THE LIBRARY
OF
THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES
ENFORCED PEACE
Proceedings of the First Annual National
Assemblage of the League to En-
force Peace, Washington,
May 26-27, 1916
With an Introductory Chapter and Appen-
dices Giving the Proposals of the
League, Its Oflficers and
Committees
PUBLISHED BY THE
LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE
70 Fifth Avenue
NEW YORK
nils
CONTENTS
PAGE
A Remarkable Gathering 3
The League Program . Thomas Raeburn White 13
The League to Enforce Peace and the Soul of the
United States .... Edward A. Filene 36
The League Program, Preparedness and Ulti-
mate Reduction of Armaments Hamilton Holt 50
"^Constitutionality of the Proposals Wm. H. Taft 58
The Monroe Doctrine . . George Grafton Wilson 67
Entangling Alliances Now, and in Washington's
Day Talcott Williams 77
N The European Nations and the League Program
John Bates Clark 85
American Business and the League to Enforce
Peace R.G. Rhett 93
The League's Service to the World H. A. Wheeler loi
American Labor and a Constructive Settlement
of the War Samuel Gompers 104
American Agriculture and the League to Enforce
Peace Carl Vrooman 115
V American Ideals and the League Program
Newton D. Baker 122
The League to Enforce Peace: A Reply to Critics
Theodore Marburg 128
Perfecting the Organization . Philip H. Gadsden 143
Planning the Campaign . . /. Mott Hallowell 148
Publicity Plans . . . . Herbert S. Hotiston 152
Mobilization of Our Forces William H. Wadhams 154
vi CONTENTS
PAGE
>* The Thought and Purpose of the People
President Wilson 159
^ Great Work of the League to Enforce Peace
Henry Cabot Lodge 164
What the Churches Have at Stake in the Success
of the League to Enforce Peace
Shailer Mathews 167
> How Social Progress Depends on the Success of
the League Platform . Franklin H. Giddings 170
\<A Platform on Which the Whole World Can
Stand A. Lawrence Lowell 175
Enforcing the Recognition of Justice
Benjamin Ide Wheeler 180
The New Hampshire Way . . Frank S. Streeter 183
An Ideal With Limitations Nehemiah Boynton 187
Proposals of the League to Enforce Peace . . 189
Officers and Committees of the League to Enforce
Peace 191
ENFORCED PEACE
Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive
in 2007 witii funding from
IVIicrosoft Corporation
littp://www.arcliive.org/details/enforcedpeaceOOIeagiala
ENFORCED PEACE
CHAPTER I
A REMARKABLE GATHERING
"The largest and most distinguished gathering
of a voluntary character that ever assembled in
this city," so the Washington Star asserted, met
in the Belasco Theatre in the Nation's Capital on
the morning of May 26, 1916. Its purpose, as
announced in the language of the official call, was
*'To devise and determine upon measures for
giving effect to the proposals adopted at the con-
ference held last June in Independence Hall, in
Philadelphia, for a League of nations to Enforce
Peace."
The first annual national assemblage of the
League to Enforce Peace was notable in many
ways. The man who had been the twenty-seventh
president of the United States, as president of
the League, called the meeting to order and intro-
duced the speakers. Another who had once been
the Democratic candidate for the presidency
was the vice-president of the League. The list
of speakers at the six sessions was exceptional,
including, as it did, the president of the Chamber
4 ENFORCED PEACE
of Commerce of the United States, the president
of the American Federation of Labor, the Chair-
man of the New York Public Service Commission,
the president of Harvard University, a United
States Senator, the Secretary of War, and the
President of the United States himself.
An interesting feature was the diversity of re-
ligious faiths and creeds brought together in a
common cause. A CathoHc priest, a Congre-
gational minister, and the dean of a Baptist
Divinity School deHvered addresses, while an
Episcopal bishop offered the opening prayer.
