world was bound by four walls, with perhaps a bit of blue sky or a bird song through the window, and the rest pain. But I was well and free to go where I pleased, to breathe the fresh air and see the moon rise, and speak with friends who came to inquire. I was in and out of her room all day, but often she did not know it. Now our positions are reversed. It is she who is well and free; who has found the ones she lost so many weary years ago, who sees beauties beyond my imagination. My life must seem as cramped and restless as her sick-room did to me. Yet she is in and out all the time-often when I don't know it, I dare say. She has never left me. These are some of the things the war taught me, and the last is the greatest.

W

BY JAMES V. HICKEY
CORPORAL, 23RD INFANTRY

E were sitting on the barracks' steps the other evening, some of us who had been overseas together, talking or in silence watching what was left of a Texas sunset. The talk had all been of the wars and rumors of war in Europe, recalcitrant Germany, and the possibility of trouble with Japan; all sacrifices had been in vain; the world was the same old world, and the men left in France had, at most, but furnished political issues through which pot-bellied politicians had got their feet in the trough; we are heroes no more, only Regulars.

once more

But each in his heart knew that for him the war had not been in vain; that from it had come to him memories of the finest comradeship that ever the selfish earth has seen and the consciousness of duty done to the utmost. The war has given to America a new aristocracy; an aristocracy prouder of its possessions than is any aristocracy of birth or wealth, and its treasure is inalienable. Pre-war promises may never be fulfilled; bonuses may be voted down and the war become only a topic to bore those who battened on it; but our great reward shall be with us as long as we live and to our children's children long after we are gone: memories of the tenderness of great, strong comrades, and the almost intoxicating thought, "I have stood among men and faced hell let loose and did not flinch!"

answers to the other four questions may be inferred.

What did the war give me? Why, friendliness. Like most of us, up to 1916 I lived in a small inclosure of family and family friends. There were others outside, I realized, whom it was pleasant to meet, but whom I seldom did meet, living busy and content inside my wall.

Then came the Red Cross saying, "The need in Europe is greater than your feeble imaginations can grasp. Work." I was not too busy to resist that call, nor were others in my town. We got together, and labored. From every class and clique we came, making friends according to our temperaments, not bound by our family inheritances. So the war gave me friendliness for my town, instead of for two or three streets in it. I can talk as an equal now to my fishman and laundress, because I nursed the wife of one through influenza and received countless favors from the other.

But learning to love my community was only the beginning. The war swept me to Europe, where I grew to love my country. When I came home, I was no longer a New England Yankee, but the new kind that reaches from coast to coast and embraces Irish, Italians, Jews -yes, even Germans of the brand that wore our uniform loyally. There is a new map of the United States in my heart now, which is dotted with the habitations of my friends. Brooklyn used to be merely a standby of the comic papers to me; to-day it is an absorbing spot of drama enacted by those I love. Sandcoulee looms larger than Butte or Denver whenever I write to the brave man who lives there. There are Meridian, York, Portland, St. Louis, Muscogee, and a score of other places where I go in and out in spirit, get discouraged, cheer up, marry, raise a family, break out with measles, recover-and all through the agencies of the men who taught me to be slow in judgment, open of mind, appreciative of good, and patient rather than condemning evil.

Nor was the gift of my town and my country all. The war gave me another home in France. Despite barriers of language, in spite of little opportunity, I learned enough of the French to admire them and desire their good will, and enough of France to think it the second most beautiful country in the world.

What, then, did the war take away? Easy optimism-I have to fight for the optimism I own now; and a clear perception of right and wrong, as there is no doubt that my standards are more confused than they used to be; then, willingness to efface myself for the comfort of others, for my temper is quicker than it once was; but, principally, my old conception of death as an evil thing. Those 36,000 graves at Romagne, the memory of the friend whom I laughed with in the morning and buried in the afternoon, these have made of death only an incident in an unending flow of life.

Yes, the war did change me; it did bring me spiritual upheavals and subtle reactions. But whether I am better for it or worse I could not possibly decide.

