Council of foreign nations to plunge us into hostilities unless Congress decides that under the League the time has arrived for us to take action. . . .

We occupy a position of neutrality in the sense that we have belonged to no offensive or defensive alliances in Europe, and we stand indifferent between all the nations of other continents. The war will have reduced the power of all the European nations engaged in it. It will have cut down the flower of their youth. It will have destroyed in the thousands of miles of its train homes and industries of inestimable value. It will have burdened all the nations with debts unprecedented in history, and with an annual interest charge wellnigh impossible for them to meet. It has thus greatly increased the primacy of the United States among the powers of the world. This with its known judicial attitude toward all the nations will give the United States an influence for good and for the maintenance of peace that it has no right to withhold in preventing another world war, and another disaster like this to the human race.

The making of a League probably depends on our willingness to lead

the other nations into it. They will all have confidence in it if we join. Of course our first duty is to our people and our government, but our people have an obligation to do their share in promoting world progress, and when we have been blessed with such commanding power and influence, we should consider ourselves stewards in its exercise.

The President's functions of course cover a far wider field than that which the League has marked out for itself. He may properly act as a mediator between the warring nations and seek to bring about a peace that shall end the present horror, and in so doing it is of course proper for him to suggest the kind of peace and the details which he hopes may attract the acceptance of the parties. With respect to that part of the speech, the League to Enforce Peace takes no stand, however much its members may sympathize with, or differ from, his views. The League does, however, commend in the highest degree the advanced and courageous and patriotic position that the President has taken in urging that the United States lead in forming a world league to enforce peace in the interest of mankind.

"War is hell!"

"War is hell!" Well,

Who would not say The word is fitThat all war brings Of loss and pain, And naught of gain.

General Sherman.

And all its blight
And dark'ning night
And frightful things,
Are from the pit-
And rightly say-
""T was born in hell!"

-F. S. Shepard, Toronto, Ont.

A

LL international associations or agreements for the promotion of the world's peace have hitherto been voluntary; that is, there has been no sanction behind the decisions of the international tribunals or behind the international agreements.

If any signatory of the agreements or treaties, or any party to an arbitration, declined to be bound by a decision of the tribunal which had been created or by the provisions of an international convention, there was no means of compelling such signatory to abide by them, a fact which has been most dismally demonstrated since this war began.

The chief practical result of international associations for the promotion of peace has taken the form of arrangements for the arbitration of disputed questions. The subjects of these arbitrations have been limited and the submission of the nations to the international tribunals and their decisions has been purely voluntary. Much good has been obtained by voluntary arbitration. Many minor questions which a hundred years ago led to reprisals, and sometimes to war, have been removed from the region of armed hostilities and brought within the range of peaceable settlement. Voluntary arbitrations, which

have gone on in steadily increasing number and in the promotion of which the United States has played a large, creditable, and influential part, have now reached, as they were certain to do, their natural limits; that is, they have been made to cover in practice all the questions which can at present be covered by voluntary arbitration. The efforts which have been made to carry voluntary arbitration beyond its proper sphere-like our recent treaties involving a year's delay and attempting to deal with the vital interests of nations are useless but by no means harmless. They are distinctly mischievous, because in time of stress and peril no nation would regard them, and a treaty which can not be or will not be scrupulously fulfilled, is infinitely worse than no treaty at all. No greater harm can be done to the cause of peace between the nations than to make treaties which will not be under all conditions scrupulously observed. The disregard of treaties is a most prolific cause of war. Nothing has done more to envenom feeling in the present war or to prolong it than the disregard of the treaty guaranteeing the neutrality of Belgium and the further disregard of the Hague conventions, for this has implanted in the minds

of men the belief that treaties bring no settlement and are not worth the paper upon which they are written; that the only security of peace is to be found in the destruction of the enemy and in placing an opponent in a physical condition where he is unable to renew war, because there is no assurance of safety in a duly ratified treaty.

If, then, voluntary arbitration and voluntary agreements, by convention or otherwise, without any sanction, have reached their limits, what is the next step? There is only one possible advance, and that is to put a sanction behind the decision of an international tribunal or behind an agreement of the nations; in other words, to create a power to enforce the decree of the international courts or the provisions of the international agreements. There is no other solution.

I have given a great deal of thought to this question and I admit that at first it seemed to me that it might be possible to put force behind the world's peace. The peace and order of towns and cities, of states

and nations, are all maintained by force. The force may not be displayed-usually there is no necessity for doing so-but order exists in our towns, in our cities, in our States, and in our Nation, and the decrees of our courts are enforced solely because of the existence of overwhelming force behind them. It is known that behind the decrees of the courts of the United States there is an irresistible force. If the peace of the world is to be maintained as the

peace of a city or the internal peace of a nation is maintained, it must be maintained in the same wayby force. To make an agreement among the nations for the maintenance of peace and leave it to each nation to decide whether its force should be used in a given case to prevent war between two or more other nations of the world, does not advance us at all; we are still under the voluntary system. There is no escape from the conclusion that if we are to go beyond purely voluntary arbitration and purely voluntary agreements, actual international force must be placed behind the decisions or the agreements. There is no halfway house to stop at. system must be either voluntary or there must be force behind the agreement or the decision. It makes no difference whether that force is expressed by armies and navies, or by economic coercion, as suggested by Sir Frederick Pollock. It is always force, and it is of little consequence whether the recalcitrant nation is brought to obedience by armed men and all the circumstance of war, or by commercial ruin, popular suffering and, perhaps, starvation, inflicted by the major force of mankind under the direction of the League for Peace. It is ever and always force.

