IN

Horse

N France the task of combating the universal food shortage is in the hands of Maurice Viollette, the Minister of Subsistence. On April 22, 1917, he issued an order that there should be one meatless meal each day. The measure was adopted as an experiment, with notice that if it was not successful two meatless days would have to be instituted. It was not successful. On May 17 a new order appeared in the Journal Officiel regulating the sale and consumption of meat, as follows:

1. Monday and Tuesday shall be meatless days.

2. On those two days of the week it is forbidden-with the exception named below-to sell meat of any kind, including tripe, fowl, and rabbit.

3. It shall be permissible, however, to sell horse meat every day in the week.

4. These measures apply to all France. Certain modifications are allowed in cases of illness, and special arrangements are made for shipping meat to the troops. Butcher shops selling horse meat exclusively may do business on the meatless days, but the consumption of horse meat is not allowed in restaurants on those days.

Restrictions regarding the use of flour were embodied by M. Viollette in the following order, issued May 1, 1917. In a report accompanying the decree he stated that a census of food stocks had shown the necessity for scrupulous economy and that the measures adopted were intended to apportion the existing supplies to the real needs of the people with the least possible inconvenience to any class:

Article 1. Beginning on May 10, 1917, millers are forbidden to send from their mills or to place on sale any wheat flour comprising less than 85 per cent. of the wheat used to make it. Besides this flour it shall be lawful to sell only bran and the waste from wheat

Meat

grains found unfit for milling. Mixtures of substitute flours with wheat flour, authorized by Article 14 of the order of April 8, 1917, will be made with the flour prescribed by the present article.

Article 2. From the date of publication of this order millers are also forbidden to deliver flour to any one except bakers and farmers who have brought their wheat to the mill to be ground; except, however, that this interdiction shall not apply to makers of health foods and the like, save to the extent determined by rules fixed by the Food Controller. Semoules must be made of Winter wheat and be delivered to pastry makers under regulations established by the said Minister.

Article 3. Biscuit factories shall henceforth work only for the needs of the army, navy, merchant marine, and Department of Public Aid, in accordance with the conditions prescribed under the order of April 19, 1917. They are, however, permitted to exhaust their stocks, though without raising the present prices of their products.

Article 4. Bakers alone are authorized to sell wheat flour at retail in quantities not exceeding 125 grams.

Article 5. Save for the exceptions provided in Articles 2, 3, and 4, wheat flour cannot be employed henceforth for any other purpose than the making of bread. Consequently, within ten days after the publication of the present order every mercantile holder of wheat flour must dispose of it to a baker or place it at the service of the Mayor, who will attend to reimbursing the holder.

Article 6. Within the same period of ten days every baker is expected to place on file at the Mayor's office of the town in which he does business, the name of the miller or millers from whom he intends to get his flour; he cannot be supplied by any other miller, save by authorization of the prefect or sub-prefect.

Article 7. Within the same ten days the owners, directors, or managers of hotels, restaurants, buffets, and other similar establishments must declare at the Mayor's office the name of the baker or bakers from whom they will get their supplies; they cannot buy of any other baker save with the authorization of the prefect or sub-prefect. All bakers are forbidden to sell to any other establishment than those for which they are the regular caterers.

G

ERMANY continued to suffer from

the increasing scarcity of food during the months preceding the harvest of 1917. Early in June the Food Controller, Herr von Batocki, said in a speech before the Reichstag:

In certain provinces the potato crop is much poorer than the reports led us to expect. On the other hand, home consumption by the producers is insufficiently supervised. In the occupied territories the crops are a great disappointment to the German authorities, as seed will hardly germinate in ruined soil. Rumania has given as much as could be expected, but it is less than was hoped for by the German population. The country is almost completely ruined, and the harvest is much inferior to that raised in time of peace.

With respect to Germany's allies, the situation is not much better. For six years the Turks have struggled for their existence and their production has suffered thereby. The Bulgars are in a similar position. In Austria the situation is worse than in Germany. Hungary for three years has had poor crops. The rural population will be subjected to a severe trial. An effort has been made to spare small producers, but this can hardly continue. Three-fourths of the pigs, two-thirds of the cows, and two-thirds of the potato crop are in the hands of the small producers. It is a hard trial, but the rural population will triumph by bearing in mind that the urban population last Winter suffered a still greater trial.

In the discussion which followed, Deputy Schmidt, a Berlin Socialist, expressed the grievances of the city against the rural population. "Do the peasants know," he asked, "that the urban population of the Palatinate is obliged to content itself with a quarter of a pound of potatoes daily for each person?"

The Morgen Post of Berlin said that meat was completely lacking in the metropolis. In Baden, Minister of State Bodman indicated the possibility of meatless weeks next Fall. Bavarian newspapers inserted the following notice:

"In view of the extreme scarcity of potatoes and in view of the fact that Bavarian towns and industrial centres are suffering from this lack, an attempt will again be made to seize all the potatoes available throughout the country."

