LEADING ARTICLES OF THE MONTH CAN A LEAGUE OF NATIONS PREVENT WAR? T HE proposed establishment of a League of Nations to put a stop to all wars in the future, is studied in some of its aspects by Prof. G. Sergi, of the Royal University of Rome, in Nuova Antologia. The writer recalls the efforts that were made not many years ago to broaden the scope of the various international scientific associations so as to make of them a foundation for an international association which, although not expressly a peace association should, nevertheless, lead the nations to this desired goal. In this connection he notes that even one of the ardent supporters of German Kaiserism, the eminent chemist, Professor Ostwald, had founded a journal to further the idea in Germany. As regards the more direct and practicable realization of the project of a League of Nations that is now so much agitated, Professor Sergi recognizes that it cannot be formed in a single day, nor can the difficulties involved be overcome at a single conference, all the more so as they cannot all be foreseen before the application of the agreements. The greatest of these difficulties will perhaps arise in what concerns the foreign relations of the several states, and as to their armaments; for the latter would constitute a serious danger if they were not limited to what is strictly necessary. The chief problem, however, regards the execution of the international laws, and of the decrees and decisions. It would be a great delusion to believe that the League of Nations should rest upon moral foundations alone. The law for the private citizen of a state has a material sanction, and a force which operates in case of disobedience, and without this it would be altogether illusory. Now international legislation, and arbitration like that of the Hague Conference, or a supreme court, would be merely formal institutions, and would lack the support of any executive power, if there were not some means of coercion, some means of enforcing the execution of what had been decreed, in case of refusal or disobedience. Professor Sergi does not believe it possible to constitute an international army that could serve as a means of coercion for any member-nation which might become insubordinate. It would be an extremely grave measure to make war on a nation that should attempt to disobey the international decrees. Such a nation could only be one of the great powers which had in secret armed itself for defense, while the other members of the League would only have such forces at their disposal as were requisite for the preservation of order within their boundaries. A conflict of this kind would result in a war almost similar to the one that has just been waged. Germany planned and prepared for the war, while most of the other nations were striving in every way to maintain a durable peace. Thus the aggressive act found them unprepared for defense. A possible solution of the difficulties involved in the coercion of a state that rebels against the decrees of the League is found by Professor Sergi in a proposition he has met with somewhere, but of which he cannot recall the origin. As the Romans had their "interdict of water and fire," so in the case of any state which refused to obey the international laws, there could be adopted an interdict of all commercial intercourse, a suspension of all international relations, which would paralyze all the external activities of the disobedient state, and would force it to yield to the will of the League. One danger would always remain. Should there be a nation perfidious enough to prepare secretly for war, it would not only fail to obey, but it would attack the other unprepared nations unawares, and would perhaps overcome them, at least at the outset. However, this secret preparation is unlikely to escape the prudent vigilance of the other states, and as soon as it was noted, it would serve as a signal for the proclamation of the interdict, which would be enforced after an interval, brief indeed, but sufficient to give the offending state an opportunity to come A to terms. Otherwise the interdicted nation would be constrained to cede, because of the grave situation in which it would be placed if cut off from all other nations, both by land and by sea. LATIN VERSUS TEUTONIC IDEALS RECENT work by the distinguished historian Guglielmo Ferrero, is the subject of an article in Revista Internazionale (Rome). The author seeks to present some of the striking aspects of European civilization in their relation to the great world conflict that has already passed through its most destructive phase, and we all hope is destined to eventuate in a better order of things for the entire world. The view-point of Signor Ferrero is naturally rather that of the historian than that of the politician, and is perhaps none the less valuable on this account at a time when the events of the present moment are so overwhelmingly impressive that it is not easy to see them in the light of historic evolution. He finds that what the ancients in the period of Rome's greatness pronounced to be corruption is what the world of to-day regards as progress, namely, the striving after increasing comfort, luxury, and pleasure; the headlong race for success, and the heaping up of money, which brings no peace to man. If these defects should prove grave enough to destroy the fabric of nations, our vaunted progress might not unjustly be termed corruption, for wealth is no index of the virtue of a people. Thus Italy, with a population of but 37,000,000, confined to a