And out of Puritanism, Romanticism, and Feminism, as well as from prevailing economic conditions, have grown false standards of happiness. Nature says to a man and woman: 'Unite, make a home, have children, cherish them, and build for their future, if you would know true contentment.' Modern civilization says: 'Do not think of marriage until after you have had a chance to enjoy yourselves in a life of independence; until you have sufficient have sufficient means, a fine house, an automobile or two, and a mate with whom to continue your good time. Do not think of having children if they interfere in the least with your good time; certainly do not have more than one or two. And do not stay married for a moment if anything disagreeable occurs to mar your happiness.'

Or many a high-minded young man or girl is thinking of perfect bliss in marriage, of an ideal union of kindred souls, that will ensure eternal harmony and contentment. Their conception of domestic happiness is too exacting and unreal; it cannot allow for strain and stress. It renders marriage either more difficult to achieve or impossible to maintain.

I recall an observation by a statesman of note, when addressing a group of college girls, to the effect that it was much better for a woman never to marry than to marry unhappily. This sounds rather reasonable, but requires, first of all, a clear definition of married happiness. Such a definition, under modern conditions, is becoming increasingly difficult. Many a girl would be rendered unhappy by being deprived of certain comforts and privileges she has enjoyed in her home. At least, she may think so, and thus avoid matrimony and, very probably, miss true happiness. Other girls, who could readily endure such privations, may be made miserably unhappy to discover that their

glorious ideal of marriage cannot be fully realized.

Here is the difficulty: what constitutes true happiness and absolute contentment? Many a man and woman have learned the answer by simple living in accordance with the demands of Nature. They have discovered that the standards of happiness set by modern civilization in literature, theatre, college, and social conventions are grotesquely false. Yes, many a woman possessing that greatest of gifts - an understanding heart· understanding heart has achieved supreme happiness through 'the simple round, the daily task,' through the home loyalties and loving services. I have known women whose love and devotion have enabled them, not only to endure fearful humiliations at the hands of unworthy husbands, but actually to redeem them to a fine manhood in a sanctified and reconsecrated home. I have known men whose patience and tenderness have endured the nagging of thoughtless wives, their extravagances, their follies, yes, their faithlessness; and have brought them back to a beautiful and sane realization of true contentment. I have seen such men and women learn, through the strain and stress of married life, that the greatest happiness, after all, lies in sacrifice; that the basic principle of our Western civilization is the obligation to build for others. The home is the cornerstone of that civilization and of true contentment.

In the light of this standard of happiness I venture to reply to the superficial observation on marriage by the statesman to whom I have alluded, that it is better by far to have known the joys with the ills and sacrifices of motherhood than to live in a fancied single blessedness. To live as Nature ordained, though with many a concern and many a chagrin, is infinitely preferable to living in relative ease and serenity, in opposition to Nature's demands.

There is good reason to view with disgust and alarm certain tendencies of the rising generation. The mode of dress that exposes rather than discloses feminine charms; the dance that exacts vulgar postures and familiarities; the 'petting' that arouses sexual emotions - all this, I take it, lamentable as it is, may perhaps be regarded in part as a reaction from those unnatural conditions which have militated against the wholesome relations of the sexes. It is a pity that the pendulum should swing so violently to a dangerous extreme; but I am hopeful that we may yet find a golden mean, which will result in a greater general happiness

Such a golden mean I find on the other side of the Atlantic, where the sex-instinct and marriage are regarded more sanely and naturally than on this side. Everything there- nature, parents, and society in general-unites to encourage young people to mate and nest early. No exaggerated intellectual refinements, no romantic fancies, no social conventions stand in the way of a free response to the 'cosmic urge.'

In the case also of Europeans of means and education, marriage is relatively easy, even when delayed for one reason or another. It is erroneous to think that Continental marriages are simply a matter of negotiations, irrespective of the sentiments and preferences of those directly concerned. If sentiment and desire should not coincide with interest, either side may freely use the right of veto. I recall several German friends living away from Germany, who were precluded by this fact and other circumstances from an early marriage. When the time arrived that they felt free to marry, it was a simple matter to let the home folks know of this desire. They in turn found it easy to pass along the word to someone in their circle of friends, who likewise had the desire to do her part in the making

of a home. When the prospective lovers came together, there was no constraint, either of Puritanism or of Romanticism. On their finding each other congenial, the engagement was shortly entered into, and marriage followed soon after. In the cases I have in mind there was every evidence in later years of tender devotion and contentment.

I hope it will not be thought that I am arguing in favor of marriages de convenance as against sentiment and romance. There is nothing finer than some of the truly romantic and idyllic courtships it has been my privilege to witness. The grande passion does come to some, and is greatly to be desired. I am merely arguing that where such extraordinary experiences seem unlikely or unattainable, as I fear they are in most cases, - obedience to the demands of nature should compel one to admit that marriage is not only desirable but imperative. I am contending for a saner attitude on the part of society in general toward the whole subject. I am writing as frankly as I can, out of the depths of experience, sweet as well as bitter, — to try to help others to think more clearly on this vital problem.

