Second ....
Third ....
Fourth ....
2. 2O
2-71
2.67
2.67
23
23
.26
.25
25.14
25.92
25-42
25.57
37-25
36.21
36.60
36.60
0735
.0730
.0769
.0882
10.15
9-79
10.39
TO.2I
1750
.2227
.2423
.2450
75
746
.746
.720
351
35
.360
375
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCETON
149
was desired to have produced, which uncertainty was in some cases
due both to ignorance of the available stocks and to uncertainty as to
future requirements. While prices were generally fixed on the basis of
cost, there were necessarily many exceptions. Sometimes no costs
were available. Sometimes cost was only partly available as a basis,
as in the case of " joint products " and of products for which com-
plete cost data did not exist. Sometimes, again, no effort was made
to use cost, as in the case of substitutes whose prices were fixed on
the basis of the commodity in the place of which they might be used.
In a few instances the price was fixed without regard to cost, merely
on the basis of preexisting prices, such prices being taken for what
was presumably a normal period. Perhaps the chief difficulty in most
cases was to ascertain a fair return on investment. This phase of
the matter was never satisfactorily dealt with by any U.S. price-
fixing agency during the war. The Federal Trade Commission in
connexion with its cost findings frequently reported to the Price-
Fixing Committee of the War Industries Board a figure representing
the investment, but time did not permit the careful investigation
that would have been necessary to ascertain the actual money in-
vested, nor was the attitude of the price-fixing agency, as a rule, one
which favoured the strict construction of " investment." In general,
it may be said that in a majority of the price-fixing operations of the
War Industries Board, some consideration was given to the estimated
investment, and that in such cases the figure used was one which lay
somewhere between the book value claimed by the companies con-
cerned and the actual net investment made. On the other hand, a
majority of the price-fixing operations of such agencies as the Food
Administration appear to have been made on the basis of a margin
(interest and profits) per unit of product, determined upon with
reference to past experience. And of course, exceptions to any usual
practice were at times necessary.
In general there were three chief purposes in fixing prices:
(i) to secure production of needed commodities; (2) to prevent
social unrest by checking profiteering, coordinating food prices
and wages, and stabilizing industrial conditions; (3) to assure
Government economy of purchase. The greatest success was
attained with regard to the first purpose. The accomplishment
of the second, which was more vague, is difficult to measure,
but appears considerable. The most that can be said concerning
the third is that things might have been worse had there been
no price-fixing.
The table on page 148 shows the yearly and quarterly average
prices of important articles whose prices were regulated.
On the whole, it may be said that price-fixing in the United
States suffered from the lack of a programme. No adequate
study was made of interrelations between commodities or of the
various complicated factors affecting demand and supply. No
general principles were formulated. Too frequently, each step
was taken up as a separate proposition. Much trouble would
have been saved by a better understanding among the different
price-fixing agencies and by the adoption of certain broad
fundamental principles, such as the basis for determining
marginal cost and the basis for determining investment. There
should have been a general board of strategy to supervise the
entire price-fixing programme and to coordinate it with the
Government's fiscal arrangements and with the various steps
taken to control the production and consumption through
priorities and rationing. Some progress was made in this
direction, but it remains true that the price-fixing operations
were not sufficiently correlated with taxation and borrowing
(inflation) on the one hand, and with rationing and priorities on
the other. (L. H. H.)
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND (see 22.344). The pop. of this
Canadian province in 1911 was 93,728, having sunk from 109,078
in 1891. It is the most densely populated province in Canada,
with 42-92 persons to the square mile. In 1911 the origin of the
people was: Scots 36,772; English 22,176; Irish 19,900; French
13,117; all other nationalities 1,763. Charlottetown, the capital
(pop. 11,198 iaign), standing on one of the best harbours in
America, is celebrated as the birthplace of the Canadian Con-
federation, the first conferences having been held there in 1864.
The Legislative Assembly is composed of 1 5 councillors elected
on a property qualification, and 1 5 members elected on a popular
franchise. The Executive Government consists of nine members.
