For one thing, a war always offers a name and a flag under which profiteers and promoters undertake to sail. Some find their boats capsized early in the struggle. Others have a sufficient following to keep their business popular and are able to establish their enterprise in more or less permanent comfort. Vendors of wares both helpful and harmful take occasion to push the sale of their products in the name of patriotism. Riders of hobbies both innocent and perilous take excuse to encourage both their own habits and the weaknesses of their fellow citizens. This is always done in the name of patriotism, even though the effect may be altogether antipatriotic. A certain advantage can be taken at a time when everyone is afraid of being misjudged. Like the undertaker’s bill, such things are often brought forward at a time when everyone feels that he must swallow the dose and ask no questions. During the recent conflict it became a widespread habit to advertise various products in the name of patriotism. We were told that the person who wanted to be patriotic must wear a certain brand of clothes, drink a prescribed blend of coffee, and shave with a given make of safety razor. If the Government gave an enterprise the slightest encouragement or patronage, it was featured to the limit. The tobacco companies were not long in taking advantage of the opportunity presented. During the war we were continually told that the soldiers in our splendid national army considered tobacco a necessity. Then not only the element possessing double-jointed moral convictions but also many who had stood for high ideals fell victims to the contagion. Even church workers took to sending to sons what their mothers had prayed might never enter their lives and what leading magazines have been refusing to advertise just as they have refused to advertise intoxicating liquors. Naturally, the members of the national army who had considered tobacco a necessity at home also considered it so abroad. Just as naturally, those who had not used it at home would not have cared for it abroad. The demand was by no means of the one-hundred-percent variety. When I think of the number of men who never knew the taste of tobacco until it was forced upon them by some well-intentioned but misguided war agency, I cannot believe that the demand for it was universal. When I hear parents testify that their sons were untouched with the desire for tobacco until they were influenced to use it in the army, I cannot help feeling that much of the insistence upon it had its origin only in artificially induced public opinion.