ity are seen to be human, not sex, attributes. But when we regard the field of humaneness, is there not scientific, biological ground for claiming, without rancor, that women are more humane than men? Men can build cities, assemble machines and create rare harmonies. But they may not know the miracle of having a little child wrought slowly within them, an experience carrying with it a peculiar psychological as well as physiological enrichment. They may not know the tenderness that giving sustenance and ministering to a little one bestows. They may not envisage the Heaven that lies in a child's eyes and that leaves some of its radiance, trailing clouds of glory, in the mother's. More social than women? Yes. Association in industry for many years, while women worked separately and individually, has socialized men first. But as humane? No. Because women have stood so closely related to the humanities, because a woman's body is the aqueduct of life to every mortal, she is and must remain the High Priestess of the humane. If conditions had been reversed, for instance, and women had been the ruling sex for centuries, it is not possible to imagine that the race would still settle its difficulties by the ancient process of massacre. The humanity of women would have prevented. As humane as woman man is not and perhaps never may be, except through the most heroic effort upon his part and the most conscious patient education of

man upon hers. Even though it hurts both men and women, man must be taught a new table of human values, and taught by women. Emancipated women must stop being followers, submissive subjects to ideals that they know to be outgrown and evil, and, listening to the inner voices of nature, must teach men by creating new ideals, new estimates of life that alone may give security to the children of the future. The humaneness of women, functioning for society, must be wrought into the foundations of the new world state.

What do we mean by humaneness in government? We mean that there must be a new and compelling emphasis in public affairs. Because man's part in the creation of life is minor, because his time has been given largely to accumulation and guarding his accumulation, his regard for life has been minor. In consequence, we have had a system of government erected with the emphasis laid upon protecting wealth rather than upon protecting humanity. The cheapness of life has indeed been every day's tragedy. The whole edifice of government has been erected upon the foundation of the sacred conservation of property. What is now needed is a new decalogue of values with the emphasis laid first and foremost upon the necessity for the sacred conservation of life.

Surely this great truth must soon break through the consciousness of the myriads of earnest women who have so faithfully helped to sustain the war:

that the principle of life is placed largely in women's hands; that it is meant to be a continuing principle, and that in order that it continue, unbroken and assured, even to the humblest worker, women must not only give life but must guarantee it. Women must end wars by aiding in organizing constructive peace. For this reason have they come into the kingdom. For this supreme purpose have they had their long, dark struggle for human rights that ultimately they might assure, to all mankind, this greatest of all human rights the unbroken gift of life.

The ideal of a league of all nations offers to guarantee life so far as it is possible to guarantee it in a world where false valuations have so long maintained. Its general establishment, upon truly democratic principles, offers the one, the only, practical possibility of preventing war. For this reason, its success should be of the most vital interest to women, and they should force themselves to study its doctrine, to help overcome its difficulties and to spread its principles as the highest form of present day patriotism and racial duty

CHAPTER II.

EXISTING INTERNATIONAL FORMS.

"What we want is the reign of law based upon the consent of the governed sustained by the organized opinion of mankind." President Wilson's Mount Vernon Speech, July 4, 1918.

F course to propose to "organize the opinion of mankind" before the world was sufficiently unified to hold a common opinion would have been folly. To talk of a Community of Nations when several weeks were spent in sailing from America to Europe would have been anticipating invention. But steam and electricity have changed all that. When George Washington was inaugurated, the news required three weeks to travel from the Capital to Boston. To-day, the President of the United States speaks in the morning from Paris to the dock strikers in New York, and before night the strikers return to their work. Once, months were required to send a letter from the United States to Hawaii; recently a whisper over a wire was heard from Washington to Honolulu. Immigration, also, has drawn the peoples of the earth together, and has not been confined to America, although America has been the great melting-pot of nations. In fact,

modern methods of travel and communication have transformed and unified the world until we are in reality one people, with different tongues, perhaps, different religions, but with common aims and with one land to dwell in which must be made safe and hospitable for all.

The main criticism made against a League of Nations is that in spite of this drawing together of peoples, international action against war is impossible.

This chapter is to show that already we have international action in many fields, while in others equally important, we still suffer from lack of unified agreements.

Perhaps no part of our political structure has been found so defective from lack of organization, as the framework of our foreign relations. The war has taught us that our Foreign Policy is worse than chaotic. It is still individualistic and monarchial. In its internal relations, each state has worked out a degree of harmonious adjustment to modern conditions. But in its external affairs, states have not yet evolved common, co-ordinating principles. In the telephone period of evolution, each nation manages its foreign relations as though it were still in the stage-coach In consequence, the destinies of millions of people are left, not in the hand of representatives elected by the will of the people, but in the hands of representatives of a small though ruling class,

era.