LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 University of California. 
 
 GIFT OF 
 
 LL^^f^.^r\^. 
 
 Class 
 
t!i 
 
 >^" 
 
 THE PATH TO PEACE 
 
 Reprinted 
 From the London Times^^ of June 19, 1909 
 
 f Slightly revised) 
 
 By 
 
 ANDREW CARNEGIE 
 
 President 
 
 OFTH£ " 
 
 Of / 
 
 THE PEACE SOCIETY 
 OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 
 
 507 FIFTH AVENUE 
 NEW YORK 
 

 .t' 
 
 0^ 
 
 THE PEACE SOCIETY 
 OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 
 
 President 
 ANDREW CARNEGIE 
 
 Secretary Treasurer 
 
 SAMUEL T. BUTTON ASTOR TRUST COMPANY 
 
 Carl Lorentzen, Auditor 
 
 Vice-Presidents 
 
 Lyman Abbott John Bassett Moore 
 
 R. Fulton Cutting Robert C. Ogden 
 
 Richard Watson Gilder Alton B. Parker 
 
 Charles E. Hughes George Foster Peabody 
 
 William R. Huntington Horace Porter 
 
 Henry M. McCracken Elihu Root 
 
 George B. McClellan Oscar S. Straus 
 Horace White 
 
 Executive Committee 
 
 Andrew Carnegie Charles E. Jefferson 
 
 John B. Clark George W. Kirchwey 
 
 Thomas Cochran, Jr. Frederick Lynch 
 
 Samuel T. Button Marcus M. Marks 
 
 Robert Erskine Ely Miss Mary J. Pierson 
 
 Mrs. Charles H. Farnsworth Mrs. Anna Garlin Spencer 
 
 Hamilton Holt Robert C. Watchorn 
 
 Board of Birectors 
 
 Mrs. Robert Abbe Marcus M. Marks 
 
 Alfred J. Boulton William H. Maxwell 
 
 S. Parkes Cadman John E. Milholland 
 
 John B. Clark William C. Muschenheim 
 
 Robert Erskine Ely George A. Plimpton 
 
 Charles P. Fagnani George Haven Putnam 
 
 Mrs. Charles H. Farnsworth Miss Mary J. Pierson 
 
 John H. Finley Ernst Richard 
 
 Algernon S. Frissell Lindsay Russell 
 
 Hamilton Holt Wm. Jay Schieffelin 
 
 Charles E. Jefferson Charles Sprague Smith 
 
 George W. Kirchwey Mrs. Anna Garlin Spencer 
 
 Henry M. Leipziger James Speyer 
 
 Frederick Lynch Mrs. Henry Villard 
 
 William A. Marble Robert C. Watchorn 
 
 Executive Secretary 
 WILLIAM H. SHORT 
 
 507 FIFTH AVENUE 
 NEW YORK 
 
THE PATH TO PEACE 
 
 Your New York correspondent advised you by wire 
 of the proceedings of meetings of the Peace Societies 
 of New York and Chicago, which called upon our 
 President to exert his influence for peace and 
 "especially to secure an agreement among the powers 
 for a speedy arrest of the ruinous competition of 
 armaments now prevailing." 
 
 The New York meeting suggested his inviting a 
 conference of the powers, which I, as President of 
 the Society, approved, but I am bound to say that 
 subsequent travel in Europe has modified my views. 
 It is not from America, but from Britain, such invi- 
 tation should come. 
 
 Wherever one travels upon the continent to-day the 
 chief subject of conversation among intelligent men 
 is the British Dreadnought and its consequences, i 
 Dreadnoughts might and probably would have been; 
 introduced sooner or later by another nation than, 
 Britain but, unfortunately for her, they were not. V 
 It is the British Dreadnought the people hear of in ^ 
 other countries, and she alone is blamed for the seri- 
 ous consequences flowing from its introduction. ' 
 
 There seems no possibility of preventing the other 
 naval powers from following the example of Britain 
 and Germany, and altho our industrial Republic has 
 nothing to covet and has repeatedly refused to give 
 the Executive more than one half the battleships 
 demanded, it may be impossible to prevent even her 
 from increasing her fleet rapidly like the others. Thus 
 no power will gain much in naval strength over 
 another, for relatively their positions will remain sub- 
 stantially as before. These enlarged navies, instead/ 
 of tending to ensure peace, will increase the danger of 
 war. 
 