In poHtics, also, the variety of views represented
was wide. But the outstanding feature that
made this assemblage truly extraordinary was
that in it advocates of adequate military prepared-
ness and of non-resistance, with all the shades of
opinion between these extremes, sat side by side
in the same auditorium and spoke from the same
platform in behalf of one plan of action upon which
all were agreed. In fact, in the diversity of other-
wise irreconcilable views entertained by men who,
for once, were working harmoniously together
to promote a common purpose, the first annual
assemblage of the League to Enforce Peace has
seldom been surpassed. The one point upon
which these divergent minds came to a common
focus was the program of the League to Enforce
Peace.
The League to Enforce Peace owes its origin
to the wave of horror and indignation that swept
ENFORCED PEACE 5
over the world upon the outbreak of the war in
Europe. Right thinking men in every land re-
solved within a week of the beginning of that
tragedy that it should never be repeated if they
could help it. Given this attitude of mind it was
inevitable that some sort of creative action should
follow, not to stop nor even to limit nor control
the war then raging, for all recognized the futility
of any such attempt; but to set in motion the
machinery that would provide something to take
the place of slaughter in settling some, if not all,
future international disputes.
The United States took the lead in jthis creative
action because in this country alone the energies
of the people were not wholly engrossed with
preparations for national defense. Among political
economists, international lawyers, and other leaders
of thought the idea gradually took shape that an
AlHance or League comprising principal Nations,
by agreeing to use their joint economic and military
forces, could enforce peace among themselves.
So the League to Enforce Peace was proposed.
That was something everybody could under-
stand. Every city and town has its police force,
every village its marshal, every rural precinct its
constable, as the visible embodiment of the majesty
of the law, ever ready to enforce respect for the
statutes when voluntary observance fails. To
compel a whole people to obey the law of nations
is but to carry a step farther a practice with which
all the world is familiar in its daily life.
6 ENFORCED PEACE
This idea is not new, but the manner in which
it has been worked out by the League to Enforce
Peace is new. Instead of pooling all the various
military and naval forces to constitute a grand army
of the world under the supreme command of one
leader who might be tempted to make embarrass-
ing use of his absolute power, as has been proposed
from time to time, the plan of the League to En-
force Peace provides that each nation shall retain
its complete autonomy in military affairs as it
does in all other matters ; but that each shall pledge
itself to stand ready to furnish its quota to punish
transgressors of the international agreement as
the nations combined to suppress the boxer re-
bellion in China sixteen years ago. Add to this
joint use of miUtary force the boycott to coerce
an offender and you have the measures by which
it is proposed to provide the peace movement with
a spinal column.
In due time a call for a national conference at
Philadelphia, June 17, 191 5, was sent out signed
by one hundred and twenty of the foremost men
in industry, finance, commerce, transportation,
politics, diplomacy, art, education, and the church.
Three hundred men responded to the call for
the Philadelphia meeting including the individual
members of the special committee on economic
results of the war of the Chamber of Commerce
of the United States. In a preliminary discussion,
following a dinner on the evening of June 16, the
plan and scope of the proposed "League of Peace"
ENFORCED PEACE 7
were pretty fully outlined. The formal confer-
ence was held on the anniversary of the Battle of
Bunker Hill in the hall in which the immortal
Declaration of Independence was signed, two
omens, which, it was hoped, promised well for
the proposed emancipation of the human race
from the bloody tyranny of war. The proposed
name of the organization there formed was en-
larged to the "League to Enforce Peace," and W. y
H. Taft was elected president.
In the addresses delivered at this conference the
facts were clearly developed that the League to
Enforce Peace did not contemplate any attempt to
interfere with the course of the present war in
Europe; but that it proposed a constructive pro-
gram to be ready at hand when hostilities were at
an end wherewith the nations might start anew.
By providing saner methods of settling inter-
national disputes it was hoped that the frequency
of wars might be reduced, but the fact was frankly
recognized that so long as human nature remains \
what it is there are likely to be some wars.
