A.-A "Statistical Division" with a foreign branch in Paris takes care of this. Every man in the Army, whether officer or private, is indexed by name, and the records filed in alphabetical order for immediate reference, should the names appear either in Army orders or casualty lists. With the description of each soldier is given the name of his next of kin with emergency address.

Each soldier wears about his neck and underneath his clothing a small tag giving his name and company. The foreign branch of the Statistical Division has the fighting forces listed by regiments, as well as alphabetically. Whenever the names of soldiers figure in official dispatches, duplicate sets of records kept at Washington will afford quick refer

ence.

Q. How are our sailors identified?

A.-Every officer and enlisted man in the United States Navy wears a metal identification tag which bears the wearer's name, the date of his birth and enlistment, and, in the case of an officer, his rank and date of appointment. On the other side is etched the finger print of his right index finger. This is a part of what naval officers regard as the best system of identification known, superior to that in use in European armies and navies.

Q. What is the identification tag?

A. The identification tag consists of an oval plate of monel metal 1.25 by 1.50 inches, perforated at one end and suspended from the neck by a monel wire encased in a cotton sleeve. A copy of each finger print on paper is supplied to the Bureau of Navigation, Navy Department, where it is filed in the identification section, this particular work being in charge of J. H. Taylor, finger-print expert, who devised the tag adopted.

Q. What is monel metal?

A.-Monel is the alloy used for battleship propellers. It was chosen in preference to brass or any other metal because it is unaffected by heat, not melting until it has reached a temperature of 2,480 de

is not affected by salt water. On each ship and at each naval station a hospitalcorps officer has charge of the preparation of the tags.

Q.-How are finger-prints taken?

A.-The finger-print is taken in ink on the metal. The name and dates are then written on the tag, which is sprinkled with powdered asphaltum and held over an alcohol lamp until the asphaltum melts into the ink. The tag is then placed for an hour in a nitric-acid bath, which etches the finger-print and inscription on the metal.

Q. What is the chance of mistakes?

A.-There is not one chance in 65,000,000, the finger-print experts estimate, of a mistake in identification, as there are 65 characteristics in each finger and only one chance in 1,000,000 of the fingers of any two persons having the same characteristics.

Q. Are our soldiers not numbered, also?

A. The War Department has decided to assign a number to each enlisted man in the armies of the U. S. These numbers (beginning at No. I and continuing without limit and without alphabetical prefix or affix) will be stamped on the metal identification tags now worn by the soldiers.

Q. How does France tag her soldiers?

A.-France uses a German-silver identification tag for each soldier. It was intended to be worn on a string about the neck and hidden under the shirt, but the majority of "poilus" prefer to wear the tag on a chain about the wrist. In 1915 it was decided to provide two tags, so that for identification purpose, one was to be removed by the authorities and the other was to remain on the body for future identification.

Q.-Are the British tagged?

A. The British Tommy, at the beginning of the war, wore a circular aluminum tag hanging on a string about his neck,

containing his draft number, initials, name, regiment and religion. Owing to the scarcity of aluminum, it was decided in November, 1916, to adopt a new system. It consists of two tags, one octagonal and red, the other round and green, and suspended from the first. In case of death, the green tag is removed and the red one left for future identification.

The Belgians, in 1915, adopted the French model, fastened to the wrist by a chain bracelet.

Q. What is the Italian system?

A.-The Italian identification tag (adopted in 1915) consists of an ornate book-like locket, containing a folded paper record suspended on a string around the neck. This record gives the wearer's full name, military class, recruiting district, names of parents, residence of immediate family, regiment, vaccination records and wounds.

The Serbian soldier, in the beginning of the war, used an identification tag which was simply a metal plate sewed on the inside of his tunic. This method has now been replaced by the French identification tag.

Q.-Were Russian soldiers tagged?

A. With the exception of those RusIsians who fought in France, no identification tags were provided for the Russian soldiers. Hundreds of thousands of fallen Russians, therefore, never have been identified, and untold misery and countless legal tangles have ensued because Russia failed to provide these inexpensive tags.

Q. When did Germany first tag soldiers?

A.-In 1870, in the Franco-Prussian War. Germany entered the present war with the same tag that it had used then. This tag contained the numbers of the army corps, the regiment, the company and the draft. It was worn on a string around the neck. Sometimes a leather pouch protected it.

Q.-Do the Germans still use the same tag?

A.-No. In June, 1915, a more complete tag of larger dimensions and oval in shape was adopted. It carried the names, residence, dates of birth, mobilization data, and a number of numerals and letters.

In November, 1916, still another model was adopted by the German Army. It was even larger than the preceding one, and made in a split form. The two halves, one the duplicate of the other, are separated by a serrated line, which makes it easy to detach one half of the identification tag, while the other half remains on the body of the fallen soldier.

