“At a moment when by the sheer force of perfect preparedness Germany is winning victories all along the line against the greater part of Europe allied against her, we permit our army to sink close to the point of inefficiency.” (_New York American_, Oct. 31, 1914.) “America is wasteful, chiefly through lack of efficient organization. We are now spending, under recent military legislation, enormous sums for a totally obsolete kind of regular army.... We have voted to build a large navy, and are taxing the people to pay immense bills, but have not enough collective efficiency to spend the money and get prompt results.” (_Review of Reviews_, Feb., 1917.) “Secretary Garrison has shown us that the entire army of the United States available for movement to a point of danger is less than three times the number of New York’s policemen.” (_Review of Reviews_, Feb., 1916.) Here is the case of England, another democracy, presented in an extract from an article in the _North American Review_ for July, 1918, by A. Maurice Low: “When England entered the war against Germany it was not exactly with a light heart, but it was only with a faint conception of the magnitude of the task she faced and the strain it would impose upon her. Instead of immediately adopting conscription, she dallied with it, talked about it, made it a political question, and then accepted a compromise, which is the usual English fashion, and only when much valuable time had been lost and the emergency was so great that further delay was impossible, universal service was enforced. It was the same with many other things. The blockade of Germany was lax because of the timidity of the Foreign Office. Business as usual was our boast, and we went about our several ways spending money foolishly and refusing to be put on rations or voluntarily reducing our consumption of luxuries.... Time, of course, taught us wisdom. We bought our experience and a pretty price it cost us.”