The superintendent of education acts as secretary to the
board and administers the system through school inspectors.
In 1920 there were 468 schools, 597 teachers, and a total enrol-
ment of 17,861 pupils; the expenditure was $268,547 in 1919.
Prince Edward Island has been aptly described as the garden
province of the Dominion, more resembling an English shire than a
Canadian province. The population is almost entirely agricultural,
and practically the whole island has been cleared and brought under
cultivation. The soil of the island is best suited for oats and pota-
toes, which are the staple crops. Wheat is grown for local purposes
only. Maize, for fodder, and barley are grown. Cattle and hogs
flourish. The total value of field crops in 1920 was $18,530,400.
Poultry-raising and dairying are extensively and profitably carried
on. Beef and bacon, as well as fruit, poultry, butter, cheese, eggs
and potatoes, are exported in large quantities to neighbouring
provinces, Newfoundland and the New England states. Coopera-
tive dairying was begun in 1891 and the growth of the industry has
been rapid. A new source of revenue began in 1910 with the breeding
of black foxes and the industry of fur-farming was developed. About
$10,000,000 had already been invested in this industry in 1918, in
which year the sale of fox pelts realized over $750,000. In 1919
300 fur ranches sold skins and live animals to the value of $1,500,000,
and in 1920 there were approximately 1 1,000 pairs of black foxes on
the ranches of the island.
The once celebrated Malpeque oyster has almost become extinct
through disease. The lobster industry is also on the decline. The
value of the fisheries in 1919 was $1,536,844, the catch including cod,
herring, mackerel, oysters and lobsters. The men employed in the
industry numbered about 6,000.
No mining is carried on. Manufacturing is connected chiefly with
the preparation of foods such as butter and cheese. Pork-packing
and lobster-canning are large and growing industries. The value of
manufactured products was $3,136,470 in 1911.
The strait of Northumberland separates Prince Edward Island
from the mainland, the distance across varying from 9 to 31 miles.
At the narrowest point a railway-car ferry established in 1918 by the
Dominion Government connects the Canadian National railway sys-
tem of the mainland with that on Prince Edward Island, and affords
continuous connexion summer and winter across the strait. This is
the principal highway of transportation to and from the island
province, but the ferry service is occasionally interrupted by ice and
the substitution of a tunnel has been advocated. (W. L. G.*)
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY (see 22.347). -In Sept. 1910
President Wilson accepted the Democratic nomination for
governor of New Jersey and resigned the presidency of the
university. In Jan. 1912 Prof. John Grier Hibben, of the fac-
ulty, was elected president. His administration was marked by
further development of student self-government, the conduct-
ing of discipline and general student activities and the regula-
tion of athletics being in 1921 shared by undergraduate represen-
tatives and university officers. Especial attention was paid to
the scientific safeguarding of student health and physical fitness
by careful periodical examinations and required supervised
athletics. The potential effectiveness of the alumni organization
was increased by the formation of a National Alumni Association,
whose working administrative centre was the Graduate Coun-
cil of about 100, representing the graduate classes, the alumni
associations, and different regional districts of the country. The
national character of the university was expressly recognized by
the addition of regional trustees to the governing board, and
also by the establishment of a large number of regional compet-
itive scholarships.
On the scholastic side, the entrance requirements and the under-
graduate curriculum were completely revised. To put the university
into closer touch with American secondary education, especially the
high schools, Greek was no longer required (although strongly
advised) for the A.B. degree. The Litt.B. degree was discontinued.