The principles upon which this hope was based
were formulated as follows:
" We believe it to be desirable for the United States to
join a league of nations binding the signatories to the
following:
"First : All justiciable questions arising between the
signatory powers, not settled by negotiation, shall, sub-
ject to the limitations of treaties, be submitted to a
judicial tribunal for hearing and judgment, both upon
8 ENFORCED PEACE
the merits and upon any issue as to its jurisdiction of the
question.
"Second: All other questions arising between the
signatories, and not settled by negotiation, shall be sub-
mitted to a council of conciliation for hearing considera-
tion and recommendation,
"Third: The signatory powers shall jointly use forth-
with both their economic and miUtary forces against
any one of their number that goes to war, or commits
acts of hostility, against another of the signatories before
any question arising shall be submitted as provided in
the foregoing.
" Fourth : Conferences between the signatory powers
shall be held from time to time to formulate and codify
rules of international law, which, unless some signatory
shall signify its dissent within a stated period, shall
thereafter govern in the decisions of the judicial tri-
bunal mentioned in article one."
Later on the following interpretation of Article
Three was authorized by the Executive Com-
mittee :
"The signatory powers shall jointly use, forthwith,
their economic forces against any of their number that
refuses to submit any question which arises to an inter-
national judicial tribunal or council of conciliation be-
fore issuing an ultimatum or threatening war. They
shall follow this by the joint use of their military forces
against that nation if it actually proceeds to make
war or invades another's territory."
The immediate task the League to Enforce Peace
set itself was to explain its aims and purposes to
all the people in order that an enlightened public
opinion might be constituted and prepared to sup-
ENFORCED PEACE 9
port this government when the time came for it
to negotiate with other nations.
The proposals of the League to Enforce Peace
attracted a great deal of favorable attention.
The Chamber of Commerce of the United States,
an organization representing a constituency of
350,000 business men, firms, and corporations in
every state in the Union, held a referendum on the
League's proposals, submitting to each voter, as
its by-laws direct, an impartial statement giving the
arguments both for and against the proposition.
In response to this referendum more than 96 per
cent, of the vote approved the proposition that
this country should take the initiative in forming
a league of nations which should agree to submit
justiciable questions arising between any of its
members to an international court, and non-
justiciable questions to a council of conciliation
for decision or recommendation before resorting
to war.
The League's program was also indorsed by
the National Economic League and by various
peace societies, including the World Peace Foun-
dation. It was also very generally approved by
leading newspapers and by public men throughout
the country. In fact, the propaganda in behalf
of the League program was disseminated far more
thoroughly and won far greater general approval
than any one connected with the movement had
dared to hope.
So it happened that the first annual National
lo ENFORCED PEACE
assemblage, summoned to meet in Washington
May 26 and 27, 1916, "To devise and detennine
upon measures for giving effect to the proposals
adopted at the conference held last June in Inde-
pendence Hall, in Philadelphia, for a League to
Enforce Peace," as already described, ehcited a
response that astounded and deHghted all who
had taken an active part in promoting the League
and all who beUeved in saner international rela-
tions.
The few active workers immediately identified
with the preparations for the Washington confer-
ence, while maintaining for purposes of publication
an optimism possibly equalled, but certainly never
surpassed, by the chairman of a political campaign
committee just before • election, privately assured
each other that if they could only muster an at-
tendance of three hundred the conference might
be considered a success.
Two days before the date for the first session
more than two thousand delegates, representing
every walk in Hfe, and from every state in the
Union, not to mention Alaska, Hawaii, and Porto
Rico, had registered at temporary headquarters
at the New Willard Hotel, while others were com-
ing in on every train. The little hall that had
seemed ample to meet the modest anticipations
of the committee on arrangements was hastily
exchanged for the Belasco Theatre, a much larger
auditorium. Applications for seats at the closing
dinner, at which President Wilson was to be the
ENFORCED PEACE ii
principal speaker, were not so easily disposed of,
for there was but one available place in which to
serve so large a public dinner. The dinner com-
mittee simply filled every available seat and was
forced to turn the remaining applicants away.
