claim like treatment because of the scattered position of her colonial trade. Because of having practically but a single naval base, even a much smaller navy might give Japan an equal amount of protection, but she would insist upon a full quota.

Again America, in addition to her great seaboards on two wide-spreading oceans, has her distant possessions to protect. Should she again engage in war, it would not be improbable that she would again be opposed to the power which has twice imperilled her in the past, its great colony to the north and its ally, the new naval power in the Orient.

She could not agree to arrest further development with the possibility of being exposed some day to attack by such a united force, for in a such case, the abandonment of her possessions and the division of her forces along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts would become imperative and the consequences ineluctable.

Suppose that America did, in principle, agree to such a plan. How could a percentage of reduction be arranged that would be acceptable to America, when the navy of Great Britain is so much greater than that of America, and yet the latter has outstripped her in resources? If war is to continue as the arbiter of disputes, those nations whose resources are still plentiful will continue preparations, so that they may win from any possible adversary. They will not consent to confine themselves to a limited force, but will expect to employ, if necessary, their last man and last dollar of credit. Anything else would be simply to allow the dispute to be decided by a duel. Intelligence is far too advanced to revert to such processes of barbarism. The attempt is now to replace might by intelligent judgment, such as comports with our civilization.

But even suppose that a protocol were arranged recognizing that differences, when important, might continue to be determined by war and that America might arm to a certain limit only. Could it be expected that its ratification would be accomplished?

Would it be reasonable that the country of the greatest material resources should deliberately place itself in so disadvantageous a position? What would it gain thereby? At the most, it would be the reduction of the naval budget; but that is still so inconsiderable that there is no outcry against it.

As humanity is constituted, it could not be expected that a nation, because bound by a treaty, would refrain from further arming itself, should it perceive that it was about to be drawn into a war, its territory invaded and its property destroyed, while it still had abundant resources, for no interior force could thereafter repress such activities.

The law of self-preservation is still that of the masses and some excuse, probably based upon some peculiar disadvantage in the way in which the nation would be affected by such a convention, would be pleaded as a justification for a breach. To permit a nation to enter into such an agreement would hardly be honorable.

Finally, the suspicion under which each nation would be held by the others that it was exceeding the limit, would constantly give rise to charges of deception, even were very broad opportunities for inspection afforded.

The writer contends, that no conceivable proposition based on the limitation of armament, or partial disarmament, can ever reach the status of an agreement; and

even were such an agreement made, it would be of no value, as no dependence would be placed upon it.

If these reasons are good, it results that the situation must remain as it is with an unlimited right to arm, or that disarmament must be general (save always for internal police purposes and the prevention of piracy on the seas).

Non-Justiciable Cases

NATIONAL HONOR

Mr. Carnegie, in the address quoted elsewhere, made use of an old and almost forgotten truth that should clear away the barrier to the submission of causes to arbitration, or judicial decision, on the ground that they involve national honor, namely:

"Never did man or nation dishonor another man or nation. That is impossible. All honor's wounds are selfinflicted. All stains upon honor come from within, never from without."

The writer maintains that the sentiment regarding honor, is simply a false attitude that disappears as civilization advances.

In the early years of the American Republic it still obtained regarding personal honor, but it seems to have met its death blow when one of its most respected and beloved citizens fell by the bullet of one of unfavorable repute, and public opinion caused the latter to be abandoned to a miserable existence for the rest of his life; so, that, in the more advanced parts of the country, but few cases of the kind are recorded.

Public opinion is such that the individual feels that he would debase himself did he make a statement of another

derogative of character, unless it were well founded, and he guards himself from it; should he do so by mistake, he would be ready to humiliate himself by acknowledging his error and seeking to make reparation; while, on the other hand, were the statement true, the same public opinion would prevent the party affected from making any remon

strance.

Nations are subject to the same pressure of public opinion.

VITAL INTERESTS

The society of nations is so large and intelligence so widespread, that what can be termed "vital interests" are the interests common to all, or at least to the most progressive; and their solidarity under a world-wide convention can be depended on to uphold all such pretentions as are reasonable. It surely could not be maintained, that the safe-guarding of those that were unreasonable is so important, that it should prevent the general disarmament of the nations and thereby preclude the security of the whole which that condition would afford.

Almost the only concrete example which Americans offer under this head, is the Monroe Doctrine.

It must, however, be conceded, that the gravamen of this Doctrine is the fear that some military base may be established by some European power on the Western Continent to threaten the peace and security of the latter. Should general disarmament be introduced, however, that fear would be removed.

America has long welcomed immigrants from Europe and speedily incorporated them into the nation on equal

terms with its older citizens; and especially is this the case with those from the very powers that might establish such bases; so why, under general disarmament, should she not welcome their coming to neighboring territory?

Reliance on the mother country for military aid is the chief motive that has given to those unions their strength; but, under general disarmament, only sentiment would remain; and the attachment would endure only so long as advantageous commercial relationships would continue, which would be a very healthy situation for the development of the country by such colonists.

TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY

The recognition by the Convention of only independent states and the treatment of them as equals in their international relationship, disposes of the question of territorial integrity in all cases in which delimitations have been established. Where they have not been, the questions might well be left for arbitration.

The Least Possible Derogation from National Sovereignty

This plan is formed on the basis, that the nation that is governed the least, is governed the best; and therefore represents the minimum of federation necessary for its effectiveness.

The organization of international bodies, means the surrender by the individual States of certain powers now exercised by them singly. It has been proposed in furtherance of the various ideas for the federation of the World, to have, not only a permanent court with a fixed personnel and a legislative body to make international laws, but an