ff th rani uf 
 Ififnjamin JUV cclbrrlrr 
 
A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
THl MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 1W VOUC BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS 
 ATLANTA SAN FKANCISCO 
 
 MACMILLAN ft CO., LIIHTED 
 
 LONDON . BOMBAY CALCUTTA 
 
 THl MACMTLLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD. 
 
A LEAGUE 
 TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 BY 
 
 ROBERT GOLDSMITH 
 
 WITH A SPECIAL INTRODUCTION BY 
 PRESIDENT A. LAWRENCE LOWELL 
 
 "And therefore thoughe they do daylie practise and exer- 
 cise themselves in the discipline of warre, and not onelie the 
 men, but also the women upon certen appointed dales, lest they 
 should be to seke in the feate of armes, if nede should require, 
 yet they never go to battell, but either in the defence of their 
 owne countrey, or to drive out of their frendes lande the ene- 
 mies that have invaded it, or by their power to deliver from the 
 yocke and bondage of tirannye some people, that be therewith 
 oppressed. Which thing they do of meere pitie and compas- 
 sion." 
 
 Sis THOMAS MOBE. 
 
 fork 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 1917 
 
 All rights reserved 
 
COPTBIQHT, 1917, 
 
 BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 up and electrotyped. Publiahed, February, 1917. 
 
TO MY WIFE 
 EDITH DARROW GOLDSMITH 
 
SPECIAL INTRODUCTION 
 
 BY 
 DR. A. LAWRENCE LOWELL 
 
 PRESIDENT OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY 
 
INTRODUCTION BY PRESIDENT LOWELL 
 
 IF a quiet country town is visited by a desperado, 
 or if a sudden fit of lawlessness breaks out, so that 
 life and property are no longer safe, and there is no 
 police force to cope with the situation, the normal 
 American procedure is the formation of a vigilance 
 committee. The indifferent are stirred to action, 
 and even men who abhor violence and bloodshed 
 are moved to arm themselves, until all good citizens 
 join in force to support the committee, maintain 
 order, and prevent breaches of the public peace. 
 
 The present war ; with its millions of young men 
 killed ; millions more maimed for life ; with the suf- 
 fering of a still larger number of civilians, men, 
 women and children; with the long stretches of 
 land devastated as no land ever was before; with 
 the ferocity and the cold cruelty which the contest 
 has at times called forth ; has set many men think- 
 ing earnestly and with a purpose. Advocates of 
 peace, who had relied on the slow process of per- 
 
x INTRODUCTION 
 
 suasion and reason, have felt the need of more 
 vigourous and speedy methods of procedure; while 
 people who had not taken the fear of war seriously 
 have been aroused to the danger and the results. 
 They have seen that, with the control over the forces 
 of nature in these later days, the destructiveness 
 of war is greater even than had been imagined; 
 and that, with the organization of all the resources 
 of nations for the conflict, the suffering tends to 
 be more widespread, the efforts of whole peoples 
 more intense, and the ruthlessness of the struggle 
 more pronounced. 
 
 Men are feeling that it is not enough to rely upon 
 the gradual effects of a higher morality, and en- 
 larged sympathy and better mutual understanding 
 among the nations; but that when this war comes 
 to an end something must be done at once to pre- 
 vent such another holocaust of civilisation. The 
 sight of peoples who have reached the highest point 
 of development yet known destroying one another, 
 of mankind destroying itself, would be absurd if 
 it were not tragic. Human society has a right to 
 protect itself, by compelling, if need be, a nation to 
 refrain from resorting to arms, and setting the 
 earth afire, before its grievance has been brought 
 before the bar of the world; and perhaps after- 
 
INTRODUCTION xi 
 
 wards if its claim is manifestly extortionate and 
 unjust. 
 
 With this conviction the League to Enforce Peace 
 was organised in our country, and the plan has 
 met with the approval of the highest officers of state 
 in the leading countries of the world. The pro- 
 gramme was drawn with a view to the minimum 
 that would obtain the object of restraining war, 
 and no attempt was made to lay down details or 
 provide methods of procedure which must be de- 
 termined by the representatives of the nations con- 
 cerned when they meet for conference. The im- 
 portant thing for an unofficial body is to advocate 
 the principle, not to draft a treaty. 
 
 This book has been written with that object. The 
 author, as the reader will perceive, is an idealist 
 who knows well the value of approaching an ideal 
 by actual steps forward, rather than by dreams of 
 a distant future based upon a radical change in 
 human nature. He discusses how the existing 
 forces have failed to prevent war, and why the prin- 
 ciple of compulsory international power is neces- 
 sary and appropriate for the purpose. He looks at 
 the subject from a somewhat novel standpoint, and 
 makes many interesting observations in the course 
 of his argument. All people who feel a real desire 
 
xii INTRODUCTION 
 
 to free mankind from war, who believe that civilisa- 
 tion is incomplete so long as wars like the present 
 ravage the earth, will find themselves well repaid 
 in reading this book. 
 
PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR 
 
 THERE is little doubt that war as an institution 
 will be hard put to it to find any defenders after 
 this most stupendous and most sanguinary of all 
 wars has run its dreadful course to the bitter end. 
 We are no longer uncertain as to the attitude of 
 the majority of men and women the world over con- 
 cerning 
 
 Yon hideous, grinning thing that stalks 
 Hidden in music, like a queen 
 That in a garden of glory walks. 
 
 " War," writes Mr. Britling in a really remark- 
 able letter to the father of his son's German tutor, 
 " is a curtain of dense black fabric across all the 
 hopes and kindliness of mankind. . . . Massacres 
 of boys! That indeed is the essence of modern 
 war. The killing off of the young. It is the de- 
 struction of the human inheritance ; it is the spend- 
 ing of all the live material of the future upon pres- 
 ent-day hate and greed." l The German Crown 
 Prince asks of his interviewer, " Have you had a 
 chance to see enough of this dreadful business? 
 
 i H. G. Wells : Mr. Britling Sees it Through. 
 
 xiii 
 
xiv PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR 
 
 Does your heart already ache? What a pity, what 
 a pity it is ! All this terrible extinction of human 
 life, blasting of the hope and expectancy of youth, 
 the mortgaging of our energies and resources far 
 into the future ! " * 
 
 Now the only thing at all exceptional about these 
 striking passages is the frankness of their expres- 
 sion. They do but voice the sentiment of all sorts 
 and conditions of people. This reaction of disgust 
 and horror and chagrin and mortification is to-day 
 well-nigh universal and is the all-sufficient answer 
 to the laboured arguments in defence of war. 
 Whenever and wherever intelligent people get to- 
 gether to talk things over, a sense of shame as well 
 as sorrow is voiced. 
 
 This was not always so. Far from it. The time 
 was when people looked upon war as the routine 
 business of a considerable part of the population. 
 The life-work of many men was killing and they 
 tried to do their work as well as they knew how. 
 If hearts were broken and little children starved to 
 death, why that was all in the day's work. Valiant 
 men had no time to bother about sentimental mat- 
 ters. The heavy heel of war trampled all that was 
 
 i Interview with Wm. Bayard Hale in New York American, 
 quoted in Current History for November, 1916. 
 
PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR xv 
 
 beautiful into the bloody mire. Of course, even in 
 those early times, a few there were who uttered 
 their feeble protests against the practice of fight- 
 ing, but nobody paid any attention to them. We 
 should not permit ourselves to forget that war was 
 once the normal condition of society. Peace was 
 the exception. It has been carefully computed 
 that there have been but 227 years of peace, when J 
 no states or nations were at war, in the 3,412 years 
 of recorded history since 1496 B. c. " We have 
 done much," said Mr. Joseph H. Choate, at the Sec- 
 ond Hague Conference on August 1, 1907, " to regu- 
 late war, but very little to prevent it. Let us unite 
 on this great pacific measure [a permanent court 
 of arbitral justice] and satisfy the world that this 
 second conference really intends that hereafter 
 peace, and not war, shall be the normal condition 
 of civilised nations"* To-day a world war is an 
 incident however terrible an incident. It is an 
 interruption of the normal industrial life of the 
 nation. 
 
 Whether the moral or the economic or the intel- 
 lectual argument against war is the most convinc- 
 ing is an academic question which need not now 
 detain us. Of this, however, we may be quite sure, 
 
 i The italics are ours. 
 
xvi PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR 
 
 the growing sense of the relative futility of all 
 wars and the utter folly of most wars is doing more 
 than anything else to set the majority of men 
 against it. What is the use of it all, is the ques- 
 tion most frequently asked by thinking people the 
 world over. Why lay waste the world, why fill 
 the fields and seas with unmarked graves, why 
 break the hearts of mothers and wives and little 
 children, if at the end we are to resume the status 
 quo ante? There is little doubt that if a plebiscite 
 were possible, if a referendum could be taken, we 
 should find that an overwhelming vote would be 
 cast against war. There would be a " landslide " 
 in favour not of peace at any price, to be sure, but 
 of peace if possible. No arguments are needed at 
 this late day to convince people of either the wrong 
 of war, or the waste of war, or the folly of war. 
 Its obscenity, burden, and stupidity are just about 
 axiomatic. It has ceased to be a problem of evan- 
 gelism, and has become a problem of statesman- 
 ship. We all know about the awfulness and the 
 insanity of war; what we want to know now is, 
 what must we do to be saved? Not, what must we 
 think? nor, what must we feel? nor, what must we 
 dream? but, what must we do? We may not be 
 ready, however willing, to believe that this is the 
 
 
PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR xvii 
 
 war that will end all wars, and yet there are on 
 every hand indications that a portentous change is 
 impending. At the imperious command of the 
 Lord of History, it may be that now, at last, in the 
 fulness of time, a palsied world will stretch forth 
 its hand and perform the miracle of endeavour. 
 
 But there is nothing to be gained by deluding 
 ourselves with vain hopes. Wars will follow wars, 
 as night follows day, if, when this war is over, a 
 treaty is signed, the terms of which are not radi- 
 cally different from the terms of every other treaty 
 of peace that has ever been made. Obviously, what 
 is wanted is something new under the sun a new 
 kind of peace, that shall be in the first place gen- 
 erous, in the second place genuine, and in the third 
 place guaranteed. There must be either interna- 
 tional guarantees of national security or chaos. 
 
 Perhaps it may as well be acknowledged at once 
 that no serious attempt has as yet been made to 
 perpetuate peace. There has been no lack of 
 grandiose "schemes" and magnificent "plans," 
 and a few that were reasonable and practical 
 though born into the world too soon. But the 
 sword of Damocles still dangles from its thread. 
 We have had the peace that was predaceous and 
 rancorous; the peace that left wounded pride and 
 
xviii PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR 
 
 ravished sovereignty to brood and fester and cor- 
 rupt the world. We have had the peace that was a 
 
 . 
 
 mere makeshift, a truce, an armistice, a respite, 
 to give battling nations an opportunity to get their 
 second wind, to recoup their lost fortunes, to re- 
 cuperate their exhausted vitality and to forge new 
 and more devilish weapons. But we have not yet 
 genuinely laboured, as practical statesmen, to make 
 peace permanent, or even, for that matter, to reduce 
 the probability of war, by establishing the peace of 
 justice and liberty and humanity. 
 
 Now, it may be that there is no such thing 
 as a discoverable principle of international govern- 
 ment that will certainly preserve the peace of the 
 world. Perhaps the best machinery will break 
 down under the strain. But it is too soon to de- 
 spond. The simple truth is, as has been said but 
 will bear repeating, that up to the present aside 
 from the fervent preaching of the gospel of peace 
 and brotherhood no genuine, concerted, deter- 
 mined action has as yet been taken by the nations 
 of the world to fulfil the age-old promise of peace. 
 The trouble has been that the opposition to war 
 has been neither co-ordinated nor organised, nor 
 has it had a clear intellectual policy or a definite 
 
PKEFACE BY THE AUTHOR xix 
 
 programme of action. The sentiment against war 
 has too often been dissipated in rhapsodic visions 
 of Utopia. 
 
 Perhaps now at last, at " the end of the ages," 
 we are really ready for the great undertaking, not 
 as a matter of political and moral idealism, but of 
 social efficiency and practical statesmanship. Per- 
 haps, now, at length, after centuries of high hopes 
 and vague dreams, we are slept-out and willing to 
 wake-up and wrestle with the problem. What is 
 wanted is a mutual agreement, a general treaty 
 creating a league of the civilised nations of the 
 world and pledging them, not to disarm sine die, 
 but to employ their united strength to compel 
 any recalcitrant nation-member to submit its dis- 
 pute to an international court of arbitration or 
 council of conciliation for a hearing before precipi- 
 tating overt hostilities. 
 
 To accomplish this purpose, numerous plans and 
 programmes have been devised. Among them all 
 the most practical appears to be that put forth by 
 the League to Enforce Peace. And what is the 
 League to Enforce Peace and what does it pro- 
 pose? On June 17, 1915, on the call of one hun- 
 dred and twenty of the most influential and repre- 
 
xx PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR 
 
 sentative men from all sections of the country about 
 four hundred met in Independence Hall, Philadel- 
 phia, and organised a League whose reason-for-ex- 
 istence should be to adopt a programme of action 
 to follow the present war which would look towards 
 the possible prevention of future wars. The an- 
 nouncement which introduces the Proposals advo- 
 cated says, " We believe it to be desirable for the 
 United States to join a league of nations binding the 
 signatories to the following." Four proposals 
 were adopted at the organisation meeting, as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 First: All justiciable questions arising between 
 the signatory powers, not settled by negotiation, 
 shall, subject to the limitations of treaties, be sub- 
 mitted to a judicial tribunal for hearing and judg- 
 ment, both upon the merits and upon any issue as 
 to its jurisdiction of the question. 
 
 Second: All other questions arising between the 
 signatories and not settled by negotiation, shall be 
 submitted to a council of conciliation for hearing, 
 consideration and recommendation. 
 
 Third: The signatory powers shall jointly use 
 forthwith both their economic and military forces 
 against any one of their number that goes to war, 
 or commits acts of hostility, against another of the 
 
PEEFACE BY THE AUTHOR xxi 
 
 signatories before any question arising shall be 
 submitted as provided in the foregoing. 1 
 
 Fourth: Conferences between the signatory 
 powers shall be held from time to time to formulate 
 and codify rules of international law, which, unless 
 some signatory shall signify its dissent within a 
 stated period, shall thereafter govern in the deci- 
 sions of the Judicial Tribunal mentioned in Arti- 
 cle One. 
 
 Briefly, it is proposed that a league of nations, in- 
 cluding the United States, should be created at the 
 end of the present war. Such a league would not 
 constitute an "entangling alliance," wherein one 
 group of nations combine to protect one another 
 against an opposing group similarly united. An 
 invitation to join the league would be extended to 
 all civilised and progressive nations. A general 
 treaty would be signed by the terms of which the 
 member-nations would mutually agree to submit 
 
 i The following interpretation of Article 3 has been author- 
 ised by the Executive Committee : 
 
 '* The signatory powers shall jointly employ diplomatic and 
 economic pressure against any one of their number that threat- 
 ens war against a fellow signatory without having first sub- 
 mitted its dispute for international inquiry, conciliation, arbitra- 
 tion or judicial hearing, and awaited a conclusion, or without 
 having in good faith offered so to submit it. They shall follow 
 this forthwith by the joint use of their military forces against 
 that nation if it actually goes to war, or commits acts of hostility, 
 against another of the signatories before any question arising 
 shall be dealt with as provided in the foregoing." 
 
xxii PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR 
 
 for public hearing any and all disputes whatever 
 which might arise among them. 
 
 To carry out the programme it would become nec- 
 essary to set up two international tribunals: A 
 Judicial Court for the purpose of hearing and de- 
 ciding those questions that can be determined by 
 the established and accepted rules of international 
 law; and a Council of Conciliation for the purpose 
 of composing, by compromise, all other questions 
 which come up that, unless settled, would be likely 
 to lead to war. The Court, after preliminary in- 
 quiry, would determine before which tribunal a 
 given case would go. 
 
 In the event of any member-nation threatening 
 war against any other member-nation, before first 
 submitting its quarrel for public review and report, 
 all the other nations who are members of the 
 League would immediately join in bringing to bear 
 both diplomatic and economic pressure to estop the 
 would-be aggressor. If, after this joint protest, it 
 persisted with overt acts of hostility and actually 
 commenced war, then the other member-nations, 
 with their combined military and naval forces, 
 would come to the defence of the one attacked, or 
 perhaps, more strictly speaking, would discipline 
 the aggressor. This nniilit require that each nation 
 
PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR xxiii 
 
 would have to pledge itself to provide and maintain 
 its fair quota of the necessary military forces ; but, 
 on the other hand, it is confidently expected that 
 the acceptance and operation of the programme 
 would result in the gradual reduction of arma- 
 ments, if indeed a specific agreement to reduce 
 armaments were not made one of the essential terms 
 treaty creating the league of nations. 
 
 The forces of the League would be used for one 
 purpose only: to compel submission of matters in 
 dispute to a Court of Inquiry before any war was 
 begun or persisted in by any member; they would 
 not be employed to execute the judgments of the 
 court or to enforce the unwilling acceptance of 
 awards. The appeal to arms would still remain 
 available to th'e several nations as a last resort. It 
 is believed that the prolonged postponement, plus 
 the public discussion, plus the justice of the award, 
 would all tend to ensure its acceptance in the ma- 
 jority of cases. 
 
 The programme begins with a proposal which is 
 substantially the same as the essential provision in 
 the Bryan arbitration treaties contracted between 
 the United States and some thirty nations, viz., to 
 submit all questions for a public hearing and to 
 delay hostilities for a year or more. The pro- 
 
xxiv PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR 
 
 gramme also makes provision for holding inter- 
 national conferences, from time to time, similar to 
 those held at The Hague in 1899 and 1907, for the 
 purpose of broadening and clarifying the rules of 
 international law, which shall by mutual agree- 
 ment, govern in the decisions of the International 
 Court. To these provisions the programme adds 
 what the lawyers call a " sanction," to compel 
 and enforce the main provision. And it is this 
 sanction which really constitutes the distinctive 
 mark of the programme. 
 
 Needless to say, it matters nothing, or less than 
 nothing, whether such an understanding be called 
 a league to enforce peace, a league to insure peace, 
 or. a combination in restraint of war ; or, indeed, for 
 that matter, a federation of the world, so long as 
 its plain purpose is to preserve peace with justice. 
 
 This book is not primarily addressed to the ex- 
 pert in international affairs to the scholar in 
 diplomacy but to the general reader. For this 
 reason the author has thought it desirable to de- 
 vote a considerable amount of space to a pre- 
 liminary study, in the earlier chapters, of certain 
 factors and forces in modern life, and has not 
 thought it expedient, in this place, to elaborately 
 
PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR xxv 
 
 discuss the details of such practical problems of 
 international politics as the treatment of backward 
 nations, the freedom of the seas, and so forth. 
 
 The author has had also to keep in mind the fact 
 that the volume is to be made available for use as 
 a study book in churches and clubs through the use 
 of a special manual of instructions for teachers and 
 group leaders now in course of preparation. This 
 is the real reason why Part I treats so extensively 
 of the several forces that failed to prevent the war 
 pacifism, the churches, the workers, the women, 
 business, and diplomacy. But let us make no mis- 
 take. If these failed to prevent the war it was not 
 wholly because they were indifferent or incom- 
 petent. The Israelites were expected to make 
 bricks without straw and we have demanded more 
 than we had any right to expect when we asked that 
 sentiment perform the labours of organisation. 
 The only alternative to international anarchy is in- 
 ternational government, however tentative or im- 
 perfect. 
 
 The will to peace has not been lacking, but the 
 machinery for making that will effective has been 
 lacking. It is precisely because certain influences 
 and institutions have not been sufficient that we are 
 
xxvi PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR 
 
 ready to turn eagerly to such practical programmes 
 to prevent war as present themselves. This is the 
 subject of Part II of this book. 
 
 Nor will it do for us to overlook the very serious 
 objection to a blind dependence upon mere me- 
 chanical organisation, however perfect. Wheels 
 within wheels are absolutely essential for the 
 smooth-running of international relations; but 
 " the spirit of the living creature in the wheels " 
 is infinitely more important. In other words it is 
 rightly contended that so long as militarism sits in 
 the seats of the mighty, with a sword for a sceptre, 
 we shall continue to have wars till time shall be no 
 more. This is the crux of the situation. There is 
 no more important problem before the world to-day 
 than the complete discrediting of the military caste, 
 the utter destruction of militarism. Whether tem- 
 porary peace be attained with or without victory, 
 nothing is more certain than that permanent peace 
 can never come until modernity has been victori- 
 ous over medievalism, until militarism has been 
 crushed beyond recovery. This is the subject of 
 Part III of this book. 
 
FOREWORD 
 
 I WISH to express my sincere gratitude to several 
 friends who have generously given of their time to 
 read this book in manuscript. Some have made 
 valuable suggestions which I have not infrequently 
 adopted. I wish especially to thank Mr. William 
 H. Short, Prof. John Bates Clark, Dr. Talcott 
 Williams, Mr. Walter Lippmann, Prof. Walter Yale 
 Durand, Mr. Glenn Frank, Mr. Frederick Harris, 
 Mr. R, R. Lutz, Dr. Hugh Black and Dr. Thomas 
 Blaisdell. The excellent bibliographies at the end 
 of the book were prepared and contributed by my 
 wife. In the preparation of the manuscript for 
 the printer I have been ably assisted by Florence 
 Sexauer. Also I want to acknowledge my indebted- 
 ness to Dr. Thomas E. Green for suggesting the 
 title for Part I. 
 

CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 INTBODUCTION BY PEESIDENT A. LAWRENCE LOWELL . . ix 
 
 PEEFACE BY THE AUTHOR xiii 
 
 FOREWORD xxvii 
 
 PART I 
 THE FORCES THAT FAILED 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 In the Palace of Night 3 
 
 I THE TROUBLE WITH PACIFISM 5 
 
 II Do CHRISTIANS WANT WAR? ....... 12 
 
 III WHERE 'WERE THE WORKERS? 24 
 
 IV WHAT ABOUT THE WOMEN? 34 
 
 V DID BUSINESS HELP OR HINDER? 42 
 
 VI WHAT'S WRONG WITH DIPLOMACY? 49 
 
 PART II 
 A PROGRAMME TO PREVENT WAR 
 
 The Great Divide of History 69 
 
 VII A LEAGUE OF STATES 71 
 
 VIII A COURT OF REASON 89 
 
 IX A CONGRESS OF NATIONS 105 
 
 X THE AGE OF DISCUSSION 116 
 
 XI IN RESTRAINT OF WAR 128 
 
 XII WILL IT WORK? 147 
 
 PART III 
 THE CREED OF MILITARISM 
 
 XIII MORAL MAJESTY OR GUILTY MADNESS? 189 
 
 XIV EARTHQUAKES OR AVALANCHES? 210 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER PAGE 
 
 XV DRAINING THE SWAMPS 231 
 
 XVI THE FRONTIERS OF FRIENDSHIP 240 
 
 XVII SOULS IN REVOLT 248 
 
 A Sea Wall of Democracy 257 
 
 APPENDIX 261 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 307 
 
 INDEX .319 
 
PAKT I 
 THE FORCES THAT FAILED 
 
IN THE PALACE OF KlGRT 
 
 In his allegorical play, THE BLUE BIRD, Maurice Maeterlinck, 
 the Belgian poet, describes the journey of Tyltyl and Mytyl in 
 their quest for happiness. After visiting the Land of Memory 
 they go to the Palace of Night the night of the dark ages of 
 superstition and ignorance. In their fruitless search they open 
 the doors to the rooms where ghosts, diseases, and other things 
 are kept. At length they stand before the door behind which 
 the Wars are kept. The Queen warns the children that " they 
 are more terrible than ever. . . . Heaven knows what would 
 happen if one of them escaped" The boy, however, opens the 
 door on a little gap and as he does so one huge and awful War 
 pokes its paw through and another its ugly head. "Quick! 
 Quick!" shouts Tyltyl. "Push with all your might. . . . They 
 are coming! They are breaking down the door!" The boy 
 and girl (Man and Woman) and all the other actors push until 
 they slam the door in the faces of the brutal Wars. Then the 
 children pass on in their search for the blue-bird that means 
 happiness. 
 
 But this is only drama and poetry and fiction. What really 
 happened, of course, was very different. On June SO, 1914, 
 Princeps (not Tyltyl) opened the door to the room where the 
 Wars were kept. When he shot the Austrian Archduke at 
 Serajevo the door was opened on a crack. Then Austria sent 
 her demands to Serbia and the door was opened wider. A 
 month later Russian forces were mobilised and Germany sent 
 her ultimatum which flung the door wide open. The beasts 
 rushed towards the door which everybody, when it was too 
 late, tried to slam shut. The workers of the world and the 
 women of the world put their shoulders to the door. Diplo- 
 macy, statesmanship, religion and everything that we denomi- 
 nate under the word civilisation hurried to put their shoulders 
 to the door to prevent the Wars from coming out. But it was 
 soon evident that the organised forces of barbarism were more 
 powerful than the disorganised forces of civilisation. The 
 Wars broke their chains and rushed across the threshold, tear- 
 ing from its hinges the massive door, which fell upon the broken 
 bodies of humanity. 
 
A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE 
 PEACE 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 THE TROUBLE WITH PACIFISM 
 
 No sooner had the war broken out than a cry of 
 derision went up from every quarter charging that 
 the whole movement towards peace had come to 
 naught that pacifism was a delusion and a snare. 
 Wreaths of hypocritical praise were placed on the 
 brows of prophets who dreamed of a distant day 
 of peace. Insincere encomiums were pronounced 
 upon Isaiah and Micah, upon Kant and Penn, but, 
 as soon as one's back was turned, these prophets 
 were ridiculed as having been the victims of va- 
 grant visions. Pacifists were told to wake up and 
 look about them upon whole nations "wading in 
 slaughter." They were reminded of the deserted 
 Peace Palace at The Hague, and of treaties held 
 as lightly as a libertine holds his marriage vows. 
 The fact was noted that the country which had pro- 
 
 5 
 
6 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 duced the author of Eternal Peace was one of the 
 prime movers in the war, while the country whose 
 Czar had assembled the First Hague Convention 
 was another major belligerent. It was pointed 
 out that a century of propaganda, urging univer- 
 sal peace, had been like casting pearls before swine. 
 Without consulting any of the " professional pa- 
 cifists " or any of the institutions, such as the 
 church, that would be most likely to counsel re- 
 straint, recourse was had to arms. Of course, not 
 everybody argued in this fashion, but certainly 
 all the disciples of militarism and all the apostles 
 of force did. They cynically inferred that pacifism 
 was a pretty but innocuous sentiment and that so 
 long as there were no vital issues to be determined 
 there could surely be no great harm in subscribing 
 to the sentiment. And so, with a sneer, " practical 
 people" wished the pacifist God speed on his silly 
 errand. 
 
 Two things may be said in reply. The first is 
 that there were some pacifists who were not sur- 
 prised by the outbreak of the war. Dr. Alfred 
 Fried, 1 for one, had said again and again that 
 such a war as this was certain to come unless the 
 
 i See his The Restoration of Europe, Ch. VII, particularly 
 pp. 149 and 150. 
 
THE TROUBLE WITH PACIFISM 7 
 
 programme of prevention he advocated was 
 adopted. That is why he and others laboured, in 
 season and out of season, not merely to spread the 
 sentiments of peace but to construct the machinery 
 that might make the preservation of peace possi- 
 ble. They went ahead and built their Peace Pal- 
 aces and held their Hague Conventions and their 
 International Congresses. They spared no efforts 
 to organise the opinion of the world and to per- 
 suade the most influential people in the leading 
 nations to build on more substantial foundations 
 than shifting sand. The rain descended, the floods 
 came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house 
 till it fell. Now, they maintain, and not without 
 some justification, that the collapse came precisely 
 because the structure of society was not based on 
 the solid rock of mutual goodwill plus the ma- 
 chinery they wanted to set up. It is not reason- 
 able to charge that international law failed, inas- 
 much as the aggressor nation gave international 
 law no chance either to succeed or fail. It is 
 confusing to say that arbitration failed, inasmuch 
 as the Central Powers refused to try arbitration, 
 even when it was suggested by Serbia in reply 
 to Austria's demands. 1 It is not accurate to say 
 i " If the Imperial and Royal Government [Austria-Hungary] 
 
8 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 that conciliation failed, inasmuch as the offers of 
 a conference for the purpose of coming to an un- 
 derstanding, made by Sir Edward Grey in his tele- 
 gram to the British Ambassador at Berlin, dated 
 July 26, 1914, 1 and by the Czar of Russia in 
 the communique issued on August 2, 1914, by the 
 Minister of Foreign Affairs, 2 were rejected by Ger- 
 many. 3 The plain truth is that the machinery for 
 
 are not satisfied with this reply, the Servian Government, con- 
 sidering that it is not to the common interest to precipitate the 
 solution of this question, are ready, as always, to accept a 
 pacific understanding, ... by referring this question to the de- 
 cision of the International Tribunal of The Hague." Note of 
 July 25, 1914. 
 
 i " Would Minister for Foreign Affairs be disposed to instruct 
 Ambassador here to join with representatives of France, Italy, 
 and Germany, and myself to meet here in conference immedi- 
 ately for the purpose of discovering an issue which would pre- 
 vent complications? You should ask Minister for Foreign Af- 
 fairs whether he would do this. If so, when bringing the above 
 suggestions to the notice of the Governments to which they are 
 accredited, representatives at Belgrade, Vienna, and St. Peters- 
 burg could be authorised to request that all active military op- 
 erations should be suspended pending results of conference." 
 The British White Paper, No. 36. 
 
 2 * The Imperial Government declared that Russia was ready 
 to continue the pourparlers towards a pacific solution of the con- 
 flict, either by means of direct negotiations with the Cabinet of 
 Vienna, or, following the proposal of Great Britain, by means of 
 a conference of the four great Powers not directly interested, 
 namely, England, France, Germany, and Italy." The Russian 
 Orange Book, No. 77. 
 
 a On July 27 Sir Edward Goschen, the British Ambassador at 
 Berlin, telegraphed Sir Edward Grey that the British proposal 
 had been rejected by the Foreign Minister, who " maintained 
 that such a conference as you proposed was not practicable." 
 The British White Paper, No. 43. 
 
 On July 28 Sir Maurice de Bunsen, the British Ambassador at 
 Vienna, telegraphed Sir Edward Grey : 
 
 " Minister for Foreign Affairs said quietly, but firmly, that 
 no discussion could be accepted on basis of Serbian note ; that 
 
THE TROUBLE WITH PACIFISM 9 
 
 mobilising peace sentiment and for adjusting just 
 such differences as those which arose in July, 1914, 
 was rather clumsy and inadequate and could not 
 be made to operate as rapidly as the machinery of 
 war, particularly as one party to the controversy 
 was bent on having war. 
 
 The other thing that may be said in answer to the 
 charge that pacifism has failed is that a certain 
 type of pacifism, and what is usually meant by 
 " pacifism " has failed. Its failure, however, clears 
 the ground and makes room for saner and more 
 practical efforts. There is no denying the fact that 
 a good deal of pacifist sentiment was hardly dis- 
 tinguishable from mild-mannered sentimentality. 
 The disciples of this school were unquestionably 
 sincere enough and perhaps were rigorously log- 
 ical, but they refused to look the facts of life in the 
 face and to deal with men and nations as they 
 actually are. They were naive. Their plans were 
 visionary and their schemes chimerical. " The 
 peace movement," writes Ellen Key in her most 
 
 war would be declared to-day, and that well-known pacific char- 
 acter of Emperor, as well as, he might add, his own, might be 
 accepted as a guarantee that war was both just and inevitable. 
 This was a matter that must be settled directly between the two 
 parties immediately concerned. I said that you would hear 
 with regret that hostilities could not be arrested, as you feared 
 that they might lead to complications threatening the peace of 
 Europe." The British White Paper, No. 62. 
 
10 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 recent book, 1 " that has only appealed to the emo- 
 tions has never put the axe to the root of the prob- 
 lem. ... So long as it was only a proclamation 
 of Christian humanitarianism, it never built on a 
 foundation of reality." These pacifists too often 
 thought of countries and statesmen in the abstract, 
 gave free rein to their imaginations, and dreamed 
 of a day when blessed peace would cover the earth 
 as the waters cover the sea. Their ignorance of 
 Realpolitik was both profound and comprehensive. 
 They evidenced but little genius for practicality, 
 and dogmatically refused to compromise. Like 
 Brand in Ibsen's drama, they could have " all or 
 nothing," and because they could not have all, they 
 were perforce obliged to take nothing, or, what is 
 infinitely worse war. Maybe the time will come, 
 in the far future, when human nature will not 
 merely acknowledge the wrong and waste and folly 
 of war, but will go ahead and actually forge its 
 swords into ploughshares, remodel its ships into 
 schools and transform its arsenals into factories 
 that produce the goods the people need. But that 
 time has not yet come and we shall gain nothing 
 but disappointment by deluding ourselves with fan- 
 i War, Peace, and the Future, pp. 122, 123. 
 
THE TKOUBLE WITH PACIFISM 11 
 
 tastic visions. It can hardly help to speculate on 
 when, if ever, this desired day will dawn. 
 
 Because pacifism has failed in its endeavour to 
 prevent war, it must now, willingly or involun- 
 tarily, make way for statesmanship, for a new kind 
 of statesmanship. The pressing task now is to 
 make statesmen out of pacifists and pacifists out 
 of statesmen. We shall have to quit gazing into 
 the heavens and turn our attention to the actual 
 problems that confront men and nations in a real 
 world. We shall have to lay aside every weight of 
 vain visioning and run with patience the long race. 
 We shall have to substitute willing for wishing and 
 cultivate a talent for details. We shall have to 
 organise the world for peace and not for war. We 
 must be ready to reckon with the facts as they are, 
 and with human nature as it is. It will probably 
 be conceded without discussion that this particu- 
 lar kind of "pacifism," this new statesmanship, 
 has not yet had a try-out. Whether or not it can 
 succeed in preventing war is still unsettled and un- 
 certain. We shall know more about that a decade 
 or a century hence. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 DO CHRISTIANS WANT WAR? 
 
 A GREAT many people contend that this war has 
 demonstrated the futility of Christianity, the im- 
 potence of all organised religion. Whichever way 
 we turn some one is ready to remind us that if 
 Christianity stands for anything at all it stands for 
 peace on earth, good will to men. We are not per- 
 mitted to forget for an hour that the Gospel of 
 Christ, whatever else it may be, is an evangel of 
 peace ; that the message of Jesus was a challenge to 
 a warring world. The force of love and righteous- 
 ness, it is explained, came into the world to dis- 
 place the force of Roman arms. Furthermore, it is 
 pointed out that this Gospel has now been preached 
 to the uttermost parts of the world, that every Eu- 
 ropean nation is nominally Christian, and that the 
 Church numbers its adherents by the millions 
 more than twenty-four million Protestants and 
 more than thirteen million Roman Catholics. And 
 yet when war threatened, the whole structure went 
 
 to pieces like a frame house in San Francisco. 
 
 12 
 
DO CHRISTIANS WANT WAR? 13 
 
 That Christianity has failed has been whispered 
 among churchmen in their cloistered retreats, and 
 proclaimed from the housetops by the enemies of 
 the Church. It is one of those half-truths that are 
 more dangerous than falsehoods. The ready reply 
 to the accusation is that Christianity has not 
 failed because Christianity has never been tried. 
 As well say, as some do, that democracy has never 
 been tried. Of course both have been tried after 
 a fashion. Those who say that Christianity failed 
 to prevent this world war speak the unvarnished 
 and undeniable truth. The Christianity that has 
 been tried has certainly failed. And the fact of the 
 war is the reproach of Christianity. But the par- 
 ticular kind of Christianity that has been weighed 
 in the balance and found wanting is nominal and 
 formal and mystic Christianity : theological, ecclesi- 
 astical and sacerdotal Christianity. Some other 
 kind of Christianity will have to be tried. 
 
 The old kind of Christianity could not withstand 
 the shock of the earthquake. It did not succeed 
 in fireproofing the world against the flames of war. 
 When certain rulers and statesmen were deter- 
 mined to have war they brushed aside all the com- 
 punctions of Christian conscience. Apparently 
 they were not only not bothered by their own pri- 
 
14 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 vate consciences, but were equally indifferent to 
 the moral judgments of mankind. It is true that 
 they have since spared no efforts to win the good- 
 will of the neutral world. When the tornado of 
 war struck a tranquil world it swept away the 
 moral and social teachings of Jesus. At any rate 
 it did so far as their political application was con- 
 cerned. Was this because there is bound up in 
 Christianity no compelling power to prevent war? 
 Was it not rather the perfect demonstration that, 
 as nations, we have been pretending to worship a 
 God whom we despise, to believe a Prophet whom 
 we ignore, and to be stirred by motives which really 
 do not impel us? Of course, if what we mean by 
 the failure of Christianity is that the appeal of 
 Jesus to his own contemporaries that they substi- 
 tute a vital religion for a formal religion, a religion 
 of deed for a religion of creed, a practical religion 
 for a doctrinal religion, has failed of acceptance 
 by modern society, why then, yes, in that sense, 
 Christianity has failed. The war itself is convinc- 
 ing proof of that fact. The formal Christianity of 
 ritual and dogma has failed as it was bound to fail. 
 We are swiftly coming to realise that for all too 
 many years and centuries we have been taught, and 
 have not repudiated the teaching, that this world is 
 
DO CHRISTIANS WANT WAR? 15 
 
 a ship that has sprung a leak and is rapidly sinking, 
 and that our wisest course is to get onto a raft of 
 personal salvation and make sure of our individual 
 escape. But the conviction is growing that we have 
 emphasised the importance of personal salvation to 
 the neglect of the redemption of society a con- 
 travention of the simple teachings of Jesus. No 
 attempt is made to deny that religion is, in a very 
 profound sense, a personal matter the establish- 
 ment and maintenance of right relations between 
 the individual and his Maker; but it is firmly be- 
 lieved by many that to stress this syllable of per- 
 sonal salvation in the word Christianity and to 
 slur over the syllable which has to do with its so- 
 cial implications is to make religion esoteric and 
 morbid. It may be that this explanation of why 
 Christianity, when the crisis of the centuries came, 
 was not effective may be the true explanation. Per- 
 haps it is, as claimed, because the majority of 
 preachers have for generations concentrated upon 
 the spiritual value of religion and have slighted its 
 social significance that the churches have been so 
 comparatively impotent in business, industry, poli- 
 tics and diplomacy. Has the time not come, at last, 
 to shift the accent? 
 A further explanation sometimes offered for the 
 
16 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 failure of the churches to prevent the corning of 
 the war is that religious teachers have taken our 
 minds off this present world and have put them on 
 another distant in time and place. They have 
 exhorted us patiently to suffer the slings and ar- 
 rows of outrageous fortune here, and have confi- 
 dently assured us that compensation would come 
 hereafter. It must be perfectly obvious that we 
 cannot make the present world better by riveting 
 our attention on a future world. As long as reli- 
 gion turns men's minds away from the pressing 
 problems of the present and spends its force on va- 
 grant dreams of future bliss it will fail to redeem 
 this world from crime and misery and greed and 
 war. While there are still many thousands of 
 preachers and teachers who specialise in other- 
 worldliness, it is a fortunate fact that most modern 
 ministers at least divide their time between escha- 
 tology and sociology. Christianity must come to 
 grips with all the practical problems of this life ; it 
 must take a real interest in searching for an answer 
 to the Immigrant Question, to the Liquor Question, 
 to the Labour Question. 
 
 Still another explanation given for the compara- 
 tive inefficiency of the Church in relation to the 
 practical problems of social and political life is the 
 
DO CHRISTIANS WANT WAR? 17 
 
 wastage of its energy through meaningless competi- 
 tion. There are in America no less than one hun- 
 dred and sixty-four different denominations and 
 sects, most of them differing in little more than 
 name. One of the most hopeful signs of the times 
 is the movement towards Christian co-operation 
 through the old Evangelical Alliance and the pres- 
 ent Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in 
 America. 1 If the churches could and would speak 
 with one voice and in no uncertain tones proclaim 
 their determined protest against war, they would be 
 heard above the shouting and the tumult of conflict. 
 These truths have been burned into us by the fires 
 of war. Probably now the simplest way out would 
 be for us all to acknowledge, without the piling up 
 of apologetic words, that the kind of Christianity 
 that has been most commonly practised is impotent 
 to save society. Why not make up our minds once 
 for all as to whether or not we really want to make 
 this world a fitter habitat for humanity? And if 
 that is what we want we shall have to transfer our 
 thoughts and affections from a future world to a 
 present world, from a distant world to a world in 
 which we live and move and have our being. It 
 
 i For an excellent review of the work of the Federal Council 
 see an Article by Dr. Frederick Lynch in the Independent for 
 December 4, 1916. 
 
18 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 may require no little display of moral courage, 
 but perhaps now is as good a time as any for us to 
 quit our rigmarole of dogmatism and ritualism and 
 get down to the actual job of " saving the world." 
 When the religion of Jesus shall come to mean the 
 religion of justice in all human relations between 
 man and woman, between capital and labour, be- 
 tween citizen and alien, between nation and nation, 
 and between race and race we shall be very near 
 to the beginning of the end of war. Such a revival 
 of religion would be worth more to the world than a 
 hundred calculated campaigns of clap-trap. There 
 ought to blow over the Church to-day some Pente- 
 costal wind that would stir its dormant energies. 
 What else, unless this, does the word enthusiasm 
 mean, the breath of God blown on the smoulder- 
 ing embers of the heart until it be kindled into a 
 living flame? It may be well to recall that, para- 
 doxical as it may seem, this war has deepened doubt 
 at the same time that it has inspired faith. 1 Pessi- 
 mism and unbelief have come up like the black- 
 damp of a coal mine and have choked what faith 
 we had. It has been hard to answer the questions 
 of the sceptics. War makes for a return to ma- 
 
 i See Article on " War and Religion," by the Rev. Sidney M. 
 Berry, Minister of Carr's Lane Church, Birmingham, England, 
 In Current History for November, 1916. 
 
DO CHRISTIANS WANT WAK? 19 
 
 terialism and a seeming dependence upon brute 
 physical forces; and yet, just because so many mil- 
 lions of men are daily on the verge of death, reli- 
 gious devotion and a profound sense of dependence 
 upon some Power not ourselves, mightier than the 
 powers that be, is quickened and strengthened. 
 
 Nor is this all. Friends of progress have al- 
 ways put much confidence in the restraining influ- 
 ences of culture and enlightenment. Education 
 has long been esteemed one of the most potent fac- 
 tors in human life, and the school has been valued 
 as one of the greatest institutions making for ad- 
 vance. Many of us had almost come to believe 
 that ignorance and barbarism were practically syn- 
 onymous. We thought that the hope of the world 
 lay in dispelling ignorance, with its accompanying 
 train of superstition, intolerance, savagery and cru- 
 elty. When a great European war was predicted 
 many doubted, saying that modern education would 
 tend to inhibit war, and that men who had sub- 
 mitted themselves to the refining processes of cul- 
 ture could not let themselves go with the old aban- 
 don of the savage. If education has failed at the 
 crucial test it should be made sun-clear that what 
 has failed is not education, but mis-education and 
 partial education. We have gone on mumbling the 
 
20 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 phrases of a scholastic learning that has had little 
 or no vital relation to the real world. We have 
 trained men's heads without training their hearts 
 and wills, and then have wondered why our educa- 
 tion has not been successful in preventing war. 
 
 Revolutionary changes are certain to follow in 
 the wake of this war many of them changes of 
 an unprecedented character. Hardly anything will 
 continue to be as it has been in the past. There 
 will be reformations in every department of human 
 life. And not the least of these will take place 
 in the field of education. The school will cease to 
 be thought of as a place where scholars may retire 
 from the real world to contemplate the problems of 
 life, and will become a vital factor in the transfor- 
 mation of society. We shall have to surrender the 
 notion that education is the process of filling an 
 empty skull with the accumulated knowledge of 
 past ages and conceive of it rather as a process of 
 training human faculties the memory, the judg- 
 ment, the will, and the conscience. Education must 
 be moral as well as mental, volitional as well as in- 
 tellectual. 
 
 To the Church and the School, as forces that 
 create and mould public opinion and sentiment, 
 must be added the Press. Modern newspapers 
 
DO CHRISTIANS WANT WAE? 21 
 
 wield a power second only to the autocratic power 
 of Old World States. They are able immeasurably^ 
 to advance the cause of civilisation; they are capa ; 
 ble of doing an immense amount of mischief. It is 
 hard to overestimate the potential influence of a 
 free press, for good and for evil. 
 
 It is platitudinous to speak of the tremendous 
 force of public opinion. " There can be no doubt 
 whatever/' wrote Havelock Ellis more than a year 
 before the present war broke out, 1 " that during 
 recent years, and especially in the more democratic 
 countries, an international consensus of public 
 opinion has gradually grown up, making itself the 
 voice, like a Greek chorus, of an abstract justice. 
 ... A popular international voice generously pro- 
 nouncing itself in favour of justice, and resonantly 
 condemning any government which clashes against 
 justice, is now a factor of the international situa- 
 tion. It is, moreover, tending to become a factor 
 having a certain influence on affairs." That there 
 is a latent power in the will of the world which, 
 when aroused and organised, can accomplish mira- 
 cles is not to be denied. And that is why so much 
 confidence had been placed in the power of public 
 opinion, in common conscience, to thwart the de- 
 
 i The Task of Social Hygiene. 
 
22 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 signs of selfish politicians and financiers. " We 
 had hoped, " like the disciples on the road to Em- 
 maus that popular sentiment, as inspired and 
 cultivated by the churches, the schools and the 
 newspapers, would make a wholesale war in this 
 enlightened age impossible. 
 
 The three familiar arguments against w r ar the 
 horror of war, the waste of war, and the folly of 
 war were unanswerable. Especially was it true 
 that no reply could be made to the moral argument. 
 The shame and crime of war we knew to be axi- 
 omatic. Surely, we said, nobody needs to be con- 
 vinced to-day that war is essentially and fundamen- 
 tally wrong. Men who held no extreme doctrines 
 of non-resistance maintained not that all wars are 
 wrong, but that all war, as such, is wrong. And 
 there is a difference, a vital difference, that is not 
 unlike that between man-slaughter and justifiable 
 homicide. It was held that a war fought to rid 
 the world of a condition worse than war itself is 
 right, but that all other wars are wrong. The jus- 
 tification of war is its justice. The law that is 
 written on the human heart is the Moral Law, and 
 that cannot be abrogated by a declaration of war. 
 
 This mental and moral aversion not to speak 
 of a natural revulsion, detestation, abhorrence- 
 
 
DO CHRISTIANS WANT WAR? 23 
 
 it had been hoped would prevent war. Still, in 
 spite of everything, the war came. But what of 
 the future? In times past it was possible wholly 
 to ignore the world's sad voice of discontent. It 
 will not much longer be possible to continue indif- 
 ferent. The latent power of public opinion is not 
 going to remain latent. Its pressure can already 
 be felt. If any proof of this were needed, it could 
 readily be found in the way that all the belligerents 
 have sought the good will of the neutral world. 
 
 It has already been suggested that the minds of 
 men are made up on this subject of war and peace. 
 There is no mistake about this as a fact. Nor is it 
 any snap judgment. They have taken nearly four 
 thousand years to come to a decision, and that de- 
 cision is, with scarcely a dissenting voice, that war, 
 particularly as waged under modern conditions, is 
 not only incredibly horrible but also incalculably 
 expensive. This war has demonstrated beyond 
 doubt that, whatever the results, direct or indirect, 
 they are certain to be entirely incommensurate with 
 the cost in treasure and suffering. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 WHERE WERE THE WORKERS? 
 
 NOR are these the only forces that have failed. 
 Many had counted on the workers to preserve the 
 peace of the world. We were assured that in these 
 latter days the labourers of one country had much 
 more in common with the labourers of another coun- 
 try than they had with other groups in their own 
 land. Among the socialists a group had grown up 
 who called themselves Internationalists, and it was 
 argued that nothing could possibly induce them to 
 take up arms against their brother workers in other 
 lands. Class-consciousness was esteemed more 
 powerful than nation-consciousness, and it was 
 freely claimed that a new sentiment of solidarity 
 and humanity had arrived to take the place of the 
 old sentiment of nationality and patriotism. Per- 
 haps the logic of history was on the side of those 
 who thus reasoned, but here, as so often happens, 
 abstract logic broke down in the presence of con- 
 crete life. Inspired and urged by sentiments that 
 have a very deep rootage in the human spirit, these 
 
 24 
 
WHERE WERE THE WORKERS? 25 
 
 men, with or without compulsion, hastened to an- 
 swer their country's call to arms, to rally round 
 the flag. 1 
 
 But it is not enough to say that the workers failed 
 to prevent the war. In all probability we had no 
 right to think for a moment that they would suc- 
 ceed. Doubtless we took their enthusiastic prom- 
 ises too seriously. We ought to inquire why they 
 failed. There are three answers. The first we have 
 already suggested. It is that there was a miscalcu- 
 lation as to the potency of the appeal to patriotic 
 and nationalistic sentiment. The second reply is 
 that the workers were not organised internation- 
 ally, except on paper, and therefore could act as a 
 unit only with great difficulty. The third reason 
 is that within their own country they had only a 
 modicum of political power, at any rate in refer- 
 ence to foreign affairs. The power to proclaim or 
 to prevent war, to precipitate or to postpone war, 
 was altogether beyond their control. All they 
 could do was raise their individual voices of pro- 
 test ; they could not back up their voices with their 
 votes in any effectual way. It is therefore hardly 
 just to say that the workers failed to prevent this 
 war. It is true enough that they did not prevent 
 
 i See Chapter XVI, " The Frontiers of Friendship." 
 
26 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 the war, but that is only an indication of their politi- 
 cal weakness. If the peace of the world is ever to be 
 preserved the political power of the workers, who 
 do the fighting, must be greatly enhanced. 
 
 Fortunately there are signs and portents that the 
 day is not distant when Labour's right to be heard 
 in the determination of such momentous issues as 
 war and peace, will be recognised and granted. 
 For a mighty change is impending. 1 The modern 
 movement towards democracy, now temporarily 
 halted, will, in the end, be greatly accelerated by 
 the war. For a while, during the early months, 
 the notion gained credence that the rapid growth 
 and spread of democracy had so frightened Old 
 World rulers that the war was precipitated by 
 them to stem the rising tide. Unlikely as this 
 now seems, and be it as it may, the ultimate ef- 
 fect of the w r ar will undoubtedly be to increase 
 the momentum of the democratic movement. Stu- 
 dents of affairs in the several belligerent nations 2 
 tell us that we may expect radical reforms, economic 
 and political, after the war. Attention is called to 
 
 1 See Article by H. G. Wells entitled " As the World Lives On," 
 in the Independent for January 8, 1917. 
 
 2 See Herbert Bayard Swope's Inside the German Empire, 
 especially Chapter IV. Also see Article on "The Social Revo- 
 lution in England" by Arthur Gleason in the Century for 
 February, 1917. 
 
WHERE WERE THE WORKERS? 27 
 
 the fact that because of the exigencies of the war's 
 demands, the workers in all the fighting nations 
 have been compelled to co-operate industrially to a 
 degree that their most enthusiastic leaders had 
 never dared to suggest before the war. Enforced 
 co-operation has been undertaken on a grand scale, 
 so much so that prices and wages have been 
 rigidly fixed by governmental authority. 
 
 It is interesting and important to observe and 
 record what has been going on in Europe since the 
 war began. In practically every belligerent nation, 
 the Government has forced upon industry and man- 
 ufacture, willy-nilly, a sort of paternalistic de- 
 mocracy, a kind of coerced co-operation. Much of 
 the labour of production and distribution is being 
 performed under direct government management. 
 There is government control, and sometimes opera- 
 tion of mines, shipping and railways. Beginning 
 December 1, 1916, all the South Wales mine fields 
 came under the control of a committee represent- 
 ing the British Board of Trade, the Home Office, 
 and the Admiralty. This committee manages the 
 mines, determines the price, decides on the profits, 
 and settles the question of wages. For the nonce, 
 practically all competition and duplication has 
 been eliminated. This mobilisation of labour and 
 
28 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 control of industry became absolutely necessary. 
 For no nation, fighting for its existence, could af- 
 ford to indulge in wasteful methods. The econ- 
 omies brought about by the all but universal sub- 
 stitution of co-operation for competition meant just 
 so much more money for the war-chests. 
 