President Taft presided at all sessions, though he
was obliged to absent himself from part of the
first two . A number of the honorary vice-presidents,
other officers and committeemen occupied seats
on the stage, while the auditorium was packed
with delegates who evidently came to approve all
that was good, for applause was spontaneous,
frequent, and hearty enough to inspire the most
blase of public speakers.
The program which had been very carefully
worked out to cover all phases of the League's
proposals, and the subjects assigned to speakers of
national prominence best quaHfied to deal with
each, was divided into four general topics; namely,
"The platform," ''Practicability of the League
Program," "American Interests Affected by the
League Program," and "Plans for Giving Effect
to the League Program." One session was set
apart for questions and discussions by delegates,
while the addresses at the closing dinner dealt
with the broader aspects of the League program.
By common consent the list of addresses at
this dinner was conceded to be one of the best
ever heard at a public dinner in Washington.
President Wilson's address in particular, which
was read with profound interest throughout the
12 ENFORCED PEACE
world, was a notable utterance. It was the
formulation of a new and nobler conception of
world statesmanship — a Declaration of Human
Rights dest ned to live in history.
Taken together the papers and addresses pre-
sented at the first annual assemblage cover the
subject of the League to Enforce Peace program
very fully. They will be found, grouped accord-
ing to general topics, in the succeeding pages.
Charles Frederick Carter.
THOMAS RAEBURN WHITE
Member Executive Committee, League to Enforce Peace
CHAPTER II
'THE PLATFORM"
The opening session of the first annual assem-
blage of the League to Enforce Peace on the morn-
ing of May 26, 1916, was devoted to "The Plat-
form." The first paper on this general topic was,
presented by Thomas Raeburn White, of Phil-
adelphia, as follows:
THE LEAGUE PROGRAM
The present war has demonstrated that existing in-
ternational institutions are unable to restrain the rush of
national ambition bent upon reaUzing its ends by an ap-
peal to arms. The cause of this failure was not the
weakness of international law, but lay in the fact that no-
machinery existed by which nations could be forced to
submit their disputes to international courts or boards
of conciliation.
Competent means for peaceable adjustment were at
hand, but because there was no power to compel their
use the greatest war in history has swept over Europe
and has carried desolation and sorrow into every clime.
This appalling conflict has concentrated the mind of the
world upon the question — what can be done to prevent
a like catastrophe from recurring?
The object of this conference is to promote a League
of Nations to Enforce Peace — a world organization
which will tend to prevent war by forcing its members,
to try peaceable settlement first.
13
14 ENFORCED PEACE
Our proposals are brief and simple: First, there must
be, of course, a contract or agreement between those
nations who are willing to join the League; it is intended
that this contract or treaty shall relate only to those
nations who are parties thereto and such disputes as
may arise between them, not comprehending any
alUance against outside powers, or any effort to control
them.
The disputes which may arise between nations have
been roughly divided into two classes — those which are
capable of being decided by a court according to known
rules of law or equity, called justiciable questions, and
those which are not capable of being so decided because
there is no law applicable thereto, and which are called
non- justiciable questions. The interpretation of a
treaty or the ascertainment of a boundary line would be
examples of justiciable questions; whether one nation
should exclude the citizens of another from its territory
or should be permitted to acquire territory in close
proximity to another, would be non-justiciable, some-
times called poUtical questions. It is proposed that all
justiciable questions shall be submitted to an inter-
national court for hearing and judgment and that all
other questions shall be submitted to an international
council of conciliation for hearing and recommendation,
before hostiUties shall be commenced by either party
to the controversy.
