hatreds, no international order need be expected to arise, or can arise, for centuries to come. We concede force in the argument, but are unwilling to accept the conclusion. Such obstacles may and should diminish, as they have done, and in excess they must be restrained. In this time of imminent peril for our civilizationfor it is no less than that-it is surely fitting that any future repetition of the present menace should be guarded against by measures more far-reaching than any hitherto employed. hitherto employed. Great occasions make great duties; and we believe that the world's intelligence and character are sufficient now to institute and sustain the new order; but this intelligence and character must be brought to bear upon the task unitedly. They must be mobilized. Or, rather, they should mobilize themselves. Then, as we believe, they could control. Then the greatness and newness and acknowledged difficulties of the end here sought would not be fatally discouraging. - The structure would, of course, be a new thing under the sun very new; and yet not altogether new. Its fundamental principles are all familiar; and their validity has been long attested. The problem is to extend their operations into a new field where their application is just as truly demanded and will prove to be just as beneficent. And, further, the more nations approximate proper conditions for getting along tolerably without a world organization the less objection are they likely to make to joining in the formation of one. Unwillingness of nations to adjudicate their differences before a presumably impartial tribunal would go far towards showing that the security of the world could not safely be trusted to their good will. But if we are not to have an effective international organization then what? This: the world-wide supremacy of the doctrine that Might Makes Right, which is imminent, and in a more developed, systematic and implacable form than ever before; and the teaching that the State can do no wrong, especially if it is successful; that the iron organization called the State is above all, accountable to none, the very source of law and morals; that whatever the State may command is right because the State commands it; that, under penalty of downfall, the State must continue to expand, and hence, from time to time, be under the necessity of subjugating or expelling its neighbors, to do which thus becomes its moral and even religious duty; that its attack should always be sudden and terrible, as unsuspected as possible and therefore crushing, that no opposition may dare even to raise its head, for opposition is something that a properly self-respecting and adequately prepared State cannot for a moment tolerate; that solemn treaties may be instantly broken at any time deemed opportune; and more of similar character. This is no fictitious picture. It is under- rather than over-drawn. Philosophies claiming all this openly or by implication derive much of their plausibility or strength from manifest excellencies of national character and institutions; but they are vitiated at the core. They should not control the future; they should not be permitted to control it. Among the reasons for this position, the world should note, as is now widely though still inadequately recognized, that when the rights of any nation may be ruthlessly invaded with impunity, the rights of all nations are in danger. A world that, if need be, will not rise in arms to prevent the devastation of an innocent nation may find itself enthralled in consequence. Many would have laughed in derision at this statement. three years ago. Few would do so now. So, aside from any immediate action of moral sense, how weighty here are plain considerations of expediency? At intervals early in the war, and much more frequently of late, leaders in all the chief belligerent nations have declared that the aim of their nations was merely to secure an enduring peace. Do they mean it? If so, imagine what their condition will be at the close of the war as compared with what it would have been if the controversies leading to it had been adjusted by a Union framed as we have endeavored to indicate. Now, how go at the task? The purpose here advocated should be officially adopted by all nations that can be induced to join in the movement, and the fact proclaimed to the world. This our country should do as soon as the most pressing measures now pending in Congress can be dis posed of. Such action would come with peculiar fitness from the United States of America. It would still more clarify, unify and strengthen our purposes. Such a goal should help, and probably would powerfully help, toward bringing the present conflict to a close. Let the point be clear. The new World League of Nations should, by established judicial procedure, have and exercise final jurisdiction over all international difficulties and disputes which prove to be incapable of other settlement. Right of selfdefense in any case of sudden attack should be recognized, and reasonable provision therefor should be permitted. Monster military establishments, however, should be strictly forbidden. This matter should be under careful World League direction, and if need be, under World League control. The Organization should have immediate control of adequate means, military and otherwise, for rendering its decrees effective. And as a matter of special import, it may be declared that at the close of this war the freedom of a nation to create as large a military establishment as it may choose must be forever past, or the war will largely have been fought in vain. All this is in recommendation of no scheme of stagnation. Ample provision can be made for healthful progress, for all needed readjustments. The best places of the world would not need to be left to monkeys, or to monkey men. The readjusting procedure, however, would be orderly, sensible, and decent. It would be like the legal putting of a railway plan here recommended is to be across a man's farm, even against found. his will, when the interests of the community or the nation require it. The farmer is paid for his land, the public interests are served, and people's better sense and better moral character are not outraged. No. This is not at all to repress healthful and honest ambition, or to shut people away from the sunlight. Quite the contrary. It is exactly in its contemplated provisions for all healthful growth that a large part of the claimed superiority of the Furthermore, such an organization, with such principles established before the world, would be an almost, if not quite, unparalleled educative and character-forming agency. Its successful establishment at the close of this conflict, perhaps as one of the articles of peace terminating the struggle, might be called a result commensurate with the magnitude and character of the upheaval. Can any lesser result be thus commensurate? Pan-Americanism as a Working TH Program By ALEJANDRO ALVAREZ Secretary-General of the American Institute of International Law. HE entrance of the United States into the European