 Many insist that after the war, having discov- 
 ered the advantages and economy of such industrial 
 co-operation, the citizen-workers will refuse to re- 
 turn to the old manner of unrestricted competition. 
 They will argue that the enormous savings ef- 
 fected by co-operation have been spent in a costly 
 war to meet the urgent needs of a national crisis. 
 When the crisis is past they will insist that there 
 should be a re-distribution in terms of reward. 
 They will say to their several governments, " Oh, 
 very well, we will tear a leaf from your experience. 
 We, too, believe in co-operation, in democratising 
 industry, but with a difference. Hereafter we will 
 voluntarily co-operate and save for ourselves the 
 usufruct of the labour of our own heads and hands." 
 It is an anomaly of modern times that while we 
 have already achieved democracy, in no small meas- 
 ure, in religion, in education, and in domestic poli- 
 tics, industry should still largely be ruled by mon- 
 archs of the market. When a degree of democracy, 
 
WHERE WERE THE WORKERS? 29 
 
 or something like representative government, has 
 been achieved in industry, there will be three parties 
 that will share in its control: those who own the 
 working capital or tools ; those who labour with 
 head (officers and managers) or hand (manual toil- 
 ers) ; and the general consuming public. 
 
 At length it seems to have dawned upon the 
 workers that war does not inure to their profit. 
 They pay a disproportionate amount of the total 
 cost in life and treasure and they get least for their 
 expenditure. The value of war for them is a ficti- 
 tious value. 1 So it is highly probable that they will 
 not hesitate to go to almost any lengths to bring 
 about the changes that seem to them but just and 
 fair. In the measure that the workers succeed in 
 securing what they demand they will be the stronger 
 by just that much. But even if they are not suc- 
 cessful in bringing about radical and far-reaching 
 economic reforms, there is still the probability, 
 amounting almost to a certainty, that they will ac- 
 quire new and greater political power. The use 
 of this power by the workers through their repre- 
 sentatives in the national councils would certainly 
 act as a brake upon future wars. 
 
 i See Article by Alvin S. Johnson in Atlantic Monthly, March, 
 1914, on " War and the Interests of Labour." 
 
30 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 The spreading revolt of the labouring classes 
 against war is an ominous fact. They are deter- 
 mined that if any means are humanly available for 
 preventing the recurrence of such a holocaust as 
 has marked this age, then its like must never occur 
 again. These are the times that try men's souls 
 and the long-suffering patience of the people. That 
 patient endurance is now utterly exhausted. And 
 because they are so firmly convinced that there is no 
 commensurate profit for them in most wars, the 
 great majorities that go to make up the populations 
 of the nations are determined that their rulers and 
 statesmen must discover ways for preventing fu- 
 ture wars, or else throw-up their jobs. It is a dan- 
 gerous thing to tantalise an awakened giant. 
 Samson may be blinded and oppressed, and shorn 
 of his strength for a time, but he may yet pull the 
 temple down upon our heads. The people will not 
 always remain blind, harnessed to the grist-mill. 
 Old-fashioned rulers hold their sceptres with a 
 slender grip. The power of potentates is dwin- 
 dling. Common will and public right are to be the 
 Imperial Rulers of To-morrow. 
 
 The worker is coming into his own. Perhaps, 
 after this war, we shall need a brand new appraisal 
 of greatness and heroism. Our appreciation has 
 
WHEEE WERE THE WORKERS? 31 
 
 usually been reserved for the soldier type of hero. 
 No one will deny that at his best the soldier-hero 
 possesses many, if not all, the attributes and vir- 
 tues of valour and devotion. Too much cannot be 
 said in recognition of loyalty and courage whenever 
 and wherever found. But it is with heroism as it is 
 with suffering it is too costly and valuable to 
 be wantonly wasted. The Master of all Moderns 
 taught us more than nineteen centuries ago that 
 neither greatness nor courage was confined to fields 
 of carnage. Can it be that we are two thou- 
 sand years behind the times? Jesus saw far into 
 the future when he prophesied that the time would 
 come when we should have to revise our estimate 
 of greatness. He explained to his disciples 
 (Matthew 20 : 25-28) that sooner or later the world 
 would acclaim the Servant in the House of Life as 
 the greatest of us all. 
 
 It is no dispraise, and certainly no disparage- 
 ment, of the soldier to say that he has played his 
 part, and has usually played it well, in the drama 
 of history. But he should not linger any longer on 
 the stage of life. His generous enthusiasm and 
 passionate devotion have been misdirected and prod- 
 igally spent. Some day, and perhaps sooner than 
 we dare hope, the valour of the soldier will become 
 
32 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 the ardour of the engineer. The new sceptre of 
 authority will be a lever and not a sword. Placed 
 under this world of disease and poverty and crime, 
 it will lift it to a higher level. For after all, as 
 some one has said, the greatest engineering feat in 
 history is to raise the standard of living. The man- 
 tle of social authority, and in course of time of po- 
 litical authority as well, will be thrown across the 
 shoulders of the engineer whose business it is to 
 construct and not destroy. 
 
 There is a reason for all this. It is one of the 
 revolutionary changes accelerated by the war. The 
 political sovereigns are not the only potentates 
 whose tenure of absolute authority is precarious. 
 Financial oligarchs are also tottering to their fall. 
 The theory of the divine right of a few men to hold 
 the purse-strings of the people's credit has been 
 torpedoed and sunk, along with that other theory 
 of the divine right of a mediaeval monarch to sign 
 the death-warrant of six million men. This is how 
 it has come about. The dramatic and critical need 
 of the nations at war has made them pass by all 
 figure-heads and merely prominent people, men who 
 happened to own things and who therefore had a 
 financial and social rating, and has led them to 
 draft into the service of the State, for all important 
 
WHERE WERE THE WORKERS? 33 
 
 and responsible work, the man that knows and the 
 man that can get things done, the creative 
 thinker, the practical scientist and the political en- 
 gineer. Lord Northcliffe has pointed out that what 
 is happening is that with the pressure of war has 
 come the hard necessity for national efficiency. 
 This, he says, is why prime ministers have called to 
 their councils working men, business men, and sci- 
 entists, without regard to class or party. 
 
 The war is certain to enhance the value and 
 prestige of men of this stamp. Their stock is 
 bound to go up. The stream of credit, like the 
 river Nile, will overflow its banks. Bills of all 
 sorts will be enacted to democratise finance and fa- 
 cilitate credit opportunities, thereby opening the 
 sluiceways of ambition, enterprise and achieve- 
 ment. Increased credit opportunities for the com- 
 mon man will increase his social usefulness, im- 
 prove his individual status, and strengthen his po- 
 litical control. Gradually the soldier will make 
 way for the engineer and the warrior for the 
 worker. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 WHAT ABOUT THE WOMEN? 
 
 NOT so very different from the charge that we were 
 misled when told that the workers would prevent 
 so calamitous a thing as a world war, is the state- 
 ment that we were likewise deceived when induced 
 to believe that the women would stand united 
 against war. It was clear that the workers had 
 everything to lose and little to gain by fighting the 
 battles of their rulers, but it was no less clear that 
 the women had as much, if not more, to lose than 
 the workers. And surely, it was argued, the women 
 know the awful cost of war in suffering and sacri- 
 fice. 
 
 The answer to the sneer that when we depended 
 upon the women to prevent war we were leaning 
 on a broken reed, is of much the same character as 
 that in reference to the workers. If the women 
 failed to preserve peace it was, in the first place, 
 because they were not organised, and, in the second 
 place, because they had practically no political 
 
 34 
 
WHAT ABOUT THE WOMEN? 35 
 
 power and certainly no direct vote in determining 
 international matters. 
 
 But this condition, too, it seems altogether likely 
 will be changed after the war. As with the work- 
 ers, so with the women, they have been called upon 
 to do unprecedented tasks in the several fighting 
 nations. It will not do to ignore, nor treat lightly 
 the r61e that the women have played in this grim 
 drama. The denouement has proved, beyond the 
 shadow of a doubt, that in respects other than 
 purely idealistic they are the peers of their broth- 
 ers. With equal patriotism they have responded 
 to the appeal for sacrifice and service, and this has 
 been as true of the princess as of the peasant. 
 
 The awakening of the women has not waited for 
 the bugle reveille. The Feminist Movement is a 
 part of the great democratic movement of modern 
 times. The advance of women, during the past few 
 decades, has meant that an ever-increasing number 
 have protested against arbitrary sex discrimina- 
 tion, against presumptuous masculine despotism, 
 against domestic drudgery, industrial parasitism, 
 economic dependence and political disability. 
 
 We need not here discuss in detail these several 
 phases of the Woman Movement. It is as true of 
 " feminism " as it is of so many other reforms of 
 
36 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 one kind and another, the war has put a stop to 
 all direct propaganda and meliorative legislation. 
 And yet, as a matter of fact, what do we find has 
 actually happened? We find that in mobilising the 
 nations (not merely the armies) no arbitrary lets 
 and hindrances have been thrown in the way of 
 woman's employment anyw r here and everywhere, 
 in home, or shop, or hospital, or on the farm, or in 
 connection with transportation lines. There is no 
 time for the idle discussion of fine-spun theories as 
 to the intellectual inferiority or industrial incorn- 
 petency of women, as such. Nations engaged in a 
 life-and-death struggle cannot afford to discrimi- 
 nate on account of sex. What " despotism " there 
 is to-day is military, or governmental for military 
 reasons, and it limits and controls the freedom of ac- 
 tion of all alike. Military necessity is no respecter 
 of persons. 
 
 As for that aspect of the Woman Movement which 
 has concerned itself primarily with the problem of 
 excessive drudgery in the business of home-making 
 and house-keeping, it may be noted that the war has 
 inspired the invention of many labour-saving devices 
 that should reduce the heart-breaking strain and 
 tax of what Arnold Bennett has felicitously called 
 " domestic dailiness." Also, under the compulsion 
 
WHAT ABOUT THE WOMEN? 37 
 
 of necessity, many schemes have been introduced 
 and many projects put into practical operation, in 
 the way of community washing and cooking and 
 serving. 
 
 As for a special class of industrial parasites, who 
 live on the labour of others and feel keenly the 
 shame of selfish indulgence and social futility, this 
 class of women has, at any rate temporarily, ceased 
 to exist. A nation in arms, availing itself of every 
 last resource, material and human, can neither af- 
 ford to feed the lazy nor tolerate the idle. Few 
 stories of the war are more thrilling than those 
 that tell of women of wealth and fashion who, un- 
 like the rich young ruler, have not made the Great 
 Refusal. 1 They have left all and taken up their 
 cross of denial and sacrifice. 
 
 Take also the matter of economic independence. 
 To be sure, the fight to obtain equal pay for equal 
 work has not yet been won, but between two and 
 three million additional women have entered the 
 ranks of gainful occupations. In England, three- 
 quarters of a million are working in munition fac- 
 tories alone. Can old prejudices prevail long in 
 the face of these facts? Surely several steps, not to 
 
 i See the Report of Dr. William Graham, Medical Superin- 
 tendent of the Belfast District Asylum, reprinted in Current His- 
 tory for November, 1916. 
 
38 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 say strides, have been taken in the direction of eco- 
 nomic independence. It does not seem probable 
 that these steps will be retraced and that this ad- 
 vance will be followed by retrogression. 
 
 No matter what may be thought of the Feminist 
 Movement as a whole, there is little reason to be- 
 lieve that governments will refuse, after this war, 
 to give the women more power in legislation. The 
 extension of the franchise so as to include women, 
 while not a foregone conclusion, seems altogether 
 likely. Indeed Denmark and Iceland and four 
 provinces of Canada have already enfranchised 
 their women since the war began and the probabil- 
 ity that the women of England will win the suffrage 
 amounts almost to a certainty. The war has given 
 the women an extraordinary opportunity to demon- 
 strate their equality with men in numberless agri- 
 cultural, industrial, commercial and social activi- 
 ties, and so, by inference, their equal intelligence 
 and fitness to exercise the franchise. It is not un- 
 reasonably urged that if they can work and make 
 guns for -their country they can also vote and make 
 laws for their country. On sentimental grounds 
 alone it is hard to see how the Governments can 
 longer deny to women a share in the conduct of the 
 affairs of the nation which they so heroically and 
 
WHAT ABOUT THE WOMEN? 39 
 
 devotedly have laboured to defend. And they will 
 be the more eager to acquire and exercise this po- 
 litical power after they have had time to sit down 
 and reckon up the fearful costs of the war to them. 
 After the itemised bills have all been rendered and 
 they have pondered over the dreadful details, they 
 will, more than ever before, want to have a voice in 
 those councils of state which decide the momentous 
 question of war or no-war. Can the demand any 
 longer be refused and the right withheld? 
 
 The revolt of women against the custom of war, 
 as such, was to have been expected. And this, of 
 course, is not to deny that there were countless 
 ardent women, in all the belligerent countries, 
 whose patriotic support has been whole-hearted and 
 loyal. But by every instinct of nature, and by 
 every reason of self-interest, women ought to be op- 
 posed to war root and branch. If many of them 
 seem unthinking and unpractical in their opposi- 
 tion, that is the most natural thing in the world. 
 The fact that women are called upon to pay such 
 heavy taxes in irreparable loss and inconsolable 
 sorrow, in privation and cruelty, goes far to explain 
 why women, in the main, are such uncompromising 
 foes of universal military training and conscription. 
 
 One reason for this reaction of war on normal 
 
40 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 women has been pointed out by Olive Schreiner, in 
 a striking passage. " On that day," she writes in 
 her deservedly popular book, 1 " when the woman 
 takes her place beside the man in the governance 
 and arrangement of external affairs of her race will 
 also be that day that heralds the death of war as a 
 means of arranging human differences. ... It is 
 not because of woman's cowardice, incapacity, nor, 
 above all, because of her general superior virtue, 
 that she will end war when her voice is fully and 
 clearly heard in the governance of states it is 
 because, on this one point, and on this point almost 
 alone, the knowledge of woman, simply as woman, 
 is superior to that of man; she knows the history 
 of human flesh; she knows its cost; he does not. 
 In a besieged city, it might well happen that men 
 in the streets might seize upon statues and marble 
 carvings from public buildings and galleries and 
 hurl them in to stop the breaches made in their 
 ramparts by the enemy, unconsideringly and merely 
 because they came first to hand, not valuing them 
 more than had they been paving-stones. One man, 
 however, could not do this the sculptor. He, 
 who, though there might be no work of his own 
 chisel among them, yet knew what each of these 
 i Woman and Labor, pp. 176, 180. 
 
WHAT ABOUT THE WOMEN? 41 
 
 works of art had cost, knew by experience the long 
 years of struggle and study and the infinitude of 
 toil which had gone to the shaping of even one limb, 
 to the carving of even one perfected outline, he 
 could never so use them without thought or care. 
 Instinctively he would seek to throw in household 
 goods, even gold and silver, all the city held, before 
 he sacrificed its works of art ! " 
 
 v 
 
CHAPTER V 
 DID BUSINESS HELP OR HINDER? 
 
 AMONG the forces counted on to prevent the re- 
 currence of war, business was considered the most 
 dependable. The almost inconceivable cost of con- 
 ducting modern wars was set forth as a sufficient 
 reason for believing that we had seen the last war 
 between great nations. And many were convinced, 
 for the claim was not unreasonable. Credulity 
 was not overtaxed in believing that the weight of 
 war would prove too heavy for the shoulders of 
 society. It was said that international commerce 
 and finance had become so intricate and complex 
 that it would be the last limit of folly to permit a 
 modern war which would damage and destroy the 
 delicate fabric of trade. It was urged, and it 
 sounded plausible, that the financiers, because they 
 had so much at stake and because they could hardly 
 hope to profit by war (except for a few money lend- 
 ers and armament manufacturers), would not per- 
 mit it to come. But they did. The war came. 
 Whether or not they possessed the power to prevent 
 
 42 
 
DID BUSINESS HELP OR HINDER? 43 
 
 it need not be discussed here. At best that is a 
 speculative- problem. But the end is not yet, and 
 there is considerable likelihood that, as a direct 
 consequence of this war, the opposition of business 
 will be better organised and far more determined. 
 
 The financial burden of a modern war is as heavy 
 as the serpent Midgard that girds the world. The 
 money cost of the American Civil War in round 
 numbers was f5,000,000,000, or more than $3,500,- 
 000 for each day it lasted. The Franco-Prussian 
 and Russo-Japanese wars each cost in the neigh- 
 bourhood of $2,500,000,000. Between the years of 
 1789 and 1909 the total income of the United States 
 Government was $21,401,539,121, of which amount 
 $10,854,850,565 was expended in wars and pensions. 
 European nations had, even before the war, been 
 spending right along nearer two-thirds than one- 
 half of their income for the same purpose. The ex- 
 penditure on naval and military preparations for 
 the six leading Powers of Europe was, before the 
 war, $5,000,000 a day. It is now twenty times 
 as much. The money cost of the present war 
 makes the cost of all previous wars seem almost 
 insignificant. The total direct military cost for 
 three years is estimated by an expert in the Me- 
 chanics and Metals National Bank of New York 
 
44 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 City l at the staggering figure of $75,950,000,000 ; 
 the cost to the Central Powers being about $27,750,- 
 000,000, and the cost to the Entente Allies not less 
 than $48,200,000,000. These figures hardly vary 
 from those offered by Count von Roedern, Secre- 
 tary of the Imperial German Treasury. It seems 
 not unlikely that this war will cost three times as 
 much as the Napoleonic wars, the American Civil 
 War, the Franco-Prussian War, the Boer War, and 
 the Russo-Japanese War combined. 
 
 Nor is the military cost all that must be posted 
 on the debit side of the ledger, though that alone 
 represents a sum twice as large as the total indebt- 
 edness of every nation of the world in 1914 ; a sum 
 seven times greater than the combined deposits of 
 the 7,600 national banks in the United States, and 
 seven times greater than the whole world's supply 
 of minted gold ; a sum sufficient to build and equip 
 railroads equal to five times the number now 
 operating in the United States ; to pay for two hun- 
 dred such projects as the Panama Canal; to pro- 
 vide schools and teachers for every child living 
 
 i See booklet on War Loans and War Finance. In reply to an 
 inquiry the New York Times stated that at the end of the second 
 year of the war the following approximations were made of the 
 cost for the principal countries involved: Great Britain, 
 $7,670,000,000; France, $0,043,000,000; Russia, $4.118,000,000; 
 Italy, $2,464,000,000: Germany. $0,075,000,000; Austria, 
 $3,000,000,000; Turkey, $2,000,000,000; Bulgaria, $150,000,000. 
 
DID BUSINESS HELP OR HINDER? 45 
 
 to-day. But in addition to this direct military cost, 
 there is the outright destruction, in terms of tan- 
 gible wealth, of cities, railroads, ships, factories, 
 warehouses, bridges, roads, and agricultural values. 
 And, besides all this, there is the loss of that per- 
 centage of Europe's manhood that is maimed and 
 destroyed ; the loss of production in occupied terri- 
 tories; the decrease in stocks of food, metal and 
 other materials ; the derangement of the machinery 
 of distribution ; and the loss involved in taking be- 
 tween thirty and forty millions of soldiers and many 
 other millions of people, to do other things than 
 fight, away from .the opportunities of productive 
 work. 
 
 While the staggering cost, in dollars and cents, of 
 the war between the nations has almost set at 
 naught the total economies achieved within the na- 
 tions, and while no statistician or actuary could pos- 
 sibly estimate the moral damage that has been done, 
 the terrible loss of human life is even more ap- 
 palling. 
 
 Where are the brave, the strong, the fleet, 
 
 The flower of England's chivalry? 
 Wild grasses are their winding-sheet, 
 
 And sobbing waves their threnody. 
 
 The War Study Society of Copenhagen presents 
 
46 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 figures of the cost in human life for the first twenty- 
 four months of the war. 1 They do not greatly dif- 
 fer from those published by the New York Times 
 in reply to a recent inquiry. " The estimates of 
 casualties/' says the Times article, " based on offi- 
 cial data show that the second year of the war cost 
 more than 3,000,000 lives and inflicted wounds on 
 more than 6,000,000. Estimates for the first year 
 ranged between the German report of 2,500,000 
 killed and more than 5,000,000 wounded to Beach- 
 Thomas's estimate of 5,000,000 killed and 7,000,000 
 wounded. Up to the period of the Somme offensive 
 and the Brusiloff drive, both of which began to- 
 wards the end of the second year of the war, the 
 British had lost in killed or totally incapacitated, 
 228,138 ; in prisoners, 68,046. German losses were, 
 killed or totally incapacitated, 664,552; prisoners, 
 137,728. France gives out no figures, but Deputy 
 Longet estimated the losses in killed and totally in- 
 capacitated at 900,000; prisoners, 300,000. Ger- 
 man reports of Russian casualties amounted to 
 3,000,000, of whom 1,000,000 were prisoners." The 
 figures for all the belligerents make a veritable 
 " army of the dead," totalling more than fifteen mil- 
 
 i See also Article on " Human Losses in the First Two Years 
 of the War " in Current History for December, 1916. 
 
DID BUSINESS HELP OE HINDER? 47 
 
 lions killed and wounded. How can we ever justify 
 these extravagant expenditures before the certified 
 auditors of history? And yet, we are told that all 
 this was known in advance. Nobody had any 
 doubt that a modern world war would cost an in- 
 conceivable amount. In fact, it was commonly 
 said that its cost would make it prohibitive. And 
 still the war came. 
 
 It seems almost fraudulent and hypocritical to so 
 much as mention the word " efficiency." It has 
 been the watchword of this generation. Intensive 
 farming, the reclamation of arid regions, the con- 
 servation of timber lands and water power, the 
 elimination of avoidable accidents, preventable dis- 
 ease, premature toil, excessive poverty, these have 
 all been moves in the general direction of social 
 efficiency. But, of course, it is cant and nonsense 
 to talk excitedly about prevention of fires in cities 
 and then neglect to provide protection against 
 world conflagrations. We have strained at gnats 
 and swallowed camels. 
 
 So far from business being a deterrent of war it 
 has actually been a provocative of war, in at least 
 two ways. First, it has laid the fuse for explosion 
 by dollar diplomacy, or financial imperialism, or 
 Realpolitik call it what you will. Among back- 
 
48 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 ward peoples, in undeveloped regions of the earth, 
 it has sought markets for its surplus production and 
 fields for the investment of its surplus wealth. 
 Then it has brought pressure to bear upon the " for- 
 eign office," manipulating diplomacy to secure privi- 
 leges and concessions and to back up its adventur- 
 ous undertakings with fleets and regiments. The 
 resulting friction has more than once precipitated 
 conflict. 1 The second way in which business has 
 hindered rather than helped the cause of peace 
 among the nations is in respect to abnormal profits 
 reaped by the manufacture and sale of instruments 
 of destruction and by trade in the thousand and one 
 things that are necessary to the conduct of war. 
 That the makers of madness have, time after time, 
 been the manufacturers of munitions need not be 
 proved all over again in this place. The evidence 
 is both ample and conclusive. It is too bad to have 
 to believe that human nature can and does stoop so 
 low as to conspire to bring about war for the sake 
 of the gain there is in it. But facts are stubborn 
 things. 
 
 i For a more detailed discussion of this subject see Chapter 
 XV, " Draining the Swamps." 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 WHAT'S WRONG WITH DIPLOMACY? 
 
 WITH as much vigour and with more justice it has 
 been said over and over again since August, 1914, 
 that when we put our trust in diplomatic negotia- 
 tions we deserved to be deceived. This, of course, 
 is not the same thing as saying that the individual 
 diplomats were at fault. Nothing is more certain 
 than that Sir Edward Grey employed every means 
 known to diplomacy to compose the differences and 
 bring about a settlement by conference. But the 
 machinery broke down under the strain. The " sys- 
 tem" was at fault. The romantic diplomacy of 
 haute politique was unequal to the task of prevent- 
 ing the calamity. 
 
 Interested in national success and devoted to 
 power and prestige, diplomats have used the ac- 
 tual and potential strength of the nation, the lives 
 and money of the people, to play the game of inter- 
 national chess. But diplomacy should be more 
 than a game that is played with loaded dice or 
 loaded guns. A change is absolutely imperative. 
 
 49 
 
50 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 We must substitute scientific politics for senti- 
 mental politics, and statesmanship for subtlety. 
 We must come to think of it as being the business 
 of diplomacy to reduce friction between States and 
 thus forestall war. The real task of the diplomat 
 should be to keep things running smoothly between 
 nations. 
 
 At the close of this war there will probably need 
 to be two congresses. The first, a Peace Congress 
 for the purpose of drawing up the terms of settle- 
 ment. At this Congress only the belligerent nations 
 will be represented. The second will be a bona- 
 fide Congress of Nations and will include neutrals. 
 This should be assembled as soon after the close of 
 the first congress as is practicable. Some action 
 looking toward a second congress will doubtless be 
 taken at the first congress. Or it may be possible 
 to effect a compromise arrangement by protracting 
 the Peace Congress, by having an " after meeting," 
 so to speak. At the first part of the Congress, at 
 which only the belligerents would be represented, 
 all the terms of settlement could be agreed upon, 
 except the question of future securities. The pro- 
 gressive neutral nations, particularly the United 
 States, might then, by right and not by favour, par- 
 ticipate in the latter part of the discussion having 
 
WHAT'S WRONG WITH DIPLOMACY? 51 
 
 to do exclusively with guarantees of future peace. 
 
 The personnel of both congresses will be a very 
 important consideration. It is probably too much 
 to expect that the type of men who represent the 
 nations in the first congress will be so very different 
 from the type of diplomat, now more or less dis- 
 credited, with which we are all too familiar. In all 
 likelihood the character of representation at the 
 second congress will be altogether different. 
 
 But this is not at all certain. It may be that the 
 old school diplomacy will appreciate the fact that 
 it is played out. It must not be forgotten that tre- 
 mendous influences have been operating during the 
 past two years which may, very possibly, have 
 brought about something of a conversion or change 
 of heart. The whole world has been shocked by the 
 present war into a vivid realisation of its enormity. 
 It seems almost inconceivable that at the close of 
 this war, even in the first Treaty Congress, states- 
 men should sit supine and indifferent as to the fu- 
 ture. Besides re-drawing the map of Europe and 
 pulling and hauling for national advantage as to 
 strategic coast lines, naval bases, fortresses and 
 railroad centres, it is hard to see how they can do 
 less than ponder the problem of the possibility of 
 preventing such wars in the future. It will mean 
 
52 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 sacrifice. It will mean giving up many ancient 
 dogmas. It will mean that in the very terms of the 
 treaty of peace something of generosity and mag- 
 nanimity must enter. Unless Ephraim is joined to 
 his idols, and is altogether impervious to changed 
 conditions, then diplomacy must relinquish many 
 of its traditions and doctrines and hasten on the 
 double-quick to catch up with the spirit of the age. 
 The political problem is at bottom a moral prob- 
 lem, and morality is the problem of the relationship 
 between man and man, as religion is the problem of 
 the relationship between man and God. The busi- 
 ness of social morality and of politics has to do with 
 the establishment and maintenance of right rela- 
 tionships between individuals and groups and na- 
 tions. A diplomacy that is thoroughly modernised 
 would conceive of its task as being the " scientific 
 management " of the nations, while the jobs of the 
 diplomats would be, so to speak, those of inter- 
 national efficiency experts. Unless their business 
 is to reduce friction between States, and to save the 
 awful loss and waste that result from friction, car- 
 ried to the extreme in war, then they have no raison 
 d'etre. War may be the most horrible and the most 
 expensive solution of international problems, but it 
 certainly is the easiest way out. Creative states- 
 
WHAT'S WRONG WITH DIPLOMACY? 53 
 
 men should conceive and construct new and better 
 ways. Either that is the job of the statesman, or 
 else he has no job. 
 
 The new diplomacy must keep abreast of the times 
 and be aware of the vast revolutionary changes that 
 have come over the world since the day of Metter- 
 nich. It must do that, it must be more modern, 
 but that is not all. It must be or become more 
 practical. Here there is the possibility of confu- 
 sion, for it will be contended by many that the 
 trouble with diplomats has been that they have 
 been altogether too practical, concerning them- 
 selves with the minutest details of profit and loss. 
 But that is not the point. They have exercised 
 what talents they had for practicality in the inter- 
 ests of privileged groups and then, for the rest, they 
 have neglected the most pressing practical prob- 
 lems of our age. Very properly they might have 
 conceived it to be their principal business to devise 
 ways and means for relieving undue strain and 
 stress and for ridding the world of burdensome war. 
 But instead of leading they have, all too often, been 
 led. They have been led by two groups within the 
 State with whom they were altogether too familiar, 
 the group of militarists prepossessed with the 
 idea of war, and the group of financiers seeking an 
 
54 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 opportunity for profitable investment. Of course 
 no blanket charge can be made against all diplo- 
 mats on this score ; but these things have been true 
 of them as a class. 
 
 The acid test of value is being applied all through 
 modern life. For example, when it is applied in 
 the department of education and the work of the 
 schools, we say that education must be more con- 
 crete and objective, so we institute vocational edu- 
 cation and commercial training, establish " Gary " 
 schools and " Modern " schools. The churches 
 have had to face the same problem. The fear of 
 futility constantly spurs them on to more and 
 more social and political effort. In like manner 
 domestic politics has had to come down to earth 
 and concern itself with the details of improving the 
 conditions of life and labour. " Practical " politi- 
 cians, corrupt and contented, long asked the ques- 
 tion, What has posterity done for me? And then, 
 without waiting for a reply, they have fed their 
 greed for sordid gain. But what has come to be 
 known as the era of conscience in domestic politics 
 means that the old style of " practical " politics is 
 at an end. It means that grafters, profiting by 
 crass methods of purchase, have had to shut up shop 
 and go out of business. The new demand is for an- 
 
WHAT'S WRONG WITH DIPLOMACY? 55 
 
 other sort of practicality. Politicians, to be suc- 
 cessful, have learned that they must concern them- 
 selves with the problems of the common people; 
 must invent new ways of putting tools into the 
 hands of those that can use them, of supplying land 
 to those that can till it, of reducing the hours of 
 labour to a reasonable minimum, and of fixing a 
 standard living wage that must be paid. This new 
 practical politics is obliged to wrestle with these 
 yery tangible problems. In America, for example, 
 it is supposed to redeem the waste places and to 
 exploit the natural resources for the benefit of 
 all. 
 
 Now the time has come, and can no longer be 
 put off, when international statesmen must likewise 
 become more practical. On the one hand, they must 
 become less metaphysical and mystical ; and, on the 
 other hand, they must refuse any longer to pull 
 chestnuts out of the fire for the private profit of a 
 few. They must become engrossed in the social 
 and industrial interests of the ordinary people who 
 make up the nations. This is the temper of the 
 times. This is the humanistic spirit of the age in 
 which we live. And surely, by all odds, the great- 
 est service they could possibly render to the people 
 of the nations would be to provide and enter upon 
 
56 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 agreements that would reduce to a minimum the 
 likelihood of war. 
 
 But the new diplomacy must be not only more 
 modern and more practical; it must also be more 
 responsible and more public. These two things are 
 spoken of at the same time because of their very 
 intimate connection. We have heard a great deal 
 about the wickedness and menace of " secret diplo- 
 macy." Indeed some have gone so far as to place 
 the whole burden and blame of the war on its 
 shoulders. Nor is it to be doubted that secret diplo- 
 macy will have to render its account before the 
 Grand Assize of History for its share of culpability. 
 At the same time there is something in the conten- 
 tion that many affairs of state ought not to be 
 spread in block type upon the front pages of the 
 newspapers, at least not during the early stages 
 of negotiation. The people themselves, those who 
 are asking for an end of secret diplomacy, would 
 not infrequently be the greatest losers if their re- 
 quest for immediate and full publicity were granted. 
 It is alsa true, and important to keep in mind, that 
 responsible cabinets are often more wisely con- 
 servative than parliaments. Ministers are fre- 
 quently less headstrong and hysterical than masses. 
 But there must be a golden mean between instant 
 
WHAT'S WRONG WITH DIPLOMACY? 57 
 
 and complete publicity of all delicate negotiations 
 and the method now too much in vogue of hiding 
 the facts from the people who have the best right to 
 know what is going on, since it is they that must 
 pay the cost for every blunder. Again and again 
 it has been pointed out as an anomaly that in this 
 age of complete publicity the trade of the diplomat, 
 on which the happiness of empires and generations 
 is so often dependent, should continue to be secret. 
 It is more than an anomaly, it is a tragedy. Diplo- 
 macy must be democratised, and parliaments must 
 control foreign affairs. 
 
 Surprising as it may seem to those who have not 
 given thought to the matter, it will have to be con- 
 fessed that in many modern nations we have democ- 
 ratised practically everything else but foreign af- 
 fairs. Eeligion has been democratised. Education 
 has been democratised. Domestic politics has been 
 democratised. Like the divine right of the financier 
 to give or withhold credit, the divine right of the 
 diplomat to prevent or precipitate war, remains as 
 a sort of socio-political appendix. It is not nearly 
 so important that foreign affairs should be open and 
 public as it is that diplomats and foreign secretaries 
 should be held to strict accountability. 
 
 This is probably the most important aspect of 
 
58 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 the whole question of peace and war. Between 
 democracy and world peace there is undoubtedly a 
 very close connection. We shall have somewhat 
 more to say of this in a subsequent chapter. 1 It is 
 therefore not necessary for us to discuss here, at any 
 great length, the question of absolutism in govern- 
 ment. Probably a majority of the people of the 
 world are convinced that monarchs with autocratic 
 power are anachronisms. They are archaic and 
 will soon be obsolete. They have had their day and 
 must soon cease to be. But however we may feel 
 about that question, there is everywhere to-day the 
 feeling that inasmuch as it is the common people 
 who at last must do the greater part of the fight- 
 ing, they ought at least to have some voice in de- 
 termining the question of whether or not war shall 
 be declared and prosecuted. 
 
 It will be said that while ordinary, average men 
 and women may be trusted with the management of 
 domestic affairs and the solution of internal prob- 
 lems, when it comes to foreign affairs or interna- 
 tional politics, why, that is quite another matter. 
 In the first place, we are told, the people are not 
 interested in foreign affairs. Now if that has been 
 true, whose fault is it? Who has tried to interest 
 
 i Chapter XVII, " Souls in Revolt." 
 
WHAT'S WKONG WITH DIPLOMACY? 59 
 
 them in foreign affairs, or who has tried to make 
 foreign affairs interesting? A veil of vagueness has 
 been drawn over all things international. Nobody 
 has tried to quicken the people with a desire for full 
 and sound knowledge in these matters. Their curi- 
 osity has been neither excited nor encouraged. 
 Some have even gone so far as to assert that rela- 
 tions between nations do not concern the people, 
 which of course is ridiculous on the face of it. If 
 they do not concern the people, then they do not con- 
 cern anybody ; and if they do concern anybody, then 
 they certainly concern the people. Furthermore, 
 we are told that the people do not care anything 
 about and cannot possibly understand international 
 politics. But who has been at any pains to educate 
 the people in these subjects? If they are ignorant, 
 who is at fault? To speak very frankly, have they 
 not been purposely kept ignorant by the high priests 
 of statecraft so that they might not be tempted to 
 interfere? 
 
 It is perfectly true that there are many academic 
 matters that are not sufficiently tangent to the peo- 
 ple's daily lives to arouse their interest and grip 
 their attention. But, after all, this is very largely 
 a matter of words and manner of presentation. For 
 example, the ordinary run of everyday people may 
 
60 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 not appear to be particularly interested in theology. 
 They certainly do not bother their heads about pro- 
 found problems of divinity; but they are tremen- 
 dously interested in the practical problems of per- 
 sonal religion. Or again, they may be entirely un- 
 familiar with Buckle and Hegel and may not care 
 a straw about the philosophy of history as such; 
 but they are deeply interested in the question of 
 whether the world is getting better or worse, 
 which is the philosophy of history. Or yet again, 
 the man in the street is not worried very much over 
 questions of moral philosophy questions about 
 purpose, and design, and the final meaning of life 
 but he does care a lot about whether his life is 
 worth living and how he can make it more so. The 
 first man you meet on your way home from work 
 will tell you he does not know what you are driving 
 at when you talk learnedly about psychology ; in all 
 likelihood he will tell you that he is not in the 
 slightest degree interested in psychology. As a 
 matter of fact, it is the name and the abstraction 
 that he is not interested in, for he is vitally inter- 
 ested in human nature, his own and others', and not 
 infrequently is himself something of an expert and 
 boasts of the fact that he can read his friends like 
 
WHAT'S WRONG WITH DIPLOMACY? 61 
 
 a book. It is something very much like this when 
 it comes to diplomacy. 
 
 To speak by the record, before this present war, 
 the average man or woman was not overmuch con- 
 cerned about foreign affairs. But this war, as has 
 been true of no other war in history, has brought 
 the concrete problems of diplomacy not only into 
 the editorial leaders and the headlines of the daily 
 newspapers, but also into the active consciousness 
 of the daily lives of the multitudes. To-day when 
 Presidents, Premiers and Chancellors talk, about 
 foreign politics, the common people hear them 
 gladly. Diplomacy has ceased to be something re- 
 mote and recondite, the intellectual indulgence of 
 learned statesmen, and has become, or is well on the 
 way to becoming, as much a matter of genuine con- 
 cern as business or religion or domestic politics. 
 And this is little less than a revolution. 
 
 Whether in the past the multitudes have or have 
 not been interested in foreign affairs, whether they 
 have or have not known or cared anything at all 
 about international politics and the problems of 
 diplomacy, this war has pointed a period to their 
 lackadaisical indifference. They do care now, and 
 they are going to care even more. Nor will their 
 
62 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 interest stop short of actual participation. Their 
 newly acquired knowledge will ripen into action. 
 " If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do 
 them," and the people are going to do something 
 about war and peace. And one of the first things 
 they are going to do is to come to real grips with 
 the "problem of misplaced or irresponsible author- 
 ity. How? By drafting and demanding the pas- 
 sage of bills which will take the authority for de- 
 claring war out of the hands of absolute monarchs 
 and place it in the hands of the representatives of 
 the people. 
 
 Paradoxically enough, foreign affairs are the most 
 personal of all affairs. And this is only another 
 way of saying that to-day, even in the more demo- 
 cratic countries, the actions and decisions of diplo- 
 mats may precipitate war and rob the home of its 
 most precious possessions. That is why it is a local 
 issue, a personal matter. Without so much as a 
 " by your leave," boys of tender years, whose lives 
 might well have been cherished by the State for 
 more profitable adventures, are hustled off by the 
 millions to become fuel for the incinerators that 
 follow in the train of every battle. 
 
 But the new diplomacy will be not only more 
 modern, more practical, more public, and more re- 
 
WHAT'S WRONG WITH DIPLOMACY? 63 
 
 sponsible; it will also be more ethical. Make no 
 mistake. We are not here discussing the question 
 of the personal morality of diplomats. Our present 
 interest is in something vastly more important than 
 that. It is a question of standards. The doc- 
 trine of state sovereignty, which makes a nation 
 a law unto itself " a moral absolute," as John A. 
 Hobson puts it implies the right of a nation to 
 invent its own code of morals and then, of course, 
 attribute it to revelation or to anything else that 
 happens to suit its fancy. Then, when war is de- 
 clared, it becomes possible to make null and void all 
 the ethical standards of the race. Theoretically, 
 a nation may do with impunity what no individual 
 is allowed to do. It may commit every crime on the 
 calendar, and then excuse its action on the grounds 
 of military necessity. Theft, arson, rapine and 
 murder, are all committed with as much sang froid 
 as if there never had been any Moses and the 
 Prophets, as if the race never had established any 
 standards of morality more exacting than those of 
 savagery and barbarism. 1 
 
 But perhaps all the unlovely deeds that shock our 
 sense of right and decency are the necessary attend- 
 ants upon war. Perhaps it will be just as well for 
 
 i See Chapter XVII, " Souls in Revolt." 
 
64 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 us to recognise the fact that any attempt to civilise 
 warfare is like attempting to square the circle. 
 And perhaps that is just why those who wrote the 
 provisions in the Hague Conventions which had to 
 do with the sufferings of civil populations, with the 
 destruction of public buildings and works of art, 
 with the sinking of ships and their passengers, with 
 the use of fire and hunger as weapons, and with 
 every other attempt to regulate warfare on land 
 and sea, qualified their provisions by such saving 
 clauses as, " as far as is compatible with military 
 necessity," and so forth. 
 
 But what reasons have we for the hope that is in 
 us, the hope that such revolutionary changes in 
 diplomacy as we have suggested can possibly be 
 brought about? With the history of the past in 
 mind, how can we reasonably expect that states- 
 men will do now what they never before have done, 
 never before have even attempted to do? There 
 are several very excellent reasons for believing that 
 at the close of this present war a sincere and genu- 
 ine attempt will at last be made to establish perma- 
 nent peace. 
 
 First among these reasons may be mentioned the 
 fact that there is such a thing as the hand of God 
 in human history, call it Providence, Fate, or what 
 
WHAT'S WRONG WITH DIPLOMACY? 65 
 
 you will. There is in the affairs of men a tide 
 which taken at its flood leads on to certain great 
 objectives. The present tide is swiftly running in 
 the direction of international organisation, or at 
 any rate, in the direction of a closer fellowship 
 among the nations of the world; and this in spite 
 of the war and all its aroused hatreds. Potent as 
 4s the will of the individual and of the social group 
 in determining human affairs, there seem also to be, 
 at the same time, certain strong currents of history 
 or destiny which hasten us onward towards far-off 
 divine events. 
 
 But it will not do for us to be fatalistic optimists 
 who believe that to achieve certain consummations 
 all that is necessary is devoutly to wish for them. 
 Therefore, the second fact on which we base our 
 faith is the development of what has been called an 
 international mind. It does not make a great deal 
 of difference whether or not we believe in " Inter- 
 nationalism.'' The important fact, which cannot be 
 gainsaid, is that countless forces are making for the 
 cohesion and integration of the whole world. 
 
 Nor is this all. What has already been said in 
 the conclusions to all the earlier chapters should be 
 reviewed and recalled at this point. The new em- 
 phasis in pacifism, the changed accent in religion, 
 
66 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 the tremendous force of public opinion, the deter- 
 mined mood of modern business, the growing oppo- 
 sition of women and the threatened revolt of the 
 workers, these all furnish additional reasons for 
 believing that statesmen, however obscurantist and 
 near-sighted, will see the handwriting on the wall. 
 These are the forces that have failed. The war 
 came in spite of the pacifists, the Christians, the 
 workers, the women, the bankers and the diplomats. 
 But what of the future? Is there nothing that will 
 prevent war? Is there nothing that will diminish 
 the probability of its recurrent return? It is too 
 soon to give up hope and lose heart. The future is 
 fertile with possible plans that may prove prac- 
 ticable. In the succeeding chapters we shall study 
 in detail the proposals of one of these projects. 
 
PAET II 
 A PEOGEAMME TO PEEVENT WAE 
 
THE GREAT DIVIDE OF HISTORY 
 
 We are on the verge of a Great Divide. As we look down 
 the slope of the past three years we are sobered and saddened. 
 Faith and optimism are at a premium. Despair has come up 
 like a miasmic fog from the Mood-swamps of Europe. We are 
 choked by the poisonous gases of doubt. It is not surprising 
 if many have grown sceptical of reform and are saying that 
 civilisation has collapsed. But civilisation has not really col- 
 lapsed. This is not the debacle of civilisation. The treasures 
 of a hundred ages have not been altogether swept away by the 
 cyclone of ivar. When the debris has been cleared ice shall 
 doubtless find that the accumulated wealth of art, and litera- 
 ture, and culture, and tolerance, the love of liberty and the 
 passion for justice, are secure in the war-proof vaults of heart 
 and mind. We must not permit our tears to blind us to this 
 fact. 
 
 Some of us, fatuously enough as it now appears, had sup- 
 posed that the pillars of society were religion and culture and 
 democracy the church, the school, and enlightened public 
 opinion. Evidently we were mistaken. Not these, but brute 
 force alone was the foundation upon which the towering struc- 
 ture of the State had been based! Paradoxical as it may 
 seem, the sills and girders of fear and force can no longer be 
 trusted to bear the iveight and stand the strain of modern sky- 
 scraper States. New underpinnings of reason and justice, 
 along with the practical means for making reason and justice 
 operative in international relations, must be substituted if we 
 icoitld have the edifice endure. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 A LEAGUE OF STATES 
 
 " THE federative system," says Guizot in his His- 
 tory of Civilisation in Europe, " is that which evi- 
 dently requires the greatest development of reason, 
 morality, and civilisation in the society to which it 
 is applied/' From this we may infer that the goal 
 of progress, the happiness of the nations, is to be 
 discovered and attained by the gradual substitution 
 of co-operation for competition. The gregarious 
 instinct slowly evolves into conscious organisation, 
 first for protection, and then, later on, for conquest 
 and enterprise. Necessity is the mother of inven- 
 tion in more ways than one. The family was " in- 
 vented" to protect the child and states were "in- 
 vented" to protect the family, the clan, and the 
 tribe. Primitive men, naturally wary of strangers 
 in spite of the instinct for fellowship, got together 
 and formed mutual aid societies, so to speak, in or- 
 der the more successfully to defend themselves 
 against wild beasts, untoward environment, and 
 other threatening groups. Families combined into 
 
 71 
 
72 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 clans close corporations of kindred and these 
 in turn were merged or federated into tribes. The 
 struggle between tribes, usually over proprietary 
 rights in nature, resulted in the firmer union of 
 each group in opposition to hostile groups. 
 
 Organisation for defence and conquest became a 
 more effective weapon than individual slings and 
 arrows. After long generations of futile fighting 
 that never got anybody anywhere, tools were in- 
 vented, and tilling began to be considered almost 
 as important as killing. Perhaps the curse of the 
 world has always been that men have preferred 
 stealing to working. Even Adam tried to get his 
 food by some other method than " trimming the 
 vineyard." The exploitation of the weak by the 
 strong in order to get something that you want and 
 that doesn't belong to you has been the chief cause 
 of most of the wars of history, dating back to very 
 earliest times and coming down to the day before 
 yesterday. Treitschke says that " it is a false con- 
 clusion that wars are waged for the sake of material 
 advantage." 1 He tells us that " modern wars are 
 not fought for the sake of booty." But he would 
 find it difficult to maintain this position. The pre- 
 daceous instinct, and not the fighting instinct, is 
 
 i Politics, Vol. I, p. 15. 
 
A LEAGUE OF STATES 73 
 
 really at the bottom of all wars. The desire for ag- 
 grandisement and not the lust for combat is the 
 true explanation why people and nations war upon 
 one another. 
 
 " The progress of man/' writes Walter Bagehot, 
 " requires the co-operation of men for its develop- 
 ment. That which any one man or any one family 
 could invent for themselves is obviously exceedingly 
 limited. . . . The rudest sort of co-operative soci- 
 ety, the lowest tribe and the feeblest government, is 
 much stronger than isolated man. The first princi- 
 ple of the subject is that man can only make prog- 
 ress in ' co-operative groups.' . . . For unless you 
 can make a strong co-operative bond, your society 
 will be conquered and killed out by some other so- 
 ciety which has such a bond." x Certainly it has 
 been discovered in modern business and industry 
 and all constructive undertakings, that the big 
 tasks of civilisation can best be done by co-opera- 
 tion. It is hard for one man to build a city or 
 drain a swamp or span a trestle across a river. 
 And that is why we have partnerships, companies, 
 syndicates, corporations, and government. Gov- 
 ernment may be defined as the organised attempt of 
 thousands or millions of individuals to " consoli- 
 
 i Physics and Politics, Chapter VI, p. 131. 
 
74 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 date " the advances made by civilisation, and to 
 make some particular part of the earth a better 
 place for people to live in. This is the most impor- 
 tant task of government. More often than not it 
 botches the job or shirks it altogether. 
 
 The authors of The Federalist papers have called 
 attention to the striking similarity between the 
 American federal system and the confederation of 
 Greek republics associated under the Amphictyonic 
 Council. Compare the authority of this Council 
 with that which the Constitution of the United 
 States placed at the disposal of our national admin- 
 istration : " The members retained the character 
 of independent and sovereign States, and had equal 
 votes in the federal Council. This Council had a 
 general authority to propose and resolve whatever 
 it judged necessary for the common welfare of 
 Greece; to declare and carry on war; to decide, in 
 the last resort, all controversies between members ; 
 to fine the aggressing party; to employ the whole 
 force of the confederacy against the disobedient. 
 . . . They had a declared authority to use coercion 
 against refractory cities, and were bound by oath to 
 exert this authority on the necessary occasions." * 
 
 Another society of Grecian Republics, at first and 
 
 i Essay No. XVIII, p. 89. 
 
A LEAGUE OF STATES 75 
 
 up till the time when the Amphictyonic Council was 
 destroyed by the machinations of Macedon, was 
 comprised of the less important cities. It was 
 called the Achaean League and later on embraced 
 almost all of Peloponnesus. The same authors 
 quoted above 1 defined the powers of this league as 
 follows : " The cities composing this league re- 
 tained their municipal jurisdiction, appointed their 
 own officers, and enjoyed a perfect equality. The 
 Senate in which they were represented had the sole 
 and universal right of peace and war; of sending 
 and receiving ambassadors ; of entering into treaties 
 and alliances ; of appointing a Chief Magistrate or 
 Praetor, as he was called, who commanded their 
 armies, and who, with the advice and consent of ten 
 of the senators, not only administered the Govern- 
 ment in the recess of the Senate, but had a great 
 share in its deliberations when assembled." 
 
 Montesquieu tells us that " it was these associa- 
 tions that so long contributed to the prosperity of 
 Greece." 2 
 
 States, as has been pointed out, have not long re- 
 mained static, but have expanded in size and impor- 
 tance by increases in population and forms of com- 
 
 1 Essay No. XVIII, p. 92. 
 
 2 The Spirit of Laws, Book IX, p. 126. 
 
76 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 bination. The time was when cities were inde- 
 pendent and sovereign States Athens, Sparta, 
 Florence, Venice. Because Mr. Stentor's voice 
 could not proclaim the news so as to be heard by 
 more than ten thousand people the maximum size 
 of cities was arbitrarily fixed at that number. 
 With the invention of the printing press, of modern 
 means of communication and transportation, the 
 borders were gradually pushed back towards the 
 horizon. The basis of a common government is 
 common interests. Transportation and communi- 
 cation facilities, trade, commerce, the universal 
 translation of learning and literature, all these 
 things tended to broaden the base of the common 
 interest and thus at the same time extend the fron- 
 tiers of government. States have drawn nearer 
 and nearer together until propinquity has ended in 
 marriage. Again and again this has happened. 
 
 It may be interesting to recall that in the early 
 ages of Christianity Germany was occupied by seven 
 distinct nations, each having sovereign jurisdiction 
 and independence. To-day there are twenty-six 
 states and provinces in the close-knit German Con- 
 federation. 
 
 The Swiss cantons furnish another modern in- 
 stance of the application of the federative princi- 
 
A LEAGUE OF STATES 77 
 
 pie. 1 The several and separate cantons, or depart- 
 ments, have delegated less authority to the Central 
 Government than any other confederacy, ancient or 
 modern. Perhaps for this reason they furnish a 
 better analogy, or prototype, of the sort of society 
 of nations that is sometimes conceived of as not im- 
 probable. 
 
 Much the same thing is true of the United Neth- 
 erlands, which is a confederation of co-equal and 
 sovereign States-General. 
 
