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