The elective principle was broadened so as to bridge the gaps be-
tween preparatory school and college, and underclass and upper-
class years, giving the student in his underclass years a broad general
training in subjects deemed fundamental to real education, and in
his upperclass years requiring him to follow continuous work in one
of three divisions of studies, the literary-philosophical, the historical-
economic, or the mathematical-scientific. The regulations governing
admission to the graduate school, and in particular to candidacy
for the competitive fellowships, the awards of which depend entirely
on scholarship and ability, attracted to the school an increasing
number of select advanced students in liberal studies. The erection
of the residential graduate college in 1913 rendered permanent what
had previously been an experimental and, in America, an unique fea-
ture of the Princeton graduate school, namely, the provision of
adequate living quarters for graduate students, who there shared a
common scholarly life amid attractive conditions. The graduate
college accommodated in 1921 about 100 students.
During the World War over 5,000 undergraduates and graduates
were in Service; about 3,000 receiving commissions, and 284 receiv-
ing 293 decorations and citations. The honour roll of those who gave
150
PRISONERS OF WAR
up their lives numbered 149. The entrance atrium of Nassau hall
was converted into a memorial to these men, and a scholarship has
been founded in memory of each. During the war nearly half of the
faculty was on leave of absence, either in military and naval service,
or in the scientific war service of the American, British or French
Governments. The student body was cut more than half; buildings
were occupied by a Government school of ariation and a naval
paymasters' school, while the laboratories were turned over to Govern-
ment use. With the institution of the student army training corps,
and the naval training unit, virtually the entire university and its
equipment were devoted to national purposes, the number of civil-
ian students being about 75, rejected from service for physical
disabilities. After the return of peace, effort was concentrated on
increasing the inadequate endowment of the university, and the
sum of over $8,000,000 was raised. A bequest from the late Henry
C. Frick, not yet received in 1921, was expected to amount to about
$5,000,000. In the year 1920-1 the faculty numbered 213, the under-
graduate body 1, 814, the graduate students 149, as against, in 1909-10,
169 faculty members, 1,266 undergraduates and 134 graduate
students. Besides the graduate college, which includes the Cleve-
land tower, a national memorial to President Grover Cleveland, a
trustee of Princeton, the buildings erected beween 1912 and 1921
were Holder hall (a dormitory), Madison hall (the university
dining halls, where all underclass men are required to take their
meals), Cuyler hall (a dormitory), the Palmer Memorial football
stadium, and the University boat house (headquarters of the rowing
activities of the university). In May 1920 Dickinson hall and Mar-
quand chapel were destroyed by fire. (V. L. C.)
PRISONERS OF WAR (see 28.314*). The procedure laid
down by international agreement for the treatment of Prisoners
of War under the Hague regulations was tested during the
.World War under unprecedented difficulties. These arose not
only from the passions and prejudices inevitably engendered in
th: course of such a vast conflict between the entire manhood
of the nations concerned, but also from the facts that unexpect-
edly large numbers of combatants were taken prisoners, and
that the captors had to deal with men of different nationalities,
of varying characteristics and with widely different views as to
the accommodation and food requisite for a prisoner of war.
Probably few people realized during the war how vast was
the number of combatant prisoners taken by one side or the
other, or how small was the proportion of the British prisoners
to the whole number. Though the final figures cannot be given
otherwise than approximately, it is certain that they amounted
to several millions. To name only the principal belligerents
(excluding Russia), Great Britain claims to have taken just
under half a million, France just over that number, Italy nearly
one million, Germany two and a half millions and Austria nearly
one and a half millions. With regard to Russia the numbers
have never been even approximately ascertained, but some
idea of them may be gathered from the fact that Austria alone
admitted to having lost to the Russians not less than one and a
half millions. To the list must be added the prisoners cap-
tured by the Americans (48,000 in number), and by the Turks,
Bulgarians and the other lesser belligerents. Of this vast host
only about 200,000 (probably not much more than 2%) were
British, and about 185,000 of these were in the hands of
Germany.
When it is further remembered that sometimes in the course
of a single operation tens of thousands of men, many of them
wounded, were added to the number captured earlier, it will be
understood how great was the strain placed on the captors'
resources in the matter of transport, care and feeding. More-
over, prisoners were taken in almost every part of the globe in
every kind of climate, and in conditions in which the means of
supply and transport varied from being comparatively complete
to being almost non-existent. Even if all the belligerent Govern-
ments had been actuated by the most earnest desire to apply
strictly the provisions of the Hague Convention it was inevita-
ble that there should be much suffering and, owing to the diffi-
culty of effective supervision, cases of cruelty and ill-treatment
at the hands of individuals.