 Alexander Hamilton builded better than he knew 
 when, with Washington and Franklin and Madison, 
 in 1788, he constructed the foundation walls of the 
 nation by forcing the adoption of the Federal Con- 
 stitution. From these early beginnings, and not 
 without toil and struggle, the United States of 
 America has grown. States and sections have 
 yielded more and more to increasing demands for 
 
 iSee Bryce's American Commonwealth, Chapters 27, 28, 29 
 and 30 ; also Woodrow Wilson's The State. John Fiske, in his 
 American Political Ideas (p. 133), says that, stated broadly, the 
 principle of federalism is just this: " That the people of a 
 State shall have full and entire control of their own domestic af- 
 fairs, which directly concern them only, and which they will nat- 
 urally manage with more intelligence and with more zeal than 
 any distinct governing body could possibly exercise; but that, 
 as regards matters of common concern between a group of States, 
 a decision shall in every case be reached, not by brutal warfare 
 or by weary diplomacy, but by the systematic legislation of a 
 central government which represents both States and people, 
 and whose decision can be enforced, if necessary, by the com- 
 bined physical forces of all the States." 
 
78 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 national unity. We probably need no reminder of 
 the fact that the thirteen original States of New 
 Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode Island and 
 Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, 
 New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, 
 Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and 
 Georgia, after entering into a " firm league of 
 friendship and perpetual union/' still retained their 
 " Sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every 
 Power, Jurisdiction and Right which was not ex- 
 pressly delegated to the new united states in con- 
 gress assembled," etc. 1 The treaty of peace con- 
 cluded with Great Britain at Paris, September 3d, 
 1783, closing the War of Independence, expressly 
 said " his British Majesty acknowledges the said 
 United States 2 ... as free, sovereign and inde- 
 pendent states." 
 
 The process towards amalgamation (for America 
 is now more than a federation) has been a gradual 
 development. The need of presenting a solid front 
 for defence against foes from without tended to ac- 
 celerate its evolution. " United we stand ; divided 
 we fall " and " In union there is strength " were 
 more than high-sounding political slogans. Also, 
 
 1 Articles of Federation, Article II. (1781.) 
 
 2 Here the several States are individually listed. 
 
A LEAGUE OP STATES 79 
 
 one invention after another had the effect of bind- 
 ing the several communities and states more inti- 
 mately together. The result was the all but imper- 
 ceptible erasure of the lines of separation. Bound- 
 aries began to appear more as things that bound 
 States together than as frontiers which set the 
 limits and marked the confines of common interest 
 and purpose. It became increasingly difficult to 
 remain provincial, and to keep up the illusion of a 
 dozen absolutely sovereign States operating inde- 
 pendently of one another. The facts of modern life 
 made the fiction appear too romantic. The com- 
 mon notion that the Civil War was fought merely to 
 maintain an abstract theory of political philosophy 
 is incredible. The war was precipitated to free 
 the slaves. Freeing the slaves was the next step 
 towards democracy. Calhoun's arguments in de- 
 fence of States' Rights have never really been re- 
 futed. They are probably unanswerable as logic. 
 But, as F. C. H. Schiller has pointed out, logic 
 is made for life and not life for logic, An- 
 other way to put it would be to paraphrase the 
 philosophy of pragmatism and say that the doctrine 
 of sovereignty was true so long as it served a useful 
 purpose. After a certain point had been reached 
 and passed, it became a fond delusion, a vain super- 
 
80 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 stition, a political heirloom, intellectual bric-a- 
 brac. 
 
 But we must not think that the idea of a sov- 
 ereign state or nation is as old as the hills, for it is 
 not. It is like the " wage-system " and so many 
 other things to which we have grown accustomed. 
 We think it must be rimy with age just because the 
 mind of the oldest inhabitant runneth not to the 
 contrary. As a matter of fact, the idea of human 
 sovereignty probably dates back to the time when 
 God was supposed to have delegated his power on 
 earth to a vicar of Rome. Then when the schism 
 arose between the Roman Church and the Protes- 
 tant Sects at the time of the Reformation, Luther 
 convinced the reigning kings that they, as well as 
 the Pope, ruled by " divine right." Nor did the re- 
 volt against absolutism in government put an end to 
 the notion of sovereignty. It transferred the seat 
 of authority to the people. The relativity of all hu- 
 man life makes the doctrine of absolute sovereignty 
 untenable. You can no more have a score or a 
 hundred conflicting and competing sovereignties 
 and sovereigns than you can have three or four uni- 
 verses, or a half-dozen infinities. But superstitions 
 die hard and nobody likes to acknowledge that he 
 has been worshipping a fetish. 
 
A LEAGUE OF STATES 81 
 
 It is true that such a tentative society of nations 
 as is here proposed is, in one sense, a new depar- 
 ture; in another sense it is but the next and most 
 natural step to take in the direction in which we 
 have been going right along. No revolutionary at- 
 tempt will be made to abolish by an emancipation 
 proclamation men's slavery to ideas. There will be 
 no prohibition against any and all nations and rul- 
 ers still believing in the " divine right of kings " or 
 " the sovereignty of States " ; but the practical ef- 
 fect of a successful league of nations would be to 
 limit the possible harm that these theories could do. 
 It is safe to say that the movement away from 
 national individualism and towards international 
 mutualism would more than likely result in pro- 
 tecting small states in the assertion and mainte- 
 nance of their inalienable but alienated rights to 
 life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In fact, 
 in the course of a speech at Dublin ( September 25, 
 1.914) Premier Asquith took occasion to speak of 
 " an equal level of opportunity and of independence 
 between small States and great States as between 
 the weak and the strong; safeguards resting upon 
 the common will of Europe and I hope not of 
 Europe alone against aggression, against inter- 
 national covetousness, against bad faith, against 
 
82 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 wanton recourse in case of dispute to the use of 
 force and the disturbance of the peace." The Ger- 
 man Imperial Chancellor has said that the object of 
 any league of nations, organised to secure the- peace 
 of the world, must " create political conditions that 
 do full justice to the free development of all nations 
 small as well as great." 
 
 And yet, the proposed League of Nations would 
 not conceive its mission to be that of a Big Brother 
 to the less powerful states. It would not take itself 
 too seriously as a palladin of liberty and justice. 
 Though ultimate democracy and universal brother- 
 hood may be the not unreasonable hope of the 
 world, the League would not mistake itself for a 
 Political Messiah. True enough, in practice and 
 actual operation, it would be more than likely to 
 recognise and protect the " rights " of small nations 
 as against the " wrongs " of large nations. On the 
 principle of live and let live it would probably en- 
 courage small nations to work out their own salva- 
 tion, and through its Court and Council guard them 
 against depredations. But, on the other hand, it 
 would not recognise the theoretical rights of back- 
 ward nations to remain backward and thus halt the 
 whole parade of progress. No man has an inalien- 
 able right to be a nuisance or a menace to the com- 
 
A LEAGUE OF STATES 83 
 
 munity ; nor has any nation, however large or how- 
 ever small. They, too, must get in step or get out 
 of line. 
 
 We are all more or less cabined, cribbed and con- 
 fined by circumstance. It is hard to break with 
 the past and tear ourselves up by our roots. With 
 all of our boasted freedom of will and independence 
 of mind we are subject slaves of the tyrant tradi- 
 tion. It has been pointed out that the beginning 
 of progress, of " verifiable progress," probably dates 
 from the day we arose in rebellion against " cus- 
 tomary law." * Ibsen tells us in one of his plays : 2 
 " We are all of us ghosts. It is not only what we 
 have inherited from our father and mother that 
 ' walk ? in us ; it is all sorts of dead ideas and lifeless 
 old beliefs." And that is true. We permit the 
 corpses of custom and convention to remain un- 
 buried until they almost corrupt the world. 
 
 Ever since the founding of this Republic we have 
 interpreted the advice of Jefferson in his First In- 
 augural 3 about not letting ourselves get tangled 
 
 iBagehot: Physics and Politics, Ch. VI, p. 132. Alfred 
 Russel Wallace: Letters and Reminiscences. 
 
 2 Ghosts, Act II. 
 
 s" About to enter, fellow citizens, on the exercise of duties 
 which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is 
 proper that you should understand what I deem the essential 
 principles of our government, and consequently those which 
 ought to shape its administration. I will compress them within 
 the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general prin- 
 
84 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 up in the skein of European alliances l to mean 
 that we should " come out and be ye separate." 
 This is doubtful exegesis, but even if it is precisely 
 what he meant, it is hardly pertinent to-day. Per- 
 haps it was sage counsel for his day and generation, 
 but since then we have had more than a hundred 
 years of comparative freedom from strife in which 
 to work out our own salvation without either 
 fear or trembling. President Wilson undoubtedly 
 had this advice in mind, when, on Memorial Bay, 
 1916, he delivered a very notable speech in the 
 course of which he said : " I shall never myself 
 consent to an entangling alliance, but would gladly 
 assent to a disentangling alliance, an alliance which 
 would disentangle the peoples of the world from 
 
 ciple, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all 
 men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political ; 
 peace, commerce, and honest friendship, with all nations en- 
 tangling alliances with none." Inauguration Address, March 
 4, 1801. 
 
 Much to the same purport is a letter written to J. Correa de 
 Serra, from Mouticello, October 24, 1820, in the course of which 
 he said: '*. . . Nothing is so important as that America shall 
 separate herself from the systems of Europe, and establish one 
 of her own. Our circumstances, our pursuits, our interests, are 
 distinct, the principles of our policy should be also. All en- 
 tanglements with that quarter of the globe should be avoided if 
 we mean that peace and justice shall be the polar stars of the 
 American societies." The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, V<1. 
 XV. pp. 285-7. 
 
 i " A vendetta, whore men are bound together to fight others 
 and revenge injuries, is an entangling alliance: a police force is 
 not. It is to the latter class that the League belongs." A. Law- 
 rence Lowell in an Article on " The League to Enforce Peace " in 
 The Xorth American Review for January, 1917. 
 
A LEAGUE OF STATES 85 
 
 those combinations in which they seek their own 
 separate and private interests, and unite the peo- 
 ples of the world to preserve the peace of the world 
 upon a basis of common right and justice. There 
 is liberty there, not limitation. There is freedom, 
 not entanglement. There is the achievement of the 
 highest thing for which the United States has de- 
 clared its principle." Surely this is a very differ- 
 ent thing from endorsing what George Bernard 
 Shaw calls the " equilibrist diplomacy " of Euro- 
 pean states. 
 
 Here, in America, we have not had time to feel 
 lonely in our " splendid isolation." We have been 
 too busy building the nation, winning the West, 
 and making the desert to blossom with wheat. But 
 much water has flowed under the bridge since 
 Washington delivered his Farewell Address. 1 We 
 
 i Because of the interest in Washington's advice, in reference 
 to its bearing on the proposal that the United States join a 
 League of Nations to Enforce Peace, it has seemed worth while 
 to quote the passage from his Address which dwells upon the sub- 
 ject: 
 
 ". . . The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign na- 
 tions, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have as little 
 political connection with them as possible. So far as we have 
 already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect 
 good faith. Here let us stop. 
 
 " Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, 
 or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in fre- 
 quent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign 
 to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to im- 
 plicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of 
 her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collections of her 
 friendships or enmities. 
 
86 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 are closer to-day to the uttermost parts of the earth 
 than New England was to the Great Divide when 
 the Colonies signed the original Articles of Con- 
 federation. The question, therefore, that presses 
 for solution is whether or not America shall share 
 the responsibilities as well as enjoy the prestige of 
 a world power. Shall we assume the risks neces- 
 sarily involved in becoming one of the signatory 
 powers to a new kind of treaty? Shall we quit 
 being simply ward politicians and become world 
 politicians? 
 
 We are bound to have to face this question sooner 
 or later; why not face it now? Mr. Wilson faced 
 it when at Shadow Lawn he said : " The world 
 will never be again what it has been. The United 
 States will never be again what it has been. The 
 United States was once in enjoyment of what we 
 used to call splendid isolation. The three thou- 
 sand miles of the Atlantic seemed to hold all Eu- 
 ropean affairs at arm's length from us. The great 
 
 " Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us 
 to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an 
 efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy 
 material injury from external annoyance ; when we may take 
 such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time 
 resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected ; when belligerent na- 
 tions, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, 
 will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation ; when we may 
 choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall 
 counsel. . . ." Farewell Address, September 17, 1796. 
 
A LEAGUE OP STATES 87 
 
 spaces of the Pacific seemed to disclose no threat 
 of influence upon our politics. Now, from across 
 the Atlantic and* from across the Pacific we feel 
 to the quick the influences which are affecting our- 
 selves. ... It does not suffice to look, as some 
 gentlemen are looking, back over their shoulders, 
 to suggest that we do again what we did when we 
 were provincial and isolated and unconnected with 
 the great forces of the world, for now we are in the 
 great drift of humanity which is to determine the 
 politics of every country in the world.'' 1 
 
 Mr. Hamilton Holt, in the course of an address 
 delivered at the Lake Mohonk Conference on May 
 25, 1915, said : " It would seem to be the manifest 
 destiny of the United States to lead in the estab- 
 lishment of such a league. The United States is 
 the world in miniature. The United States is a 
 demonstration to the world that all the races and 
 peoples of the earth can live in peace under one 
 form of government, and its chief value to civilisa- 
 tion is a demonstration of what this form of gov- 
 ernment is. And when we get the League of Peace, 
 we shall find it will not satisfy the world any more 
 than did the Articles of Confederation satisfy our 
 forefathers. As they had abandoned their Con- 
 
 i November 4, 1916. 
 
88 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 federation and established a more perfect Union, 
 so we shall have to develop our League of Peace 
 into that final world federation, which, the his- 
 torian Freeman says, when it comes into existence, 
 will be the most finished and most artificial produc- 
 tion of political ingenuity." 
 
 For America this is the cross-roads of destiny. 
 If some are still uncertain as to which path we 
 ought to tread, others are thoroughly convinced 
 that we should turn away from our splendid isola- 
 tion and turn towards a more splendid fellowship 
 with all the progressive nations of the earth. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 A COURT OF REASON 
 
 THE idea of appealing to reason rather than to 
 force of settling vital disputes in court rooms in- 
 stead of bloody angles is not novel. Nor is the 
 working out of the idea in programmes and propos- 
 als similar to those advocated by the League to En- 
 force Peace. More than two hundred years ago 
 (1713) the Abbe Castel de St. Pierre published a 
 .book entitled Pro jet de Traite pour rendre la Paix 
 Perpetuelle. It will be recalled that this was di- 
 rectly after the Treaty of Utrecht had been signed 
 concluding the wars waged on the Continent dur- 
 ing the early years of the eighteenth century. As 
 outlined in this Project, it was proposed to or- 
 ganise a League of Nations whose members would 
 all bind themselves to uphold and maintain public 
 law by agreeing to the following six proposals: 
 
 1. The Sovereigns are to contract a perpetual 
 and irrevocable alliance, and to name plenipoten- 
 tiaries to hold, in a determined spirit, a permanent 
 diet or congress, in which all differences between 
 
 89 
 
90 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 the contracting parties are to be settled by arbitra- 
 tion or judicial decision. 
 
 2. The number of the Sovereigns sending pleni- 
 potentiaries to the congress is to be specified, to- 
 gether with those who are to be invited to accede 
 to the treaty. The presidency of the congress is to 
 be exercised by the Sovereigns in turn at stated 
 intervals, the order of rotation and term of office 
 being carefully defined. In like manner the quota 
 to be contributed by each to the common fund, and 
 its method of collection, are to be carefully de- 
 fined. 
 
 3. The Confederation thus formed is to guar- 
 antee to each of its members the sovereignty of 
 the territories it actually possesses, as well as the 
 succession, whether hereditary or elective, accord- 
 ing to the fundamental laws of each Country. To 
 avoid disputes, actual possession and the latest 
 treaties are to be taken as the basis of the mutual 
 rights of the contracting Powers, while all future 
 disputes are to be settled by arbitration of the 
 Diet. 
 
 4. The Congress is to define the cases which 
 would involve offending States being put under 
 the ban of Europe. 
 
 5. The Powers are to agree to arm and take the 
 
A COURT OF REASON 91 
 
 offensive in common and at the common expense, 
 against any State thus banned, until it shall have 
 submitted to the common will. 
 
 6. The plenipotentiaries in congress, on instruc- 
 tions from their Sovereigns, shall have power to 
 make such rules as they shall judge important with 
 a view to securing for the European Republic and 
 each of its members all possible advantages. 
 
 It will be noted that the fifth proposal does not 
 differ in principle from the third proposal of the 
 League to Enforce Peace except that the League 
 does not propose to enforce awards and decisions, 
 nor compel submission of disputes so long as ac- 
 tual war is not begun. If the Abbe's plan was not 
 accepted and made operative at once it was not 
 because it was impractical but because it was not 
 practicable then. " I have yet many things to say 
 unto you," said Jesus to his~ impatient disciples, 
 "but ye cannot bear them now," (John 16:12). 
 Great ideas, like great men, are sometimes born 
 into the world before the world is ready for them. 
 In 1713 the " fulness of time " had not come. But 
 the seed that fell on stony ground has not died. 
 This time we shall plant it in more fertile soil. 
 
 Nor was St. Pierre's plan the only one evolved 
 and elaborated. As early as 1623 M. Emeric 
 
92 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 Cruce l launched a similar project. And twenty 
 years before St. Pierre's book was printed William 
 Penn wrote and published his "holy experiment 
 in civil government " 2 which also contained a pro- 
 posal to use military force against any sovereign 
 who refused to submit a dispute to an interna- 
 tional body to be set up for the purpose of hearing 
 and deciding international questions. Penn's 
 plan, like St. Pierre's, included the enforcement of 
 compliance with decisions. . William Ladd's essay 
 on a Congress of Nations was published in 1840. 
 Kant, Bentham and the elder Rousseau also pro- 
 mulgated similar ideas in their generation. 
 
 Now, at last, it seems to be the consensus of 
 opinion that the time is not premature for a defi- 
 nite movement in the direction of an international 
 understanding and agreement that will make for 
 international concord and the lessening of the like- 
 lihood of war. Beyond question it is the fact that 
 the League does not essay the impossible which ac- 
 counts for the enthusiasm with which it has been 
 received and approved by practical statesmen, dip- 
 lomats, and men of affairs all over the world. 
 
 The fact that the President of the United States 
 
 1 See his book, Le Nouveau Cyn6e. 
 
 2 Essay Toirarfl* the Present and Future Peace of Europe by 
 the Establishment of (in European Dyet. Parliament, or Estates. 
 
A COURT OF REASON 93 
 
 has enthusiastically endorsed not only the central 
 idea of a league of nations but the proposals of the 
 League to Enforce Peace for insuring the world 
 against future wars is a matter of first importance 
 to all Americans. In his address before the first 
 national convention of the League held in Wash- 
 ington, D. C., May 27, 1916, he said : " The peace 
 of the world must henceforth depend upon a new 
 and more wholesome diplomacy. Only when the 
 great nations of the world have reached some sort 
 of agreement as to what they hold to be funda- 
 mental to their common interest, and as to some 
 feasible method of acting in concert when any na- 
 tion or group of nations seeks to disturb those 
 fundamental things, can we feel that civilisation 
 is at last in a way of justifying its existence and 
 claiming to be finally established. ... So sin- 
 cerely do we believe in these things that I am sure 
 that I speak the mind and wish of the people of 
 America when I say that the United States is 
 willing to become a partner in any feasible associa- 
 tion of nations formed in order to realise these ob- 
 jects and make them secure against violation. . . . 
 If it should ever be our privilege to suggest or in- 
 itiate a movement for peace among the nations now 
 at war, I am sure that the people of the United 
 
94 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 States would wish their Government to move along 
 these lines: First, such a settlement with regard 
 to their own immediate interests as the belliger- 
 ents may agree upon. We have nothing material 
 of any kind to ask for ourselves, and are quite 
 aware that we are in no sense or degree parties to 
 the present quarrel. Our interest is only in peace 
 and its future guarantees. Second, an universal 
 association of the nations to maintain the inviolate 
 security of the highway of the seas for the common 
 and unhindered use of all the nations of the world, 
 and to prevent any war begun either contrary to 
 treaty covenants or without warning and full sub- 
 mission of the causes to the opinion of the world, 
 a virtual guarantee of territorial integrity and 
 political independence. ... I feel that the world 
 is even now upon the eve of a great consummation, 
 when some common force will be brought into ex- 
 istence which shall safeguard right as the first 
 and most fundamental interest of all peoples and 
 all governments, when coercion shall be summoned 
 not to the service of political ambition or selfish 
 hostility, but to the service of a common order, a 
 common justice, and a common peace." 
 
 In the previous chapter it was pointed out that 
 the American States were independent and sov- 
 
A COUKT OF REASON 95 
 
 ereign. That is true. As a matter of fact, they 
 were quite as jealous of their rights and preroga- 
 tives as are the several nations of Europe to-day. 
 But the time came when, as a people, we grew so 
 thoroughly convinced of the value of the Union that 
 the majority were willing to fight for its preserva- 
 tion when secession and disunion threatened. 
 
 The principle of federation involves the funda- 
 mental principle of politics, which is compromise. 
 Compromise is the price of peace in a complex 
 world of conflicting interests. It is the price we 
 pay for happiness and concord. And this is as 
 true in public life as in private life. Without 
 reciprocity, give and take, live and let live, we 
 could have no family accord, no business harmony, 
 no industrial amity, no social relations whatever. 
 
 The several units of the American federation 
 agreed to disagree as to local matters, and either 
 to agree on national and interstate matters, or 
 else, in the event of disagreement, to refer the mat- 
 ter in dispute to some court for adjudication and 
 settlement. The tribunal instituted for this pur- 
 pose in America is the Supreme Court of the 
 United States. 
 
 Now it so happens that at this writing there is 
 a sharp controversy between the people and gov- 
 
96 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 eminent of one of these states, Virginia, and the 
 people and government of another state, West Vir- 
 ginia, over the question of whether or not West 
 Virginia shall pay its share of the original debt 
 of old Virginia, amounting to more than twelve 
 million dollars. 1 Between any two European 
 States this might very possibly constitute a casus 
 belli. The reason why the borders of these states 
 are not bristling with bayonets, the reason why 
 their citizens are not arrayed in serried ranks 
 along the frontiers, is not because Americans are 
 any better than Europeans, nor because Virginians 
 are any more just or sober than Frenchmen. It is 
 because the machinery is all set-up and oiled for 
 the settlement of just such disputes. The matter 
 has gone before the United States Supreme Court, 
 behind which is the " sanction " not only of public 
 confidence (not earned by one decision, either), 
 but also, as a matter of fact, the potential strength 
 of the entire nation, of all the separate and several 
 states, to back up the national will. There, at 
 Washington, the issue will in all likelihood be set- 
 tled, not amidst the clamour of battle, but in the 
 tranquil atmosphere of reason; not by fists, but 
 by facts ; not by war, but by law. That something 
 
 i The exact amount of the award was $12,393,000. 
 
A COURT OF REASON 97 
 
 not unlike this may be brought to pass among the 
 nations of the world, both as to federation and 
 arbitration, is the ardent hope of many forward- 
 looking men in all the leading countries. 
 
 Back of federation is arbitration. Here again, 
 as was found to be true of federation, the principle 
 itself is not novel or even experimental. It has 
 been planted and has thrived in many fields of so- 
 cial activity. The present purpose is simply to 
 extend the application of the principle to inter- 
 national relations. It is seldom or never true that 
 an issue is so sharply drawn between right and 
 wrong that there is absolutely nothing to arbi- 
 trate. Prejudice and willful misunderstanding 
 are responsible for many of the conflicts of his- 
 tory. Surely it is as absurd to attempt to deter- 
 mine the right or wrong of a given matter by 
 ordeal of battle as it is to judge the guilt or in- 
 nocence of an alleged witch by trial by fire. 
 
 Perhaps we need once more to be reminded 
 even though the analogy may not go on all fours 
 that the time was when individuals took the 
 settlement of their grievances in their own hands, 
 and the code duello was everywhere in vogue. In 
 the tenth century " trial by battle " was fully sanc- 
 tioned by the State. The disputants went out into 
 
98 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 the public field and fought it out. The Judge by 
 law was obliged to adjourn court and render a 
 verdict in favour of the winner. In the early days 
 in America the ethics of frontier life gave to the 
 buckskin pioneer the right to use a handy revolver 
 in settling his dispute with an adversary. We had 
 six-shooter diplomacy in America long before we 
 had shirt-sleeve diplomacy, and Colonel Bowie was 
 more popular in those days than Machiavelli. As 
 these outlying communities became more thickly 
 populated, and grew more " civilised," the dis- 
 putants took their quarrels to an established court 
 for settlement. Much the same thing was true 
 as to controversies between families, groups, com- 
 munities, and states. Compulsory arbitration is 
 never welcomed by the party that knows itself to 
 be in the wrong, nor feared by the party that is 
 sure of the righteousness of its cause. Before 
 long the sanction of society and the approval of 
 mankind will be given to this principle of arbitra- 
 tion, as among the nations of the world. 
 
 In his introduction to Mr. Woolfs splendid 
 book, 1 Mr. George Bernard Shaw says, " In the 
 territories of the United States, pioneered by men 
 quite as civilised by teaching and traditon as their 
 
 iL. S. Woolf, International Oovernment, p. XVI. 
 
A COURT OF REASON 99 
 
 cousins in London and Brighton, the revolver and 
 the bowie knife reigned where the sheriff and the 
 vigilance committee fell short. And the sixteen- 
 inch gun and the submarine torpedo reign in Eu- 
 rope at present solely because there is no super- 
 national sheriff or vigilance committee to adjust 
 the disputes of nations." 
 
 Nor is the application of the principle of arbi- 
 tration novel in international relations. Two Tri- 
 bunals have been established to decide such con- 
 troversies as arise from time to time between the 
 United States and Canada; one to deal with 
 such questions as boundary waters and the other 
 with claims between the citizens of the two coun- 
 tries. 
 
 It will surprise many to know that no less than 
 thirteen cases have been decided by The Hague Tri- 
 bunal and that about two hundred arbitrations 
 took place between 1815 and 1900. 1 It will be 
 said that these were relatively unimportant mat- 
 ters ; that nations do not and will not submit ques- 
 tions of honor or vital interest. In the main, it 
 
 i W. Evans Darby in a Supplement to his International Tri- 
 bunals entitled Modern Pacific Settlements, lists 477 cases be- 
 tween 1794 and 1900. It is estimated that there have been 
 about 200 since 1900 and that there were 82 or 83 before 1794, 
 making a total of 960. Two hundred and nine arbitration treat- 
 ies were in force in 1914 when the war broke out. 
 
100 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 is true that the questions referred to the Inter- 
 national Tribunal for consideration (for without 
 the " sanction " provided for in the League's pro- 
 gramme an International Tribunal could do little 
 more than consider matters voluntarily sub- 
 mitted) were of minor importance and did not in- 
 volve in any way the prerogatives of sovereignty. 
 But surely the Dogger Banks Fisheries case was 
 a question of " honour." Those who know say that 
 England, particularly London, was stirred with 
 indignation and excitement as it seldom has been. 
 The action of Admiral Rozhdestvensky, in firing 
 on the trawlers, sinking the Crane, wounding six 
 fishermen, and killing two, was described as " an 
 unspeakable and unparalleled and cruel outrage." 
 The findings and indemnity (65,000) of the In- 
 ternational Commission of Inquiry was accepted 
 and the dispute was at an end. 1 
 
 The execution of the first proposal of the League 
 would mean the setting-up of an International 
 Judicial Tribunal to interpret existing treaties 
 and to administer the existing international law. 
 The Hon. William Howard Taft, President of the 
 League to Enforce Peace, has pointed out that a 
 
 i For a more detailed statement of the issues involved in this 
 celebrated case see Appendix, page 303. 
 
A COUKT OF REASON 101 
 
 Court to administer international justice is not 
 new. In an address delivered before the National 
 Educational Association at Madison Square Gar- 
 den, New York, on July 3d, 1916, he said, referring 
 to this proposal, that " the proposal is practical 
 and is justified by precedent. The Supreme Court 
 of the United States, exercising the jurisdiction 
 conferred on it by the Court, sits as a permanent 
 international tribunal to decide issues between the 
 States of the Union. From time to time questions 
 arise between States not settled by the Federal 
 Constitution or Federal statutes. Take the case 
 of Kansas against Colorado, heard and decided by 
 the Supreme Court. Kansas sued Colorado, com- 
 plaining that Colorado was using for irrigation 
 the Arkansas River running through both States, 
 so as to deprive Kansas of its use. Congress had 
 no power to control Colorado. The case was de- 
 cided, not by a law of Congress, not by the law 
 of Kansas, not by the law of Colorado, for the law 
 of neither applied. It w r as decided by the prin- 
 ciple of International Law. It was International 
 Law alone that fixed the lines between the States 
 and the Supreme Court enforced them." l 
 
 The Wilson-Bryan treaties, accepted in principle 
 
 i See also the first of the Taft-Bryan debates. 
 
102 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 by thirty-three nations, signed by thirty nations 
 and ratified by twenty nations up to this writ- 
 ing, are really an application of the idea of a Com- 
 mission of Inquiry, concerning which we shall 
 have somewhat to say in the following chapter. 
 But because of the likeness, as well as the differ- 
 ence, between the central principle of all these 
 treaties and the essential idea of the League to 
 Enforce Peace (dilatory treatment) it seems desir- 
 able to quote the articles of one of these treaties 
 at this point. Save for a few changes introduced 
 into the treaties with the Netherlands and with 
 Great Britain, all the treaties signed are identic, 
 mutatis mutandis. 
 
 ARTICLE I. The high contracting parties agree 
 that all disputes between them, of every nature 
 whatsoever, which diplomacy shall fail to adjust, 
 shall be submitted for investigation and report to 
 an International Commission, to be constituted in 
 the manner prescribed in the next succeeding 
 Article; and they agree not to declare war or 
 begin hostilities during such investigation and 
 report. 
 
 ARTICLE II. The International Commission 
 shall be composed of five members, to be appointed 
 as follows: One member shall be chosen from 
 
A COURT OF REASON 103 
 
 each country, by the Government thereof; one 
 member shall be chosen by each Government from 
 some third country; the fifth member shall be 
 chosen by common agreement between the two 
 Governments in equal proportion. The Interna- 
 tional Commission shall be appointed within four 
 months after the exchange of the ratifications of 
 this treaty ; and vacancies shall be filled according 
 to the manner of the original appointment. 
 
 ARTICLE III. In case the high contracting 
 parties shall have failed to adjust a dispute by 
 diplomatic methods, they shall at once refer it to 
 the International Commission for investigation and 
 report. The International Commission may, how- 
 ever, act upon its own initiative, and in such case it 
 shall notify both Governments and request their 
 co-operation in the investigation. The report of 
 the International Commission shall be completed 
 within one year after the date on which it shall 
 declare its investigation to have begun, unless the 
 high contracting parties shall extend the time by 
 mutual agreement. The report shall be prepared 
 in triplicate; one copy shall be presented to each 
 Government, and the third retained by the Com- 
 mission for its files. The high contracting parties 
 reserve the right to act independently on the sub- 
 
104 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 ject-iiiatter of the dispute after the report of the 
 Commission shall have been submitted. 
 
 ARTICLE IV. Pending the investigation and re- 
 port of the International Commission, the high 
 contracting parties agree not to increase their 
 military or naval programmes, unless danger from 
 a third power should compel such increase, in which 
 case the party feeling itself menaced shall con- 
 fidentially communicate the fact in writing to the 
 other contracting party, whereupon the latter shall 
 also be released from its obligation to maintain 
 its military and naval status quo. 
 
 ARTICLE V. The present treaty shall be ratified 
 by the President of the United States of America, 
 by and with the advice and consent of the Senate 
 thereof; and by the President of the Republic of 
 Salvador, with the approval of the Congress 
 thereof; and the ratifications shall be exchanged 
 as soon as possible. It shall take effect immedi- 
 ately after the exchange of ratifications, and shall 
 continue in force for a period of five years; and 
 it shall thereafter remain in force until twelve 
 months after one of the high contracting parties 
 have given notice to the other of an intention to 
 terminate it. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 A CONGRESS OF NATIONS 
 
 To say that it is none of our business how the 
 other half lives is to invite disaster. It isn't 
 necessary to discuss the ethical question: Am I 
 my brother's keeper? We are not especially in- 
 terested right now in what Mazzini calls the phi- 
 losophy of Cain. To-day it is as true in respect 
 to the relations between nations as it is in respect 
 to the relations between groups and classes within 
 a nation, that the outside public is no longer an 
 " innocent bystander." We are a part of the con- 
 troversy and are driven by the exigencies of 
 modern life to take sides in practically every issue. 
 To remain parochial and live a sequestered life 
 of ease apart in this age of hourly newspapers and 
 of radiograms, of common wants and of common 
 sources of supply, it would be necessary to build 
 a cabin and dwell in the backwoods. 
 
 " There must be a just and settled peace," said 
 the President of the United States in his Speech 
 
 105 
 
106 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 of Acceptance, 1 "and we here in America must 
 contribute the full force of our enthusiasm and of 
 our authority as a nation to the organisation of 
 that peace upon world-wide foundations that can- 
 not easily be shaken. No nation should be forced 
 to take sides in any quarrel in which its own 
 honour and integrity and the fortunes of its own 
 people are not involved; but no nation can any 
 longer remain neutral as against any willful dis- 
 turbance of the peace of the world. The effects 
 of war can no longer be confined to the areas of 
 battle. No nation stands wholly apart in interest 
 when the life and interests of all nations are 
 thrown into confusion and peril. If hopeful and 
 generous enterprise is to be renewed, if the healing 
 and helpful arts of life are indeed to be revived 
 when peace comes again, a new atmosphere of 
 justice and friendship must be generated by means 
 the world has never tried before. The nations of 
 the world must unite in joint guarantees that 
 whatever is done to disturb the whole world's life 
 must first be tested in the whole world's court of 
 opinion before it is attempted." 
 
 The time has indeed arrived when it has become 
 
 i Reply to the formal notification of his renomination. Read 
 at Long Branch, N. J., September 2, 1916. 
 
A CONGKESS OF NATIONS 107 
 
 almost, if not altogether, as impossible for us to 
 remain neutral in reference to international con- 
 troversies as it is for us to continue neutral with 
 reference to industrial quarrels and disputes in 
 domestic affairs. With all the marvellous im- 
 provements in aerial navigation, it is not prac- 
 ticable for any neutral nation to pick up, bag and 
 baggage, and move to another planet. Nations 
 that happen for the moment to be neutral nations 
 are as much concerned as are the belligerents in 
 the paramount question of whether this world of 
 ours is to be a world of fire-sides or firing-lines, of 
 factories or fortresses, of wheat-fields or battle- 
 fields. 
 
 If the way of the neutral is particularly hard 
 to-day, there is a reason for it. It is very largely 
 because the material conditions of current life, the 
 machinery of industry, commerce, and finance, 
 have changed more rapidly than the political ma- 
 chinery and the mental outlook of most people. 
 In spite of the pressing need, we have not yet de- 
 veloped an " international mind," nor have we in- 
 vented and constructed machinery that will operate 
 both quickly and smoothly in adjusting interna- 
 tional misunderstandings and disagreements. 
 
 The fact of interdependence among the nations 
 
108 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 has become so clearly apparent as to need no prov- 
 ing. The masses of the people the world over 
 receive to-day almost identical education. Sim- 
 ilar religious beliefs prevail everywhere. All 
 have practically the same access to sources of 
 knowledge and information. The same sorts of 
 papers are read all over the world. And not only 
 do the people of one country read about the people 
 of another country, but they visit them, which 
 means an interchange of culture. What is grown 
 in one hemisphere is often eaten in another. The 
 spirit of the age is a sounding board that carries 
 the voice to the uttermost parts of the world, thus 
 providing, in effect, an international audience. 
 Competent writers are now able to reach millions 
 where once they could not hope to address more 
 than hundreds. There are international organiza- 
 tions of labour and international congresses of 
 every description. It is almost a fad to study 
 foreign languages and conditions in groups and 
 societies and clubs. The results of scientific re- 
 search and political and sociological experience 
 are, by means of the new machinery of intercourse, 
 made at once available. If any question remains 
 as to the interdependence of modern nations, it 
 ought to be enough to point to the way the war 
 
A CONGEESS OF NATIONS 109 
 
 itself has spread from land to land, almost around 
 the entire circuit of the globe. 1 
 
 But, some one may ask, What has all this to do 
 with the second Proposal of the League's pro- 
 gramme, which is what we have under consideration 
 in this chapter? It has a great deal to do with 
 it; for it means that the causes of conflict to-day 
 are not what they were yesterday. The jealousies 
 and petty personal quarrels of reigning dynastic 
 Houses are not the real reasons why modern na- 
 tions fight. Out of new conditions new problems 
 have arisen. These new problems flow from the 
 fact that the world is becoming more and more of 
 a parish "a great community," to employ the 
 happy phrase of the late Professor Koyce. These 
 problems have to do with fears about disturbing 
 the balance of power, with debates about spheres 
 of influence, with discrimination as to immigration 
 exclusion, with the unquenchable desire for a place 
 in the sun, and so forth. To-day, nations are 
 neighbours, and friendship is not fostered by tariff 
 walls any more than by spite fences. We have 
 simply got to learn to live together since we 
 must. The international problem is, after all, 
 
 iThis paragraph paraphrases an Article by Sydney Brooks 
 on " The Dream of Universal Peace " in Harper's Magazine for 
 November, 1916. 
 
110 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 nothing more than the social problem on a grand 
 scale. The proposed Council of Conciliation, 
 which would probably be composed of represen- 
 tative statesmen, publicists, financiers and men of 
 affairs, would be, in character and purpose, not so 
 very different from Commissions of Inquiry with 
 which we are already more or less familiar. Its 
 principal duty would be to investigate, with a view 
 to discovering, the essential facts, to deduce con- 
 clusions from these facts, and then to make recom- 
 mendations to the parties at variance. 
 
 The League does not propose to enter into argu- 
 ment with those who urge the desirability of a 
 World Court whose decisions are mandatory and 
 of an International Legislature with authority to 
 lay down the law for all; it merely says that we 
 should not attempt too much at once. The new 
 idealist is very different from the old idealist who 
 built his air castles without substantial founda- 
 tions on the solid ground. He has only an aca- 
 demic interest in Utopias and reads Plato and 
 More and Morris more for entertainment than in- 
 struction. And that is why the proposal for a 
 Council of Conciliation is at most but a tentative 
 step towards what may ultimately prove to be a 
 sort of international court for the amicable settle- 
 
A CONGKESS OF NATIONS 111 
 
 ment of all political troubles that carry the seeds 
 of pregnant war. 
 
 It isn't all going to be smooth sailing. And if 
 the details are not discussed here more fully it is 
 not because they are being ignored or are consid- 
 ered in any sense trivial. Such details as the 
 number and character of the personnel of such a 
 Council, and precisely how it will function in a 
 crisis, are questions of the first magnitude. But 
 first of all, the idea must be grasped and accepted. 
 After that the obstacles in the way will not prove 
 insurmountable. 
 
 It may be well to remind ourselves at this junc- 
 ture that the idea of a Commission of Inquiry for 
 the purposes both of ascertaining the facts and of 
 postponing hostilities with the hope that dilatory 
 treatment will heal the wound, is not novel. 1 The 
 First Hague Convention (1899) for the Pacific 
 Settlement of International Disputes created an 
 International Commission of Inquiry of which 
 Article IX reads as follows: 
 
 i Professor Frederic de Martens, the jurisconsult of the Rus- 
 sian ministry of foreign affairs, is credited with having first 
 suggested the idea in connection with international relations, 
 but Darby lists no less than 118 " mixed commissions " in the 
 nineteenth century and 250 conciliation cases in the nineteenth 
 and twentieth centuries. Mixed commissions did not differ 
 greatly from what are now called International Commissions 
 of Inquiry. 
 
112 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 " In disputes of an international nature involv- 
 ing neither honour nor vital interests, and arising 
 from a difference of opinion on points of fact, the 
 contracting powers deem it expedient and desir- 
 able that the parties who have not been able to 
 come to an agreement by means of diplomacy, 
 should, as far as circumstances allow, institute an 
 International Commission of Inquiry, to facilitate 
 a solution of these disputes by elucidating the facts 
 by means of an impartial and conscientious in- 
 vestigation." 
 
 Perhaps it will be urged that all this is very 
 interesting, but that, as a matter of fact, Hague 
 Conventions, with their International Commissions 
 of Inquiry, et cetera, completely failed to prevent 
 this present war and that therefore such conven- 
 tions are quite worthless. Yet before the war the 
 Hague Court had been appealed to no less than thir- 
 teen times by different nations and proved to be 
 a satisfactory method of adjustment every time. 
 Also it is important to make it clear that no au- 
 thority was given The Hague (as Professor de Mar- 
 tens urged should be given) "for fixing, if pos- 
 sible, the responsibility for the facts," nor was any 
 arrangement made for requiring the submission of 
 the matters of dispute other than by verbal agree- 
 
A CONGRESS OP NATIONS 113 
 
 ment. 1 The League wants these matters sub- 
 mitted and discussed and would not halt at " fixing 
 the responsibility," but it is not ready to trust 
 nations voluntarily to submit all questions of every 
 nature, including points of honour, vital interests, 
 and so forth, and that is why specific provision is 
 made for the institution of a Council completely 
 qualified to handle such issues as arise that can- 
 not be determined by the established principles of 
 international law. It also explains why pro- 
 vision is made in the Third Proposal of the League's 
 programme for coercion and compulsion, for the 
 employment of economic pressure and military force 
 to require the submission of questions in dispute 
 before any nation-member actually goes to war or 
 commits acts of hostility against another nation- 
 member. 
 
 In a great number of cases the Council of Con- 
 ciliation would be called upon to act as a Court 
 of Inquiry or, it may be, it would in practice be 
 deemed expedient by the Council as a whole to 
 select from its members a special Investigation 
 Committee whose sole duty it would be to ascer- 
 tain and elucidate the facts. Sometimes these 
 facts would be events and sometimes they would 
 
 i See Hull's The Second Hague Conference, p. 291. 
 
114 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 be motives. It will be seen at a glance that such 
 an International Commission of Inquiry would 
 have its hands full, especially when it came to 
 exploring for motives and intentions. The task 
 would be, as Dr. Talcott Williams has said, "a 
 very difficult assignment to cover." But munic- 
 ipal courts tackle the problem every day. 
 
 It goes without saying that the integrity of such 
 a Commission would have to be as high above 
 suspicion and as far removed from prejudice as 
 the Judicial Tribunal, though constituted of men 
 of quite different training and temper. If the 
 temperament of judges would need to be judicial, 
 then the temperament of these investigators would 
 need to be scientific. They would need to keep 
 constantly in mind the admonition of an old 
 French scientist, " You must use the utmost care, 
 or you will find what you are looking for." l 
 
 It is highly probable that the Council would ap- 
 point from among its membership an Executive 
 Committee, or Ministry to the League, which 
 would be vested with authority to act, or at least 
 with authority to say to the several nation-mem- 
 bers of the League : " The hour has struck when 
 
 i Quoted by Montrose J. Moses in his Maurice Maeterlinck: 
 A Study. 
 
A CONGRESS OF NATIONS 115 
 
 you should call your armies into the field to fulfil 
 the obligations of your treaty." Just what degree 
 of authority would be conferred upon this quasi- 
 cabinet, quite certain to be made up of the direct 
 representatives of the rulers of the great powers, 
 and just how its members would be elected or ap- 
 pointed, are matters that must be decided later on, 
 probably at an international conference. 
 
 How much of a law-making body the Council 
 would turn out to be in actual practice, by virtue 
 of its awards, decisions and conclusions, is as yet 
 problematic. It could hardly, in justice, actually 
 make laws for the whole world unless all the na- 
 tions in the world were represented. And it is not 
 as yet finally decided whether or not to include in 
 the League the so-called "backward states." 
 Many urge that to do so would be to throw the 
 door wide open for every sort of local quarrel be- 
 coming the occasion of a world war. It seems more 
 likely that legislative functions will be assumed by 
 the International Assembly to be set up. This mat- 
 ter is fully discussed in the following chapter. 
 
CHAPTER X 
 THE AGE OF DISCUSSION 
 
 WE are living in what Bagehot has called " the 
 age of discussion " and it is a sad anomaly that 
 we should be so willing to give power of attorney 
 to fighting men to do our thinking for us. Bay- 
 onets are prejudiced judges, and matters of mo- 
 ment ought not to be debated in bloody forums by 
 machine guns. Great policies should be thought 
 out and wrought out not fought out. This is 
 more than an epigram ; it is a truth. Only rarely 
 in history do issues arise when war appears to be 
 the one and only way out of a difficult situation. 
 There is no panacea that, over-night, will cure 
 the world of the red plague of war. The political 
 body is so permeated with the poison that it may 
 take decades, or centuries, to get it out of the social 
 system. But if the job is one that cannot be done 
 on a Saturday half-holiday, that is only an added 
 reason why treatment should no longer be post- 
 poned. A diagnosis shows that the causes of 
 
 116 
 
THE AGE OF DISCUSSION 117 
 
 war l are not obscure : Arbitrary authority, im- 
 perial ambitions, the need of room for expansion, 
 commercial greed, false doctrines of prestige, 
 patriotism, sovereignty, and so forth. What is 
 wanted now is that the leaves on the tree of our 
 political life shall be for the healing of the nations. 
 To speak plainly, and without metaphor, what is 
 desperately needed is an authoritative body to 
 translate contemporary international morality 
 into the terms of international law. A repre- 
 sentative body should assemble periodically for 
 the purpose of revising old, and making new, rules 
 of conduct for the guidance of the society of 
 nations. 
 
 Reference has been made to contemporary inter- 
 national morality: for there are fashions in mor- 
 als sartor resartus. Social character appears 
 to be as much an attainment as individual char- 
 acter. Social morality is not fixed and stable. 
 Its gradual growth is dependent on the slow evo- 
 lution of conscience. The light that lighteth 
 every man that cometh into the world was once 
 as dim as a glow-worm. Writing on this interest- 
 ing subject, Walter Bagehot tells us, in a familiar 
 
 i Some of the causes of modern war are discussed at length in 
 Part III of this book. 
 
118 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 passage in his Physics and Politics* that 
 " there are many savages who can hardly be said 
 to care for human life, who have scarcely the fam- 
 ily feelings, who are eager to kill all old people 
 (their parents included) as soon as they get old 
 and become a burden, who have scarcely the sense 
 of truth, whose ideas of marriage are so vague and 
 slight that they practice ' communal marriage ' in 
 which all the women of the tribe are common to 
 all the men. If any reasoning is safe as to pre- 
 historic man, the reason which imputes to him a 
 deficient sense of morals is safe. ... It is not now 
 maintained that all men have the same amount of 
 conscience. Indeed, only a most shallow dispu- 
 tant who did not understand even the plainest facts 
 of human nature could ever have maintained it; 
 if men differ in anything they differ in the fineness 
 and the delicacy of their moral intuitions." 
 There is no denying the fact that there are chang- 
 ing styles in social ethics. 
 
 And what is the reaction of the common con- 
 science of the world to this present war? If it 
 were possible to take a picture of the minds and 
 hearts of men and women everywhere to-day we 
 should doubtless discover from the composite 
 
 i Chapter IV, p. 72. 
 
THE AGE OF DISCUSSION 119 
 
 photograph that all sorts and conditions of men, 
 on farms, in shops, and at the battle-fronts; men 
 and women ; belligerents and neutrals ; the soldiers 
 in the trenches and the citizens at home, that the 
 vast majority of them are opposed to war. This 
 is not to say that the movement towards universal 
 peace is necessarily going to be greatly advanced 
 on account of the present war. In all probability 
 it will be. But right now we know very little 
 about that, and should not permit ourselves to for- 
 get that the peace movement in this country, which 
 by 1860 had gained considerable headway, was set 
 back perhaps- a quarter of a century by the Civil 
 War. This present war is quite as likely to retard 
 as to advance the movement towards peace. Much 
 depends on the final terms of settlement. 
 
 There never was a time in the history of the 
 world when community sentiment and popular 
 opinion, when the moral reaction of mankind, 
 meant so much as to-day. If proof were needed 
 for this assertion it is to be found in the way that 
 favourable and friendly opinion is sought, solic- 
 ited, cajoled and purchased; begged, borrowed, 
 stolen and manufactured. This thing, public 
 opinion, is difficult enough to assay and measure, 
 and yet, there it is, as powerful as gravity, as force- 
 
120 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 fill as radium, as real as cohesion, as weighty as 
 the pressure of atmosphere, fourteen and seven- 
 tenths pounds to the square inch. The assiduous 
 cultivation of public conviction and sentiment is 
 no small labour. Those that have entrusted to 
 them the tremendous task of re-establishing peace 
 on a more solid foundation at the close of this war, 
 cannot possibly be deaf to the authoritative com- 
 mands of their contemporaries. The sovereign 
 authority that resides in public opinion can be 
 ignored only with peril. The social judgment 
 must be consulted and the social will obeyed. 
 But this will be just as imperative in all. the years 
 to come, after the war, as immediately at its close. 
 Therefore an institution must be permanently set 
 up and dedicated to progress. The Palace of 
 Peace must be re-christened the Palace of Justice. 
 How do we know that the time has at last come 
 when the common conscience of the world is restive 
 so long as war persists; that the public opinion 
 of the world is arrayed in determined opposition 
 to war? We do not know ; not as a positive cer- 
 tainty. We are, however, fairly sure that men and 
 women have seriously investigated the problem of 
 war and appraised its cost and value. And we are 
 reasonably confident that after this careful in- 
 
THE AGE OF DISCUSSION 121 
 
 vestigation and honest appraisal their minds are 
 practically made up on this issue. The majority 
 of people everywhere feel and think that the apol- 
 ogists for war have miserably failed to make their 
 case. The survey of the problem from every view- 
 point has only strengthened the case for civilisa- 
 tion. No wonder the nations are asking, What 
 must we do to be saved? Saved from the awful 
 waste of men and money! Saved from poignant 
 sorrow and immemorial woe! Saved from the 
 folly and futility of war! It is not going to be 
 possible to legislate war out of the world by an 
 executive proclamation of permanent peace. 
 And yet the problem of peace is a problem of in- 
 ternational organisation and international legis- 
 lation. Like so many other movements away 
 from barbarism and towards civilisation, advance 
 is necessarily slow and tedious. Let us hasten, 
 therefore, and get started without further de- 
 lay. 
 
 The League to Enforce Peace, it will be recalled, 
 proposes that "conferences between the signatory 
 powers shall be held from time to time to formu- 
 late and codify rules of international law, which, 
 unless some signatory shall signify its dissent 
 within a stated period, shall thereafter govern in 
 
122 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 the decisions of the Judicial tribunal." Such con- 
 ferences as are contemplated would be, in a way, 
 a continuation of the First and Second Hague Con- 
 ferences. Nor would their purpose be essentially 
 different from such tentative international confer- 
 ences as the Congress of Vienna, the Congress of 
 Aix-la-Chapelle and the Congress of Verona. The 
 Congress of 1815 (The Second Peace of Paris), it 
 will be remembered, proposed that a series of sim- 
 ilar meetings should be held at fixed intervals to 
 discuss and decide questions having to do with 
 "the peace and prosperity of the nations." 
 
 There are two distinctive types of legislation: 
 one which lays down the law of the land ; the other 
 which makes rules to guide the conduct of indi- 
 viduals in their relations to one another. This 
 latter kind of legislation, interpreting in specific 
 and precise terms the concrete rights and duties 
 of nations, might very possibly become the princi- 
 pal function of these Conferences for the clarifica- 
 tion and elaboration of international law. They 
 would constitute a rudimentary legislative organ, 
 which might, in course of time, develop into a bona 
 fide congress of nations, an international assembly, 
 for deliberation and action. In a way they would 
 adumbrate the coming " parliament of man," but 
 
THE AGE OF DISCUSSION 123 
 
 with no ambition to fulfil in a day or a decade the 
 dream of Tennyson. 
 