The program does not contemplate that the members
of the League shall be bound to accept the decision of the
court in the one case, or the recommendation of the
council of conciliation in the other; they are left free
to go to war if they believe their interests demand that
they should do so. The only restraint to be laid upon
them is that they shall not commence hostilities until
they have stated their case to an impartial body and
thus have stated it to the world and have given time
for consideration and decision. This is surely not an
ENFORCED PEACE 15
unreasonable proposition. If a case is not good
enough to bear stating it is not good enough to be
supported by force of arms.
In order to assist in the decision of judicial questions
it is further proposed that there shall be conferences
held at regular intervals so that disputed questions of
law between nations may be settled and it may be known
in advance what legal principles will be applied by the
court which hears the cases.
Finally that the nations may really be restrained from
commencing hostilities until their cases have been sub-
mitted and examined, it is proposed that all members of
the League shall agree that any power which violates
this provision of the treaty shall be at once opposed by
all the other members, with both their economic and
military forces.
What are some of the principal objections which have
been urged against these proposals?
It is said that no nation ought to agree to submit all
justiciable questions to an international court but
should reserve therefrom questions aflfecting vital in-
terest, honor or independence, which of course means
that any question may be reserved at the option of
the contracting power, these terms are so inclusive and
so elastic.
The principal objection urged to the judicial settle-
ment of international questions of this character is that a
nation should not surrender its freedom of action in any
important matter. Those who take this view have an
exaggerated conception of nationality; they seem to
think that their country, like the ancient kings, can do
no wrong, and that a claim, unsupportable by law or
morals, may properly be enforced, if the nation has the
power, and material advantage will result.
This is an unworthy conception of national duty and
national honor. It is the duty of a nation, as of an
individual, to be just.
i6 ENFORCED PEACE
It should never attempt to enforce by violence a
proposal which it fears to submit to the judgment of a
court. If after an unfavorable decision it feels that its
best interests demand that it should enforce its claim
by war it is left free to do so. But no nation would
fear to allow its claim to be examined on the merits
unless it -knew it to be unsustainable.
There is, however, another objection to the judicial
settlement of all international disputes which is more
worthy of consideration. This is that there exists at
the present time no competent court to which the
nations can resort with confidence that their cases will
be judicially considered and decided in accordance with
the law and the fact.
When a case is now submitted to judicial decision, a
special court must be made up for that case, and as the
judges are ordinarily selected by the nations concerned
they often partake more of the character of advocates
than of judges, and the decision is really made by one
man, the umpire. It is unsatisfactory for the great
questions which come up between sovereign powers to
be disposed of by the judgment of one man, whose
identity is unknown in advance and who may be inex-
perienced in judicial work. Men would not so submit
their disputes, and it is unreasonable to suppose that
nations would be willing to do so.
It is essential to the success of the proposed League
to Enforce Peace that a permanent international court
shall be established, so that there may be a permanent
body of trained jurists, the character of whose work
is known in advance, to which nations will be wilhng to
resort with that confidence in the integrity of its deci-
sions which is essential to the success of any judicial
body.
The fact that members of the League are not re-
quired to submit to the decision of the Court when
rendered, but, if they wish, may repudiate it and still
ENFORCED PEACE 17
settle their dijfferences by a resort to war, detracts but
little from the force of what has been said, for the deci-
sion of the court would in most cases be accepted,
especially by the United States which on account of its
well-known advocacy of judicial settlement would be
unlikely to repudiate a decision unless in a clear case of
fraud.
The agreement to submit non-justiciable questions to
an international council of conciliation is likely to meet
with less opposition than the proposal to submit all
justiciable questions to a court for the reason that the
council of concihation does not undertake to decide
which party is right or what shall be done, but merely
makes a recommendation. While for the reasons al-
ready indicated some nations, and particularly the
United States, would feel bound to conform to the de-
cision of a court, there would not be the same feeling in
regard to the recommendation of the Board of Con-
ciliation from the very nature of the case. The ques-
tions which would come before this Board would be
mostly political in character; there would be no question
involving the decision of facts or the application of law.