The

I fully agree with the President that if we are to have a league such as he describes and are to enforce peace, it must be done in just the way he has stated. As a general proposition nothing could be more attractive for those who desire the

peace of the world. I confess that when I first began to consider it some two years ago, it presented great attractions to me, but the more I have thought about it, the more serious the difficulties in the way of its accomplishment seem to be. This is a matter which can not be determined by verbal adherence to a general principle. Everything here depends upon the details. In the first place, a league to enforce the peace of the world and create a major force of mankind to carry out the purposes of the league, must be made by treaty or convention among the nations agreeing. The agreement must be of the most solemn and binding kind. When disputes arise among nations, whether such nations are members of the league or not, those disputes must either be determined by an international tribunal created by the treaties agreed to by the members of the league, or they must be settled by representatives of the league after due consideration. . .

If we are to adhere to the principle of the equality of nations laid down by the President, each nation, great and small, having equality of rights, would have an equal voice in the decision of the league, and a majority would set the forces of the league in motion. It might happen that the majority would be composed of the smaller and weaker nations, who, if they are to have equality of rights, would thus be enabled to precipitate the greater nations into war, into a war, perhaps, with one of the greatest nations of the league. In the present state of human nature

and public opinion, is it probable that any nation will bind itself to go to war at the command of other nations and furnish its army and navy to be disposed of as the majority of other nations may see fit? It seems to me that it is hardly possible, and yet in what other way can we come to the practical side of this question? In what other way are you to enforce the decisions of the league? If you undertake to limit the questions of disputes between nations which the league shall decide, you will not be able to go beyond the limits already imposed in voluntary arbitration and there will be no need of force. If a real advance is to be made, you must go beyond those limitations, you must agree to submit to the decision of the league questions which no nation will now admit to be arbitrable. You would be compelled, if a decree of the league were resisted, to go to war without any action on the part of Congress and wholly on the command of other nations.

Effective leagues for peace can not be sustained by language alone nor by moral suasion as their weapon. I reiterate with all possible emphasis that when they pass beyond the present voluntary stage they must be sustained by men and arms, and if we are ready to assume that responsibility then we may proceed to take the necessary steps, but not otherwise. .

I know well the question which can be put to me, and probably will be put to me here and elsewhere: "Are you, then, unwilling to use the

power and influence of the United States for the promotion of the permanent peace of the world? Not at all; there is nothing that I have so much at heart. But I do not, in my eagerness to promote the permanent peace of the world, desire to involve this country in a scheme which may create a situation worse than that which now exists. Sometimes it is better to "bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know not of." There are measures which will promote peace and which are wholly practicable. The first and most important is the protection of our own peace against foreign attack. That can only be done by national defense, and we have no adequate national defense now. We have no means of repelling the invasion of a great power as it must be repelled, and such weakness, combined with great wealth, constitutes an invitation and a temptation to war. Against that danger we should insure ourselves by adequate national defenses, and by reducing the danger of war being forced upon us we to that extent promote the peace of mankind and we likewise put ourselves in a position where our influence and power in the world for the maintenance of general peace would be enormously increased.

The next thing to which we ought to address ourselves on the conclusion of this war should be the rehabilitation and reestablishment of international law. International law represents a great mass of customs and usages which have become law and which have been observed, cited,

and referred to by the nations. International law has had an everincreasing power on the conduct of nations toward each other. The fact that it has been violated and disregarded in many instances during the present conflict is no reason for adopting the counsel of despair and saying that it is of no value and must be abandoned. It is of enormous value and should be restored and upbuilt on the conclusion of this war with all the energy and influence which we can bring to bear. We should try also, within the necessary and natural limits, to extend the use of voluntary arbitration, so far as possible, and create, as we can well do, a powerful public opinion behind the system. We can also do much in urging a general reduction of armaments by all nations.

It may be said that these are but slight improvements and but moderate advances. This may all be true, but what I propose has at least this merit-it is not visionary, and I suggest nothing that is not practical and reasonable and that will not, within its limitations, do substantial good. If there is any way in which we can go further without creating a worse condition nobody will be more rejoiced than I; but I do not wish to plunge blindly forward, misled by phrases and generalities, into undertakings which threaten worse results than the imperfect conditions now existing. We are as a people altogether too prone to be satisfied with words; to believe that we advance the cause of peace or any good cause merely by shouting for it.