 One thing is certain. Unless these Conventions 
 are to end in sound and fury signifying nothing 
 they will have to consider vital questions in detail. 
 The condemnation of congresses and conventions 
 is that they are too often little more than debating 
 societies. If these periodical assemblies make it 
 their business to consider, in practical fashion, 
 first one pressing problem of international rela- 
 tions after another, they may, by the alchemy of 
 discussion, transmute many non- justiciable ques- 
 tions into justiciable questions. This would, of 
 course, increase the number of questions determi- 
 nable by the detailed application of the principles 
 of international law and decrease the number that 
 do not admit of such decision. For it should be 
 noted, as others have been at pains to point out, 
 that nations are not, either in principle or prac- 
 tice, opposed to submitting for arbitration ques- 
 tions of honour or those that involve vital inter- 
 est. 1 The word arbitration has a double mean- 
 ing. Sometimes an international judicial tribunal 
 
 i Mr. L. S. Woolf calls attention to the fact that Sir Thomas 
 Barclay has made the point that the ALABAMA case, the Vene- 
 zuela Boundary case, the Alaskan Fur Seal difficulty, and the 
 Alaskan Boundary case, all of them involved either national 
 honour or vital interest or both. 
 
124 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 is termed a court of arbitration when it ponders 
 and decides a given question with reference to the 
 facts in the case and the laws which apply. Other 
 " arbitration courts " inquire as to the facts, ma- 
 terial and psychological, and then offer suggestions 
 which look towards a fair settlement. The first 
 kind of court is not unpopular even when vital in- 
 terests are at stake ; the objection to the latter kind 
 of arbitration is that it is likely to be arbitrary. 
 There is no law to govern or determine the deci- 
 sion. 
 
 It is clear that both in these Assemblies and in 
 the Council of Conciliation some decision will have 
 to be reached as to whether or not the majority is 
 to rule. It cannot be successfully denied that 
 the provision that the conventions of The Hague 
 Meetings, in order to become binding on all, had 
 to be agreed to by all, made it next to impossible 
 to come to any agreement upon anything. . It is 
 clear that the functions of the Convention, if not 
 indeed of the Council also, would be at least quasi- 
 legislative and the making of much needed laws 
 cannot await unanimity. A new kind of filibuster 
 would become discouragingly effective, and one 
 obstreperous nation, or a caucus of obstructionists, 
 would always be able to hold the whole world back. 
 
THE AGE OF DISCUSSION 125 
 
 What are some of the questions that must be- 
 come the real " agenda " of these Conventions that 
 it is proposed to hold from time to time? What 
 else, in addition to the familiar question of the 
 conduct of nations in war? A few that may be 
 suggested are questions pertaining to the treat- 
 ment of backward peoples by advanced peoples ; * 
 questions pertaining to the acquisition of new ter- 
 ritory; questions pertaining to free trade and the 
 open door; questions pertaining to the freedom of 
 the seas ; 2 questions pertaining to the neutralisa- 
 tion of buffer states, and of the highways of the 
 sea; questions pertaining to simultaneous reduc- 
 tion of armaments; 2 questions pertaining to the 
 treatment of the nationals of one country within 
 the territory of another, both in the matter of 
 transference of provinces and in the matter of 
 
 1 See articles on this subject by Theodore Marburg in the Inde- 
 pendent for June 20 and November 7, 1912 ; also letters written 
 in reply by Count Apponyi (Independent, March 16, 1913) and 
 by Prince Di Cassano (Independent, September 25, 1913). See 
 also the fifth chapter of An Introduction to the Study of Inter- 
 national Relations, by Arthur Greenwood, et al., and James 
 Bryce's The Relations of the Advanced and Backward Nations 
 of Mankind. 
 
 2 If when the belligerent nations of Europe assemble to make 
 a treaty of peace it becomes evident that the time is ripe for 
 action on both of these questions, why that will be so much clear 
 gain. The League to Enforce Peace, however, does not make 
 their advance settlement a preliminary condition. It would be 
 possible for the league of nations to be organised and for such 
 questions to remain open for subsequent determination by Con- 
 vention or Council or Court. 
 
126 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 race discrimination, 1 these and many other 
 questions. 
 
 It will be seen at a glance that if these Conven- 
 tions are really to function in such a way as to con- 
 vert the abstract principle of international moral- 
 ity into the concrete rules of right conduct for 
 individual nations in specific relations, they will 
 not sit with folded arms to while the hours away. 
 They will have plenty to do. 
 
 Each one of these several questions deserves a 
 chapter for adequate treatment at the very least 
 a paragraph. It will not be possible in this place 
 to do more than mention them and call attention 
 to the fact that they are all live questions, pulsing 
 with the possibilities of good or evil. Some of 
 them have several wars to their credit already and 
 unless greed and prejudice are checked by the com- 
 mon conscience of mankind, backed up by puissant 
 force, they will occasion still other wars. For ex- 
 ample, Americans will need to develop a more fair 
 and friendly attitude towards Orientals, or at the 
 very least resolve to keep their treaties with them. 2 
 
 1 Sydney L. Gulick's TJie American Japanese Problem and 
 America and the Orient. 
 
 2 " When we turn, however, to the story of what many Chi- 
 nese have suffered here our cheeks tingle with shame. The 
 story would be incredible were it not overwhelmingly verified 
 by ample documentary evidence. Treaties have pledged rights. 
 
THE AGE OF DISCUSSION 127 
 
 This would bring the matter down from cloudland 
 and impress us with the imperative necessity of 
 dealing directly with one of the non-justiciable 
 questions that is occasioning not a little friction 
 and that might very possibly in course of time lead 
 to the most serious of consequences. 
 
 It will not do for the United States to proclaim 
 peace to the nations abroad and itself thought- 
 lessly do things that provoke war. Justice, as 
 well as charity, begins at home, and international 
 morality must be practised as well as preached. 
 
 immunities, and protection. They have nevertheless been dis- 
 regarded and even knowingly evaded; and this not only by 
 private individuals but by legislators and administrative of- 
 ficials. Scores of Chinese have been murdered, hundreds 
 wounded and thousands robbed by anti-Asiatic mobs, with no 
 protection for the victims or punishment for the culprits. State 
 legislatures, and even congresses, have enacted laws in contra- 
 vention of treaty provisions. ... If the faithful observance of 
 treaties between the nations of Europe constitutes their very 
 foundation of civilisation, ... is not the faithful observance 
 of treaties with Asiatics the foundation of right relations with 
 them ? " Sidney L. Gulick's America and the Orient, p. 59. 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 IN RESTRAINT OF WAR 
 
 THE time has come for a Congress of Nations to 
 assemble and become partners in an open conspir- 
 acy in restraint of war. That, in sum, is the cen- 
 tral idea of the League to Enforce Peace. But the 
 word must become flesh and the idea must take 
 form and substance in the actual setting-up of 
 such machinery as an International Judicial Tri- 
 bunal and an International Council of Concili- 
 ation along the lines and for the purposes ex- 
 plained in the earlier chapters of this book. It 
 will not do, however, to stop there. Originality 
 cannot be claimed for either of these two institu- 
 tions. The First Hague Conference, as has 
 already been pointed out, organised International 
 Commissions of Inquiry for the purpose of in- 
 vestigating and passing upon questions voluntar- 
 ily submitted for study and award. The Second 
 Hague Conference worked out the details of a plan 
 for a World Court and agreed upon practically 
 everything but the manner of selecting the person- 
 
 128 
 
IN RESTRAINT OF WAR 129 
 
 nel. Furthermore the obligatory postponement of 
 all hostilities until the matter in dispute, whether 
 a minor question or a question involving national 
 honour, has been thoroughly canvassed in the eyes 
 of the world is the essential thing in all the Bryan 
 treaties. Sometimes this is called the dilatory 
 treatment of international problems. 
 
 For the carrying out of either or all of these 
 several proposals we have heretofore trusted to the 
 sanction of the public opinion of the world. And, 
 of course, in the long run, the democratic govern- 
 ance of the nations must depend on the sanction- 
 ing force of enlightened and humanitarian public 
 opinion. But to trust in its immediate effective- 
 ness is to take counsel of faith and not of knowl- 
 edge, of hopes and not of facts. If States are not 
 yet ready to trust uncompelled individuals to obey 
 the mandates of public opinion in domestic affairs, 
 how much less is the world at large ready to trust 
 uncompelled States to act as ever under the great 
 Taskmaster's eye. It is nothing but philosophical 
 anarchism, anarchism of the chair; nothing more, 
 nothing less. In his excellent book * Mr. E. V. 
 Zenker defines anarchism as "the perfect, un- 
 stinted self-government of the individual, and con- 
 
 i Anarchism; Criticism and History of the Anarchist Theory. 
 
130 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 sequently the absence of any kind of external 
 government." 
 
 We have already discussed the subject of public 
 opinion in previous chapters. Suffice it to say 
 here that it is not to deny the latent power of 
 public opinion to insist that as yet this moral army 
 of ideas and ideals, so far from being efficiently 
 mobilised, is little more than a mob of tatterde- 
 malions. Not infrequently the public opinion of 
 the world is uninstructed ; often it is cowed by 
 might and duress, and, again and again, when it 
 should be most outspoken, it is censored and 
 muzzled. 1 These are faults that must be mended 
 and the job cannot be done in a generation. 
 Meantime the civilised world must protect itself 
 against recurrent lapses into barbarism. Public 
 opinion and moral fervour and Christian conscience 
 did not prevent this war. What slightest assur- 
 ance have we that they will prevent a similar or 
 more horrible war a decade hence? None what- 
 soever. 
 
 But any effort that looks towards a larger 
 grouping of States, any effort to organise even a 
 very tentative society of nations, will be a tre- 
 
 i It is freely charged that both Lloyd George's first speech as 
 Prime Minister and President Wilson's note of December 18 were 
 temporarily " held up " by British censors. 
 
IN RESTRAINT OF WAR 131 
 
 mendously difficult enterprise. With what skill 
 we can command we shall have to steer a course 
 between the Scylla and Charybdis of sovereignty 
 and nationality, to say nothing of stopping our 
 ears to the siren songs of our admirable and sin- 
 cere friends, the conscientious pacifists. 
 
 But how, asks the sincere sceptic? How can 
 the world be born again when it is old? The an- 
 swer to this entirely pertinent question that has 
 been formulated by the League to Enforce Peace, 
 in its Third Proposal, 1 is that we must make up 
 our minds that at least for the present and prob- 
 ably for some time yet to come we shall have to 
 depend upon force, organised not to make war but 
 to make war less likely. We shall have to create 
 something better than the old " offensive and de- 
 
 i " The signatory powers shall jointly use forthwith both their 
 economic and military forces against any one of their number 
 that goes to war, or commits acts of hostility, against another of 
 the signatories before any question arising shall be submitted as 
 provided in the foregoing." 
 
 The following interpretation has been authorised by the Ex- 
 ecutive Committee : 
 
 "The signatory powers shall jointly employ diplomatic and 
 economic pressure against any one of their number that threatens 
 war against a fellow signatory without having first submitted its 
 dispute for international inquiry, conciliation, arbitration or 
 judicial hearing, and awaited a conclusion, or without having in 
 good faith offered so to submit it. They shall follow this forth- 
 with by the joint use of their military forces against that nation 
 if it actually goes to war, or commits acts of hostility, against 
 another of the signatories before any question arising shall be 
 dealt with as provided in the foregoing." 
 
132 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 fensive alliances," a new kind of " league " of 
 progressive powers that will be offensive against 
 the offender and defensive of the undeniable right 
 of the majority of mankind to live in peace when 
 a belligerent and pugnacious minority would heed- 
 lessly plunge the world into avoidable wars. 
 That is why the League has introduced into its 
 programme of action the feature of requiring and 
 compelling by force of arms, if that become neces- 
 sary, the submission of disputes for public hearing 
 before actual war is undertaken by any signatory 
 Power. It means, in effect, that until world order 
 is restored and assured by international civil pro- 
 cesses we must band ourselves together into a kind 
 of International Vigilance Committee, 1 a posse 
 comitatus. 
 
 Just how would the league of nations interfere 
 and intervene? Intervention would be under- 
 taken in four ways. In the first place the joint 
 nations would attempt to influence any recalci- 
 trant nation-member of the league by moral 
 suasion, that is to say, it would put a nation 
 seeking war before the judgment seat of civilisa- 
 tion and require it to evidence a decent respect to 
 
 i See Edward A. Filene's address delivered before the first 
 annual assemblage of the League to Enforce Peace at Washing- 
 ton, May 20, 1916, now published as Bulletin No. 16. 
 
IN RESTRAINT OF WAR 133 
 
 the opinions of mankind. It will not any longer 
 be possible to maintain that there is no moral obli- 
 gation on the part of a sovereign State. Perhaps 
 it is not yet clear, as President Wilson affirmed in 
 his Washington address before the League, " that 
 nations must in the future be governed by the same 
 high code of honour that we demand of individ- 
 uals." Perhaps it may not at this time be prac- 
 ticable to demand at once a single standard of 
 morality, that is to say that nations must obey 
 the Moral Law in precisely the same way that in- 
 dividuals must. But the tendency of modern 
 times is certainly in that general direction. For 
 a long while it was an aphorism of law that 
 a corporation had no soul. To-day we say that 
 guilt is personal and officers of corporations are 
 held to strict accountability for the wrongs that 
 they commit against the welfare of society. The 
 feeling is rapidly growing that something very 
 much like this must be demanded of the nations. 
 
 The second form of intervention which is im- 
 plied in this proposal is intervention by social 
 ostracism. This is implicit without being said in 
 so many words. Any nation which pointblank re- 
 fused to submit its grievance or dispute to the 
 Court of Arbitration or to the Council of Con- 
 
134 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 ciliation before initiating hostilities would, by vir- 
 tue of its refusal, become an outlaw nation. It 
 would, in a sense, place itself beyond the pale and 
 would most certainly be made to feel the force of 
 public disapproval. And, what is more, there is 
 every likelihood that the intervention would go 
 much farther than that and would practically 
 amount to non-intercourse. 1 
 
 This leads us directly to the next form of interven- 
 tion contemplated in the League's programme, 
 intervention by economic boycott. Because of the 
 interdependence of nations in the modern world 2 
 it has become possible for one nation practically 
 to ruin the economic life of another nation. For 
 we are members one of another, and the hand can- 
 not say to the head, I have no need of thee. A 
 weapon of persuasion or compulsion that has not 
 yet been taken from the wall and used is the eco- 
 nomic pressure which one nation, or group of na- 
 tions, can bring to bear upon another nation, or 
 group of nations, by withdrawing not only diplo- 
 matic intercourse but by closing the postal and 
 telegraphic systems, interstate transportation, en- 
 
 1 Commercial intercourse with France was suspended by act 
 of Congress of the United States, June 13, 1798; with Great 
 Britain, March 1. 1800. 
 
 2 See Chapter IX, p. 109. 
 
IN RESTRAINT OF WAR 135 
 
 try of foreign ships, and so forth. More than this, 
 a commercial and financial boycott could be em- 
 ployed which would close all foreign exchanges 
 to members of the outlaw state, would prohibit all 
 quotations of foreign stock exchanges, all dealings 
 in stocks and shares, all discounting and accep- 
 tances of trade bills, all loans for public or private 
 purposes, and all payments of moneys due. 1 
 
 Many similar weapons are available in this 
 arsenal but it is not improbable that the use of 
 these few would so paralyse any modern state as to 
 bring it to terms. The boycott is not a lovely 
 weapon. It would not be a nice thing to have to 
 use it, but it would probably be less brutal than 
 military warfare and might very possibly serve to 
 prevent hostilities. At any rate, the programme of 
 the League involves its use. never as a measure 
 of reprisal, be it understood, nor of economic war- 
 fare between rivals, but always for the world's 
 welfare with the hope that it would prove so 
 effective that the actual employment of armies and 
 navies might be rendered unnecessary. However, 
 this is not at all certain. It is not inconceivable 
 that by improved methods of production and dis- 
 
 i See John A. Hobson's Towards International Government, 
 p. 91. 
 
136 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 tribution, by scientific agriculture and modern in- 
 dustrial practice, nations might make themselves 
 so self-sufficient as to be immune from this sort 
 of attack. The use of the boycott is open to the 
 very serious objections that not all nations would 
 be equally harmed by its employment against them, 
 and that, after all, it would injure non-combatants 
 more than responsible aggressive governments. 
 
 The last form of intervention proposed is mili- 
 tary force. The Treaty that would create such a 
 league of nations as is contemplated would bind 
 all the nation-members of the league, other than 
 the recalcitrant nation, to use, if necessary, forc- 
 ible means (by which, of course, is meant armies 
 and navies), to require that the matter in dispute 
 be submitted to the Court or Council before fight- 
 ing is begun. 1 This is not the same thing as say- 
 ing that the several nations, to become members 
 of the League must pool their individual and in- 
 dependent military forces in such a way as to 
 establish an international police force. 2 This is 
 a common misconception of the purpose of the 
 
 1 Mr. Hobson, in the same book, reminds us of the fact that on 
 more than one occasion international force has been employed 
 with quotas from several powers. Among them he mentions the 
 Duleigno demonstration of 1880, the blockade of Crete in 1897, 
 the case of Pekin in 1900, the demonstration at Antivari, and 
 the occupation of Scutari in 1913. 
 
 2 Cp. Chapter XII, p. 17G. 
 
IN RESTRAINT OF WAR 137 
 
 League. It is not conceived as the function of the 
 proposed league of nations to keep the peace in 
 precisely the same sense that a police force con- 
 ceives of its function in municipal life. Lawless- 
 ness and mob-riots occur only when a police force 
 fails to do what it is purposely constituted to do. 
 The armies and navies of the nation-members 
 would be employed to apprehend the nation which 
 begins hostilities and require it to bring its case 
 to court before continuing to make war. More 
 than likely this would resolve itself into a joint 
 punitive expedition. The League would not sub- 
 poena a nation for trial as a wrong-doer. 
 
 The ultimate moral authority of the Court or 
 Council of the League to determine, with finality, 
 vital issues would not be assumed by the league of 
 nations nor granted by the joint members. There- 
 fore any member if dissatisfied with the decision, 
 or award, or recommendation, might according 
 to the terms of the treaty after a stated time had 
 been consumed for investigation and report, take 
 up weapons and appeal to the court of last resort 
 the arbitrament of arms. 
 
 Three motives impel to this proposed course of 
 action. The first is the awakened conscience of 
 mankind, the quickened sense of duty to do all that 
 
138 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 is humanly possible to prevent the repetition of 
 such a terrible war as this one which has filled the 
 world with woe unutterable. The second is the 
 motive of economy, the desire to escape the vicious 
 circle of competitive armaments with all that is 
 involved in the way of incalculable costliness. 
 The third and tributary motive takes its rise 
 among the nations that have every desire to live 
 their lives in peace, and simply means that they 
 have some rights which militarist nations are 
 bound to respect. The practical impossibility of 
 any nation which prefers to remain neutral escap- 
 ing the disastrous effects of present-day war l leads 
 all such to think of determined belligerents as dis- 
 turbers of the public peace. 
 
 Now it is not the use of armies and navies but 
 the abuse of them that has convinced the nations 
 that their employment should, in some measure, 
 be controlled. Armaments, as such, are not 
 wrong; but the piling up of armaments may very 
 well be dangerous. Explosives are always dan- 
 gerous, and armies and navies are potential ex- 
 plosives. A license is required by municipal law, 
 in most civil communities, for the privilege of 
 
 i See President Wilson's Speech quoted in note on page 155, 
 Chapter XII. 
 
IN RESTRAINT OF WAR 139 
 
 carrying a pocket weapon, because of the constant 
 temptation to use it. Always it is a latent 
 menace. The League to Enforce Peace would not 
 deny the right of any nation to carry a weapon, 
 in other words to possess as large an army and 
 navy as it cares to burden itself with ; but it would 
 keep its use under surveillance and insist that it 
 be employed only in cases of dire extremity after 
 every other means of negotiation, mediation, arbi- 
 tration, and conciliation has been tried and has 
 failed to get satisfactory results. The conscious- 
 ness of power and might is just as likely to make 
 a swaggering bully out of a strong nation as out 
 of a strong man. The adoption of the League's 
 programme by the great Powers would tend to 
 quell and control the temptation to threaten and 
 menace other peoples and nations. 
 
 The League to Enforce Peace is not a cross be- 
 tween militarism and pacifism. It is a modus 
 operandi. It is a strong thread by means of which 
 the nations may possibly find a way out of the 
 labyrinth of recurrent wars. It is not a case of 
 carrying water on both shoulders; of trying to 
 serve God and Mammon at the same time. It is a 
 compromise with perfection. It is a frank ac- 
 knowledgment of the fact that in this matter, as 
 
140 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 in so many others, the truth is not in the bottom of 
 a well, nor at the end of the rainbow, but in the mid- 
 dle of the road. It is practical idealism, a tenta- 
 tive effort in creative statesmanship. It is, if you 
 please, political eclecticism. It would take the 
 best that there is in military preparedness and 
 avail itself of its value for physical defence and 
 moral discipline and then it would use these means 
 not for aggrandisement or ambition or revenge, 
 but to protect the gains of civilisation and provide 
 against a reversion to savagery, against " the re- 
 barbarisation which is continually threatening 
 civilisation/' 1 It looks into the future far as 
 human eye can see, but no farther. It does not 
 fail to recognise the ultimate truth of the pacifists' 
 position as a consummation devoutly to be 
 wished. 
 
 The temptation here will be to protest that one 
 cannot serve two masters. Doubtless it will be 
 said that those who urge the programme of the 
 League to Enforce Peace are inconsistent. By 
 rigorous definition and strict etymology that may 
 be true, but consistency is a jewel which has lost 
 a good deal of its lustre. After all, what is there 
 
 i See Herbert Spencer's Principles of Sociology. Read Oscar 
 Straus' speech on "The Rebarbarization of the World," pub- 
 lished by the League to Enforce Peace as Bulletin No. 21. 
 
IN RESTRAINT OF WAR 141 
 
 inconsistent in the proposals of the League? Is 
 it inconsistent to maintain public and private 
 charitable institutions for improving the condi- 
 tion of the poor at the same time that every effort 
 is being made by legislation and education to re- 
 duce poverty to a minimum and perhaps to abol- 
 ish it altogether? Is it inconsistent to support 
 an army of doctors and to maintain an adequate 
 number of hospitals at one and the same time that 
 attempts are made by control of living conditions, 
 by control of the birth-rate, and so forth, to remove 
 the causes of contagion and transmission of dis- 
 ease and, perhaps, at length, to do away with dis- 
 ease altogether? One may take out an accident 
 policy and at the same time consistently work for 
 the installation of safety appliances and the reduc- 
 tion of railroad collisions. One may abhor every 
 manifestation of vice and crime and still believe 
 in courts and jails. In point of fact, one may be- 
 lieve in supporting an adequate and efficient state 
 militia that is never to be used until every other 
 instrumentality has first been tried and has failed 
 to preserve the public peace. 
 
 The problem of preparedness goes much deeper 
 than the surface and no off-hand solution ought to 
 be attempted. Instinctive prejudice should not be 
 
142 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 permitted to block the path of progress. Is it not 
 rather pretentious to try to impale great numbers 
 of intelligent people upon one or another horn of 
 the dilemma? One may be neither a profiter, 
 who stands to gain by the propaganda for national 
 preparedness, nor a guileless victim of militarist 
 philosophy; and yet he may sincerely believe in 
 preparedness. Of course armies and navies are 
 very expensive, but so also is food; and while all 
 of us might be better off with compulsory limitation 
 and reduction of our rations, there is really no rea- 
 son why we should go from the extreme of gluttony 
 to the extreme of abstemiousness. The world can 
 well be saved from the excessive cost of over-arma- 
 ments. The operation of the League's programme 
 would more than likely lead to this very thing. 
 
 The idea of complete disarmament, or of limita- 
 tion of armaments, may be comparatively novel; 
 but the principle of legal limitation is not new in 
 social relationships, any more than we found the 
 principle of federation or arbitration to be new. 
 Already we have the limitation of hours of labour, 
 of age for employment, of age of consent, of rates 
 for transportation, and, in a measure, we also have 
 the legal limitation of dividends. All these are 
 accepted as just and desirable. The principle of 
 
IN RESTRAINT OF WAR 143 
 
 limitation by consent may well be gradually ex- 
 tended to cover armies and navies. It would come 
 about as a sort of corollary and by-product of the 
 improved organisation of the world. That is the 
 way it has always been in the past. Just as rap- 
 idly as individuals and communities quit trying to 
 settle their arguments by fighting them out by 
 invoking the law of the jungle just so fast were 
 they able to throw away their weapons of war and 
 put their trust in something else. We hardly need 
 to be reminded again that the time was when the 
 individual, for self-protection, wore a suit of 
 shining armour, because intrastate anarchy pre- 
 vailed and personal hostilities were likely to start 
 at any moment. But one does not need to go back 
 that far. In more recent times American path- 
 finders and pioneers, living on the frontiers, were, 
 as has already been pointed out, obliged to be con- 
 stantly armed for self-protection, because they 
 were subject at any moment to surprise attacks. 
 As conditions gradually improved to the point 
 where this likelihood of sudden attack was reduced 
 to a minimum, these weapons of defence were 
 thrown away. The time was when cities were 
 military rivals and when the citizenry were in fre- 
 quent armed conflict. Hence communities main- 
 
144 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 tained, insofar as was practicable, independent 
 armies. That day is now but a record in history. 
 When small communities were organised into 
 larger groups and those in turn became states, 
 they were able to do away with competitive arma- 
 ments and a great saving was effected. 
 
 Now it is quite reasonable to suppose that much 
 the same thing will happen to the armaments of 
 nations if anything approaching a federal arrange- 
 ment can possibly be brought about. If by the 
 mandatory provision for a preliminary submission 
 of disputes before war is commenced the fear of 
 sudden attack can be eliminated, then with it will 
 also go the imperative need for extensive prepara- 
 tion for such possible attack. Not that there 
 would necessarily be any " naval holiday " pro- 
 claimed, and not that there would necessarily be 
 any positive fixing of the maximum limit of mili- 
 tary preparedness, but merely that the desire for 
 such extreme preparedness would die out with the 
 need. If a nation could be insured and guaranteed 
 against sudden attack it could afford to postpone 
 military preparedness. 
 
 So far from proposing to do away with arma- 
 ments in America, or even to reduce armaments, 
 whether at once or in the proximate future, the 
 
IN RESTRAINT OF WAR 145 
 
 possibility would be that, on a basis of population, 
 this country might even have to increase its mili- 
 tary and naval forces, 1 in order to provide its 
 quota for the international defence. 
 
 Some degree of preparedness is not only desir- 
 able, but absolutely necessary, and probably will 
 continue to be for a long time to come. To be 
 prepared for all probable contingencies and emer- 
 gencies, personal and national, would seem to be 
 but the plain duty of every self-respecting man and 
 nation, the part of wisdom and statesmanship. 
 Complete disarmament is a counsel of perfection, 
 
 impracticable for the present. It is not incon- 
 ceivable, of course, that the day may sometime 
 come when the whole world can and will disarm; 
 but that time is not yet. So long as there are gun- 
 men in New York City who are ready to shoot a 
 man down for two-dollars-and-a-half, that city 
 must continue to support a police force of over 
 ten thousand men. Surely no tax-paying citizen, 
 
 not even the ultra pacifists, would think of 
 
 i After discussion of the necessity to correct misconceptions 
 which had got abroad regarding the probable influence of the 
 League on proposals for increased national defence, the follow- 
 ing resolution was adopted without adverse vote by the Execu- 
 tive Committee of the League to Enforce Peace at its meeting on 
 September 17, 1915 : " The Executive Committee expresses the 
 opinion that efficient preparation for adequate national defence 
 is in no way inconsistent with the purposes of the League but on 
 the contrary is essential thereto." 
 
146 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 this small army as an army of aggression or as a 
 menace to the community. It is not impossible 
 for such a purely defensive organisation as a city 
 police force or a state militia, by perversion (as 
 in the Becker case and the Ludlow instance), to 
 be used to harm and not to help the citizens and 
 workers. But it is precisely because the armies 
 and navies of nations have been treated as the 
 tools of sovereign States, to do with as they 
 pleased, that this plan of international control is 
 advocated and urged. 
 
 Just so long as States and statesmen labour 
 under the delusions l that the State is a moral law 
 unto itself, and that its end and aim is power; 
 that States are natural enemies; that there is an 
 economic advantage in privilege, in conquest, in 
 colonies; and that Clausewitz was right in his 
 celebrated dictum that war is but the extension of 
 politics, just so long will immense armies and 
 navies persist and continue to menace the peace 
 of the world. 
 
 i These several delusions are considered, at some length, in 
 Part III as Articles in the Creed of Militarism. 
 
CHAPTER XII 
 WILL IT WORK? 
 
 IT is hardly worth while to waste time in replying 
 to the objections of those who face every hard task 
 with fear and doubt, who say it can't be done. 
 These are the victims of inertia and their num- 
 ber is legion. Such friends of progress not only 
 never help the world forward, but they clamp a 
 brake on the moving wheels. Forward-looking 
 and forward-moving people always have to ignore 
 critics of this type. If they will not get out of 
 the way then it is their own fault if they are run 
 over. 
 
 Pessimism, a feeling of despondency, not to say 
 despair, must also be reckoned with. This, how- 
 ever, is a very different thing from the mental and 
 moral laziness we have just considered. It is the 
 natural reaction to the horror and enormity of the 
 war upon the human spirit. Faith in anybody and 
 anything has been consumed by curtains of fire. It 
 is hard to be hopeful to-day. The tide of optimism 
 is at its lowest ebb. But in the presence of the 
 
 147 
 
148 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 valiant heroisms of soldiers in the field surely 
 civilians should not lose courage and morale. The 
 obstacles in the way of realising the programme of 
 a league of nations to insure and enforce peace are 
 not insurmountable. Some of them that now seem 
 so formidable as we vision them in the distance, 
 may, as we approach nearer, and engage them one 
 at a time, surrender to determined attack. 
 
 But there are more matter-of-fact objections 
 from more respectable sources than scepticism or 
 pessimism. These deserve to be frankly and hon- 
 estly answered. 
 
 At the outset it should be acknowledged that in 
 industry no fool-proof machine has ever yet been 
 invented, and that the most perfect machine in 
 nature (the human body) was long ages in build- 
 ing. In municipal and national politics the most 
 efficient machine, the one that will produce, with 
 the least waste of friction, the greatest good to the 
 greatest number, has yet to be invented. If we 
 were to postpone the setting-up of any machinery 
 for the conduct of human affairs until we were 
 certain beyond a shadow of doubt that it could 
 not possibly go wrong, or even until all objections 
 were finally and completely answered, we should 
 never get anywhere and never do anything. 
 
WILL IT WORK? 149 
 
 Almost as many objections can be urged against 
 democracy, against woman suffrage, against labour 
 unions, as can be advanced in their support. 
 Buskin's arguments against railroads are too well 
 known to need re-statement here. The advocacy 
 of a measure, and whether or not it is expedient to 
 adopt it, must be determined by weight of opinion 
 and the possibility of finding a way to initiate the 
 experiment. If it seems at all reasonable to sup- 
 pose that the experiment which the League pro- 
 poses will tend to make future wars less likely, 
 then by all means it ought to be tried. This is the 
 only fair and sensible test. It is not a theoretical 
 problem in metaphysics to be debated for the sake 
 of debate, or as an exercise in dialectical skill. The 
 matter is too important for wordy argument. 
 
 Many of the criticisms levelled at the League's 
 proposals are due to ignorance of what those pro- 
 posals really are, or to an honest misunderstand- 
 ing of their purport and implications. For the 
 most part, these difficulties will be cleared away by 
 careful reading of the earlier chapters of this book, 
 and if there remain some questions which occur 
 to the sincere inquirer, seeking to understand fully 
 and clearly, they will in all probability be an- 
 swered in this chapter. 
 
150 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 The caption which heads the chapter raises the 
 question of the feasibility of the idea, the prac- 
 ticability of the proposals. Will it work? There 
 are several directions from which to approach the 
 problem. Perhaps it will be just as well to come 
 at it from all sides. Let us first look at it from 
 the angle of the name of the project, or rather, the 
 name of the organisation which has conceived the 
 project and is exerting every effort to convince 
 responsible statesmen, and the people that stand 
 back of the governments, that it ought to be put 
 into operation as soon as may be after the close of 
 the present war. A League to Enforce Peace 
 with the emphasis on Enforce! Some object to 
 the word " League r ; some object to the word " En- 
 force " ; and some object to the word " Peace." 
 
 The first criticism is on the word " league." 
 Objection is taken to the fact that the programme 
 contemplates a league of nations. This objection 
 is important enough to warrant serious considera- 
 tion. Analysis reveals the fact that it is a three- 
 fold question; at any rate there are three reasons 
 why such a league of nations is by some considered 
 undesirable. 
 
 The first reason given is that what is proposed 
 is a world alliance. But this is a mistaken notion. 
 
WILL IT WORK? 151 
 
 What is proposed is not a world alliance but a 
 league of nations a very different thing. Since 
 the outbreak of the present war much has been 
 said about the dangers which grow out of the doc- 
 trine of the desirability of maintaining groups or 
 alliances to preserve poise. It is said that such 
 alliances of states have more often tended to pro- 
 voke than to prevent war. To estop premature 
 action on the part of unscrupulous statesmen, rep- 
 resenting ambitious nations, alliances have, time 
 and again, been formed that were calculated to be 
 so strong as to strike terror into the hearts of 
 would-be aggressors. And, it must be acknowl- 
 edged, to some extent the great European alliances 
 have had exactly this effect. They have certainly 
 served to postpone many and perhaps to prevent 
 some wars. But the claim that alliances are 
 sought in order to maintain what Sir Robert Wai- 
 pole first called " the balance of power ," to insure 
 perfect equilibrium, is a romantic fiction. It can- 
 not be necessary to argue that diplomats move 
 heaven and earth to bring about new alliances, not 
 for the purpose of performing a trick in acrobatics, 
 of perfectly balancing opposing powers, but for 
 the purpose of making the scales tip in one or an- 
 other's favour in order that there will be a pre- 
 
152 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 ponderance of power when the occasion comes to 
 use it. The League to Enforce Peace does not pro- 
 pose anything analogous to the old style of alli- 
 ances. It clearly states in the preamble to its 
 proposals that "it believes it to be desirable for 
 the United States to join a league of nations." 
 
 This present war has demonstrated that the old 
 kind of alliances, whatever the motives be that in- 
 spire their formation, are, when once in existence, 
 as prone to accelerate as to delay the coming of 
 international strife. The opposing forces measure 
 their relative military and naval strength, they 
 weigh their ships and guns in the scales, and then 
 begins the absurd and shameful business of com- 
 petitive building, the piling-up of huge armies and 
 navies, until war intervenes temporarily to halt 
 the whole wretched process. This can hardly be 
 denied. But it cannot be made too clear that the 
 League does not have in mind any such alliance. 
 It is, nevertheless, confidently believed that the 
 League to Enforce Peace would have one effect 
 that the old alliances sometimes had : It would be 
 sufficiently powerful to overawe any member of the 
 society of nations that happens to feel a temptation 
 stirring within it to assert its indomitable will by 
 challenging the organised forces of civilisation. 
 
WILL IT WORK? 153 
 
 Such a nation would think twice before calling down 
 upon its head the wrath of a dozen leagued nations. 
 
 The second reason for opposing the idea of a 
 league of nations is that were such a league to be- 
 come a reality it would be but the beginning of a 
 gigantic Federal State which might result in the 
 wiping-out of all national distinctions and thus 
 deprive the world of the special contributions of 
 the various nations. 1 We must be careful not to 
 lose sight of the difference between a Federal State 
 and a Federation of States. 2 But that aside, it is 
 possible to preserve personality in a family and 
 individuality in a community, and, unless some 
 sort of Super-State, imposing rigid uniformity, 
 were to develop out of the league, the fear that the 
 personalities of the nations would be stamped out 
 is fantastic and far-visioned. Such a league as is 
 proposed would more nearly resemble the present 
 federation of the churches than the kind of church 
 union, sometimes dreamed of, that would demand 
 the death of all denominations. 
 
 The third reason given for not being in favour 
 of any league of nations that would include the 
 United States, is the fact that American traditional 
 
 1 See Chapter XVI, " The Frontiers of Friendship." 
 
 2 See Treitschke's Politics, Vol. I, p. 30. 
 
154 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 policy is against such alliances with European 
 States as would give the monarchical system of 
 government of the Old World a chance to get a 
 foothold on the Western Hemisphere. This ob- 
 jection has already been studied in another con- 
 nection. 1 Those who raise this objection are think- 
 ing of Washington's patriotic valedictory. But 
 it is not proposed or even suggested by the League 
 that we should " implicate ourselves, by artificial 
 ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of Europe's pol- 
 itics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions 
 of her friendships or enmities." It remains to add 
 that we are living in another world than that in- 
 habited by the founders of this Republic. 2 Trans- 
 oceanic cables have tied the ends of the world to- 
 gether. Oceans no longer separate but join hemi- 
 spheres, and steamships are palatial ferries. What 
 is more, the United States was in Washington's 
 time a nation of three and a half millions of peo- 
 ple. To-day there are more than one hundred mil- 
 lions of people between the Atlantic and the Pacific 
 and " from the quays of Florida where red flam- 
 ingoes fly to where the great lakes bare their breasts 
 
 1 See Chapter VII, " A League of States." 
 
 2 See " The League to Enforce Peace Made Plain," by the 
 Hon. William Howard Taft (Bulletin No. 20), and "Disen- 
 tangling Alliances," by Dr. Talcott Williams (Bulletin No. 31). 
 
WILL IT WORK? 155 
 
 unto their Lord the sky." Then we were a na- 
 tion of thirteen states along the Atlantic coast. 
 To-day we are a world power, with possessions on 
 the other side of the globe and with interests in 
 the Orient. We own Alaska; we own Hawaii; we 
 own the Philippine Islands; we own Panama; we 
 own Porto Rico. We cannot afford to hide the 
 light of truth under the bushel of sentimental 
 shibboleths. What is the use crying, Isolation, iso- 
 lation, when there is no isolation splendid or 
 lacklustre? It is within our power as a nation to 
 refuse to join with the other progressive nations 
 in a united effort to prevent war; it is not within 
 our power any longer to be like a star and dwell 
 apart, to live in sheltered seclusion free from the 
 danger of wars that can no longer be confined to a 
 limited area. 1 
 
 i " This is the last war of the kind, or of any kind that in- 
 volves the world, that the United States can keep out of ... 
 the business of neutrality is over . . . war now has such a 
 scale that the position of neutrals sooner or later becomes intol- 
 erable. Just as neutrality would be intolerable to me if I lived 
 in a community where everybody had to assert his own rights by 
 force and I had to go around among my neighbours and say, 
 ' Here, this cannot last any longer ; let us get together and see 
 that nobody disturbs the peace any more.' That is what society 
 is, and we have not yet a society of nations. We must have a 
 society of nations. Not suddenly, not by insistence, not by any 
 hostile emphasis upon the demand, but by the demonstration of 
 the needs of the time. The nations of the world must get 
 together and say, that nobody can hereafter be neutral as re- 
 spects the disturbance of the world's peace for an object which 
 the world's opinion cannot sanction. The world's peace ought to 
 
156 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 At one time it may have meant something to say 
 that the United States should not be unequally 
 yoked together with unbelievers in democracy. It 
 no longer means anything at all. England and 
 France are not monarchies any more and certain 
 of the smaller European countries have carried the 
 standard of democracy even farther forward than 
 the United States. 
 
 What is really conceived of as the principal ob- 
 jection to the United States entering such a league 
 was recently voiced by the former Secretary of 
 War, Mr. Lindley M. Garrison, in an address be- 
 fore the Lawyers' Club, in New York, December 
 16, 1916. In part he said: If the United States 
 joins she is perforce a party to every quarrel the 
 wide world over. Is it not inevitable that instead 
 of pursuing her natural development along lines 
 expressive of her innate genius and energy she will 
 surely be diverted therefrom and plunged into alien 
 matters utterly foreign to her real concern and her 
 best and vital interests? A self-respecting nation 
 
 be disturbed if the fundamental rights of humanity are invaded, 
 but it ought not to be disturbed for any other thing that I can 
 think of, and America was established in order to indicate, at 
 any rate in one government, the fundamental ricrhts of man. 
 America must hereafter be ready as a member of the family of 
 nations to exert her whole force, moral and physical, to the 
 assertion of those rights throughout the round globe." 
 President Wilson in an Address before the Woman's City Club 
 of Cincinnati, Ohio, on October 25, 1916. 
 
WILL IT WORK? 157 
 
 walking the path of rectitude, strictly attending to 
 its. own affairs, seeking no offence and giving none, 
 seems to me to be better serving the interests of 
 mankind than could possibly be done by voluntarily 
 crossing the path of every other nation in the world, 
 pledged to feel offence where none was intended, 
 and taking up the quarrels of others in which it can 
 have no proper concern." 
 
 But why? Why, if the United States joins, 
 with certain other countries, a league of nations, 
 should we necessarily become embroiled in all the 
 petty quarrels of Europe? Why must the United 
 States " perforce become a party to every quarrel 
 the wide world over"? A careful reading of the 
 brief programme of the League should make it per- 
 fectly plain that the essential suggestion is that 
 the progressive powers would band themselves to- 
 gether to arrest, by force if necessary, the pre- 
 mature action of any signatory which is tempted 
 to break its treaty and start a war before first 
 submitting its dispute for hearing. The risk in- 
 volved is that the time might possibly come when 
 we would have to engage with other nations in a 
 joint punitive expedition against a national dis- 
 turber of world peace. Is the United States will- 
 ing to assume that risk, with the possibility, and 
 
158 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 perhaps the probability, that the organisation of 
 such a union of nations would reduce to a mini- 
 mum the likelihood of war? It is for America to 
 take her choice of policies. May no mistake be 
 made. 
 
 We have so far considered but one main objec- 
 tion the objection that the proposals contem- 
 plate a " league " of nations. The second objec- 
 tion to the idea is that it is a league to " enforce," 
 and there are many who are firmly opposed to the 
 use of force. Some of those who object to the use 
 of force are opposed because they think it is futile ; 
 others because they think it is wrong. 
 
 Attention is called to the fact that when Dr. 
 Gatling invented his famous gun he thought that 
 the more horrible and efficient the instruments of 
 destruction were made the sooner there would be 
 an end of all war. Alfred Nobel held the same 
 belief. That they were both wrong is now per- 
 fectly patent. And not only in respect to the 
 character of armaments, but also in respect to the 
 amount of armaments, we have all been disap- 
 pointed insofar as we trusted them to prevent war. 
 Militarists all argued that preparedness was in- 
 surance against war and so they said that every 
 nation was duty-bound to arm itself against all 
 
WILL IT WORK? 159 
 
 possible contestants. Obviously, and on the face 
 of it, this was and is impossible, for the moment 
 one nation has acquired any considerable superior- 
 ity and supremacy in the matter of preparedness, 
 that nation becomes a potential menace. At once 
 some other nation, that may be or become an en- 
 emy, sees itself as relatively defenceless and pro- 
 ceeds forthwith to make itself mightier than its 
 opponent. And thus the vicious circle is described. 
 Military weakness is no sure guaranty of secur- 
 ity. Unpreparedness will not stave off the com- 
 ing of actual war, to say not a word about indignity 
 and injustice. On the other hand, it has been 
 proved that over-armament, super-preparedness, 
 is no sure prophylaxis either. The opponents of 
 force contend that we do not get peace and concord 
 and amity by preparing for war and hate and 
 enmity. On the contrary, they urge that the very 
 process of piling up huge munitions of war is but 
 the piling up of the provocatives of war. But is 
 not the reason why ultra-preparedness has failed 
 to furnish any real protection against war prac- 
 tically the same as the reason why ultra-pacifism 
 has failed, because both were irrational? A rea- 
 sonable amount of national armaments, subject in 
 some measure to international control, for the less- 
 
160 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 ening of the likelihood of wars between nations, 
 to supply the " sanction " for international guar- 
 antees of national security, surely this is a very 
 different thing from the wanton use of force. 
 
 The impotency of sheer brute force to decide 
 many matters of great importance may as well be 
 acknowledged without quibbling. At one time we 
 thought that the most effective way to make con- 
 verts to a particular form of religion was to con- 
 quer them by the sword. This was the error of 
 the Crusaders and the followers of Mahomet. The 
 time was when many acted on the theory that the 
 only way to educate a child was to pound knowl- 
 edge into it, and that the only way to reform 
 criminals was by employing the extremest forms 
 of inhuman punishment. Indeed the time was 
 when we insanely tried to cure lunatics with many 
 stripes. To recognise the futility of force to ac- 
 complish certain purposes is, however, not to con- 
 cede that there is no proper use for physical 
 force. 
 
 We now come to those who are unalterably op- 
 posed to the use of force, in principle and practice, 
 for any purpose whatsoever to the non-resistants 
 and conscientious objectors. These say that phys- 
 ical force is involved in the programme of the 
 
WILL IT WORK? 161 
 
 League to enforce Peace and that this is contrary to 
 the primary principles of pacific settlement. They 
 argue that we should depend upon the enlightened 
 public opinion of the world and the moral senti- 
 ments of mankind to back-up treaty obligations. 
 All of this is somewhat confusing for the reason 
 that we have failed to define our terms. The ques- 
 tion is not, Shall we have force in the world or shall 
 we not have it? Force is here and there is no get- 
 ting away from that obvious fact. Indeed the very 
 definition of life, with movement and change, and 
 action and reaction, is that force of some sort or 
 other is always operating in the world. This may 
 be the force of gravity or the force of cohesion or 
 the force of attraction. At the other extreme it 
 may be the force of love. If this seems beside the 
 mark then we may say very bluntly that the ex- 
 istence of brute force is undeniable and, further- 
 more, that it certainly always will be used by na- 
 ture in the accomplishment of her ends and prob- 
 ably in social and political life by man in the ac- 
 complishment of his ends. 
 
 In the last analysis the problem has to do with 
 the right use of the right kind of force. For there 
 are varieties of force. Which kind of force shall 
 we use to accomplish our purpose? In early times 
 
162 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 it probably was necessary for primitive man to de- 
 fend himself against wild animals and predaceous 
 neighbours by the use of his bare fists. But as 
 man advanced and became more intelligent he de- 
 vised new and better ways of combating the things 
 in life that were inimical to his interests. He in- 
 vented clubs and arrows and indeed kept on im- 
 proving his instruments of attack and defence until 
 to-day we have mighty armies and navies. After 
 awhile he came to a realisation of the fact that his 
 brain was more powerful than his fists, with the 
 result that more and more he substituted intel- 
 lectual force for brute force. In all likelihood we 
 shall continue to use brute force in social relations 
 for some time to come. For just how long, and to 
 just what extent, nobody really knows. 
 
 To many earnest lovers of peace, and advocates 
 of measures to prevent war, the Tolstoian principle 
 of uncompromising opposition to all use of any 
 kind of physical force for any purpose however 
 worthy or noble seems to be untenable. The 
 League to Enforce Peace does not enter into any 
 discussion of the conflicting philosophies of right 
 and wrong. It does not hold that the extreme 
 pacifist is necessarily wrong, in theory, when he 
 believes in non-resistance. It simply recognises 
 
WILL IT WORK? 163 
 
 the fact of force and the need of using force for 
 the ends of civilisation. Theoretically it may be 
 granted that it would be better never to use phys- 
 ical force for any purpose ; that it would be prefer- 
 able to employ such means as moral suasion and 
 intellectual conviction. But the problem of force 
 is not an academic problem for schoolmen; it is a 
 practical problem for statesmen. It is not always 
 possible to get all nations to agree as to what is 
 right and what is fair and it is this very disagree- 
 ment that has led to the ordeal of battle, the arbi- 
 trament of arms. 
 
 There is a justification for the use of force and 
 the justification is purpose. The ethics of force 
 hinges upon the question, For what purpose is 
 force being used? The simple fact is that nations 
 do use their armies and navies to defend them- 
 selves. The further fact is that they also use them 
 to accomplish purposes less commendable, and 
 there is every likelihood that they will continue to 
 use them against one another unless and until some 
 better road to Justice is built and macadamised. 
 Recognising the absolute privilege of the pacifist 
 to hold an adverse opinion, respecting his con- 
 science and admiring his courage, the League 
 would, nevertheless, without moral compunctions, 
 
164 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 not hesitate to employ force in defence of civilisa- 
 tion as against any outlaw nation. 
 
 The third objection to the programme of the 
 League is that its name says it is a League to En- 
 force " Peace." But perhaps it may be well before 
 proceeding further to remind ourselves that a name, 
 after all, is only a name. The League's name is a 
 case in point. The word " peace " surely ought to 
 be somewhere in the name of the society; first, be- 
 cause its aim is peace and second, because it solicits 
 the support of the moderate pacifists and would at- 
 tract them by its name as well as by its programme. 
 Perhaps it would have been a more accurate de- 
 scription to have called it a "League to Enforce 
 Pause," as Roland Hugins suggests, 1 but there are 
 not very many pause-ists whose support would be 
 an immediately available asset. 
 
 It may help towards a better understanding to 
 emphasise that there are several things desirable 
 in themselves that the League will not try to en- 
 force. It will be noticed that it is not called a 
 League to Enforce Democracy. Probably a con- 
 siderable majority of the members of the organisa- 
 tion and like-as-not all the officers and executives 
 are personally convinced that if the nations of the 
 i The Possible Peace, p. 115. 
 
WILL IT WORK? 165 
 
 world were all democratic, if domestic affairs and 
 foreign policies were controlled by the representa- 
 tives of the people, if diplomacy and industry and 
 finance were, as we say, democratised, war would be 
 a remote contingency. 1 The reforms of this char- 
 acter that have already been accomplished in Rus- 
 sia, the reforms that are more than likely to be 
 accomplished in Germany, gladden the hearts of 
 liberals everywhere. But democracy is social 
 character and character cannot be imputed by 
 grace of any Jefferson or Rousseau. It is nobody's 
 gift; it cannot be presented to a people with the 
 compliments of a King. It is bought with a price 
 a price that is far above rubies with ages of 
 struggle and suffering. It is growth, development, 
 education, victory! To paraphrase Malvolio, no 
 nation is born democratic, nor can any nation have 
 democracy thrust upon it, it must achieve de- 
 mocracy. Even were it possible to do so it would 
 be a mistake to enforce democracy. 
 
 i In an interview published in the New York World for Novem- 
 ber 5, 1916, President Wilson said : " I am convinced that only 
 governments initiate such wars as the present one and that they 
 are never brought on by peoples, and that, therefore, democracy 
 is the best prevention of such jealousies and suspicions and 
 secret intrigues as produce wars among nations where small 
 groups control rather than the great body of public opinion." 
 This pronouncement is consistent with a remark which Montes- 
 quieu makes in his celebrated Spirit of Laws (Book IX, p. 127), 
 to the effect that the spirit of monarchy is war and enlargement 
 of dominion, while that of a republic is peace and moderation. 
 
166 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 Nor is the League called a League to Enforce 
 Justice. This, too, is of great importance. It has 
 been said l that " justice is love with its eyes open." 
 And there is little doubt that if absolute justice 
 could be insured to all nations and peoples that 
 would be the surest guaranty of lasting peace. 
 What a pity that Maeterlinck's fantasy is not a 
 fact. It will be recalled that when the children 
 in the Blue Bird sto*fy reached the Kingdom of the 
 Future they saw " a little pink child, who looks so 
 serious and is sucking his thumb," and who when 
 born "will wipe out injustice from the earth." 
 The time may come, and it may come sooner than 
 we expect, when a World Court will be set-up 
 which will dispense perfect justice to men and 
 nations, a court whose judgments and decisions 
 will be executed by the Supreme Authority of Pub- 
 lic Opinion and endorsed by the Moral Conscience 
 of Mankind. Every nation, great and small, free 
 and subject, would have its day in such a Court 
 and Perfect Right would be upheld by Perfect 
 Might. But the League's programme is not so 
 ambitious. It does not say that the award of the 
 Judicial Tribunal or the compromise suggestion of 
 the Court of Conciliation must be accepted. 
 
 i Norman Hapgood, editorial in Collier's Weekly. 
 