The Berlin authorities published an

order forbidding the eating of pork on any day but Thursday because of the insufficiency of the stocks. The forging and theft of bread cards became a serious evil throughout Germany.. In Berlin a tribunal condemned an individual to three months at hard labor for having stolen 20,000 bread cards. Five new establishments in which false bread cards were being printed were discovered in Berlin. In Dresden there were frauds and speculations in flour. The newspapers asked if it would be possible to continue after Aug. 15 the meat ration of 500 grams, (17.5 ounces.)

German Bread-Card System

[This summary of the German bread-card system was prepared by a London newspaper writer with a view to its possible adoption in England.]

All the ordinary requirements of everyday life are now distributed in Germany by means of the ticket system. The earliest of these tickets was for bread, and was adopted in the Spring of 1915. It should be borne in mind that tickets do not confer on their holders any legal right to the goods to which they refer. There is this difference, however, between bread and other tickets in Germany-that while it was not always certain that the purchaser would be able to obtain butter, potatoes, meat, eggs, &c., he could generally rely on getting his bread ration. That was because quite early in the war the Government took all the wheat in the country under its control. It stands to reason that any system of bread-ticket rationing must be preceded by such a course, for unless there is a central clearing house for supplies the whole system will break down.

In Germany the Central Government decided what the bread rations should be, and issued the necessary regulations for their distribution; but the actual work of providing the population with tickets is undertaken by the local authorities, who are at liberty to adopt

any machinery for the purpose they may choose. In Greater Berlin local Bread Committees have been appointed by the various Borough Councils. There are 107 such committees in the German capital, and they have in hand the bread-ticket system. In the first place, it is the duty of house owners to make a return of all the people living in their houses who are entitled to tickets. The tickets are then issued to the house owners, whose duty it is to distribute them among their tenants, obtaining in each case a receipt which is returned to the Bread Committee.

Tickets are usually issued for a month at a time, and in the early days complaints were loud about petty abuses. On the one hand, tenants deliberately gave unpopular landlords much unnecessary trouble by making them call several times for the delivery of the tickets and the return of the receipts. On the other hand, landlords penalized tenants in arrears with their rent by refusing to issue their tickets until the rent was paid.

Yet,

But

Tickets are non-transferable. though it is a criminal offense to utilize tickets to which the holder is not entitled, it is well-nigh impossible to prevent fraud. Tickets are often stolen, and burglaries at the offices of the Bread Committees are frequent occurrences. this evil can at least be overcome by great caution. Not so, however, another evil, which greatly weakens the whole system. Nothing can be done to check the illegal sale or bartering of tickets. It seems to be no infrequent occurrence for people in Germany to sell their bread tickets or exchange them for other sorts. Only a high sense of public duty can be effective here. It need hardly be added that unused tickets are expected to be returned to the Bread Committee.

Besides the ordinary bread ticket there is in Germany a supplementary bread ticket. Three categories of the population receive rations over and above those generally current-growing children, ordinary factory workers who are away from home all day, (the so-called "heavy" workers,) and those engaged on particularly hard work, especially in mining and munition making, (the so

The re

called "heaviest " workers.) duced bread ration which came into force in Germany on April 15, 1917, was accompanied by the abolition of the first category of supplementary tickets. The other two are issued to the different works and factories, where they are distributed among the men qualified to receive them.

What happens if a bread ticket is lost? Local practice varies. Some towns will not replace lost tickets at all, while others will partially make good the loss on payment of a fee. But so much red tape is associated with the replacement that the possibility of constant fraud is reduced to a minimum. Besides, too frequent applications for the restoration of lost tickets are bound to raise suspicions with the police.

Another difficult problem is that of providing for the floating population, as, for instance, soldiers on leave, visitors, foreigners, and commercial travelers. Temporary visitors are granted bread tickets for the period of their stay in the locality, after satisfying the local Bread Committee of their bona fides, and presenting a certificate from their own Bread Committee or other local authorities issuing bread tickets. Travelers may obtain travelers' tickets, which are valid all over Germany. It should be noted that local bread tickets have currency only in the locality where they are issued, save only that all the South German StatesBavaria, Baden, Saxony, and Alsace-Lorraine-have agreed to recognize each other's bread tickets.

The form of the tickets varies in each locality. The most common is what may be termed a central trunk surrounded by coupons, each with an amount of bread or flour imprinted upon it. The seller must sever the coupon for the amount sold, and return all the coupons to the Bread Committee. On the basis of these returns the committee determines the quantity of flour to be allowed to the different bakers, each of whom is given a buying permit entitling him to receive his allotted share of flour from the wholesaler.