It must be recognized that, speaking generally, the adminis-
trative problems in relation to the treatment of prisoners were
not so serious in Great Britain as in most of the belligerent
States, but it is satisfactory to be able to record that they were
humanely and for the most part satisfactorily solved as they
arose. It is on the other hand unfortunately true that, quite
apart from the misery inseparable from prolonged confinement,
numbers of British prisoners underwent gratuitous and grievous
suffering, especially in territory merely occupied by the enemy
and at some of the working camps in Germany, in Bulgaria and
in Turkey.
While something is said below with regard to the treatment
of prisoners by the Bulgarians and Turks, it is impossible here
to attempt to deal with the whole area of hostilities and with
the multitude of questions relating to prisoners which arose
between the belligerents. This article, therefore, will deal
chiefly with the lot of prisoners in Great Britain and Germany,
and the application of the Hague regulations in those countries.
Though discussions arose as to the position of such persons as
reservists and officers of merchant ships, prisoners of war may
be divided into two main classes: (i) Civilian, (2) Combatant.
(i). Civilian. It is quite certain that the framers of the
Hague Convention had not in view the treatment of persons
other than combatants, but such large numbers of civilians were
interned during the war that the arrangements made for them
must shortly be considered.
The internment of civilians in both Great Britain and in Ger-
many was, as a system, possibly due to two accidental but
different causes. In Great Britain it arose first from the wide-
spread belief, justified probably only in a relatively small num-
ber of cases, that the German civilian population in England
were either spies in the service of the German Government or
an advance guard of a German army of occupation. After this
feeling had died down, and release from internment had become
general, the system had again to be resorted to after the sinking
of the " Lusitania," largely in deference to wide-spread indigna-
tion at that outrage and for the protection of the Germans them-
selves. Even then, however, internment was not general.
Every enemy alien had a right to have his case dealt with by
an advisory committee, of which Mr. Justice Sankey was chair-
man and Lord Justice Younger was a member, and by this com-
mittee many exemptions were granted.
In Germany, on the other hand, the internment of civilians
ultimately much more indiscriminate than in the United King-
dom resulted from popular indignation in Germany at the
entry of Great Britain into the war.
Thus it was that in both countries in England by end of Oct.
1914 and in Germany by Nov. 1914 nearly every male enemy
national of military age was interned, and the system, as applied
to civilians, became established in both countries, although its
working in Great Britain was later modified in the manner re-
ferred to above.
Accommodation. The accommodation in both countries was
bad in the beginning. In Great Britain some prisoners were at
first placed on board ships, but this was found to be unsatis-
factory for many reasons. Considerable numbers of aliens were
sent to the Newbury race-course, where they lived in loose boxes
without any beds and without any adequate sanitary or cooking
arrangements; as numbers increased tents were added and
various improvements made, but the place was never satisfac-
tory, and it was closed soon after the weather broke in the
autumn. It is only mentioned because it seems more than
probable that, characteristically enough, Ruhleben (itself a
race-course) was selected by the Germans for the internment of
British civilians as a reply to Newbury. The problem of finding
adequate accommodation was difficult in England where there
were eventually some 29,000 Germans interned out of a con-
siderably larger number not interfered with. In Germany the
difficulty must have been even greater, as in addition to two and
a half million combatants there were nearly 112,000 civilian
internees of different nationalities to be provided for; of these
only between 5,000 and 6,000 were British. 1
1 There were in addition to German civilians interned in England
a comparatively small number of internees of other nationalities and
nearly 20,000 more in other parts of the Empire. The whole of the
prisoners in German hands were of course confined in Germany or
the occupied districts.
* These figures indicate the volume and page number of the previous article.
