re

quires a new "orientation" of the mind of the American people. We begin now to realize that Washington has been changing from a national to an international capital before our eyes. Into the balances of war we throw all our modern credit and news power, the vast resources of a continent, the skills of an inventive and enterprising people, the devotion of a nation-of-nations to ideals of freedom for all

men.

The immediate call is for actionloyal, universal service from every man and woman, young or old, according to ability and fitness, in order that principles of liberty and justice may prevail in international life. International mindedness will certainly be cultivated in the American back-yard garden, in relief work, in economic mobilization in everyday life, no less than in military sac

rifice during this war. International minded peace must come. Equipment for it will be universally demanded.

Contents of this issue of THE WORLD COURT MAGAZINE represent phases of the new American "orientation." Try reading aloud the war message of President Wilson, which Gustav Hervé calls the "Twentieth Century Charter of Humanity." Attention may be here called to interpretations of American relationships, beginning on pages 202, 209 and 237. The Comparative Chart of Plans for Better World Organization on page 222 is a unique historical feature of exceptional value. The summary of the Yale-Harvard Debate has lively interest. Our Washington correspondent gives an authoritative resumé of Latin-American Support of United States War Policy.

ment. Colonies take on new correlations with Mother England. Where will China come in to-morrow? White men, brown men, black men, yellow men, fight not as races against races, but in mixed array determined by socalled national loyalties and alliances. All sorts of men-the rank and file of mankind-must be thinking as never before that in fact they have more in common than they have against each other. The day of rebuilding is likely to find them more ready to accept and use means of international cooperation than many of those hitherto considered leaders of thought and action. It is quite possible that the congregation, so to say, will be considerably ahead of the preacher in that day.

Yet it seems to us a violent conclusion to declare that the increasing number of nations now cooperating to defeat the Central Powers already sets up any particular type of peace league. Alignment of nations in two fighting groups at present, in fact shows two leagues in action to enforce war. Moreover, the greatest phenomenon of the war is the rise of world-wide democratic passion in it, which will have much to do with de

termining the character of peace terms. Democracy's instinct suspects any regime that cannot stand on its own merits; it fears systems that require professional fighters to maintain them. Anybody can see now that the seething democracy which cropped out in the late Balkan Wars could not long be confined by such a treaty of enforced peace as the one which was dictated at Bucharest. Something less or other than a threat of another world-war held over the heads of nations may seem wise to representatives around the coming council table, as an inducement to agree on policies of peace which can be guaranteed for any length of time by all the nations involved.

Discussion of paper plans to be submitted to the after-war conference which will be empowered to act in the light of conditions then obtaining, we surmise will have greatest value if directed toward the elimination of irritants and the discovery of the minimum ration of digestible principles that will sustain national health and breed international building-temper.

"The world cannot be half democratic and half autocratic. It must be all democratic or all Prussian. The democracies of the world are gathered about the last stronghold of autocracy and engaged in the conflict thrust upon them by dynastic policy pursuing the ambition of rulers under claim of divine right for their own aggrandizement, their own glory, without regard to law or

justice or faith. The issue today and tomorrow may seem uncertain, but the end is not uncertain. No one knows how soon the end will come, or what dreadful suffering and sacrifice may stand between; but the progress of the great world movement that has doomed autocracy cannot be turned back or defeated. That is the great peace movement."-Elihu Root.

MANY foreign public men recog

nized qualities of statesmanship in Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States, long before some of his conspicuous countrymen were able to sense them. After his memorable address to the Senate on January 22nd, the press of other countries reflected a revised consensus of opinion that his Fabian policy in relation to the world war revealed rare though disturbing acumen. Imputations of indecision and mere expediency gave way on the one side to hopes that ultimately his detachment might show some path out of the world's morass, while on the other side desperate efforts multiplied to forefend or at least foil his penetrating diplomacy. When finally, in his patient judgment, the time had come for the United States to enter the war for humanity's sake, our President Wilson rose to the full stature of an international premier, with his inspired declaration: "the world must be made safe for democracy."

His words not only quickly rallied the millions of his countrymen to this new world standard. They singled out and defined the chief issue more clearly and convincingly to the world at large than any European statesman had done. Such leaders as Poincaire, Briand, Lloyd George, Asquith, Miliukoff, unstintedly acknowledged and welcomed this high service. On the other hand German official silence gave eloquent testimony to the character of the service, which was heightened rather than ob

scured by journalistic anathemas against such American interference in Old World affairs.

In fine, the soul of America spoke in the President's address of April 2nd, as Americans would have it speak, for freedom and justice to humankind. All our power in war and peace shall be exercised to free peoples from the evils of autocratic military dominion. This is both the broad extent and a suggestive limit to our cooperation with governments of like-minded nations. Such, however, is the great adventure to which we are called.

It will be remembered that when President Wilson made his much-discussed address before the League to Enforce Peace in 1915, the main drive of his offensive was against the kind of diplomacy involved in secret alliances, through which Eruopean state-craft had led peoples into the catastrophe of world war. "The peace of the world must henceforth depend upon a new and more wholesome diplomacy," he said.

Viscount Grey's favorable comment upon the idea of a League of Nations was diplomatically coupled with keen questioning as to whether the United States could be really depended upon to back up adherence to a league. Chancellor von Bethmann-Hollweg, also diplomatically speaking, bluntly announced Germany's willingness to take the lead of a force-league after the war. It was sufficiently clear to diplomats that leaders in the old balance-of-power game still thought of