Kaiser's was returned unopened to General von Plessen by Moltke's by Moltke's widow after her husband's death.

Moltke lived but a short time after his disgrace. He was a broken man, disappointed with his Kaiser, though more in sorrow than in anger. As a professional soldier he is, in his notes, unjust toward Bethmann-Hollweg. He passionately condemns the war of position. He did not wish to appear obtrusive, and yet he apparently hoped to be called back to his old position, which Hindenburg also favored. But he was not once approached; his advice was never asked. 'My martyrdom is bitter,' he writes in the paper that was not intended for publication.

Moltke founded the 'German Society' (Deutsche Gesellschaft), to bring together the leaders of every party. And on the eighteenth of July, 1916, after he had finished a funeral address in honor of Field-Marshal von der Goltz in the Reichstag Palace, he fell dead. He was spared the bitterness of witnessing the end of the World War, the end of the monarchy, the flight of

his Kaiser to Holland. He died of heart disease of a broken heart.

Likely enough that he was not his uncle's equal; likely enough that neither Kaiser nor folk can win the grand prize in the lottery twice. He was hardly the war fanatic that his correspondence with Conrad von Hötzendorff, in 1909, and some of his critical writings would seem to make him out. Possibly he mistook his vocation, and was not born to be a military commander. But to say that he was nothing but a smooth and suave courtier, a submissive satellite, is a libel that slaps history in the face. He did err, and very seriously-worst of all by his plan to violate the neutrality of Belgium, which brought down upon Germany the anger of the entire world. But who would be the doer of his own deeds? Moltke was a man of high qualities, and, though a child of his times and a product of his surroundings, yet of real nobility of character, in spite of his weaknesses.

Where is the limit between guilt and fate? The last word will be history's.

It would be an excellent thing if a committee of independent experts, in order to forestall in time what might become irreconcilable divergencies between our two countries, compiled a list of those useless contentions which obtrude themselves all too often starting with the rejection by the French Chamber of the treaty con

cluded with Italy in spite of Gambetta's championship. The number of these errors and the losses caused by them would be enormous, and would constitute a valuable object-lesson for the present and the future.

To-day an opportunity presents itself to put an end to two annoying economic problems, which have been ag

gravated by a long period of controversy, and which have even taken on a political character. We speak of the treatment accorded to Italians at Tunis, and of the solution- so often sought but never achieved, easy though it is of certain customs questions. When we consider that an agreement, imperfect and incomplete as it was, but still a tolerable agreement, was reached as far back as in 1896, even before the commercial treaty of 1898, which in its turn had put an end to a long customs quarrel between two countries destined by their traditions and their common frontiers to work harmoniously together, a multitude of anxious questions arises in our minds: questions of such vital importance as the allegiance of the Italian inhabitants of Tunis; compensation for the great assistance given by Italians toward civilizing those insurgent lands; the right of Italians to educate their children in their own independent schools; their participation in public activities on an equal basis with the French, and other judicial and social guaranties; finally the protection of our splendid fishermen, now so unfairly treated.

Even those Italians most favorably disposed toward, and in fact resolved to come to a real understanding with, France, ask themselves to-day how it could happen that these controversies were not eliminated when, in 1915, Italy came to the assistance of France and her Allies, at a sacrifice the extent of which is perhaps still ignored abroad. However, we now hear of an imminent customs agreement - and not that alone, but a general union — of Tunis with France, which, without an immediate and clear understanding, clear understanding, would only aggravate our situation. Visconti Venosta, and the writer of these lines, who were, respectively, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minis

ter of Finance, had found in 1896 a much more favorable situation, in spite of many difficulties to be overcome, than the one that existed during and after the war which the two countries waged side by side for the prevention of German hegemony.

The memory of French and Italian blood shed together on battlefields ought, when transferred to the harvestfields of Tunis, to work miracles.

There is another question begging for a solution: namely, the completion of a commercial agreement which, as appears from the last negotiations, in spite of the capabilities of the Italian representatives, is decidedly favorable to France. It will suffice to say that in the matter of exports, in which France's attitude is the same as that of Switzerland, the French have obtained, thanks to the Swiss-Italian agreement, and without any quid pro quo, the benefit of the numerous and drastic cuts introduced in our tariff. Hence it is imperative, for the sake of sincere political friendship and economic peace, to follow the just advice of the Senate Commission, to which Signor Ettore Conti made his excellent and wellargued report that has frankly been accepted by our level-headed Minister of Commerce, who has vouched for its beneficial influence upon future negotiations.