territory of little over 110,000 square miles, and which can neither show opulent industries nor large masses of capital, is none the less the inheritor and perpetrator of an old civilization, and holds her place in the ranks of the most illustrious nations. The merits of the Italian, which some almost look upon as defects, are simplicity of manners, economy, devotion to tradition and family usage. It is this that draws the Italian to agriculture, the primal source of the world's prosperity. True progress, Signor Ferrero finds, does not consist in the mere multiplication of machines and scientific discoveries. It consists in the logical sequence of the work of generations, by which, in spite of occasional set backs, the common patrimony of the human race continues to grow from century to century. Those whom we now denominate the ancients lived within narrow confines, subservient to the principle of authority; after the Renaissance, however, men began to perceive that new and powerful means had been placed at the service of their ambition, and above authority they raised the banner of liberty. But having once passed the boundary they became insatiable. The more they possessed the more they craved. So that quantity gained the victory over quality, as is the case in our modern civilization. The great historical transformation by which the ancient world passes into the modern world, dates from the discovery of America by Columbus. Until then Europe had indeed art, religion, philosophy and morals, but she was poor, worked little and slowly, and her energy was confined by innumerable laws, precepts and prejudices. After the conquest of a new continent she became bolder, and invented the word progress to designate the tireless search for riches and liberty. The struggle was of quantity against quality, and everything must be invented and produced quickly. Novelty, in contradistinction to the teachings of the past, was looked upon as the greatest of merits; only what was new, and simply because it was new, was considered better than the old. However, true glory and true greatness do not consist in number and quantity, but in quality, that is to say in perfection. In our day, while Republican France, where the sense of order and measure predominates, and England, where the great preoccupation is industrial growth and the jealous maintenance of tradition, had no longing for war, Germany, where the mystic principle of authority clashed with a perfect anarchy of tastes, aspirations and ideals, was forced to seek in war the realization of its future. German civilization had lost the sense of limitation, and had therefore lost the power to keep the problems of life within their normal boundaries, and this lack of equilibrium between intellectual disruption and strict political discipline gave birth to the devastating cyclone that has swept over Europe. It was the common belief that Germany was the model of order in Europe, but order is a word with many meanings. The German understood by it docile obedience to those in authority, but the Latins understood by it the realization that there are limits beyond which reason loses her sway. In 1900, it appeared that Germany dominated the other peoples of Europe, who were dazzled and intimidated by her power. But this power was only apparent, to such a degree that in 1914 a sudden mighty turn of the tide, one of the greatest revulsions in all history, served to change the face of things, and led millions of men to call down imprecations upon Germany as the terror of mankind. For the author this was a result of the conflict between two different worlds, between an ideal of perfection, that of the Latins, and an ideal of force, that of the Germans. HOW PRESIDENT WILSON THE HE famous French publicist, Émile Boutroux, a member of the French Academy, has written an article for a late number of the Revue des Deux Mondes on President Wilson as historian and national leader, on the occasion of the appearance in France of a translation by M. Désiré Roustan of Wilson's "History of the American People." This work, he maintains, gives the Frenchman a long-needed insight "into the American soul from the American's own viewpoint." Our President proves himself a clear interpreter of the national tendencies and inter-State and inter-regional policies, which, from the very founding of the nation, have eventuated in the molding of a closeknit Americanism that has derived valuable lessons from the experiences of its own past, and consolidated the qualities and aims of its conservative, its youthful, and to no small extent even its polyglot elements into the unified expression of American character. He is above all desirous of thinking, not in East-American terms, nor in those of the South, the West, or the North, but in all-American terms. His idealism combines what the diverse populations making up the United States have together contributed to the national spirit: the Puritan notion of duty and responsibility; the generous and humane democracy of the Mississippi Valley; the independent, equality-loving though conservative spirit of the South; and the practical activity of them all. President Wilson has ever been the foe of "capitalistic feudalism." and has always sought to establish a close union of the President with the nation from which he has emanated-that is, the realiza tion of a democracy not merely formal, but real; assuring every citizen in an effective way the exercise of his legitimate rights. Then, too, he has been tireless in his efforts to enhance to this end