gress is the complete exposition of her spirit: "We are accepting this challenge of hostile purpose because we know that in such a Government, following such methods, we can never have a friend; and that in the presence of its organized power, always lying in wait to accomplish we know not what purpose, there can be no assured security for the democratic governments of the world. We are now about to accept the gage of battle with this natural foe to liberty, and shall if necessary spend the whole force of the nation to check and nullify its pretensions and its power.... We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make. We are but one of the champions of the rights of mankind. We shall be satisfied when those rights have been made as secure as the faith and the freedom of nations can make them."

These words will ring for generations to come, as they rang through the world when they were first uttered, as among the most sublime expressions of the devotion of a nation to the noblest moral ideals, and its willingness to stake its all on their accomplishment against a predatory foe.

2. In the second place, we must name as marking one of the great ethical gains of the war that a new conception has been driven home to the heart

of man of what we may call the moralizing of war. This process has been going on for centuries in the development of international law and in the decisions of successive conventions, first of the leading powers at Geneva, 1865, later at the successive Hague Conventions where all the nations of the world were represented. At first sight it may seem as if this war signalized the destruction of this process. Chivalry, which came to life on the fields of France and Flanders and flourished there "when knighthood was in flower," has been done to death, trampled in the very mire of her birthland by the German spirit. The story of German atrocities not simply against civilians, but even in the act of war, is black indeed. The frequent killing of the wounded, the occasional crucifying of living men, the raiding and shelling of open towns, are all contradictions of that sentiment of humanity which had come to prevail on the field of battle, even in the heat of the fight. The sudden use of deadly gas marked a new era, not only in this war, but in the history of Germany's destruction of chivalry.

The rule of the Allies in meeting these manifestations of diabolism has been perfectly simple. Wherever an act of Germany has been such as to give her armies a military advantage and to threaten defeat of her foes, reprisal in kind has been necessary. Gas has been answered by gas. But where

the act does not yield military advantage, the case has been less clear. As a rule the Allies seem to have decided to avoid reprisal in kind. If the French have occasionally dropped bombs on open towns in Germany, the act has been very rare and goes against the grain of the national character. The rule they have observed is to select only those objects which are of military importance for their attacks; that the neighboring civil population is terrorized is perhaps a welcome by-product of their policy. Where civilians have been killed, the Allies are quite willing to confess it as a regrettable accident. The difference between the German moral character and that of their foes is vividly expressed in the utterance attributed to a British officer. Someone was urging that the British and the French should treat German prisoners exactly as their prisoners were treated in Germany. The story of this treatment is extremely painful and shameful. The British officer replied, "Yes, I suppose we ought to do it. But then, you know, we can't do it!"

We must be profoundly thankful that in the face of severe temptation and constant trial of patience, the Allies have striven to maintain the highest standards that have been hitherto attained in the moralizing of warfare. The contrast between the two methods stands before the world, and is giving to humanity everywhere a lesson in prac

tical ethics which will undoubtedly influence history forever.

3. The ethical progress of humanity is further discovered in the definition of the purposes held by the Allies and America in their prosecution of the war to a victorious issue. In the first place, when they speak unanimously of the defence of democracy, this is no mere form of words or vacuous ideal. Democracy for the self-governing peoples of the world is a spiritual and solid reality of infinite worth. As a method of government it has its own difficulties. It has certain weaknesses when compared with the directness, rigidity, and superficial efficiency of an autocratic government. And of these the democracies of the world are more keenly aware than their critics in imperial palaces. The history of every democracy in the world reflects a systematic effort to correct defects in its government. For the defects are not inherent in the theory. They arise from the imperfections of human nature as it pursues far-off ideals. To overcome them step by step, through self-criticism, humiliation, discussion, even internal disturbance, is itself a noble and lofty ethical task, the highest yet presented to the living conscience of a nation.

On the other hand, the defects of autocracy are inherent in the theory, and utterly incurable by any process of history. The very right of some one family and its chosen advisers to rule a whole

nation autocratically and without responsibility has become in the presence of constitutional monarchies and democracies an actually immoral conception. The evil of it becomes visible in two irresistible tendencies which not merely haunt the heart but drive the will of every autocracy. The first is that of subordinating other interests to the ambition of the rulers. It is practically impossible for the autocrat to interpret the highest good of his people apart from his own personal glory. The other tendency flows from this, and was noted by President Wilson in his address. It consists in the formation of secret purposes concerning the relations of the autocrat and his people to other nations and their interests. These secret purposes become policies, they guide the making of treaties and the forming of alliances, they infect with their poison every form of relationship between that State and all others. The old but potent spirit is passed on from one generation to another. Continuity of will is maintained, working in this sinister and menacing manner upon the life of other peoples.

The present Kaiser is himself the loudest proclaimer of these very facts. He has boasted in speech after speech that he maintains the continuity of the history handed down to him by his predecessors in the Kingdom of Prussia. For him this continuity in the autocratic will is a supreme virtue instead of a crime against the world. With him