WILL IT WORK? 167 
 
 The League believes with its President, Mr. 
 Taft, that " after we have gotten the cases into 
 Court and decided and the judgments embodied 
 in a solemn declaration of a Court thus established, 
 few nations will care to face the condemnation of 
 international public opinion and disobey the judg- 
 ment." 1 But if the condemnation of the whole 
 world proved incapable of restraining a nation bent 
 on war after the decisions of the Court or Council 
 had gone against it, then force would not be em- 
 ployed to compel obedience. As Cosmos says in 
 his Twelfth Article in the New York Times. 2 " If 
 the publicity attending the operation of such a 
 court, the inherent and persuasive reasonableness 
 of its findings, and a body of international public 
 opinion that has turned with conviction to the 
 judicial settlement of international disputes, can- 
 not insure the carrying into effect of the judg- 
 ments of an International Court of Justice, then 
 the world is not ready for such a court." 
 
 Nor is the League called a League to Enforce 
 the Status Quo. In other words it does not guar- 
 antee to preserve present conditions nor would it 
 deem it desirable to guarantee the preservation of 
 
 1 See The United States and Peace, p. 150. 
 
 2 December 6, 1016. Republished in book form under the 
 title The Basis of a Durable Peace. 
 
168 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 present conditions. And this is not a mere nega- 
 tive virtue. It provides " a way of escape " from 
 intolerable situations without the necessity for 
 war, a peaceful method for changing conditions, 
 and, failing these, the door would still be open for 
 the final appeal to arms. For there are many men 
 who are not Chauvinists, who are not militarists, 
 who maintain, and rightly, that there are occasions 
 which arise when wars are justifiable, when they 
 remedy conditions that are unendurable, condi- 
 tions worse than war itself. 1 Such instances were 
 the War of the Rebellion and the War to Abolish 
 Slavery. There are therefore occasions, very rare 
 it is true, when it might be positively harmful to 
 enforce peace and the perpetuity of the status quo, 
 to prevent the possibility of a righteous and nec- 
 essary revolutionary war. " Rebellion to tyranny 
 is obedience to God." 
 
 The answer to the question of the feasibility of 
 the League's programme, involving certain other 
 objections to its proposals than those which have 
 already been considered, may be reached by an al- 
 together different route. 
 
 i " Knowing well what war means in suffering, in burdens, in 
 horrors, they [the Allies] have still decided that even w.-ir is 
 better than peace at the Prussian price of domination over Eu- 
 rope." Premier Lloyd-George in a speech at the Guildhall, 
 January 11, 1917. 
 
WILL IT WORK? 169 
 
 Speaking broadly there are two classes of critics : 
 those who complain that the League is attempting 
 too much and those who complain that it is not at- 
 tempting enough. Both groups are entitled to 
 have their criticisms treated with respect. The first 
 group those who claim that the League would 
 go too far mean that the scheme is visionary, that 
 it " is a dream, and not even a beautiful dream." * 
 This point of view is plainly stated by Professor 
 Ellory C. Stowell, of Columbia University. In the 
 course of a column interview in the New York 
 Times, 2 he said that " when peace is concluded it 
 is probable that an attempt to form a league to 
 enforce peace may be made, but it cannot hope for 
 any more successful career than its famous pre- 
 decessor, the Holy Alliance. It is an out of date 
 chimera." 
 
 It is true that the enthusiasm and radicalism 
 of youth need to be balanced with the sobriety and 
 conservatism of maturity; but it is no less true 
 that the pride of practicality is prejudice when it 
 is not pretence. Man does not live by bread alone ; 
 he must have "bread and roses too." It is the 
 dreamer who writes the romance of reality in 
 
 1 Von Moltke. 
 
 2 December 21, 1916. 
 
170 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 art, and science, and discovery, and invention, and 
 constructive reform. We should not forget that 
 democracy was once a dream, that liberty was once 
 a dream, that the destruction of the great plagues 
 was once a dream, that universal education was 
 once a dream; that Joseph was a dreamer, and 
 Disraeli, and Lincoln, and Fulton, and Edison. 
 Peace may be a dream but it is more than an " ir- 
 idescent dream." 
 
 And then, too, it must be borne in mind that 
 there are dreamers and dreamers. There are mor- 
 bid dreamers and healthy dreamers ; those who look 
 upward merely, and those who look forward also; 
 those who deny the hard facts, and those who make 
 the hard facts malleable to their wills. Right now 
 there are quite a few people in the world who may 
 indeed be classified as idealists but who stubbornly 
 refuse to yield to the temptation to make bread out 
 of stones. It seems to them, just as a matter of 
 common sense, that lots better bread can be made 
 out of whole wheat and that stones ought to be 
 used for building cathedrals and houses for people 
 to live in. They refuse absolutely to make dreams 
 their master, these hard-headed dreamers who 
 are the advance agents of civilisation. These men 
 and women believe in universal peace, in the same 
 
WILL IT WORK? 171 
 
 way that they believe in absolute justice and ulti- 
 mate democracy, as a final goal of human en- 
 deavour ; but they have no wish 
 
 To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire, 
 . . . and shatter it to bits and then 
 Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's Desire! 
 
 They have the "will to believe" and with their 
 will they control their faith. Eeal faith is never 
 in a hurry; it can bide its time. Mine hour hath 
 not yet come, said the patient Jesus. To-day there 
 are many practical people people who are not 
 disobedient to the heavenly vision who prefer, 
 while waiting for the dawning of millennium, to 
 get busy and to keep busy making the desert blos- 
 som with harvests. They feel that it is all very 
 well to hitch our wagon to a star; but that we 
 ought to keep tight hold of the reins and not let 
 our imagination run away with our judgment. It 
 is true, as Mr. Asquith said in a speech at Dublin, 1 
 that such a partnership of nations enforcing pub- 
 lic right by the power of a common will, would 
 have sounded like a Utopian idea just before the 
 war, though now it is within the range if not within 
 the grasp of statesmanship. 
 
 Another reason why the League's plan is said 
 
 i See Appendix, p. 284. 
 
172 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 to go too far is that it would actually use force to 
 maintain order. This objection to the use of force 
 comes from an entirely different group and has 
 been treated, it will be recalled, in considerable 
 detail in the earlier part of this chapter. One 
 phase of the subject, however, was not discussed. 
 A word may be said about it here. The point is 
 made that it is anomalous, that it is a perversion, 
 to make war in order to prevent war; and it does 
 seem a bit paradoxical. Much depends, of course, 
 on just what you mean by " make war." 1 It is 
 possible for political rivals to hold that the pres- 
 ent Administration " made war " on Mexico because 
 on April 20, 1914, the President went to Congress 
 to obtain its approval for landing troops at Vera 
 Cruz. But you can't very well make war on a 
 people with whom you genuinely sympathise, a 
 people that you are trying to help. Of course 
 words can be stretched to cover almost any mean- 
 ing, but it ought to be perfectly clear that there 
 is all the difference in the world between this na- 
 tion or any other nation " going to war " and band- 
 
 i When the three Powers Russia, France, and Great Britain 
 by the-Treaty of 1827 transformed a Turkish province into an 
 independent kingdom, selected a king, and even went so far as to 
 destroy the Turkish fleet at Xavarino by means of a " pacific " 
 blockade, they were not (as they protested) "making war" on 
 Turkey. 
 
WILL IT WORK? 173 
 
 ing itself with others to keep the public peace and 
 to quell rioters if necessary by force of arms. 
 It is the latter and not the former which the League 
 would undertake to do. 
 
 The third reason for the belief that the League's 
 programme is impracticable is the difficulty, if not 
 the impossibility, of determining with absolute cer- 
 tainty which nation is the aggressor, who started 
 the fight? If the plan of the League is made 
 operative no nation that did not want to incur the 
 disapproval of the civilised world, no nation that 
 had not completely made up its mind to throw down 
 the gauntlet and challenge a dozen nations at once, 
 would be likely to take any chance of being thought 
 the aggressor. It would spare no pains to avoid 
 suspicion. It would be perfectly possible for any 
 nation not seeking war to move all of its forces 
 back a certain distance from the frontier so that 
 the exact locis of the initial engagement, on any 
 considerable scale, could be determined without 
 difficulty. Then, too, the voluntary submission by 
 one nation of the matter in dispute to the Court 
 or Council, for arbitration or adjustment, would 
 put the burden of blame upon the other nation 
 which refused to submit its case. The first thing 
 to do would be to stop the fighting for the time be- 
 
174 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 ing, even if it became necessary to hold back both 
 nations until the case had had a hearing and a 
 verdict was given. 
 
 If the point is pressed that the League is at- 
 tempting too much, that it would go too far, then 
 it ought to be clearly stated in reply that there are, 
 as has already been pointed out, several things 
 which the League does not propose to do. After 
 mature consideration it has refused to go as far 
 as many other admirable societies and groups, 
 whose programmes are urged upon the statesmen. 
 For example, the four cardinal principles of The 
 Union of Democratic Control, in England, are: 
 
 1. No Province shall be transferred from one 
 Government to another without the consent, by 
 plebiscite or otherwise, of the population of such 
 Province. 
 
 2. No Treaty, Arrangement, or Understanding 
 shall be entered upon in the name of Great Britain 
 without the sanction of Parliament. Adequate 
 machinery for ensuring democratic control of 
 foreign policy shall be created. 
 
 3. The Foreign Policy of Great Britain shall 
 not be aimed at creating Alliances for the purpose 
 of maintaining the Balance of Power; but shall be 
 directed to concerted action between the Powers, 
 
WILL IT WORK? 175 
 
 and the setting up of an International Council, 
 whose deliberations and decisions shall be public, 
 with such machinery for securing international 
 agreement as shall be the guarantee of an abiding 
 peace. 
 
 4. Great Britain shall propose as part of the 
 Peace settlement a plan for drastic reduction, by 
 consent, of the armaments of all the belligerent 
 Powers, and to facilitate that policy shall attempt 
 to secure the general nationalisation of the man- 
 ufacture of armaments, and the control of the ex- 
 port of armaments by one country to another. 
 
 It will be observed that a proposal which plans 
 for disarmament, or at least for drastic reduction 
 of armaments, is included. Now it may be that 
 the League to Enforce Peace is mistaken, it may 
 be that the nations are ready to begin a simultan- 
 eous reduction of armaments; but it seems hardly 
 likely. And this is one reason why the League 
 does not include among its proposals a definite de- 
 mand for disarmament. 1 It is not because dis- 
 armament would not be desirable, but because it 
 is thought that it would not be feasible. Never- 
 theless, a gradual limitation of armaments would 
 almost certainly result from the acceptance and 
 
 i Cp. Chapter X, p. 125. 
 
176 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 operation of the League's proposals, because the 
 fear of sudden attack would be eliminated. It 
 would not, however, require the immediate and 
 complete disarmament of the nations that joined 
 the League, nor would it make it a sine qua non of 
 membership. 
 
 Another thing that the League does not propose 
 to do is to meddle in any way with the domestic 
 affairs or internal policies of its nation-members. 
 It would begin with things as they are in respect 
 to sovereign and subject peoples, and in respect to 
 many other things. Changes will doubtless come 
 in the future and more than likely the Court, Coun- 
 cil, and Ministry will, one or all, have some share 
 in controlling these changes; but no proposal of 
 the League to Enforce Peace contemplates action 
 that would interfere in connection with insurrec- 
 tions, rebellions, or revolutions within the bounds 
 of any of its members. And the reason why it 
 would not is because it conceives of itself as being 
 in the nature of a quasi-international police force, 1 
 empowered to exercise the police function of keep- 
 ing the peace in much the same way that police- 
 men, sheriffs, committees of public safety and vigi- 
 lance committees take it to be their primary duty 
 
 i Cp. Chapter XI, p. 136. 
 
WILL IT WORK? 177 
 
 not to reform malefactors but to maintain law and 
 order. Policemen do not intrude on the privacy of 
 homes and families unless and until the trouble 
 seems likely to spread to such an extent as to endan- 
 ger the lives and property of the community. 
 
 It is not always going to be an easy task to draw 
 the line. Practically the same difficulties will be 
 encountered that now beset the path of jurists and 
 statesmen in the "league of nations" which is 
 called the United States of America. The conun- 
 drum, When is a local issue not a local issue? has 
 bothered the brains of more than one lawmaker 
 and interpreter. General Hancock said that the 
 tariff is a local issue and it is lots more than it 
 ought to be; but then again it is a national and 
 even an international issue. Was slavery a local 
 issue? Southerners thought it was and they were 
 right and they were wrong. And so it goes. It 
 is a very delicate matter which will require no end 
 of skill, this fixing the bounds between affairs and 
 issues that are purely domestic and policies and 
 practices that, if persisted in, may put the times 
 out of joint. 
 
 Mention has already been made of the fact that 
 the League would not attempt to enforce the de- 
 cisions or awards of the Court or Council, nor 
 
178 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 would it enforce permanent peace and guarantee 
 the perpetuity of the status quo. And now finally 
 in reply to those who complain that the League 
 is trying to do too much it should be plainly 
 written down and underscored in red that the 
 League has no diagram of duty for the nations, 
 no pattern on the mount, no plans and specifica- 
 tions for constructing, at The Hague, or on any 
 other site anywhere on the planet, an ideal world 
 order. No effort is made by the League to cloak 
 the obvious fact that its proposals do not constitute 
 an ideal arrangement. It probably would be bet- 
 ter to require all the nations to accept and abide 
 by the decisions of the established Courts and 
 Councils. But there are plenty of courses of ac- 
 tion that are theoretically preferable to those that 
 are practically possible, and it is the conscious de- 
 sire and determined will of the League not to at- 
 tempt more than can be achieved. For example, 
 without the reservation of the right to reject the 
 award and appeal to force, it is very doubtful if 
 any of the great nations could be persuaded or 
 induced to enter such a league of nations at this 
 time. And the thing of paramount importance 
 just now is not to perform the miracle of spontane- 
 
WILL IT WORK? 179 
 
 ous international government, but to take the next 
 step in the direction of world order. To some it 
 may be discouraging that more is not attempted, 
 but if this much is both attempted and achieved, 
 there is no one who will deny that it is infinitely 
 better than the present anarchy and the almost cer- 
 tain recurrence of wars. 
 
 We have considered at some length the objec- 
 tions of those who complain that the League is at- 
 tempting the impossible. There are also some 
 whose objections are based on the assertion that 
 the League's programme does not attempt nearly 
 enough. It is true, as has been explained, that it 
 does not attempt to create instanter " a parliament 
 of man, a federation of the world," it does not pur- 
 pose to enforce justice* or democracy, or the status 
 quo; it will not, by military force, compel the ac- 
 ceptance of the decisions of its Court or Council. 
 And the reason why it will not undertake these 
 tasks, is because it wants to concentrate its total 
 energy, because it wants the whole world to hear 
 " one clear call." This one thing it would do. It 
 has no wish to sit by the side of the road and watch 
 the world pass by. On the contrary, it is more 
 than anxious to get up and go somewhere, but it 
 
180 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 is satisfied that the next step is to enforce delay 
 by compelling the submission of disputes before 
 war is begun. 
 
 There is still another way to approach the sub- 
 ject in the effort to clear up all misunderstand- 
 ings. Those who oppose the proposal of such a 
 league of nations, not because it is undesirable but 
 because they think it is impracticable, say in an- 
 swer to the question, Why will it not work? 
 that there are three reasons why it won't work: 
 First, it is said that the scheme is chimerical be- 
 cause you can't get the nations to join such a 
 league as is proposed; second, because the great 
 nations will not submit major questions; and 
 third, because the nations that become signatories 
 to such a treaty creating a league of nations will 
 not keep faith when the crisis comes. 
 
 Take the first reason advanced. Does it seem 
 likely that so many hard-headed business men, men 
 of practical affairs, would be giving their cordial 
 approval to the idea if it were so impractical? 
 Some of the best brains in this and other countries 
 have voiced their approval of the programme. The 
 list includes editors, educators, lawyers, clergy- 
 men, bankers, legislators, judges and statesmen. 1 
 i See Appendix, p. 263, for commendatory statements in full. 
 
WILL IT WOKK? 181 
 
 Among those who have written or spoken in praise 
 of the plan are President Wilson, ex-President 
 Taft, Premier Lloyd-George, 1 ex-Premier Asquith, 
 Premier Briand, Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg, 
 Mr. Balfour, Lord Grey and Viscount Bryce. 
 
 It will not escape notice that among those who 
 have expressed themselves as friendly to the idea 
 of such a league to enforce peace at the close of 
 this war are several Government officials. Their 
 personal utterances do not necessarily commit the 
 nations they represent, but they at least fore- 
 shadow the probability of favourable Government 
 action. 2 So much by way of answer to those who 
 
 iln his Guildhall speech of January 11, 1917, the English 
 Prime Minister said, " The peace and security for peace will be 
 that the nations will band themselves together to punish the first 
 peacebreaker who comes out." Reported in the New York 
 Times, January 12, 1917. 
 
 2 An official pronouncement on the subject was made in the 
 Note of the Entente Powers dated January 10, 1917, in reply to 
 President Wilson's Note of December 18. The second para- 
 graph reads as follows : " In a general way they desire to de- 
 clare their respect for the lofty sentiments inspiring the Amer- 
 ican note and their whole-hearted agreement with the proposal 
 to create a league of nations which shall assure peace and justice 
 throughout the world. They recognise all the benefits which 
 will accrue to the cause of humanity and civilisation from the 
 institution of international arrangements designed to prevent 
 violent conflicts between nations and so framed as to provide the 
 sanctions necessary to their enforcement, lest an illusory security 
 should serve merely to facilitate fresh acts of aggression." The 
 passage in President Wilson's Note to which this paragraph evi- 
 dently refers reads as follows : " In the measures to be taken 
 to secure the future peace of the world the people and Govern- 
 ment of the United States are as vitally and as directly inter- 
 ested as the Governments now at war. Their interest, more- 
 
182 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 say the plan won't work because the nations can- 
 not be induced to enter such a league. 
 
 A second group gives another reason why it be- 
 lieves the League's programme will not work, and 
 that reason is because you can't get the great na- 
 tions to submit major questions for arbitration or 
 conciliatory treatment. It may be said in reply 
 that great nations have submitted major questions 
 for inquiry and arbitration and, what is more, they 
 have accepted the decisions and have bowed to the 
 judgment of the court. A case in point was the 
 Hull affair. 1 
 
 There are many matters, open to dispute and 
 discussion, that would not, strictly speaking, fall 
 within the jurisdiction of the League. For exam- 
 ple, England would, in no sense, bind herself to 
 submit to an International Council the question 
 of Home Rule for Ireland. The case is somewhat 
 different when we come to the Monroe Doctrine. 
 This is the way the question is usually asked, Is 
 the United States ready to submit the Monroe 
 
 over, in the means to be adopted to relieve the smaller and 
 weaker peoples of the world of the peril of wrong and violence is 
 as quick and ardent as that of any other people or Government. 
 They stand ready and even eager, to co-operate in the accom- 
 plishment of these ends when the war is over with every influ- 
 ence and resource at their command." 
 
 i See Appendix, p. 302, for a full statement of the facts in this 
 case. 
 
WILL IT WORK? 188 
 
 Doctrine to arbitration, if some European nation 
 happens to consider it a dog in the manger policy? 
 First of all we ought to keep in mind the distinc- 
 tion between the functions of the Judicial Tribunal 
 and the Council of Conciliation : the Court to deal 
 with justiciable questions, questions which it is pos- 
 sible to decide by established international law; 
 the Council to deal with non-justiciable questions, 
 questions such as national policy and necessary 
 expansion. The Monroe Doctrine is not a part of 
 international law; it is a part of American policy. 
 So we really do not have to consider the question 
 as posed: Is the United States ready to submit 
 the Monroe Doctrine for arbitration? The answer 
 to this hypothetical question would be, No, it is 
 not. Clearly that is why the United States when 
 it signed The Hague Convention (1907) for the 
 Pacific Settlement of International Disputes made 
 the express reservation : " Nothing contained in 
 this Convention shall be so construed as to require 
 the United States of America to depart from its 
 traditional policy of not intruding upon, interfer- 
 ing with, or entangling itself in the political ques- 
 tions or policy or internal administration of any 
 foreign state; nor shall anything contained in the 
 said convention be construed to imply a relinquish- 
 
184 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 ment by the United States of America of its tradi- 
 tional attitude toward purely American questions." 
 
 As a matter of fact the United States is now 
 under contract, by treaties with some thirty nations, 
 including France, Great Britain, and Russia, to 
 do precisely this, namely to refer for investigation 
 and report to an international commission all dis- 
 putes between them of every nature whatsoever, 
 when diplomatic methods of adjustment have 
 failed. And what is more, we have solemnly 
 agreed not to declare war or begin hostilities dur- 
 ing such investigation and before the report is 
 submitted. A little study of our own existing 
 treaties in comparison with the League's pro- 
 gramme will convince any fair and intelligent critic 
 that the second proposal of the League to Enforce 
 Peace would commit the United States as much as, 
 and no more than, it is already committed insofar 
 as the Monroe Doctrine is concerned or involved. 
 
 If anything further needs to be said we may add 
 that when it is clearly understood that most major 
 questions (points of national honour and matters 
 of policy) would not go to the Court but to the 
 Council, and when, furthermore, it is clearly 
 grasped that the recommendation for compromise 
 growing out of the " hearing and consideration " 
 
WILL IT WORK? 185 
 
 may be rejected if that is the judgment and will of 
 the nation involved, there would certainly be less, 
 and would probably be little, if any, reluctance to 
 submit them. 
 
 The third, and last, reason given in the argu- 
 ment against the League's programme, as imprac- 
 ticable, is that you cannot be at all sure that the 
 nations, after they have signed such an agreement, 
 will make good the bonds they have given, will 
 abide by their agreements. This is, of course, the 
 question pf good faith in the observance of treaties ; 
 it is to raise doubts as to the honour of the signa- 
 tories. And to assume, as is assumed when the 
 question is raised, that they will not keep their 
 plighted word, is an assumption that is not war- 
 ranted by history or precedent. Without such 
 faith it would be impossible to conduct modern 
 business of any kind. Why have treaties at all, 
 if, in advance, it is assumed that they are but 
 scraps of paper? It may be interesting, and it is 
 certainly pertinent in this connection, to point out 
 that there were between eight hundred and nine 
 hundred treaties concluded between the years 1874 
 and 1883, and that of this total by far the greater 
 number were all scrupulously carried out. 
 
PART III 
 THE CREED OF MILITARISM 
 
CHAPTER xni 
 
 MORAL MAJESTY OR GUILTY MADNESS? 
 
 THE first article in the creed of militarism says 
 that War is Desirable. And what is militarism? 
 The celebrated German editor, Maximilian Harden, 
 recently said, " Only statesmen can add up the pos- 
 sibilities and arrive at the necessities. Only they 
 can be allowed to decide with what weapons and 
 up to what end the war is to be conducted. It is 
 only in Germany that these principles are disputed. 
 Is it because militarism really reigns among 
 us . . . ? Militarism is a form of civilisation and 
 a state of mind. It presses for ever stronger arma- 
 ments, and accustoms even the ordinary citizen to 
 the idea that weapons alone can settle a strife of 
 peoples, and that any other tool is unworthy and 
 useless. Heroism and military virtue can flourish 
 without militarism, but militarism alone guaran- 
 tees the constant readiness of all the limbs of the 
 people's body for rapid transition from peace to 
 war. It is because militarism favours the temp- 
 tation to war, and must either extend its depreda- 
 
 189 
 
190 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 tions far and wide or be rooted out absolutely, that 
 the war is to continue until militarism has been 
 destroyed. That is what all the enemies of the 
 German Empire say out loud and what all neutral 
 powers say in whispers." 1 
 
 Now there are indeed many alleged benefits of 
 war, nor can it be altogether denied that often- 
 times good does flow from evil. But to-day it would 
 seem that the silent protest of six million dead, 
 whose voices are choked with dust, ought to be an 
 all-sufficient answer to those who still prate about 
 the value and benefits of war. Contrast for a mo- 
 ment the moral majesty of war, as proclaimed by 
 Treitschke and others, with the guilty madness of 
 war as revealed in half-a-world in ruins, in wrecked 
 homes, in demolished cathedrals, in burned cities, in 
 devastated fields, in torpedoed liners, in hobbling 
 cripples, and in broken hearts that are doomed to 
 suffer the pangs of unavailing grief. How vain 
 and hollow the praises of war sound in our ears 
 grown too accustomed to the sobs and groans of 
 the dying. 
 
 " Let us cling with love," wrote Ernest Renan, 
 " to our custom of fighting from time to time be- 
 
 i Die Zukunft for October 21, 1916. Reported in the New fork 
 Times for November 8, 191G. 
 
 
MOEAL MAJESTY OR MADNESS? 191 
 
 cause war is the necessary occasion and place for 
 manifesting moral force." * Raskin, in his essay on 
 "War," eloquently remarked that, "All the pure 
 and noble arts of peace are founded on war; no 
 great art ever yet rose on earth, but among a na- 
 tion of soldiers. There is no art among a shepherd 
 people, if it remains at peace. . . . There is no 
 great art possible but that which is based on battle. 
 . . . We talk of peace and learning, of peace and 
 plenty, of peace and civilisation; but I found that 
 those were not the words which the Muse of His- 
 tory coupled together; that on her lips the words 
 were peace and sensuality peace and selfish- 
 ness peace and death ... all great nations 
 learned their truth of word, and strength of 
 thought, in war; . . . they were nourished in war, 
 and wasted by peace; taught by war, and deceived 
 by peace; trained by war, and betrayed by peace 
 in a word, they were born in war, and expired 
 in peace." 2 
 
 " We have learned to perceive," sings Treitschke 
 in one of his impassioned paeons to war, " the moral 
 majesty of war through the very processes which 
 to the superficial observer seem brutal and inhuman. 
 
 1 See La Reforme Intellectual et Morale. 
 
 2 John Ruskin, Crown of Wild Olive. Sec. 86. 
 
192 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 The greatness of war is just what at first seems 
 to be its horror that for the sake of their coun- 
 try men will overcome the natural feelings of hu- 
 manity, that they will slaughter their fellowmen 
 who have done them no injury, nay, whom they per- 
 haps respect as chivalrous foes. Man will not only 
 sacrifice his life, but the natural and justified in- 
 stincts of the soul; here we have the sublimity of 
 war. . . . War weaves a bond of love between man 
 and man. ... To banish war from the world would 
 be to mutilate human nature. . . . War is the 
 sphere in which we can most clearly trace the tri- 
 umph of human reason." 1 And so he continues, 
 paragraph after paragraph, page after page, deck- 
 ing war out like a painted lady. " The hope of 
 banishing war," he says, " is not only meaningless 
 but immoral. Its disappearance would turn the 
 earth into a great temple of selfishness." 
 
 Or listen to the way Nietzsche proclaims his en- 
 thusiasm. " It is," he says, " mere illusion and 
 pretty sentiment to expect much (even anything at 
 all) from mankind if it forgets how to make war. 
 As yet no means are known which calls so much 
 into action as a great war, that rough energy born 
 of the camp, that deep impersonality born of hatred, 
 
 i Politics, Vol. II, pp. 395, 396, 599. 
 
MORAL MAJESTY OR MADNESS? 193 
 
 that conscience born of murder and cold-blooded- 
 ness, that fervour born of effort in the annihilation 
 of the enemy, that proud indifference to loss, to 
 one's own existence, to that of one's fellows, to that 
 earthquake-like soulshaking which a people needs 
 when it is losing its virility." 
 
 Now, over against these appreciations of war, 
 read this account of what was done by Russian guns 
 and winter cold: "At night under the glare of 
 the searchlights," says a French official report, " the 
 undulating mass of wounded made efforts to ex- 
 tricate themselves, then toward two o'clock in the 
 morning they moved no more." Did Dore ever 
 paint a picture of war more gruesome and horrid 
 and with fewer strokes? 
 
 Or read a realistic report of the correspondent 
 of the London Daily News, in which he describes 
 how, after the Russian trenches were charged by 
 the Germans, corpses lay piled in wind-rows until 
 they were dismembered and thrown into the faces 
 of the Russian soldiers by explosion of German 
 bombs. 
 
 Or read this passage from John Masefield's 
 Gallipoli, describing a charge in which he himself 
 took part. With others, he lies along a rough 
 three-mile line, facing the necessity of taking a 
 
194 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 slope one thousand feet in extent : " Let him im- 
 agine himself to be more weary than he has ever 
 been in his whole life before, and dirtier than he 
 has ever believed it possible to be, and parched with 
 thirst, nervous, wild-eyed, and rather lousy. Let 
 him think that he has not slept for more than a 
 few minutes together for eleven days and nights, 
 and that in his waking hours he has been fighting 
 for his life, often hand to hand in the dark with a 
 fierce enemy, and that after each fight he has had 
 to dig himself a hole in the ground, and then 
 walk three or four roadless miles to bring up 
 heavy boxes under fire. Let him think, too, that 
 in all those eleven days he has never been for an 
 instant out of the thunder of cannon, that, waking 
 or sleeping, their devastating crash has been blast- 
 ing the air within a mile or two, and this from an 
 artillery so terrible that each discharge beats as it 
 were a wedge of shock between the skull-bone and 
 the brain. Let him think, too, that never for an 
 instant in all that time has he been free from the 
 peril of death in its most sudden and savage forms, 
 and that hourly he has seen his friends blown to 
 pieces at his side, or dismembered or drowned or 
 driven mad or stabbed or sniped or bombed in the 
 dark sap, with a handful of dynamite in a beef -tin, 
 
MORAL MAJESTY OB MADNESS? 195 
 
 till their blood is caked upon his clothes and thick 
 upon his face, and that he knows, as he stares at 
 that hill that more of that band will be gone the 
 same way, and that he himself may reckon that he 
 has done with life, tasted and spoken and loved his 
 last, and that in a few minutes more may be blasted 
 dead, or lying bleeding in the scrub, with perhaps 
 his face gone and a leg or an arm broken, unable 
 to move, but still alive, unable to drive away the 
 flies or screen the ever-dropping rain." Is it any 
 wonder that the song of Pippa is not popular to- 
 day? 
 
 Of course, if it be glorious to tear men limb from 
 limb, men made in the image of God, why then 
 war is glorious. The fact is, the glamour of ro- 
 mance has been thrown like a blanket over the 
 corpse-strewn fields of slaughter; the blare of the 
 bugles has drowned the piercing cries of pain; the 
 cant religion of a false patriotism has hushed the 
 wails of women. It will not be denied that loyal 
 service is glorious, that generous devotion is glori- 
 ous, that silent suffering is glorious, that dauntless 
 heroism is glorious. One would need to be very 
 callous and very stupid to deny these things. But 
 that is not the point. These things are but the tin- 
 sel and motley. Stripped of its splendid robes of 
 
196 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 purple and gold, and seen only in the drab and 
 grey of plain fact, war ceases to be so thrilling and 
 inviting. It becomes repulsive and obscene. True, 
 there is that about war which grips the imagination 
 with fingers of tempered steel; but, before we ever 
 again give ourselves up to its fascination and thrall 
 let us at least clean our minds of cant and try to 
 see things steadily and see them whole. 
 
 Mr. William James, in his brilliant and much- 
 quoted essay on " The Moral Equivalent of War," 
 sums up the attitude of the militarist enthusiast. 
 " Reflective apologists for war at this present day," 
 he writes, " all take it religiously. It is a sort of 
 sacrament. Its profits are to the vanquished as 
 well as to the victor; and quite apart from any 
 question of profit, it is an absolute good, we are told, 
 for it is human nature at its highest dynamic. Its 
 ' horrors ' are a cheap price to pay for rescue from 
 the only alternative supposed, of a world of clerks 
 and teachers, of co-education and zo-ophily, of ' con- 
 sumer's leagues ' and ' associated charities/ of in- 
 dustrialism unlimited and feminism unabashed. 
 No scorn, no hardness, no valour anymore! Fie 
 upon such a cattle yard of a planet ! " l 
 
 Now when the contrast is put in just that way 
 i William James, Memories and Studies, p. 276. 
 
MORAL MAJESTY OR MADNESS? 197 
 
 and we are asked to choose between generous, ar- 
 dent, vivifying war, with all it involves in the way 
 of discipline and devoted service, and sordid, selfish, 
 debilitating peace, few could be found who would 
 not instantly select war as their preference. But 
 the line is never so clearly drawn. All that glisters 
 is not gold, and there is a lot of sentimentality that 
 has found its way into the literature of militarism. 
 We are not driven to choose between Yahveh and 
 Baal; between noble war and ignominious peace; 
 between enthusiastic devotion and sordid commer- 
 cialism. The virtues are not all with one and the 
 vices with the other. There is a bad side to war as 
 well as to peace; and a good side to peace as well 
 as to war. Surely it cannot be gainsaid that many, 
 if not, indeed, most, of the wars of history have 
 been occasioned by pride of place, ambition for 
 power, dynastic jealousy, commercial greed, cruel 
 revenge and blind hatred. And, in the prosecution 
 of war, the flood-gates have been lifted, letting loose 
 a torrent of falsehood, hatred, envy, malice, and 
 lust to deluge the world. On the other hand, 
 reluctant as some military writers seem to be to 
 acknowledge it, there is in piping times of peace, 
 much business that is enterprising endeavour, much 
 commercialism that is not what Homer Lea calls " a 
 
198 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 protoplasmic gormandisation and retching," 1 many- 
 trees that thrive besides the Upas tree of greed. 
 
 A few fervent apologists for war are still to be 
 found here and there and now and then who con- 
 tend that it has many patent values. They say that 
 it makes men and nations strong and noble and 
 brave. Certain writers are still quoted in praise 
 of war and we are told that it regenerates corrupt 
 peoples, awakens dormant nations, and exercises 
 a happy influence upon customs, arts and science. 
 A frightful picture is painted of the rapid decline 
 and fall of ancient Rome when Sybaritic peace 
 sucked her strength like a vampire, though precisely 
 the opposite cause for the fall of Rome is advanced 
 by the great historian Mommsen. 
 
 And now over against all this shall we see what 
 competent critics say of the moral damage of war. 
 " War is not," writes Lecky, " and never can be, a 
 mere passionless discharge of a painful duty. Its 
 essence, and a main condition of its success, is to 
 kindle into fierce exercises among great masses of 
 men the destructive and combative passions pas- 
 sions as fierce and as malevolent as that with which 
 the hound hunts the fox to its death or the tiger 
 springs upon its prey. Destruction is one of its 
 
 i Homer Lea, The Valor of Ignorance, p. 27. 
 
MORAL MAJESTY OE MADNESS? 199 
 
 chief ends. Deception is one of its chief means; 
 and one of the great arts of skilful generalship is 
 to deceive in order to destroy. Whatever other 
 elements may mingle with and dignify war, this at 
 least is never absent ; and however reluctantly men 
 may enter into war, however conscientiously they 
 may endeavour to avoid it, they must know that 
 when the scene of carnage has once opened, these 
 things must be not only accepted and condoned, but 
 stimulated, encouraged and applauded." 1 
 
 " War," writes Walter Walsh, " is the sum of all 
 villainies and includes a corruption of moral sense 
 that is the greatest of all its villainies. War kills, 
 but the murderous spirit it creates is crueler than 
 any particular act of murder. War lies; but the 
 lying spirit it engenders is baser than any specific 
 falsehood. War steals ; but the pirate spirit it fos- 
 ters is meaner than any single theft. War lusts; 
 but the general debauchment of virtue is fouler than 
 any one rape or violation. The glory of war is one 
 thing; let it be put into the scale, and let the gain 
 of war be put in with it. Then into the opposite 
 scale let the moral damage of war be cast. Let 
 the balance be true. Its destructive effect upon the 
 
 i Quoted from W. E. H. Lecky's The Map of Life, in D. W. 
 Lyon's The Christian Equivalent of War. 
 
200 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 moral character of the nation that wages it is war's 
 final condemnation." l 
 
 And yet the disciplinary value of war is too real 
 to be sarcastically set aside. It is perfectly true 
 that long and arduous campaigns do make for 
 virility and do train men to endure hardness; but 
 so does daily labour and the struggle for bread. On 
 the other hand it is no less true that the indolent 
 life of the barracks is physically softening in times 
 of calm, while camp life in times of war is very 
 likely to prove not only physically debilitating but 
 also morally degenerating and spiritually brutalis- 
 ing. In other words, the ledger has a debit side 
 as well as a credit side. 
 
 In war, it is said, the chaff is winnowed from the 
 wheat, 2 and that is true. But, unfortunately for 
 the race it is the wheat that is destroyed and it is 
 the chaff that is preserved. The value of struggle 
 between nations as an eliminator of the weak and 
 unfit has been immensely overstated. Even if it 
 could be proved beyond dispute that evolution is 
 a force as well as a fact, that it is more than a mere 
 description of what happens in the way of change 
 and modification through the long generations of 
 
 1 Walter Walsh, The Mnrnl Damage of War, p. 43. 
 
 2 Treitschke, Politics, Vol. I, p. 67. 
 
MORAL MAJESTY OB MADNESS? 201 
 
 man's life on earth, it would prove absolutely noth- 
 ing as to latter-day struggles between civilised 
 states, in which the flower of the nations is pur- 
 posely picked and selected for extinction. The 
 lame, the halt and the blind; the weak, the dis- 
 eased, the cowardly and the selfish ; these are left 
 to propagate the future. 
 
 Novicov wrote, more than a score of years ago, 
 that war "has invariably eliminated individuals 
 physiologically the most perfect, and has allowed 
 the weakest to survive. . . . Since the most ancient 
 times men of the soundest constitutions, the most 
 vigorous men have gone off to fight. The weak, the 
 sick, the deformed have remained at home. So, 
 every battle carries away some of the elect, leaving 
 behind the socially unproductive." 1 
 
 As a matter of fact, the war masters are very 
 finicky in their selection of human material. Mars, 
 like the God of the Ancient Hebrews, insists that 
 only the unblemished of the flock shall be led to the 
 sacrificial altar. No nation that cares about its 
 future, as well as its present, can afford to destroy 
 the pick of its citizenry and leave only the feeble 
 and defective, the subnormal and the abnormal, to 
 pollute the stream of its social life. 2 
 
 1 War and Its Alleged Benefits, p. 21. 
 
 2 Henri Lambert suggests an international agreement to em- 
 
202 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 In reply to Bernhardi's statement that " War is 
 a biological necessity of the first importance, a 
 regulative element in the life of mankind which 
 cannot be dispensed with, since without it an un- 
 healthy development will follow, which excludes 
 every advancement of the race and therefore all real 
 civilisation," l Herbert Spencer may be quoted. In 
 his Study of Sociology he says : " Though during 
 the earlier stages of civilisation war has the effect of 
 exterminating the weaker societies and of weeding 
 out the weaker members of the stronger societies, 
 during the later stages of civilisation, the second of 
 these actions is reversed. . . . After this stage has 
 been reached the purifying process, continuing still 
 an important one, remains to be carried on by in- 
 dustrial war by a competition of societies dur- 
 ing which the best, physically, emotionally, and in- 
 tellectually spread most and leave the least capa- 
 ble to disappear gradually, from failing to leave a 
 sufficiently numerous posterity." 
 
 Contemporary scientists of commanding reputa- 
 tion have recently repudiated as absurd the notion 
 
 ploy as combatants only those men who are over forty-five years 
 of age. This, he says, would be a double benefit, inasmuch as 
 most of the useful and stronger men would be spared, and most 
 of the unuseful and detrimental would be periodically swept 
 away. It is nearly certain, he adds, that with such a law 
 operating there would be no more war. 
 
 i Germany and the Xext War, Ch. I, p. 18. 
 
MORAL MAJESTY OR MADNESS? 203 
 
 that war is either a biological necessity, or the 
 method of nature making for advance. In a paper 
 on " Biology and War " read before the Annual 
 Assemblage of the American Association for the 
 Advancement of Science, 1 Jacques Loeb, head of the 
 department of experimental biology in the Rocke- 
 feller Institute for Medical Research, said: 
 " These war enthusiasts maintain that unless a na- 
 tion engages occasionally in war it will lose all 
 those virile virtues, especially courage, which are 
 necessary for its survival. We do not need to argue 
 whether the acts committed in a state of homicidal 
 emotion are the real or only manifestations of cour- 
 age ; we may also overlook the manifestations of 
 virility left behind by invading or retreating armies. 
 The assumption that virility or courage (whatever 
 may be meant by these terms) will disappear if 
 not practised in the form of war implies an un- 
 proven and apparently false biological assumption 
 namely, that functions not practised or organs 
 not used will disappear in the offspring. The state- 
 ment that a nation by not going to war will lose 
 any of its inherited virile virtues is not supported 
 by our present biological knowledge. The < strug- 
 
 i December 29, 1916, American Societies of Zoologists and 
 Naturalists. 
 
204 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 gle for existence ' and the ' survival of the fittest ' 
 are no laws of nature in the sense in which the 
 term law is used in the exact sciences." 
 
 Dr. G. Stanley Hall, the eminent psychologist, 
 prepared a paper on " Psychology and War " which 
 was read before the twenty-fifth anniversary meet- 
 ing of the American Psychological Association as 
 part of the Annual Assemblage of the American 
 Association for the Advancement of Science on De- 
 cember 28, 1916. The whole paper ought to be 
 carefully studied by all who are interested in the 
 problem of peace and war. One of the most strik- 
 ing paragraphs is the following : " We shall surely 
 have a new and larger psychology of war. The 
 older literature on it is already more or less 
 obsolete from almost every point of view, and 
 James' theory of a moral and Cannon's of a physi- 
 ological, equivalent of war seem now pallid and 
 academic. More in point are the reversionary con- 
 ceptions of Freud, Pfister and Patrick, that it is 
 more or less normal for man at times to plunge 
 back and down the evolutionary ladder, and to im- 
 merse himself in rank primitive emotions and to 
 break away from the complex conventions and rou- 
 tine of civilised life and revert to that of the 
 troglodytes in the trenches and to face the chance 
 
MOEAL MAJESTY OE MADNESS? 205 
 
 of instant death when the struggle for survival is 
 at its maximum in the bayonet charge." 
 
 However it may have been in the past it cer- 
 tainly is not true to-day that a nation is made strong 
 by killing off the puny and unfit. It has been 
 brought out by painstaking historical and scientific 
 inquiry that exactly the opposite is what actually 
 happens. So far from modern war being eugenic 
 it is cacogenic. 1 There is little force and less 
 cogency in the familiar argument that war is neces- 
 sary because of some immutable law of nature which 
 says that all advance is through struggle and that 
 nations must meekly submit without protest to the 
 operation of this natural law. If it were not so 
 terribly tragic, it would be absurdly comic. Dip- 
 lomats who make wars must laugh up their sleeves 
 at all this profound foolery. 
 
 But say what one will, war certainly quickens the 
 pulse and arouses the emotions. Its romance fires 
 the imagination and lives, hard-caked with custom, 
 are startled into new ways of feeling and thinking. 
 Dormant faculties are quickened into new life. The 
 
 i This was pointed out by Herbert Spencer as early as 1873 ; by 
 Jacque Novicov in 1894 ; by David Starr Jordan in 1907, and by 
 George Nasmyth in 1916. See also Theodore Mommsen's His- 
 tory of Rome; David Starr Jordan's The Human Harvest, The 
 Blood of the Nation, War and the Breed, and The Aftermath; 
 C. W. Saleeby's The Longest Cost of War, and Novicov's La 
 Guerre et ses Pretendres Beneflets. 
 
206 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 excitement of war taps the latent moral energies of 
 men. Slumbering impulses towards generous ac- 
 tion are awakened by the clarion call of war's 
 alarums. But and this is important vicari- 
 ous suffering is too precious to be prodigally and 
 needlessly wasted. " The blood of man," said 
 Burke, " should never be shed but to redeem the 
 blood of man. It is well shed for our family, for 
 our country, for our kind. The rest is vanity ; the 
 rest is crime." It has been demonstrated again and 
 again in the course of this present war that however 
 base and sordid men may seem to be in the ordinary 
 round of their everyday lives, they will almost inva- 
 riably respond to a dramatic call for high idealism. 
 And war does make a tremendous appeal to the best 
 as well as to the worst in a man. But, unhappily, 
 noble self-sacrifice on the part of lords and drain- 
 men, inspired by the most generous emotions of 
 loyal and kindly service, can be paralleled by 
 equally authentic cases of selfish greed and brutal 
 atrocity. All of which would seem to prove that 
 what war does is to act as a powerful magnet to 
 draw forth the latent nobility (or treachery, or 
 cruelty) resident in the human heart. 
 
 Something like this must have been what Profes- 
 sor James had in mind when he wrote, in August, 
 
MOKAL MAJESTY OR MADNESS? 207 
 
 1910, the essay already quoted, " The Moral 
 Equivalent of War." 1 The idea there set forth had 
 been clearly anticipated fifteen years bofore by 
 Charles Ferguson in his pamphlet on "The Eco- 
 nomics of Devotion." 2 The essence of the idea 
 seems to be that militarism is the great preserver 
 of our ideals of hardihood, and that human life 
 with no use for hardihood would be contemptible. 
 James says that the war party is assuredly right 
 in affirming and reaffirming that the martial vir- 
 tues, although originally gained by the race through 
 war, are absolute and permanent human goods. 
 He adds that " without risks or prizes for the 
 darer, history would be insipid indeed; and there 
 is a type of military character which every one feels 
 that the race should never cease to breed, for every 
 one is sensitive to its superiority." 3 The world 
 can ill afford to lose these qualities and characteris- 
 tics. The new-born hope is that we may be able 
 to switch this belt of moral power from the de- 
 structive machinery of war to the productive ma- 
 chinery of art and industry and civilisation. 
 Nor does war make men brave. War has no 
 
 i " The Moral Equivalent of War " was written for and pub- 
 lished by the American Association for International Concilia- 
 tion in 1910. 
 
 2 Published in 1895. 
 
 s Memories and Studies, pp. 277, 288. 
 
208 A LEAGUE TO ENFOKCE PEACE 
 
 more power to make heroes than industry has power 
 to manufacture saints. Clearly, what war does is 
 to bring out the potential courage (or cowardice) of 
 men. It reveals men for what they are, as the 
 lightning reveals the stout heart of the oak or 
 its rotten core. War, just because of its irresistible 
 appeal to the imaginations of men, helps us to 
 " become what we are." * Deeds of courage and 
 heroism are particular types of idealistic action, 
 and it is with them as it is with the other forms 
 of idealism referred to in the previous section - 
 they are stimulated by the excitement of war. 
 There can be no doubt that there is in war an 
 extraordinary power of exaltation that calls forth 
 the finest faculties of the soul. But that is not un- 
 usual. Danger always does this in the common 
 walks of ordinary life. All that is wanted is the 
 stimulus of imperative demand. When the Titanic 
 went down off the coast of Newfoundland heroism 
 was so universal as to be almost commonplace. 
 When San Francisco lay torn and bruised and 
 bleeding, everybody wore the red badge of courage. 
 
 But even if it were true that war stimulated only 
 the virtues of valour, inspired no emotions less noble 
 than generous heroism, that would not be a suffi- 
 
 i Pindar. 
 
MORAL MAJESTY OR MADNESS? 209 
 
 cient reason for perpetuating it as a desirable in- 
 stitution. Poverty sometimes acts upon the human 
 spirit in much the same way. So also does disease 
 and every form of suffering. We do not therefore 
 argue that misery, injustice, disease and distress 
 should be permanently endowed because the mar- 
 tyrs of maladjustment sometimes become devout 
 saints. When a stimulant turns out to be a dele- 
 terious intoxicant it is the part of wisdom to find 
 some substitute less harmful. 
 
CHAPTER XIV 
 EARTHQUAKES OR AVALANCHES? 
 
 THE second article in the creed of militarism says 
 that War is Inevitable; in a word, Fatalism. And 
 why? Because, forsooth, civilisation is only skin- 
 deep and progress is an illusion. " Man," writes 
 Major-General J. P. Story, 1 " in his evolution from 
 primitive savagery has followed laws as immutable 
 as the law of gravitation. ... A few idealists may 
 have visions that, with advancing civilisation, war 
 and its dreadful horrors will cease. Civilisation 
 has not changed human nature. The nature of man 
 makes war inevitable. Armed strife will not dis- 
 appear from the earth until after human nature 
 changes." 
 
 But is the notion of progress a great illusion, a 
 vital lie? Is the world getting worse instead of 
 better? 2 Can we move only in circles and cycles? 
 Must history forever repeat itself? Is hope but the 
 mother of regret and faith the child of folly? Is 
 the progress of the nations only as a lizard that 
 
 1 In an Introduction to Homer Lea's Valor of Ignorance. 
 
 2 Edward Alsworth Ross, Latter Day Saints and Sinners. 
 
 210 
 
EARTHQUAKES OR AVALANCHES? 211 
 
 scales the wall to find a place in the sun and then 
 slip back again? Is the advance of the race but 
 as the advance of the waves of the sea, that soon 
 recede only to leave behind them the wetted sands 
 of our disappointment? Is the rise of mankind like 
 the rise of the tides of the ocean to full flood, only 
 to be followed again by ebb-tide? When we think 
 we are getting ahead are we merely going round 
 and round with endless political, social, and indus- 
 trial revolutions till dizzy with despair? Is it not 
 more reasonable to suppose that when we go round 
 we also ascend as one who climbs a circular stair- 
 case? Is not the escalator a fitting symbol of 
 social progress? Or, in believing this, are we but 
 hardened optimists, incorrigible idealists? For we 
 must not forget that there is a " well-nigh universal 
 persuasion that Progress accomplishes itself, that 
 a benignant Fate drags the nations forward in an 
 ascending scale, by the mere irresistible drift of 
 elemental and evolutionary forces without need 
 of any intervention of human virtue or human 
 will." * But this common notion that evolution 
 means social advance and that there is some law 
 of nature that insures progress, quite irrespective 
 of education or selection, is wholly without war- 
 3- Charles Ferguson. 
 
212 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 rant. Leponge tells us that such a forward and 
 upward movement " exists in rhetoric, not in truth 
 nor in history." l 
 
 As we " look o'er the ravage of the reeking plain " 
 from the verge of the Great Divide, we are bound to 
 ask ourselves whether war is inevitable. The an- 
 swer is, yes and no. When a keystone is kicked 
 loose on a mountain side then the avalanche be- 
 comes "inevitable," but we should be more care- 
 ful. An earthquake is " inevitable " in a radically 
 different sense of the word for there is nothing 
 that man can do to forfend its coming. War is an 
 avalanche and not an earthquake. 
 
 It is frequently announced with an air of finality, 
 as a sort of controversial ultimatum, that war is 
 like birth and death, like growth and decay, like the 
 changing seasons and the law of gravity. People 
 who believe that the peace of the world is not an un- 
 tenable ideal are accused of folly in attempting to 
 command Destiny, as if they were to stand like 
 traffic policemen amid the interstellar spaces and 
 blow their whistles for the planets to stop. It 
 would seem that all who argue in this fashion ought 
 to fall in love with the Triple Fates. 
 
 i Quoted by David Starr Jordan in The Blood of the Nation, 
 p. 31. 
 
EAKTHQUAKES OR AVALANCHES? 213 
 
 But is the idea that we should gradually move 
 away from the ancient custom of war and towards 
 an era of universal peace as visionary as some 
 would have us believe? Surely it would be sheer 
 stupidity to deny that progress has been made up- 
 ward and away from long hours of labour in un- 
 sanitary conditions of employment, from the brutal 
 treatment of the insane, from the burning of so- 
 called witches, 1 and from cruel religious persecu- 
 tions. By this token, may we not reasonably look 
 forward to the time when man's inhumanity to 
 man, in the form of dreadful wars, shall no longer 
 make countless thousands mourn? Is there no jus- 
 tification for our faith that all people, everywhere, 
 
 i A book was published in 1682 entitled A Tryal of Witches at 
 the Assizes, held at Bury St. Edmonds, for the County of Suf- 
 folk, on the tenth day of March, 1664, before Sir Matthew Hale, 
 K. T., then Lord Chief Baron of His Majesties Court of Ex- 
 chequer," which contains a record of instructions given to 
 Jurors, that reads as follows : 
 
 "That there were such creatures as witches he (Lord Hale) 
 made no doubt at all ; for first, the Scriptures had affirmed so 
 much. Secondly, the wisdom of all nations had provided laws 
 against such persons, which is an argument of their confidence 
 of such a crime. And such hath been the judgment of this 
 kingdom as appears by that act of Parliament which had pro- 
 vided punishments proportionable to the quality of the offence. 
 And desired them strictly to observe their evidence ; and desired 
 the great God of Heaven to direct their hearts in this weighty 
 matter they had in hand ; for to condemn the innocent, and to let 
 the guilty go free, were both an abomination to the Lord. In 
 conclusion, the Judges, and all the court were fully satisfied 
 with the verdict and thereupon gave judgment against the thir- 
 teen witches that they should be hanged. And they were ex- 
 ecuted on Monday, the 17th of March following, but they con- 
 fessed nothing." 
 
