Ids 3 
 
 /y33 
 
 i 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 B 3 fi^M ^2^ 
 
RUNG CHAP BOOKS 
 
 iDAKICHI HARTMANN 
 
 rmanent Peace : 
 it a Dream ? 
 
 UTED BY GUIDO BRUNO IN HIS GARRET ON 
 ASHINGTON SQUARE. NEW YORK 
 
 ctobcr 1915 Fifteen Cents 
 
H-33 
 
 BRUNO CHAP BOOKS 
 
 Vol. 2 OCTOBER 1915 No. 4 
 
 Permanent Peace: Is it a Dream? 
 
 By Sadakichi Hartmann 
 
 \V^H01:\'I:R has strolled tliroush the palace of Versailles, 
 through the endless picture galleries, one suite of rooms 
 followiiii; the other, tilled with nothing hut battle paintings and 
 military scenes, mostly of enormous size and mediocre work- 
 manship, must have felt weary and amazed, a dull sort of irrita- 
 tion and indignation, at this waste of effort and this persistent 
 rlnrification of warfare. But a sojourn in Berlin proves even 
 more nauseating in this respect. On every square, at the end 
 of every thoroughfare looms some soldier monument, equestrian 
 figure, victory column ; entire avenues are flanked with portrait 
 statues of former war heroes, as if the population were devoted 
 exclusively to the worship of Mars and I'.cl!i)na. Mvcn v.e, 
 an unmilitary though not necessarily more peace-loving nation 
 (we have a record of eighteen wars and disturhances 1. insist 
 on dotting out parks and squares with hard bronzcn statues 
 of military men. while poets, scientists, statesmen and philan- 
 thropists are thrown in only occasionally for good measure. 
 
 There is something strangely inconsistent ahcut this homage 
 to fighting men, when we consider the troubled times of the 
 past wherever violence becanie a i^ece^sity ami the joy over 
 victories was mingled with sorrow and suflfering. It sei-ms that 
 the fascination is primarily one of the senses. We all are 
 fond of show and parades, hunting and flags, brass band an<I 
 shouting, the excitement of the crowd. Tl'.e acciTituated meas- 
 ures of narch music and patriotic airs affect us like some 
 physical stimulant; and there is something irresistible i:i a man 
 in uniform to women, which even Bourget could not explain. 
 As for actual Jvcrvice! It is not fancied quite as nuich. How 
 many of our (ierman population have left heme and f.Ttht-r- 
 land to evade compulsory servite ! Still, there se<-m to he at 
 all times plenty of young men who fancy an adventurous ex- 
 ist- ! prefer to be provided for insfcid <>f trving to 
 n- wn career. For her colonial warf.nre (ire.nt I'.ritain 
 ha- i ■■ i. ,..ulty in recruiting a s'lfticj^nt number of Nolnnteers, 
 and there is no gainsay that T'»tnmy Atkins is tl;e genuine 
 soldier, by entering the service voluntarily and regarding it as 
 a rrgular profession, and that there is sometliing fascinating. 
 
 mSOoOTo 
 
54 Bruno Chap Books 
 
 wild and strange in the pursuit. American recruiting is less 
 successful because it lacks the glamor, change and excitement 
 of British service. 
 
 Yet no man, and woman still less, in times of peace, reasoning 
 logically, would deny that war is a terrible calamity. There 
 they lie in trenches oposite each other, their feet in mud, 
 exposed to rain, heat and cold, fed like Spartans, shooting away 
 at some unknown opponent and shot at again in return, fre- 
 quently killed or maimed for life without having seen the 
 enemy. What are their thoughts during the long nightwatches 
 lit up only with searchlights, rockets and fiery shells? 
 
 They have no interest at stake in this mole work, no cause 
 at issue in these endless attacks and counter attacks, no passion 
 or hatred to gratify. They are mostly men from the ordinary 
 walks of life, torn away from their humble vocations, forced 
 to leave their family, women, old folks and children, to shift 
 for themselves. They are summoned to the fields by the 
 authorities and now set their hearts against bayonets and by 
 command press madly to some battery's blazing tier. 
 
 Is there anything more unjust than to have women give life 
 to male offspring, to rear them to manhood, merely to see 
 them march away to be killed from afar just as if they were 
 cattle raised for the slaughter house. 
 
 And what atones for the mother's agony, for starvation and 
 destitution, for homes destroyed by shell and fire, for children 
 sent adrift and outraged daughters? 
 
