Arthur Pollen, an expert naval writer in British periodicals, referred to the results of the battle in these words: "Thus the Germans, who had entered the North Sea, according to their own account, to engage and destroy the British ships that have been systematically sweeping the waters north and east of the Horn Reef, attained the first part of their objective only. They did succeed in engaging. But the consequences were disastrous. The plan of overwhelming the British fast division with superior numbers was defeated by the masterly handling of the British force, combined with the effective use that force made of its artillery. So far from Sir David Beatty having been overwhelmed, he succeeded admirably in his main object, which was to draw the German fleet into a position where Sir John Jellicoe's squadrons could engage it. The enemy was only saved from total destruction by mist and by the approach of night. Not only did his whole plan miscarry, but he was driven ignominiously from the field, and with a very heavy loss in ships and men." FOOTNOTES: [2] Report of Vice Admiral Beatty. [3] Report of Vice Admiral Beatty. [4] Report of Vice Admiral Beatty. [5] Report of Admiral Jellicoe. [6] "Naval Power in the War." Lieut. Commander Charles C. Gill, U. S. N. A Leading German Churchman Defends Poison Gas The International Committee of the Red Cross at Geneva early in 1918 issued an appeal against the use of poisonous gases. The Rev. Dr. Balan, President of the Consistory for the Prussian Province of Posen and head of the Protestant Church in that province, refused, "after conscientiously examining it before God," to indorse or circulate the appeal, and wrote as follows to the President of the International Committee: The first question that occurred to me on reading your appeal was, Is it really a more inhumane method of waging war when Germany, in defending herself against an immensely superior force of enemies in a fight for existence forced upon her, makes use also of poisonous gas, than when her enemies pour over our armies, so much weaker in numbers, devastating and disintegrating showers of iron, lasting days and weeks, and to which we cannot reply in such volume because we have not so many human hands at our disposal for the manufacture of munitions as our enemies have? I say, No. I ask further, Is it more humane to set the whole world in motion in order by starving it to prevent a great nation that, with its noble, chivalrous Kaiser at its head, has manifested clearly enough its unbounded love of peace, from taking the place to which it is entitled by the side of other nations than when this nation uses every means of defense that its enlightened scientists have discovered? I say again, No.