THIRD PRIZE "THE GOLD-WREATHED CUPS"

BY KATHERINE CARR WILSON HIS is my most lasting war experi

T'ence.

There was a set of gold and white cups in the window of a fascinating shop on the Rue St. Honoré and the dark-eyed man in the doorway assured me that they were truly a "find"— Napoleon's own china; witness the gold wreaths and the "N." So I made an engagement with a friend who had been a collector in the days before the war. Saturday afternoon we would go and look at "my" cups. How I wanted them! I looked at my bank account, and I sat down to write to my husband for a little more money. I was still writing when out went the lights, I heard madame the proprietress's voice giving shrill orders to madame the concierge, and strange dull bangs began to be heard across the river. I opened my third-story window and looked out. Clear in the sky were the red and green signal lights of the avions, and strange white lights bloomed for a moment like flowers. "Come up here!" called the girl two floors above, and I groped my way back through my room and up the stairs. There were four other girls there, and we all hung crowded in the small window watching and listening to the dull roars. It was the first raid over Paris! It was a crazy thing for us to lean out of the window, and in later raids we knew better. Also perhaps in later raids we became more fearful; but this first night I think I can say that not one of us was frightened. One of the Y girls kept saying, "Oh, damn them!" I watched the lights go up and up and found myself thinking a sort of wordless prayer for the safety of our men.

And all of a sudden the white and gold cups flashed through my mind. Were they all smashed? And I didn't

care.

Saturday afternoon A- spoke of our engagement to look at the cups. "I don't want them," I said. He looked politely incredulous. But it was true. I had known since the night of the raid that I did not want any more things. I wanted the war to end and to give us back our homes in safety and happiness. It did not matter whether there were gold cups in all our drawing-rooms.

Well, a year or so later I came home happy and safe, but I still remembered the gold-wreathed cups, and it was with something of a shock that I saw my friends settling down to the old way of putting their "faith and hope" of happiness in the same old things. I don't mean that I don't want gowns and nice dressy things as much as any one; but when I want them even a great deal the gold cups are likely to flash through my mind-the symbol that taught me the small value of material things. Wouldn't we all be happier as a country if we would remember these hard lessons of the war?

Ο

NE of the telling points used by the Republican Campaign ComImittee was that Wilson was an autocrat. He accepted no advice from the Senate, his Constitutional adviser, and surrounded himself with a Cabinet whose minds ran along with his-a polite way of saying that they were puppets to carry out his will; consequently, we had a one-man Government with Wilson the man.

In contradistinction to this, Senator Harding proclaimed that he had no intention of being the great "I AM.” Louis's famous dictum, "L'état, c'est moi," did not appeal to him. He did not set himself up as omniscient. He intended to take the Senate into his counsel and would invite its President to sit with the Cabinet. Furthermore, he would surround himself with the best minds of the country as members of his Cabinet. On this plea of destroying autocracy, as exemplified by Wilson, the Republicans won an overwhelming victory last November. We are interested in knowing how these pre-election campaign promises are being carried out.

Of the three,, two already have been fulfilled. Calvin Coolidge takes his place regularly at the Cabinet table, and President Harding is in almost daily conference with the members of the Senate, notably with Henry Cabot Lodge, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. How about the third promise? Has President Harding surrounded himself with the "best minds in the country"? In order to answer this question correctly I have been making an exhaustive study of the Cabinet. Most of them I have known for many years, the only strange faces being those of the Secretaries of Agriculture and Labor. My opinion of these two men is based solely upon a study of their past careers and on a quickly formed judgment, such as could be made in an afternoon's interview. With this explanation of my sources of information, I will attempt to give an impartial judgment as to whether Harding has surrounded himself with the best minds of the country.

The answer depends entirely upon what he meant by best minds. If he meant that he would surround himself with men who had become internationally famous, men whose very names would inspire confidence in the people, then he has not kept this promise. There are only two men in the Cabinet to whom this would apply. Hughes and Hoover were internationally and favorably known. They were the only two whom grammar school children could immediately identify as National leaders.