 But is it not all for the glory of the nation, for the defense 
 of the flag, for the protection of the home, for self preservation, 
 libert}', safety, future welfare! So they are told, and the 
 naiiJC of the dead soldier is used to glorify the bloody deeds 
 of war, that others may follow without questioning. 
 
 Why are wars fought? There are now eleven countries en- 
 gaged in war, more may be drawn into it at any moment. 
 
 Can any layman discern and explain 'the different sources 
 from whence the present events have taken rise ! 
 
 The Germans are said to fight for their country, for the de- 
 feat of Pan Slavism, the Allies for self preservation, to subdue 
 German militarism. One could just as well assert that they 
 fight for the control of China. And "so each nation claims to 
 have been forced into it and to fight for the right, while they 
 compete in reality for commercial supremacy. War is the 
 logical result of eager competition. Whenever a nation is be- 
 coming too powerful, and endangering the money and trade 
 interests of other countries, a declaration of war is brought 
 about, to balance matters and to stop progress, momentarily 
 at least, where it is not wanted. Goods made in Germany have 
 been too successful not to arouse envy. In a few years the 
 scale of events may turn, and they may be all fighting Russia. 
 Tust as Japan will be engaged in a prolonged series of wars 
 in the East. Japan needs trade expansion as acutely as its 
 
Bhuno Chap Books S.s 
 
 daily ratioi i rice. So doi ^ China, Siam, Nepal 
 
 and the variuiii dcijciukncics, bul Japan is best prepared to 
 exert itself, it wants t'» reap the harvest and will not mind a 
 lew campaigns of conquest if seriously opposed. 
 
 Wars are invariably fought for strictly material reasons. 
 It is claimed that wars are no longer possible for pure pur- 
 poses of conquest, or the gratification of the whims of some 
 potentate. Is there such a great difference between kings and 
 ruling parties, between conquest and trade or colonial expan- 
 sion. Only the pretext has been changed. Although humanity 
 is sodden with the pursuit of gain, a population might not be 
 quite as obedient al>out going to war, if the reasons urged 
 made not some direct appeal to humanitarian sentiment. There 
 must be a pretext, in the form of an ethical excuse. As to 
 the real cause the masses remain in the dark. It is secret 
 history. War is arranged in tinancial circles with the co- 
 operation of the military party and international diplomacy-. 
 Tho n;oncy interests are in the hands of the few, thus it is 
 capitalism that instigates war, just as the Church and Imperial- 
 ism in former centuries. The casus belli, like the assassination 
 of the .Austrian archduke, at Serajevoi, the Kms despatch, the 
 firing in Fort Sumter, the blowing up of the Maine, is never 
 more than an incident. The honor of a nation does not allow 
 sucli or such a thing to occur, war agitation has generally pre- 
 ceded it, so it is comparatively easy when the moment is ripe 
 to stir up war sentiment and to conceal the real cause, which 
 often originates from no purer source than human passions and 
 selfish motives. 
 
 Tl'.c crusaders marched to Palestine, no doubt, many of them 
 \y\iU fri,. r,.'.,M.,i]s fauaticism. It had been artificially aroused. 
 It pretext, to put an end to occasional Christian 
 
 n- t » regain the possession of the Sepulchre. But 
 
 the real motive of pontifT and princes was to oppose the 
 progress of the Ottomans and to enrich themselves, in short 
 an invasion of conquest and aggrandisement. 
 
 Even in wars of independence, it can hardly l>e said that 
 war is forced upon a country. If abuses in a dependency exist 
 and continue, become insufferable, if there is no redress, then 
 tb- - I'd community is t - ' • ' .:iize its power for 
 
 il' uch a way as is v cure its safety and 
 
 h • >r the future. I •♦ »'■• --■••-'••. are 
 
 sf rial and flow froi;^ rtics. 
 
 T .k was the result i • . ... ation 
 
 a: :.in. The Knglish from modest demands in the 
 
 b- if*rned their program of exploitation more boldly 
 
 ai f-very year. The more powerful party is always 
 
 d 'he part of thr ^^n'-y^T. Wr. on the other hand. 
 
 C' at first, but gradu- 
 
 al changes. Humble 
 
 rctIl")^^traIn:c^ tii.mgcn ii-.to rev >ii:t:' 'Mary ucinands. It was im- 
 
56 Bruno Chap Books 
 
 possible to remain indifferent. Little by little the majority was 
 imbued with the spirit of revolt, and the result was war. 
 
