DANGERS IN A LEAGUE

Charles Noble Gregory, International Lawyer, Washington, D. C., Member National Advisory Board of The World's Court League.

I must reply to the first that, in my judgment, a league of nations which, to be effective, must have the power of determining the policy of peace or war for its members, is almost as full of danger as marriage for the individual, and, like that "holy estate," "ought not to be entered into lightly or unadvisedly."

I think it particularly dangerous for a country remote and hitherto without close alliances to be incorporated in a League with nations having propinquity and much more long established ties. In the nature of things they would be apt to act with closer concert and to absolutely control the new and remote associate as their interests and not his might require.

I think such league must and will be considered, but that it will depend on the forces which control a preponderance in the several nations. whether or not alliance in this close

manner is practicable or desirable. When I say this I have at least four of our present allies in mind. I am not prepared to prescribe the exact course which may be wise at the war's close, and those voluble gentlemen who are prepared at all times to lay our course in advance seem to me least qualified, very often, for wise leadership.

As to question "b" it seems to me that "international machinery" has been so largely shaped by the class which I have just mentioned, that it has proved almost worthless under the first great tests to which its modern inventions have been subjected, and is greatly discredited.

I think in reshaping it and I most earnestly hope that it can be reshaped-that those classes of men who must do and die in international conflicts must be more fully consulted than sometimes in the past, and those of us who, like myself, an old international lawyer, can only talk and live supinely, must greatly defer though we do not absolutely surren der, to that other class.

The one portion of "international machinery" which has survived in marvelous efficiency even this awful war is the charitable and eleemosynary. That shining fact gives no hope even now.

PROBABILITIES AND
CHANGES

Professor Elbert Russell, Woolman School,
Swarthmore, Pa.

Concerning question (b), judging by official utterances of public men on both sides, the world is pretty well prepared for a strengthening of the Hague Court by compulsory arbitration (with possible reservations as to certain classes of cases), for a re

duction of armaments, and for some form of joint control of existing armed forces for the common safety. How far the arrangements will go will depend largely on the length and issue of the war.

As to (a), the present alinements have demonstrated the community of national interests within large groups, i. e., that no nation can go it alone any more, and have shown the practicability of very extensive cooperation and unity of economic and military control. No present alliance is strong or fundamental enough to serve as a basis of international organization without great changes.

WE

E cannot tell when first the dream of an unbroken peace came to mankind. It is pictured in the Hebrew prophecies and perhaps in earlier writings. But it has never been realized. Primitive man struggled for existence, fought to obtain what he needed or desired and fought to preserve it from the grasp of others. He satisfied his desires at the expense of his neighbors and, when collected into nations, pursued the same policy, coveting the possessions of others and, if strong enough, taking them by force.

Nations have advanced from barbarism to civilization, in large part

have accepted a religion, the underlying principle of which is against self-seeking and inculcates peace, brotherliness and self-denial, yet although the doctrines of the Prince of Peace have been preached for 2,000 years everywhere, the warrior is still honored above the statesman or scholar or saint.

But the hope that universal peace would come has never been lost and efforts to bring it to pass have never ceased. At times its coming has been foretold, and in the years just preceding this war many thought it had really come. People have watched with confidence the influences that

seemed to make wars more and more improbable. It was believed that education, improved and widespread, would turn men to more useful things; that free intercourse would bring fuller understanding of neighboring nations; that commerce and finance, passing boundary lines, would form a net-work of interests in every continent. Numerous organizations and activities, once confined within the borders of the nations, had become international. Some of these are more or less official.

The Postal Union includes nearly all countries and in it governments have practically yielded control to the International Bureau. In matters of health and crime governments have cooperated. There are hundreds of voluntary international associations, engineers, architects, manufacturers, commercial travelers. Even sports have become international. Socialists and labor unions of different lands have been closely allied. Economic dependence has become universal among the countries.

The idea has prevailed that all this mixing of the different peoples would lead to the disappearance not only of national peculiarities but also of national feeling and patriotism.

None of these expectations have been fulfilled. The ties all parted easily when war was proclaimed. International socialism, thought to be the strongest of all, seemed to lose all influence.

Nationalism is stronger than internationalism and people are prepared to defend it at any cost.

It overcomes mutual understandings and sympathies between peoples and makes impossible the formation of a world state. For the spirit of nationalism is increasing. It is really of recent growth. Many new states have appeared on the map of Europe during the past century. Greece, Belgium, Servia, Italy, Germany, Rumania, Montenegro, Norway, Bulgaria, Albania and many others within very recent years, have heard the call of nationality and are seeking to secure it for themselves. Those who have led these new movements are termed Young Turks, Young Persians, Young Egyptians and, we might add, Young Indians. It is interesting to remember that among this group of non-Europeans the growth of national feeling has been coincident with the education of their young men in European lands. They absorb the ideas of the civilized countries and return home to conspire against them.