The recommendation would be merely the judgment of
the council as to the fair and equitable thing to do
under all the circumstances ; either nation might, with-
out stultification, under the provisions of the proposed
League, state that its interests were so vitally involved
that it felt bound to reject the proposed course of pro-
cedure; the parties would then be thrown back upon
direct negotiation, or, in the last resort, upon the trial of
strength.
But there are some general objections to the whole
plan which have been advanced by thoughtful men
and which deserve a frank and considerate discus-
sion.
It is said that no plan which calls for the legal settle-
ment of questions arising between nations can be sue-
i8 ENFORCED PEACE
cessful or would be conducive to the advancement of
civilization, because it would mean that the status quo
must be maintained.
In this connection we are told that the great events
in the world's history which have marked the progress
of civilization have come about not by law but by force;
that it would have been impossible for our own nation
to have existed had it not been for the use of force;
that many wrongs have been committed in the past
which as yet are unredressed, and which cannot be
redressed by legal means. Peoples once constituting
nationalities, and now under the control of alien power,
still dream of national greatness; nations which have
lost a portion of their territory Hve in the hope of
regaining it, and releasing their people from a foreign
yoke.
It must be admitted that the strictly judicial method
of settling international controversies would prevent
those changes which must inevitably come about with
the rise and fall of nations. Advancing civilization,
while regardful of the rights of sovereignties, cannot
be kept back by a system which would prevent changes
in forms of government or the transfer of territory
where necessary to the highest development of the
world. The physical, moral, and spiritual welfare of
human beings may have a higher claim than the
national entity which for the moment asserts jurisdic-
tion over them.
The program of the League to Enforce Peace has been
framed with consideration for this matter, and when
closely analyzed is seen not to stand in the way of
proper development of this character. The question
whether a colony or a portion of a nation should be en-
titled to its independence is not a matter for judicial
settlement, nor would it come within the comprehension
of this scheme, or of any international institution. Such
peoples would be as free afterwards as they were before
ENFORCED PEACE 19
to assert their independence and maintain it by force of
arms, if they could do so.
Moreover, other questions of the character mentioned
are non- justiciable and the recommendations of the
council of conciliation would not bind, but the nations
would be free to use force to realize their aspirations, if
they felt the necessity of doing so.
But it may be said that in neither of these particulars
does the proposed plan offer any real advance over the
existing condition ; it does, however, in that the council
of conciliation would be competent to consider all such
questions when arising between independent states, and
in cases where the alternative would be a devastating
war, it is by no means impossible that nations would
be willing to treat with regard to the question of giving
up some of their territory for a proper consideration
or granting other concessions under conditions which
would make for the best interests of all and the advance-
ment of civilization.
In short, if the status quo ever could in the nature of
things be changed peaceably it could be under the plan
of the League to Enforce Peace.
However, it must be frankly admitted that there are
limits to the possibiUty of adjusting, in a legal way, all
questions which may arise so long as there are backward
nations, unable or unwilling to maintain law and order
within their own boundaries, and to protect the rights of
others. These considerations might result in excluding
certain of the backward nations from joining a League
to Enforce Peace for a time, but that does not interfere
with the proposal that the enlightened nations shall
now make such a contract, and agree that any questions
coming up between them shall at least be stated and
passed upon by an international body before hostilities
begin.
Another great objection to the plan of the League to
Enforce Peace is because it contemplates the use of force
:20 ENFORCED PEACE
-to restrain nations from going to war before they have
complied with the stipulations mentioned.
This objection is urged by very conscientious, high-
minded people, who believe that all war is wrong, and
that it can never be right to do evil. They, therefore,
feel bound to oppose the program of the League to En-
force Peace because they think it involves the use of the
very thing which civiUzation is now trying to avoid.