that education of the working class which does not aim only at making good workers in their respective employments, but at creating men capable of thinking, exercised in matters of thought, putting all their interest and ambition into these things. Such have been the views long entertained for his fellow-Americans by this "positive idealist." For Suddenly the European War arose. so humanitarian a mind, the thought of prolonged neutrality for America in that conflict of ideals was impossible. Having convinced himself that this war was really a contest between right and might, of liberty against tyranny, of spirit against matter, he deemed that America, in keeping out of the struggle, would yield herself up indeed to the materialism that menaced her from within; while by embracing the cause of freedom, she settled the problem of her destiny in the spirit dictated by her sense of duty and the example of her great forbears. In forming this judgment, President Wilson felt that he was in communion with his country's conscience. He spoke to it, and it accepted his inspiration; at the same time communicating its own to him. From the reciprocal action of the nation on its leader and of the leader on the nation, there resulted a decision which history will surely register as one of the most momentous facts of which she makes mention. It was not the will of an individual but that of a whole people which, conscious of its ability to accomplish any end, submitted humbly this omnipotence to the authority of the moral law and of the ideal. America, by following the exhortation of one of her national poets, has taken for her device the word "Excelsior!" Her nationality from this day forth means: Work, education, nobleness of soul, freedom, equal rights for great and small, good-will, humanity, mutual penetration of intel ligence and heart, a worthy and stable peace, assured to the world by the sincere and strong constitution of a rule of justice. AFRICA AT THE PEACE CONFERENCE LEADING British authorities on colonial matters are agreed that the German colonies in Africa must be under some form of international influence, but some of them advocate a fully fledged international authority with administrative powers, while others would go no farther than to set up an international "control." Just what is meant by this system of control, as opposed to actual administration, is set forth in the Contemporary Review by Noel Buxton, M. P.: The proposal is, briefly, on the political side, to leave the national sovereignties untouched, except as they may be changed by mutual concessions as distinguished from conquest; but to extend the area of neutralization so as to include the whole of tropical Africa-i.e., all Africa except the Mediterranean countries, Southwest Africa, the Union and Rhodesia. This neutralization would be made compulsory, and provisions made prohibiting the arming and drilling of the natives except for police purposes. The sanction would be invested in the League of Nations, so that it would be valid as long as the League existed, and a special commission would be appointed to supervise this arrangement and investigate complaints made by any one nation. On the economic side it is proposed to make the free-trade clause more explicitly practical by substituting the principle of equal economic opportunities. It is doubtful otherwise whether France would be willing to pass at a bound from high differential protective tariffs to free trade, but she might consent to levy the same tariff impartially on all comers, whether nationals or foreigners. And in this case the tariffs would soon come down. The arrangement, again, should be made obligatory-under the ægis, say, of a commission on raw materials set up by the powers constituting the League of Nations. Guaranteed by the League, this act might further be grounded on a general charter of native rights, guaranteeing them their communal ownership of the soil and its products, both against European and native exploiters. The League might have as its representative in Africa a permanent commission, which would send out inspectors to report on the condition of the natives under the various administrations; and it would set up a court of appeal before which breaches of the treaty would be brought for judgment. As to the disposition of the German colonies, this writer maintains that their future 1st be the subject of negotiation and that licy of rearrangement must be arrived possessions are to be annexed solely on grounds of conquest. In the opinion of this member of the British Parliament America is entitled to a special place in regulating the future of Africa by reason of her action in the past: She took an active interest in the partition of Africa among the powers which took place between 1880-90, and she was the first state to recognize the rights of the International Association of the Congo. It is certain that America will strongly oppose all imperialist schemes on our part, and that she will urge with equal insistence the policy of the Open Door. This was the attitude adopted by President Wilson in his historic message to Congress (January 8, 1918). His "program of the world's peace," as he calls it, contains the following article (No. 5): "A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the Government whose title is to be determined," and, as a necessary corollary to this colonial policy, he calls in Article 3 for "the removal so far as possible of all economic barriers, and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace, and associating