214 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 will soon look upon war as a hideous anachronism, 
 out of place in the modern world? " This too shall 
 pass away." 
 
 It must constantly be kept in mind, as has al- 
 ready been pointed out, that there are fashions 
 in morals. The pages of history bulge with illus- 
 trations of this fact. The time was, for example, 
 when cannibalism seems to have been all the vogue. 
 It had plenty of apologists and very few, if any, who 
 troubled their heads or hearts about whether it 
 was right or wrong, wise or foolish. From the 
 scant information available we gather that our re- 
 mote ancestors took it for granted without either 
 personal or social qualms of conscience. If there 
 were any societies for the abolition of cannibalism, 
 any leagues to enforce vegetarianism, history says 
 nothing about them. No propaganda literature has 
 come down to us. For long ages men apparently 
 found nothing repulsive in the hideous practice and 
 then suddenly, or gradually, nobody really knows, 
 there came a change in the people's thinking and 
 feeling on the subject. Human nature refused any 
 longer to tolerate this disgusting relic of a bar- 
 barous age. The decayed custom was thrown in 
 the fires of Gehenna for the sanitation of society. 
 
 Take another example. When Trajan was Em- 
 
EARTHQUAKES OR AVALANCHES? 215 
 
 peror many of the most respectable Romans found 
 recreation and amusement in gladiatorial combats. 
 Apparently with no shame and with keen enthusi- 
 asm, ladies of fashion and not a few statesmen and 
 philosophers sat in the galleries around the amphi- 
 theatre and cheered the contestants. When the 
 conqueror had worsted his opponent he placed his 
 foot upon the unfortunate victim and turned to 
 the spectators for their approving applause. If 
 thumbs were turned down that meant, as every- 
 body knows, it was the wish of the onlookers to see 
 the vanquished murdered before their eyes. For a 
 long time human nature stood for that sort of 
 thing with very little protest. To-day, mankind 
 does not get its relaxation in that kind of bloody 
 show. It may be argued that we still have lynch- 
 ings and that there are thousands who revel in the 
 morbid excitement of that sort of horrid melo- 
 drama. 1 That is true, but is it not in the nature 
 of a moral throwback, a kind of spiritual atavism? 
 And is it not met with the reprobation of all decent 
 
 i In its annual review the Chicago Tribune points out that 
 between 1882 and 1903 there were 3,337 lynchiugs in forty-four 
 of our States. The only other place in the world, it is said, 
 where lynching exists, is in certain sections of rural Russia 
 where there are inadequate penalties for horse stealing. 
 Lynching, we are told, exists nowhere under the British, 
 French, Dutch or German flags, although they all cover frontier 
 conditions and mixed races. 
 
216 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 people? Or, again, we will be reminded of the 
 modern analogue to the ancient gladiatorial games 
 bullfights in Spanish and Latin-American coun- 
 tries. It is interesting to note in this connection 
 that in October, 1916, the Mexican de-facto Govern- 
 ment placed its final ban on that pastime. Has 
 human nature changed? We do not know. But, 
 measured by this yard-stick, certainly something 
 has happened to human nature, call it what you 
 will. 
 
 Take still another example, for history is replete 
 with illustrations of the principle. A century ago 
 in England pauper children of tender years, sent 
 from London workhouses, were forced to labour 
 fourteen and fifteen and even sixteen hours a day 1 
 in mills and shops, while in the coal mines they 
 were often harnessed like beasts of burden. 2 Little 
 children, who ought to have been in God's great 
 out-of-doors, wading knee-deep in June, were the un- 
 willing prisoners of their unhappy fortunes. They 
 were treated as slaves, frequently worked to death, 
 and, it was said, even murdered, that fresh chil- 
 dren and new premiums might be obtained. 3 With 
 
 1 Report of Royal Commission of 1833. 
 
 2 Report of Royal Commission of 1841. 
 
 a See article on "Child Labour" and "Child Labour and 
 Legislation in Great Britain," in Bliss' Encyclopedia of Social 
 Reform. 
 
EARTHQUAKES OR AVALANCHES? 217 
 
 but few splendid exceptions human nature seems 
 not to have been especially revolted by this shame- 
 ful spectacle. The children were stunted and 
 broken by premature and exacting toil and yet this 
 crime against civilisation went on from decade to 
 decade with scarcely an audible protest. And then, 
 one day, Michael Sadler stood up in his place in 
 the English House of Parliament l and startled his 
 dignified compeers by whirling a scorpion whip 
 about his head. He explained that it was one of 
 the whips used to drive listless and weary children 
 to their arduous labour. When hands and feet 
 were too tired for further toil, then a red welt 
 across the children's backs would help to start their 
 flagging energies. Then something happened and 
 in 1843 Elizabeth Barrett Browning wrote her chal- 
 lenging poem, " The Cry of the Children," and the 
 movement towards the abolition of child labour 
 went rapidly forward in England, America and 
 other lands. Society refused any longer to accept 
 without protest the superstitious sacrifice of chil- 
 dren in the Ganges of Greed. Now a federal statute 
 has been enacted by the United States Congress and 
 signed by President Wilson (September 1, 1916) 
 
 i See Hutchins and Harrison's History of Factory Legisla- 
 tion. 
 
218 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 which at least stamps the stigma of social disap- 
 proval upon the baleful custom. The law of the 
 land to-day forbids interstate or foreign commerce 
 in goods that are made in mines which employ chil- 
 dren under the age of sixteen, or in factories which 
 employ children under the age of fourteen. This 
 directly affects 150,000 children and is but the 
 preface to the volume of reform which must fol- 
 low to free the other 1,850,000 from the bondage 
 of premature toil. 
 
 One more instance, and then we shall have to let 
 that suffice for want of space. Chattel slavery, in 
 one form or another, was for ages accepted as part 
 and parcel of the normal order of things. It was 
 countenanced and justified not only by the logic 
 of precedent, but by the authority of valid law and 
 revealed religion. There have always been bond 
 and free, slaves and masters. Reformers who pro- 
 tested against the arrangement as unjust and un- 
 necessary were patronised as harmless lunatics or 
 impossible visionaries. They were reminded that 
 " slavery always had been and therefore always 
 would be." But the apologists for human slavery 
 did not content themselves with the argument that 
 it was natural and normal. They cited the fact 
 that Saint Paul admonished the slave Onesemus to 
 
EAKTHQUAKES OE AVALANCHES? 219 
 
 return to his master Philemon. They revived the 
 story of Canaan, the son of Ham. 1 Some said 
 that human slavery was sanctioned and ordained by 
 high heaven and had the approval of God himself. 
 The blame for it, if any one was to be held culp- 
 able, was placed upon the broad shoulders of the 
 Almighty. It was explained that the Maker had 
 purposely designed and created some men to be 
 beasts of burden to carry the rest of us on their 
 backs. Abolitionists were urged not to debate with 
 Destiny. They were exhorted to repent of their 
 folly and fall down and worship the- God of Things 
 as They Are. They were cautioned not to fly in 
 the face of the immutable laws of life. How very 
 like the writings of Treitschke and Bernhardi all 
 this sounds to-day! And yet, withal, chattel slav- 
 ery has been altogether abolished. Is it so unrea- 
 sonable to believe that some day the same thing 
 will happen as to war? One might multiply ex- 
 amples 2 almost without number, not forgetting that 
 what was called child-exposure in the days of " the 
 
 i " Cursed be Canaan ; a servant of servants shall he be unto 
 his brethern." Genesis 9 : 25. 
 
 2 Montesquieu reminds us that Gelon, the King of Syracuse, 
 in " the noblest treaty of peace ever mentioned in history," in- 
 sisted upon the conquered Carthaginians abolishing the custom 
 of sacrificing their children. 
 
 The Bactrians exposed their aged fathers to be devoured by 
 large mastiffs a custom which, we are told by Strobo, was 
 suppressed by Alexander. 
 
220 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 glory that was Greece the grandeur that was 
 Rome/' is now called infanticide ; or that the neck- 
 lace, bracelet and ring, now worn by women, are 
 but the insignia of their erstwhile servitude. 
 
 But perhaps it will be maintained that these 
 customs are, after all, man-made and hence may 
 be modified or abolished by men, but that with 
 war the case is different. It will be said, indeed 
 it is frequently said, that war grows out of the 
 natural character of man. A tree is known by its 
 fruit and the fruit is determined by the tree. One 
 does not gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles. 1 
 Man, it is claimed, is by nature and ancestral dis- 
 position pugnacious. Because of his inherent love 
 for combat he would die of ennui if he were to be 
 deprived of an occasional opportunity to fight. No 
 argument for war is more familiar than that human 
 nature is essentially brutal and human nature 
 never changes. This is sometimes called the psy- 
 chological argument for war, or more strictly speak- 
 ing, against peace. But is it not rather preten- 
 tious to settle off-hand, or nonchalantly to brush 
 aside, the most profound problems of moral philoso- 
 phy? It is far from settled that human nature is 
 essentially brutal, lustful and predaceous. Nor 
 
 i Matthew 7 : 16. 
 
EARTHQUAKES OR AVALANCHES? 221 
 
 can it be settled by the mere say-so of scientist or 
 theologian, much less by the polemics of popular 
 writers on military subjects. 
 
 Dogmatising about the nature of man is beat- 
 ing the air. There seems to be something of the 
 beast and something of the angel in all of us. 
 Man's body probably came to him from and through 
 the lower animals, but his soul is the breath of the 
 living God. To assert that human nature is brutal 
 is more than likely a libel. To proclaim that man 
 naturally thirsts for blood and lusts for combat is 
 to preach a dubious doctrine of pessimism. As well 
 insist that because of perverted instincts we must 
 always have glaring red-light districts in every city. 
 It cannot be proved. It would be quite as reason- 
 able to argue that the nature of fire is to transform 
 the Museum of Alexandria into a heap of ashes, or 
 to make torches of Christians to light the gardens 
 of a Roman Emperor. Of course, uncontrolled 
 fire will devastate and destroy, and so will uncon- 
 trolled human nature. In fact it is something like 
 this that is happening in Europe to-day. The 
 sparks have caught and the flames have spread like 
 a forest fire. But what fire or human nature will 
 do is very largely determined by the will of man. 
 This is not to deny that the pugnacious instinct is 
 
222 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 to be found in man as well as in the lower forms 
 of creation, but that which distinguishes man from 
 his relatives among the Primates is his intelligence 
 and virtue his something more than instinct. 
 When reason steps down from its throne as the im- 
 perial ruler of man's nature, which is precisely what 
 happens in private feuds and public wars, then man 
 permits his conduct to be determined by the low- 
 est forces in him and not the highest. The mob 
 spirit is let loose, anarchy prevails, and ruin fol- 
 lows fast. 
 
 The probability is that man possesses both a 
 higher nature and a lower nature and that his 
 higher nature, of which his will is the general man- 
 ager, is his real human nature. It would be diffi- 
 cult to prove that this is essentially brutal. In- 
 deed all modern experiments in the treatment of 
 juvenile delinquents and hardened criminals point 
 in exactly the opposite direction. Fortunately we 
 are not called upon to settle the dispute as to 
 whether man is a god in ruins or something less 
 noble. It is enough to affirm our persuasion that 
 the inhuman characteristics of the nature of man 
 are probably the qualities of an animal ancestry 
 which conceivably may be transformed and re-di- 
 
EARTHQUAKES OB AVALANCHES? 223 
 
 rected. " Forge and transform my passion into 
 power." l 
 
 There is, moreover, a further implication in this 
 " human nature argument " ; an implication even 
 more dogmatic. War, it is said, will continue to 
 plague this world of ours just as long as human 
 nature is what it is, that is to say, forever, because 
 human nature never changes. It is dinned into 
 our ears that " human nature is the same the world 
 over." Let us not be misled by cant phrases. This 
 one has a double meaning. It means, in the first 
 place, that " the Colonel's lady and Judy O'Grady 
 are sisters under the skin." Nobody in his right 
 mind will be disposed to doubt or deny the self- 
 evident fact that human nature, regardless of race, 
 or colour, or sex, or creed, is pretty much the same 
 the world over. But it is one thing to say that 
 human nature is the same the world over, at any 
 given time, and quite another thing to say that 
 human nature is the same throughout the long cen- 
 turies of history. 2 To affirm this is to affirm what 
 cannot be proved. It is a vast pretension. 
 
 For a long time the problem of permanence has 
 
 1 F. W. Myer's poem Saint Paul. 
 
 2 See Alfred Russel Wallace's Social Environment and Moral 
 Progress and Mrs. John Martin's Is Mankind Advancing* 
 
224 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 taxed the acumen of metaphysicians. Of late years 
 several scientists have interested themselves in the 
 question of the presumed immutable laws of na- 
 ture. 1 More than a dozen years ago Charles Fer- 
 guson remarked in his brilliant and prophetic little 
 book, The Religion of Democracy: 2 "You will 
 not say as a man of science that gravitation will 
 remain to-morrow just what it is to-day, but only 
 that you are persuaded that if God changes that 
 he will change everything else in proportion. And, 
 doubtless, if the soul of a child should stand in the 
 way the planets would pause and gravitation would 
 turn out. God will have a care that the mill shall 
 grind only ashes and bones." 
 
 Nor is this the place, were we competent, to dis- 
 cuss that other question as to whether or not the 
 changes wrought in the individual by education 
 and training (acquired characteristics) can be 
 passed along in any degree whatever, thus making 
 for gradual improvement. But aside from these 
 speculative problems we are often admonished not 
 to confound revolutionary changes in natural en- 
 vironment or social conditions with an essential 
 
 1 See papers by Boutroux, Langevin and Henri Poincare, read 
 before the International Philosophical Congress in Boulogne. 
 Also see Wilhelm Ostwald's Natural Philosophy, particularly 
 p. 30. 
 
 2 Page 112. 
 
EARTHQUAKES OR AVALANCHES? 225 
 
 change in human nature. The point is well taken. 
 But, on the other hand, we dare not ignore the 
 intimate relation that subsists between conditions 
 and character, between natural environment and 
 the kind of human nature that is indigenous to a 
 certain soil, so to speak. Hegel tells us that " the 
 State is the realised ethical idea." We may add 
 that the thing we call civilisation, which certainly 
 changes, is very largely the product of human ef- 
 fort, and an author is known by his works. 
 
 It is not here maintained that human nature cer- 
 tainly changes and that whenever it changes it 
 improves. This would be a very comforting doc- 
 trine; but unhappily it cannot be proved. Either 
 affirming or denying anything positive and conclu- 
 sive about something concerning which so little is 
 known is rather futile business. We are scarcely 
 more than strangers to what Maeterlinck has 
 called the Unknown Guest within us. But it ought 
 not to be difficult to prove that from generation to 
 generation something happens to human nature 
 which is tantamount to a change, call it what one 
 pleases. 
 
 Surely it does not follow that because a habit, 
 custom, convention or institution always has been 
 it will always continue to be. We have seen that 
 
226 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 this is repeatedly contradicted by history. But it 
 is with social customs as with personal habits, the 
 deeper rootage they have taken the harder they 
 are to eradicate. Nobody will deny that ancient 
 customs are extremely hard to throw off ; but that is 
 a very different thing from saying, with the calm 
 assurance of dogmatism, that because something 
 always has been therefore it always must be. So 
 short a word as " therefore " cannot span so wide 
 a chasm. It is too frail to bear the weight and 
 stand the strain of analysis. The bridge of logic 
 will collapse like that bridge which was twice sus- 
 pended across the St. Lawrence, To argue in this 
 manner is to reveal symptoms of sleeping-sickness 
 of the brain. There is such a disease as mental 
 hook-worm ; intellectual laziness. Anybody who is 
 not too tired to turn the pages of history can, as 
 we have seen, discover for himself, while waiting 
 for dinner to be served, not one but many institu- 
 tions and conventions that society has supported 
 and defended, for a year or an age, and then at 
 length has cast them away as worn-out. One after 
 another these customs have had their little day and 
 ceased to be. 
 
 Most fighting men and their teachers are self- 
 reliant. If they do not actually quote, they cer- 
 
EAKTHQUAKES OE AVALANCHES? 227 
 
 tainly believe the sentiment of Henley's poem, " I 
 am the master of my fate : I am the captain of my 
 soul." And yet, oddly enough, one of the com- 
 monest arguments which they employ to dispel the 
 dream of possible peace is that war is necessary 
 because there is a law of nature which provides that 
 all advance must be through struggle in which 
 only the fit survive. If this is not fatalism then 
 there is no such thing as fatalism. What the con- 
 tention practically amounts to is this : The law of 
 natural selection makes all advance contingent 
 upon struggle the struggle for existence: it ap- 
 plies among men as among lower animals, among 
 nations as among men ; when war " comes " we 
 should be ready and should accept it without mak- 
 ing a wry face; it is nobody's fault; let us, there- 
 fore, be patient and brave under the bludgeonings 
 of fate; in the fell clutch of circumstance let us 
 neither wince nor cry aloud; comets come whether 
 we want them to or not, and so do wars, and so on, 
 and so forth. This is the line of reasoning. Now, 
 nobody is going to deny that there is an element of 
 fatality in human life, a time and chance that hap- 
 peneth to all men. That much can be granted 
 without giving the case away. But we vehemently 
 deny that we are straws blown by the vagrant winds 
 
228 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 of Destiny. We are not, unless we permit our- 
 selves to be, mere puppets or pawns in the drama 
 or game of life. " The fatalistic view of the war 
 function," wrote William James, "is to me non- 
 sense, for I know that war-making is due to defi- 
 nite motives and subject to prudential checks and 
 reasonable criticisms, just like any other form of 
 enterprise." l 
 
 It will readily be granted that struggle is an im- 
 portant factor in development. But a natural law 
 is not an edict of Destiny. What is called a law 
 of nature is simply the rule established by recur- 
 rent repetitions a description of what happens so 
 often as to seem invariable. But surely it is a 
 total misreading of the Darwinian law to contend 
 that all advance is through combat. 2 Is it not the 
 gist of the theory of evolution that man secures and 
 maintains a foothold on this planet by meeting and 
 conquering untoward conditions and hostile beasts? 
 Does not the survival of the fittest merely mean 
 the successful attempt to adapt one's self to one's 
 environment? If the individual or the species suc- 
 ceeds in this process of adaptation (by virtue of 
 protective colouration, elongated necks, and what- 
 
 1 Memories and Studies, p. 286. 
 
 2 See George Nasmyth's Social Progress and the Darwinian 
 Theory. 
 
EARTHQUAKES OR AVALANCHES? 229 
 
 not) then it persists; if it fails, then it goes to the 
 wall. This physical competition, often fierce and 
 not seldom fatal, frequently goes on between per- 
 sons and families and tribes, but it is not the sine 
 qua non of progress. 
 
 Moreover, it has been explained by competent 
 students, and among them Herbert Spencer 1 and 
 Peter Kropotkin, 2 that the instinct towards mu- 
 tual sympathy and aid is quite as natural and com- 
 mon among the lower beasts and primitive men as 
 is antipathy and combativeness. It ought to be 
 apparent that the real struggle of life is man's 
 struggle with the hostile forces in his own nature 
 and with the alien elements in the natural world, 
 so dramatically pictured in the Forest Scene of 
 Maurice Maeterlinck's Blue Bird. 3 Hence it is by 
 
 1 See Herbert Spencer's Data of Ethics. 
 
 2 See Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid a Factor in Evolution. 
 
 3 Novicov, the brilliant Russian sociologist, in his Critique du 
 darwinisme Sortale, emphasised the distinctions between numer- 
 ous varieties of forces. Dr. Fried, winner of the Nobel Peace 
 Prize for 1911, summarises, in his recent volume, The Restora- 
 tion of Europe (p. 35), the substance of Novicov's idea in the 
 following fashion: 
 
 "The stars attract matter; the stronger animal eats the 
 weaker, and by digestion transforms it into a part of its own 
 self. But one celestial body can not chew another, nor can a 
 lion attract cells away from an antelope. The astronomic strug- 
 gle is different from the biological, and so is the sociological. 
 The fact that the lion tears open the antelope does not imply 
 that the massacre of the population of one state by that of an- 
 other is a natural law. But imperialism leads us into just such 
 a sea of error. It breeds conceit and turns a noble patriotism 
 into Chauvinism." 
 
230 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 co-operation, and not by competition, that man 
 strengthens himself for his difficult test with the 
 facts and forces in this world that make life hard. 
 
CHAPTER XV 
 DRAINING THE SWAMPS 
 
 THE third article in the creed of militarism says 
 that Privilege is an Advantage; in a word, Imperi- 
 alism. Medievalism in government is akin to im- 
 perialism in trade. Monarchy is monopoly in 
 terms of politics, and monopoly is monarchy in 
 terms of economics. The imperialism we are now 
 thinking about is a new kind of imperialism, what 
 Frederick Howe has called " financial imperial- 
 ism." * 
 
 At the close of the last century Charles Fergu- 
 son wrote : "In politics two ideas, reducible to 
 one, have dominated the century : the building up of 
 huge political aggregates and the winning of for- 
 eign markets. Under Caesar and Charlemagne the 
 imperial idea was not without nobility and beauty 
 it was a world-communion ; it aimed to take in 
 everything. But this nineteenth-century market 
 rivalry of subventioned traders this ruck and 
 drift of blind masses that huddle to the hunger-call 
 
 i Why War? by Frederick Howe. 
 
 231 
 
232 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 and the shibboleths of Chauvinism is a spectacle 
 without nobility or beauty. One empire seemed an 
 inspiring possibility; a multiplicity of empires 
 French, German, Austrian, Russian, English, Ital- 
 ian, Turkish, American, and so on is mere un- 
 reason and the flow of fate. It is the obscurantism 
 of politics and the evacuation of the ideal. Patri- 
 otism has become the refuge not necessarily of 
 ' scoundrels/ but of traders, professional soldiers, 
 and politicians.'- 1 
 
 We have already pointed out that an examina- 
 tion of the wars of history and an analysis of their 
 causes shows that they were motived by either the 
 passion for liberty, or the hunger for food, or the 
 love for combat, or the lust for power, or the greed 
 for gain, or the desire for privilege. It is neither 
 fantastic nor extravagant to suggest that the real 
 task of modern diplomacy should be to undertake 
 an exhaustive study of wars new and old for the 
 purpose of discovering not only the occasions which 
 precipitated hostilities but what the underlying 
 causes were and are which made war " inevitable." 
 Constructive statesmanship would then proceed to 
 
 i Religion of Democracy, p. 164. See also article by Henri 
 Lambert entitled " International Morality and Exchange," In 
 the Journal des Econotni*te*, now published in pamphlet form 
 with a special introduction by the Rt. Hon. Lord Courtney of 
 Penwith. 
 
DRAINING THE SWAMPS 233 
 
 find and to administer such remedies as might be 
 needed. Many of the causes that made for wars in 
 past times no longer have any force, or at any rate 
 they are less and less influential. For example, 
 the cause of many primitive wars was undoubtedly 
 the hunger for food. If it is urged that to-day 
 wars are brought about by the exigent needs of na- 
 tions to expand and colonise in order to provide 
 for their increased population, the answer is that 
 emigration is possible without colonisation. But 
 if colonies are considered to be really necessary, 
 then negotiation might very conceivably handle the 
 problem by the peaceable partition of unexploited 
 regions. 
 
 But of course everybody knows that a motive 
 quite the opposite is now much more prevalent and 
 dominant. Instead of underproduction of food 
 and articles of common use, there is vast over- 
 production. Due to the invention of modern ma- 
 chinery, production has steadily gained on con- 
 sumption. And consumption has not been able to 
 keep up with production very largely because the 
 distribution of the gains of industry have not been 
 equitable. In other words, the workers who stood 
 in need of things could not buy them with the wages 
 that they were paid, and so new markets had to be 
 
234 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 found for excess goods and they were found abroad. 
 It is hardly open to doubt that the motive here is 
 just plain greed for gain; nothing more, nothing 
 less. 
 
 Akin to it is the motive that we have termed the 
 desire for privilege, which has to do with what is 
 sometimes called mercantilism, and sometimes 
 called financial imperialism. In addition to the 
 surfeit of goods, there has been in all the leading 
 nations, because of maldistribution of wealth, a 
 great surplus of capital. This surplus capital has 
 sought and found investment in the backward parts 
 of the world where excessive profits might be 
 reaped. Algeria, Egypt, Tripoli, Turkey, Morocco, 
 China, the Congo, Mexico, these have presented 
 virgin territory for quick gains. Concessions are 
 sought and obtained in the way of harbour facili- 
 ties and transportation facilities; concessions to 
 open mines, cut forests, lay railroads, work rubber 
 plantations, build irrigation dams, and erect power 
 plants. Pre-emptions and monopolies are sought 
 and secured. For the most part these investments 
 are made and loans placed in countries which have 
 little or no government. The risks are therefore 
 large; but instead of taking these risks themselves 
 and then accepting as their reward the enormous 
 
DKAINING THE SWAMPS 235 
 
 profits which such investments yield, financiers ma- 
 noeuvred to win the favour of diplomats in order to 
 obtain the concessions and then, for protection, 
 they depended upon the principle that a country 
 will always defend the persons and properties of its 
 nationals anywhere on the face of the globe. The 
 result is that when a quarrel arises over the Persian 
 Gulf or over Bosnia and it becomes necessary to 
 uphold the dignity of the nation and defend the 
 rights of its citizens to their acquired property in 
 far-off regions, large navies have to be built and 
 equipped and great armies manned and made ready 
 for such things as punitive expeditions and the for- 
 mation of protectorates. 
 
 The grand total of all over-seas investments 
 amounts to more than forty billions of dollars, 
 England alone having no less than twenty billions. 
 The endeavour to make these investments secure 
 and to uphold the rights of adventurous financiers, 
 who happen also to be citizens, involves the abuse 
 of an organisation which is paid for by the people 
 as a whole through taxation namely the armies 
 and the navies when surely this military organ- 
 isation is primarily intended for the defence of the 
 realm and of the people as a whole. It is not so 
 very different from the use of state militia by pri- 
 
236 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 vate businesses for the protection of their threat- 
 ened interests. Another perversion that is, unhap- 
 pily, all too common. 
 
 The places where nations most frequently clash 
 are on the territory of these weak and backward 
 states. These are the " arenas of friction " and 
 they constitute the " stakes of diplomacy," as has 
 been clearly pointed out by Walter Lippmann and 
 others. 1 We can hardly do better than borrow a 
 passage from Mr. Lippmann's latest book : 
 
 " This whole business of jockeying for position is 
 at first glance so incredibly silly that many liberals 
 regard diplomacy as a cross between sinister con- 
 spiracy and a meaningless etiquette. It would be 
 all of that if the stakes of diplomacy were not real. 
 Those stakes have to be understood, for without 
 such an understanding diplomacy is incomprehen- 
 sible and any scheme of world peace an idle fancy. 
 
 " The chief, the overwhelming problem of diplo- 
 macy, seems to be the weak state the Balkans, 
 the African sultanates, Turkey, China, and Latin 
 America, with the possible exception of the Argen- 
 tine, Chile, and Brazil. These states are ' weak ' 
 because they are industrially backward and at pres- 
 
 i See Frederick Howe's Why Warf H. N. Bradford's The 
 War of Steel and Gold, and John A. Hobson's Towards Inter- 
 national Government, Imperialism, and The New Protectionism. 
 
DRAINING THE SWAMPS 237 
 
 ent politically incompetent. They are rich in re- 
 sources and cheap labour, poor in capital, poor in 
 political experience, poor in the power of defence. 
 The government of these states is the supreme prob- 
 lem of diplomacy. . . . 
 
 " The plain fact is that the interrelation of peo- 
 ples has gone so far that to advocate international 
 laissez-faire now is to speak a counsel of despair. 
 Commercial cunning, lust of conquest, rum, bibles, 
 rifles, missionaries, traders, concessionaires, have 
 brought the two civilisations into contact and the 
 problem created must be solved, not evaded. . . . 
 
 " It is essential to remember that what turns a 
 territory into a diplomatic ' problem ' is the com- 
 bination of natural resources, cheap labour, mar- 
 kets, defencelessness, corrupt and inefficient gov- 
 ernment. The desert of Sahara is no ' problem,' 
 except where there are oases and trade routes. 
 Switzerland is no ' problem,' for Switzerland is a 
 highly organised modern state. But Mexico is a 
 problem, and Haiti, and Turkey, and Persia. They 
 have the pretension of political independence which 
 they do not fulfil. They are seething with corrup- 
 tion, eaten up with ' foreign ' concessions, and un- 
 able to control the adventurers they attract or 
 safeguard the rights which these adventurers claim. 
 
238 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 More foreign capital is invested in the United 
 States than in Mexico, but the United States is not 
 a ' problem ' and Mexico is. The difference was 
 hinted at in President Wilson's speech at Mobile. 
 Foreigners invest in the United States, and they 
 are assured that life will be reasonably safe and 
 that titles to property are secured by orderly legal 
 means. But in Mexico they are given ' conces- 
 sions/ which means that they secure extra privi- 
 leges and run greater risks, and they count upon 
 the support of European governments or of the 
 United States to protect them and their prop- 
 erty. . . . 
 
 " Imperialism in our day begins generally as an 
 attempt to police and pacify. This attempt stimu- 
 lates national pride, it creates bureaucrats with a 
 vested interest in imperialism, it sucks in and re- 
 ceives added strength from concessionaires and 
 traders who are looking for economic privileges. 
 There is no doubt that certain classes in a nation 
 gain by imperialism, though to the people as a 
 whole the adventure may mean nothing more than 
 an increased burden of taxes. . . . 
 
 " The whole question of imperialism is as com- 
 plex as the motives of the African trader who sub- 
 sidises the African missionary. He does not know 
 
DKAINING THE SWAMPS 239 
 
 where business ends and religion begins ; he is able 
 to make no sharp distinction between his humani- 
 tarianism and his profits. He feels that business is 
 a good thing, and religion is a good thing. He 
 likes to help himself, and to see others helped. The 
 same complexity of motives appear in imperialist 
 statesmen. . . . 
 
 " Who should intervene in backward states, what 
 the intervention shall mean, how the protectorate 
 shall be conducted this is the bone and sinew of 
 modern diplomacy. The weak spots of the world 
 are the arenas of friction." 1 
 
 If it be true, and apparently it is, that these sec- 
 tions of the world are the swamp regions in which 
 are bred the germs that spread the disease of war, 
 then it would seem that the most pressing task of 
 diplomacy is the draining of the swamps. A few 
 General Gorgases among the statesmen who would 
 not balk at the stupendous job of initiating an in- 
 ternational movement that would result in the 
 cleaning up of these backward regions, would go a 
 long way toward reducing the probability of war. 
 
 i The Stakes of Diplomacy, Chapter VII. 
 
CHAPTER XVI 
 THE FRONTIERS OF FRIENDSHIP 
 
 THE fourth article in the creed of militarism says 
 that States are Natural Enemies; in a word, Na- 
 tionality. It will not be an easy task to apportion 
 the relative share of blame for this present war 
 which each of the several articles in the creed of 
 militarism must shoulder. But extravagant ideas 
 of nationality, false doctrines of patriotism, and 
 the theory that states are natural enemies, these 
 will have to carry a heavy load. 
 
 Charles Ferguson has somewhere pointed out 
 in one of his profound and brilliant little books * 
 that if liberty means anything at all it means the 
 right of a person to live his own life in his own 
 way. What shall it profit a man if he gain the 
 whole world and lose his own individuality? And 
 what shall it profit a woman if she gain a world 
 of comfort and security and lose her own person- 
 ality? And what shall it profit a nation if it gain 
 
 i See The Religion of Democracy, The Affirmative Intellect, 
 The University Militant and Tin- Great 
 
 240 
 
THE FRONTIERS OF FRIENDSHIP 241 
 
 prosperity and assured peace and lose its nation- 
 ality its soul? We must not permit pleasant 
 platitudes about internationalism and the brother- 
 hood of man to blind us to the real differences be- 
 tween races and peoples. However these essential 
 differences may have come about is a speculative 
 problem for the philosophers of history. 1 Our busi- 
 ness is to recognise the perfectly obvious fact that 
 there are these vital differences and our pressing 
 problem is to bring about a rapprochement, an ad- 
 justment, a modus vivendi. The poet sings that 
 East is East and West is West and that never the 
 twain can meet and we know that what he means 
 is they can never mingle and fuse and amalgamate. 
 But as for meeting, that is precisely what is al- 
 ways happening and usually when they meet nowa- 
 days they clash. Something may be done, indeed 
 something must be done, to soften the blow when 
 they clash. But nationhood and nationalism are 
 two quite different things. In other words, na- 
 tional boundaries are mostly superficial and arbi- 
 trary, and do not always or often coincide with 
 essential racial differences. A constructive pro- 
 gramme of international statesmanship will mini- 
 
 i See the Introduction to Hegel's Philosophy of History. Also 
 Chapter III of Bagehot's Physics and Politics. 
 
242 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 mise these artificial distinctions and yet not inter- 
 fere with the development of the special genius 
 of a particular people. 1 
 
 We shall probably have to cast about for a new 
 principle of patriotism and frame a new definition. 
 The time has come to discard old notions of patriot- 
 ism and throw them into the wastebasket of history. 
 They have already wrought enough havoc and woe 
 in the world and we shall be glad when they are 
 gone. There is really nothing at all revolutionary 
 about this. Our loyalties reach out in concentric 
 circles. We cannot love an abstraction or the ghost 
 of a reality. But we can love and serve a person 
 or an institution that is tangent to our daily lives. 
 Whenever we come to feel that the one or the other 
 has ceased to have any vital relation to our lives 
 our love becomes only a recollection, our loyalty 
 little more than cant or self-deception. On the 
 other hand, as our genuine interests and vital con- 
 tacts reach outward our hearts are very likely to 
 
 i In the course of an eight-column editorial article in the New 
 Republic for January 13, 1917, Mr. Herbert Croly says, "The 
 peculiar merit of the plan of a League to Enforce Peace, as com- 
 pared with other plans of pacifist organisation, consists in the 
 promise of its proposed method of escape from the burden of the 
 baleful antithesis between national ambition and international 
 order. It establishes international order on the foundation of 
 national responsibility. It seeks to create a community of liv- 
 ing nations rather than a community of superseded nations of 
 denationalised peoples." 
 
THE FRONTIERS OF FRIENDSHIP 243 
 
 go with them. For where your treasure is, there 
 will your heart be also. 
 
 The old patriotism was negative ; the new patriot- 
 ism is positive. The old patriotism meant hate of 
 another nation; the new patriotism means love of 
 your own country. The old patriotism has sown 
 the seeds of sedition against humanity and civil- 
 isation. It has sown to the wind and reaped to 
 the whirlwind. It has sown the dragon's teeth 
 which have sprung up as soldiers, full-armed and 
 panoplied and ready for the combat. And now we 
 have garnered the awful harvest of hate. For gen- 
 erations children in school have been taught that 
 the acme, the apotheosis, the perfection of patriot- 
 ism was hate of somebody beyond the borders and 
 frontiers of the nation. As a matter of fact there 
 are no frontiers to friendship and the language of 
 love is an Esperanto. Enmity is the perversion of 
 patriotism. It is a good thing gone wrong, and 
 the corruption of the best is the worst corruption. 
 This is not to say that, when the nations are drunk 
 with the intoxication of aroused hate, when their 
 territory has been invaded by foreigners, their 
 homes burned and their cities laid waste, there will 
 not be aroused a spirit of revenge which, when once 
 kindled, will spread like a prairie fire. But hostili- 
 
244 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 ties would not often begin between one national 
 group and another unurged and unbidden. Let the 
 dead past bury its dead. The dawn is on the hori- 
 zon. 
 
 The notion of patriotism as hatred is not only 
 dangerous doctrine; it is false doctrine. There is 
 such a thing as religious devotion, and then there 
 is such a thing as sanctimonious cant. There is a 
 difference as wide as the ocean between liberty 
 and license, between love and lust, between en- 
 thusiasm and hysteria. So, also, there is a true 
 patriotism and there is a false patriotism. It will 
 never do to be vaguely idealistic about " the love 
 of humanity " and then speak reproachfully about 
 "narrow love of country." Patriotism is more 
 than mushy sentimentality. It is all very well to 
 be cynical about the value of mere sentiment, but 
 it is probably more than an aphorism to say that 
 the world is ruled by sentiment or sentimental- 
 ity. Take the matter of the conduct of war itself. 
 No practical statesman, however cynical and blase* 
 he himself may happen to be about the beautiful 
 sentiment of loyalty, would, for a moment, discount 
 the very real value of patriotism. He would know, 
 as a matter of statistics, that no modern grand 
 scale war could possibly be conducted for a month 
 
THE FRONTIERS OF FRIENDSHIP 245 
 
 without patriotism or something "just as good." 
 Indeed this is precisely why he so sedulously cul- 
 tivates the habit of patriotism in his subjects or fel- 
 low-citizens. There are not enough mercenary 
 soldiers for sale in all the markets of the world and 
 you cannot win wars without soldiers. 
 
 False patriotism, hate of another country, is 
 fostered by pride, prejudice, envy, jingoism or 
 fanaticism. True patriotism, on the other hand, 
 is love of one's own country and love of one's own 
 country does not mean love of a particular piece 
 of ground, which may be provincialism; nor of a 
 select kind of folk, which may be bigotry ; nor of a 
 certain sort of government, which is probably dog- 
 matism ; nor of a special style of culture, which is 
 more than likely racial or national egotism. True 
 patriotism, per contra, means four things: First, 
 it means reverence for the past traditions of one's 
 country; second, it means devotion to the present 
 institutions of one's country; third, it means loy- 
 alty to the future ideals of one's country; and 
 fourth, it means valour to fight, if needs must be, in 
 defence of these same institutions and ideals. 1 
 
 i Nobody will quarrel with Mr. Homer Lea when he pleads the 
 cause of duty and devotion to the homeland. " By the efforts 
 men make," he writes in The Day of the Saxon (p. 2), "to pre- 
 serve their families from want, from servitude or destruction do 
 we judge their domestic virtues. In such a manner, only to a 
 
246 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 We may paraphrase Tertullian and say that the 
 blood of the patriot is the seed of the State. But 
 are crimson foundations necessary? We are told 
 that it is our duty to obey and die at the command 
 of the State. 1 But are we to have no choice in 
 the matter? The time was when personal vengeance 
 was considered a duty; but times have changed. 
 Perhaps we shall some day have the higher cour- 
 age to refuse to die except for justice and liberty. 
 May the time never come when we shall be too 
 cowardly to lay down our lives for our friends. 
 Now the sentiment of loyalty is as universal as 
 humanity, but its pulse sometimes " skips " and is 
 weak. War has the effect of quickening and stim- 
 ulating loyalty. Frequently this is blind devotion, 
 a feeling and a passion. But true loyalty must be 
 reciprocal. If our friends betray us they are no 
 longer our friends and we cannot continue to love 
 
 larger degree, should judgment be rendered upon these same 
 men according to the efforts they make toward a like preserva- 
 tion of their race. If a man who gives over his family to the 
 vicissitudes of his neglect is deserving of scorn, how great 
 should be the contempt felt for him who evades the obligations 
 he owes his race and gives over, not alone his family, but all his 
 people to conquest or destruction. Public fealty is only a nobler 
 conception of the duty a man owes his family. A nation is a 
 union of families; patriotism the synthesis of their domestic 
 virtues. The ruin of states, like the ruin of families, comes 
 from one cause neglect. To neglect one's family is to lose it: 
 to neglect one's country is to perish with it Individuals are a 
 part of the world only in the duration or memory of their race." 
 i See Charles Rann Kennedy's The Terrible Meek. 
 
THE FRONTIERS OF FRIENDSHIP 247 
 
 them. If we are led astray by princes or dema- 
 gogues our loyalty to them is only a pretension, 
 compelled by fear. 
 
 The theory of Hobbes that warfare is the natural 
 state of man is far from proved. 1 The argument 
 for racial and national loyalties is more reason- 
 able. We may well believe that blood is thicker 
 than water; but to-day unanimity is a stronger 
 bond than consanguinity, and it frequently hap- 
 pens that people on opposite sides of a border are 
 drawn into closer intimacies by mutual interests 
 and purposes than unlike people in tl>e same coun- 
 try. In the matter of personal habits and charac- 
 teristics, we emphasise to-day the influence of en- 
 vironment above heredity. 2 Much the same thing 
 is true as to national and racial inheritance. It is 
 far less important than social environment and 
 moral ideals. The time may come when we will be 
 ready to say " the world is my country, to do good 
 is my religion," but that time has not come yet, 
 and forced growth often means premature death. 
 
 iSee The Forks of the Road, by Washington Gladden, 
 a Alfred Russel Wallace, Letters and Reminiscences. 
 
CHAPTEE XVII 
 SOULS IN REVOLT 
 
 THE fifth article in the creed of force says that 
 Might Makes Right; in a word, Materialism. War 
 is universal sabotage. As far back as the record 
 of human history goes, one group seems to have 
 taken a malicious delight in throwing its wooden 
 boot into the machinery of another group. Slowly 
 it dawned upon the intelligences of men that all 
 this was very stupid, that it was, in fact, social 
 suicide. Men looked about them and saw that in- 
 dividual advance was dependent upon personal 
 will. They observed that so long as they believed 
 in the omnipotence of Nature they were bound to 
 worship her might and crouch in abject fear. Just 
 as soon as their wills awoke to consciousness they 
 began to conquer and control the forces of environ- 
 ment and to remake the world to suit their fancy. 
 It did not demand any considerable skill in reason- 
 ing to infer from this that social progress also must 
 wait upon the integration of the social will. 
 It was seen that society would go ahead faster 
 
 248 
 
SOULS IN REVOLT 249 
 
 if it could catch a ride. And so it was that institu- 
 tions were invented the vehicles of progress. 
 The earliest form of social co-operation, the first 
 state, was no doubt a clumsy and rickety affair. 
 But the state has not remained static. The busi- 
 ness of reformers has been to improve the model 
 of the vehicle year after year, age after age. Revo- 
 lutionists, losing their temper, have tried to smash 
 the car of progress, while, on the other hand, im- 
 patient idealists have talked and acted as if they 
 thought progress ought to be a joy-ride to Elysium. 
 Again and again these vehicles have broken down, 
 or their engines have gone dead, with the result 
 that instead of helping us along they have blocked 
 the traffic and hindered advance. This, in brief, 
 is the history of the State, the Church, and the 
 School. 
 
 Is government a necessary evil and is that gov- 
 ernment therefore best which governs least? Per- 
 haps this is still a moot question. We may have 
 our choice of several theories. We may, if we pre- 
 fer, believe in philosophical anarchy, which is the 
 notion that an ideal society would be a voluntary 
 association of absolutely independent individuals. 
 This idea, reductio ad absurdum, means that the 
 best possible government would be no government 
 
250 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 at all. Or, we may go all the way to the other 
 extreme, and believe that society is more important 
 than any individual, and that therefore we should 
 forget ourselves and work always for the greatest 
 good of the greatest number, symbolised in the 
 State. A corollary of this proposition is the axiom 
 that the seat of authority is a sovereign State. 
 Or, again, we may not go to either extreme, but 
 may put our faith in practical democracy, in gov- 
 ernment of, by, and for the people, to the end that 
 Freedom, with Responsibility, may be denied to 
 none. This is the doctrine of democracy and im- 
 plies the fundamental principle of politics, which 
 is compromise. The first and most important 
 article in the creed of democracy is the belief that 
 the pearl of great price is personality, and that 
 the state, or government, is merely a means to an 
 end, which end is the enhancement of all indi- 
 viduals by co-operative enterprise. This must 
 be what Edmund Burke meant when he called gov- 
 ernment a partnership. 
 
 Florence Nightingale used to say that hospitals 
 should not spread disease and make people sick. 
 It is equally true that governments should not 
 spread misery and make people unhappy. The 
 perversion of government is privilege. It is now 
 
SOULS IN REVOLT 251 
 
 and always has been. That is why progress has 
 been so painfully retarded. Governments have 
 been used by designing individuals or cliques to 
 satisfy the lust for personal power and the greed 
 for private gain. But how can one know that gov- 
 ernment is perverted unless one first knows the true 
 purpose and proper function of government? 
 What is government for? One answer is that 
 given by Treitschke when he says, " The State 
 must have the most emphatic will that can be im- 
 agined. . . . The State is the most extremely real 
 person, in the literal sense of the word, that ex- 
 ists. . . . We cannot imagine the Roman State 
 humane, or encouraging Art and Science. . . . 
 The State would no longer be what it has been and 
 is, did it not stand visibly girt about with armed 
 might. . . . The State is, above all, Power." l 
 If this is the accepted notion of what constitutes 
 and characterises a true State, then certain con- 
 sequences follow and one of them is almost sure to 
 be war. One who spake not as the scribes said 
 that the Sabbath was made for man and not man 
 for the Sabbath; that the individual is greater 
 than any institution. This is as true in respect 
 to government, and the instruments of government, 
 
 i Politics, Vol. I, pp. 17, 18, 22, 23. 
 
252 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 as it is in respect to any other institution. The 
 perversion comes in when we substitute, or pre 
 tend to substitute, the sovereignty of the state foi 
 the sovereignty of the soul; the divine rights oi 
 kings for the diviner rights of men to life, lib 
 erty, and the pursuit of happiness. 
 
 The problem of morality, or justice (which ii 
 social morality), is a difficult one to unravel 
 Modern militarists, like a certain ancient militar 
 1st, would cut the Gordian knot with a sharj 
 sword. And this is a true symbol of the doctrine 
 that might makes right. 
 
 Inasmuch as we have not been furnished witl 
 charts of character and detailed drawings of duty 
 it is often very hard to determine what is right 
 particularly as moral values fluctuate like othei 
 values from age to age and sometimes with a change 
 of climate. We blithely say that God is the fina 
 Judge of right, but as God does not write his de 
 cisions in letters of fire across the scroll of the 
 heavens, how are we going to know? There are 
 but two possible ways of discovering the will o 
 God. The first is what we may call the methoc 
 of Moses, the notion that the Infinite selects some 
 mortal to hear and interpret the Voice that speaks 
 from a burning bush or midst the lightnings o: 
 
SOULS IN REVOLT 253 
 
 Sinai. The other affirms that the Kingdom of 
 God is within us, that the Moral Law is written on 
 the fleshly tablets of the heart. The former is the 
 theory of theocracy (which soon degenerates into 
 priestcraft or statecraft, into religious or political 
 aristocracy) ; the latter is the theory of democracy. 
 
 Our progress up out of barbarism has been so 
 slow and tortuous that we are jealous of what gains 
 we have made in respect to morality; personal, 
 social, and international. This is why we have all 
 been so revolted by the deliberate and even boast- 
 ful declaration of this particular article in the 
 creed of militarism ; this doctrine that might makes 
 right. Force is not atheism, power is not atheism, 
 might is not atheism; but the brutal avowal that 
 might makes right is both atheism and materialism. 
 Militarism is the religion of violence. 
 
 In modern times we have witnessed the revolu- 
 tion of the people against the domination of kings 
 and emperors who pretended that they were the 
 earthly ambassadors of a heavenly Deity. We 
 have witnessed the revolt of religion against the 
 tyranny of tradition. We have witnessed the up- 
 rising of the workers in protest against the 
 cramped conditions of their life and labour. We 
 have witnessed the rebellion of the women against 
 
254 A LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 
 
 prejudice and parasitism, against economic de- 
 pendence and political disability. But the deeper 
 meaning of all this unrest religious, political, 
 industrial has been a sort of spiritual rebellion ; 
 souls in revolt. The souls of men have taken up 
 arms against the menace of machinery and the 
 menace of materialism, lest they be crushed by the 
 cogs of the wheels within wheels or buried beneath 
 the weight of mud and matter. 
 
 This is the true explanation for the hostility to 
 Germany by those whose natural disposition would 
 be friendly and not inimical. It is because they 
 have been forced to believe that she has ruthlessly 
 trampled all the ideals of the modern world into 
 the bloody mire of an outworn creed. It is not 
 because England is good and Germany is bad that 
 public opinion, for the most part, has sided with 
 the Entente Allies as against the Central Powers 
 in this present struggle; it is because the former 
 (at any rate for the moment) have symbolised the 
 New Era, while the latter have seemed to deny, 
 with cruel cynicism, the moral meaning of life. 
 
 If one man, or a thousand, believed and preached 
 the Gospel of Materialism it would not be so bad. 
 The harm has come because the doctrine that the 
 voice of the howitzer is more mandatory and 
 
SOULS IN REVOLT 255 
 
 authoritative than the Voice that thunders from 
 Mount Sinai has become institutionalised in the 
 diplomacy of a State. It is because the ruling 
 class of one nation (the Prussian junkers) has 
 evidently repudiated, with heartless scorn, the 
 Sermon on the Mount. 
 
 When Maximilian Harden, British statesmen, 
 or neutral publicists say that Prussian militarism 
 must be stamped out before permanent peace can 
 be established on enduring foundations this is what 
 is meant : The theory that the State is the ultimate 
 form of social evolution and that there is no author- 
 ity beyond the authority of the sovereign State, 
 must be disavowed and the Moral Law acknowl- 
 edged to have an existence beyond and above the 
 necessities of the nation. 
 
A SEA WALL OF DEMOCRACY 
 
A SEA WALL OF DEMOCRACY 
 
 A while ago I visited Galveston and strolled along the prome- 
 nade that tops its Sea-Wall. The night inspired awe and won- 
 der. It was like a splendid maiden, robed in a garment of 
 raven's wing, whose dress was bejewelled with stars, and on 
 whose head was a orescent moon. One by one these stars flick- 
 ered and one by one they went out. Then swiftly the scene 
 changed. On the western sky a cloud appeared, no larger than 
 a woman's hand. It grew and spread across the heavens. I 
 heard the clash of thunderous skies, the roar of tumultuous 
 waves. I looked and saw, what seemed to be, a hand that drew 
 from the scabbard of night a red-gold sword that flashed in the 
 air. It was chained lightning. And then the storm broke in 
 all its fury and awful splendour. The winds of 2Eolm left 
 their caves to riot through the world. I looked to see on every 
 hand death and destruction; the crash and ruin of the Day of 
 Doom. Instead, the storm abated; the tide ebbed; the winds 
 rested. The Master of Nature awoke and commanded the bois- 
 terous waves to be still. Only the skirts of the city were 
 sprinkled with the spray. Behind her mighty bulwark Galves- 
 ton slept secure. 
 
 I stood and looked, -for I know not how long, into the starless 
 sky. For a while I saw the changing clouds, and then I saw no 
 more. In silence and reverence I waited. And then, on the 
 far horizon, I watched in amaze the gradual gathering of an in- 
 numerous host. They were the children of soldiers slain in 
 ivar. Their backs were bent with arduous toil but in their 
 eyes was an unwonted light, a light that never was on sea or 
 land. They were building a mightier sea-wall than that upon 
 which I stood, and, what seemed to me the strangest thing of 
 
 all, THEY WERE BUILDING IT WITH THEIE BODIES. / looked again 
 
 and saw a Master-Builder who separated himself from the 
 countless crowd and spoke with a voice that was as the voice 
 of many waters, as the voice of a great thunder. And what 
 he said was that the workers and the women were gladly giv- 
 ing their bodies to be the stones in a new sea-wall, the Sea- 
 Wall of Democracy. He said that it would be built so high 
 and broad and strong that when, twenty-five years from now, 
 some misguided Princeps, some mad autocrat, some militant 
 statesman, shall once again try to whip the waves of popular 
 passion into a tempest, the sea-wall of restraint and justice 
 and public opinion and common conscience the Sea-Wall of 
 Democracy will boldly rise and seem to say: "Thus far and 
 no farther. . . . Here stay thy cruel waves." 
 
