fabulous; her workers intoxicated with high wages; her many industries turned into fountains of war material; her whole government centralized and bureaucracized to the limit; her responsible leaders clothed with almost unlimited authority; America occupies a proud but perilous place.

The great danger is that a so-called "democratic peace" will involve America in socialistic, political and economic complications calculated to undermine her institutions.

And what is a "democratic peace," pray? Why democratic? Is this a democratic war, and therefore there must be democratic peace? Why not plain "peace"?

It is not true that “our soldiers struggle to create a new internationalism which shall be embodied in a world federation with power as well as might behind its decrees." Our soldiers struggle to protect America from wrong, injustice and perhaps political, industrial and economic slavery. The peace that America wants and demands does not involve a League of Nations, or a World Federation. It is not a "democratic peace" but an "American peace" that we want. That is the corner-stone of the structure.

The American Economist predicts that the proposed League of Nations will be a failure, if its promoters insist upon incorporating in it the doctrine of free-trade; for such a reactionary doctrine will not be acceptable to the wise and far-seeing leaders of the respective nations. For that very reason America cannot afford to join such a league.

The policy of protection is manifestly liberal and progressive. If co-operation is a liberal doctrine, then free-trade is not liberal, for the latter increases competition.

The only kind of co-operation among nations that is practical and workable is that whereby each will protect itself to the fullest degree, and thereby become strong to contribute its utmost to the common good by international commerce based on fair trade and not free-trade; and fair trade must take into consideration labor and other costs of production.

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS IN JEOPARDY1

Manifestly not one problem but a whole group of most complex problems will unavoidably arise when there is an attempt to construct a League with all the incidents and powers which it must possess. And yet it is just such questions-generally touched by rude hands-that are the seed-beds of war. These difficulties and others which I need not name may be ultimately overcome. A great idea has come into the political world, and there may prove sufficient driving power, foresight, imagination, and tenacity of purpose to bring it to fruition. Obviously all that is proposed cannot be accomplished at once or, it is probable, without many troublesome preliminaries, repeated attempts, and much effort. There is no example of an organisation equally comprehensive being constructed without long preparation. The Holy Roman Empire preceded the German Constitution created by the Peace of Westphalia. It was recast by Napoleon, and again by the Allies in 1815, and it did not take its present form until it had been repeatedly modified. The Swiss Confederation, as it now exists, is the last stage in a development going back to the League of the three Communities in 1291. drawn from the United States of America are deceptive. There were attempts at federation before the Colonies separated from the Mother Country. Penn and Franklin preceded the authors of the Declaration of Independence, and the loose confederation of 1781 led up to that which exists to-day. The elements of "The Federation of Europe” do not yet exist. The phrase may be a useful or pleasing metaphor; passed off as a reality, it is a delusion. Experience in constitution-making seems to prove that what is small and fragile at first may have unlimited power of growth, while that which is huge at its birth is often a short-lived monstrosity. The more the programme of the League is studied the more apparent is it that the advance must be by slow stages. "Supernationalism" must come gradually.

Analogies

It is noticeable that of late counter-proposals are coming to the front. There are suggestions for the establishment of a

1 By John Macdonell, Editor of the Journal of Comparative Legislation and member of the Sub-Commission to South Africa. In Contemporary Review for August, 1918.

League of Neutrals; the Armed Neutrality of 1780 and 1800 is to be revived with new strength. It is not improbable that, if the League of Nations were likely to be formidable, German diplomatists would counter it by declaring themselves in favor of such a scheme, which would enable them to bring forward, under the name of "freedom of the seas" proposals intended to cripple the naval-power of England. Dr. Shadwell has thrown out the idea of "the creation of a new balance of power on a world-wide scale by the formation of two Leagues of Nations, which might be called the Land League and the Sea League, because the first would be connected by land and the second by sea. It would not mean real peace, but it might prevent minor wars and preserve the world from war for a long time."