Society should do all in its power, in my opinion, to render marriage easier, in order to restore it to its rightful place as the basic and primordial fact of life itself. We should feel much greater concern over the unpleasant fact of the large numbers of unmarried members of society. And early marriages should be facilitated, in recognition of the fact that delay can hardly be good, either for the individual or for society in general. The home is the basis of our civilization, and the more homes, the better the community. Whether early or late, marriage should be the immediate and the most serious concern of society at large.

All that has been said thus far should

not be interpreted as minimizing in the least the sacramental nature of marriage as it rightfully is regarded by the Church. To those who think deeply, there is hardly anything in life that may not properly be deemed sacred. In fact, it is this sense of the sanctity, beauty, and dignity of human relationships that brings the greatest joy in life. But it does not follow, because marriage is sacramental, that courtship is to be considered as of divine origin, more than any of the many other human relationships. What really matters is the specific act of consecration. The mating of man and wife may be elemental, a most natural response to an imperative and irresistible command; but God may not have joined them together unless they themselves have solemnly laid their plighted troth on his altar.

This to me is the true significance and beauty of the marriage service, so often missed, alas, amid the pomp and theatricals of elaborate church weddings. The thoughtless and the cynics, occupied with thoughts of how the bride looked or the groom behaved, are often too unmindful of the fact that here are two souls who have dared present themselves to dedicate their union before God and in the sight of man. They have solemnly pledged in prayer that, come what may, they are determined to show each other patience, reasonable ness, charity, forgiveness, loyalty, and

the love that pardoneth all things, throughout the trials and vicissitudes of their wedded life.

Whether in a religious or a civil ceremony, this is what all reasonable beings should pledge. It is a solemn acknowledgment of the fundamental fact that falling in love is not nearly of as great importance as the sacred act of marriage itself. The emphasis should be placed, not simply by the Church, but by all society, on the sacramental nature of married life.

Confucius said: 'A man and his wife should be as guests to each other.' Could anything more profound or more exquisite be said of the marriage relation? Unfailing courtesy and deferential consideration, thoughtful and delicate attentions, rare patience and charity, all that the hospitality of one soul to another implies- is not this the final answer to the whole problem of marriage and divorce?

This, it seems to me, is the attitude society should aim to foster: a more natural approach to the sex-relation, freedom from fantastic notions and artificial restraints, a shifting of emphasis from the search for romantic courtships to the necessity of a daily courtship after marriage; in sum, insistence on a simpler and deeper conception of happiness, based on home loyalties, sacrifices, and joyous revelations of life's mysteries, 'until Death us do part.'

THE Washington Conference is about to open, with disarmament for its leading theme, and I think it may be interesting to American readers if I give them, for what it is worth, the deductions that I have drawn concerning disarmament and kindred subjects during recent travels from the Baltic to the Egean and from the Channel to the Black Sea. These journeys have occupied me during the greater part of this year and have brought me in contact with most of the directing minds which exercise authority in the old Continent, as well as with many other people of all classes, professions, and nationalities. I write for American readers with the greater pleasure because, wherever I have been, I have found English and American opinion firmly united, with or without previous discussion or agreement, on almost every single question that distracts Europe, and I have certainly returned home with this fact as the most satisfying, if not the only satisfying, conclusion of my tour.

The Question of Disarmament

One may divide Europe, broadly speaking, into three parts: the victors, the vanquished, and the neutrals in the late war. The victors are suffering from indigestion, the vanquished from ex

haustion, and the neutrals from the discomforts inherent in propinquity to sick neighbors. No people are happy; no nation loves another; and it will take years for the hates and jealousies arising out of both the war and the peace to die down. Practically speaking the victors are still dominant and the vanquished still in subjection. The victors are dominant because they are compelled, in greater or less degree, to remain armed until all the terms of the peace treaties are carried out; and this must be an affair of long years, because the reparations exacted, though not a tithe of the real cost of the damage done, have been spread over long periods of time, in order to make the payments possible. The presence of numerous Inter-Allied commissions in the conquered countries is a source of humiliation to them, but cannot be helped, as they are there in pursuance of treaties.

It is no satisfaction to the victors to remain armed, because the cost is great and every state is at its wits' end for money. In fact, the destitution of treasuries is so marked that even the victors have to impose on their own people almost unendurable burdens, and in many cases do so with little regard for the elementary principles of economics, thus helping to prolong the crisis of which even America is sensible. But they dread that, if they do not remain armed and impose these burdens on their taxpayers, the vanquished may either recover and renew the war, or, at all events, find good pretexts for discontinuing their payments, owing to