 What a strange spectacle the naval powers present 
 
 188038 
 
to-day! Go where one will, he hears the men in 
 power lamenting the necessity forced upon them for 
 increasing armaments, one after the other explaining 
 that they must increase their navy and this only for 
 "protection." 
 
 The Emperor of Germany and Prince Von Buelow 
 urge nothing for their increased armaments except 
 "protection" for their commerce and their coasts. 
 
 The latter addressed the following message to the 
 British ministers of the Prince of Peace: 
 
 "I sincerely hope that our guests and Christian 
 brethren will bring the conviction home and publish 
 the fact that there is living on this side of the North 
 Sea a peaceful and laborious people which heartily 
 desires, as well as its Government, to live peacefully 
 in friendship and neighborliness with its brethren 
 beyond the Channel." 
 
 Not a voice is raised in Britain except for needed 
 protection from assault. So with the good men of 
 France. So with Austria and Italy. So with Presi- 
 dent Taft, who recently wrote: 
 
 "The policy of the United States in avoiding war 
 under all circumstances except those plainly incon- 
 sistent with honor or its highest welfare has been 
 made so clear to the world as hardly to need statement 
 at my hands. I can only say that so far as my 
 legitimate influeuQe extends while at the head of this 
 Government, it will always be exerted to the full 
 in favor of peace, not only as between this country 
 and other countries, but as between our sister nations." 
 (Italics are mine.) 
 
 One leader is more insistent than another that his 
 country's aim is to secure peace, the only end it has 
 in view. If this be untrue, there is not an Emperor, 
 King, President, nor Prime Minister in the world 
 to-day who does not perjure himself every now and 
 1 then, protesting that his country desires nothing but 
 'to live in neighborly friendship with all others. 
 
 4 
 
r 
 
 Are these public men, who have risen to eminence 
 and enjoy the confidence of their fellow-countrymen, 
 perjuring themselves? No, far from this; they speak 
 the sober truth from the heart. They feel what they 
 utter. The desire for peace is genuine. "Give us 
 peace in our time, O Lord," is the prayer of civilized 
 nations and rulers. Ambassador Bryce, speaking at 
 the Peace Conference in America, corroborates this. 
 He says: 
 ) "Every nation is conscious of its own rectitude of 
 ' purpose and believes its armaments are for its own 
 safety and will not be used aggressively." 
 
 This being accepted, unfounded suspicion must be 
 the root of all this trouble. Every additional battle- 
 ship tends to convert suspicion in neighboring nations 
 into hatred, and then a misinterpreted word, move- 
 ment or accident, which would otherwise have^'^Beeh 
 easily explained, becomes the cause of war. For war 
 usually arises not directly from the possession of 
 armaments by a nation but from the suspicions 
 aroused in neighboring nations by the creation of these 
 armaments. Hence the impossibility of increased 
 armaments ever being conducive to peace. Suspicion, 
 fear, hatred, and hence the danger of war, 'increase in 
 compound ratio as armaments increase. 
 
 It is the old story ; two neighbors have a slight mis- 
 understanding which mutual explanations would 
 readily have dispelled, but one in an unguarded 
 moment says to the other, "I'll make you behave like 
 a gentleman." "You can't do it," is the ready re- 
 sponse. One decides to buy a pistol, not for use, but 
 solely for "protection" if attacked. Hearing this the 
 other feels he must have "protection" also. The first 
 substitutes a six-chambered revolver just to be dead 
 certain of protection. The other follows, just to be 
 dead cettain. also. If the insurance company knew of 
 this misunderstanding the life .premiums of these two 
 citizens would rise in geometrical progression with 
 
each added weapon. Fortunately the law in civilized 
 nations, founded upon experience which shows that 
 a hundred deadly feuds occur where men go armed 
 to one where it is prohibited, steps in and prohibits 
 private armaments and punishes the law-breakers. 
 Britain and France played the part of the foolish 
 neighbors fifty years ago. To-day it is Britain and 
 Germany. 
 
 Nearly a century ago (1817), Canada and America 
 agreed that upon the inland seas, which constitute 
 their boundary for hundreds of miles, each should 
 place one 100-ton vessel armed with one 38-pounder. 
 The tiny craft, one flying the Union Jack and the 
 other the Stars and Stripes, have never fired a shot 
 except in friendly salute to each other, and unbroken 
 peace has been preserved. If the world had its police 
 force on the seas, there would be the "protection from 
 assault," which each naval power declares it only 
 desires and is increasing its navy solely to ensure. 
 There would remain no enemy from whom "pro- 
 tection" was needed. Commerce would be immune. 
 The naval nations would be as one in friendly alliance. 
 