 And the cause of our secession war ! Freedom for the slaves 
 was the avowed object of the abolitionist agitation, while be- 
 neath it lurked an unusually vehement party strife of politi- 
 cians. The South had been the most powerful factor in politics. 
 The Northern party leaders coveted this same power. The 
 discontent over the supposed advantages the South derived 
 from the maintenance of slavery also did not help matters. 
 Decked out with humanitarian appeals abolition was made the 
 ostensible issue. The Secessionists resented this and advocated 
 disunion. Through the Missouri Compromise the States were 
 geographically divided, and the long threatened outbreak finally 
 came because both parties (not the masses) could not restrain 
 themselves any longer. The trouble had been brewing for forty 
 years. 
 
 Was Pacific abolition an absolute impossibility? Even "bar- 
 baric" Russia in 1857 accomplished the liberation of the serfs 
 in a peaceful manner. Was it done for the sake of humani- 
 tarian principles? Hardly. It was the dread of a violent peasant 
 uprising. There had been so many peasant insurrections that 
 it was thought wisest to make the sacrifice. In Russia it was 
 the nobility, a small minority, versus the entire farming popu- 
 lation, while here were two parties, equally unprepared and 
 equally resourceful. Both parties felt too strong to make any 
 concessions. The inevitable result was war. 
 
 If it is true that the hostilities of nations are prompted by 
 material contrivances, each war should prove its economic justi- 
 fication. This seems to be difficult to believe, when we consider 
 the enormous war loans and the decline of exports. Take the 
 case of any of the belligerent countries. Each country has 
 been selhng to all the countries she is fighting. The idea that 
 a nation could possibly gain foreign trade by fighting some 
 of her biggest customers, cutting off a considerable percentage 
 of its business seems to be visionary. But it works merely 
 like an investment on a gigantic scale. The momentary losses 
 and the expenditure represent the investment. War means to 
 the victor new openings and opportunities to increase national 
 wealth and prestige. To lose the war is the risk that is run. 
 But even vanquished nations, if not entirely annihilated and 
 annexed, have a wonderful recuperating power. Look at France 
 after the Franco German war, with its World's Exposition in 
 1878. 
 
 The individual is only indirectly a beneficiary. But the 
 strenghtening, development, expansion of the material resources 
 of a nation can not be censured as being a guilty or vain am- 
 bition. What would have happened if we had lost the Inde- 
 pendence war. Another war and another war until we had 
 bought our freedom by roll of cannon and clash of arms. It 
 is now a proposition so remote that it is difficult even to imagine 
 
Bruno CiiAH Hooks 57 
 
 it. liut \sc arc prtnul tli.it it has happened ami coiisiiler it worth 
 all the sacnhccs that were made fur it. And there lies the deep 
 rooted trouhle, if a victorious nation is a hcneficiary, the chancej 
 for a world's peace become very nebulous indeed. 
 
 But the human mind is obstinate, it there must be wars ai 
 there apparently have to be and the individual can do nothiuR 
 to prevent them, it insists at least on "civilized warfare." Uy 
 this is meant Red Cross service and relief funds, a more rational 
 treatment of war prisoners, the regulation of shippiuR. the 
 safety of neutrals, armistices to bury the dead, the prohibition 
 of sacking" evacuated towns, of killing the wounnded and firing 
 on civilians, and all those principles that have been decided 
 upon at the Geneva Conventions to regulate the conduct of an 
 army during war and that are supjiosed somcwiiat to ameloriate 
 evils. It is of no avail. Civilized warfare is a paradox. Warfare, 
 premedidated wholesale slaughter can not be civilized. To send 
 battle ships with their entire crew to the bottom of the sea. 
 to sacrifice an entire regiment in storming an entrenchment, 
 without any special purpose, to have it retaken by the enemy 
 on the morrow, to bombard towns and to figlit big battles 
 where the casualities run into the hundred thousands are in 
 the words of \'oltaire not the work of God but of the devil, 
 some sinister Siwa bent on cruel, merciless destruction. There 
 is no difference whether one is clubbed down with a morning 
 star and pierced by a halberd, or torn to pieces by shrapnel 
 and throttled by asphyxiating gas. One is as barbarous as the 
 other. Only modern war has become more scientifically cruel. 
 The mucular strength has dwindled down to naught. 
 
