nce at the death of Stanislas,
father of the Queen of France, Marie-Lesinzka. As for the inhabitants of
Metz, they were considered long ago as French. Metz was annexed to
France in 1552, with the full consent of the then allies of the French
King, Henri II., the German Princes, who recognized by the Treaty of
Cateau-Cambresis, (1559,) that Metz, Toul, and Verdun were French
cities, and could not be considered as a part of the German
Confederation. So there were at one time German Princes who accepted
the dogma of the consent of the governed!

Attacking the record of England in order to defend the record of
Germany, as Dr. Dernburg does, is no justification for the necessary
German aggression of today. Even granting that the English record is
poor, which is a matter open to discussion, two wrongs would not make
things right.

Dr. Dernburg also compares the policy of aggrandizement of Germany in
Schleswig, Alsace, &c., with that of other countries in Morocco,
Tripoli, &c. Even school children know that two things which are
entirely unlike must not be compared. Northern Africa had too long been
a den of pirates and brigands, and Latin Europe has rendered an immense
service to the world in establishing order there. Algeria has been
conquered in the same way as Morocco is now being conquered, and her
natives enjoy more genuine liberty than they ever did before; they are
even willing to fight as volunteers for the country they consider now as
their own. Neither Danish Schleswig nor Alsace-Lorraine, which were as
civilized as any other European country when they were last annexed, can
be compared to Morocco any more than to the Philippines. So this
comparison made by Dr. Dernburg also falls to pieces.

The case of the German point of view is not entirely without hope. In
THE TIMES of Oct. 5 Dr. Dernburg approves the annexation of Holstein
because the Germans of Holstein wanted to belong to Germany. This is a
sound conclusion, and Dr. Dernburg will doubtless acknowledge
later--better late than never--that the Alsatians and the Danish of
Schleswig should have had their say, just like the Germans of Holstein.
It cannot be possible that to him the wish of the inhabitants of a
province is the voice of God when it suits Germany and the voice of the
devil when it suits somebody else.

DANIEL JORDAN.

Columbia University, Nov. 6, 1914.

Dr. Irene Sargent's Reply to Dr. Dernburg

Professor of the History of Fine Art