themselves for its maintenance." This is the point of view, it must be remembered, of the predominant member of the Entente partnership, and it is obvious that at the Peace Conference she will be powerful enough to impress her opinion. Before the war, according to Mr. Buxton, Germany had adopted more humane methods in her colonial administration. The Center party and the Socialists insisted on bringing the Herrero atrocities to light and enforcing reforms. This English statesman declares that to exclude Germany from Africa altogether would be "essentially undesirable from the point of view of justice, security, and the general welfare." With a democratized Germany and a League of Nations, Mr. Buxton believes that a system of international control in Africa based on a real concert of all the powers is feasible. Germany, he maintains, should be permitted to acquire, subject to international control, “a sphere in Africa appropriate to her population and commercial resources." S ALLIANCES IN SCANDINAVIA HOULD the war-fostered Scandinavian coöperation in economic matters be allowed to give rise to entangling military alliances in the North? This question is discussed by Lieutenant-Colonel H. O. Wikner in the Svensk Tidskrift (Stockholm). In the minds of many Scandinavians, the danger of Russian expansional policy is yet to be reckoned with in the future; and there does exist, however remote, the possibility of war with Germany or even countries to the west. Should Sweden, under the shadow of such apprehensions, seek to ally herself militarily with her weaker Scandinavian neighbors to protect herself from invasion from the north, south, and west, and the use of the Åland Islands as the base of naval, and particularly of aerial, operations against her - capital? As far as Norway and Denmark are concerned, a defensive alliance with Sweden would be without marked advantage; Denmark would never dare to institute a hostile policy against any power to the south, certainly not against Germany; and Norway, dependent as she is on British support (if not virtual protection) for her great overseas trade, could be but little benefited by such an alliance. In the event of a German attack on Sweden, as an ally Denmark herself would soon be helpless, and in need of Swedish assistance; should Finland or Russia attack Sweden, Denmark would have to get German guarantees that her aid to Sweden would be unmolested. In case of war with a western power or powers, Denmark's chief assistance would be in the closing of the passages into the Baltic-a move in all probability, says the writer, as readily affected by Sweden alone. Norway might prove a more valuable ally. Besides, the Russian peril has always been of as much concern to the Norwegians as the Swedes; the Norse army and navy would be most important factors in an anti-Muscovite campaign. As a buffer state, too, Norway would offer considerable protection against invasion from the west; but she could hardly afford to ruin her maritime life in a struggle relatively so hopeless. No matter how strange it sounds, it nevertheless appears as if Sweden, in order to assume a safe and independent politico-military position, must go her own way as regards both Denmark and Norway. In this case, isolation and not union gives us strength. This circumstance is obviously peculiar; its principal reasons are to be found in Denmark's military helplessness towards Germany and Norway's sensitiveness to British maritime intervention. There is also a lack of outside dangers sufficiently threatening to all three of these countries. But a Russian program of expansion directed against Sweden is unthinkable except via Finland, which would anyway be an indispensable ally in a war against Russia. Swedish and Finnish naval forces could do effective work in bottling up the Russian fleet in the Gulf of Finland-especially through mine-laying operations and the larger part of the Swedish army could collaborate with the Finns in Finland, whose eastern border is penetrable with difficulty on account of the nature and fewness of the passes there, in the attempt to ward off the enemy from most of Finnish and altogether from Swedish soil. In other words, Finland, receiving the utmost of aid from Sweden, would be vitally necessary as an ally in holding the Russians at as great a distance as possible from Sweden by both land and sea. Moreover, in the course of a hypothetical conflict with Germany, the united FinnoSwedish fleet would afford greater protection to an endangered part of either country's coast-line than either fleet singly. Future developments will show whether the need for that alliance exists. But as for the Scandinavian economic alliances-is there any necessity for their continuance? Must the northern nations still depend on one another for partial independence of supplies from abroad? Though the effects of those alliances did not disappear after separate trade agreements were made with the Entente by Norway, Sweden and Denmark last spring and summer, yet there are Norwegians wishing for further unhindered economic approach to England-who hold that in the piping times of peace the North could never command the attention of the rest of the world as an economic unit any more than during the war, and that consequently the aforesaid alliances might as well be dissolved. In answer to this argument the Dagens Nyheter (Stockholm) contends that it is not made more impressive by insistence on the fact that the northern states cannot dispense with importation from without. They could not |