 As for atrocities: atrocities, acts of savagery, cross viola- 
 tions of rules have occurred in every war, and non-combatants 
 in invaded territories are naturally the scapegoats. But war 
 in itself is such an outrage and atrocity that all minor inci- 
 dents of executions and the killing of neutrals seem trivial 
 beside it. The writer was brought up on atrocity tales of hor- 
 rible mutilations of wounded and dead supposed to have been 
 perpetrated by Zouaves and Turcos on the Franco-German 
 battle fields. It is more than likely that they were not talcs 
 but approximating the truth. Society, even by the infliction of 
 the death penalty, can not alK)lish murder. How then can one 
 expect that, when men arc sent deliberately to slaughter each 
 other, some will not give full vent to their latent murderous 
 instincts and commit heinous crimes just for the sake of com- 
 mitting them, and even gloat over their bloody deeds. But 
 do not blame the offender, the commanding oflicer or even the 
 nation too h3r<ihlv, blame the cati-e and not the efTrct. 
 
 Of course, if it comes to methods of warfare that violate 
 the rights of neutrals, it certainly is proper to demand their 
 discontinuance. Still, if a nation is in sole possession of an 
 etTcctive instrument of destruction that constitutes one of its 
 most powerful and successful weapons, it will surety not be 
 
58 Bruno Chap Books 
 
 abandoned as long as the particular war lasts in which it 
 was first introduced. Wars are fought to do as much damage 
 as possible. The more fatal a weapon is the better it serves 
 the purpose. That such instruments will be denounced as 
 inhuman by those against whom they are employed is only 
 natural. But as long as Zeppelins and submarines were not in 
 operation when the existing international agreements that should 
 govern war were made, any new rules pertaining to them can 
 not be decided upon before the end of the war. Protests of 
 course can be made but they can be settled only diplomatically 
 unless the injured nation also wishes to enter a state of war 
 with the offender. 
 
 Most futile of all is the indignation over the destruction of 
 architectural landmarks like the cathedral of Rheims. I never 
 knew that people cared so much for art in times of peace. 
 I am assuredly a worshipper of art, but I cannot persuade 
 myself that the destruction of the Rheims cathedral, so mar- 
 velously beautiful, is a more deplorable incident than the grief 
 of a single mother who has lost all her sturdy fuUgrown sons 
 in battle. The loss of inanimate things can not be compared 
 to human suffering. And if all the monuments ever erected, 
 all the pictures ever painted, all the architectural masterpieces 
 of the world were destroyed regrettable as these losses would be 
 they would not exceed in importance the lives that were lost. 
 There are enough artists at all times eager to assert themselves. 
 Let them sculpt, let them paint, let them build. Do not deny 
 them the chance. What we need in art is a live interest, con- 
 temporary sympathy, not the affected curiosity of tourists' appre- 
 ciation. 
 
 It is always the non-combatant who indulges in inflammatory 
 rhetoric, who denounces and decries. This is quite natural, 
 the real combatants are kept busy with dodging shrapnel and 
 hand granades while the non-combatants insist on an outlet 
 for their wrought up sympathies. They can not help beating 
 up antagonism, for perfect neutrality is an impossibility. It 
 is possible only to absolute stoicism or philosophical indiffer- 
 ence. Zenos and sceptics are scarce everywhere, and in this 
 country we are all so called hyphenated Americans, and must 
 take sides with one nationality or the other. Perfect amalga- 
 mation is impossible after the age of twenty-one, and nobody 
 can forget his ancestry even in the second and third genera- 
 tion. The memories of childhood, personal habits, customs, 
 food, environment, acquired knowledge, inherited traits and 
 inclinations will forge to the surface and assert their rights. 
 And to be proud of the home of our parents, of the country 
 where we were born and perhaps also educated, do not these 
 emotions constitute the principal germs of the feeling of 
 patriotism? If it is true that even a naturalized German re- 
 mains a good deal of a German, and a Russian a good deal of a 
 Russian, we can only respect them for this steadfastness of 
 
BkCNo Cmai- Rooks Sv 
 
 scruimcuL The bonds which liold alien's to a newly adoptcfl 
 country arc not quite as subtle and deep, they arc governed 
 by duly, by reasoning, the oalli ot allcKiaiice and not so much 
 by sentiment. 
 
 The the inconsistencies of war talk and argument arc 
 plausible enough. Deplorable is only their lack of intelligence 
 and quiet firnuiess. It is astoiiivliiiig what proofs of ignorance 
 and narrow niindedness are otTcrcd by sonic of our citizens 
 who in their daily harrangues indulge in sixteen inch verbs 
 to hurl highly explosive adjectives against their adversaries. 
 
