Case 33: "America did protest when her trade was menaced." I: "Yes. America wanted to protect her interests, but does it follow that she should protest against atrocities which do not menace her interests?" Case 33: "_But her interests are menaced._ Look at the trade complications; they've all come out of that." Case 33 has confused trade interests with moral duty; she has confused two issues: atrocities against neutrals and destruction of American property. When I tell her this, she states that there is a connection: that if America had protested against atrocities, the war would have proceeded on better lines because the Germans would have been frightened. I: "How would this have affected the trade question?" Case 33 does not explain but draws me into a morass of moral indignation because America protested against trade interference and not against atrocities. She finally says America had no right to do the one without the other, which logically is chaos. She also demands to be told what was the use of America's signing the Geneva Convention and the Hague Convention. She ignores the fact that these conventions do not bind anybody to fight in their defense but merely to observe their provisions. I would add that Case 33 is a well-educated woman, independent in views, and with a bias toward social questions. Naturally, where there is a question of love, feminine logic reaches the zenith of topsy-turvy-dom. Here is a dialogue which took place in my presence. _Case 8_ Case 8, who was about to be married, attacked a man who had had a pronounced flirtation with her because he suddenly announced that he was engaged. Case 8: "How can you be so mean?" The man: "But I don't understand. You're going to be married. What objection can you have to my getting engaged?" Case 8: "It's quite different." Nothing could move Case 8 from that point of view.[2] [2] Probably owing to woman's having for centuries been taught to regard the vain aspirations of the male as her perquisites.--THE AUTHOR.