the Articles of Confederation was full of trials and tribulations. For a long time it was a question whether in America we should have an aggregation of loose-jointed states, or whether a foundation for a real nation would be laid. Yet those architects of human society, to borrow an expression of Walter Lippmann, relative to Alexander Hamilton, who after our revolution held in their hands the destiny of this nation, did not shrink from undertaking the task.

It is objected occasionally that the new state would have no direct access to the sea. Access to the sea is important, but, with modern methods of communication, not as important as it was in the past. The sea after all is a means of communication; whether these means be the ocean, or the railroad, it makes little difference if the country is confronted by high tariffs. Again, the solution of this problem has been suggested by a number of writers, and by President Wilson in his address to the Senate, wherein he advocates the granting of economical rights of way to landlocked states in the following language:

So far as practicable, moreover, every great people now struggling toward a full development of its 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 territory it can no doubt be done by the neutralization of direct rights of way under the general guarantee 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.

It should also be remembered that a direct connection could be established with the new Yougo-slav state with its harbors on the Adriatic.

It is also true that the future Bohemian-Slovak state will have a German minority; but in central and eastern Europe hardly any state can be constructed without certain national minorities. In the present instance the minority is not as large as would seem on the basis of the false Austrian and Magyar statistics. But it will certainly be easier to safeguard the interests of a German and Magyar minority in a Bohemian-Slovak state than it would be to protect the rights of Bohemians and Slovaks in a deformed Austria, or to force Austria to become a federal state.

This question of national minorities will of course have to be worked out in detail, but judging from the way Bohemian cities and communes have handled the problem of German minority schools,

it may be safely predicted that there will be no oppression of German minorities, no more than there was during the centuries that Bohemia was an independent state.

A leading advocate of permanent peace recently suggested that the question of national minorities might be solved to a large degree by a system of judicious exchange of such minorities, or of various members thereof. This gentleman had in mind the situation in Macedonia, but the suggestion is worth considering in other connections. For instance, Vienna has a large number of Bohemians, and the question of the Bohemian minority in this city has always been quite acute. A large number of these people might be repatriated and their place taken by Germans living in Bohemia, who originally were colonists in any event. It goes without saying that such repatriation would have to be voluntary, but if once undertaken should be facilitated by the respective governments.

One cannot help remarking that prior to this war those now worrying over the possible oppression of a German minority by a majority of Czecho-Slovaks were little concerned about the oppression of the majority by the minority, which has been going on for centuries. It should also be noted that a policy of denationalization of other peoples is one peculiar almost wholly to the Germans. After all, there is such a thing as psychology of nations, and the Slavs have never been noted for attempts to impose their language upon other nationalities. Russia is not an exception to the rule, for her reactionary policies were largely due to the Junkers from Russian Baltic provinces and to the German bureaucracy.

The factors thus enumerated, the right of any nation to independence once its possibility is demonstrated, the necessity of dissolving Austria in the interests of permanent peace, I believe to be decisive of the Bohemian case.

I would not even fear the joining of purely German parts of Austria to the German Empire. This would carry the principle of nationality to its logical conclusion. It would perhaps strengthen Germany absolutely, but very seriously weaken her relatively. To the German Empire would be added a few million Germans, but it would be deprived of the support of a much larger number of Slavs, who are now being made use of to fight the battles of their bitterest enemy.

When we consider the Bohemian question in relation to the

whole European problem of small nationalities, it is easily seen that it is simplicity itself, for a reconstruction of Europe in accordance with the principle of nationality means also the freeing of the French and Danes in Germany, the creation of a Yougo-slav state and emancipation of Poland. All these questions, whether difficult or easy, must be faced unflinchingly.

Let us not forget that the Czech question is also one of restoration. The Hapsburgs were called to the Bohemian throne by the free will of the representatives of the Bohemian state, and they undertook by solemn oath and pledges to protect and safeguard the independence of this state. The violation of such pledges and the deprivation of the Czechs of independence by force, do not do away with their legal rights, so that the Bohemian case has the strongest possible legal sanction.

The fact that the Czechs at one time had a strong and powerful state, well organized, is also a sufficient proof of inherent political capacity.

Bismarck maintained that the power ruling Bohemia rules Europe. This best illustrates the importance of the Bohemian question as an international problem. Without an independent Bohemian-Slovak state permanent peace cannot be realized.

