their hearts behind them in the old country and are, therefore, unable
to feel as true American citizens should feel toward their country and
everything involving its destiny.

Mr. Bryan's appeal, especially the one directed to German-Americans,
will not, can not, and should not meet with the slightest response.

_From the Colorado Herold of Denver._

Bryan's appeal to the Germans, while it may be classed as patriotic,
was unnecessary, and Dr. Dernburg, Germany's special envoy,
practically voiced the same sentiments in his farewell address in New
York Friday night. Bryan's well-known prohibition tendencies, however,
preclude the idea that he was bidding for German-American votes.

_From the Waechter und Anzeiger of Cleveland, Ohio._

Mr. Bryan might well have abstained from issuing his statement to the
German-Americans. To make any impression he should have explained why
he now thinks it the duty of neutrality to furnish contraband to
England, when in 1914 he stated in his Commoner that the President had
blazed a new way when he, without conference with other nations,
committed this nation to the policy that furnishing the "contraband of
money" was inconsistent with the spirit of neutrality. What are the
influences that have now changed his views? Mr. Bryan is neither frank
nor consistent, hence not impressive.

A "SOFTENED" NOTE.

[The First and Second German Notes.]

Washington, June 12, 1915.

My attention has been called to a number of newspaper editorials and
articles which, in varying language, asks the question, "Why did Mr.
Bryan sign the first note to Germany, and then refuse to sign the
second?" The argument presented in the question is based on the
supposition that the two notes were substantially the same and that
the second note simply reiterates the demands contained in the first.
They then declare it inconsistent to sign one and refuse to sign the
other. The difference between the two cases would seem obvious enough
to make an answer unnecessary, but, lest silence on the subject be
taken as an admission of inconsistency, the following explanation is
given:

The notes must be considered in connection with the conditions under
which they were sent. The first note presented the case of this
Government upon such evidence as we then had. It was like the
plaintiff's statement in a case, his claim being based on the facts as
he presents them. I did not agree entirely with the language of the
firs