Newspaper reporters delight in "copy"; they are so unscrupulous about what they say that they are not allowed to accompany foreign troops. I never heard any complaints about the food either in the Civil War, the war with Spain or in the Philippines. During the Civil War the ration consisted of bacon, hard tack and coffee, with beans quite often. I did hear some "cussing" once when the men were obliged to eat freshly killed meat for a few days, until the supplies overtook us. When we traveled by rail it certainly was not in sleepers, and the men depended upon their canteens for water. There were no demoralizing associations of well-meaning persons at home to send unneeded luxuries to men at the front. We had a Sanitary Commission that did splendid work, although at times very much in the way during operations in the field: it was hard sometimes to make them understand that the exigencies of a campaign were more important than humanity.

The Red Cross is a great improvement on the Sanitary Commission; both were an evolution of Florence Nightingale's idea in the Crimean War. In 1899, the troops for the Philippines crossed the continent with abundant stores. Water was taken on as required. The Government supplies everything that is needed and much that is not. Generals Aleshire and Sharpe the heads of our Supply Department-are two very capable and efficient officers, with great experience; therefore it is not possible that there can be any foundation for complaint by the alleged soldiers who have gone to the Rio Grande.

The federalization of the National Guard was an impracticable idea, and probably, to demonstrate to the country its impracticability, the War Department mobilized the National Guard and sent it to the border. Twothirds of the Militia are good men, and with training will make good soldiers. One-third went reluctantly, and their shrieks are heard the length and breadth of the land.

It is obvious to most of us that trained troops must be met by trained troops-makeshifts will not take their place: the French tried at one time or another every variety of National Guard; after 1870 they resorted to compulsory, universal service, and the disasters of 1870 are now in a fair way to be avenged.

It may be that we, too, must suffer humiliation before we can be induced to prepare.

MOUNT KISCO, N. Y.

ROBERT W. LEONARD.

GERMANY AS OUR FUTURE RAVISHER

SIR,-In your editorial, "After the war- -What?" in a recent number of THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW, you seek to make out a clear case against Germany as the future ravisher of our country, in case she comes out victorious in the present struggle, by founding your argument on the following weighty points: (1) German former anti-American intrigues in the Caribbean, which will be renewed after her victory in a more telling way. (2) Experience has demonstrated that exhaustion after war is short-lived, and hence is no check upon the appetite for further war. (3) Ever since 1898 Germany has had a grudge against us, and after victory would come the opportunity to pick that venerable crow with every indication of success. | (4) The temptation would be strong for the victorious Teutons to collect

the indemnity here in the event of its being found impossible to exact it from the prostrate Allies.

Your argument has the ring of conviction about it, but upon nearer inspection it is seen to prove too much. To clinch it you must show that with sinister intentions Germany has also the power to carry out what she may be plotting to do to us. In the failure to do so resides the chief weakness of your otherwise very able effort. To carry out the intentions you credit her with, Germany must emerge so overwhelmingly victorious from the present struggle as either to compel the total destruction of all the naval forces of her enemies or their complete surrender and incorporation in her own fleet, otherwise her armada against us would not get much beyond the Needles. Only a fool or a madman would dare to assert that Germany could be so absolutely victorious as here outlined, or so utterly devoid of reason as to commit the mistake of the first Napoleon all over again, when he invaded Russia leaving hostile nations in his rear.

Her geographical situation, then, precludes any attack against us from that quarter, and we need not lose any sleep about it for some time to come. Only in one event could Germany hope to succeed against us-if she could manage to pull the grand invasion off in combination with all the Powers now leagued against her. While that is within the range of the conceivable, yet to predict such an outcome of the European war is to advance a preposterous idea.

To my mind the attack against our country cannot come from Germany. The thing cannot be "did." As you say in your article, "all this may be regarded as out of the question." The reason, however, which you givethat "Germany is not going to win the European war"-is not at all relevant in the circumstances.

BALTIMORE, MD.

THE NICARAGUA ROUTE

W. B. SHULES.

SIR,-As usual, I was very much interested in your editorials in THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW for August. I was particularly interested in "A Treaty in Chancery," and the very curious international situation which obtains in connection with the pending Nicaragua treaty.

If it is not imposing too much upon your good nature, I would like to ask you two questions about the matter, which immediately arose in my mind, and which I am anxious to have answered.

First: Why were not the San Juan River and Nicaragua Lake used originally by the United States for an Atlantic to Pacific canal? The distance across the land in Nicaragua seems much less than across the land in Pa

nama.

Second: Is it our idea to make another canal, or if so, what would be the advantage of it? JOSEPH FERGUSON.

PHILADELPHIA, PA.

[Since "Old Hickory" in 1831 warned Holland, and inferentially all the world, that the United States was of all nations the most interested in the Isthmian transit question, there have been many American projects for a canal at Nicaragua. Our first practical attempt at a canal anywhere

on the American Isthmus was at Nicaragua, in 1837, under the lead of Horatio Allen, the engineer of the original Croton Aqueduct; while our latest was that under the lead of Warner Miller, in 1889, who, after spending millions of dollars in preliminary construction work, became bankrupt in the panic of 1893. For ten years after the latter date, the Nicaragua route had many advocates, but it was finally abandoned in favor of Panama because an opportunity to acquire the unfinished French canal at the lower Isthmus made the Panama route seem the more economical and expeditious. There is no thought of making another canal, at least at the present time. The purpose of securing the right of way is to prevent anybody else from making one which would be a rival of our own at Panama, as well as to enable ourselves to make one if at any time in the future it should seem desirable to do so.-EDITOR.]

WHO'S CHOICE?

SIR, THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW appeals to me as no other paper in the whole country, and yet I do not believe its prophetic editor, Mr. Harvey, has been entirely fair with our present Administration. Although I enjoy his articles even as much as those written by Kentucky's own Henry Watterson, still I feel that President Wilson's Administration has not miscarried far enough by any means to warrant the opposition of so distinguished an editor as Mr. Harvey. I am trusting that he will see that there is surely nothing to be gained by following the choice of one Teddy. B. W. BAKER.

HAZARD, KY.

A BETTER MAN FOR 1916

SIR,-You have been very fortunate in your selecting of candidates for Presidency during the last four years. You gave us a good man in 1912 and have given us a better man for 1916.

CAMDEN, N. Y.

GEO. F. MORSS.