 259 
 
APPENDIX 
 
ENDORSEMENTS OF THE LEAGUE'S 
 PROPOSALS 
 
 THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
 (Address to the Senate) 
 
 " GENTLEMEN of the Senate : On the 18th day of 
 December last I addressed an identic note to the 
 Governments of the nations now at war request- 
 ing them to state, more definitely than they had yet 
 been stated by either group of belligerents, the 
 terms upon which they would deem it possible to 
 make peace. I spoke on behalf of humanity and 
 of the rights of all neutral nations like our own, 
 many of whose most vital interests the war puts 
 in constant jeopardy. 
 
 "The Central Powers united in a reply which 
 stated merely that they were ready to meet their 
 antagonists in conference to discuss terms of peace. 
 
 " The Entente Powers have replied much more 
 definitely, and have stated, in general terms, in- 
 deed, but with sufficient definiteness to imply de- 
 tails, the arrangements, guarantees, and acts of 
 reparation which they deem to be the indispensable 
 conditions of a satisfactory settlement. 
 
 " We are that much nearer a definite discussion 
 
 263 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 of the peace which shall end the present war. We 
 are that much nearer the discussion of the interna- 
 tional concert which must thereafter hold the world 
 at peace. In every discussion of the peace that 
 must end this war it is taken for granted that that 
 I>eace must be followed by some definite concert of 
 power, which will make it virtually impossible that 
 any such catastrophe should ever overwhelm us 
 again. Every lover of mankind, every sane and 
 thoughtful man, must take that for granted. 
 
 " I have sought this opportunity to address you 
 because I thought that I owed it to you, as the 
 council associated with me in the final determina- 
 tion of our international obligations, to disclose 
 to you without reserve the thought and purpose 
 that have been taking form in my mind in regard 
 to the duty of our Government in those days to 
 come when it will be necessary to lay afresh and 
 upon a new plan the foundations of peace among 
 the nations. 
 
 " It is inconceivable that the people of the United 
 States should play no part in that great enter- 
 prise. To take part in such a service will be the 
 opportunity for which they have sought to prepare 
 themselves by the very principles and purposes of 
 their policy and the approved practices of their 
 Government, ever since the days when they set up 
 a new nation in the high and honourable hope that 
 t might, in all that it was and did, show mankind 
 the way to liberty. They cannot, in honour, with- 
 
APPENDIX 265 
 
 hold the service to which they are now about to 
 be challenged. They do not wish to withhold it. 
 But they owe it to themselves and to the other na- 
 tions of the world to state the conditions under 
 which they will feel free to render it. 
 
 " That service is nothing less than this to add 
 their authority and their power to the authority 
 and force of other nations to guarantee peace and 
 justice throughout the world. Such a settlement 
 cannot now be long postponed. It is right that 
 before it comes this Government should frankly 
 formulate the conditions upon which it would feel 
 justified in asking our people to approve its formal 
 and solemn adherence to a league for peace. I am 
 here to attempt to state those conditions. 
 
 " The present war must first be ended, but we 
 owe it to candour and to a just regard for the opin- 
 ion of mankind to say that, so far as our participa- 
 tion in guarantees of future peace is concerned, it 
 makes a great deal of difference in what way and 
 upon what terms it is ended. The treaties and 
 agreements which bring it to an end must embody 
 terms which will create a peace that is worth guar- 
 anteeing and preserving, a peace that will win the 
 approval of mankind, not merely a peace that will 
 serve the several interests and immediate aims of 
 the nations engaged. 
 
 "We shall have no voice in determining what 
 those terms shall be, but we shall, I feel sure, have 
 a voice in determining whether they shall be made 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 lasting or not by the guarantees of a universal cov- 
 enant, and our judgment upon what is fundamental 
 and essential as a condition precedent to perma- 
 nency should be spoken now, not afterward, when 
 it may be too late. 
 
 " No covenant of co-operative peace that does not 
 include the peoples of the new world can suffice 
 to keep the future safe against war, and yet there 
 is only one sort of peace that the peoples of America 
 could join in guaranteeing. 
 
 The elements of that peace must be elements 
 that engage the confidence and satisfy the prin- 
 ciples of the American Governments, elements con- 
 sistent with their political faith and the practical 
 conviction which the peoples of America have once 
 for all embraced and undertaken to defend. 
 
 " I do not mean to say that any American Gov- 
 ernment would throw any obstacle in the way of 
 any terms of peace the Governments now at war 
 might agree upon, or seek to upset them when 
 made, whatever they might be. I only take it for 
 granted that mere terms of peace between the bel- 
 ligerents will not satisfy even the belligerents them- 
 selves. Mere agreements may not make peace se- 
 cure. It will be absolutely necessary that a force 
 be created as a guarantor of the permanency of 
 the settlement so much greater than the force of 
 any nation now engaged or any alliance hitherto 
 formed or projected, that no nation, no probable 
 combination of nations, could face or withstand 
 
APPENDIX 267 
 
 it. If the peace presently to be made is to endure, 
 it must be a peace made secure by the organised 
 major force of mankind. 
 
 " The terms of the immediate peace agreed upon 
 will determine whether it is a peace for which such 
 a guarantee can be secured. The question upon 
 which the whole future peace and policy of the 
 world depends is this: 
 
 " Is the present war a struggle for a just and 
 secure peace or only for a new balance of power? 
 If it be only a struggle for a new balance of power, 
 who will guarantee, who can guarantee, the stable 
 equilibrium of the new arrangement? Only a tran- 
 quil Europe can be a stable Europe. There must 
 be not only a balance of power, but a community 
 of power; not organised rivalries, but an organised 
 common peace. 
 
 " Fortunately, we have received very explicit as- 
 surances on this point. The statesmen of both of 
 the groups of nations, now arrayed against one 
 another, have said, in terms that could not be mis- 
 interpreted, that it was no part of the purpose they 
 had in mind to crush their antagonists. But the 
 implications of these assurances may not be equally 
 clear to all, may not be the same on both sides of 
 the water. I think it will be serviceable if I at- 
 tempt to set forth what we understand them to be. 
 
 " They imply first of all that it must be a peace 
 without victory. It is not pleasant to say this. 
 I beg that I may be permitted to put my own in- 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 terpretation upon it and that it may be understood 
 that no other interpretation was in my thought. 
 I am seeking only to face realities and to face them 
 without soft concealments. Victory would mean 
 peace forced upon the loser, a victor's terms im- 
 posed upon the vanquished. It would be accepted 
 in humiliation under duress, at an intolerable 
 sacrifice, and would leave a sting, a resentment, a 
 bitter memory, upon which terms of peace would 
 rest, not permanently but only as upon quicksand. 
 
 "Only a peace between equals can last; only a 
 peace the very principle of which is equality and a 
 common participation in a common benefit. The 
 right state of mind, the right feeling between na- 
 tions, is as necessary for a lasting peace as is the 
 just settlement of vexed questions of territory or of 
 racial and national allegiance. 
 
 " The equality of nations upon which peace must 
 be founded, if it is to last, must be an equality of 
 rights; the guarantees exchanged must neither 
 recognise nor imply a difference between big na- 
 tions and small, between those that are powerful 
 and those that are weak. Right must be based 
 upon the common strength, not upon the individual 
 strength, of the nations upon whose concert peace 
 will depend. 
 
 "Equality of territory, of resources, there, of 
 course, cannot be; nor any other sort of equality 
 not gained in the ordinary peaceful and legitimate 
 development of the peoples themselves. But no 
 
APPENDIX 269 
 
 one asks or expects anything more than an equality 
 of rights. Mankind is looking now for freedom 
 of life, not for equipoises of power. 
 
 " And there is a deeper thing involved than even 
 equality of rights among organised nations. No 
 peace can last, or ought to last, which does not 
 recognise and accept the principle that Govern- 
 ments derive all their just powers from the consent 
 of the governed, and that no right anywhere exists 
 to hand peoples about from sovereignty to sover- 
 eignty as if they were property. 
 
 " I take it for granted, for instance, if I may ven- 
 ture upon a single example, that statesmen every- 
 where are agreed that there should be a united, 
 independent, and autonomous Poland, and that 
 henceforth inviolable security of life, of worship, 
 and of industrial and social development should be 
 guaranteed to all peoples who have lived hitherto 
 under the power of Governments devoted to a faith 
 and purpose hostile to their own. 
 
 "I speak of this not because of any desire to 
 exalt an abstract political principle which has al- 
 ways been held very dear by those who have sought 
 to build up liberty in America, but for the same 
 reason that I have spoken of the other conditions 
 of peace, which seem to me clearly indispensable 
 because I wish frankly to uncover realities. 
 Any peace which does not recognise and accept this 
 principle will inevitably be upset. It will not rest 
 upon the affections or the convictions of mankind. 
 
O TO APPENDIX 
 
 The ferment of spirit of whole populations will 
 fight subtly and constantly against it, and all the 
 world will sympathise. The world can be at peace 
 only if its life is stable, and there can be no stabil- 
 ity where the will is in rebellion, where there is 
 not tranquillity of spirit and a sense of justice, of 
 freedom, and of right. 
 
 "So far as practicable, moreover, every great 
 people now struggling toward a full development 
 of ite resources and of its powers should be assured 
 a direct outlet to the great highways of the sea. 
 Where this cannot be done by the cession of terri- 
 tory it can no doubt be done by the neutralisation 
 of direct rights of way under the general guaran- 
 tee which will assure the peace itself. With a 
 right comity of arrangement no nation need be shut 
 away from free access to the open paths of the 
 world's commerce. 
 
 " And the paths of the sjea must alike in law and 
 in fact be free. The freedom of the seas is the 
 f/ua non of peace, equality, and co-operation. 
 No <loubt a somewhat radical reconsideration of 
 many of the rules of international practice hitherto 
 sought to be established may be necessary in order 
 to make the seas indeed free and common in prac- 
 tically all circumstances for the use of mankind, 
 but the motive for such changes is convincing and 
 compelling. There can be no trust or intimacy 
 between the peoples of the world without them. 
 
 "The free, constant, unthreatened intercourse 
 
APPENDIX 271 
 
 of nations is an essential part of the process of 
 peace and of development. It need not be difficult 
 to define or to secure the freedom of the seas if the 
 Governments of the world sincerely desire to come 
 to an agreement concerning it. 
 
 " It is a problem closely connected with the limi- 
 tation of naval armaments and the co-operation of 
 the navies of the world in keeping the seas at once 
 free and safe. 
 
 " And the question of limiting naval armaments 
 opens the wider and perhaps more difficult question 
 of the limitation of armies and of all programmes 
 of military preparation. Difficult and delicate as 
 these questions are, they must be faced with the 
 utmost candour and decided in a spirit of real ac- 
 commodation if peace is to come with healing in its 
 wings and come to stay. 
 
 "Peace cannot be had without concession and 
 sacrifice. There can be no sense of safety and 
 equality among the nations if great preponderating 
 armies are henceforth to continue here and there 
 to be built up and maintained. The statesmen of 
 the world must plan for peace and nations must 
 adjust and accommodate their policy to it as they 
 have planned for war and made ready for pitiless 
 contest and rivalry. The question of armaments, 
 whether on land or sea, is the most immediately and 
 intensely practical question connected with the fu- 
 ture fortunes of nations and of mankind. 
 
 "I have spoken upon these great matters with- 
 
272 APPENDIX 
 
 out reserve, and with the utmost explicitness be- 
 cause it has seemed to me to be necessary if the 
 world's yearning desire for peace was anywhere to 
 find free voice and utterance. Perhaps I am the 
 only person in high authority among all the peo- 
 ples of the world who is at liberty to speak and 
 hold nothing back. I am speaking as an indi- 
 vidual, and yet I am speaking also, of course, as 
 the responsible head of a great Government, and I 
 feel confident that I have said what the people of 
 the United States would wish me to say. 
 
 " May I not add that I hope and believe that I 
 am, in effect, speaking for liberals and friends of 
 humanity in every nation and of every programme 
 of liberty? I would fain believe that I am speak- 
 ing for the silent mass of mankind everywhere who 
 have as yet had no place or opportunity to speak 
 their real hearts out concerning the death and ruin 
 they see to have come already upon the persons and 
 the homes they hold most dear. 
 
 "And in holding out the expectation that the 
 people and the Government of the United States 
 will join the other civilised nations of the world in 
 guaranteeing the permanence of peace upon such 
 terms as I have named, I speak with the greater 
 boldness and confidence because it is clear to every 
 man who can think that there is in this promise no 
 breach in either our traditions or our policy as a 
 nation, but a fulfilment rather of all that we have 
 professed or striven for. 
 
APPENDIX 273 
 
 "I am proposing, as it were, that the nations 
 should with one accord adopt the doctrine of Presi- 
 dent Monroe as the doctrine of the world: That 
 no nation should seek to extend its policy over any 
 other nation or people, but that every people should 
 be left free to determine its own policy, its own 
 way of development, unhindered, unthreatened, un- 
 afraid, the little along with the great and powerful. 
 
 " I am proposing that all nations henceforth 
 avoid entangling alliances which would draw them 
 into competition of power, catch them in a net of 
 intrigue and selfish rivalry, and disturb their own 
 affairs with influences intruded from without. 
 There is no entangling alliance in a concert of 
 power. When all unite to act in the same sense 
 and with the same purpose, all act in the common 
 interest and are free to live their own lives under a 
 common protection. 
 
 " I am proposing government by the consent of 
 the governed; that freedom of the seas which in 
 international conference after conference repre- 
 sentatives of the United States have urged with the 
 eloquence of those who are the convinced disciples 
 of liberty ; and that moderation of armaments which 
 makes of armies and navies a power for order 
 merely, not an instrument of aggression or of selfish 
 violence. 
 
 " These are American principles, American poli- 
 cies. We can stand for no others. And they are 
 also the principles and policies of forward looking 
 
L . :4 APPENDIX 
 
 men and women everywhere, of every modern na 
 tion, of every enlightened community. They are 
 the principles of mankind and must prevail."- 
 Address of President Wilson to the United States 
 Senate, January ,U, 1917. 
 
 THE PRESIDENT'S IDENTIC NOTE TO THE 
 
 NATIONS AT WAR 
 
 "In the measures to be taken to secure the fu- 
 ture peace of the world the people and Government 
 of the United States are as vitally and as directly 
 interested as the Governments now at war. Their 
 interest, moreover, in the means to be adopted to 
 relieve the smaller and weaker peoples of the world 
 of the peril of wrong and violence is as quick and 
 :it as that of any other people or Government. 
 They stand ready, and even eager, to co-operate in 
 the accomplishment of these ends when the war is 
 over with every influence and resource at their com- 
 mand." Dated Washington, December 18, 1916. 
 
 THE REPLY OF THE ALLIES TO PRESIDENT 
 
 WILSON'S NOTE 
 
 " The allied Governments have received the note 
 which was delivered to them in the name of the 
 Government of the United States on the 19th of 
 December, 1916. They have studied it with the 
 care imposed upon them both by the exact realisa- 
 h they have of the gravity of the hour and 
 by the sincere friendship which attaches them to 
 
APPENDIX 275 
 
 the American people. In a general way they de- 
 sire to declare their respect for the lofty sentiments 
 inspiring the American note, and their whole- 
 hearted agreement with the proposal to create a 
 league of nations which shall assure peace and jus- 
 tice throughout the world. They recognise all the 
 benefits which will accrue to the cause of humanity 
 and civilisation from the institution of interna- 
 tional arrangements designed to prevent violent 
 conflicts between nations and so framed as to pro- 
 vide the sanctions necessary to their enforcement, 
 lest an illusory security shall serve merely to facili- 
 tate fresh acts of aggression." Dated Paris, Janu- 
 ary 10, 1917. 
 
 THE PRIME MINISTER OF GREAT BRITAIN, 
 MR. LLOYD-GEORGE 
 
 " The world will then be able, when this war is 
 over, to attend to its business in peace. There will 
 be no war or rumours of war to disturb and to dis- 
 tract. We can build up, we can reconstruct, we 
 can till, we can cultivate and enrich, and the bur- 
 den and terror and waste of war will have gone. 
 The peace and security for peace will be that the 
 nations will band themselves together to punish the 
 first peacebreaker who comes out. As to the armies 
 of Europe, every weapon will be a sword of justice 
 in the Government of men ; every arm will be a con- 
 stabulary of peace." Address at Guildhall, Janu- 
 ary 11, 1917. 
 
276 APPENDIX 
 
 THE PRIME MINISTER OF FRANCE, M. BRIAND 
 
 " The union of all the living forces of the coun- 
 try is an essential condition to success. It is that 
 \vinYh will lead us to our goal peace by victory 
 a solid, lasting peace guaranteed against any 
 return of violence by appropriate international 
 measures." 
 
 THE IMPERIAL CHANCELLOR OF GERMANY, 
 DR. VON BETHMANN-HOLLWEG 
 
 " Lord Grey finally dealt exhaustively with the 
 period after peace and with the establishment of 
 an international union to preserve peace. On that 
 subject, too, I will say a few words. We never 
 concealed our doubts whether peace could be last- 
 ingly insured by international organisations such 
 as arbitration courts. I will not discuss here the 
 theoretical part of the problem, but in practice 
 now and in peace we shall have to define our atti- 
 tude toward the question. 
 
 " When, after the termination of the war, the 
 \\Mi-ld shall fully recognise its horrible devastation 
 of blood and treasure, then through all mankind 
 will go the cry for peaceful agreements and under- 
 standings which will prevent, so far as is humanly 
 possible, the return of such an immense catastro- 
 phe. This cry will be so strong and so justified 
 that it must lead to a result. Germany will hon- 
 ourably co-operate in investigating every attempt to 
 
APPENDIX 277 
 
 find a practical solution, and collaborate toward 
 its possible realisation, and that all the more if the 
 war, as we confidently expect, produces political 
 conditions which will do justice to the free develop- 
 ment of all nations, small as well as great. In that 
 case the principle of right and free development 
 must be made to prevail, not only on the Continent, 
 but also at sea. . 
 
 "Of that Lord Grey, of course, did not speak, 
 The guarantee of peace which he has in mind ap- 
 pears to me to possess a peculiar character, de- 
 vised especially for British wishes. During the 
 war the neutrals, according to his desire, will have 
 to remain silent and patiently endure every com- 
 pulsion of British domination on the seas. After 
 the war, when England as she thinks, will have 
 beaten us, when she will have made a new arrange- 
 ment of the world, then neutrals are to combine as 
 guarantors of the new English arrangement of the 
 world, 
 
 " Such a policy of force cannot, of course, form 
 the basis for an effective international peace union, 
 and it is in the strongest contrast to Lord Grey's 
 and Mr. Asquith's ideal state of things, where right 
 governs might and all States form a family of civil- 
 ised mankind, and can freely develop themselves, 
 whether big or small, under the same conditions 
 and in accordance with their natural capabilities. 
 If the Entente wishes seriously to take up this po- 
 sition, then it should also act consistently upon 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 it ; otherwise the most exalted words about peace 
 union and harmonious living together in an inter- 
 national family are mere words." Speech of No- 
 vember 9 before the Chief Committee of the Reich- 
 stag. 
 
 THE HUNGARIAN PRIME MINISTER, 
 COUNT TISZA 
 
 "Pursuant to our peaceful policy before the 
 war and our attitude during the war, as well as our 
 recent peace action, we can only greet with sym- 
 pathy every effort aiming at the restoration of 
 peace. . . . Only that limited realisation of the 
 principle of nationalities is possible which the Pres- 
 ident of the United States rightly expresses in de- 
 manding that security of life and religion and 
 individual and social development should be guar- 
 anteed to all peoples. . . . We feel ourselves there- 
 fore completely in agreement with the President's 
 demands. We shall strive for the realisation as far 
 as possible of this principle in the regions lying in 
 our immediate neighbourhood. I can only repeat 
 that, true to our traditional foreign policy and true 
 to the standpoint we took in our peace action, in 
 conjunction with our allies we are ready to do 
 everything that will guarantee to the peoples of Eu- 
 rope the blessings of a lasting peace." Reply to 
 question by member of Opposition Party in Parlia- 
 ment, January 2J f , 1917. 
 
APPENDIX 279 
 
 THE BRITISH FOREIGN MINISTER, MR. BALFOUR 
 
 " I gather from the general tenor of the Presi- 
 dent's note that, while he is animated by an intense 
 desire that peace should come soon and that when 
 it comes it should be lasting, he does not, for the 
 moment at least, concern himself with the terms 
 on which it should be arranged. His Majesty's 
 Government entirely share the President's ideas; 
 but they feel strongly that the durability of peace 
 must largely depend on its character and that no 
 stable system of international relations can be built 
 on foundations which are essentially and hopelessly 
 defective. . . . There are those who think that for 
 this disease international treaties and international 
 laws may provide a sufficient cure. , But such per- 
 sons have ill learned the lessons so clearly taught 
 by recent history. . . . Though, therefore, the peo- 
 ple of this country share to the full the desire of 
 the President for peace, they do not believe peace 
 can be durable if it be not based on the success of 
 the allied cause. For a durable peace can hardly 
 be expected unless three conditions are fulfilled: 
 The first is that existing causes of international 
 unrest should be as far as possible removed or 
 weakened; the second is that the aggressive aims 
 and the unscrupulous methods of the Central Pow- 
 ers should fall into disrepute among their own peo- 
 ples ; the third is that behind international law and 
 behind all treaty arrangements for preventing or 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 limiting hostilities some form of international 
 sanction should be devised which would give pause 
 to the hardiest aggressor." Arthur James Balfour 
 
 'II ^/.ring-Rice, January 13, 1917. 
 \Vhen this tremendous war is brought to an 
 end, how is civilised mankind so to reorganise itself 
 that similar catastrophes shall not be permitted 
 to recur? Law is not enough. Behind law there 
 must be power. It is good that arbitration should 
 be encouraged. ... It is good that before peace is 
 broken the would-be belligerents should be com- 
 pelled to discuss their differences in some congress 
 of the nations. It is good that the security of the 
 smaller States should be fenced round with pecu- 
 liar care. But all these precautions are mere 
 scraps of paper unless they can be enforced. We 
 delude ourselves if we think we are doing God serv- 
 ice merely by passing good resolutions. What is 
 needed now, and will be needed so long as mili- 
 tarism is unconquered, is the machinery for enforc- 
 ing them, and the contrivance of such a machinery 
 will tax to its utmost the statesmanship of the 
 world."' 'itement ly Mr. Balfour on May 19, 
 1916. He was then First Lord of the British Ad- 
 miralty. 
 
 THE BRITISH CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, 
 MR. BONAR LAW 
 
 " President Wilson's speech [before the Senate] 
 had thia aim to gain peace now and secure 
 
APPENDIX 281 
 
 peace for the future. That is our aim, and our 
 only aim. He hoped to secure this by a league of 
 peace, and he not only spoke in favour of such a 
 league but he is trying to induce the American 
 Senate to take the steps necessary to give effect 
 to it. It would not be right to regard this pro- 
 posal as something altogether Utopian. You know 
 that almost up to our own day duelling continued, 
 and just as the settling of private disputes by the 
 sword has now become unthinkable, so, I think, we 
 may hope that the time will come when all the na- 
 tions of the world will play the part which Crom- 
 well described as his life work to act as con- 
 stable and keep peace. That time will come, I 
 hope. . . . 
 
 " Our aim is the same as President Wilson's. 
 What he is longing for we are fighting for, our sons 
 and brothers are risking their lives for, and we 
 mean to secure it. The hearts of the people of this 
 country are longing for peace. We are praying 
 for peace, for a peace which will bring back to us 
 in safety those who are fighting our battles, and a 
 peace which will mean that those who will not come 
 back have not laid down their lives in vain." Ad- 
 dress on January 24, 1917. 
 
 THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE BRITISH WAR 
 COUNCIL, EARL CURZON 
 
 " They would be surprised if when the war was 
 over the better judgment of mankind did not rally 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 in force and say that these abominations must not 
 be again in the world. Mankind must be saved 
 from the peril of its own passion. Machinery must 
 be devised to prevent the reign of brute force in the 
 world. "Statement made on May 16, 1916, as pre- 
 siding chairman of the Atlantic Union. 
 
 THE FOREIGN OFFICE OF THE RUSSIAN 
 GOVERNMENT 
 
 Russia has always been in full sympathy with 
 the broad humanitarian principles expressed by the 
 President of the United States. His message to 
 the Senate, therefore, has made a most favourable 
 impression upon the Russian Government. Russia 
 will welcome all suitable measures which will help 
 prevent a recurrence of the world war. Accord- 
 ingly we can gladly indorse President Wilson's 
 communication. President Wilson's views on free 
 access to the seas find an advocate in Russia, be- 
 cause she considers it necessary to have free access 
 to the seas. The President's proposal regarding 
 limited armament has the support of Russia, who 
 made representations of this nature at The Hague 
 mferences. In expressing these convictions, the 
 President of the United States is, at the same time, 
 expressing the point of view of Russia. . . . Rus- 
 sia already has definitely announced her unalter- 
 able determination regarding the future of Poland. 
 The Russian Emperor has declared one of the ob- 
 jects of the war is a free Poland, consisting now of 
 
APPENDIX 283 
 
 three separated provinces. As to the nature of the 
 peace to be concluded, whether it be a peace with- 
 out victory or not, one should remember that it 
 never has been the aim of the Allies to crush their 
 enemies and that they have never insisted upon vic- 
 tory in that sense over Germany. It is Germany 
 who has taken that point of view and wishes to dic- 
 tate peace as a victor." Statement to Associated 
 Press, January 26, 1917. 
 
 THE GERMAN FOREIGN SECRETARY, 
 MR. ZIMMERMANN 
 
 " In the message which President Wilson ad- 
 dressed to the Senate, the Imperial German Govern- 
 ment recognises with extreme satisfaction the fact 
 that the aspirations and thoughts of the President 
 continue to occupy themselves with the question 
 of restoration of permanent peace. The exalted 
 moral earnestness which collects itself in the words 
 of the President insures them of an attentive ear 
 throughout the world. The Imperial German Gov- 
 ernment earnestly hopes that the untiring efforts 
 of the President to restore peace on earth may be 
 crowned with success." Interview with Wm. Bay- 
 ard Hale, January 2 If, 1917. 
 
 THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 
 MR. WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT 
 
 " Even if the risk of war to the United States 
 would be greater by entering a League to Enforce 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 Peace than by staying out of it, does not the United 
 States have a duty as a member of the family of 
 nations to do its part and run its necessary risk 
 to make less probable the coming of such another 
 war and such another disaster to the American 
 i-.icc? \Ve are the richest nation in the world and 
 in the sense of what we could do were we to make 
 reasonable preparation, we are the most powerful 
 nation in the world. We have been showered with 
 good fortune. Our people have enjoyed a happi- 
 ness known to no other people. Does not this im- 
 pose upon us a sacred duty to join the other nations 
 of the world in a fraternal spirit and with a willing- 
 ness to make sacrifice if we can promote the general 
 welfare of men? At the close of this war the gov- 
 ernments and the people of the belligerent coun- 
 tries, under the enormous burdens and suffering 
 from the great losses of the war, will be in a con- 
 <liti<n of mind to accept and promote such a plan 
 for the enforcement of future peace." 
 
 THE FORMER BRITISH PRIME MINISTER, 
 MR. ASQUITH 
 
 " It means [the war], finally, or it ought to mean, 
 perhaps by a slow and gradual process, the sub- 
 stinition for force, for the clash of competing am- 
 bitions, for groupings and alliances and a precari- 
 ous equipoise, the substitution for all these things 
 of a real European partnership, based on the recog- 
 nition of equal right and established and enforced 
 
APPENDIX 285 
 
 by a common will. A year ago that would have 
 sounded like a Utopian idea. It is probably one 
 that may not, or will not, be realised either to-day 
 or to-morrow. If and when this war is decided in 
 favour of the Allies, it will at once come within 
 the range, and before long within the grasp, of 
 European statesmanship." Speech at Dublin, Sep- 
 tember 25, 1914. 
 
 In a speech at Queen's Hall, London, delivered 
 on the occasion of the second anniversary of the dec- 
 laration of war, August 4, 1916, Mr. Asquith said : 
 " Early in the war I quoted a sentence which 
 Mr. Gladstone used in 1870. * The greatest tri- 
 umph of our time/ he said, ' has been the enthrone- 
 ment of the idea of public right as the governing 
 idea of European policies/ Mr. Gladstone worked 
 all his life for that noble purpose. He did not live 
 to see its attainment. By the victory of the Allies, 
 the enthronement of public right here in Europe 
 will pass from the domain of ideals and of aspira- 
 tions into that of concrete and achieved realities. 
 What does public right mean? I will tell you 
 what I understand it to mean an equal level of 
 opportunity and of independence as between small 
 States and great States, as between the weak and 
 the strong; safeguards resting upon the common 
 will of Europe, and, I hope, not of Europe alone, 
 against aggression, against international covetous- 
 ness and bad faith, against the wanton recourse in 
 case of dispute to the use of force and the dis- 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 turbance of peace; finally, as the result of it all, 
 a great partnership of nations federated together 
 in the joint pursuit of a freer and fuller life for 
 countless millions who by their efforts and their 
 sacrifice, generation after generation, maintain the 
 progress and enrich the inheritance of humanity." 
 ported in the London Times for August 11, 
 1916. 
 
 THE FORMER UNITED STATES SECRETARY 
 OP STATE, MR. ROOT 
 
 " I heartily agree with the purpose and general 
 principle of the League to Enforce Peace. It seems 
 clear to me that if we are ever to get away from the 
 necessity for great armaments and special alliances, 
 with continually recurring wars, growing more and 
 more destructive, it must be by a more systematic 
 treatment of international disputes brought about 
 by common agreement among civilised nations. 
 It seems to me that any such system must include 
 the better formulation of international law, the 
 establishment of an international court to apply 
 the law, and a general agreement to enforce sub- 
 mission to the jurisdiction of the court. I also 
 think the Court of Conciliation for dealing with 
 questions which are not justiciable is very desir- 
 able."- - Letter to Dr. A. Lawrence Lowell dated 
 February 10, 1916. 
 
APPENDIX 287 
 
 THE FORMER BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY, 
 LORD GREY 
 
 " I believe the best work neutrals can do is to 
 prevent a war like this ever happening again. . . . 
 Nations fighting for their existence with daily in- 
 creasing prospects of seeing victory nearer, still 
 knowing that if they stop short of victory they stop 
 short of everything for which they are struggling, 
 cannot be expected to spend much time thinking 
 about what might happen after victory is secured. 
 But the neutrals can do it. I observe that not only 
 President Wilson, but Mr. Hughes, is supporting 
 a league [The League to Enforce Peace] started, 
 not with the object of interfering with the belliger- 
 ents in this war, but which will do its part in mak- 
 ing peace secure in the future. It is a work of neu- 
 tral countries to which we should all look with fa- 
 vour and hope. Only, we must bear this in mind : 
 If the nations, after the war, are able to do some- 
 thing effective by binding themselves with the com- 
 mon object of preserving peace, they must be pre- 
 pared to undertake no more than they are able to 
 uphold by force, and to see, when the time of crisis 
 comes, that it is upheld by force. The question 
 which we must ask them is this : ' Will you play 
 up when the time comes ?' It is not merely the 
 sign manual of Presidents and sovereigns that is 
 really to make that worth-while; this must also 
 have behind it parliaments and national sentiments. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 Supposing the conditions of 1914 occur again, and 
 there is such a league in existence, everything will 
 depend upon whether national sentiment behind it 
 is so permeated by the lessons of this war as to 
 compel each nation, as a matter of vital interest, to 
 keep peace other than by vital force." Speech be- 
 fore the Foreign Press Association of London on 
 October 23, 1916. 
 
 "I sincerely desire to see a league of nations 
 formed and made effective to secure future peace 
 of the world after this war is over. I regard this 
 as the best if not the only prospect of preserving 
 treaties and of saving the world from aggressive 
 wars in years to come and if there is any doubt 
 about my sentiments in the matter I hope this 
 telegram will remove it." Cablegram from Lord 
 Grey read at New York Banquet of League to En- 
 force Peace, November 24, 1916. 
 
 THE FORMER AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES, 
 VISCOUNT BRYCE 
 
 " Is there anything further that the friends of 
 justice and humanity in Europe can expect from 
 beyond the Atlantic, since it is not now likely that 
 the armed aid which would do so much to shorten 
 the war will be forthcoming? Many of us here in 
 Britain have been anxiously considering what can 
 be done after the war to prevent the recurrence of 
 such sufferings and calamities as we have been 
 <*88ing. There are those among us who have 
 
APPENDIX 289 
 
 framed schemes for the creation of some interna- 
 tional machinery for that purpose, some league of 
 peace-loving nations to secure the amicable settle- 
 ment of disputes and restrain any Power which 
 may hereafter be impelled by passion or selfishness 
 to attack its neighbours. We have thought it best 
 not to give publicity to these schemes so long as the 
 national mind is so much absorbed with the conduct 
 of the war as to be unable to give due consideration 
 to them. Now, however, when victory seems to be 
 coming into sight, and when we know that both 
 we and our Allies are absolutely united in our re- 
 solve to prosecute it till that victory is complete, 
 the reasons for reserve may soon disappear. In 
 America, where those reasons do not exist, much 
 has already been done. A league for the promotion 
 of a permanent peace has been formed, including 
 many weighty and distinguished names (with ex- 
 President Taft for its president), which has formu- 
 lated a plan for the establishment of such a perma- 
 nent international machinery as I have mentioned, 
 and which proposes that the United States should 
 render to this worthy cause the immense service of 
 taking part in the scheme. The difficulty in the 
 way of such American participation has, of course, 
 hitherto lain in that policy of complete isolation 
 from Old World affairs which the United States 
 has hitherto followed. But now two events of cap- 
 ital significance have happened." 
 
 At this point he quotes two pertinent passages, 
 
290 APPENDIX 
 
 one from President Wilson's speech at the first an- 
 nual meeting of the League to Enforce Peace, and 
 the other from Mr. Hughes' speech accepting the 
 Republican nomination. Resuming his article, he 
 concludes with the pregnant words: "The crea- 
 tion of some international alliance embracing all 
 the peace-loving nations could hardly succeed with- 
 out the co-operation of the greatest of all neutral 
 nations. With that co-operation, difficult as the 
 effort to construct such a scheme will be, there is 
 at least a real hope of success. Largely in vain 
 will this war have been fought and all these suffer- 
 ings endured if the peoples of the world are to fall 
 back into a state of permanent alarm, suspicion, 
 and hostility, each weighed down by the frightful 
 burden of armaments. Let us hope that the prof- 
 fered help of America will encourage the statesmen 
 of Europe and draw from them a responsive note/' 
 He adds, that " if the opportunity which the close 
 of the present conflict will offer for the provision 
 of means to avert future wars be lost, another such 
 may never reappear, and the condition of the world 
 will have grown worse, because the recurrence of 
 like calamities will have been recognised as a thing 
 to be expected, and their causes as beyond all hu- 
 man cure." Article in the American edition of the 
 Manchester Guardian for October 3, 1916, on " The 
 'd States During and After the War." 
 
APPENDIX 291 
 
 THE PLATFORMS OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES 
 
 The two leading political parties in the United 
 States have both endorsed the idea of the League 
 in their official platforms. The plank in the Demo- 
 cratic platform for 1916 reads as follows : " The 
 circumstances of the last two years have revealed 
 necessities of international action which no former 
 generation could have foreseen. We hold that it 
 is the duty of the United States to use its power, 
 not only to make itself safe at home, but also to 
 make secure its just interests throughout the world ; 
 and, both for this end and in the interest of hu- 
 manity, to assist the world in securing settled peace 
 and justice. We believe . . . that the world has 
 a right to be free from every disturbance of its 
 peace that has its origin in aggression or disregard 
 of the rights of peoples and nations ; and we believe 
 that the time has come when it is the duty of the 
 United States to join with the other nations of the 
 world in any feasible association that will effect- 
 ively serve those principles, to maintain inviolate 
 the complete security of the highway of the seas 
 for the common and unhindered use of all nations." 
 
 The Republican platform says : R We believe in 
 the pacific settlement of international disputes 
 and favour the establishment of a world court for 
 that purpose." 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE 
 UNITED STATES 
 
 In November, 1915, the Board of Directors of 
 the Chamber of Commerce of the United States 
 (which has a membership of 350,000), sent out a 
 referendum on the subject of the several proposals 
 of the League to Enforce Peace, e.g. : 
 
 I. The Committee recommends action to secure 
 conferences among neutral countries, on the initi- 
 ative of the United States, for the purpose of de- 
 lining and enunciating rules which will at all times 
 give due protection to life and property upon the 
 high seas. 
 
 1 1. The Committee recommends that for the de- 
 cision of questions which arise between nations and 
 which can be resolved upon the application of es- 
 tablished rules or upon a determination of facts 
 the United States should take the initiative in join- 
 ing with other nations in establishing an Inter- 
 national Court. 
 
 III. The Committee recommends that for con- 
 sideration of questions which arise between nations 
 and which do not depend upon established rules or 
 upon facts which can be determined by an Inter- 
 national Court the United States should take the 
 initiative in joining with other nations in establish- 
 ing a Council of Conciliation. 
 
 IV. The Committee recommends that the 
 United States should take the initiative in joining 
 
APPENDIX 293 
 
 with other nations in agreeing to bring concerted 
 economic pressure to bear upon any nation or na- 
 tions which resort *to military measures without 
 submitting their differences to an International 
 Court or a Council of Conciliation, and awaiting 
 the decision of the Court or the recommendation 
 of the Council, as circumstances make the more ap- 
 propriate. 
 
 V. The Committee recommends that the United 
 States take the initiative in joining with other 
 countries in agreeing to use concerted military 
 force in the event that concerted economic pressure 
 exercised by the signatory nations is not sufficient 
 to compel nations which have proceeded to war to 
 desist from military operations and submit the ques- 
 tions at issue to an International Court or a Coun- 
 cil of Conciliation, as circumstances make the more 
 appropriate. 
 
 VI. The Committee recommends that the 
 United States should take the initiative in estab- 
 lishing the principle of frequent international con- 
 ferences at expressly stated intervals for the pro- 
 gressive amendment of international law. 
 
 In response, over 96 per cent, of the vote was in 
 favour of the proposition that the United States 
 take the initiative in securing periodic international 
 conferences for the purpose of codifying interna- 
 tional law to meet new and changed conditions. A 
 majority of more than two-thirds voted to approve 
 of the proposition that this country take the in- 
 
oi i APPENDIX 
 
 itiative in forming a league of nations under a 
 treaty agreeing to submit justiciable questions aris- 
 ing between any of its members to an international 
 court, and non- justiciable questions to a council 
 of conciliation for their respective decision or rec- 
 ommendation, before resorting to war. The vote 
 in favour of the third proposal of the League 
 amounted to a very considerable majority of the 
 total membership, though a little short of the two- 
 thirds necessary for official endorsement. 
 
 THE PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION 
 OF LABOUR, MR. SAMUEL GOMPERS 
 
 " Above and beyond the desire of America's work- 
 ers to secure a settlement that will safeguard the 
 material interests of themselves and the nation is 
 their desire to see a settlement that will render 
 war less probable and peace more permanent in the 
 future; for the interests of the men and women 
 of labour are identified with those of peace. War 
 has always meant to them sacrifice and suffering 
 and the bearing of heavy burdens after the war. 
 Working people have bought with their flesh and 
 blood the right to a voice in determining the issues 
 of peace and war; and in the general reorganisa- 
 tion that will follow the present war, the workers 
 will insist upon having voice and influence. . . . 
 In any programme looking toward the establish- 
 ment of more permanent peace among nations, la- 
 bour will insist upon the following principles: 
 
APPENDIX 295 
 
 " 1. It must be a programme under which the 
 military forces of the world will be rescued from the 
 dictation of arbitrary autocracy and secret diplo- 
 macy and dedicated to the maintenance of a higher 
 standard of morals, law and justice. 
 
 "2. It must be a programme elastic enough to 
 admit of those fundamental changes that the grow- 
 ing life of the world makes inevitable. 
 
 "3. It must be a programme under which the 
 small nation, as well as the large nation, will have 
 a free hand in every just and individual develop- 
 ment ; a programme that will make it impossible for 
 a few strong nations to dictate the policies and de- 
 velopment of the world. 
 
 "4. It must be a programme that will give the 
 masses preater influence in those decisions that 
 plunge nations into war. 
 
 "5. It must be a programme under which the 
 international machinery that is created will afford 
 a medium through which all classes of society 
 can voice their judgment and register their de- 
 mands. . . . 
 
 " Insofar as the programme of the League to En- 
 force Peace represents an effort to meet the con- 
 ditions I have outlined, it demands the interest and 
 careful scrutiny of every man who has the inter- 
 ests of labour at heart. ... Evidence is daily ac- 
 cumulating that some such a League of Nations is 
 practically certain to be formed, if not at the end 
 of this war, in the not far distant future. The 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 bitter experience of this war will prove to all na- 
 tions that the system of small group alliances, 
 armed to the teeth and eternally growling at each 
 other, is a poor way to run the business of the 
 world. Since such a Court or League as contem- 
 plated appears to be the inevitable goal toward 
 which the whole evolution of law and government is 
 tending, the labouring men of this and every other 
 nation will feel it their duty and privilege to lift 
 their voice in counsel at every step of the plans and 
 propaganda, in order to make more certain the tri- 
 umph of democratic principles and methods in 
 whatever final form such an international institu- 
 tion may take." 
 
 THE SOCIALIST GROUP IN THE FRENCH 
 PARLIAMENT 
 
 " The Socialist group in the French Parliament 
 takes note with joy of the admirable message of 
 President Wilson to the American Senate. The 
 conception of peace founded upon the free will of 
 peoples, and not upon force of arms, should be or 
 should become the charter of the civilised universe. 
 Upon this affirmation of justice, an inheritance 
 from our revolutionary traditions and of our inter- 
 national congresses, President Wilson confers to- 
 day a new and immense prestige. And it is the 
 more necessary at this time that democrats of all 
 nations, wherever they may be, should rise against 
 Imperialistic ambitions and against their bloody 
 
APPENDIX 297 
 
 and ruinous consequences. The Socialist group 
 will request insistently that the French Govern- 
 ment affirm clearly its accord with the high words 
 of reason of President Wilson. To prepare and 
 hasten an early and just ending of the present war 
 and to assure a future of peaceful civilisation, the 
 Socialist group asks the representatives of all bel- 
 ligerent nations to press upon their leaders a trial 
 in good faith of the noble experiment offered to 
 humanity by the head of the great American Re- 
 public." Resolution Unanimously Adopted by 
 the Eighty-nine Socialist Deputies, January 26, 
 1917. 
 
 THE BRITISH LABOUR CONFERENCE 
 
 " Kesolved that all the British representatives 
 at the peace conference should work for the forma- 
 tion of an international league to enforce the 
 maintenance of peace on the plan advocated by the 
 President of the United States and approved by the 
 British Foreign Secretary." Resolution Unani- 
 mously Adopted at Manchester, January 27, 1917. 
 
 THE PRESIDENT OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY, 
 DR. A. LAWRENCE LOWELL 
 
 " A breach of the world's peace, like a breach of 
 domestic peace, is an offence against public order 
 which the public ought to have some right to pre- 
 vent. Nations that go to war break the peace of 
 the world, and the world has at least a right to 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 insist on knowing the reason for the war. It has 
 a right to go further and demand that peace shall 
 not be broken until an opportunity has been given 
 to ascertain where justice lies; to try mediation 
 and arbitration; and to consider calmly whether 
 or not the matter at issue requires the sacrifice of 
 war. In saying that the world has a right to in- 
 sist upon this, we mean that it is justified in com- 
 pelling nations to go to arbitration and state their 
 case before they take up arms. But in order that 
 the compulsion may be effective, the method of en- 
 forcement must be certain, and sufficient for the 
 purpose. In the terrible face of war there is no use 
 in shaking the rattle of an unarmed watchman or 
 in convening councils that talk and will not act. . . . 
 No single country can enforce a Pax Romano, on 
 the modern world ; to attempt it would be to make 
 itself a Don Quixote in search of perilous adven- 
 tures, to suffer defeat and become a laughing stock. 
 It can be undertaken only by a league of nations 
 strong enough and trustworthy enough to overawe 
 any single state or combination of states that might 
 venture to disregard its law of peace and war. 
 Whether such a league can be formed or not, we do 
 not know. The question bristles with difficulties 
 for statesmen and international lawyers, which 
 there is no use in attempting to minimise, and 
 which requires learning, skill, patience and good 
 will to solve. But one thing we do know that 
 such a league is not possible unless our country is 
 
APPENDIX 299 
 
 willing to join it ; nay, more, unless, we take a 
 prominent part in its formation. . . . We are faced 
 by the alternatives of standing aloof from the rest 
 of the world, if we can, defending ourselves and 
 working out our destinies by the strength of our 
 own arm, if we must, a stranger and perchance an 
 Ishmaelite among the nations; or of taking our 
 part, if we may, in shaping with others the prog- 
 ress of mankind and helping with them to bring 
 order and peace over the earth as the waters cover 
 the sea." 
 
 PROFESSOR JOHN BATES CLARK, DIRECTOR CARNEGIE 
 ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE 
 
 " The world demands a league of some kind for 
 preserving peace, and, for the first time, much of 
 the world expects to get it. ... There is a high- 
 way in sight, along which unfriendly nations can 
 walk, if they will, toward and finally to, the realm 
 of fraternal union. They must make treaties of 
 peace and can make treaties of arbitration. In due 
 time they can co-operate in putting life into the 
 institutions at The Hague. . . . They can develop 
 and codify International Law. They must resume 
 their economic activities and can so direct them 
 that causes of friction shall gradually be reduced 
 and common interests shall be magnified. They 
 can hold conferences at intervals and let them be- 
 come, as decade after decade shall pass, more fre- 
 quent and influential. In the end, let us pro- 
 
300 APPENDIX 
 
 foundly hope, a single, strong and binding League 
 of Nations can be created with every institution 
 foreshadowed by the programme of our own or- 
 ganisation, and others besides, all buttressed by 
 common interests and vitalised by community of 
 feeling." 
 
 PROFESSOR FRANKLIN H. GIDDINGS OF 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 " If war is to cease, there must be forecasting in 
 a larger way than would suffice to prepare one na- 
 tion only for defence. There must be agreeing ac- 
 tion by many nations collectively strong enough to 
 restrain any power that would break the peace 
 as the single state is strong enough to restrain the 
 criminal individual, or the forces of local insurrec- 
 tion. The strength of the restraining group must 
 be more than moral; it must be the strength of 
 physical force. A League to pass resolutions, and 
 to offer advice, will not avail ; it must be a league 
 to enforce peace. The preamble and the platform 
 which the League to Enforce Peace has adopted, 
 state the simple, obvious conclusions of experience. 
 Throughout five thousand years of recorded his- 
 tory peace, here and there established, has been 
 kept, and its area has been widened, in one way 
 only. Individuals have combined their efforts to 
 suppress violence in the local community. Com- 
 munities have co-operated to maintain the authori- 
 tative state and to preserve peace within its 
 
APPENDIX 301 
 
 borders. States have formed leagues or confed- 
 erations, or have otherwise co-operated, to establish 
 peace among themselves. Always peace has been 
 made and kept, when made and kept at all, by the 
 superior power of superior numbers acting in unity 
 for the common good. Mindful of this teaching of 
 experience, we believe and solemnly urge that the 
 time has come to devise and to create a working 
 union of sovereign nations to establish peace among 
 themselves and to guarantee it by all known and 
 available sanctions at their command, to the end 
 that civilisation may be conserved, and the progress 
 of mankind in comfort, enlightenment and happi- 
 ness may continue." 
 
THE FACTS IN THE HULL AFFAIR 
 
 "IN 1904 Japan and Russia were at war in the 
 Far East. On October 20, 1904, the Baltic fleet, 
 Admiral Rozhdestvensky, left Cape Skagen on its 
 trip to the Sea of Japan to meet the enemy. On 
 October 23 steam fishing trawlers put into Hull, 
 England, bearing the bodies of two men killed, six 
 wounded fishermen, and bringing the report that the 
 trawler Crane was sunk and that- five other vessels 
 had suffered serious damage. All casualties were 
 due to firing by the Russian fleet, the earliest news 
 from which was to the effect that it had been at- 
 tacked by Japanese torpedo boats mingling with 
 the Hull trawlers on the Dogger Bank. England 
 pooh-poohed the story, and the national ire rose. 
 On October 23, at Hull, inquest was held on the 
 bodies of the dead fishermen, and the jury's expres- 
 sion of their sense of the gravity of the situation 
 accurately reflected British public opinion. On 
 November 2 the Board of Trade initiated an in- 
 quiry which lasted from November 16 to 20, and 
 adjourned sine die after taking depositions. Be- 
 tween the time when the Board of Trade inquiry 
 was initiated and its actual work The Hague Con- 
 vention had doubtless saved a war. At the outset 
 
 302 
 
APPENDIX 303 
 
 the Russian fleet's act was described as ' an unwar- 
 rantable action/ an unspeakable and unparalleled 
 and cruel outrage/ etc. Yet not a week had passed 
 since the fateful Sunday when Britain learned the 
 news until Premier Balfour announced in Parlia- 
 ment on October 28 that the whole matter was to 
 be referred to an International Commission of In- 
 quiry. As early as November 7 the terms of the 
 convention submitting the question were correctly 
 known to the world, and within another week 
 British passions had subsided. On November 24, 
 1904, the convention was signed, its Article 2 read- 
 ing, The Commission shall inquire into and re- 
 port on all the circumstances relative to the North 
 Sea incident, and particularly as to where the re- 
 sponsibility lies and the degree of blame attaching 
 to the subjects of the two high contracting parties, 
 or to the subjects of other countries in the event of 
 their responsibility being established by the inquiry. 
 " It can be seen at a glance that these terms of 
 reference gave the commission jurisdiction far be- 
 yond the rendering of a report of the facts, which 
 alone is stipulated by The Hague Convention. [It 
 may be pertinent to quote at this point a note on 
 this subject found in Mr. Woolf s International 
 Government (p. 73) : "A Commission of Inquiry is 
 technically not arbitration. As Mr. Higgins points 
 out in his book, The Hague Peace Conferences, the 
 terms of reference to the Dogger Bank Commission 
 were wider than those contemplated in Article 14 
 
304 APPENDIX 
 
 of the Convention of 1899. The Convention lim- 
 ited the report of the International Committee to 
 ' a statement of facts.' The Dogger Bank Commis- 
 sion not only made a statement of the facts in 
 dispute namely (1) that the firing was unjusti- 
 fiable; (2) that the Commander of the Fleet was 
 responsible; and (3) that the facts were ' not of 
 a nature to cast any discredit on the humanity ' of 
 Russian officers. It is important to remember that 
 the Commission was composed of five naval officers 
 and two jurists (the latter being assessors without 
 votes) ; it was therefore an International Court- 
 martial or Court composed of experts. ' It is 
 doubtful/ writes Sir Frederick Pollock, ' whether 
 a formal tribunal of jurists and diplomatists could 
 have handled this delicate affair so well, if at all.' "] 
 Yet fixing responsibility is not essentially a juridic 
 Attribute. The convention of reference in other 
 respects followed the provisions of The Hague, and 
 named Paris as the place for sitting. Admiral 
 Dubassov was the Russian member, and Vice-Ad- 
 miral Sir Lewis Beaumont the British. By the 
 convention the Governments of France and the 
 United States were to name two commissioners, 
 the persons selected being Rear-Admiral Fournier 
 and Rear-Admiral Charles Henry Davis. These 
 four chose the fifth and president, Admiral von 
 Spaun, of Austria, 
 
 " The Commission met on December 22, and on 
 February 26, 1905, its report was published. The 
 
 
APPENDIX 305 
 
 majority of the commissioners, the Kussian dis- 
 senting, found that, < being of opinion that there 
 was no torpedo boat either among the trawlers nor 
 on the spot, the fire opened by Admiral Rozhdest- 
 vensky was not justifiable ? ; that ' the responsibil- 
 ity for this act and the results of the cannonade 
 sustained by the fishing fleet rests with Admiral 
 Rozhdestvensky.' On March 9 the Russian am- 
 bassador handed to Lord Lansdowne, secretary of 
 state for foreign affairs, the sum of 65,000 as the 
 amount of indemnity due to Hull fishermen. On 
 March 24 the Board of Trade published its report 
 on the depositions taken from November 16 to 20, 
 fixing the amount of damages at 60,000, so that 
 the Russian payment more than covered the dam- 
 ages." Denys P. Myers in a pamphlet published 
 by the World Peace Foundation, November, 1913, 
 Vol. Ill, No. 1, Part 1. 
 