Will Hays was known as a very shrewd but fair and able politician. Daugherty had become famous since the nomination as the man who had made Harding possible. Weeks had been a Senator, and had made a good record as such, but he was only one of some

64

ninety-odd; he was further known as being prominently identified with the last Republican campaign. Fall was

known as a Senator from a Southwestern State who devoted his entire time to the Mexican situation and who favored intervention by the United States. The rest of the Cabinet was practically unknown.

In the lobby of the Washington hotel where thousands of men interested in politics gather I questioned one hundred men concerning their opinion of the Cabinet. These men were far above the average in mentality. They were men of affairs. The result of my questionnaire throws an interesting side-light upon the question whether the new Cabinet officers are men who add strength to it by the very weight of their names. It follows:

him were favorably impressed with his capabilities.

Fall The objection voiced against him was on account of his activity in the Mexican situation.

Davis-Two things were notable about the opinions concerning his appointment: First, the few who knew about him at all prior to his selection, and, second, the remarkably large number who thought his selection was wise. The reasons for this favorable comment were that he represented labor, he holding a union card, and yet had not been so active in labor movements nor so radical that he would be unjust to capital.

Wallace-He was the only man with a perfect score regarding the wisdom of his selection, the reasons being that his appointment was devoid of politics,

I wish to add some explanations of the opinions expressed that cannot be given in tabulated form:

Hughes-The nineteen men who did not think that his selection was wise thought so because they considered him too cold-blooded and aloof to make a good Secretary of State. Seven of them also thought that he was a corporation lawyer.

Mellon-The thirty unfavorable were so because they thought he was too closely allied with capital and might make the Treasury an appendage of Wall Street.

Weeks-His high popularity was because they thought that he, as a middleman, would by his tact keep the divergent wings of the Cabinet pulling together. The nineteen unfavorable were so because they thought it was a "lame duck” appointment, and it was not becoming for a President to use his appointive power to provide jobs for defeated members of Congress.

Denby-It was remarkable how few had ever heard of him. The seven who were favorable to his appointment were so because he had served time in the Navy as an enlisted man, and because it was a just reward for his patriotism. The five unfavorable, because they thought he had not had enough experience to handle such an important position. It may be remarked in his favor that the entire seventeen who knew of

22

that he was a representative, typical farmer and farm editor; as a result of which he would make the Agricultural Department of value to the farmer, and not convert it into a political adjunct to the Republican party.

Hays He had one hundred per cent on capability and more than two-thirds considered his appointment with favor. The consensus of opinion was that any one who was capable of managing a political campaign so successfully was a man of ability; furthermore, he was considered an honest politician; and, lastly, his ability, energy, and enthusiasm would enable him to make a wonderful success as Postmaster-General. The thirty-two who opposed his appointment did so because they feared he might convert the Postmaster-General's office into political headquarters.

op

Daugherty-The fifty-one who posed him did so because they thought that his appointment was a reward for past service and not because of individual merit.

Hoover-The selection of Hoover was regarded with almost unanimous favor. The few who opposed him were partisan Republican politicians who believed that "to the victors belong the spoils," and who did not regard Hoover as one of them, but as a rank outsider who was appointed as a sop to public opinion.

It will be seen from the tabulated list that the men who have National

reputations are Hughes, Weeks, Fall, Hays, Daugherty, and Hoover. The men regarded as being rightly listed among "the best minds" are Hughes, Hays, and Hoover. They may be known as three "H's." Of the men of National reputation whose appointment the almost unanimous consensus of opinion deemed wise, the list drops to Hughes and Hoover. So much for the opinions of the people as to the wisdom of the President's choice of his Cabinet.

There are, however, other things to be considered in the selection of a Cabinet that will function properly besides the selection of men who are noted as Solomons or who have succeeded in becoming National figures. It may be possible that a man may be particularly adapted to fill successfully the particular Cabinet position for which he is selected without having attained the National reputation that would entitle him to be listed as one of the best minds in the country. Does a closer inspection of the new Cabinet reveal it in a favorable light? What are the real capabilities of its members? These are the questions that I have attempted to solve. Let us therefore study the makeup, characteristics, and past performances of its

various members before we definitely decide as to their fitness for the places for which they have been selected.

