Few of us need to be reminded that the time was when individuals took the settlement of their personal grievances in their own hands. In the tenth century trial by battle was sanctioned by the state. The disputants went to the public field and fought it out. The judge had to adjourn court and render a verdict in favour of the winner. Men no longer appeal to the field of honour but to a court of justice. Individuals, for the most part, have learned to settle their quarrels, and to seek redress for injuries suffered, by law instead of war. It is now proposed that the nations go and do likewise.

The signatory Powers who covenanted among themselves to exhaust every peaceable means of settlement before going to war would constitute what President Wilson has felicitously called a league of honour. In the event of a signatory to the treaty creating the League of Nations threatening war against a fellowmember, without first submitting its dispute to public review and report, all the other members of the League would immediately join in bringing to bear both diplomatic and economic pressure to stop the would-be aggressor. If, after this joint protest and non-military coercion, the recalcitrant persisted with overt acts of hostility and actually commenced war, in violation of the terms of the covenant, it is proposed that all the other nations, in fulfilment of their treaty pledge, should, with their combined military and naval forces, come to the defence of the one attacked. Some students of the subject propose that this "mutual defence" stipulation apply likewise in the event of any member of the

Power. Some believe that the joint economic and military force of the states of the League should be used only to compel arbitration and enforce delay; others have become convinced that the whole procedure would degenerate into a tragic farce unless the decision of the international court were also enforced.

At the present writing it is the official position of the American League to Enforce Peace that the element of force should be used only to compel states of the League to submit their questions in dispute for preliminary enquiry. However, many of the most intelligent and influential members of that organisation are more sanguine of success for a less conservative programme.

An international constabulary, in any event, would have to be organised to give effective sanction to the terms of the covenant. And this will be true whether much or little is to be enforced; whether, after the war, we are to have an all-around reduction of armaments or a general increase in armaments; whether the several nations are all to retain their distinct military organisations or pool them into some kind of an international military establishment.

Some will ask, Is it proposed that peace should be guaranteed by force of arms? It is; but the arms would not be owned and controlled, absolutely, by an irresponsible imperial state. Pax Romana-or Pax Teutonicus-is precisely the method which Germany wants to impose on a cowed and subject world. It will never do in these times. No modern nation, not even poor, distracted Russia, would long submit to that kind of peace. The peoples of all free nations will refuse to be slaves

of the swind of Prossa E de chris ver coat they would pre fer TIL

But the method : Faz Romona bow then would peace be guaranteed by form of arms? Is it to be by the method known & E “armed peace"? Na, for an armed peace is the inevitable military erpression for the political system known as balance of power, CONCETT ing which the President has said. the great game of the balance of power has been forever discredited." The rivalry in armaments made necessary by this system is largely responsible for the present war. We must substitute a league of nations for the balance of power; co-operative armaments for competitive armaments: police force for martial force, and settlement by reason for settlement by might.

A German peace would mean a return to the balance of power and the panting race in armament building would begin all over again. This is especially true so far as America is concerned. If the Pan-German scheme succeeds, we shall, unless indeed we are ready to surrender all pretence to national sovereignty, be driven to the necessity of arming beyond the wildest imagining of the most militant-minded prophet of disaster. The choice for us lies between national military preparedness for war on an unprecedented scale and international political preparedness for peace of an unprecedented kind. We are confronted with the alternative of a retreat to the old idea of balance of power or an advance to the new idea of a league of nations. We cannot dig ourselves in between the two positions; the open space of No Man's Land is untenable. The future peace of the

wirid most be paraned by ** ** ternational svemunity bega

It is not my v dat academic faðm the medic philosophies of right or wrong as to force. Seide

maid of the malitis 402 right to employ force in defence crisation as against an outlaw Erikal, or an outlaw natin. The Justification of force is a worthr purpose. The instruments of force must be dedicated to the cause of law and order. It should not seem so surprising, on reflection, that we dare not put our trust in Christian sentiment or enlightened public opinion, alone, to prevent war: we do not pretend to maintain law and order within nations by good-will; we use force, police and militia.

It should not require any prodigal expenditure of thought to reach the conclusion that those who propose to end war by good-will and moral suasion are the visionaries who are blinded to the realities by the dar zling brilliance of their dreams. The position of the so-called "voluntary groups," who want to get along without the use of force, is identical with that of philosophie anarchism. Some day the world may be ruled by the force of love; but meanwhile why squander time loafing about the corridors of such an air castle? Force must be made to wear the trappings and become the obedient servant of reason and justice.

