satire and caricature, made him a solitary and striking independent figure in the German press years before the other newspapers of Germany dared to criticise or attack the Government or the persons at the head of it.

After the dismissal of Prince Bismarck by the present Kaiser, Harden not only saw, but constantly and audaciously criticised, the weaknesses in the character of the Emperor.  For this dangerous undertaking he was three times brought to trial for lese majeste, and spent a year as a prisoner in a Prussian fortress.  In 1907 he figured in a libel suit brought by General Kuno von Moltke, late Military Governor of Berlin, who, together with Count Zu Eulenburg and Count Wilhelm von Hohenau, one of the Emperor’s Adjutants, had been mentioned by Harden in his paper as members of the so-called Camarilla or “Round Table” that sought to influence the Emperor’s political actions by subtle manipulations.  He was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment, but appealed the case, and was let off two years later with a fine of $150.

In recently publishing the German article which is herewith translated the German New Vorker Revue carefully disclaimed any agreement with the sentiments therein expressed by Harden, which, it pointed out, must be regarded only as typical of German public opinion as is George Bernard Shaw of public opinion in England.

The scorners of war, the blonde, black, and gray children who have been defiling his name with syrupy tongues of lofty humanity and with slanderous scoldings, all have become silent.  Or else they snort soldiers’ songs; annihilate in confused little essays the allied powers arrayed against us; entreat a civilized world (Kulturwelt) juggling for mere turkey heads, to please grant us permission to do heavy and cruel deeds, to wage fierce and headlong war!  Already they seem prepared to answer absolutely and unqualifiedly in the affirmative Luther’s question whether “men of war also can be considered in a state of grace.”

They write and talk much about the great scourge of war.  That is all quite true.  But we should also bear in mind how much greater is the scourge which is fended off by war.  The sum and substance of the matter is this:  In looking upon the office of war one must not consider how it strangles, burns, destroys.  For that is what the simple eyes of children do which do not further watch the surgeon when he chops off a hand or saws off a leg; which do not see or perceive that it is a matter of saving the entire body.  So we must look upon the office of war and of the sword with the eyes of men, and understand why it strangles and why it wreaks cruel deeds.  Then it will justify itself and prove of its own accord that it is an office divine in itself, and as necessary and useful to the world as is eating, drinking, or any other work.  But that some there are who abuse the office of war, who strangle and destroy without need, out of sheer wantonness—­that is not the fault of the office, but of the person.  Is there any office, work, or thing so good that wicked and wanton persons will not abuse it?