correspondent writes from Nebraska:
"Some months ago... the question came to me, what about our Montgomery's

History now.... I find that everywhere it is the King who is represented
as taking these measures against the American people. On page 134 is the

heading, American Commerce; the new King George III; how he interfered
with trade; page 135, The King proposes to tax the Colonies; page 136,

'The best men in Parliament--such men as William Pitt and Edmund Burke--
took the side of the colonies.' On page 138, 'William Pitt said in

Parliament, "in my opinion, this kingdom has no right to lay a tax on the
colonies... I rejoice that America has resisted"'; page 150, 'The English

people would not volunteer to fight the Americans and the King had to
hire nearly 30,000 Hessians to help do the work.... The Americans had not

sought separation; the King--not the English people--had forced it on
them....'

"I am writing this... because, as I was glad to see, you did not mince
words in naming several of the worse offenders." (He means certain school

histories that I mentioned and shall mention later again.)
An official from Pittsburgh wrote thus:

"In common with many other people, I have had the same idea that England
was not doing all she could in the war, that while her colonies were in

the thick of it, she, herself, seemed to be sparing herself, but after
reading this article... I will frankly and candidly confess to you that

it has changed my opinion, made me a strong supporter of England, and
above all made me a better American "

>From Massachusetts:
"It is well to remind your readers of the errors--or worse--in American

school text books and to recount Britain's achievements in the present
war. But of what practical avail are these things when a man so highly

placed as the present Secretary of the Navy asks a Boston audience
(Tremont Temple, October 30, 1918) to believe that it was the American

navy which made possible the transportation" target="_blank" title="n.运输；运送；运费">transportation of over 2,000,000 Americans
to France without the loss of a single transport on the way over? Did he

not know that the greater part of those troops were not only transported,
but convoyed, by British vessels, largely withdrawn for that purpose from

such vital service as the supply of food to Britain's civil population?"
The omission on the part of our Secretary of the Navy was later quietly

rectified by an official publication of the British Government, wherein
it appeared that some sixty per cent of our troops were transported in

British ships. Our Secretary's regrettable slight to our British allies
was immediately set right by Admiral Sims, who forthwith, both in public

and in private, paid full and appreciativetribute to what had been done.
It is, nevertheless, very likely that some Americans will learn here for

the first time that more than half of our troops were not transported by
ourselves, and could not have been transported at all but for British

assistance. There are many persons who still believe what our politicians
and newspapers tell them. No incident that I shall relate further on

serves better to point the chief international moral at which I am
driving throughout these pages, and at which I have already hinted: Never

to generalize the character of a whole nation by the acts of individual
members of it. That is what everybody does, ourselves, the English, the

French, everybody. You can form no valid opinion of any nation's
characteristics, not even your own, until you have met hundreds of its

people, men and women, and had ample opportunity to observe and know them
beneath the surface. Here on the one hand we had our Secretary of the

Navy. He gave our Navy the whole credit for getting our soldiers
overseas.

He justified the British opinion that we are a nation of braggarts. On
the other hand, in London, we had Admiral Sims, another American, a

splendid antidote. He corrected the Secretary's brag. What is the moral?
Look out how you generalize. Since we entered the war that tribe of

English has increased who judge us with an open mind, discriminate
between us, draw close to a just appraisal of our qualities and defects,

and possibly even discern that those who fill our public positions are
mostly on a lower level than those who elect them.

I proceed with two more letters, both dissenting, and both giving very
typically, as it seems to me, the American feeling about England--

partially justified by instances mentioned by my correspondent, but
equally mentioned by me in passages which he seems to have skipped.

"Lately I read and did not admire your article... 'The Ancient Grudge.'
Many of your statements are absolutely true, and I recognize the fact

that England's help in this war has been invaluable. Let it go at that
and hush!

"I do not defend our own Indian policy.... Wounded and disabled in our
Indian wars... I know all about them and how indefensible they are.....

"England has been always our only legitimate enemy. 1776? Yes, call it
ancient history and forget it if possible. 1812? That may go in the same

category. But the causes of that misunderstanding were identically
repeated in 1914 and '15.

"1861? Is that also ancient? Perhaps--but very bitter in the memory of
many of us now living. The Alabama. The Confederate Commissioners (I know

you will say we were wrong there--and so we may have been technically--
but John Bull bullied us into compliance when our hands were tied).

Lincoln told his Cabinet 'one war at a time, Gentlemen' and submitted....
"In 1898 we were a strong and powerful nation and a dangerous enemy to

provoke. England recognized the fact and acted accordingly. England
entered the present war to protect small nations! Heaven save the mark!

You surely read your history. Pray tell me something of England's policy
in South Africa, India, the Soudan, Persia, Abyssinia, Ireland, Egypt.

The lost provinces of Denmark. The United States when she was young and
helpless. And thus, almost to- infinitum.

"Do you not know that the foundations of ninety per cent of the great
British fortunes came from the loot of India? upheld and fostered by the

great and unscrupulous East India Company?
"Come down to later times: to-day for instance. Here in California... I

meet and associate with hundreds of Britishers. Are they American
citizens? I had almost said, 'No, not one.' Sneering and contemptuous of

America and American institutions. Continually finding fault with our
government and our people. Comparing these things with England, always to

our disadvantage......
"Now do you wonder we do not like England? Am I pro-German? I should

laugh and so would you if you knew me."
To this correspondent I did not reply that I wished I knew him--which I

do--that, even as he, so I had frequently been galled by the rudeness and
the patronizing of various specimens, high and low, of the English race.

But something I did reply, to the effect that I asked nobody to consider
England flawless, or any nation a charitableinstitution, but merely to

be fair, and to consider a cordial understanding between us greatly to
our future advantage. To this he answered, in part, as follows:

"I wish to thank you for your kindly reply.... Your argument is that as a
matter of policy we should conciliate Great Britain. Have we fallen so

low, this great and powerful nation?... Truckling to some other power
because its backing, moral or physical, may some day be of use to us,

even tho' we know that in so doing we are surrendering our dearest
rights, principles, and dignity!... Oh! my dear Sir, you surely do not

advocate this? I inclose an editorial clipping.... Is it no shock to you
when Winston Churchill shouts to High Heaven that under no circumstances

will Great Britain surrender its supreme control of the seas? This in
reply to President Wilson's plea for freedom of the seas and curtailment

of armaments.... But as you see, our President and our Mr. Daniels have
already said, 'Very well, we will outbuild you.' Never again shall Great

Britain stop our mail ships and search our private mails. Already has
England declared an embargo against our exports in many essential lines

and already are we expressing our dissatisfaction and taking means to
retaliate "

Of the editorial clipping inclosed with the above, the following is a
part:

"John Bull is our associate in the contest with the Kaiser. There is no
doubt as to his position on that proposition. He went after the Dutch in

great shape. Next to France he led the way and said, 'Come on, Yanks; we
need your help. We will put you in the first line of trenches where there

will be good gunning. Yes, we will do all of that and at the same time we
will borrow your money, raised by Liberty Loans, and use it for the

purchase of American wheat, pork, and beef.'
"Mr. Bull kept his word. He never flinched or attempted to dodge the

issue. He kept strictly in the middle of the road. His determination to