Hughes is a university man, a lawyer who stood high at the bar, a successful investigator of the gas and insurance companies, a success as a Governor, and an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, in which body his decisions were highly respected by the other members of this Court as well as by the leading legal minds of the country. He was a patriotic worker during the war, a man who worked for the cause regardless of political consideration, who expressed his views in support of the Administration regardless of the attitude of his party. He is a man of the highest integrity. Such is the man who is the premier of Harding's Cabinet.

Mellon is the head of large banking and financial interests in Pennsylvania which he succeeded in building up through his own individual efforts. His name is a power in the financial and business world. His personal success as a financier (he is supposedly the second richest man in the United States) would indicate that he has the ability to manage successfully, as head of the

Treasury Department, the financial interests of the Government. Mr. Mellon is a man of fine mind. He has a dominating personality that ill brooks opposition. There is little doubt that Secretary Mellon will personally direct the affairs of the Treasury Department with very little interference from President Harding or other members of the Cabinet, or by the political bosses of the Republican party. Secretary Mellon will be a power in the Cabinet. His power will be used along conservative lines. His selection will give confidence to timid capital. This confidence should do much to strengthen the very shaky financial condition of the country to-day. Under him business will be fostered and not hampered by unjust attacks upon it; therefore his selection will be beneficial to the country.

Weeks came out of the Navy with only a clean pair of hands and a well-equipped brain to enter the battle of life, and he has succeeded in amassing a fortune. He also took an active interest in politics, with such success that he became a United States Senator from Massachusetts and Chairman of the Senate Committee of the Republican party, which would indicate that he had more than

as

average intelligence. Mr. Weeks particularly fits into the Cabinet because of his agreeable disposition. He makes friends readily; he believes that molasses will catch more flies than vinegar; consequently he is on friendly terms with both wings of the Republican party. He will act as a great compromiser in the Cabinet, as the in media res between the highbrow statesmen represented by Hughes and Hoover and the politicians as represented by Hays and Daugherty. He belongs partly to both wings, he is interested in constructive statesmanship, and is about as shrewd a politician as you will find in America. He will be the oil that greases the political Cabinet machine. Incidentally, this same suave, agreeable personality that he possesses will do much to bridge over the bickerings and cross-purposes that have existed in 'the War Department. He will work in perfect harmony with his Chief of Staff and with the heads of the various bureaus. Peace and co-operation will rule during his administration. While I do not regard him as a Lodge, Root, or Wilson, he will be a success as head of the War Department.

Denby is a Detroit automobile man, a second and smaller edition of Henry Ford, between wars. In war times he is a marine, having forsaken business to enlist as a private in the Marine Corps both during the Spanish-American and the late war. He is a cool-headed business man. His experience as an enlisted man has given him an opportunity to learn at first hand the wants and requirements of the Navy personnel. Mr. Denby is an alert, wide-awake, intelligent, and practical man. His knowledge and understanding of their wants should enable him to be just and fair to the men, and his common practical sense will secure the support of naval officers. I believe he has sufficient tact to get along well with bureau chiefs and not to antagonize the men of the quarterdeck. I am not sufficiently acquainted with his personality to determine his executive ability.

Fall went West as a young man and grew up with the country. He grew so rapidly that he was sent to the United States Senate many years ago. He has made a record in the Senate that is not pleasing to me because I do not approve of his policies; but he has been of sufficient caliber to be recognized as a leader of the party in Congress favorable to intervention in Mexico. The Senator has a forceful personality; is a very earnest man, fearless and aboveboard, who usually accomplishes whatever he attempts. He has the typical air of a Western politician, is a good orator, makes friends readily, and is above the average in intellectual force. As his position in the Cabinet is one that will have no connection with our foreign relations, I see no reason why he should not make a successful Cabinet officer.