 Nol>ody in war times can be trusted for absolute impar- 
 tiality. Even literary men arc not to be relied upon. They 
 arc swayed too much by their temperament, the picturcsqucness 
 of events and their particular theories. Has not Napoleon been 
 lauded to the sky by Byron and Ilcitie, and utterly damned by 
 Hugo and Tolstoi? Poets a^-c too often the echo of public 
 sentiment, and too easily influenced to show off their talent 
 in inflammatory odes and denunciatory lyrics. The majority 
 of our New Kngland poets turned rabid al)olitionists, even 
 studious I.owell. and coldly reasoning b'nicrson. and Whittier 
 (most extraordinary for a Quaker) shouted himself almost 
 hoarse in his \oices of Freedom. 
 
 But there are higher and noI>ler strains of thought, namely 
 those which emenatc from religion and philosophy. 
 
 If there is a higher standard of the principles of humanity 
 and justice, which according to most religious writings from 
 the Zend Avcsta to Christian Science should govern the con- 
 duct of man and which mankind has accepted for guidance, 
 would we not come to the co-v:lis:on that war is absolutely 
 uncondonable, that it does not iT-atter whr.t nation wins, as 
 the victor as well as the oppone.-.t has contributed a crimson 
 stain on the tattered pages of the history of human progress. 
 What has become of the idea! of the brotherhood of man I 
 Docs not the doctrine Love Thy N'eighlKjr .-Xs Thyself sound 
 like a travesty in the state of pre>cnt events ! Docs it not 
 tread profanely on the cherished scrolls of law and creed! 
 
 We arc prone to put the blame on one individual, while 
 indirectly and from the viewpoint of the highest tribunal, we 
 all are equally at fault. There is too much of the wolf, the 
 fox. the hog in all of us, in Mr. Ki«ckefeller. as well as in you, 
 kind reader, and the writer of thc^e lines. We ourselves, each 
 of us, should aspire to a better, <aner and nobler life, some 
 soul state more lil)cral, more forgiving, less selfish, before we 
 can justly criticise the ebb and flow of human events. 
 
 Humanity must reach a stage where the individual impulse 
 towards good, towards mutual support and peaceful settlement 
 of diflerenccs will he voiced by the masses. When compulsory 
 enrollment and levy in mass will be opposed by a vast majority, 
 when recruiting offices will stand empty and arsenals lie deso- 
 late, when the cannons will be buried among roses (as we 
 
60 Bruno Chap Books 
 
 see in the painting of Wiertz in Brussels) and no ship will 
 leave port except on a peaceful errand. 
 
 Unpractical, wandering thoughts, no doubt, but they were 
 shared by some of the profoundest thinkers, as Kant, Hugo, 
 Grotius, Leibnitz, Voltaire, Lessing, Herder, Bentham, who were 
 all peace propagandists. 
 
 On the other hand there were always some master minds 
 who endorsed the doctrine of revenge, of eye for, eye, and like 
 for like. Tacitus, the historian, believed in the educational 
 discipline of war, and Hegel, the German philosopher, saw in 
 permanent peace a state of deterioration, of lethargy and 
 effeminacy. A trend of thought which found perhaps its most 
 drastic expression in the words of von Moltke "Universal peace 
 is a dream and not even a beautiful one. War is an element 
 of the world system as ordained by God. The noblest virtues 
 are unfolded thereby." 
 
 It can not be denied that some of the finer passions of man, 
 as valor enthusiasm, occasional outbursts of heroism, defiance 
 of death are called forth by warfare. It also fosters a regulated 
 simplicity of life and a temporary feeling of equahty. Cast 
 is forgotten. There are no longer Algerians, Cambodians, 
 Senegalese, Madagascans, only Frenchman. Autonomy is pro- 
 claimed for some downtrodden dependency. It is also said 
 to produce new values and to consume the surplus. The ad- 
 vantages of these developments is more doubtful. Could not 
 the first condition be brought about much more effectively by 
 higher wages and cheaper prices, a more democratic distri- 
 bution of products. Besides it is a fallacy that war accomplishes 
 anything like that. Socialists and labor leaders realize this only 
 too keenly, and the conflict between capital and labor is smoul- 
 dering beneath the very smoke of war. And how can we 
 reconcile the glory of motherhood and opposition to race sui- 
 cide with the theory that the world is over populated and that 
 some means have to be found to take away the surplus. Are 
 these not sickening inconsistencies ! 
 
