except Russia. And there is an abnormal discrepancy between the decrease in the French birth-rate and that of other countries. Dr. Richet said frankly in a recent address to the Académie de Médecine:

The one and only cause of depopulation in France is economy. We do not want to have children because that entails spending money. It costs to lodge and feed and clothe a child, and we do not consent to go to that expense. The number of births can be what the State wishes. Decide upon the amount of the aid given to parents, and you will at the same time be sure of the number of French births. There are now 700,000 births: there will be 2,000,000 when you wish. If a child, instead of causing the family expense, brings money to the family, the number of births will be enormous.

Dr. Richet's reason for the decreasing birth-rate is accepted by his compatriots. This is shown by the nature of the religious appeal put forth in the pastoral letters of the clergy, and the remedies, social and legislative, suggested by economists and publicists. Bishops. endeavor to show that restricting the size of families is false economy and that children are really a source of wealth to the nation and, eventually, to every person in the body social. The propaganda organizations for increasing the birth-rate believe that the state must intervene to make it possible to raise children without the financial inconveniences-penalties, one might say that now attend the parents of large families. The advocacy of legislation to stamp out abortion has been superseded by bills to give state aid to parents by means of premiums, lessening of taxation, and freedom from military service for the father after the birth of the third child. The Chamber of Deputies and the Senate are considering bills to modify the Civil Code in such a way as to allow parents the right to make a will so that property and business may be saved from arbitrary division and dissolution. The question of taxation means more in relation to the problem of natality in France than in other countries. I know this from personal experience as the father of four children raised in France. The vicious

system of increasing revenue by additional indirect taxation distributes the burden unfairly. Taxes on food, railway tickets, medicines, clothing, consumption of fuel and light and water, matches, theater theater tickets-all these means of increasing revenue act as a means of decreasing potential revenuepayers.

The legislators feel that the impulse for remedial legislation in the matter of depopulation must have behind it more than public opinion. Voters are selfish, and parents are not apt to get a square deal and to secure special privileges of state aid and lighter taxes unless their electoral influence is greatly increased. The franchise in France puts the fathers of large families in a shockingly disadvantageous position. Three fourths of the French electorate has no particular interest in the problem of what to do for the family with three children or more. And yet the other fourth represents considerably more than half the population of France. population of France. That fathers

should have the right to supplementary votes for all their living children is a proposal taken seriously. A bill to that effect was defeated in the Chamber of Deputies by the narrow margin of 219 against 200. The project is before the Senate now. If the defeat of Germany results in being able to cut down the standing army, there is no doubt parenthood and not age will be the criterion of exemption from military service.

A remarkably large foundation for a country of few millionaires has been established in France by Théodore Cognacq. The fund, which is managed by the Académie de Médecine, amounts to 50,000,000 francs. The interest is given yearly to ninety families of nine children or more. This year 12,000 families applied for the grant. The Académie Française is also taking part in the new movement. A part of its numerous prix de vertu are now being awarded to parents who have brought up large families. From the different foundations twenty-one families received in 1916 prizes of from 1000 to 2000 francs. The average number of children to the family was sixteen, of whom fourteen were living. In 1917 for two big prizes of 10,000 francs each there

were 400 applications. Thirty of the families had more than fifteen children. It is a mistake to think that patriarchal life has entirely disappeared from France.

Have I not said enough to convince my readers that the problem of depopulation is not hopeless of solution and that intelligent efforts are being made in France to check the decreasing birthrate?

In her finances, France is suffering from a stupid and short-sighted fiscal policy before and during the war. I am not going to quote figures as I did in illustrating the depopulation problem.

The total of France's indebtedness is not a matter of interest; for in speaking of money, figures have lost all meaning since 1914. We have to revise our ideas of the seemingly unlimited possibilities of the extension of credit. No banker or economist dreamed of a world war in which the belligerents could continue to borrow from one another and from their own nationals year after year without thought of how the debts were piling up beyond the limit of interest payment, let alone beyond the possibility of liquidation.

"There is n't so much money in the world!" cried Thiers when Bismarck demanded six billion francs as a war indemnity in 1871. Bismarck probably thought so, too, for he reduced the amount to five billions. And yet to-day we have imposed upon Germany twentyfive times as much as the 1871 indemnity as the minimum she must pay. France, with scarcely more population than in 1871, is confronted with an annual budget of from eighteen to twenty-two billion francs per annum. The discrepancy of four billions per annum in the budget estimates of experts shows how far we have traveled from the time of Thiers.