Davis was born in Wales and began life as a workingman in the Pennsylvania steel mills, in which position he rose to be boss puddler. Through the

votes of his fellow-workers, he was elected city clerk and county recorder of the mill town where he lived. Then he reorganized the Loyal Order of Moose with such success that it has made him independently wealthy and won him a large political following. This description of his early life is given to show the wisdom of his selection. First, he is of foreign birth, and consequently knows the trials and tribulations of the immigrant. One of the principal branches in his Department is the Immigration Bureau. Second, he will be arbiter in disputes between labor and capital. Mr. Davis is better equipped to deal fairly with this momentous question than most men. He is a labor-unionist, therefore he understands the attitude of the labor man, he knows his hardships and is prepared to do him equal justice. On the other hand, he has never been allied with the radical branch of unionism, and, having amassed a competency himself, is not apt to be prejudiced against capital. Therefore we have a man with sufficient intelligence to upbuild a fraternal organization and a natural tendency to deal fairly with both his fellow-unionists and his fellow-capitalists.

Wallace, with the exception of Hughes, is probably the wisest selection that the President has made. Mr. Wallace as Secretary of Agriculture should exactly fill the bill. He is a dirt farmer, having been raised on a farm by a stern, hardworking father who believed that his sons and daughters should do their share of work; consequently, Mr. Wallace was trained to do everything on a farm. He learned to plow and hoe and drive the harrow, while his sisters milked the cows and tended to the housework. Fortunately for the American people, his father also believed in intelligent farming; therefore he sent his sons to an agricultural college to be educated, where they learned the technical side of farm life. He so thoroughly mastered this that he was called to a professorship in his Alma Mater. His father, brother, and himself became so enthusiastic over the idea of teaching the farmers of his State how to make the most of their opportunities by farming correctly that they took over a little farm paper, which they edited and managed so successfully that it became one of the leading and certainly one of the most useful and dependable of farm journals. Mr. Wallace is no politician. He has never taken any interest in politics save to vote and to advise the farmers upon the best measures for their protection. Under Wallace's management, the sole object of the Agricultural Department will be to better the condition of the farmer. It will be but an enlargement of the work he has been doing as editor of his magazine.

Will Hays has been tremendously successful. With his vim, energy, and push he has succeeded in converting the Republican party from the minority into an overwhelming majority. I thoroughly agree with my one hundred advisers that Will Hays possesses great capability and force of character. The

He

only drawback that can possibly be urged against him is that, being a politician, he will be more influenced by political expediency in the management of his office than he will by the country's welfare. In this he is misjudged. will surprise the American people by the excellency of his work as Postmaster-General. In the first place, he recognizes what the people expect of him, and is determined to disappoint his critics. In order to accomplish this he is going about it in the right way. He has begun with the idea of co-operation in his Department. He has enlisted the sympathy and support of his employees, and this will mean a pulling together that will result in greatly increased efficiency. In the next place, Will Hays is the most enthusiastic man I have ever known, and he will succeed in imbuing his Department with this enthusiasm. He will inspire it with his wonderful energy and push. He will utilize his natural knack for organization, and I veritably believe that politics will cut very little figure in the Post Office. I personally know that he has offered one of the most responsible positions under him to a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. The Department under his management will be conducted with great success.

Daugherty? The President has been much criticised for the selection of Daugherty, his campaign manager, as a member of his Cabinet. It is stated that he is not well versed in the law, but that he is a politician of the first water. I am no lawyer, and therefore not prepared to judge of the amount of legal lore in the astute head of the new Attorney-General. But I am not disposed to agree with the critics who predict that his administration will be a failure, because I believe that he is an able executive; he has plenty of good, hard common sense. He knows how to handle men and to get what he wants when he wants it. No man without these talents could have taken the forlorn hope of a country editor serving his first term in the United States Senate, whose name was not connected with a single great measure, and by his adroit and skillful management make him President of the United States. These qualities are more important in a Cabinet officer than to be technically perfect in the work of his Department. You do not put an admiral at the head of the Navy, nor make a general chief of the War Department. The technical knowledge, however valuable and necessary, can be furnished by experts and bureau heads, but the genius to command must be inherent in the chief. I believe that Daugherty has these qualities and will make good.

