several years before a man can understand the character of his intimate friend: and then he is mistaken. He has to go through the same slow process with himself. When he knows that he is mistaken about all things, he may write his first book. It will be returned to him: but it is bread upon the waters of experience. It may come back to him, as Mr. Sewell Ford once said, in the form of a ham sandwich. He must not blame the publisher, who is probably poor but honest: poor, because his capital is invariably exhausted after the twelfth poet; honest in spite of all temptations to become respectable. A second and a third book may be returned: but the author should not be less persevering than his publisher. The future has alluring possibilities. It is so immensely spacious. What gifts may not be in that Pandora's Box, in which Alexander found a world, Washington a nation, Shelley a nightingale? But remember the elementary rules of the game. If you shake a bough of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, an apple may fall. It may hit you on the head. Smile first: then eat the apple. Afterwards acknowledge your enlarged experience with gravity. Preserve your poise, and have your manuscripts typewritten. It is better to read them over before sending them away. It is a poor compliment to an editor to send him work that it bores you to read. You expect him to read it. If you make any corrections, make them neatly. The editor will forgive you. He may even consider that clearness of presentation is primâ facie evidence of clearness of thought and clarity of expression. Be courteous, and don't write long, illegible letters. Be reasonable, and don't worry because your individual work has been returned: ask yourself if you sent it to the right place, in the right way and at the right time. And above all, don't tell yourself that it was as good as hundreds of other things that are published. Unless it is infinitely better, it must be very bad indeed. And finally it is really true that a work of genius has an excellent chance of acceptance.

ONE of the most important military lessons of the Tripoli campaign has been the exhibition of the ease with which troops could be landed even on a guarded shore: rough seas and the

absence of surprise conditions could not interrupt the debarkation of the Italian troops, protected by the guns of an efficient fleet. No enemy can face without fortifications and heavy guns the deadly fire of modern warships. The lesson has already been noted in England and the control of the sea is seen even more clearly than before to be the only secure way to safeguard the shores. Have the military and naval authorities at Washington foreseen and prepared for any probable contingency here? The United States is vulnerable on two coasts, of enormous extent. IN THE FORUM for last May, Mr. H. D. Brandyce pointed out that we have some 14,000 miles of seaboard, with innumerable harbors, almost any one of which would prove useful to an attacking army for the landing of troops. "To fortify every harbor along our coasts sufficiently heavily to ensure their immunity from seizure by an attacking fleet would entail not only a stupendous outlay for guns and emplacements, with their accessory searchlights, rangefinders, ammunition, etc., but an immense force of Coast Artillery to man them. In the past twenty years we have spent scores of millions on such fortifications as were found indispensable by the Endicott Board, and still there remain dozens of harbors entirely unprotected. Our Coast Artillery corps now numbers about 20,000 officers and men; yet experts declare that this force is only about onethird of the number required completely to man the guns already mounted." Is the navy sufficiently powerful to fill the enormous gap in our defences?

It is sometimes supposed that the initiative, referendum and recall principles are of recent discovery and represent a very modern phase of development. Yet Aristotle, who dealt wisely with so many questions, had something to say on this matter also; and his remarks seem very pertinent at the present moment. The passage that follows is taken from Jowett's translation of Politics:

"A fifth form of democracy, in other respects the same, is that in which, not the law, but the multitude, have the supreme power, and supersede the law by their decrees. This is a

state of affairs brought about by the demagogues. For in democracies which are subject to the law the best citizens hold the first place, and there are no demagogues; but where the laws are not supreme, there demagogues spring up. For the people becomes a monarch, and is many in one; and the many have the power in their hands, not as individuals, but collectively. Homer says that it is not good to have a rule of many,' but whether he means this corporate rule, or the rule of many individuals, is uncertain. And the people, which is now a monarch, and no longer under the control of law, seeks to exercise monarchial sway, and grows into a despot; the flatterer is held in honor; this sort of democracy being relatively to other democracies what tyranny is to other forms of monarchy. The spirit of both is the same, and they alike exercise a despotic rule over the better citizens. The decrees of the demos correspond to the edicts of the tyrant; and the demagogue is to one what the flatterer is to the other. Both have great power; the flatterer with the tyrant, the demagogue with democracies of the kind which we are describing. The demagogues make the decrees of the people override the laws, and refer all things to the popular assembly. And therefore they grow great, because the people have all things in their hands, and they hold in their hands the votes of the people, who are too ready to listen to them. Further, those who have any complaint to bring against the magistrates say, 'let the people be judges'; the people are too happy to accept the invitation; and so the authority of every office is undermined. Such a democracy is fairly open to the objection that it is not a constitution at all; for where the l have no authority, there is no constitution. The law ought t be supreme over all, and the magistracies and the Government should judge of particulars."