Few Frenchmen are counting upon the German war indemnity to ease the financial situation of France. If the Germans pay for the destruction and the requisitions during the period of invasion and occupation, we shall be surprised. That bill mounts up beyond the financial capacity of Germany. If the huge additional sum for pensions is exacted, the hopes of the most optimistic

Is

When we examine the financial situation of France with the question in mind as to how France is to make both ends meet, the answer is that France cannot hope to pay her obligations, much less her current expenses. bankruptcy the alternative? That depends upon what we mean by bankruptcy. It would be bankruptcy if France were to default interest payment on the sums borrowed abroad or on what is owed abroad for purchases made during the war. We may be sure that this will never happen. Some critics are saying that because France is already seeking new credits in America for payment of bills due and for purchases and for interest due our Government, we can infer that France is insolvent. The inference is wrong. These new credits are being sought not because of lack of money to meet obligations, but because of unwillingness to make huge payments abroad in dollars when the franc is so greatly depreciated. France can now honor and will be able in the future to honor all her foreign debts both as to interest and principal, but she asks her more fortunate allies to wait until exchange returns to normal, and to help her stabilize exchange by refraining from compelling her to buy an enormous number of dollars every month.

In considering the payment of obligations to her own citizens France does not need to take the same attitude. The French people will have to realize that they are France and that they cannot be creditors and debtors at the same time. More than ten per cent. of the French internal war loans is water; in one of the loans nearly thirty per cent. The men who managed the treasury of France during the war were

not as confident of the patriotism of the people as the men who managed the army. None hesitated to call upon the French to give their husbands and sons. When it came to money-well, that was another matter. High interest and the hope of gain by issuing the loans below par were the inducements held out to thrifty investors.

Perhaps during the war no other policy was possible. Many who paid the price of blood would have refused to pay the price of gold. French character is curious and incomprehensible when it comes to money matters. It is the one place where the French lose their wonderful sense of proportion and where they are incapable of reasoning things out. But now the French nation is confronted with the necessity of paying for the war. France has not been impoverished by the war. Far from it. Outside of the invaded regions the country has increased in prosperity since 1914. There is more money in the savings-banks and in other forms of investment at home than in 1914. The person who looks on the gloomy side of French finances is the one who refuses to study the actual financial condition of the French people. There is plenty of money in France: it has only changed hands. The Government did not try to pay for the war during the war. Instead, the money that ought to have come into the French treasury as taxes came in as loans. It is ridiculous to object that the French could not have stood heavy additional taxation. What they put into the war loans represented money, and a good part of it money earned in the war and because of the

war.

The financial remedy for France is to decrease her internal war debts by drastic measures. The loans are widely distributed and are mostly carried by those who can afford to forego them. For if the interest and principal are to be paid, the money must come from those who hold the loan certificates. Some sort of veiled repudiation of the internal war debt will have to be devised. None can now object if the capital is fixed at the actual sum paid in by the subscriber. This will be the first step. Then the interest rate will

be cut. Judicial fiscal legislation will be able to reduce the indebtedness of the Government toward its own citizens to a quarter of the present formidable total without disorganizing industry or causing undue hardship to the citi zens as a whole.

In great crises of history the Government should have the same right to call upon capital as it has to call upon man power. For the common weal every Frenchman left his work and his family and spent years in fighting. A million and a half died, and another million was incapacitated. There was no distinction of class in military service; but the sacrifice was far greater for the common working-man who had nothing but his hands than for the man who could fight and die with the comfortable feeling that he was not leaving his family penniless. Now that the war is over, the portion of the body politic that has money is called upon in turn to make a sacrifice for the salvation of France. The sacrifice is inevitable. Otherwise interest payments will demand more than the annual revenue, and a crash will follow more disastrous to the moneyed classes than a judicious levy on capital. Despite their reluctance to pay out money, the common sense of the French nation is bound to prevail. The French will not let the financial question drift or become a source of class antagonism.

Admiration for France? We have always had that. Sympathy with France? We have never failed to show that. Confidence in France? By her own deeds France herself instilled that in us. But during the period of reconstruction we cannot afford to become indifferent or cool in our attitude toward France. France has the right to continue to look to us for the whole-hearted, tangible, practical aid we gave her during the period of our military intervention. We must not be unwilling to do our full share and more than our share in international police work. We must help with the exchange problem. We must extend further credits. We must favor France in tariff schedules. Honor and gratitude and interest alike demand that we should not forget our war-cry, "Vive la France!"