Such views are entitled to great respect but rest per-
haps upon a mistaken conception of what the League
proposes. It must be admitted that the use of force is
necessary in dealing with law breakers, and on principle
it seems to make little difference whether these are men
■or nations. As the evil-doer must be restrained by force
in our local communities, so the evil-doer must be re-
strained by force in the community of nations. The
force which is proposed to be used by the League to
Enforce Peace, economic and mihtary, is essentially
police force; to suppress disorder, not to create it; if
not used, more lives would be taken, more damage
done, more war inflicted upon the world than if it is used.
That this proposal is not morally wrong is main-
tained by so eminent an authority as William Penn, a
member of the Society of Friends, which holds more
strongly than any other religious body that all war is
essentially unchristian. In his scheme for an European
Diet, William Penn provided that a sovereign assembly
consisting of representatives from the various nations
should decide disputes between them and he then pro-
ceeded thus:
"If any of the Soveraignties that Constitute
these Imperial States, shall refuse to submit their
Claim or Pretensions to them, or to abide and per-
form the Judgment thereof, and seek their Remedy
by Arms, or delay their Compliance beyond the
Time prefixt in their Resolutions, all the other
ENFORCED PEACE 21
Soveraignties, United as One Strength, shall com-
pel the Submission and Performance of the Sen-
tence, with Damages to the Suffering Party, and
Charges to the Soveraignties that obliged their
Submission."
This is high authority for the precise proposition ad-
vanced by the League to Enforce Peace, and one
which all of us can safely follow. In so doing, it
is a satisfaction to feel that the resort to arms would
probably never be necessary. The mere threat of the
union of the forces of all the other nations belong-
ing to the League would be enough; if that were not
enough the economic pressure which could be put upon
a single state would of itself be suflScient to bring her to
terms, and the program of the League has been officially
interpreted to mean that economic pressure shall first
be applied and where it is sufficient mihtary force will
not be necessary. Here, again, we have the authority
of William Penn, whose wisdom in matters of state
has been so often demonstrated. He proceeded:
"To be sure, Europe would quietly obtain the so
much desired and needed Peace, to Her harassed
Inhabitants; no Soveraignty in Europe having the
Power and therefore cannot show the WiU to dis-
pute the Conclusion; and, consequently. Peace
would be procured, and continued in Europe."
There are others who oppose the use of force upon a
different ground. They say that in the last analysis,
the agreement to use force would depend solely upon the
will of the nations concerned; that, therefore, it would
be no more effective than the agreement by the parties
to submit their disputes to the court or to the council of
conciUation — they might as well refuse the one as the
other. This objection, however, while suggesting that
22 ENFORCED PEACE
the plan might not work, is not really an objection to the
principle. Of course, the nations might refuse to unite
their forces, but with the growing conception that the
honor of a nation requires it to keep its treaties, and
with the knowledge that the agreement alone would
have a deterring effect upon a recalcitrant state, it iS be-
lieved that the objection is more apparent than real.
It has also been urged that it would be difficult to
tell "when one nation had begun hostiUties, and therefore
when the obligation had arisen on the part of the others
to oppose tjieir forces against her; also, in some cases,
it might be difficult to determine which of the two had
first begun hostilities and therefore which was to be
opposed and which supported by the other members
of the League. These are practical difficulties, but
they do not affect the merits of the plan.
Another objection which is often heard is that the
League would accomplish nothing if it could come into
existence, and that the probabilities are very great that
it cannot, because no sufficient number of nations
will be willing to adhere to it.
That the League would accomplish much good, if it
were formed by a number of first-class powers, there
is no doubt. It is true, it does not purport to pro-
hibit war, because the nations are at hberty to go to
war if they choose, after a decision of the court or
the council has been rendered, but they wou,ld not be
so likely to do so. On the contrary, it is safe to assume
that in a great majority of cases they would not do so.
Time is not only the great healer but the great pacifier.