War, the greatest of human cataclysms, gives the war a new aspect, in its bearing upon both the belligerent groups. Indeed, the United States does not fight with a view to territorial increase or financial indemnity, nor in order to become an arbiter in European affairs. As President Wilson solemnly declared in his memorable Message of April 2, it is the aim of the United States to defend the rights of neutrals, and, at the same time, to serve the general interests of humanity by preventing a country, or a group of countries, from exercising domination over the world and by establish ing, on a new and more solid basis, the community of nations. The allied countries have accepted, without qualification, the noble ends proclaimed, from the beginning of the war, by the American Institute of International Law, a body composed of the most eminent publicists of the continent. The other group of belligerents has clearly manifested its determination to impose German supremacy and domination upon the whole world. Such being the new aims of the war, the countries that have remained neutral until now, especially those of Latin-America, cannot stand by with indifference in the face of a struggle that directly affects both their present interests and their future well-being. For this reason, some of these countries have already entered the war on the side of the Allies; and the others have given at least their moral support, declaring, however, that they will remain neutral so long as their rights be not violated, and that each one will defend its own rights in the event of violation. We feel that neither of these two positions meets the actual situation created by the world-wide catastrophe of to-day. Such neutral countries only have, therefore, a passive neutrality—that is to say a position of non-participation in the war -and not a juridical neutrality which presupposes recognition and respect for rights that are essential to such a neutrality, above all the right of free commerce now so entirely ignored by the belligerents, especially by Germany with her submarine campaign. Consequently, it has become to the interest of these countries, to agree on collective and solidary action, in preventing or checking the violation of the rights of any one of the States of this Continent, for the purpose of commanding respect for their rights and safeguarding their independence-which would be gravely threatened should Germany triumph in this war. Such a move would, furthermore, be in accordance with our historical traditions. In fact, a century ago the Nations of Latin-America struggled, as the United States before them had strug gled, not only for their independence, but for a new organization of the national and of international life. Following the example of the United States, they established the State on the basis of a liberal, republican and democratic constitution, something then unknown in the Old World. They proclaimed from an international point of view (again in accordance with the United States) their acquired right to independence, thus forbidding Europe not only to rule over them, but even to intervene as she does with European nations. This is the Monroe Doctrine as proclaimed in 1823, which, in consequence, is not a policy of the United States, as is ordinarily believed, but a principle of American International Law, since it was proclaimed by all the States of the New World. The relations of the United States with Latin-America, cordial as they were up to that period, relaxed with time, until even some degree of distrust was felt toward the imperialistic policy later developed by the United States, and, unfortunately, under the name of the Monroe Doctrine. However, from the beginning of the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the relations of the LatinAmericas among themselves and with the United States have assumed a new aspect that is characterized by the harmony of the interests they have endeavored to cultivate. This is Pan-Americanism in its varied phases, political, economic, judicial and scientific. In the present epoch we believe that all the States of Latin-America and the United States of America should be in accord on the following points, which embrace all the problems of the present and future international situation; such an understanding would be new and perhaps greater than any other manifestation of Pan-Americanism: (1) Why has not Japan, with her powerful army, entered the war, especially when through it she has already reaped important material advantages and is permitted to exercise certain supremacy in the Asiatic Continent? If the nations of America should take part in this great world war which is tending to check Germany in her onward rush for world domination, their safety requires that they shall not exhaust themselves to the point of falling under the menace of another domination. With all the belligerents exhausted in the war, the result will be that Japan, using her powerful army, can enforce her will in the future, or at least impose the conditions of peace as well as enforce her will in any conflict that may arise wherein she may be concerned. With this in mind, therefore, the States of our hemisphere ask for securities, that is to say, for Japan's effective engagement in the war, with all resources. (2) What will be the basis of the future international organization after the victory? A new organization of the State would be needed from the outset, an organization based on nationality and democracy; a strong organization, thanks to strength of state henceforth triumphant over an individualism that has had its day; but an organization without despotism, thanks to the rejection, by democracy, of a long - condemned absolutism. Then a new organization of international society founded, not, as it has been up to the present time in Europe, on political equilibrium, on alliances and armed peace; nor on Utopian schemes of universal federation of a "League to Enforce Peace," because this League would be in reality similar to the European directorate or to the Holy Alliance established in Europe after the Napoleonic Wars, and the result of which was the abusive intervention of the great Powers in both the internal and the foreign affairs of the small States; but an organization based upon institutions which by the very act of avoiding the hegemony of one State over others, would likewise avoid their rivalry, especially economic rivalry, and bind their common interests more closely together. These institutions should have, as far as possible, their efficiency demonstrated by experience, especially in America where the Society of Nations has rested upon more stable foundations. Experience also suggests the expediency of bringing into closer relation the various unions now existing (e. g., postal, telegraph); the creation of a commercial and economic union for the purpose of harmonizing the economic interests of the different countries; the improvement of the mechanism of the Hague conferences; the organization of a permanent court of arbitration; the creation in Europe and |