These are only two examples of schemes which may be used to defeat or delay the League of Nations if its friends ask too much. The question presses, Could not something useful, though necessarily imperfect be done with little delay? Could not the Entente Powers continue to act together after peace, and by joint economic pressure carry out the main object of a League of Nations? Exercised by the United States along with the other Allies, it might against some countries be irresistible, The chief possible forms of it are these: (a) Entire stoppage of intercourse; (b) refusal to admit ships of the offending nation to the ports of members of the League; (c) differential dues against the offender; (d) refusal to supply raw materials; (e) refusal to admit emigrants; (f) refusal to allow loans to be brought out or securities to be quoted. I admit that the history of nonintercourse measures is not encouraging. They were tried twice by the United States, and with indifferent success. The first Embargo Act was intended by its author, Jefferson, to be a substitute for war. It was, he said, to save the nation at once from risks and horrors of war, and to set an example to the world by showing that nations may be brought to justice by appeals to their interests as well as by appeals to arms. The measure, no doubt, caused much waste, and roused angry feelings. It was imperfectly carried out. It proved injurious to friends almost as much as to enemies. The second Embargo Act of 1808 was also somewhat of a failure, according to Madison, "because the Government did not sufficiently distrust those whose successful violence against the law had led to the general

discontent which called for its repeal!" "The states themselves," says President Wilson in his History, "suffered more from the Act than the nations whose trade they struck at. America's own trade was ruined. Ships rotted at the wharves— the ships which but yesterday carried the commerce of the world. The quays were deserted. Nothing would sell any more at its old price. The Southern planters suffered even more keenly than the New England merchants. Their tobacco, rice, and cotton could not be sold, and yet their farm hands, who were slaves, could not be discharged and had to be maintained. The wheat and live stock of the Middle States lost half their market. It was mere bankruptcy for the whole country. No vigilance or compulsion could really enforce the Act, it is true. Smuggling took the place of legitimate trade."

This experience is not conclusive. Non-intercourse is only one of several practicable forms of economic coercion. The interdependence of nations is much greater than it was in 1808. At all events, economic pressure is not attended with some of the dangers inseparable from the creation of a large army placed at the disposal of the majority of the members of the League. Still, no doubt such measures would again fail if one half of the people were not in earnest in the desire for peace, and the other half were indifferent to anything but "business as before," which was the state of things when Jefferson applied economic pressure to England and France. With such conditions and such a prevalent temper no League of Nations is likely to succeed.

A great idea having entered the world, let it not vanish in misty sentiment, or fail by trying too much. There is a loss almost as deplorable as that of young lives-the suffering of enthusiasm which does not come more than once in several generations, to cool down or be dissipated, the failure to make use of a large idea of international relations, which has penetrated many minds never before open to it. Much thinking needed for the greater task has yet to be done; something smaller but not without value is possible; and the seed of further achievements may be sown without waiting. The basis of a League sufficient to do good work already exists.

"We have," to quote Lord Parker's wise words, "a number of nations, great and small, united by the common conception

of war as a danger to civilisation, and by determination that on no future occasion will they (out of regard for their private advantage) stand by and see wrong done by the powerful to the weak. My fear has been, and is, that we should lose the practical advantage which we have gained by a fruitless endeavor to secure theoretic perfection. Let us see if we cannot give greater permanence to the existing alliance which might well be done during the war and which, if done, might have a potent influence in settling the terms of peace rather than something which, if possible at all, is only possible after long negotiation and discussion, which cannot conveniently take place as long as the war lasts."

LORD CECIL IN FAVOR OF A WORLD LEAGUE1

Paris, Jan. 8, (Associated Press.)-Lord Robert Cecil, who has arrived here with the first section of the British peace delegation, expressed the opinion to The Associated Press today that the definite organization of a League of Nations was indispensable as a first step toward the conclusion of an enduring peace and a satisfactory settlement of international problems which had arisen out of the war. He made it clear that his statements were personal views, and not an attempt to give the views of the British Government.

"In my opinion, a League of Nations is necessary as the initial step in the peace negotiations," said Lord Robert.

"It is not only necessary to insure peace, but also for the proper treatment of many international questions which must be considered by the Peace Congress. Joint international action in an organized and recognized form is necessary in order to relieve millions of people who are at this moment destitute of food and other necessaries of life, owing to the unsettled condition of the world; to regulate permamently many vital common interests, such as international railways, ports, waterways, telegraph and wireless, the use of the air, public health, and the protection of women and juveniles in industry; and to discharge

1 From the New York Times, December 30, 1918 and January 10, 1919.