 .A.nother ethical excuse for war is the establishment of a 
 world's empire. Mohammed believed in subjugation by force, 
 in order to mould mankind into one race with one language, 
 one religion and one God. This ideal of one shepherd and 
 one flock was also the dream of the Pontiff, but in reality 
 little more than a much abused policy. And thus it came to pass 
 that Caliphs, German Emperors and Popes engaged for cen- 
 turies in warfare. And as lasting supremacy could not be 
 accomplished by the sword, it was the cause of incessant fight- 
 ing. Even legion-haunted Rome pretended to hope for universal 
 peace when its boundaries had extended as far as Parthenia, 
 Aethiopea. Germania and Sarmatia. Yet the time never came 
 when the temple of Janns could have been closed for good. 
 Nor was the House of Hapsburg more successful in its days 
 of prime when it endeavored to control Germany, Italy, Hun- 
 
Bhtno Chap n<x)KS f,l 
 
 gary, the N'ctlu'rlaiuls, Spain, a part of Africa and the two 
 Indies by means of a universal monarchy. The process of 
 amalgamation, necessary for such a stupendous task, is of too 
 viow a growth, and the yeast of a hitter kind. .Mso Napoleon 
 persuaded himself that universal peace was the ultimate aim of 
 his wars of conquest. Who would not tremble at such a 
 savior and self ordaiiu-d prescrvator of civilization. He may 
 have been a necessary factor in the development of the human 
 race, but was it worth the sacrifice? During his reign the 
 death rati increased by millions. Thousands of habitations 
 were pillaged and burnt, and every field within the vast fighting 
 areas was ploughed deep with hurrying hoofs and wheels and 
 sown with shot. Not to speak of the vagabondage, libertinism 
 and disdain for human property and life which always follows 
 in the wake of war. 
 
 Whenever there is a war there is much talk about permanent 
 peace and the enforcement of peace and a renewed activity 
 towards getting the nations of the world together and to make 
 peace a natural and practically permanent state. World organi- 
 zation of thi< kind is not a new idea. The problem of inter- 
 national peace has occupied the thoughts of many statesmen and 
 pacifist thinkers. .^bbe de Saint Pierre, with his plan for 
 perpetual peace. publi<;hed in 171.'<, was its first advocate. In 
 this century the Quakers were particularly active. William 
 Allen and later Elihu Burrett founded peace Societies, which 
 helped considerably to bring about the Peace Conventions at 
 Brussels. Paris. Frankfort. London. Kdinburgh. etc.. during 
 the years 1S4S-53. Count Cellon, in Geneva, made propoganda 
 for the cause by opening a correspondence with European rulers 
 in 1830. The most important and scientific work in this direc- 
 tion, however, was done by the Institut de Droite International. 
 a private society, which has made a speciality of the study of 
 international law and published a code of regfulations relating 
 to peace tribunals. 
 
 The idea has also found various expressions recently in the 
 States: the World Court Congress at Cleveland. K.x-President 
 Taft's League to Enforce Peace, David Starr Jordan's peace 
 resolutions, be<;ides a number of peace societies throughout the 
 ronntry inclu'ling the Peace and .Arbitration Society, which at 
 one time had as officers Roosevelt and Dewey and the banker who 
 made the Japanese war loan as treasurer, which impresses one 
 as a rather humurous coincidence. 
 
 It is due to these agit.itions that several international 
 disputes were settled peacefully, as for instance, the Alabama 
 trouble between England and the States which was settled 
 by an arbitral court in C.eneva. 1877. and the dispute over 
 the Baring Sea Seal Fisheries, the decision of which was 
 left to a Paris tribunal, in 1893. But it can hardly be 
 claims that these proceedings prevented war. 
 
 Treaties and peace alliances have hitherto proven of little 
 
62 Bruno Chap Books 
 
 value. If nations make and sign treaties, one should think 
 that they considerd themselves in honor bound to keep them. 
 But they rarely do if the clauses are in any way incon- 
 venient to the ruling parties. A loophole is readily found, 
 and if it were naught but a claim that to uphold the treaty 
 would be false to the best traditions of the country. The lies 
 of a nation are less tangible than those of an individual, 
 and it is hardly credible that arbitration treaties would fare 
 any better. 
 