The Turks use a round tag of metal carrying the name, first name, and regimental number of the soldier, while the Austrians use a locket similar to that of the Italians. This is worn on a string which the soldier wears around his neck.

Q.-How are the Chinese soldiers drafted and tagged?

A. They are first put through a thorough physical examination by the British or French surgeon-an event in the Chinaman's life, who, probably, has never seen a European physician before.

As all Chinese look alike to the European officers who are to control him later, they simply must have a ready and sure means of identification. A steel bracelet with his number engraved upon it is marked with other data about the soldier in the official records. This bracelet is riveted about the owner's wrist, and none other than a blacksmith can remove it.

His queue is next shaved off by a barber (for the sum of eight cents), and the celestial is treated to the surprise of his life. He gets a bath, and a brand-new suit of soldier clothes. He is ready then to go aboard the transport with all his belongings in a huge bundle on his back.

Q.-Did the Germans intern Brit

ish civilian subjects before the British interned Germans?

A. They interned them afterward. November 8, 1914, Ambassador Gerard wrote from Berlin to Ambassador Page in London, saying that German opinion had been inflamed by the British procedure of wholesale internment. Mr. Gerard wrote: "The (German) order for the general internment of British males between 17 and 55, which went into effect on the 6th inst., was occasioned by the pressure of public opinion. Up to the 6th, considerable liberty of movement had been allowed to British subjects in Germany, and many petitions were received from them setting forth the favorable conditions under which they were allowed to live and to carry on their business, and urging the similar treatment of German subjects in England.”

Q.-Did the Germans put British, Russian and French prisoners in separate camps?

A.-No. The American Embassy frequently handed the German Government the British protests against putting all the nationalities and races together, but the

Germans responded that they were all Allies and, therefore, had no right to demand separation.

The American inspectors held that this was unjust, and subjected the Englishmen to unnecessary discomfort and humiliation, but there was no change.

Q. Why has Germany refused to

exchange prisoners?

A. Apparently for purely economical and strategical reasons. In the first place, the Germans calculated that the comparatively few Germans who were in British and French hands would not be a very important asset to the big German armies, but that the same number of British and French would be a very valuable asset, indeed, to those armies, which needed men badly in the earlier years of the war.

In the second place, they knew that the British labor unions opposed the use of German prisoners of war in industrial labor, whereas in Germany there was no such obstacle to utilizing the labor of prisoners of war, thus giving a clear economic advantage to Germany.

In the third place, British and, in part, French prisoners of war got a great deal of food from those countries. If these men were exchanged, the returned Germans would have to be fed at home, and thus would make that much more drain on an already limited food-supply.

Q.-Is a prisoner of war a convict?

A. His status is absolutely and specifically different from that of a convict. A soldier who is captured in honorable warfare is entitled to treatment that entails neither stigma nor avoidable hardship.

Theoretically, the captor has the right only to imprison him and hold him safe so that he shall not become a menace. In practice, however, the belligerents erect so many safeguards and regulations that the quality of treatment ranges widely, according to the character of those in command of the various camps.

A prisoner of war, for instance, remains a man who must submit to all military regulations, and who is as subject to discipline and military law as if he were in his own army. A stern commander who is severe with his own men naturally would be a pretty harsh commander of a prisoner camp.

Q.-Were outsiders ever allowed to visit German war-prisoner camps?

A.-The American Embassy made regular and stated inspections of all the camps in Germany, under arrangement with the German Government. In this duty the Americans did not represent the United States. They represented Great Britain, whose interests the Americans had taken over when war began. Everything was inspected, the men were questioned, and full detailed reports were made out.

Q.-Were the prison camps in Germany as bad as the British alleged?

A. Some of the German camps, as is proved by the very exact and carefully considered report of Professor Daniel J. McCarthy, who conducted the work of inspection for the American Embassy, were frightfully bad-not merely bad from a sanitary and physical point of view, but equally bad because of the bru

tality of the officers and soldiers in charge. Others were excellent.

Thus, such camps as Friedrichsfeld, Soltau, Parchim, Dulmen, Wahn, Wunsdorf, and many others, were praised by him as very good indeed. The camps of Minden, Limburg, Wittenberg, Schneidemuhl, Langensalzen, etc., were very bad-"the difference between heaven, relatively, and hell, absolutely," as Dr. McCarthy put it. He added that it was difficult to estimate the exact proportions of good and bad camps, and that "one might say that taking the problem as a whole, and for the majority of the camps, it was fairly well administered." This judgment, however, had to be qualified because of the many less satisfactory aspects presented by the huge problem of the many thousand scattered working camps.

Q. What were the differences be

tween the various camps?

