approximate endowment of Washington University was $9,500,000 and the value of grounds, buildings and apparatus was $4,900,000. There were 176,013 volumes and 64,200 pamphlets. Two new buildings were to be built, a gift to the university. Chancellor, Frederic Aldin Hall. See WATER

WATER PURIFICATION. WORKS.

WATAHWASO, PRINCESS. See MUSIC, Artists, Vocalists.

WATER-WORKS AND WATER PURIFICATION. Notwithstanding the fact that waterworks are one of the most vital of municipal improvements, much-needed enlargements and extensions, as well as improvements in the quality of the water being furnished, were still being held up by war and after-war conditions through the year. Engineering reports advising and outlining important water-works construction were made during the year for Philadelphia, Baltimore, Norfolk, Cleveland, Chicago, Kansas City and other cities. Contracts were let for the be

ginning of a portion of a dam on the new wanaque River project for Newark, N. J., for a portion of a 350,000,000-gallon pumping and filtration plant for Detroit, Mich., and for a part of the new filtration plant for Sacramento, Cal. See San Francisco, under MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP. WEATHER BUREAU. See METEOROLOGY. WELCH, DESHLER. Author, died Jan. 7. He was born at Buffalo, N. Y., July 20, 1854, and was a descendant of John Alden. In 1878-9 he was the editor of a Buffalo weekly. He founded The Theatre and edited it from 1884 to 1892. He was at one time business manager to Augustin Daly and he wrote dramatic criticism and stories for the press during many years. He was also European correspondent for several leading newspapers. His books include: The Life of Grover Cleveland (1887); The Bachelor and the Chafing Dish (1896); The Story of Louise (1901); The Reincarnation of David Damien (1900).

WELD, STEPHEN MINOT. Merchant, died March 15. He was born at Jamaica Plain, Mass., Jan. 4, 1842; graduated at Harvard, 1860 and served with honor in the Massachusetts volunteers during the Civil War. He was head of a large company of cotton merchants after 1875 and a director of other important enterprises.

WELLESLEY COLLEGE. An institution of the higher learning for women at Wellesley, Mass., founded in 1875. The enrollment for the fall session of 1920 was 1551. The faculty numbered 135. The productive funds of the institution amounted to $3,540,883, and the income for the year from funds was $144,145; and the income from all sources including tuition and residence charges amounted to $1,154,242. There