But now—­thanks to that article—­I can understand what I may not condone, and, though abhorring the Kaiser and my mother’s compatriots for their share in that horror going on abroad, I can also pity the hot-headed, imperfect mere man going to war under a carefully incited and fostered misapprehension, and need no longer glorify the cool-headed, sapient policy which so cleverly duped ruler and people.

Not since the war began have I felt so undepressed, so free to sympathize where I so love, so free from having to commend those for whom I feel no love whatever.  For all of which accept the warmest thanks of

KATE HUDSON.

New York, Nov. 17.

* * * * *

Shaw Article Work of “Farceur."

To the Editor of The New York Times: 

“Common sense and Shaw!” Shaw begins his article by saying, “I am giving my views for what they are worth, with a malicious bias.”  Later on he says:  “I am writing history.”  Toward the end, after having obscured with words many things which had hitherto been clear to most people, he says:  “Now that we begin to see where we really are, &c.”  How Shavian!

There are at least two sides to all questions, and so long as they are reasonably presented one is glad to hear them even if they fail to convince, but when a farceur is allowed to occupy three whole pages usually filled by serious and interesting writers it seems time to protest.  The subject itself is not one for easy paradox or false and flippant epigram.

Mr. Shaw says he does not hold his tongue easily.  He certainly does not, and when it wags it wags foolishly, and, as he admits, maliciously, albeit sometimes amusingly, and with superficial brilliance.  He says the Irish do not consider England their country yet.  Of course they do not.  Why should the Irish consider themselves English?  Neither do the Scots, nor the Welsh, nor the Canadians, nor will they ever so think.  But they are all British, and so, despite all Mr. Shaw says to the contrary, Kitchener was right.

Mr. Shaw falls into a common and regrettable error when he continually writes England when he really means the British Empire.  It is the British Empire that is at war, for which, though a citizen, Mr. Shaw has no authority to speak or to be considered a representative, for, as he unnecessarily admits, he is not a “British patriot”; neither is he a “Junker,” for I have looked through all his definitions of the word, and none applies to him.

In what way is the “Battle of Dorking” like Bernhardi?  The one he says had as a moral:  “To arms! or the Germans will besiege London!” The other said:  “To arms! so that the Germans may besiege London, or any other country that does not want compulsory culture!” The one was defensive, the other offensive.

He says of the war:  “We” began it.  Since he says he is not English, and that it is an English war, whom does he mean by “We”?  If he means the British, then, should a policeman see a small boy being ill-treated by a large man and go to the help of that boy, he, the policeman, must be said to have begun the fight which would probably ensue between him and said man, notwithstanding that the policeman is only fulfilling what he has sworn to do.