What advantage would it be to France to send us defective and diseased silkworm eggs that would ruin our sericulture, which, in spite of many difficulties, is still the most excellent in the world? And, as far as the silk-mills are concerned, why has the agreement not been kept that was made in August 1915 at the Convention of the Villa d'Este, where Italy's principal silkgrowers sat side by side with such statesmen as Barthou, Pichon, Georges Raphael Levy, Landry, and others? This Convention had also accepted the

helpful suggestion of Giulio Rubini, this man of remarkable character and technical genius, whose voice was silenced too soon to be of assistance to his country. Silk, on which the enormous duty has now been actually increased to six lire per kilogramme, was taxed by that Convention at only one and a half lire per kilogramme. At that time French and Italian weavers had agreed upon an equal tariff for both sides.

I have never understood why France and Italy failed to bring peace into the great silk industry even during the war. The leaders of this industry ought now to unite and renew the suspended negotiations between Italy and Japan. These negotiations were recommended

by the members of the commission for the investigation of Italy's silk trade; and their initiator still believes that they represent a favorable economic alliance between Europe and Asia in one of the fundamental branches of production.

The Franco-Italian agreements which I mentioned, if they were frank, exhaustive, and durable, would give added force to the League of Nations; for this organization implies the need of agreements reached in good faith. The system of reticence and jealousy, either open or secret, leads to mutual impoverishment — a calamity of which the Allies themselves are witnesses, accomplices, and the principal instigators as well.

I was born on October 26, 1879, in the village of Yanovka, Kherson Government, in the house of my father, who was a small landowner. When I was nine I entered the Scientific School Pavlovskoe in Odessa, where I was a diligent pupil, always first in my class. While in the second grade I was temporarily expelled from school for having organized a 'protest' against the French teacher. Perhaps this was an omen of my future bad relations with the French, then our closest political allies. When I passed to the seventh grade I went to Nikolaev, where for the first time in my life I came in contact with advanced circles

and revolutionary ideas. There lived in the town a Czech gardener, Franz Franzovich Khvigorski, who grouped around him young men of the most radical views.

At first I considered myself rather an opponent of Marxism than a supporter. This was in my seventeenth year. Having finished the Scientific School, after an unsuccessful attempt to be entered as a special student of the mathematical faculty of the University, I entered into closer relations with the workingmen of Nikolaev, who belonged to a religious body tinged with nationalist tendencies. Ivan Andreevich Mukhin exercised a great influence over

those people; even to-day, in spite of his years, he is a courageous supporter of the revolution.

The organization of the Nikolaev workingmen rapidly developed into a 'Labor Union of South Russia,' which published numerous proclamations and an illegal periodical, Nashe Delo (Our Cause). At that time all this was quite a new thing. Soon an analogous organization appeared at Odessa, and I was often obliged to travel between Odessa and Nikolaev, spending the day on the steamer and the night at one of these cities, looking up some revolutionary book, or in propaganda work. When the movement reached a certain point, the Union counting about two hundred and fifty workmen-members in Nikolaev, the police of Nikolaev discovered all about them through the work of two spies, and arrested nearly all the members. I was arrested January 28, 1898, on which date my prison experiences began. For some time they kept me in the Nikolaev prison, from which I was transferred to that of Kherson; in another three months came a transfer to Odessa, where I remained about two years. After that, sentenced to four years' exile in Eastern Siberia, I lived in various places of detention, spending on the whole about two and a half years in prison.

It was in prison that I definitely adopted the theoretical point of view of Marxism.