 Complete disarmement, as advocated by extreme pacifists, 
 with the issuing neutrality, no doubt, would prove a most 
 effective measure for the securing of universal peace. But 
 what is the use of arguing about something that is not 
 feasible. Only minor powers might agree to such a pact, 
 the larger powers could not afford it as they would not trust 
 each other. The present tendency is rather to watch each 
 other, and to work in secrecy for some new death dealing 
 invention which assures increase of power and national 
 security. Partial disarmement is more reasonable, but even 
 when it is agreed upon it does not prove reliable, as shown 
 by the competitive building of dreadnoughts which England 
 and Germany tried to reduce to a minimum for a number 
 of years. In the meanwhile, submarines, an unknown quan- 
 tity, were perfected and upset the whole calculation. 
 
 Nations have to remain armed and in a state of proper 
 national defense, or their voice in peace promotion would 
 hardly be listened to. The old maxim Si vis pacem, para 
 bellum is still the wisest way to maintain peace. Our fortun- 
 ate geographical position has hitherto enabled us to neglect 
 our land forces, whether this policy can be followed in the 
 future is open to conjecture. The introduction of the latest 
 instruments of war with their distance devouring capacity 
 should prompt us to make reasonable provisions for a regular 
 army and coast defense as well as a navy. 
 
 As for the point blank refusal to serve, either by indi- 
 viduals or special sects, there is little hope for any telling 
 result as long as the majority can be swayed by war senti- 
 ment. The trouble is that although ordinarily we shudder 
 at the thought of war, and are filled with sympathy over the 
 vicissitudes of belligerent nations, we become war mad our- 
 selves, as soon as we hear the inspiriting rattle of patriotic 
 drums. We may join at the start with reluctance and 
 doubtful enthusiasm, b»ut we are soon changed by the 
 sanguinary spirit of war. Fanatics on that question, like 
 the Quakers and Mennonites, and the Raskolnikans in Russia, 
 who actually refused to be conscribed. were forced into 
 submission — the New York draft riot in 1863 furnishes a 
 caustic example — and even peace apostles like Burrett and 
 Cobden preferred to work theoretically rather than to agi- 
 tate open opposition. Even the anarchists who profess to 
 
Rki'Vo Ckah MixiKn M 
 
 believe in no authority, apparently can not escape the 
 authority of patriotism. 
 
 Kx-Prcsi(icnt Taft's idea of a leajruc to enforce peace, 
 although paradoxical in term, shows some clear and logical 
 thinking. The League, as its primary and fundamental prin- 
 ciple, advocates an agreement between the leading countries 
 of the world not to enter upon any state of war before 
 they have submitted the justiciable issues of international 
 controversies to an arbitral court, and the non-justiciable, 
 diplomatic and ethical, issues to a commission of conciliation. 
 Thus, if any member of the League went to war with any 
 other member of the Leasue, lielore subniittinK to the 
 opportunities of peaceful settlement, all the other members 
 (as neutrals have a direct interest in preventing war) would 
 be obliged to defend the attacked nation by their united 
 forces. Henry IV'. and his minister. Sully, entertained such 
 a project in their Peace League of Christian Nations. The 
 problem, as naturally a general participation would be in- 
 dispensable to assure any results, is, to persuade all the great 
 powers in joining such a agreement. If one nation would 
 refuse, the whole structure would tumble to the ground. 
 And one had to be of very optimistic disposition to believe 
 that all governments could be made to participate. A 
 technical excuse will easily be found. When the Holy Alli- 
 ance between the monarchs of Russia. Austria and Prussia 
 in 1S15. endeavored to establish a similar union of European 
 rulers, England excused itself because the word of a ruler 
 was not considered as binding for the entire interests of a 
 nation. And Turkey, a much more formidable power than it is 
 just now, was not asked at all. Thus the alliance was merel}', 
 what it perhaps meant to be, a temporary contract between 
 a few rulers. For us it would moan de'iar'urc from our 
 valued traditional policy of not cn'crinc: into Europ^nn c n- 
 troversies, which no doubt, would find rugged opposition 
 in some quarters. And what would happen if the tribunal 
 could not come to a satisfactory decision, as for instance, 
 in the Mexican Peace Conference in Niagara Falls. 1914? 
 Or if the nation which considered itself injurerl would lose 
 patience, as the League machinery might work too slow, 
 could war be still avoided? How would it work? Suppose 
 a nation would attack and invade another, the other of course, 
 had to defend itself, and thereu()on all the other nations 
 would be on the side of the attacked power and send troops 
 for assistance. How quickly couM such troops be mobilized? 
 Would it not take considerable time before the advantages 
 gained by the invading army could l>e annulled ? And would 
 it frighten a Freilcrick the Great, a Napoleon, or the ruling 
 parties of such a nation into early peace overtures? Docs 
 not Germany fight four of its ncighlwrs now? No. the result 
 
64 Bruno Chap Books 
 
 would be a new imbroglio, another world's war. There 
 exists at least the danger of such an issue. 
 