A. In the best type of concentration, or "parent" camp, the prisoners were organized on a military basis under their own noncommissioned officers, who were responsible for discipline, behavior, and clothing and, in some cases, were in charge of the kitchen as well. In the majority of camps, however, such a complete organization was not permitted; in many camps a partial organization was made, with some authority for the noncommissioned officers; in others the prisoners were treated simply as criminals, without any rights, and were guarded at the point of the bayonet by men who were allowed to use almost any degree of brutality in enforcing their commands.

Q.-To what was the difference in camps due?

A. The fact that the army corps commander was practically supreme, and that he handed over the complete charge of the prison camp to the camp commandant, who was often of the same rank as himself, gave opportunity for very good treatment, as it gave freedom for very bad, of prisoners of war. Dr. McCarthy quotes the saying that was genera! throughout Germany, "Everything depends on the commandant." To a great extent, he says, that was literally true.

Q. What was Dr. McCarthy's general verdict on the German prison camps?

A.-There were so many various aspects that he could not. make a summingup that would be comprehensive. He

says that he found prisons appallingly bad, and he found prisons really good; commandants and guards who were brutal, and others who were considerate, kind, and intelligent. Some working camps were bad, some satisfactory.

As an outstanding example of a bad camp, Dr. McCarthy describes that at Minden, which was one of the worst in Germany, and whose conditions he found not only bad but "inexcusable."

One of the best of the "parent" camps was that at Friedrichsfeld, which had been remodeled, Dr. McCarthy explains, "so as to make it very comfortable. There was a splendid organization of the camp and every effort was being made to make the men comfortable, guard their health, give them mental and physical relaxation, and to refit them for more useful work in the future."

Q. How large were the German prison camps?

A.-Most camps were built to hold from ten to twelve thousand men, but some were much larger. The big camp at Parchim held forty thousand men in 1916.

Q.-Did a big force guard the big

number of prisoners?

A. The German practice was to have a guard about one-tenth in strength of the number of prisoners. This guard consisted usually of men who had been in the army, but were too old for active service, or else of young men physically unfit for service in the field.

Barbed wire divided most of the camps into blocks of buildings, and thus prevented any concerted action by the whole number of prisoners, even if there had not been constant watchfulness. In addition, every prison camp was overlooked by many towers with platforms armed with medium-caliber cannon. Thus the prisoners were quite helpless.

Q. How many prison camps are

there in Germany?

A. About 150, counting in big and little. There were 105 big camps for prisoners of war alone in 1916. In addition to these, which contained the enlisted men and noncommissioned officers, there were many smaller camps for officers. Then there were three great camps for interned civilians, and there was at least one camp for reserve officers. These were only the actual prison or concentration camps.

only ones in Germany?

A.-No. Those were only the concentration or parent camps. As the prisoners of war were assigned to labor, they went to so-called working camps-camps attached to mines, factories, reclamation projects, etc. In one district alone there were 18,000 of these working camps at the period when the American Embassy made regular inspections.

Q.-Did prisoners work with enough willingness to make it worth while?

A. The tedium of prison life made men want to work. In addition, most of them were employed in agricultural labor, and the prisoners soon discovered that the rural population was inclined to treat them well.

As Professor McCarthy reported: "The distinction between the German people and the German Government was here very manifest. The prisoner of war, working in the fields with his employer, eating at the same table and often housed in the same house, lost the character of a hated enemy-the British and French prisoners were, as a rule, popular with their farmer employers and their families and, when well treated, made excellent workmen. The prisoner rarely attempted to escape, and rarely requested to be returned to the parent camp.'

Speaking of 1916, Dr. McCarthy said that the efficiency of war-prisoners in agricultural work reached certainly 80 per cent. It was less in industry, but, in a general way, the efficiency throughout appeared to range between 50 and 75 per

the country that holds them. Such punishment in serious cases such as mutiny, assaulting guards or assaulting fellowprisoners, may go even so far as death. Other serious offenses may be punished by terms of imprisonment. The offender then ceases to be a prisoner of war, and becomes a convict.

Q.-Can war-prisoners be legally compelled to work?

A. Yes. The Hague Convention of 1899 (signed by Great Britain and Germany) says: "The State may utilize the labor of prisoners of war according to their rank and aptitude. These tasks shall not be excessive, and shall have nothing to do with military operations."

Prisoners may be authorized to work for the public service, for private persons, or on their own account.

Work done for the State must be paid according to the tariffs in force for soldiers of the national army employed in similar tasks.

When the work is for other branches of the public service or for private persons, the conditions must be settled in agreement with the military authorities.

The wages of the prisoners shall go towards improving their position, and the balance shall be paid them at the time of their release, after deducting the cost of their maintenance.

Q. What happens to a prisoner who refuses to work? A.-Article 8 of the Hague Convention