The system as a whole suffers from two weaknesses which seem inherent, and

it is a little difficult, therefore, to see how they can be overcome. The one is the control of the tickets. It is true that persons leaving the district are bound to notify the Bread Committee, just as the committee is also informed of all the deaths in the neighborhood. But German experience has been that in a great many cases removal notice is not given. What

is the result? Unless the landlords are scrupulously careful the Bread Committee goes on issuing bread tickets as before, and improper use is made of them. Toward the end of 1916 it was felt that the number of illegal bread tickets in circulation in Germany was alarmingly large, and a census taken on Dec. 1, 1916, showed that there were four million more bread tickets in use than the total population warranted.

Even greater is the second difficulty -to deal satisfactorily with the producer, i. e., the farmer. If he is too much interfered with he may stop producing altogether. That obviously must be avoided at all costs. Hence a certain latitude is allowed the rural population in Germany in respect of bread rations. They are permitted to consume more bread than the town population. This has been the cause of great bitterness in Germany no less than in Austria and in Hungary. In the last-named country it has been necessary to keep a tight hold on the farmers. In the first place they did not always thrash the whole of their In the second, by collusion with

corn.

the local miller, they had more corn ground than their official permits allowed. In the third, by all manner of subterfuges, they fed their beasts on wheat fit for bread. It is asserted that_ these evils still exist in Hungary.

So far as the consumer is concerned, he must have the assurance that when he presents his ticket to his tradesman the commodity will be forthcoming. Over and over again during the last two years buyers in Germany have had to leave the shops empty-handed. A system of ordering in advance has therefore been developed. The customer places his order with his tradesman, at the same time delivering up his breadticket coupon, for which he receives the tradesman's receipt. The tradesman is thus enabled to make provision in advance for each day's business, and when the customer arrives he finds what he wants. But obviously the system is more adapted to better-class neighborhoods. Whether it will work effectively in poorer districts is questionable. Moreover, it does not follow that, though the ration is fixed for the whole country, the quality of the bread is the same everywhere.

At best, rationing by ticket is a makeshift. It undoubtedly minimizes inequalities and reduces waste. But perfect it cannot be, and, imperfect as it is, it needs a large staff for its execution and no little expenditure both on personnel and on tickets.

re

On May 11, 1917, a deputation from the Rumanian Jews in Jassy waited upon the King to present to him the assurance of their loyalty. The deputation counted the grievances of the native Jews and assured him that they would prove in all circumstances that they were an element of order, as sincerely devoted to their native land and to its ruler as was the case in countries where Jews enjoyed full equality. A note handed to the King begged him to take the native Jews under his protection. Accompanying the note was an appeal which the native Jews had distributed in Jassy on May 6.

In this appeal the Jewish Committee set forth the wish for national unity and the victory of the allied armies; they denounced those among them who had shown that they did not share the patriotic views of the nation, and they stated that they relied on the wisdom of the Rumanian people as regarded the solution of their question. This manifesto laid stress on the decision arrived at by the Rumanian Jews at the beginning of the war not to increase the difficulties of the situation by raising their question at the present time. The manifesto concluded as follows: "Having confidence in our fellow-citizens, we will do our duty toward our country, sparing no sacrifice and taking into consideration nothing but the welfare of Rumania."

King Ferdinand made the following reply:

After having been long in close touch with

the daily life of all classes of people in the country, I formed the conviction-and I am pleased to bear testimony to the fact in the present circumstances that I was not mistaken-that all the inhabitants of Rumanian soil, irrespective of differences of origin, of race, or of religion, were actuated by the same exalted ideas of fraternity. This fraternity and community of aspirations constitutes the surest guarantee for the future of the country and the realization of our national ideal. One of the glorious characteristics of our native Princes was that, while preserving their faith in its traditions, they permitted the existence and the celebration of all the religions of their subjects. King Carol was so faithful to this tradition that he, a Roman Catholic, requested that his body might be laid to rest in one of the oldest religious monuments belonging to the worship of our ancestors.

I ascended the throne impressed with the same sentiments. When I undertook the task of uniting all Rumanians under the same flag I realized that that flag must be at the same time a symbol of the union and of the religious, political, and economic freedom of all the sons of the Fatherland. All who have striven for the realization of the aspirations which Rumanians have entertained for so many ages, by shedding their blood, by enduring the difficulties and sacrifices imposed by the and invasion, whether they are Christians, Jews, or adherents of any other form of belief, will equally have a right to the gratitude of the country and to that of the King, and will enjoy equal rights in a free, great, and flourishing Rumania, closely united, all of us, under the folds of the national flag.

war

A Jewish demonstration took place on May 13 in Odessa, Russia, where some thousands gathered in front of the Rumanian Consulate to protest against recent ill-treatment of Jews in Rumania. The crowd elected delegates, one of whom presented to M. Grecianu, the Consul General, a written protest against the reported acts of violence. The Consul General telegraphed the protest to Jassy and communicated to the delegates a telegram from Jassy stating that the whole Jewish question was to be dealt with in the current session of the Rumanian Parliament.