THE RIGHTS OF THE JEWS AS A NATION
BY J. L. MAGNES,

New York.

It is good American doctrine to hold that all nations, large and small, have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But many nations, either because of their own aggression or the aggression of others, have found and still find that this right is questioned. The possible difference between today and yesterday is that, particularly since the aims of the present war have been formulated, the big nations say that they have less inclination than before to dispute the rights of small nations.

Aside from political and commercial reasons, this recognition of the rights of small nations may be a reaction from the effects of our mechanistic, technical civilization. It may be that even the

big nations instinctively feel that man does not live by bread alone, but that in each nation, however small in number or deficient in mechanical efficiency, or backward in politics, there are distinctive qualities of spirit, the loss of which would be a loss to the spiritual treasures of mankind. But the natural right to live, and to seek liberty and happiness, is different from historical or political rights. Just what rights a nation's history gives it is questionable, and a matter that has usually been determined by the arbitrament of arms. Our discussion is an attempt to determine what the rights of small nations ought to be without resort to force. In order to do justice, this should be done for each nation by a member of that nation.

Let me try to do this in a measure for the Jews.

But the question is asked immediately: Are the Jews a nation? This brings us to the confusion and looseness in the use of the term nation. We shall probably have as many definitions of the term as there are nations themselves. For myself, I regard as à nation any considerable group who regard themselves as a nation as they themselves define the term. Any other conclusion is, it seems to me, the approved method of setting up the straw man to knock him down. If we examine our speech, we shall find that we use interchangeably the terms nation, nationality, people, race, ethnic group, state, citizenship, country, land. If the Academy can bring some order into this confusion, many persons and nations meaning the same thing might be spared the humiliation of fighting one another. Until then, all attempts must prove fatal to set up dogmatic criteria by which a "nation" is to stand or fall, or to be measured, in order to be entitled to the rights of a nation. It may be that, measured by the standards of the big nations, the small nations ought not to be called nations at all. But that the small nations are an existing fact and are something or other, by whatever name they be called, is clear. It therefore seems to me that we are not far afield if we regard as nations such considerable groups of persons as regard themselves as nations, however they themselves may define the term.

Take the Jews for example. Not all of them regard themselves as a nation. Yet the overwhelming majority-some millions, in fact-do. And what is of equal importance, these millions want the Jews to continue to be a nation, i. e., they have the national

will-to-live. Under these circumstances, is it not rather academic to question whether or not the Jews are among the small nations? Many Jews object to classifying the Jews as a nation because the word has political implications. In American usage we say that a man cannot have a dual nationality, i. e., he cannot owe political allegiance to more than one state. The word nation and its derivatives are so bound up with the conception of political allegiance to the state that many Jews fear that the termnation as applied to the Jews would only subject them to the unjust charge of owing allegiance not only to the American State, but to a Jewish political nationality as well. From this point of view the use of the term nation in connection with the Jew is, indeed, confusing and apt to lead to misunderstanding. Those Jews who regard themselves as a nation certainly do not wish to imply a divided political allegiance on the part of any Jew.

If the term people instead of nation is used of the Jews, the matter becomes much simpler. What "national" elements has this people?

The Jews may be said to be of the same race. This does not mean that they are a pure race, or, indeed, that there is any such thing as a pure race. Nor does it mean to imply any mystic quality in the conception of race. It means merely that for many centuries the Jews have, as far as they were able, married among themselves. In fact, their religion in its earliest records and up to the present day makes it imperative that they should.

The Jews have a distinctive language, the Hebrew. Whereas many Jews are ignorant of Hebrew, this language has never ceased to be a spoken language among them. Moreover, it has always been and it now is their chief language of literary and spiritual expression. It is an impressive bond of unity among Jews. But not only have they a "national" language. They seem also to have a "national" language sense, i. e., they have in many respects (and for this they have been ridiculed and condemned-unjustly, in my opinion) made languages out of the old Greek, the Persian, the Spanish and the German. The Jewish-German, for example, i. e., the Yiddish, is a distinctive Jewish language spoken by millions of Jews, and by Jews alone.

The Jews have a common history, i. e., they are conscious of a common past, and their present day life is made up in large measure