Hoover needs no defense to prove that he is eminently fitted for his position. His success as a mining engineer is an evidence of his genius. His management of the campaign to feed starving Europe proved his executive ability, and furthermore endeared him to the people of the world, making him an international figure. He will be a tower of strength to the Administration.

I have discussed all the Cabinet. I

Two politicians selected because of their political power, and further because it is necessary to have some members of the Cabinet who are astute politicians. Any Administration that sets out with the determination to discard all politics is doomed to failure before it begins, because an Administration is only as strong as its hold upon the people. A democracy cannot be governed except by parties, and parties de

of democracy is due to the failure of a sufficient number of responsible, upright men to take an interest in politics.

Two politico-statesmen (one-half of each). These are Weeks and Fall, who are to be the go-betweens in the Cabinet.

Two men of international reputations for probity, ability, and integrity. These are Hughes and Hoover; they will inspire confidence in the Administration, and are as hostages to the people that all is well with the body politic.

The other members of the Cabinet were selected for their peculiar fitness for the positions which they are called to occupy. They each seem eminently fitted for their work.

My judgment, therefore, is that the Cabinet will function well, that it contains all the necessary parts to make a homogeneous whole, that it is composed of men of more than average ability; that it is not a brilliant ensemble of the best minds in the country, but that it will make good on the job.

EY, down below there! Where

HR

fool!

are we?'

"Up in a balloon, you poor Where did you think you were?" " For nearly three years three or four times a week I have noticed free balloons leaving the balloon field as I started home at the close of office hours. Frequently two or three balloons take the air at once-altogether approximately one thousand free-balloon flights from one naval air station during the unfin ished tour of duty of one officer. Of these thousand flights, one has apparently come to serious grief; and meanwhile during the year 1920 nearly two thousand people were killed by automobiles in the one State of Massachusetts.

Twice during the past few months the American public has had its attention spectacularly invited to the fact that naval aviators fly through the air in free balloons. Criticism was rife at the time of the world-famous flight into the Canada snows that men were allowed to take the air in such a crazy craft. Since the missing balloon from Pensacola went astray educated and highly intelligent laymen all over the country have been demanding to know why a free balloon is allowed in this day of dirigibles. The only two cases of naval free balloons of which they had information were two cases of disaster; in one they heard a story of freezing and starvation, in the other of the probable blotting out of five young men. It seemed wickedly useless-terrible carelessness on some one's part.

The Navy is not callous, and the Navy's clannishness made us feel the disaster more keenly than it was felt by any one outside the service. Officers are brothers, even in their disagreements and dislikes; and officers are exceedingly attached to the men literally under their care and are solicitous for the welfare of those men. In the last analysis, an officer is judged by his brother officers by the condition and contentment of the men he leads. There is an unwritten law, as old as navies, that no true officer will subject his men to any danger, or even annoyance, which he is not ready to undergo himself, and first. We do not consider free-ballooning a particularly dangerous game

most of the time it is as humdrum as checkers-but, like all games, there is an element of danger; and if it were not necessary we would not practice it at all, officially. Military free-ballooning, if it were unnecessary, would be entirely confined to a few sporting enthusiasts training themselves at their own risk for the international races.

From a staid official text-book a single paragraph states the "why" of free-ballooning in terms that all may read:

"Once a dirigible is deprived of her power, she becomes subject to all the conditions regulating the flight of a spherical balloon. She is, however, more cumbersome and difficult to handle. In the event of an engine breakdown,

therefore, all the skill of the balloonist is brought into play, and it is only by careful manipulation of the gas and ballast that a safe landing can be made."

Begin that paragraph with the phrase, "Once the cable of a kite-balloon is parted, . . ." and the paragraph itself remains true. Every dirigible that flies carries a mechanician to keep the engines running as well as a trained military observer. Every kite-balloon riding over an army's lines or towed by a naval ship lifts with it a man whose business is to keep his eyes glued to a pair of binoculars and to report what he sees into the telephone slung around his neck. But in both dirigible and one indispensable member

kite the