Of my four years of exile I spent two in the village of Ust-Kut, government of Irkutsk. At the beginning of the revolutionary disturbances of 1902 I escaped, by way of Irkutsk, after having forged for myself a false passport bearing the name of Trotskii. From this my pseudonym originated, which has now become my name. At Irkutsk I allied myself with the Social-Democratic Union of Siberia, for which I

wrote proclamations. Afterwards I went to Samara, where I came in contact with the regional group of the organization Iskra (Spark), the object of which was to unite the scattered Social-Democratic elements. The Samara group entrusted me with secret missions to Kharkov, Poltava, and Kiev. From Kiev I went abroad, surreptitiously crossing the Austro-Russian frontier, and at Vienna made the acquaintance of Victor Adler and his son Frederic; then on through Zurich and Paris, where at that time was situated the editorial office of the Iskra, on which Lenin, Martov, and Potresov worked how long ago it all seems now! under the guidance of the old Social-Democratic leaders, Plekhanov, Axelrod, and Vera Zasoulich, who at that time lived in Switzerland.

From the later part of 1902 till February 1905, I belonged to the editorial staff of the Iskra abroad and used to visit the Russian labor and student groups in the European cities as propagandist and lecturer.

At the Second Social-Democratic Congress I, together with Dr. Mandelberg, represented the Siberian Union. When the Congress split into majority and minority, I took sides with the opposition, which later on developed into the Mensheviki. At Geneva I published a small book under the title, Our Political Work. However, when Menshevism began to delineate itself as a practical tendency toward the coördination of the proletarian forces with those of the bourgeoisie, in our epoch of bourgeois revolutions, I broke off every connection with it, and remained outside of both the Bolshevist and the Menshevist sections.

After the Ninth of January (1905), at the beginning of the revolutionary mass movement in Russia, I returned secretly, by way of Austria, to Kiev and later to Petrograd. There I devoted

myself chiefly to literary work, writing for the Central Committee a considerable number of statements, proclamations, and so on. So far as the problem of the Russian Revolution was concerned, I adopted the attitude which I still consider as adequate: namely, I recognized that under the revolutionary conditions of the period, the grouping of forces inside Russian society ought to lead to a political domination of the proletariat; and that this labor régime, supported by the peasantry, could in no way confine itself within the limits of a bourgeois revolution; such limits would inevitably have to be broken down - a fact a fact which, to judge by the course of events in the West, should be likely to provoke a complete social revolution.

The revolution of 1905-1906 found me in the Executive Committee of the Workingmen's Council of Petrograd. After the death of Khrustalev I was elected to the Presidency of the Committee.

At this period I was intimate with Parvus, whose great erudition is supported by a political and a literary talent exceptional indeed. In the Internationale and in Russian politics he defended revolutionary principles of class-against-class struggle; he was an irreconcilable enemy of opportunism, and most of all, of the German SocialDemocrats of the Right. Together we directed the Gazette Russe, a widely circulated organ of great importance published at the time of the defeat of the Soviet of Workingmen's Deputies and the revolution of 1905. We also determined the tendency of the daily Nachalo (Beginning), to which Martov and other friends contributed.

On December 3, 1905, the entire Petrograd Soviet of Workingmen's Deputies was arrested at the headquarters of the Free Economic Society. The bloody era of counter-revolution

was beginning. I myself spent some time at the Petrograd prison of Kresty (The Crosses), later in the Peter and Paul Fortress, then in the House of Detention, and finally, after I had been sentenced, at the Station for the Deported. Our trial lasted for nearly a month and was one of the most important political trials, because of the great number of persons indicted and of the importance of the charges set against them. The principals in the trial were sentenced to be deprived of all civil rights and to be deported to Siberia for life.

When in prison I wrote several small works which were published. Among these were the compilation Our Revolution, and the History of the Soviet of Workingmen's Deputies of Petrograd, this latter having been written in collaboration with some companions.

In February 1906, we were sent on our way to Obdorsk, in Eastern Siberia. Thanks to a complicated stratagem I succeeded in interrupting my voyage by being taken to a hospital at Berezov, from which I escaped after seven days. This flight in a sledge across a desert of snow, from Berezov to the Urals, has remained one of the most beautiful memories of my life. My driver was a Siberian who, aided by some kind of mysterious instinct, found the right direction in the desert and discovered native settlements when we needed them. I crossed the Urals together with a customs official, in his closed sleigh, representing myself as an engineer belonging to the Arctic expedition of Baron Toll. On the eleventh day, to the bewilderment of my friends, I appeared at Petrograd.

I stayed about three months in Finland, where I published a memoir on my voyage to Siberia. Then, in the summer of 1907, I went to London by way of Sweden, to participate in the Congress of the Russian Social-Demo