But, after all, these proposals covenants, courts, constabulary -are of a negative character. They are all calculated, as lets and hindrances, to postpone or prevent war. But peace is more than the mere absence of war. Some positive provisions must be undertaken; some seawall of community of interest must

be constructed if the world is not again to be deluged with a flood-tide of war: there must be international co-operation. Political autocracy is not the only cause of modern war. Privilege is Protean, taking many forms and shapes. Emperors are not the only arrogant monarchs and imperialism does not always wear the purple robe of dynastic ambition. There is such a thing as financial imperialism; there are czars of commerce and monarchs of the market. Ways and means must be discovered, or invented, to provide for change and progress. The road to peace cannot be paved with cannon-balls for cobble-stones. The parade of progress must not be between serried ranks and bristling bayonets. It is ardently hoped that the Council of Nations will labour to promote justice and discourage privilege. The axe must be laid to the very roots of the Upas Tree of greed.

Now it is quite possible that suggestions have been advocated for guaranteeing peace-such as, for example, the adoption of universal free trade that are more fundamental and far-reaching than the scheme of an international league. The immediate practicability of the plan, and not its logical cogency, should determine our preference. And this is equally true with respect to the particular plan of a League of Nations to which we give our adherence.

be a political superstition, but, even if it is, it must be reckoned with like any other superstition, and any attempt to ignore it is worse than superstition; it is either wilful prejudice or sheer stupidity. There are, however, some projects and proposals for a League of Nations, tentatively held as to details, which have been welcomed by responsible statesmen here and abroad. In this country there is the League to Enforce Peace, of which the Honourable William Howard Taft is the active president and Doctor A. Lawrence Lowell executive chairman.' In England there is the League of Nations Society; a Committee associated with the Fabian Society; and a Group under the chairmanship of Viscount Bryce. In Holland there is a society known as the Central Organisation for a Durable Peace, with branches in several countries. In this country, quite independent of the League to Enforce Peace, a private study group under the leadership of the Honourable Theodore Marburg, former minister to Belgium, has prepared a Draft Constitution for a League of Nations. which is now being studied by many of the chancelleries of Europe.

Membership in the proposed League of Nations is, of course, still an open question, which no private group is competent to determine. Probably the consensus of opinion among those who have given any thought to the matter is that an unregenerate Germany could have no place in such a League. This view was expressed by the President when in his War Message a year ago he said:

A steadfast concert for peace can never be maintained except by a partnership of democratic nations. No autocratic power

A considerable number of influential publicists and students of the subject incline to the view that the only League of Nations likely to be organised is a League of the Englishspeaking peoples, plus France. It is obvious that this question of membership in the proposed League must, for the time being, remain unanswered.

It is, of course, quite pertinent to ask whether the Great Powers will so far relinquish their sovereignty as to sign a treaty which will bind them in advance to arbitrate their disputes, particularly those involving vital questions of national purpose and honour. In reply, it may be said at once, that a number of the Great Powers have already expressed themselves some more, some less officially-as ready to share in the organisation of some such League as is here proposed. And so far as sacrificing a measure of sovereignty is concerned, it is perhaps well to remind ourselves that the interdependence of the modern world and the rapid spread of democratic sentiments have together conspired to

make the earlier idea of absolute sovereignty little more than a political heirloom.

Some have argued that even if the Powers did so bind themselves they would not hesitate to break faith when the test came. If that is so (and I for my part do not for a minute believe it is so) then why all this hullabaloo against Germany for breaking faith and invading Belgium! Of course, it must be confessed that nations before now, and other nations as well as Germany, have torn up treaties as scraps of paper. But the fact remains, and is easily verified, that the vast majority of contracts between nations have been scrupulously kept.

Americans will say they have already said it many times-that Washington warned our young Republic against the danger of entangling alliances with Old-World monarchies. But 1796 was a long time ago, and since then the American experiment has been quite universally approved. Our line is gone out through all the earth. The advice of Jefferson and Washington, that we come out and be separate; the admonition that we should not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers in democracy, though pertinent in the eighteenth century, is no longer pertiThe Mayflower has voyaged back to Europe freighted with liberty and democracy. As a matter of history we won our first fight for freedom by an alliance with France. Could Washington speak to-day he would doubtless hail the advent of a league of liberals to oppose mediaval monarchs. Did he not, in his day, lead thirteen colonies against the tyranny of a despotic sovereign? To-day more than thirteen nations are threatened by a tyranny far

nent.