freedom of the seas, and this assertion has been put forward ostensibly on the basis of protecting neutral rights.

Obviously Germany could not have expected that its ruthless submarine warfare against commerce, involving the destruction of neutral lives and property, would serve as an inducement to the neutrals to renew their trade with Germany.

Germany's real position was that if Great Britain was unwilling to agree to abandon the blockade, the United States could not object to Germany's measures of reprisal without first bringing effective pressure to bear upon Great Britain to abandon the blockade. In other words, that objections to illegal measures of reprisal could not be urged by a neutral government which had submitted to the alleged illegal acts in consequence of which the measures of reprisal were adopted.

The stoppage in our trade in war supplies for the Allies has been the chief purpose of German diplomacy in this country ever since the establishment of the British blockade shutting out all supplies from Germany, and that purpose has been their guiding star in their controversy with us about submarine warfare.

The plan was simple and adroit. If it could be made to appear that Great Britain's blockade was the responsible cause of Germany's submarine warfare, then, in order to settle that question, it might be possible to arouse the United States to resentment against the British blockade, which the United States had characterized as unlawful. It was anticipated that Great Britain would refuse to abandon the blockade, and it was hoped that a refusal by Great Britain to do this would result in the adoption by the United States of an embargo against the exportation of war munitions to the Allies, which was the result chiefly desired by Germany.

This plan failed, but the purpose underlying it persisted, and the outcome serves to show how easily and how deeply the rights of a neutral nation may be affected in consequence of the violation of the rules of international law by belligerents in their treatment of each other.

It will be remembered that the government of the United States refused to consider Germany's suggestion that submarine warfare on commerce should be contingent upon securing relief from British interference with neutral trade with Germany, and

that when this suggestion was renewed in the Sussex correspondence the final reply of the government of the United States was that: it cannot for a moment entertain, much less discuss, a suggestion that respect by German naval authorities for the rights of citizens of the United States upon the high seas should in any way or in the slightest degree be made contingent upon the conduct of any other government affecting the rights of neutrals and non-combatants. Responsibility in such matters is single, not joint; absolute, not relative.

Germany made no reply at that time, and by reason of their inaction gained the credit for acquiescence. It now appears that they were waiting only because delay best suited their convenience. The German Chancellor said in March of last year that "when the most ruthless methods are considered as best calculated to lead to victory, then they must be employed," but they were not ready then they were merely biding their time and it was not until January of this year that they considered that the time had come. All this was frankly stated by the German Chancellor when on January 31, he officially announced that the moment for which they had been waiting to renew ruthless submarine warfare had at last arrived. He said:

Last autumn the time was not yet ripe, but today the moment has come when, with the greatest prospect of success, we can undertake this enterprise. We must, therefore, not wait any longer. Where has there been a change?

In the first place, the most important fact of all is that the number of our submarines has been very considerably increased as compared with last spring, and thereby a firm basis has been created for success.

And further:

The military situation, as a whole, permits us to accept all consequences which an unrestricted U-boat war may bring about, and as this U-boat war in all circumstances is the means to injure our enemies most grievously, it must be begun.

He seems to have made the German theory of the freedom of the seas sufficiently clear.

The usages and customs of war which have been worked out through centuries of development, and which at the beginning of the present war represented the enlightened thought of civilization as to what should be the rights and duties of belligerents toward each other and toward neutrals, seem to have been based for the most part on the theory that war is a game which must be played according to rules. Most of these rules have been wiped out by the vastness of the scale on which a war involving more than half

the world must be conducted, and by the destructiveness and frightfulness of the methods which have been introduced, producing an upheaval in the stability of things very like a tremendous process of nature which no man-made law can govern, and which is not amenable to the principles of morality or humanity. The only restraining influence is force against force.

ELEMENTS OF A JUST AND DURABLE PEACE

BY PHILIP MARSHALL BROWN,

Princeton University.

To talk of peace in times of peace is an agreeable form of speculation. To talk of peace in times of war is a solemn obligation. There must be preparedness for peace as well as for war.

Peace propaganda and discussion in the United States, while the world was at peace, or this country merely a neutral with the rest of the world at war, has been more or less academic and unprofitable. Sentiment has played a larger part than reason. There have always been earnest souls longing for peace-both spiritual and temporal. The horrors of war have accentuated these longings. The demand for the prevention of war, however, has become so fervid as to be hysterical. The cause of world-peace has been discredited, in part, by irrational denunciations of war, or ill-considered proposals for its elimination.

Now we are at war we should have a clearer mental vision. War is a marvelous stimulus to thought. It demands that we face honestly the great realities of existence. It does not allow us to linger in a fool's paradise. It compels us to test preconceived theories in a fiery furnace. They must undergo "ordeal by battle.”

We have had too much academic discussion, not only concerning peace, but in regard to almost every other field of human interest. In law, education, sociology, politics and religion, we have indulged in arguments, subtle distinctions, and intellectual refinements that have obscured the most elemental, primal truths. We have been in danger of losing that primitive power-shared by savages and children alike the power of distinguishing between right and wrong, justice and injustice. We have ignored the profound truth expressed by Montesquieu, that: "The sentiment of justice was created in man before reason itself." And war comes as a supreme corrective to this insidious academic anaemia. It hurls us into the center of the stupendous problems of the world. We are no longer onlookers and critics. The question of worldpeace is now our own practical problem. It has ceased to be a

matter for academic discussion. We have a right to be consulted and to be heard. We are bound to discover, if we can, the final goal of all this horror and heroism.

What, then, are "the elements of a just and durable peace?" The very phrasing of the subject is in itself illuminating. What do we mean by peace? What is international justice? What is durable in human affairs? What are the elements that guarantee peace, justice and permanency among nations?

First of all, we should recognize that peace is not the supreme aim of society. Like pleasure, contentment, character and virtue, peace is only a by-product. It is a result. It comes to the individual and the community alike when men live honestly and justly; when they have fought with the beasts at Ephesus, and conquered the forces of evil. Peace comes through warfare with vice and injustice. The supreme aim of society is not peace itself, but the triumph of justice. And men often know peace only when they are actually engaged in the fight for justice.

Nothing could have been more infelicitous than the choice of the name of "The League to Enforce Peace." The enforcement of peace would be as abhorrent as it would be futile. The idea is as offensive as the so-called "pacification" of peoples by the armies of tyrants or conquerors. There can be no enforcement of peace, no true pacification where wrongs remain unavenged, and justice does not prevail. The true aim of all who desire peace should be, not the enforcement of peace, but the enforcement of justice.

Justice, then, being the final goal of society, how is it to be attained? In any association of men for mutual benefit, the first aim is to determine their interests and rights. They then seek to find the most effective way to protect their rights.

In order to determine rights, it is essential that men should share common conceptions of rights and obligations. They must think fundamentally alike. In order to protect their rights, they must have a direct control over the making of law, its interpretation and enforcement. Men are unwilling to abdicate entirely their rights into the hands of any absolute, final authority. The sentiment of justice is, indeed, a primitive instinct. Though torrents of blood must flow, men will never cravenly surrender the cause of justice for the cause of peace.

If this be true within a nation, how much more significant is