PRISONERS OF WAR
151
After the early unsatisfactory camps in England were closed,
civilians were confined in large institutions of different kinds,
but eventually far the largest number was placed in the Isle of
Man, where there was created at Knockaloe a huge camp con-
taining at last some 23,000 prisoners. There were also two
" privilege camps " at Douglas and Wakefield, where those
possessed of means could, upon payment, secure a certain amount
of privacy and comfort, and employ as their servants other
prisoners desirous of earning a little money. There was also
Islington Workhouse, perhaps the best place of all, where enemy
civilians with British-born wives, or some other claim to con-
sideration, were interned.
In Germany the lot of those who were first arrested was worse
than in England. They were cast into the ordinary prisons
and treated like convicted criminals. After no long time, how-
ever, most of them were transferred to Ruhlcben, which, with
the exception of Schloss Celle, where a certain number of elderly
civilians, whose status was somewhat uncertain, were placed,
became the place of confinement for all British civilians.
Ruhleben was a race-course near Berlin, with stables, grand-
stand and all the usual appurtenances of a race-course. The
prisoners were housed in the loose boxes and attics without at
first any beds, though eventually ships' berths were fitted, six
to a box. As the numbers grew, huts were added. The washing
and sanitary arrangements, at first rudimentary only, were never
satisfactory. No arrangements were made by the Germans for
the housing of the prisoners according to their vocational or
social affinities a real boon in the case of civilians. They were
allowed, however, ultimately to some extent to sort themselves.
Management. At first in both countries the camps were
conducted on military lines, but eventually the interned persons
were left to manage the internal affairs of the camps very much
by themselves. A camp captain was elected by them, and
captains of huts or other divisions. The camp captain was the
official medium of communication with the authorities.
Work and Recreation. It was recognized in both countries
that civilians might not be forced to do any work beyond what
was necessary for the orderliness of the camp. This was a
doubtful privilege, and the prisoners' want of occupation led to
difficulties in maintaining discipline. In the latter stages of the
war, at all events in England, a small proportion of prisoners
volunteered to work in order to escape the ennui of camp life,
and for some 1,500 out of the whole number, useful work was
found, mainly in agriculture. No British civilians did any work
outside the camps in Germany.
But much was done by the prisoners themselves. Workshops
were organized and equipped with the assistance of the Y.M.C.A.
(British and American), and other similar organizations. The
difficulty in England was to find a market for the produce of the
workshops, owing to the objections raised to the prisoners com-
peting with British workmen. This was overcome by sending
the articles manufactured to neutral countries.
Besides this form of manual occupation, classes were formed
and lectures delivered, and students were enabled to continue
their studies so far as their circumstances permitted, and a
small number were employed in administrative work.
Medical Care. Provision was made in England for the
civilian prisoners by small hospitals in each place of internment,
for the treatment of minor and urgent cases, while some who
had been residents in Great Britain before the war were treated
in outside institutions.
At Ruhleben a lazaret to which any prisoners could go was
established at the Emigrants' Railway Station, close to the
camp. The place had previously been used by a low class, and
was filthy. The sanitation was bad, and the accommodation
of the roughest description, while the attention given to the
patients was, to say the least, perfunctory; a doctor came once a
day, and there were no nurses or orderlies. After the first dis-
organization was remedied, there was what was called the
Revier Barracke, with a waiting and consultation room, in which
.the doctor examined those requiring advice. The place had
accommodation for emergency cases and those suffering from
accidents, and persons were kept under observation till it was
decided what should be done with them. From here patients
were drafted either to the lazaret above mentioned, or to Dr.
Weiler's Sanatorium outside but near the camp, established at
the suggestion of the American ambassador for the better treat-
ment of the prisoners, in return for a substantial payment made
either by the British Government, or by the patients themselves.
Besides these there was the Schonungs Barracke, a place for
convalescents and the ailing. Though the building was pro-
vided by the German Government, the place owed its existence
and all its amenities to the self-denying labours of Mr. Lambert,