BIBLIOGKAPHY 
 
SUGGESTED COLLATERAL READING 
 
 RECENT BOOKS RELATING TO PART I 
 
 Alfred H. Fried: The Restoration of Europe. 
 
 William I. Hull : The New Peace Movement. 
 
 Remain Rolland: Above the Battle. 
 
 James M. Beck : The War and Humanity, The Evi- 
 dence in the Case. 
 
 Randolph Bourne (Ed.) : Towards an Enduring 
 Peace. 
 
 John Haynes Holmes: New Wars for Old. 
 
 Sidney L. Gulick : The Fight for Peace. 
 
 Wm. E. Channing: Discourses on War. 
 
 David Low Dodge : War Inconsistent with the Re- 
 ligion of Christ. 
 
 Charles E. Jefferson: Christianity and Interna- 
 tional Peace. 
 
 James Barr: Christianity and War. 
 
 W. E. Wilson: Christ and War. 
 
 Adolphe Berle : Christianity and the Social Rage. 
 
 Frederick Lynch: The Challenge. 
 
 George Lorimer: Christianity and the Social 
 State. 
 
 Hamilton Mabie: Ethics and the Larger Neigh- 
 borhood. 
 
 Walter Rauschenbusch : Christianity and the So- 
 cial Crisis, Christianising the Social Order, The 
 Social Principles of Jesus. 
 
 Canon W. L. Grane: The Passing of War. 
 
 309 
 
310 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 F. W. Hirst : The Arbiter in Council, The Political 
 
 Economy of War. 
 
 W. Iforton-Fnllerton: Problems of Power. 
 Michael Anitchkow : War and Labor. 
 Charles P. Neill : Interest of the Wage Earner in 
 
 the Peace Movement. 
 Ellen Key : War, Peace and the Future. 
 Olive Schreiner : Woman and Labor. 
 Norman Angell: The Great Illusion, Arms and 
 
 Industry. 
 
 Alviii S. Johnson: Commerce and War. 
 David Starr Jordan : War and Waste. 
 H. N. Brailsford: The War of Steel and Gold, 
 
 G. Lowes Dickinson: The European Anarchy. 
 Walter Lippmann: The Stakes of Diplomacy. 
 Herbert Adams Gibbons: The New Map of Eu- 
 rope. 
 
 E. D. Morel : Ten Tears of Secret Diplomacy. 
 Francis W. Neilson: How Diplomats Make War. 
 Arthur Billiard: The Diplomacy of the Great 
 
 liar. 
 Sir Thomas Barclay: Problems of International 
 
 Practice and Diplomacy. 
 Charles Ferguson : The Great News. 
 
 RECENT AETICLES RELATING TO PART I * 
 
 Paul Reinsch: American Love of Peace and Eu- 
 ropean Skepticism. 
 
 IMwin D. Mead: The Churches Against War. 
 (W. P. F.) 
 
 i W. P. F. = World Peace Foundation. 
 
 A. A. I. C. = American Association of International Con- 
 ciliation. 
 
 orced Peace" is a volurne which contains the address 
 delivered before the First Annual Assembly of the League to 
 Enforce Peace, at Washington, in May, 1916. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 311 
 
 David T. W. Rhys: Religion as a Consolidating 
 and Separating Influence. (W. P. F.) 
 
 Shatter Matthews: What the Churches Have at 
 Stake in the Success of the League to Enforce 
 Peace, ( " Enforced Peace " ) , Christianity and 
 World Peace, (Proceedings of Fourth Amer- 
 ican Peace Congress, pp. 366-372). 
 
 Havelock Ellis: The Forces Warring Against 
 War. 
 
 W. C. Deming : The Opportunity and Duty of the 
 Press in Relation to World Peace. (A. A. 
 I.C.) 
 
 Samuel B. Capen: Foreign Missions and World 
 Peace (W. P. F.), Churches and the Peace 
 Movement (W. P. F.). 
 
 John Haynes Holmes : The A ttitude of Christians 
 as to Peace and War, (Kejxri-t of American 
 Friends Peace Conference for 1902, pp. 65- 
 70). 
 
 Junius B. Remensnyder: The Church's Mission as 
 to War and Peace. 
 
 Samuel Gompers : American Labor and Construct- 
 tive Settlement of the War, ( " Enforced 
 
 Peace")- 
 Benjamin F. Trueblood: Women in The Peace 
 
 Movement. 
 
 Jane Addams : Women at The Hague. 
 Baron d'Estournelles de Constant: Women and 
 
 The Cause of Peace. 
 
 Benjamin F. Trueblood : The Cost of War. 
 Thomas E. Green : The Burden of the Nations. 
 John B. Osborn: Influence of Commerce in the 
 
 Promotion of International Peace. 
 Henri Lambert: The Ethics of International 
 
 Trade. 
 
312 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 R. G. Rhett : American Business and The League 
 to Enforce Peace (" Enforced Peace "). 
 
 James B. Scott: America and The New Diplo- 
 macy. 
 
 Peace Propaganda, Sentimental and Otherwise: 
 World's Work, August, 1915. 
 
 Dangers of Pacifism: North American Review, 
 July, 1915. 
 
 Democracy and Pacifism, An Examination of Pa- 
 cifist Opinion in England: Nation, May 13, 
 1915. 
 
 War and the Interests of Labor: Atlantic 
 Monthly, March, 1914. 
 
 Neutral Public Opinion a Factor for Peace: Sur- 
 vey, September 30, 1916. 
 
 Christianity and the Sword: North American Re- 
 view, August, 1916. 
 
 History, War and Women: Unpopular Review, 
 April, 1916. 
 
 'As the World Lives On: Independent, January 8, 
 1917. 
 
 Bankers As Peace Guardians : World Today, Feb- 
 ruary, 1914. 
 
 RECENT BOOKS RELATING TO PART II 
 
 R. L. Bridgman: World Organization. 
 
 David J. Hill: World Organization as Affected 
 by the Nature of the Modern State. 
 
 Charles W. Eliot: The Road Towards Peace. 
 
 Norman Angell: America and the New World 
 State, The World's Highway. 
 
 John A. Hobson: Towards International Govern- 
 ment. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 313 
 
 David Starr Jordan : The Ways to Lasting Peace, 
 The Unseen Empire. 
 
 W. Evans Darby: International Tribunals and 
 supplement entitled Modern Pacific Settle- 
 ments. 
 
 Nicholas Murray Butler: The United States of 
 Europe, The International Mind. 
 
 Paul Eeinsch : Public International Unions. 
 
 Frederick Lynch: What Makes a Nation Great? 
 
 " Cosmos " : The Basis of a Durable Peace. 
 
 Lassa Oppenheim : International Law. 
 
 George G. Wilson: Handbook of International 
 Law. 
 
 L. S. Woolf and the Fabian Society : International 
 Government. 
 
 A. T. Mahan : The Influence of Sea Power, Arma- 
 ments and Arbitration. 
 
 J. W. Foster : Arbitration and The Hague Court. 
 
 James Brown Scott: The Court of Arbitral Jus- 
 tice. 
 
 William I. Hull: The Two Hague Conferences 
 and Their Contribution to International Law. 
 
 Andrew D. White: Autobiography. 
 
 Joseph H. Choate : The Two Hague Conferences. 
 
 Pollock : The Modern Law of Nations and the Pre- 
 vention of War (Cambridge Modern History, 
 Ch. XII, 703-729). 
 
 James Try on: A Permanent Court of Interna- 
 tional Justice. 
 
 John Bassett Moore: American Diplomacy; Its 
 Spirit and Achievements. 
 
 RECENT ARTICLES RELATING TO PART II 
 
 John Bates Clark: Existing Alliances and a 
 League of Peace (A. A. I. C.). 
 
314 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Theodore Marburg : The League to Enforce Peace; 
 A Reply to Critics ("Enforced Peace/' pp. 
 128-143). 
 
 Francis W. Hirst : The Logic of International Co- 
 operation. 
 
 Benjamin A. Trueblood: A Periodic Congress of 
 the Nations, Historic Development of the 
 Peace Idea. 
 
 Andrew Carnegie : A League of Peace, Armaments 
 and Their Results. 
 
 Denys P. Myers : The Commission of Inquiry, Re- 
 vised List of Arbitration Treaties. 
 
 Randolph Bourne: Arbitration and Interna- 
 tional Politics. 
 
 H. B. McFarland: The Supreme Court of the 
 World. 
 
 James Tryon: The Proposed High Court of 'Na- 
 tions. 
 
 Philander C. Knox: International Unity. 
 
 Henri La Fontaine : Existing Elements of a Con- 
 stitution of the United States of the World, 
 Internationalism as a Science. 
 
 John Bassett Moore: The Arbitrations of the 
 United States. 
 
 Simeon E. Baldwin: The New Era of Interna- 
 tional Courts. 
 
 George Grafton Wilson : An International Court 
 of Justice the Next Step. 
 
 Charles E. Jefferson: The Nemesis of Arma- 
 ments. 
 
 David Starr Jordan : Naval Waste. 
 
 After the War?: World's Work. December, 
 L015. 
 
 To Make the Peace Secure: Nation. November 2, 
 1916. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 315 
 
 Essentials of Lasting Peace: L. D. Brandeis in 
 Harper's Weekly, March 13, 1915. 
 
 Road to a Durable Peace: E. A. Filene in Annals 
 of American Academy, July, 1916. 
 
 Three Plans for a Durable Peace: Wm. I. Hull in 
 Annals of American Academy, July, 1916. 
 
 Enduring Peace: David Starr Jordan, in Sunset, 
 January, 1916. 
 
 Outlines for a Permanent Peace: C. Stewart in 
 Fortnightly, December, 1915. 
 
 Basis of a Durable Peace: J. H. McCracken in 
 Annals of American Academy, July, 1916. 
 
 America and World Peace: W. F. Johnson in 
 North American, November, 1916. 
 
 International Court, International Sheriff and 
 World Peace: Talcott Williams in Annals of 
 American Academy, September, 1915. 
 
 Melting Pot and the Fires of War; How the United 
 States as an International Peace Forum May 
 Help Toicard Permanent Peace: E. A. Filene 
 in Survey, March 6, 1915. 
 
 World Court and League of Peace: Theodore Mar- 
 burg in Annals of American Academy, Sep- 
 tember, 1916. 
 
 Constructive Mediation; An Interpretation of the 
 Ten Foremost Proposals: George Nasmyth in 
 Survey, March 6, 1915. 
 
 Isolation or World Leadership? America's Future 
 Foreign Policy: George Nasmyth in Annals 
 of American Academy, July, 1916. 
 
 Force and Peace: Henry Cabot Lodge in Annals 
 of American Academy, July, 1915. 
 
 From a Peace Sceptic: H. V. Tracy in the New 
 Republic, July 26, 1915. 
 
 America's Need for an Enforced Peace: Talcott 
 
316 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Williams in Annals of American Academy, 
 
 July, 1916. 
 League to Enforce Peace: Independent, June 28, 
 
 1915. 
 League to Enforce Peace: Literary Digest, July 
 
 3, 1915. 
 League to Enforce Peace: A. Lawrence Lowell in 
 
 Atlantic Monthly, September, 1915. 
 League to Enforce Peace: A. Lawrence Lowell in 
 
 ' World's Work, October, 1915. 
 President on Enforcement of Peace: Independent, 
 
 June 5, 1916. 
 President Wilson's Peace Plan: Literary Digest, 
 
 June 10, 1916. 
 Three Presidents on League to Enforce Peace: In- 
 
 r/< pendent, May 22, 1916. 
 Pqace Problems: J. B. Moore in North American 
 
 Review, July, 1916. 
 
 How Would We Enforce World Peace f: Every- 
 body's, July, 1916. 
 Basis of National Security: Simon N. Patten in 
 
 Annals of the American Academy, July, 1916. 
 The Hague Peace System in Operation: James 
 
 Tryon in Yale Law Review, 1911. 
 
 RECENT BOOKS RELATING TO PART III 
 
 Heinrich von Treitschke : Politics. 
 
 F. von Bernhardi : Germany and the Next War. 
 
 Homer Lea: The Valor of Ignorance, The Day 
 
 of the Saxon. 
 
 IMix Adler: The World Crisis and Its Meaning. 
 John DC German Philosophy and Politics. 
 
 Jean <\t' 1 1 loch : The Future of War. 
 Quglielmo Ferrero: Militarism. 
 A. T. Mahan : The Moral Aspect of War. 
 
BIBLIOGKAPHY 317 
 
 George W. Nasmyth: Social Progress and the 
 
 Darwinian Theory. 
 Vernon L. Kellog : Beyond War. 
 David Starr Jordan: The Human Harvest, War 
 
 and the Breed, The Unseen Empire. 
 C. W. Saleeby : The Longest Cost of War. 
 John A. Hobson : Imperialism, The Psychology of 
 
 Jingoism, International Trade. 
 Norman Angell: Under Three Flags. 
 Frederick Howe : Why War? 
 Arnold Toynbee: Nationality and the War, The 
 
 New Europe. 
 Bertrand Russel : Justice in War Time, Why Men 
 
 Fight. 
 
 RECENT ARTICLES RELATING TO PART III 
 
 Elihu Root : The Causes of War. 
 
 Henri Lambert: International Morality and Ex- 
 change. 
 
 Viscount Haldane: Higher Nationality, A Study 
 in Law and Ethics. 
 
 William Everett: Patriotism. 
 
 Leo Tolstoi : Christianity and Patriotism. 
 
 War and the Survival of the Fittest: I. W. Ho- 
 werth in Scientific Monthly, November, 1916. 
 
 Causes of War: I. W. Howerth in Scientific 
 Monthly, February, 1916. 
 
 War as National Discipline: O. H. Howe in Edu- 
 cation, September, 1916. 
 
 War and Human Nature: H. R. Marshall in 
 North American Review, February, 1916. 
 
 Does Preparedness Mean Militarism?: George 
 Harvey in North American Review, March, 
 1916. 
 
 Military Preparedness a Peril to Democracy: 
 
318 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Charles E. Jefferson in Annals of American 
 Academy, July, 1916. 
 
 The Dream of Universal Peace: Sydney Brooks in 
 Harper's Magazine, November, 1916. 
 
INDEX 
 
INDEX 
 
 Achsean League, powers and 
 purposes of, as a federation, 
 75. 
 
 Acquisition of new territory, a 
 question for submission to 
 Council of Conciliation, 125. 
 
 Aggressor nation, determina- 
 tion of the, 173-174. 
 
 Alabama case, an example of 
 a question involving na- 
 tional honour or vital in- 
 terest, submitted to arbi- 
 tration, 123n. 
 
 Alaskan Boundary case, sub- 
 mitted to arbitration, 123n. 
 
 Alaskan Fur Seal case, 123n. 
 
 Alliances, offensive and defen- 
 sive, to be supplanted by 
 new kind of league, 131-132. 
 
 Allies, text of reply of, to 
 President Wilson's note, 
 274-275. 
 
 Amphictyonic Council, con- 
 federation of Greek repub- 
 lics under, 74. 
 
 Anarchy, of states and of in- 
 dividuals, 129-130. 
 
 Apponyi, Count, letters in In- 
 dependent by, cited, 125. 
 
 Arbitration, a basic principle 
 of federation, 97; cases of 
 application of, in interna- 
 tional relations, 99-100 ; na- 
 tions not opposed in princi- 
 ple to submitting questions 
 to, 123; double significance 
 of the word, 123-124. 
 
 321 
 
 Arbitrary authority, exercise 
 of, as a cause of war, 117. 
 
 Arenas of friction, what con- 
 stitute, 236-239. 
 
 Armaments, reduction of, a 
 question for Council of Con- 
 ciliation, 125; attitude of 
 League to Enforce Peace as 
 to, 138-146; provisions con- 
 cerning, in programme of 
 League to Enforce Peace, 
 175-176. 
 
 Armed force, as a method of 
 intervention by league of 
 nations, 136-139. 
 
 Asquith, Herbert, endorsement 
 by, of ideas of League to 
 Enforce Peace, 171, 181. 
 284-286. 
 
 Atheism, might-makes-right 
 theory viewed as, 253. 
 
 Avalanche, analogy between 
 war and, 212. 
 
 Backward peoples, treatment 
 of, a question for Council 
 of Conciliation, 125; exploi- 
 tation of, under imperialis- 
 tic system, 236-239. 
 
 Bagehot, Walter, on advan- 
 tages of co-operation, 73; 
 cited, 83; quoted on social 
 morality, 117-118. 
 
 Balance of power, alliances 
 really not made to preserve, 
 151-152. 
 
 Balfour, Arthur, endorsement 
 
INDEX 
 
 by, of proposals of League 
 to Enforce Peace, 181, 279- 
 280. 
 
 Bernhardi, on war as a bio- 
 logical necessity, 202. 
 
 Berry, Sidney M., article on 
 " Vvar and Religion," cited, 
 18. 
 
 Bethinann-Hollweg, plan of 
 League to Enforce Peace 
 praised by, 181; text of 
 speech endorsing proposals 
 of League to Enforce Peace, 
 276-278. 
 
 Bibliography, selected, 309- 
 319. 
 
 Biological necessity, argument 
 for war as a, 202-204. 
 
 Boycotting of outlaw nations, 
 one method of intervention 
 by league of nations, 134- 
 136. 
 
 Brailsford, H. N., The War 
 of Steel and Gold, cited, 
 236. 
 
 Bravery not a result of war, 
 207-208. 
 
 Briaud, plan of League to En- 
 force Peace praised by, 181, 
 
 2m 
 
 British Labour Conference, 
 proposals of League to En- 
 force Peace approved by, 
 
 Brooks, Sydney, article "The 
 Dream of Universal Peace," 
 cited, 109. 
 
 Bryce, James, American Com- 
 monu-(dlth, cited, 77; Rela- 
 tions of Advanced and Back- 
 ward Nations of Mankind, 
 cited, 125; in favour of 
 plan of League to Enforce 
 Peace, 181; text of article 
 endorsing plans of League 
 to Enforce Peace, 288- 
 290. 
 
 Buffer states, neutralisation 
 
 of, a question for Council 
 of Conciliation, 125. 
 Business, relations of, to war, 
 42-43; effect of war upon, 
 43; a provocative of war 
 and a hindrance to peace, 
 47-^8; interests of, behind 
 wars, 231-239. 
 
 C 
 
 Cannibalism, no longer con- 
 sidered morally correct, 
 214. 
 
 Cassano, Prince di, letters in 
 Independent by, cited, 125. 
 
 Chamber of Commerce of 
 United States, proposals of 
 League to Enforce Peace en- 
 dorsed by, 292-294. 
 
 Child labour, possibility of 
 change in customs and prac- 
 tices shown by improvement 
 in conditions of, 216-218. 
 
 Christianity, reasons for fail- 
 ure of, to prevent present 
 war, 12ff; one reason lies 
 in the kind of, that has been 
 found wanting, 13-15 ; men's 
 attention directed by, to a 
 distant world rather than 
 to present needs, 15-16; in- 
 efficient methods of, as 
 shown by competition of de- 
 nominations, 16-17 ; ac- 
 knowledged inpotence of the 
 kind commonly practised, 
 to save society, 17 ; steps to 
 be taken in needed reform 
 of, 17-19. 
 
 Civil War, not fought prima- 
 rily to maintain sovereignty 
 of the Union, 79. 
 
 Clark, John Bates, remarks in 
 favour of proposals of 
 League to Enforce Peace 
 quoted, 299-300. 
 
 Class distinctions, effect of 
 the war on, 30-33. 
 
INDEX 
 
 323 
 
 Commercial greed, as a cause 
 of war, 117. 
 
 Commission of Inquiry, appli- 
 cation of idea of, in Wilson- 
 Bryan treaties, 102-104 ; 
 created by First Hague 
 Convention in 1899, 111 ; not 
 a new idea, 111-112. 
 
 Compromise, a fundamental 
 principle of federation, 95. 
 
 Co-operation, impetus given to, 
 by the war, 27; possible 
 later attitude of labourers 
 regarding, 28 ; substitution 
 of, between states, for com' 
 petition, 71 ; advantages and 
 necessity of, 71-74; exam- 
 ples of, among states, 74-80. 
 
 Cost of war, 43-47. 
 
 Council of Conciliation, char- 
 acter of the proposed, 109- 
 110 ; a tentative step toward 
 an international court for 
 settlement of political trou- 
 bles, 110-111; methods of 
 action, 113-114; legislative 
 powers of, 115, 121-126; 
 question of what shall con- 
 stitute a decision by, 124; 
 questions which would come 
 before, 125-126; distinction 
 between functions of Judi- 
 cial Tribunal and of, 183. 
 
 Croly, Herbert, New Republic 
 editorial quoted, 242n. 
 
 Cruce, Emeric, peace project 
 of, 91-92. 
 
 Culture, failure of, as a re- 
 straining influence against 
 war, 19-20. 
 
 Curzon, Earl, endorsement by, 
 of proposals of League to 
 Enforce Peace, 281-282. 
 
 D 
 
 Darby, W. E., quoted on cases 
 of international arbitra- 
 tions, 99n. 
 
 Darwinian law, does not mean 
 that all advance is through 
 combat, 228. 
 
 Democracy, movement toward, 
 accelerated by present war, 
 26 ; trend toward, shown by 
 enforced co-operation re- 
 sulting from the war, 27; 
 as a preventive of war, 164- 
 165 ; not a quality to be en- 
 forced, 165. 
 
 Democratic party, proposals 
 of League to Enforce Peace 
 endorsed in platform of, 
 291. 
 
 Diplomacy, the fault with, in 
 regard to present war, 49- 
 50; the true function of, to 
 keep things running smooth- 
 ly, 50; reforms needed in, 
 51-66 ; real task of, to study 
 causes of past wars, 232; 
 the stakes of, 236-239. 
 
 Disarmament, not included in 
 programme of League to 
 Enforce Peace, 175-176. 
 
 Dogger Banks Fisheries case, 
 settlement of, by Hague 
 Tribunal, 100, 182; account 
 of settlement of, 302-305. 
 
 Dollar diplomacy, a provoca- 
 tive of war, 47-48. 
 
 E 
 
 Economic Boycott, one method 
 of intervention by league of 
 nations, 134-136. 
 
 Economic forces, tracing of 
 wars to, 231-239. 
 
 Education, failure of, as an 
 influence against present 
 war, 19-20; changes and 
 reformations in, bound to 
 follow the war, 20. 
 
 Efficiency, war and, 47. 
 
 Ellis, Havelock, The Task of 
 Social Hygiene, quoted, 21. 
 
821 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Evangelical Alliance, move- 
 ment toward Christian co- 
 operation through, 17. 
 
 Expansion, need of room for, 
 a cause of war, 117. 
 
 F 
 
 Fanaticism and patriotism, 
 245. 
 
 Fatalistic arguments for war, 
 refutation of, 210-230. 
 
 Feasibility of programme of 
 League to Enforce Peace, 
 168-185. 
 
 Federal Council of Churches, 
 movement toward Christian 
 co-operation through, 17. 
 
 Federalist papers, quoted, 74, 
 75. 
 
 Federative principle, instances 
 of application of, among 
 states, 74-80; John Fiske's 
 exposition of the, 77n ; com- 
 promise implied as a prin- 
 ciple by, 95. 
 
 Feminist Movement, effect of 
 the war upon, 34-39. 
 
 Ferguson, Charles, "The Eco- 
 nomics of Devotion" by, 
 207; quoted, 211; The Re- 
 Uffion of Democracy, quoted, 
 224, 231-232; on what lib- 
 erty means, 240. 
 
 Filene, Edward A., address by, 
 cited, 132. 
 
 Financial interests, wars 
 traceable to, 231-239. 
 
 Financiers and the war, 42- 
 48. 
 
 Fiske, John, quoted on the 
 principle of federalism, 
 77n. 
 
 Force, answer to objections to 
 proposed use of, to preserve 
 peace, 100-168, 172. 
 
 Foreign affairs, need of de- 
 itlslng, 57-58, 164-165. 
 
 Freedom of the seas, a ques- 
 tion for Council of Concilia- 
 tion, 125. 
 
 Free trade, a question for 
 Council of Conciliation, 
 125. 
 
 Fried, Alfred, outbreak of war 
 foreseen by, 6-7. 
 
 Garrison, Lindley M., objec- 
 tion to League to Enforce 
 Peace voiced by, 156-157. 
 
 Gatling, Dr., miscarriage of 
 theories of, 158. 
 
 Germany, a league of states, 
 76 ; why people of naturally 
 friendly disposition are hos- 
 tile to, 254. 
 
 Giddings, Franklin H., plans 
 of League to Enforce Peace 
 approved by, 300-301. 
 
 Gladden, Washington, The 
 Forks of the Road, cited, 
 247. 
 
 Gladiatorial combats, no 
 longer morally fashionable, 
 215. 
 
 Gleason, Arthur, article " The 
 Social Revolution in Eng- 
 land," cited, 26. 
 
 Gompers, Samuel, proposals of 
 League to Enforce Peace en- 
 dorsed by, 294-296. 
 
 Graham, Dr. William, Report 
 by, cited, 37. 
 
 Greek republics, federation of, 
 an example of co-operation 
 among states, 74. 
 
 Greenwood, Arthur, work by, 
 cited, 125. 
 
 Grey, Lord, endorsement by, 
 of plans of League to En- 
 force Peace, 181, 287-288. 
 
 Guizot, quoted on require- 
 ments of the federative sys- 
 tem, 71. 
 
INDEX 
 
 325 
 
 Gulick, Sidney L., books by, 
 cited and quoted, 126. 
 
 Hague Congress, conferences 
 proposed by League to En- 
 force Peace a continuation 
 of, 122; international tri- 
 bunals set up by, 128-129. 
 
 Hague Convention, First, In- 
 ternational Commission of 
 Inquiry created by, 111- 
 112. 
 
 Hague Tribunal, international 
 disputes settled by, 99-100, 
 112-113. 
 
 Hall, G. Stanley, paper on 
 " Psychology and War " by, 
 204. 
 
 Hapgood, Norman, quoted, 166. 
 
 Harden, Maximilian, quoted 
 on militarism, 189-190. 
 
 Hatred, false view of patriot- 
 ism as, 244. 
 
 Heroism, not caused by war, 
 208. 
 
 Hobbes, theory that warfare 
 is natural state of man, not 
 proved, 247. 
 
 Hobson, John A., the "moral 
 absolute" of, 63; books by, 
 cited, 135, 136, 236. 
 
 Holt, Hamilton, quoted on 
 League of Peace, 87-88. 
 
 Home Rule for Ireland, would 
 not fall within jurisdiction 
 of League to Enforce Peace, 
 182. 
 
 Howe, Frederick, Why War? 
 quoted, 231, 236. 
 
 Hughes, Charles E., reference 
 to speech by, 290. 
 
 Hugins, Roland, The Possible 
 Peace, cited, 164. 
 
 Hull, The Second Hague Con- 
 ference, cited, 113. 
 
 Hull affair, a case submitted 
 
 to arbitration, 100, 182 ; ac- 
 count of, 302-305. 
 
 Human life, cost of war in, 
 46. 
 
 Human nature argument for 
 war, 220-230. 
 
 Hutchins and Harrison, His- 
 tory of Factory Legislation, 
 cited, 217. 
 
 Ibsen, Ghosts, quoted, 83. 
 
 Imperial ambitions as a cause 
 of war, 117. 
 
 Imperialism, militaristic ar- 
 guments based on doctrine 
 of, 231-239. 
 
 Inevitability of war, fetich of, 
 210ff. 
 
 Interdependence among na- 
 tions, 105-109. 
 
 International Commission, 
 provisions concerning, in 
 Wilson-Bryan treaties, 102- 
 104. 
 
 International morality, con- 
 temporary, 117-121. 
 
 Intervention by league of na- 
 tions, methods of, 132-139. 
 
 James, William, on "The 
 Moral Equivalent of War," 
 196; cited, 207; quoted on 
 the fatalistic view of the 
 war function, 228. 
 
 Japanese question, an example 
 of case to be settled by in- 
 ternational tribunal, 126- 
 127. 
 
 Jefferson, Thomas, advice of, 
 not pertinent to-day, 83-84. 
 
 Jingoism a quality of false 
 patriotism, 245. 
 
 Johnson, Alvin S., article 
 "War and the Interests of 
 Labour," cited, 29. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Jordan, David Starr, The 
 Blood of the Nation, quota- 
 tion from, 212. 
 
 Judicial tribunal, interna- 
 tional, to be set up by 
 League to Enforce Peace, 
 100 ; difference between 
 functions of, and of Council 
 of Conciliation, 183. 
 
 Kansas, settlement of dispute 
 between Colorado and, by 
 Supreme Court, 101. 
 
 Kennedy, Charles Rann, The 
 Terrible Meek, cited, 246. 
 
 Key, Ellen, quoted on senti- 
 mental form of pacifism, 
 9-10. 
 
 Kropotkin, Peter, Mutual Aid 
 a Factor in Evolution, cited, 
 229. 
 
 Labour, plans of League to 
 Enforce Peace endorsed by, 
 294-296. 
 
 Labour and the war. See 
 Working classes. 
 
 Ladd, William, essay on a 
 Congress of Nations by, 92. 
 
 Lambert, Henri, article "In- 
 ternational Morality and 
 Exchange," cited, 232. 
 
 Law, Bonar, address by, en- 
 dorsing proposals of League 
 to Enforce Peace, 281-282. 
 
 Lea, Homer, The Valour of 
 Ignorance, quoted, 197-198; 
 on true patriotism, 245n. 
 
 League of nations, forerun- 
 ners of the proposed, 74-80 ; 
 formation of, a natural 
 step, 81: office of, 82-88; 
 early plans for a, 89-92; 
 present time not premature 
 for movement looking to- 
 
 ward, 92 ; idea endorsed by 
 President Wilson, 92-94 ; 
 methods of intervention to 
 be employed by, 132-139; 
 answers to questions of de- 
 sirability of, 150ff. 
 
 League to Enforce Peace, ac- 
 count of organisation and 
 programme of, Preface ; 
 President Wilson's views 
 expressed in address before, 
 93-94 ; International Judi- 
 cial Tribunal to be set up 
 by, 100; conferences of sig- 
 natory powers proposed by, 
 121-122; restraint of war 
 by a Congress of Nations 
 the central idea of, 128 ; at- 
 titude on armaments, 138; 
 and the problem of prepar- 
 edness, 139-146 ; stand 
 taken concerning efficient 
 preparation for adequate 
 national defence, 145n ; 
 question of workability of 
 programme of, 147ff; an- 
 swers to criticisms of name, 
 150-168; question of feasi- 
 bility of programme of, 168- 
 179; termed visionary and 
 a beautiful dream, 169; 
 principles of English Union 
 of Democratic Control com- 
 pared with those of, 174- 
 175; answers to three lead- 
 ing arguments against pro- 
 gramme of, 180-185 ; text of 
 speeches and letters en- 
 dorsing proposals of, 263- 
 301. 
 
 Lecky, W. E. H., on the moral 
 damage of war, 198-199. 
 
 Legislation proposed by 
 League to Enforce Peace, 
 122-126. 
 
 Lippmann, Walter, The Stakes 
 of Diplomacy, quoted, 236- 
 239. 
 
INDEX 
 
 327 
 
 Lloyd George, David, quoted, 
 168n; League to Enforce 
 Peace praised by, 181, 275. 
 
 Loeb, Jacques, refutation of 
 argument for war as a bio- 
 logical necessity by, 203- 
 204. 
 
 Lowell, A. Lawrence, quoted 
 in favour of proposals of 
 League to Enforce Peace, 
 84n, 297-299. 
 
 Lynch, Frederick, article by, 
 cited, 17n. 
 
 Lynchings, viewed as moral 
 throwbacks, 215. 
 
 M 
 
 Marburg, Theodore, articles 
 by, cited, 125. 
 
 Martens, Frederic de, idea of 
 Commission of Inquiry 
 credited to, llln. 
 
 Martin, Mrs. John, Is Man- 
 kind Advancing? cited, 223. 
 
 Masefield, John, description of 
 war by, 193-195. 
 
 Materialism, argument of, for 
 militaristic policy, 248 ; out- 
 worn creed of, upheld by 
 Germany, 254-255 ; gospel 
 of, opposed to Sermon on 
 the Mount, 255. 
 
 Mental hook-worm disease, a 
 characteristic of some sup- 
 porters of militarism, 226. 
 
 Might-makes-right argument 
 in creed of force, 248. 
 
 Militarism, first article in 
 creed of, that war is de- 
 sirable, 189; what consti- 
 tutes, 189-190; views of 
 supporters, quoted, 190- 
 193; war is inevitable, the 
 second article in creed of, 
 210 ; third article, that priv- 
 ilege is an advantage (im- 
 perialism), 231; fourth ar- 
 
 ticle, that states are natural 
 enemies, 240; fifth article, 
 that might makes right, 248. 
 
 Military force as a method of 
 intervention by: league of 
 nations, 136-139. 
 
 Mixed commissions, in nine- 
 teenth century, llln. 
 
 Monroe Doctrine, position of, 
 under programme of League 
 to Enforce Peace, 182-184. 
 
 Montesquieu, cited as to war 
 spirit in monarchies and 
 peace spirit in republics, 
 165n. 
 
 Moral damage of war, 198- 
 200. 
 
 Morals, fashions in, 117-118, 
 214. 
 
 Moral suasion, one method of 
 intervention by league of 
 nations, 132-133. 
 
 Moses, Mpntrose J., Maurice 
 Maeterlinck, quoted, 114. 
 
 Myer, F. W., poem Saint Paul, 
 quoted, 223. 
 
 Myers, D. P., account of Dog- 
 ger Bank affair by, 302-305. 
 
 N 
 
 Nasmyth, George, Social Prog- 
 ress and the Darwinian 
 Theory, cited, 228. 
 
 National distinctions, fear of 
 effacement of, as a reason 
 for opposing League to En- 
 force Peace, 153. 
 
 Nationality, part played by 
 extravagant ideas of, in 
 creed of militarism, 240ff. 
 
 Nations, interdependence of, 
 105-109; league of, see 
 League of nations. 
 
 Neutralisation of buffer states 
 and of sea highways, a 
 question for Council of Con- 
 ciliation, 125. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Nietzsche, enthusiasm of, for 
 war, 192-193. 
 
 Nobel, Alfred, wrong reason- 
 ing by, 158. 
 
 Non-Intercourse with outlaw 
 nations, as one method of 
 intervention by league of 
 nations, 134. 
 
 Northcliffe, Lord, on effect of 
 the war on national effi- 
 ciency as opposed to class 
 distinctions, 33. 
 
 Novicov, War and Its Alleged 
 Benefits, quoted, 201; dis- 
 tinctions between varieties 
 of forces emphasised by, 
 229n. 
 
 Open door, a question for sub- 
 mission to proposed Council 
 of Conciliation, 125. 
 
 Ostracism of outlaw nations, 
 as a method of interven- 
 tion, 133-134. 
 
 Pacifism, derision of, upon 
 outbreak of war, 5-6; an- 
 swers to charge of failure 
 brought against, 6ff; confu- 
 sion of, with sentimental- 
 ity, 9-11; must make way 
 for new kind of statesman- 
 ship, 11. 
 
 Patriotism, false doctrines of, 
 a cause of war, 117; false 
 doctrines of, in creed of 
 militarism, 240ff; need of 
 new principles of, 242; neg- 
 ative character of old, posi- 
 tive character of new, 243; 
 falseness of notion of, as 
 hatred, 244; false type of, 
 fostered by pride, prejudice, 
 envy, jingoism, and fanat- 
 icism, 245. 
 
 Peace Congresses after the 
 war, 50-51. 
 
 Penn, "NYilliam, " holy experi- 
 ment in civil government" 
 of, 92. 
 
 Political parties, proposals of 
 League to Enforce Peace en- 
 dorsed by, 291. 
 
 Political equality of women, 
 effect of, on war, 40-41. 
 
 Political status of workers, ef- 
 fect of war on, 26-33. 
 
 Praises of war, 189-193. 
 
 Preparedness, relation of 
 League to Enforce Peace to 
 problem of, 139-146. 
 
 Press, power wielded by the, 
 to mould public opinion, 20- 
 21 ; failure of, to prevent 
 present war, 21-23. 
 
 Pride, prejudice, and patriot- 
 ism, 245. 
 
 Psychological argument for 
 war, 220. 
 
 Psychology of war, 204-205. 
 
 Public opinion, failure of force 
 of, to prevent war, 21-23 ; 
 hope placed in pressure of, 
 in the future, 23; unorgan- 
 ised and uninstructed con- 
 dition of, 130. 
 
 Questions suitable for settle- 
 ment by international tri- 
 bunals, 125-127. 
 
 R 
 
 Race discrimination, a ques- 
 tion for Council of Concilia- 
 tion, 125. 
 
 Religion, reasons for impo- 
 tence of, to prevent war, 
 12-19. 
 
 Renan, Ernest, quoted on mil- 
 itarism, 190-191. 
 
INDEX 
 
 329 
 
 Republican party, ideas of 
 League to Enforce Peace en- 
 dorsed in platform of, 291. 
 
 Root, Elihu, endorsement by, 
 of proposals of League to 
 Enforce Peace, 286. 
 
 Ross, E. A., Latter Day Saints 
 and Sinners, cited, 210. 
 
 Ruskin, John, praise of war 
 by, 191. 
 
 Russia, proposals of League 
 to Enforce Peace endorsed 
 by Foreign Office of, 282- 
 283. 
 
 S 
 
 St. Pierre, Abbe Castel de, 
 early peace project of, 89- 
 91. 
 
 Schiller, F. C. H., cited, 79. 
 
 Schools, needed reformations 
 in, certain to follow the war, 
 20. 
 
 Schreiner, Olive, Woman and 
 Labour, quoted, 40-41. 
 
 Secrecy in diplomacy, 56-57. 
 
 Sentimentality and pacifism, 
 9-11. 
 
 Ste-shooter diplomacy in pio- 
 neer America, 98. 
 
 Slavery, abolition of, cited to 
 show that deep-rooted cus- 
 toms can be changed, 218- 
 219. 
 
 Sleeping-sickness of the brain, 
 disease shown by certain 
 defenders of militaristic 
 creed, 226. 
 
 Socialists, and the war, 24- 
 .25; proposals of League to 
 Enforce Peace endorsed by, 
 in French Parliament, 296- 
 297. 
 
 Social morality, evolution of, 
 117-118, 214. 
 
 Social ostracism, one method 
 of intervention by league of 
 nations, 133-134. 
 
 Sovereignty, false doctrines 
 of, a cause of war, 117. 
 
 Spencer, Herbert, Principles 
 of Sociology, cited, 140 ; on 
 disadvantages of war, 202; 
 Data of Ethics, cited, 229. 
 
 Stakes of diplomacy, the, 236- 
 239. 
 
 States, ancient and modern 
 leagues of, 74-80; proposed 
 league of, a new departure 
 and yet a logical step, 81 ; 
 office of a league of, 82-88. 
 See League of nations. 
 
 Statesmanship, new brand of, 
 needed after the war, 50- 
 57. 
 
 Story, J. P., quoted on the in- 
 evitability of war, 210. 
 
 Stowell, Ellery C., criticism of 
 League to Enforce Peace by, 
 169. 
 
 Straus, Oscar, article '* The 
 Rebarbarization of the 
 World," cited, 140. 
 
 Supreme Court of United 
 States, a tribunal for ad- 
 judication and settlement of 
 interstate matters, 95-96, 
 101. 
 
 Switzerland, application of 
 federative principle in, 76- 
 77. 
 
 Swope, H. B., Inside the Ger- 
 man Empire, cited, 26. 
 
 Taft, William Howard, quoted 
 on setting-up of an interna- 
 tional judicial tribunal, 101 ; 
 article " The League to En- 
 force Peace Made Plain," 
 cited, 154; The United 
 States and Peace, quoted, 
 167; quoted on proposals of 
 League to Enforce Peace, 
 283-284. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Tina, Count endorsement by, 
 of proposals of League to 
 Kn force Peace, 278. 
 
 Tolstoy, principle of, of oppo- 
 sition to use of force, un- 
 tenable, 162. 
 
 Treaties, reliance placed upon 
 nations' keepings, 185. 
 
 Treitschke, Politics, cited and 
 quoted, 72, 153; praise of 
 war by, 191-192; quoted on 
 the object of government, 
 251. 
 
 Trial by battle, settlement of 
 disputes by, 97-98. 
 
 Union of Democratic Control, 
 England, principles of the, 
 174-175. 
 
 United Netherlands, an exam- 
 ple of application of federa- 
 tive principle, 77. 
 
 United States, development of, 
 from a federation of states 
 into a nation, 77-80; as a 
 leader in a world federation, 
 83-88; principles of federa- 
 tion illustrated by, 95-99; 
 alliance between European 
 powers and, as an objec- 
 tion to League to Enforce 
 Peace, 153-158; effect of 
 programme of League to En- 
 force Peace upon, as regards 
 Monroe Doctrine, 182-184. 
 
 Values claimed for war by 
 apologist* for militarism, 
 
 Venezuela Boundary case, ex- 
 ample of a question sub- 
 mitted to arbitration, li::;n. 
 Militarism the reli- 
 gion of, 253. 
 
 Visionary quality attributed 
 to League to Enforce Peace, 
 169-171. 
 
 W 
 
 Wallace, Alfred Russel, books 
 by, cited, 223, 247. 
 
 Walsh, Walter, on the moral 
 damage of war, 199-200. 
 
 War, reasons for failure of 
 pacifism to prevent the pres- 
 ent, 5-11 ; why Christianity 
 did not prevent, 12-19; mi- 
 potency of culture and edu- 
 cation against, 19-20; in- 
 efficiency of the press and 
 public opinion, 20-23 ; power 
 of public opinion against, in 
 the future, 23; failure of 
 labourers and Socialists, 
 24-26; effect of, on eco- 
 nomic and political status 
 of workers, 26-33 ; reasons 
 for failure of women to pre- 
 vent, 34r-35; effect of, upon 
 progress of Feminist Move- 
 ment, 35-39: results to be 
 foreseen concerning, when 
 women attain political 
 equality, 39-41 ; business 
 and, 42ff; money cost of, 
 43-45; other costs of, 45- 
 47; diplomacy and, 49ff; 
 programme to prevent in fu- 
 ture, 71ff; diagnosis of 
 causes of war, 116-117; 
 common contemporary view 
 of the present, 118-121; re- 
 straint of, by a Congress of 
 Nations, the central idea of 
 League to Enforce Peace, 
 128; occasions when justi- 
 fiable, 168; what is meant 
 by " making war," 172 ; 
 praises sung of, 189-193; 
 real horrors of, 193-196; 
 values claimed for, 198; 
 
INDEX 
 
 331 
 
 moral damage of, 198-200; 
 arguments pro and con, 
 200-209 ; supposed inevi- 
 tability of, according to 
 militarists, 210; imperialis- 
 tic arguments for, 231-239. 
 
 War Loans and War Finance, 
 cited on cost of war, 44. 
 
 Wars that are justifiable, 168. 
 
 Washington, George, Farewell 
 Address quoted on alliances 
 with foreign nations, 85n. 
 
 Wells, H. G., article "As the 
 World Lives On," cited, 26. 
 
 Williams, Talcott, article 
 " Disentangling Alliances," 
 cited, 154. 
 
 Wilson, Woodrow, The State, 
 cited, 77; quoted on entan- 
 gling and disentangling al- 
 liances, 84-85; speech on 
 America's foreign relations, 
 quoted, 86-87; idea of a 
 league of nation's endorsed 
 by, 92-94; on America's 
 part in world affairs, 105- 
 106; quoted on impossibil- 
 ity of United States remain- 
 ing neutral in any future 
 war, 155n ; on democracy as 
 the best means of preven- 
 tion of war, 165n; League 
 to Enforce Peace endorsed 
 by, 181 ; text of address and 
 note 'endorsing proposals of 
 League to Enforce Peace, 
 263-274; message of, ap- 
 proved by Socialist group in 
 French Parliament, 296-297. 
 
 Wilson-Bryan treaties, an ap- 
 plication of idea of a Com- 
 
 mission of Inquiry, 101- 
 102; provisions of, 102-104. 
 
 Women, reasons for failure of, 
 to preserve peace, 34-35 ; re- 
 sults of the war on advance- 
 ment of, 35-39; natural at- 
 titude of, toward war, 39; 
 effect foreseen of political 
 equality of, in doing away 
 with war, 40-41. 
 
 Woolf, L. S., Shaw's introduc- 
 tion to International Gov- 
 ernment by, quoted, 98-99 ; 
 cited, 123; quoted in con- 
 nection with Dogger Bank 
 Commission, 303-304. 
 
 Workability of plan of League 
 to Enforce Peace, 147-180; 
 answers to three chief argu- 
 ments against, 180-185. 
 
 Working classes, failure of, to 
 prevent the war, 24-25 ; po- 
 litical weakness of, 25-26; 
 effect on, of coerced co- 
 operation due to the war, 
 27-29 ; awakening of, to fact 
 of fictitious value of war to 
 themselves, 29; significance 
 of spreading revolt of, 
 against war, 30; how the 
 war enhances value and 
 prestige of men of the, 32- 
 33. 
 
 Zenker, E. V., definition of an- 
 archy by, 129. 
 
 Zimmerman, German Foreign 
 Secretary, endorses ideas of 
 League to Enforce Peace, 
 283. 
 
 Printed in the United States of America. 
 
T 
 
 HE following pages contain advertisements of a few 
 of the Macmillan books on kindred subjects. 
 
The European Anarchy 
 
 BY G. LOWES DICKINSON 
 
 Cloth, ismo, $1.00. 
 
 Mr. Dickinson's book gives in broad outline a just esti- 
 mate of the European concept of government what he 
 calls the European Anarchy with particular reference 
 to the underlying causes of the war and the possibility of 
 a movement toward better things in the future. The key- 
 note of the discussion is Germany, her expansion and her 
 desire for future expansion, what was legitimate in it and 
 what was disastrous, the influence of Bismarck, and Bis- 
 marck's success in divorcing from the German mind, the 
 old, generous idealism of 1848 in favor of a Machiavel- 
 lianism as far removed from the real needs of human 
 nature as any romanticism could be. Mr. Dickinson rec- 
 ognizes that the fundamental interests of the European 
 nations demand a united Europe, and wherever he criti- 
 cizes the past, it is only with the searching hope of recon- 
 struction for the future. 
 
 " Few books have been written that equal this one in breadth of 
 view, in judicial treatment, and in the wisdom of its remedial sug- 
 gestion." Argonaut. 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 Publiihers 64-66 Fifth Avenue Hew York 
 
Nationalism, War and Society 
 
 BY EDWARD KREHBIEL, PH.D. 
 
 Professor of Modern History in Leland 
 Stanford Junior University 
 
 Cloth, I2mo, $1.50. 
 
 This book is so calm and unbiased a treatment of the 
 subject as to be quite as acceptable and helpful to those 
 who are against peace as to its most ardent advocates. It 
 can be very satisfactorily used as a text in courses on the 
 subject which are being given so largely at our colleges 
 and universities, particularly during the summer school 
 sessions. The material is divided into three parts : Part 
 I. Nationalism. Its Character, Fallacies and Faults; 
 Part II. Modern Political and Social Changes and their 
 Reaction on National Rivalries; Part III. Progressive 
 Forces which Seek to Overcome the Faults of National- 
 ism and Establish an Order of Things in Agreement with 
 the Evolution of Society. An appendix gives a list of the 
 Pacifist publications, statistics in regard to the navy and 
 army appropriations of the principal Powers, and men- 
 tions the cases decided by the Permanent Court. 
 
 "Analyses the sentiment of nationalism and its consequences, 
 sketches the history of the peace idea, shows the difference between 
 the older idealistic and the newer practical pacifism, and devotes 
 a chapter to the effect of the war on the peace propaganda." 
 New York Times. 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York 
 
The Restoration of Europe 
 
 BY ALFRED FRIED 
 
 Cloth, I2mo, $1.00. 
 
 A recent work by the famous German historian, outlin- 
 ing the simplest and most feasible plan ever formulated 
 for a Federation of Europe. The English translation is 
 by Lewis Stiles Garnett. 
 
 " One of the most remarkable, if not the most remark- 
 able, of all the works of a constructive tendency which 
 have emerged from the smoke and din and horror of the 
 great war." New York Times. 
 
 "As the most logical exposition of the theory of the 
 real pacificist ' The Restoration of Europe ' stands boldly 
 out of the mass of literature that has been put out by that 
 party." New York Herald. 
 
 " A clear, reasonable and most convincing study of the 
 great world issue." Washington Star. 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York 
 
What is Coming? 
 
 BY H. G. WELLS 
 
 Cloth, izmo, $1.59 
 
 This book is a forecast of the consequences of the war. The 
 profound psychological changes, the industrial and diplomatic 
 developments, the reorganizations in society which are sure to fol- 
 low so great an upheaval of the established institutions, are sub- 
 jects to which Mr. Wells devotes his deep insight into men's minds 
 as well as his prophetic ability. Out of the materials of the past 
 and the history-making present, he constructs a brilliant and 
 persuasive picture of the future, as sure of touch as his daring, 
 imaginative essays, as full of interest as his novels. 
 
 Of special interest are his chapters on the United States, which 
 set forth the belief that here in the New World there is being 
 moulded a larger understanding of the kinship of nations; an 
 awakening from the great mistake that ideals are geographically 
 determined ; that in America there is the foundation of a capacity 
 for just estimate, which will ultimately find its way into the 
 handling and directing of international affairs. Out of the chaos 
 will come a dominant peace alliance, in which the United States 
 will take a leading part 
 
 "Wells speaks with remarkable sureness and conviction, nor 
 are his prophetic conclusions, founded on facts, reasonable re- 
 search and deep knowledge of human nature, to be doubted. The 
 voice of the prophet is well tempered and moderate, and the 
 nations discussed will do well to heed." Chicago Herald. 
 
 " Of widest interest and consequence are Mr. Wells's study and 
 discussion of those present international tendencies, nascent needs 
 ana movements toward friendship out of which will have to grow, 
 whose probable growth, indeed, he forecasts, some sort of leaguing 
 together of the nations looking toward a greater measure of peace 
 than the world has heretofore enjoyed." New York Times. 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York 
 
Women at the Hague 
 
 BY JANE ADDAMS, EMILY G. BALCH AND 
 ALICE HAMILTON 
 
 Price, 75 cents. 
 
 An enlightening account of the International Congress 
 of Women, convened at The Hague in April, 1915, and of 
 the journeys to warring and neutral countries undertaken 
 by two delegations from that Congress. Jane Addams' 
 chapter on " The Revolt Against War " is especially en- 
 lightening. 
 
 " Each writes forcefully from personal knowledge of conditions, 
 and the appendices voice the opinions of the Congress, particulars 
 of its sessions and resolutions adopted by that body." Baltimore 
 Sun. 
 
 The Forks of the Road 
 
 BY DR. WASHINGTON GLADDEN 
 
 Price, Fifty Cents. 
 
 Awarded the prize offered by the Church Peace Union 
 for the best essay on war and peace. 
 
 *'An inquiry, calm, concise, logical and marked throughout by 
 practical commonsense, into the reasons why war persists in a 
 civilization founded upon Christianity, and into the possibility of 
 such a guidanc of thought, conviction, and action as would do 
 away with armed conflict." New York Times. 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 Publiihers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York 
 
YP n, 
 
 130 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY