George III. was continually in difficulty with the ministry and he gave little evidence of ability in administrative affairs. Finally in 1811 he became hopelessly insane and remained so for nine years.

During this period we had as presidents, George Washington and John Adams. These men, all will admit, were far superior in administrative ability and in every way to George III.

Next we come to George IV. He proved to be a profligate of the worst kind, and was noted for his disgusting social relations and complications. The people suffered from his incapacity and profligate reign from 1811 till 1830. During this time we had Madison, Monroe and Jackson. There is no comparison between these able presidents and the licentious George IV. Queen Victoria reigned between 1837 and 1901, successfully and wisely but parliament governed. She was succeeded by Edward VII. and his son George V. who were each highly accomplished and amicable gentlemen and it may be truthfully said that they also reigned wisely and successfully but that parliament and the Ministry in the meantime governed the great empire of great Britain.

During these years of wise governmental administration in the United States, Prussia was under the direction of Frederick William II. from 1757 to 1797. He managed to involve the nation in debt and antagonized his subjects by his censorship of the press and his affairs with the woman-Wilhelmina Encke, Frells, Von Voss and others. His mind was occupied with mystical occult demonstrations and he cannot be compared with our presidents as to ability and manly character.

Frederick William III., who succeeded him, was defeated by Napoleon and lost most of his provinces. He was a man of inferior capacity and vacillating temperament, but nevertheless an autocratic ruler. The best achievements of his reign were due to the ability and good judgment of his wife, the beloved Queen Louisa. As a ruler and statesman he was not the equal of the presidents holding office during his reign.

Frederick William IV. was inconsistent in his dealings with his people. He was arbitrary and autocratic and finally became insane. William I. who succeeded him was the first Hohenzollern since Frederick the Great who displayed marked ability as a ruling sovereign. He was on a plane of equality with the majority of the presidents who have administered the affairs of the United States government. He was first regent and in 1861 became King. He was co-temporary with Abraham Lincoln and was successful in the Franco-Prussian war, with the assistance of Bismarck, in establishing the German Empire.

William II. King of Prussia and President of the German Empire with the title of German Emperor, proved to be a very efficient and popular ruler up to the commencement of the war precipitated August 1914. Until the outcome and causes of the war are thoroughly understood and the sequel historically recorded, it is impossible to correctly estimate his place among Imperial rulers.

CHAPTER III.

THE IMPERIAL TRUST.

Today four European sovereigns, Francis Joseph, Emperor of Austria-Hungary, Emperor William II. of Germany, Czar Nicholas II. of Russia, George V., King of England and Emperor of India, rule directly and indirectly over 650,000,000 subjects. Their jurisdiction extends over two-thirds of the area of the globe, including Austria-Hungary, Russia, Siberia, part of China, India, Great Britain, including Canada, Australia, West Indies, Egypt, British possessions in Africa, and then the German Empire with all its states and possessions. These three monarchs can act, if they desire to do so, as a unit on any proposition which affects them severally or jointly, the same as the heads or presidents of three large and comprehensive corporations with affiliated companies. Their armies and navies can be called together instantaneously, and unite in carrying out some scheme which all the rulers desire, or throw the entire world into confusion if they have a family quarrel as the great conflict now going on proves.

Co-operation with the legislative branches of the different nations of course must be forced or obtained in some way. These rulers are all connected by family ties of intermarriage. The great standing armies under their control are maintained in a greater degree than is generally understood for the purpose of supporting and defending these sovereigns individually and collectively against the interference of their own subjects as well as to protect the different countries against each other and antagonistic nations. It has been in the past almost impossible for the people under the control of the rulers forming this imperial trust to contend against them successfully or accomplish anything of a radical nature in antagonism to this immense aggregation of material wealth and military and naval power. Nevertheless since 1789 it is stated that all the civilized people of the western world wrested constitutions from these and other rulers and now in a greater measure than ever before control their political destinies with such machinery as written constitutions, parliaments, congresses, and other legislative bodies, sustained by manhood suffrage and strengthened by compulsory universal education.

Through the principle of democracy and nationalities there was created a new Germany, a new Italy, a new French republic, a new Swiss republic, a democratic England, a constitutional federated Austria-Hungary, and a group of free Slav states in the Balkan peninsula. All these and the other small states of Europe in a good measure remodeled their governments upon English and American forms. Prussia and Russia remained the only two powers in Europe not reconstructed and the latter of these has been nearly thrust back into the ages." (Modern History, Willis Mason West.)

Since the above was published, China has overthrown her imperial government and established a republic, and Portugal has also retired the Braganza dynasty, and obtained a written representative constitution for a republican form of government.

The Romanoff dynasty, the Hohenzollerns, the Hapsburgs, the Bourbons, the Orleanists, the Bonapartes, the English Stuarts, the Manchu dynasty of China, and the rulers of the Ottoman Empire, who have at different times individually and collectively assumed to dictate to the world what they should or should not do, and subjected large portions of its inhabitants to their imperious wills, can no longer hold in this twentieth century undisputed or supreme power. The Bourbons, the Orleanists, the Bonapartes and the Manchu dynasty are now overthrown. There are other equally as great forces in the Western Hemisphere and in other portions of the world to contest the supremacy of the remaining sovereigns. The United States itself is greater in real wealth and, given time, can muster as much aggressive power as any one of the great empires mentioned. There are individual families in America now who own and control as much wealth in their own right as any European king, emperor, or czar. There are corporations controlling more material resources than any two of these old imperial families. There are also individual families in these kingly ruled countries who control as much wealth as many of the rulers assuming control over them. The great mass of the citizens of these monarchies are also more advanced and better qualified to rule than ever before. With all their wealth, standing armies and navies, fortifications and defensive resources, these imperial and kingly families with their assumed "divine rights," cannot protect themselves against insanity and degeneracy. Modern history shows that they are losing their ability to govern and consequently their power is passing away from them into other hands. The twentieth century will mark, with its gigantic war, it is to be hoped, the permanent retirement of all these imperial, ducal, and highly titled families who have ruled, misgoverned and destroyed mankind in the past. They should be superseded by written constitutions containing

the supreme law of the land, granting universal suffrage when expedient and equal rights and protections to all citizens. These should take the place of imperial thrones, crowns and the socalled divinely appointed sovereigns, who use their power to dominate and absorb the wealth of their subjects.

Nearly every nation of Europe is represented in the United States of America by a large body of their former subjects, amounting in some cases to hundreds of thousands, who are now loyal citizens of the republic, living harmoniously under a common constitution. This demonstrates the possibility of the inhabitants of the different states of Europe uniting and living satisfactorily under one constitutional government like that of the United States of America, and comprising the United States of Europe. By a general election, the people of these several states or nations could jointly elect their president and their representatives to a national congress or parliament and so construct an European republic with a written constitution.

The royal families of the different states or nations are now the main obstacle to a united Europe under a constitutional government. The kings, princes, lords, and barons, and other titled personages would then become private citizens living on their estates the same as large property owners in America. They could fill prominent positions as well as other citizens, if qualified and elected by the people, and they would probably enjoy life more than they do now and have less responsibility. The great standing armies could be disbanded and greater attention given to commerce, art, and literature. A citizen of one state would then be a citizen of the other state and have a common interest in all Europe. This would do away with the continual war between nations for more territory.

Kings under certain conditions may be tolerated, but the nation should have a free choice and elect a man for a limited term of years who is capable to fill the position.

PROPOSED EUROPEAN PEACE FEDERATION CALLED PRACTICAL.

A recent press dispatch says: Sir Max Waechter's project of a federation of the states of Europe was the subject of an interesting lecture delivered at The Hague before the Vrede door Recht (Peace through Justice Society) by Mr. Knobel, a member of the Second Chamber, and a former envoy to South Africa, Persia and other countries.

The lecturer pointed out that there was an important difference between the old and new schools in the peace movement. The old method, he said, was to hold up various ideals and to set