 Our English-speaking race has developed Parlia- 
 mentary Government, abolished the last vestige of 
 human slavery from civilized lands, was first to 
 abolish private war between men, and was also promi- 
 nent in abolishing piracy upon the seas. Why should 
 Britain as the foremost naval power and the mother- 
 land of our race hesitate to invite the other naval 
 powers to confer with a view to peace, and as a 
 means of securing it suggest that they combine in 
 abolishing war upon the seas, following the British- 
 American example ? Let this be freely discussed with 
 other suggestions. There is nothing startling or new 
 in this plan. It would follow a highly successful 
 precedent covering a century. Three or four powers 
 could be named which, united to-day to ensure peace 
 upon the seas, would be sufficient, but many more 
 
 6 
 
would respond to Britain's call. Surely, few, if any, 
 would decline. Why should they? How could they, 
 their aim being peace, as they all proclaim? Those 
 who declined would reveal themselves the enemies of 
 mankind. The peaceful powers accepting might so 
 greatly preponderate as to see their way to form a 
 League of Peace, and ships of war, except the few 
 needed for police duty, would be unneeded, just as 
 they have long been and are to-day upon the inland 
 seas of North America, and would be left to rust at 
 their docks. No nation would commit itself to any- 
 thing by accepting an invitation to a conference. Any 
 action taken could be made subject to ratification by 
 the governments. 
 
 So easy the solution seems that to many it may 
 
 lappear unworthy of consideration. But great crises 
 
 ihave usually easy solutions because, being the product 
 
 I of grave mistakes or great wrongs, total reversal of the 
 
 I policy pursued is what is needed. Here is the key to 
 
 the present situation. There is nothing speculative 
 
 about this proved solution of the very question which 
 
 disturbs the nations to-day. Tho it may be rejected 
 
 now, the day will nevertheless come, and that I believe 
 
 soon, when this stone which the builders reject shall 
 
 become the head of the corner. It has proved itself 
 
 the panacea for war upon the seas. 
 
 Has our race lost the breed of great statesmen or is 
 there to-day a Prime Minister and Cabinet in Britain 
 composed of men who dare be great and thus lead the 
 nations out of bondage to the false god of war, becom- 
 ing the foremost body of statesmen of all time by 
 having rendered mankind the greatest service? Or is 
 such an invitation to the powers to be the beneficent 
 act of others more zealous in the cause of peace? 
 Even to attempt and fail for the time in such a 
 cause would give to the participants lasting place 
 among those whom coming generations are to hold in 
 honor. 
 
The policy of conciliation pursued by Britain has 
 recently proved its claims to favor by brilliant suc- 
 cesses, both in South Africa and in India. She is 
 entitled to adopt as her motto, and none is so well 
 adapted to the present crisis, "First all means to con- 
 ciliate." Britain has also won favor in other lands 
 by the calm, firm moderation displayed by her Gov- 
 ernment and its refusal to be stampeded into unneces- 
 sary armaments, which would only add fuel to the 
 flame abroad, and when for years to come its naval 
 supremacy is perfectly secure. It has avoided bluster 
 and maintained a dignified reserve. 
 
 Mr. Editor, in all truth and soberness, it should no 
 longer be permissible for any two powers in jealous 
 rivalry to build Dreadnoughts contingent upon what 
 each other may do, thus compelling all other naval 
 powers to follow their ruinous and, in this the twen- 
 tieth century, saddening example, or to become de- 
 fenceless. 
 
 This is no mere German-British affair. It is a 
 world-wide issue, and the next step, momentous as it 
 may prove for good or evil, is apparently for Britain 
 to take as the inventor and first adopter of the 
 Dreadnought. 
 
 Whatever the final result, if Britain played the part 
 of peacemaker, as suggested, she would have the 
 moral support of the enlightened public sentiment of the 
 world with her, a tower of strength. If repulsed she 
 would have her quarrel just. It is not for any non- 
 citizen to advise; she will choose her own path; cer- 
 tain it is, however, she could play no nobler part nor 
 one that would redound in history more to her honor 
 and glory, illustrious as that history is, for henceforth 
 it is the triumphs of peace through conciliation, not 
 those of brutal war through the slaughter of our 
 fellowmen, that are to make nations venerated in after 
 
 I write as one who loves his native land. 
 
 8 
 
 tS^f. 
 
188038