when the war is over. Nobody realized where the Spanish war would carry us. We went into it in Cuba and came out in the Philippines. But this is how the thing looks now. The policy and the purpose I have explained are so broad and their application so universal that it is difficult to see how any event can change them.

In principle this policy and purpose have been endorsed by many of the leading European statesmen who may sit at the peace council beside the delegates from this side of the Atlantic. In his speech before the United States Senate, M. Viviani, the former premier of France and head of the French mission, said:

"Together we will carry on that struggle; and when by force we have at last imposed military victory, our labors will not be concluded. Our task will be — I quote the noble words of President Wilson to organize the society of nations. . . . We will shatter the ponderous sword of militarism; we will establish guarantees of peace; and then we can disappear from the world's stage, since we shall leave at the cost of our common immolation the noblest heritage future generations can possess."

And Russia has joined the consensus of the enlightened nations with this declaration by Prof. Milyukoff, first Foreign Minister of the young Republic:

"The definition by President Wilson of the purposes of the war corresponds entirely with the declarations of the statesmen of the allied powers: M. Briand, Mr. Asquith and Viscount Grey all expressed themselves continually on the necessity of seeking to prevent conflicts of armed forces by providing peaceful methods of solution for international disputes and creating a new organization of nations based

upon

order and justice in international life. The democracy of free Russia is able to associate itself completely with these declarations."

Our allies have accepted the definition of the high purpose of the war as it came to them from this side of the Atlantic. Now let us show them that we can wage war as well as analyze and define it.

SELF DETERMINATION 1

The task of the League of Nations called to decide the terms of peace will be as huge as that of the war which the peace will end. The issues as to Alsace-Lorraine, the Trentino and Trieste will be simple as compared with the Czecho-Slovak and Jugo-Slav questions. The restrictions of the Turkish domain, the protection and freedom of Armenia, the Balkan boundaries and the government of Albania will try the ingenuity of statesmen in working out a just result. Above all in difficulty will be the settlement of the questions as to Russia. Shall it be a confederation of States like ours, or shall they be independent? Who shall determine this?

"Let the people themselves decide," it is said. Every one agrees that this general rule should prevail in post-war arrangements. But how large or how small shall the unit of a people for such decision be? Shall units be racial or geographical? Suppose a people as small in number as the Belfast Orangemen compared with the whole population of Ireland insists on a separate government, though geography, 1 Philadelphia Public Ledger Oct. 3, 1918.

trade conditions and every consideration but religious difference and tradition require that the whole island be under one Government?

It becomes apparent at once that the general principle of popular rule is not a panacea and that many issues will have to be settled by the Congress of Nations, according to expedient and practical justice, over the objection of some part of the people affected. The result will illustrate the inherent error in the frequent assumption that a Government by the people is a Government in which that which is done is the will of each one. A practical Government by the people is a Government by a majority of the voters. The rest of the people must yield their will to the will of this majority. However, in the purest democracy, the voters are not a half of the population, and the prevailing majority is usually not more than 20 per cent. of all. The guide of the popular will is still less helpful when the issue is the fixing of the proper self-governing unit. In the intoxicating fumes of a new freedom, municipal Councils in Russia declared themselves independent governments. Should Lithuania, Esthonia, the Ukraine and Great Russia be separate entities? This cannot be certainly and properly determined by a plebiscite of the population of the particular district, if its relation to the neighboring communities or to Russia as a whole make it best for all concerned that they be united. More than this, an ignorant people without the slightest experience in the restraints necessary in successful selfgovernment and subject to the wildest imaginings under the insidious demagoguery of venal leaders may well not know what is best for them.

Thus, flowing phrases as to liberty and the rule of the people do not offer a complete solution for all the problems

which the world's peacemakers will face. Still, if we can make the adjustment to depend on just provision for the welfare of the peoples affected instead of on the greed of the parties, we shall secure an enormous advance over past international settlements.

PERIL IN HUN PEACE OFFER1

The European situation is working out exactly as one might have anticipated. Indeed, when we read the resolutions of the League to Enforce Peace, adopted in the convention which the League held in this city in May, their language is like a prophecy. The league in its platform said:

66

Apprehensive of the lure of an inconclusive peace, which would enable the present masters of Germany to continue their dominion of Central Europe and sooner or later again to menace the peace and freedom of the world, the league feels that our people should be forewarned in case Germany should propose to make peace on terms that might well deceive the unsuspecting. Suppose she should offer to retire from Belgium and France; to cede the Trentino to Italy; even to relinquish all claims to her captured colonies and to promise some kind of antonomy to the various races of Central and Eastern Europe. Such an offer would be highly seductive, and if we are not prepared to understand what it means might well beguile the Allies into a peace which would be inconclusive, because unless the principle of militarism is destroyed the promise would be kept no better than those 1 Philadelphia Public Ledger Oct. 8, 1918.

broken in the past. Autonomy of the other races would mean their organization for the strengthening of Germany until she had control of the resources of 200,000,000 for her next war. . . . Such a settlement would be a mere truce pending a strife more fierce hereafter. So long as predatory militarism is not wholly destroyed no lasting peace can be made.”

Germany now proposes an armistice in order to enable the representatives of the Central Powers and the Allies to negotiate a peace on the general basis of peace indicated by President Wilson in his address to Congress on January 8, 1918. This does not really commit Germany to anything except that she is willing to talk about the subject matter covered in the fourteen points by President Wilson in that address. It involves an interminable discussion of what his fourteen points mean and include. That address was made nearly nine months ago. It was made before the CzechoSlovak and Jugoslav movements had crystalized into a demand for independent governments. The President in his reference to a settlement of an Austrian peace asked for 'the freest opportunity for autonomous development.' Austria evidently looks to a confederation under the dual monarchy. We have now gone further as to the Czecho-Slavs and recognized their independence. The message of January 8 was made before the full revelations as to Germany's policies in respect to Russian and the Baltic provinces, which reek with bad faith, cruelty and a murderous plotting with the insane Bolsheviki against the decent people of Russia.

The President's fourteen points are stated in general words, the only ones which he could use at such a time. They are not stated in the specific terms upon which a treaty of peace could be formulated or upon which any offer of the