 Nevertheless, the idea of a permanent international court 
 of justice, a council of the nations, and an international 
 police (or rather army) seems to be the most plausible to 
 aspire to. How these things will come about, or how, is 
 not so much the question, as the existence of such a desire in 
 the mind of man. And it may be true that it would require 
 but a slight development in the laws of international relations 
 to assert the right of arbitration as a duty towards the welfare 
 of the human race. 
 
 The introduction of an international police looks particularly 
 well on paper. Just as we maintain peace in a community, 
 peace might be kept among the nations. The members of a 
 community wish to be protected from nuisance, theft, assault 
 and maintain a police for the defense of a peace to this purpose. 
 Former disturbances as Fehde and Vendetta, tribal feuds and 
 religious persecutions belong to the past or are under control 
 in most countries. And just as merchants, shipmasters and 
 others within some ports have an arbitral court to go to for 
 the hearing and prompt settlement of controversies, nations 
 should have a world's tribunal. Yet the troubles of nations are 
 more intricate than the squabbles of individuals, or even the 
 internal differences of a state or province. 
 
 Other difficulties lie in establishing an arbitral court with 
 sufficient executive power to enforce the realization of its 
 verdicts; and the selection of the right kind of judges, honest, 
 learned and influential men, enthusiastically absorbed in their 
 task beyond any party interests, not unlike the podesta of 
 medieval Italj% who enjoyed absolute jurisdiction within their 
 allotted township, but who were forced to live unmarried and 
 isolated with their retinue, not coming into contact with anybody 
 during their official term, to assure absolute impartiality of 
 judgment. 
 
 There is still another method that might bring about the 
 desired solution. To declare war is still the privilege of the 
 supreme heads of governments or representative bodies. 
 Why not leave the decision, whether a war is wanted or not, 
 to a vote of the entire population, in a similar manner as 
 communities vote on questions of prohibition. Universal 
 sufferage should be applied to dispel the warclouds, as 
 Kant has argued in his treaties. "Zum Ewigen Frieden," so 
 that the responsibility of devastations by flame and steel 
 would be equally shared by each citizen. Surely the in- 
 dividual who has to do the fighting and to paj- the war taxes 
 has a right in the matter. In what direction would the ma«ses 
 turn the trembling scale, war or peace. It is more than 
 likely that in most cases, particularly if women were allowed 
 to participate, the result of the ballot would be a decided nay. 
 
 All we who are inclined that way, can do at present is to 
 
Hki'No CiiAi- FLOORS (..S 
 
 think and arniic peace. The advocates of peace at any price, 
 offer peace with honor, or those ulio wish to enforce peace 
 by consultation or opposition, are all working for a good 
 cause. Let the good work go on. It will lielp to burn into 
 the hearts of the people that there are better ways than war 
 to settle international disputes. 
 
 Of course, talk alone is futile. The task demands special 
 exploitation, a special type of men who combine the knowl- 
 edge of international law of a Bluntschli with practical states- 
 manship, who know how to trace the origin of events and 
 ctinditions and who understand to apply these observations 
 practically to those international di>tempers they would be called 
 to cure. 
 
 It will advance at least — what the world lias heeded at all 
 times — a better understanding among nations, a closer ad- 
 herence to mutual support and a warmer realization of the 
 unity of himian interests irrespective of boundaries. 
 
 The juncture for more friendly relations among nations is 
 now as favorable as at any other time. 
 
GENERAL LIBRARY UC BER 
 
 RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 
 TO^^- 202 Mom Library 
 
 lOAN PFRIOD 1 
 HOME USE 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 
 6 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 ,. .-m tAAY n C 
 
 ^32 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 IINIV OF CALIr. Btn\ 
 
 t . 
 
 
 b 
 
 
 m 1 5 zo« 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 vn 4 201 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ORM NO or 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELl