Chapter I: Part 1

_Four Splendid Daily Trains to_

California

Overland Limited

Lv. Chicago 7:00 p.m.; ar. San Francisco 10:10 a.m., third day. The fastest and only exclusively first-class train Chicago to San Francisco. $10.00 extra fare.

Los Angeles Limited

Fast, luxuriously equipped train for Southern California. Lv. Chicago 10:02 p.m.; ar. Los Angeles 4:30 p.m., third day.

San Francisco Limited

Lv. Chicago 9:30 p.m.; ar. San Francisco 8:50 p.m., third day. A fast, electric-lighted train without extra fare.

California Mail

Lv. Chicago at 10:45 p.m.; ar. San Francisco 9:30 a.m., fourth day.

Chicago, Union Pacific and North Western Line

Fast and convenient schedules, superior equipment. The scenic and historic route providing more rock-ballasted double track roadbed protected by automatic electric safety signals than any other transcontinental line.

_For particulars apply to your nearest agent or address_

_A. C. JOHNSON, Pass’r Traffic Mgr._
_C. A. CAIRNS, Gen’l Pass’r & Ticket Agt._
_Chicago and North Western Ry._
_CHICAGO, ILL._

The Direct and Logical Route to the Panama-Pacific Exposition, San Francisco, Feb. 20 to Dec. 4, and Panama-California Exposition, San Diego, Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 1915

OL3445

The World Court

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
TABLE OF CONTENTS, AUGUST, 1915
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
WORLD COMMENT 3
MATERIAL PROBLEMS MUST BE SETTLED FIRST
THE ASSAULT ON J. P. MORGAN
WON’T DANCE TO OUR MUSIC
SECRETARY BRYAN’S RESIGNATION
NO INTERVENTION IN MEXICO
A WOMAN’S DEPARTMENT
A LESSON TO BE HEEDED
NEW PROBLEMS
PEACE BY COMPULSION
PREPAREDNESS FOR WAR
MR. LANSING’S PROMOTION
THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS
PIRATICAL PERSECUTION OF BIG BUSINESS HALTED
ONE ESSENTIAL FACTOR OF A PEACE LEAGUE
THE REALPOLITIKER AND THE IDEALPOLITIKER
IDEALISM NOT PRACTICALLY POTENT
GERMAN SOCIALISTS FOR PEACE

EDITORIALS 11
WORLD PEACE
CRIMINAL WAR TALK
A PREMATURE MOVEMENT
THE IDEALS OF PEACE AND THE REALITIES OF WAR
ONE PREDICTION FULFILLED

THE ADMINISTRATION FORCE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE _By Hon. Fred Dennett_ 17 A WORLD COURT DEMANDED BY A NEW WORLD LIFE _By Josiah Strong_ 19 RURAL COÖPERATION IN EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES _By George K. Shaw_ 21 THE MOBILIZATION OF PUBLIC OPINION _By John Edward Oster_ 24 OUR NATIONAL STAGE FRIGHT _By Edward F. Murphy_ 28 THE WAR STATE _By Winter Russell_ 30 PEACE THROUGH ECONOMIC PRESSURE _By Herbert S. Houston_ 33 THE WORK OF THE WORLD COURT CONGRESS _By Jeremiah W. Jenks_ 38 U. S. SUPREME COURT, THE PROTOTYPE OF A WORLD COURT _By William Howard Taft_ 39 THE CLEVELAND CONGRESS _By John Wesley Hill_ 47 REVIEW OF BOOKS 52 THE INFORMATION DESK 56

THE WORLD COURT

Published Monthly by the

INTERNATIONAL PEACE FORUM

18 EAST 41st STREET

NEW YORK CITY

John Wesley Hill, D.D., LL.D., George K. Shaw, Associate and Editor Managing Editor ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Subscription Price, One Dollar a Year Single Copies, Ten Cents ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Entered as Second Class Matter, September 16, 1912, at the Post Office at New York Copyright, 1915, by the International Peace Forum ═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

WORLD COMMENT

MATERIAL PROBLEMS MUST BE SETTLED FIRST

The developments of the Great War, up to date, do not hold out any hope that Idealism will be respected until the war is finished and the passions of the belligerents are cooled. It is evident that the practical and material problems must first be solved, leaving the ethical ones for later adjustment. It is to be feared, indeed, that the war will settle down not only into a ghastly conflict of blood and destruction, but also into one of retaliation and cruelty, in which all the laws of war hitherto recognized will be ignored and all international law will become a dead letter. The old Latin motto, _Inter arma silent leges_, is already construed more literally in practice than it was by the pagans of the pre-Christian era. Modern inventions of death-dealing machinery, poisonous gases and explosives, deadly air craft and submarines, have furnished an excuse to declare the former international rules for the conduct of war obsolete, and it is a question if this avowal will not become more pronounced as the war progresses. The world is confronted with the horrible possibility that war will come to mean actually, as it always has in theory, the denial of all humanity, all justice, all fairness, all chivalry, all mercy, and become a struggle to the death not a bit less brutal than that of the wild beasts of the jungle.

THE ASSAULT ON J. P. MORGAN

The attempted assassination of J. P. Morgan, the eminent financier, was undoubtedly the work of a crank, or a man crazed by too much brooding over the bloody tragedy now enacting in the theatre of the great war. It is the men of prominence who are usually the objects of attacks from the demented. The assassination of Presidents Garfield and McKinley was unmistakably the work of cranks whose murderous instincts had been set aflame by irresponsible newspaper talk and reckless political criticism. The mind of the man Holt who shot Mr. Morgan appears to have been unsettled in much the same manner. The incident tends to emphasize and bring home to every one the necessity for putting a curb upon the tongue and to refrain from vicious war talk. It is a time especially in this country, to soothe instead of to arouse passion. The spirit of neutrality should sit upon the tongue and the pen, preside at the feast, and accompany us in our daily round of duties. Let there be one great country in which the demon of strife and murder is not let loose. It is not always possible to protect a man against a crank, but it is possible to restrain the evil speech which breeds cranks.

WON’T DANCE TO OUR MUSIC

In the face of such a possibility a peaceful and unarmed nation like the United States is absolutely powerless to interfere with more effect than the twittering of sparrows against the combats of eagles. We may pipe our tunes of peace in Mr. Bryan’s most resonant voice, but the ensanguined nations will not listen. If we fortunately keep out of the war, our reserve of moral force and idealism may be potent at some future day.

SECRETARY BRYAN’S RESIGNATION

Whatever may be the judgment of William J. Bryan’s motives in resigning the position of Secretary of State in President Wilson’s cabinet, there is an almost universal feeling of relief at the accomplished fact. We doubt if there is a single one even of Mr. Bryan’s warmest admirers who would not admit, if brought to an honest confession, Mr. Bryan’s utter incompetency for such a place. President Wilson was doubtless conscious of Mr. Bryan’s failings when he grafted him into his cabinet, but he was moved by political considerations which at the time seemed to be compelling. And there is no doubt that Bryan has been highly useful to Wilson in bringing the Democratic party, to which Wilson was comparatively a stranger, to the support of the administration. Bryan’s services in the Cabinet have been purely political. At the time the appointment was tendered him there was no dream of the outbreak of the great war which has imposed such a burden and strain upon the office of Secretary of State in conducting our foreign relations. There was to be sure the Mexican trouble, which was serious enough, but at the time probably not appreciated at its full gravity. There is a widespread belief that the fundamental mistake of our Mexican policy was due to Mr. Bryan’s impracticable idealism. At that time the President was not fully awake to the weakness of Bryan’s character, and carelessly allowed himself to be committed to a policy of drift and pusillanimity which, instead of saving Mexico from anarchy, has resulted in plunging it into the worst anarchy in its history, and has confronted the United States with possibly the hard necessity of military intervention to save the Mexican people from utter destruction. This is a result that was not sought by Mr. Bryan, but it is a result which his vacillation invited. By the time the European situation developed President Wilson was better acquainted with Secretary Bryan, and he judiciously took the conduct of the State Department, so far as it concerned the European crisis, into his own hands. This has saved us from a fatal involvement which could hardly fail to embroil us with one or more of the belligerent powers. For it is usually weakness and not strength which embroils a country in war when the country is seeking to avoid war. Secretary Bryan displayed such a capacity for blundering, such actual imbecility when it came to grappling with practical questions, that his presence in the State Department always endangered the smashing of diplomatic crockery as the presence of a bull in a China shop endangers the smashing of actual crockery. President Wilson is entitled to credit for seizing the reins of our foreign relations and holding them with a firm hand the moment he became convinced of the utter incompetency and uselessness of the driver he had selected. The retirement of Bryan is a load off the shoulders of his administration which may save it from the utter ruin which threatened it. The country breathes more freely that Bryan has gone. In private life his platitudes and puerile philosophies can do comparatively little harm, notwithstanding his accomplishments as an orator, his personal magnetism, and his apparent sincerity. In their long acquaintance with him on the stump and the rostrum the American people have come to size him up pretty correctly. They look upon him much as they would upon an actor with a pleasing voice and presence who entertains but does not convince. His exposition of the beatitudes and generally accepted moralities, and his reiteration of common-place and tawdry sentiment passes off harmlessly like a glow of summer lightning so long as he is a private citizen, and we all have to be thankful that he no longer speaks with an official voice.

NO INTERVENTION IN MEXICO

The arrest of General Huerta on the Mexican border on a charge of violating the neutrality laws of the United States by plotting another Mexican revolution within our borders, adds new spice to the Mexican situation. Perhaps one revolution more or less in Mexico wouldn’t make much difference, but the United States is bound to protect its neutrality and not permit the various factions of Mexican banditti to carry on their operations or to enlist men on our soil. No actual or would-be Mexican leader has as yet displayed sufficient patriotism to subordinate his personal ambitions to the welfare of his country. These leaders are not amenable to advice from Washington, and hence there does not appear to be any way for the United States to enforce order and protect life and property in Mexico short of intervention. However, intervention is not to be thought of for the present. This is a very inopportune time for our country to engage in a military adventure in Mexico. President Wilson, in a speech last winter, asserted that the Mexican people had the same right to cut each other’s throats as the people of Europe had. If that was true then, it is equally true now. The stories of anarchy and starvation among the Mexican people are no doubt greatly exaggerated. We are so informed by a gentleman who has spent the last two years in and near Mexico. He says that the soil of the country is so rich and the skies so kindly that a very little labor suffices to raise ample food, and that conditions in all the towns he visited were orderly and business going on as usual. Most of the men make a business of fighting for some chief, while the women and children do the work and keep the pot boiling. Almost all the casualties are among the belligerents who have adopted fighting as an industry. It was so in Europe during the formative years of the various nations. Mexico’s political development is about that of the twelfth or thirteenth century in Europe. We should wait patiently until some leader arises strong enough to dominate the situation and enforce order, in the mean time bringing to bear such moral influences as we can to hasten the pacification of our sister republic. But we do not think that public sentiment in the United States is ready to approve the shedding of red American blood in a Mexican crusade to compel that people to adopt our ideals.

A WOMAN’S DEPARTMENT

A woman’s Department of the International Peace Forum, under the leadership of Mrs. Alice Gitchell Kirk, with headquarters at Cleveland, Ohio, has been organized. This Department will have a Bureau in the WORLD COURT magazine, conducted by Mrs. Kirk, who is a well known writer and lecturer who has been prominent in many activities for the promotion of the welfare of her sex and of the rising generation. The purpose of the Department is to promote the cause of National and International Amity by the application of safe and sane principles to world problems; to set clearly before the American people the ideals at issue between American thought and life as compared with the economic, social and political theories which spell revolution and ruin; to exemplify and reinforce the faith of the people in personal initiative as the mainspring of all real social, industrial, political and moral well-being; to encourage the study of the laws of hygiene and so conserve life and promote happiness and usefulness; to promote a loyal adherence to the institutions by which America has come to be a land of peace, liberty, and progress under law; to uphold the American ideal of home; the dignity of womanhood, and the rights of childhood; the love of country, the supremacy of the flag, and to maintain the everlasting reality of religion as the foundation of civilization.

A LESSON TO BE HEEDED

The wonders that Germany has accomplished in this war, not only in the marching and fighting of her armies, but in civic and industrial organization sets the pace for the world, which all the nations will have to approximate in the immediate future, or fall hopelessly behind. After waging war for a year against five great nations and several small ones, in which the number of men engaged and the expenditure of war material has been unparalleled, Germany shows no signs of exhaustion. She has demonstrated that her people cannot be starved out. She has demonstrated that she has an unlimited supply of men and munitions. While the armies of the opposing nations have frequently suffered from lack of ammunition, the Germans have always had an ample supply notwithstanding the lavishness of their expenditure. And in the civil life the whole people of the country not engaged in military operations have been organized and employed so as to produce the best results in supporting the war. The method, the careful planning, the foresight, displayed by the civil and military administrators have never before been equaled by any nation in the history of the world. The marvelous German efficiency is the natural outflow of this method and foresight combined with the energy of the German character. In comparison with the German method the method of the other nations seems haphazard. Other elements of the German power are industry, frugality and careful attention to details. Nothing is allowed to be wasted. The same marvelous organization and method was displayed by Germany in peace before the present war broke out. The strength that the nation displayed in industry and commerce was no accident, any more than is the strength she is now displaying in war. Here in the United States especially the lesson of Germany should be taken to heart. We need it in peace, and we may need it in war. We have the most vast and varied resources of any nation on earth, and our methods are the most wasteful. Our people possess phenomenal energy, but they waste much of it in frivolity. They have the most abounding wealth, and they dissipate it in extravagance. With the frugality and patience and method and organization of the Germans our nation could lead the world in peace or in war, in science, in education and in ethics.

NEW PROBLEMS

The invention and application of the submarines and the airships unquestionably call for new rules of warfare on land and sea. The German contention that the submarine cannot be held to the requirement of notice and search required of surface water craft would, if allowed, work against Germany if she had a navy and merchant marine afloat. It is because the German fleets, except the submarines, are practically swept from the seas, that the contention of Germany in regard to the submarines now works almost exclusively in her favor. A prominent American manufacturer, who has had much to do with the development of the modern submarine, asserted, in a recent interview, that the United States should concentrate its naval expenditures on the construction and operation of submarine craft. He avers that with a fleet of five hundred submarines of an approved type, efficiently manned, the coasts and coast cities of the United States could be perfectly protected against armed invasion. With such submarines watching, he says, no hostile ships could approach our coast and every hostile troop transport could be easily sunk. This is a question for experts, but it is evident that the development of submarine warfare is going to lead to great changes in the rules of the game. The same may be said with regard to air craft. If a German, French or English aircraft drops bombs behind the enemy’s lines and hits non-combatants, men, women and children, or neutrals, are the nations sending out the aircraft to be held to particular liability? It is evident that the aircraft cannot give notice before the attack, cannot warn the civilians to get out of the way, cannot search the buildings on which they drop the bombs to see if they contain war material. H. G. Wells, the eminent British author, is out with an article in which he declares that the way to beat Germany is through the air; that England must send out aircraft by the tens of thousands and drop explosives all over Germany, blow up their arsenals and ammunition factories, their supply depots of all kinds, and carry the war home to the German people. If such a mode of warfare is adopted by all the nations can any restrictions be placed upon it—and will any restrictions be placed upon the operations of submarine craft?

PEACE BY COMPULSION

Some of the weaknesses and inconsistencies of the plan proposed by the Philadelphia League of Peace meeting are succinctly set forth in a communication from Hon. James Brown Scott in this issue of the WORLD COURT. It will be seen that the approval or adoption of such a plan by the United States would place the government and people of this country in a very equivocal position. To begin with, we should have to discard the advice given by George Washington in his Farewell Address, not to entangle ourselves in the wars and politics of European nations; and in the second place we should have to place the Monroe Doctrine in pawn. We should have either to abandon our independence as a sovereign nation, or else place ourselves in the inconsistent attitude of approving the use of force to coerce other powers while refusing ourselves to be coerced; and by implication we would place ourselves in the rôle of a bully to the weaker nations and of subserviency to the strong powers—unless we want to obligate ourselves to join in a war against the strong powers regardless of our preparedness or ability to carry on such a conflict.

The proposition to furnish a contingent to a posse comitatus to enforce the judgment of a World Supreme Court stands on a very different footing. The League of Peace plan would compel us to furnish a force to compel any other nation to come before the Council of Conciliation. The proposition formulated at Cleveland by the World Court Congress was to first establish the International Court by consent and agreement of the Powers, and then to help furnish a posse comitatus in case of necessity, to execute the decrees of the court. Any nation taking its case before a World Court voluntarily, would thereby tacitly agree to submit to the judgment of such Court, and in case it proved recalcitrant compulsion to compel its submission would be justified legally and morally.

PREPAREDNESS AND WAR

At a recent meeting at Cooper Institute one of the speakers was interrupted with the question: “Is Europe to-day an example of peace by preparedness?” The inference of the question was that preparedness for war, so far from preventing war, tends to breed war. This would be true if all nations would disarm. Europe to-day is not an example of peace by preparedness, but of war through unequal preparedness. Only one nation was thoroughly prepared for war, and that nation, in the conflict thus far, has proved the victor on all the battle fronts. If the other great nations had been equally prepared, there would undoubtedly have been no war. Half measures never led to satisfactory results. France and England and Russia knew, or should have known, that Germany was better prepared for war than any nation in all history ever was before. They made a show of preparation, but when the war began they were not half prepared. They had ample warning which they neglected to heed. They are now reaping the bitter fruit of their folly. Preparedness for war is not an insurance of peace if one potentially rival nation is permitted to so far exceed the others as to outclass them. Preparation for war is useless unless it is adequate.

MR. LANSING’S PROMOTION

The promotion of Robert Lansing to be Secretary of State following Mr. Bryan’s resignation is a recognition of the principle of selecting men for public place for demonstrated fitness to perform the duties of the position rather than for political availability. It is not known that Mr. Lansing has any political influence to speak of. But as Mr. Bryan’s assistant he demonstrated the possession of a comprehensive knowledge of international law, sound judgment, and the diplomatic instinct. He has been all along the real Secretary of State whom the President consulted, while Mr. Bryan was merely the figurehead. It is of course an open question whether it would not have been better for the President to appoint a man of national reputation and commanding ability to occupy the chief place in his Cabinet, relying upon Mr. Lansing for the detail and technical work. Such an appointment might have added strength to the Wilson administration, but while Mr. Lansing occupies the place the people of the country will have a comfortable feeling that no foolish mistakes are likely to be made, and that no half baked or hair brained theories will be promulgated to complicate our foreign relations and make our State Department a laughing-stock.

THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS

Colonel House, President Wilson’s personal representative, who spent some time in the principal capitals of Europe in the endeavor to ascertain whether there was any tangible peace sentiment which could be utilized by the United States as a basis of mediation, has apparently convinced the President that any movement in that direction would be useless at present. Col. House came in touch with the leading soldiers and statesmen of the various belligerent nations, and he found that no nation was ready to accept any peace terms that the enemy would be likely to offer. One important phase of public sentiment in Germany, as stated by Col. House is the idea that Germany’s most important interests lie in colonial expansion and the incidental development of over-seas commerce, rather than in territorial expansion in Europe itself. To this end Germany, it is believed, will demand as a condition of peace the freedom of the seas—that is, the recognition of the principle that the property, except contraband, of all private owners shall be exempt from seizure on the high seas in time of war. This is a principle for which the United States has always contended. There is no reason why private property on the seas should not be exempt from seizure the same as is private property on the land. Germany’s ambition for colonial expansion may be of vital interest to the United States if that ambition takes the direction of colonial expansion on any part of the American continents. It may be that when peace comes to be arranged our Monroe Doctrine will be subject to closer examination than it ever has been before, and if any disposition is shown by the contracting powers to contravene it, it will be up to the people and government of this country to decide whether they will let down the bars or firmly maintain it. And if we are to maintain it, the question of our physical power to do so will have to be considered.

PIRATICAL PERSECUTION OF BIG BUSINESS HALTED

The decision of the Federal Court in the suit brought for the dissolution of the United States Steel Corporation holds out some hope to business men that the persecution of big business in this country merely because it is big, is to cease. The case has to go to the Supreme Court of the United States, but the decision of this tribunal in the Cash Register Company case leads to the reasonable inference that it will uphold the decision of the lower court in the Steel Corporation case. The essence of the Cash Register decision is that the mere ability to commit the crime of combination in restraint of trade is not equivalent to the commission of the crime. The Cash Register Company, by reason of its bigness, could, had it been so inclined, put smaller concerns out of business by unfair competition; but the evidence adduced failed to prove that it had done so. The lower court gave it a clean bill of health, and the Supreme Court tacitly approved the verdict of the lower court. The government lawyers denounced the Cash Register Company in unmeasured terms virtually on the ground that its size made it a menace to competition, but the courts refused to hold it guilty because it possessed power which it did not exercise.

Nothing could show up in a clearer light the folly of the Government’s persecution of big business. To dissolve a corporation, or to penalize it, simply because it possesses the power to commit an offense which it does not commit, would be equivalent to ordering the arms of a stalwart citizen cut off lest he use his fists to pound some weaker citizen to a jelly. The attitude of this administration towards business, if we judge it by some of the prosecutions for which it stands responsible, is that success in business is an evidence of an evil disposition and a menace to all other business. If the Federal Courts have successfully called a halt upon this piratical attitude towards the country’s industry and commerce, the people of the country have reason to thank God for the Federal Courts.

ONE ESSENTIAL FACTOR OF A PEACE LEAGUE

Any grouping of powers in a League of Peace which leaves Germany out of the account must fail. There is no doubt that peace in Europe could be brought about quickly if Germany would offer moderate terms. For so far as the war has proceeded Germany is actually the victor. If peace were declared now on the basis of the status quo, Germany would be in possession of foreign soil which would vastly increase her resources and her prestige, and would have an army in being and stores of ammunition surpassing that of all the other belligerents combined. If Germany would enter into a League of Peace with the other great powers to compel the peace of the world, there would be no doubt of the ability of such a league to keep any and all nations from war; but with Germany left out, her veto upon any plan of compulsory peace would be sufficient to wreck it. We are only stating the situation as it stands to-day. What changes in it the future will make we cannot predict. It is evident that Germany’s power cannot be materially crippled except by a long war. If the Allies can hold her in check and continue to hold the seas, that may bring about German exhaustion of which there are no signs at present. Such a prolongation of the war will also bring about the exhaustion of the other nations, so that their people will be ready for a just international arrangement to insure universal peace. But even then Germany will be a power to be reckoned with, and any League of Peace or International Bund that aims to be effective will have to include the great Germanic peoples.

THE REALPOLITIKER AND THE IDEALPOLITIKER

Mr. David Jayne Hill, former American Ambassador to Germany, says, in a recent magazine article, that there are two antagonistic schools of thought regarding the application of moral principles to international affairs: First, the Realpolitiker, who hold that international rights have no other basis than superior strength—in brief, that Might makes Right. Second, the Idealpolitiker, who desire to place the entire international system upon the basis of strictly moral conceptions.

It is generally recognized by publicists that as a matter of fact there is at present no enforceable international law. There are certain rules for the conduct of war set up, but no means of enforcing them. And as for the matter of declaring war, there is absolutely no recognized restraint. One nation may declare war against another for revenge, for conquest, for subjugation, or for the purpose of restraining and crippling its trade. In short, international law as it exists to-day is nothing more than a system of ethics or public opinion. Public opinion often makes its influence felt in a nation, and may become enacted into enforceable laws. But there is no means of enforcing ethics as between nations, and any nation which feels itself strong enough to do so, may defy world opinion.

An international tribunal for Judicial Settlement, which we might call a World Supreme Court, established by the consent and coöperation of the great powers, could gradually erect a body of international law that would be both ideal and real. This is the only way in which international law will ever come to have any actual, positive, binding force.

IDEALISM NOT PRACTICALLY POTENT

In spite of this fact, there are idealists like Former Secretary Bryan who, while insisting that the United States should set up as a sort of moral mentor for the world, nevertheless contend that we should not increase our armament. They proclaim themselves advocates of peace at any price. This may be correct as a mental attitude, but in these strenuous times, when the most powerful nations are appealing to physical force to adjust questions which might better have been settled by diplomacy, the still small voice of moral suasion, though coming from potentially powerful America, is not likely to be heard, above the din of battle. We can record our protests, of course, but so far as any practical measures to enforce humanity are concerned, we are quite powerless. Our government should either keep out of the mess, and wait for returning reason, after the war is over, to pave the way to universal peace through Judicial Settlement—or, we should immediately proceed to place ourselves in a condition of preparedness for war.

GERMAN SOCIALISTS FOR PEACE

Utterances of various Socialist leaders and newspapers in Germany in favor of peace have recently filtered out of Germany, and have aroused considerable interest. The German Socialists differ materially from the Socialists of many other countries, in the fact that they constitute a recognized and responsible political party which has a large representation in the German parliament. The idea has widely prevailed that the German people were absolutely united in favor of carrying on the war to the point of “world domination or downfall,” but now we find men and publications of influence deprecating the idea of conquest and annexation of territory, or an invasion of the liberties of other peoples. They declare that the mass of the German people want peace, and that Germany’s military victories place the German government in a position to negotiate peace with justice and honor.

Whether these utterances represent any deep or widespread sentiment in Germany, we have no means of knowing. But their publication serves to inspire a hope that the implacable purpose of Germany to carry on a war of conquest has been exaggerated, and that discussion of terms of peace might not be premature even now, if some feasible plan were presented.

EDITORIALS

“THE WORLD COURT” makes its début to-day. It supplants the magazine formerly published by the International Peace Forum, entitled _The Peace Forum_ but as will be observed, it undertakes a much larger and far more vastly important work in its ambition to further the creation of a World Court. As a magazine, an effort has been made in this initial issue to give it all the veneer and finesse of the latter-day periodical. As the months proceed, every effort will be made by the men of letters associated with it and its contributors to further its value as a publication of world wide importance. The necessity for such a magazine was made patent at the recent World Court Congress. The delegates and many men of affairs who participated in that epochal Conference realized the enormous importance of an organ to voice the sentiment for this great project.

During the past few months, the work of the International Peace Forum has been specifically directed to the project of furthering the institution of a true International Court of Justice, which was adopted in principle by the forty-four nations composing the Second Hague Conference (1907), including Germany and Great Britain. The suggestion has also met the approval of many State Legislatures, leading Chambers of Commerce and other representative civic, industrial, educational and religious bodies. It received a mighty impulse and enthusiastic endorsement at the recent largely attended World Court Congress, at Cleveland, Ohio.

This project is thus no chimerical scheme or iridescent dream, but a well matured plan which if properly sustained will prove a powerful factor in insuring the future peace of the world. Such a tribunal as is contemplated would not only be able to adjudicate specific disputes but would gradually build up a body of International Law as potent in preserving the peaceful relations of nations as the body of domestic laws is in preserving peaceful relations among the citizens and states of the several nations.

In becoming more specifically the organ and representative of this world-wide movement, this magazine broadens its field and adopts a name more expressive of its larger mission.

_The Peace Forum_, during the four years of its existence, has steadily grown in circulation and usefulness and influence. It has become the medium through which many of the most distinguished writers and speakers have sought to reach the public. THE WORLD COURT will continue to be the medium of expression of such contributors of national and international reputation. In coöperation with them it will continue to advocate peace in all relations of private and public and international life, with the specific object in view of extending the principle of judicial settlement which now lies at the foundation of the civil authority of nations, until it becomes the foundation of all international relations, when nations will no more think of submitting their differences to a duel between armies and navies than individuals in civilized and well ordered countries would think of resorting to the arbitrament of the private duel.

Not only will THE WORLD COURT advance the idea of judicial settlement in relation to world disputes, but will strive to establish the principle as the basis of national peace and prosperity. This is a work which should appeal to all business and professional men, indeed, to all toilers whether with hand or head. Laborers in all fields are entitled to the fruits of their toil. The humble worker with his hands is not to be dispossessed by the confiscatory programme, any more than is the farmer, the merchant, the manufacturer or the educated specialist. It is a trite saying that the interests of capital and labor are identical,—a truism no one dares formally to dispute; but there is no doubt that in the enactment of legislation and the execution of laws, representatives of these respective interests have acted as if they were antagonistic, and one has sought to get the better of the other. Judicial settlement can alone hold the scales of justice evenly balanced and thereby guarantee fair play. The toiler working with hand or brain is employing a capital given him by nature, and with industry and frugality under the operation of the rule of equal opportunity, he may accumulate the capital of money, goods, machinery, or land, which in effect gives him additional earning power. Thus, one class is constantly merging into the other, and each is equally interested in the integrity, and independence of the courts. Both are equally interested in the preservation of the rights of personal property and in opposing legislative and executive invasion of their rights. Both are equally opposed to bureaucracy in the government and interference with private management. The laborer does not want to be compelled to labor for a wage arbitrarily fixed by a government bureau, nor should a railroad or other industry be compelled to submit to harrassing and paralyzing control. Experience has demonstrated that railroads, telephones, telegraphs and other utilities are more efficiently conducted under private than under public ownership, as are mills, shops, and stores. A multitude of government commissions help to give a multitude of jobs to a multitude of politicians, but they do not reduce the cost of living.

Efficiency is evolved by private effort and not by official meddlesomeness. Law is only beneficially operative when backed by public opinion strong enough to vitalize and enforce it.

The broad platform of “The World Court” is peace at home and abroad, peace in society, in the church, in business and industry; immunity of business and industry from the menace of such malicious inquisition under the protection of a Government Commission as Chairman Walsh attempted in a manner that aroused the protest even of the Commission of which he is the head. We invite all who believe in peace, in law and order and justice, in the reliance upon judicial rather than warlike processes for the defense of the individual and the state, to unite with us in the movement for judicial settlement. What we propose is to place National morality on a plane with the standard of individual morality, which has brought about the reign of law and order in the enlightened nations. This plane of morality would do away with public war as it has done away with private war. International Judicial Settlement will react beneficially upon National Judicial Settlement and lead to the adoption of higher standards, both in National and International life.

CRIMINAL WAR TALK

Among the most insidious and reckless foes to peace are those who are constantly predicting wars between the United States and other nations. At the present time there is absolutely no reason why the United States should go to war with any nation on earth. The favorite pastime of some alarmists for several years past has been to predict war between this country and Japan. Nobody can show any reason why we should attack Japan, and all the evidence and all the signs of the times go to show that Japan has not the least intention of attacking us.

A Minneapolis journalist who recently returned from a six months’ stay in the Orient, and who was present with the Japanese at the siege of Tsing-tao, gives some cogent reasons why Japan will not seek war with the United States, despite some disputes over the immigration question and possibly in regard to the open door in China.

Japan at the present time is in financial difficulties. The existing war has kept tourists from her shores and curtailed her trade, while putting her to large expenses in war preparation. Not one penny of the war debt incurred in the war with Russia has yet been paid. What is holding Japan together to-day is her export of tea and silks to the United States. Millions of her citizens are dependent upon these trades for their livelihood. Japan doesn’t want the Philippines because she has now ample territory more geographically and climatically favorable to her needs, and she is not greatly exercised over the emigration question, because she needs immigrants herself. The government would much rather keep the people at home—besides her naval and military experts are wise enough to know that they would stand little chance in attempting to fight the United States across eight thousand miles of ocean.

The talk of war with Germany or England, whichever may be the winner in the European conflict, after that awful contest is finished, is equally pernicious and damnable. There is no reason why we should go to war with either. The United States intends to observe all the obligations of neutrality and so to conduct herself as to win the respect and good will of all the combatants. It would require a supreme act of folly on our part to drive us into war with any European country. So long as we observe our moral obligations we are in no danger of attack.

A PREMATURE MOVEMENT

During the month of June “A League of Peace” was organized in Philadelphia. The tentative proposals of the originators of the movement, as reported in articles in the daily papers, is to obtain “an agreement from the various nations of the world to submit all differences to adjudication or arbitration, to use their military forces to prevent any one of their number from going to war before all questions in dispute shall have been submitted to an international court or council; and that the powers in the agreement codify rules of international law by which they shall abide.” In order to give the movement an appearance of solid backing a formidable list was published of the names of prominent men who had been invited to the Philadelphia conference.

Any careful and intelligent student of the world situation must recognize the fact that an effective agreement of this character among nations is impossible before the conclusion of the great war in Europe and Asia. The most powerful nations of the world are engaged in this Titanic struggle, and it is not supposable that they will enter into an arbitration agreement before the terms of peace are concluded. Any agreement made by any number of nations omitting the now belligerent nations would be futile, for the nations at war command vast armies and navies and stores of war material and military organization against which the now peaceful nations would contend in vain.

The proposition of the Cleveland World Court Congress was practicable and feasible. It was to formulate a plan and have it ready to submit to a world conference after the present war is over, if possible with the moral support of the United States and the other American nations.

Our government could well afford to support a movement of that kind after the war, but it could not afford to join an arbitration league before the war ends, which proposes to back up its demands by military force.

It will be remembered that in signing The Hague Convention the American delegates made the reservation that no provision should be so construed as to require the United States of America to depart from its traditional policy of not intruding upon or interfering with, or entangling itself in the political questions or policy of internal administration of any European state. This was in accordance with the traditional policy of the United States, embodied in Washington’s Farewell Address, which was under no circumstances to interfere in the affairs of Europe. We certainly could not be a party to an agreement to lend our military forces, in combination with the military forces of other nations, to prevent one European nation from going to war with another. We might, after the war, become a party to an agreement to organize a World Court for Judicial Settlement and to contribute our contingent to the posse comitatus of such world court, on the invitation of all the powerful nations of both hemispheres.

The negative part of our Monroe Doctrine is the restraining injunction of Washington’s Farewell Address. We do not propose to meddle in the affairs of Europe, and President Monroe warned the European nations that we would not permit them to meddle in the political affairs of this hemisphere or to attempt to impose their political systems upon any of the American nations. If we start in to interfere now, in accordance with the so-called “League of Peace” proposition, what becomes of our Monroe doctrine? The war in Europe will have to be fought out to some definite conclusion before any effective and compelling League of Peace is possible.

As indicating the attitude of a portion of the press toward this movement we reproduce the following editorial from the Detroit _Free Press_.

THE LEAGUE OF PEACE

The new scheme for a League of Peace can make very little appeal to practical minds that give it real attention. Like all such plans it is largely visionary and based upon assumptions and premises which have no basis in fact because they fail to take into account the fundamentally static selfishness of human nature. The leaders of this movement strike ground only at one point and then impotently. They recognize the fact that anything done in the way of working for permanent peace must be accomplished through force and not by moral suasion.

Their scheme is to gather together the powers of the earth into a peace league, the members of which will pool their military and naval strength for the common good. No country will thereafter be permitted to make war upon another until certain measures of prevention have been taken and certain formalities observed, all with a view to settling the trouble in a peaceful way. If a government transgresses, the whole world will immediately jump on its back.

This is an extension of the international police idea of visionaries who only a short year ago were still telling the world that conflicts between great powers were at an end and that establishments for the prosecution of war might henceforth be limited to police armaments for keeping in order the smaller and less civilized nations such as the Balkan states and Mexico. Naturally the European war has smashed this illusion. But it has not discouraged the illusionists.

A very important defect in the League of Peace scheme is that it cannot be guaranteed to work, and a plan of this sort which cannot be guaranteed is likely to become a greater menace to peace through backfire than no agreement at all. It means a close association and conflict of unmixable interests and ambitions which are sure to create friction of a most inflammatory sort.

Suppose the United States and Japan and the great powers of Europe and the A. B. C. alliance join this league. Suppose after the league is duly organized two of the most powerful states, states relatively as strong as Germany and Russia were at the outset of the present war, get into a wrangle. Suppose they disregard their promises and incontinently go to war. How are they to be stopped and disciplined? Only through a general world war beside which the one now in progress might sink into insignificance. The whole population of the globe might be obliged to fight in order to keep the peace.

A great defect in all these schemes of peace promotors and disarmament enthusiasts is that they hope to create an artificial condition of placidity without natural incentive, and fail to take into account the element of self-interest which alone can make a peace pact of practical value. Alliances, ententes and treaties among nations having common interests have played large parts in the history of the world and have led to prolonged periods of peace as well as to bloody wars, but they generally have been enduring and valuable in close proportion to the strength of their appeal to self-interest among the parties concerned.

THE IDEALS OF PEACE AND THE REALITIES OF WAR

=WAR AND THE IDEALS OF PEACE.= By HENRY RUTGERS MARSHALL, L. H. D., D. S. published by Duffield & Co. New York.

“War and the Ideals of Peace,” is rather an abstruse study of the mental and psychological processes which form human character and lead to human action. It is mainly a discussion of the validity of the contention that recurrent wars are inevitable because man is governed by the inexorable laws of nature, which compel him to contend for dominance. The author admits that man is by nature a fighting animal, but contends that he possesses also “creative spontaneity,” and may by his own efforts mould and shape ideals that will enable him to triumph over the natural bent of his disposition. Thus individuals may be led in the ways and thoughts of peace and mould the policy of nations to peace rather than war.

This is obviously true. It is shown in the history of nations, in the fact that through enlightened public sentiment many nations, especially during the past one hundred years, have been impelled to peace when there was temptation to war. The exceptions, when wars have occurred, have been due to the fact that enlightened public sentiment suffered a relapse or reversion and favored war. The antidote for war undoubtedly lies in developing the individual conscience, setting its creative spontaneity to work to formulate peace ideals—in short, to get the mass of men to think peace instead of war. Public sentiment is simply the superior weight of individual opinion, and if public sentiment is decisively for peace, the nation in which such public sentiment prevails will not go to war except to repel aggression.

This leads us to a point of disagreement with the author of the book in his practical application of his theories to the correct policy for this country to pursue. That we should stand at all times for the principles of peace no right-thinking man will deny. But that to realize these principles it is the duty of this nation to disarm without a simultaneous agreement of the other great nations to do likewise, we emphatically deny. Dr. Marshall says:

“We are a specially privileged people, free at present from
enemies who might wish to attack us, and able to arm without too
long delay should we see signs of growing danger of aggression.
If we failed of alertness we might by a bare chance be caught
unprepared by some enemy not now in sight, but it were surely
better to take this small risk than to waste our energies in what
is likely to be uncalled for preparation. Protected as we are
by our broad ocean boundaries we have a unique opportunity to
show to the world the benefits accruing to a state that does not
spend a large proportion of its resources upon implements of the
construction of implements of destruction and upon the training
of large bodies of citizens to their employment. Did I, as an
individual, find living at some distance from me a first class
prize fighter, marvelously efficient, but at the time thoroughly
exhausted, it would surely appear stupid for me to take my time
and energies from the pursuits for which I seem fitted in order
to devote myself to the attempt to become what could not at best
be more than a second rate prizefighter, really because of fear
that the first rate prizefighter might regain his strength and at
some future time run amuck and do me injury.”

The present mode of fighting, as developed in the trenches of Belgium and France, which takes all the glamour and romance and glory out of war, and reduces it to a dismal contest of organization and machinery, requires, for its successful prosecution, preparation of forces and machinery which demands much time. The recruiting, organization, training and equipment of men to fight modern battles is also a work of considerable time. In the preparation of naval defense time is still a more essential factor. The ocean which separates us from Europe is no longer a barrier, but a highway. The transportation of men and arms and munitions is far easier and more expeditious by sea than by land. So the broad ocean is no longer our protection.

The analogy of the prizefighter and the private citizen misses the mark. The prizefighter is held in check by the local police force which all governments and municipalities must possess, no matter how peaceful their ideals. If there were an international police force capable of preserving the peace among nations, then it would not be necessary for a nation to arm, any more than it is now necessary for the private citizen to arm. But in the absence of such a protection it is necessary for each nation to look to its own protection.