Practical efforts to establish peace have been numerous. I do not know that the Holy Alliance deserves to be numbered with them, but such was the professed object when the three rulers guaranteed to all nations the territories assigned to them by the Congress of Vienna. The proclamation of their purpose sounded like the trumpet announcing the coming of the millennium. They solemnly declared that the present act has no other object than to publish in the face of the whole world their fixed resolution, both in the administration of their respective states and in their political relations with every other

government to take for their sole guide the precepts of our Holy Religion, viz., the precepts of justice, Christian charity and peace. If there was any measure of sincerity back of these words, the conception which these rulers held of these Christian virtues must have been faulty. Their object was to maintain not only territories but also thrones and oppose change of gov

ernments.

Twice the nations conferred together at the Hague in what appeared to be sincere efforts to stop wars. Many more countries were represented at the second meeting than at the first, showing increased sympathy with the idea. A palace of peace was built and was dedicated with rejoicing and confident prophecies that great wars were of the past. Many treaties were exchanged providing for arbitration of disputes, and through the machinery provided by these conferences many differences were submitted to arbitrators and the decisions accepted by the parties. This seemed to be substantial progress, but really most cases. that were thus settled were not of great moment, for every treaty providing for arbitration so strictly limited its use that it could not touch matters vital to the nation. None of the countries had reached the attitude that was essential to peace, viz., a willingness to give up something to secure it. .

But never before in the history of the world has mankind so longed for peace and so earnestly sought measures to secure it, as at the present

time. For three years a war has been fought on three continents that has wrought vast destruction of lives and property and brought untold misery on multitudes of noncombatants. Nearly everyone, neutrals as well as participants, has known something of the evils war brings. The feeling is well nigh universal that there must be some united action by the Powers to prevent recurrence of such wars. Without this there would follow another period of competitive armaments and fierce animosities.

I do not know that in all the recent discussion of the subject any new ideas have been expressed or new methods suggested, but to-day more than ever before men are seeking definite plans for enforcing peace. The terrors of these times have carried men beyond theories and forced them to devise practical measures.

One result of the long continued and world-wide war has been the general acceptance of the idea that the United States should abandon its policy of isolation and participate in a concert of nations.

President Wilson, in an address to the Senate, a body which is joined with the Executive in treaty-making power, outlined a plan for united action by the nations to establish a world peace. For centuries men had longed for it and striven for it, but never before had the head of a great nation proposed it as a scheme of practical politics. The President recognized that in all lands people were taking it for granted that at the close of this war peace would be

followed by some definite concert of powers to bring this to pass. He declared that it would be the duty of the United States to have a part in this enterprise and add its authority to that of others to guarantee peace and justice throughout the world and that the principle and purpose and practices of this government had prepared the nation for this, but if the United States is to have a part in this, the peace established at the close of the war must be a peace that is worth guaranteeing and would win the approval of mankind. There is no doubt that this has given much encouragement to the advocates of an enforced peace not only because the United States can exert great economic and military strength, but still more because it alone of the great Powers would have no selfish interest in the settlement of disputes between European nations.

A society called the League to Enforce Peace has been organized in the United States. I have seen no statement of membership, but I presume it is large, and among its leaders are some of our most distinguished citizens. The object of the organization is to induce the United States to join a league of nations to enforce peace and that this country, abandoning its policy of isolation, shall accept this new and serious obligation that it shall intervene in the settlement of disputes between other nations even when its interests are in no way involved. The Society carefully defines what should be the purpose of this League of Nations. All justiciable questions between the

signatory Powers, not settled by negotiation, shall, subject to the limitation of treaties, be submitted to a judicial tribunal for hearing and judgment both upon the merits of the question and upon any issue as to jurisdiction. All other questions shall be submitted to a council of conciliation for hearing, consideration and recommendation. The Powers shall jointly use all their strength, both economic and military, against any one of their number who goes to war or commits acts of hostility against another signatory before any matter in dispute shall be submitted and decided. There is no obligation, evidently there is no expectation, that the armies provided for shall be used to enforce the award of the tribunal. Nor does there seem to be any provision for intervening in the disputes between countries outside the League or between a league member and an outsider.

Senator Shafroth (Col.) introduced a bill providing for a constitutional amendment so that the United States, under its treatymaking powers, could engage to submit disputes to an international tribunal and could contribute to the support of military establishments necessary to execute the decrees. Apparently, if this amendment was adopted, it would leave discretionary with the Executive and the Senate whether the United States would participate in joint action by the Powers in any special emergency. When we realize how changeable is public opinion in our land and that officials would be, in large degree,