Wars frequently spring out of misunderstandings, tem-
porary in character, which disappear on investigation,
and it would be of enormous assistance in lessening the
tension even when great questions of national policy are
involved, if the matters in dispute could be submitted to
impartial examination. Thus the misunderstandings
would be cleared up, the weakness and the strength of
ENFORCED PEACE 23
both sides of the question would be exposed to the world,
and the nation whose cause was shown to be unjust
would probably find that it would lose more by bringing
upon itself the odium of mankind in endeavoring to en-
force a cause already determined to be wrong than by
submitting to the inconvenience of accepting the de-
cision.
Whether a considerable number of nations would
adhere to this plan within the near future no one knows,
but we have reason to believe and hope that they will do
so. This conflict has shown more clearly than any
other that war inflicts terrible damage, not only upon the
parties directly involved in it, but upon neutrals, and it
is not too much to say that there is a settled determina-
tion growing in the minds of thoughtful men, in both
neutral and belligerent countries, that at the close of
this war some positive steps must be taken to better
preserve the peace of the world and that the great
powers should be willing to yield such small part of their
sovereignty as is involved in adherence to the plan of the
League to Enforce Peace.
It is said by some that the program of the League does
not go far enough. Of what avail, we are asked, would
it be to provide machinery to operate only on members
of a League when all other nations not members
thereof were still left free to wage war, even on League
members, with or without first trying peaceful settle-
ment?
Of course it is true that nations outside of the League
would not be controlled by it, but a League is worth
while even if it does no more than tend to prevent war
between a very few members. B ut the great advantages
to be gained from the freedom of constant menace of at-
tack, and the danger of remaining without when other
nations were forming closer relations within would soon
compel non-members to seek admission out of considera-
tion for safety, if nothing more.
24 ENFORCED PEACE
Everything must have a beginning, and the modest
proposals of the League to Enforce Peace seem as far as
it is wise to go at this moment. To undertake to deal
with non-members would jeopardize the success of the
undertaking, for it would place its members in the po-
sition of agreeing to engage in wars against other
nations who refused to submit their cases to a court or
council, when they had not agreed to do so. This would
be too serious a risk of a foreign war for some nations,
perhaps for the United States, to undertake and it
would probably refuse to join a League involving this
proposal.
Finally we come to the question whether the United
States ought to join such a League,
There are many who assert that we should not, and
who prophesy that the people of this country will never
agree to it. It is said that the first duty of the United
States is to her own citizens; that we ought not to con-
cern ourselves with European affairs; that we should con-
tinue to avoid being drawn into this war, and should
enter into no treaties or obhgations which might involve
us in such conflicts in future, and we are of course re-
minded of Washington's advice that we should avoid
entangling alliances. It is also said that to enter into
such a League as here proposed would be especially
objectionable because the freedom of American action
would be restrained at the will of foreign powers.
There is much that appeals to an American in these
observations. We like to think of our country as being
sufficient unto itself; able with its vast territory and
unlimited resources to supply itself indefinitely with all
necessary means of sustenance, and to repel foreign
invasion, should it be attempted. Would it not be
better for us to stand aloof from the nations of the old
world and work out our own destiny without entering
into leagues or poHtical aUiances with them?
These considerations, however, fail to take into ac-
ENFORCED PEACE 25
count changing conditions. Our relations with other
nations have become so much closer than formerly that
our interests can no longer be disassociated from theirs.
The distance from one country to another is not
measured by miles but by ease of communication, and
the means of travel have so improved in the last
hundred years that we are nearer to the uttermost
quarters of the world than we once were to some of
our neighbors. This has led to closer business re-
lations so that while we might perhaps be able to sustain
ourselves, in case of need, we are dependent in great de-
gree for our comfort and prosperity upon other nations,
and the interruption of normal commercial intercourse
brings great loss upon us. It is, therefore, of great im-
portance to us, not merely because of our interest in
mankind but because of our interest in ourselves, that
world-devastating wars should be prevented.
We have seen in the course of the last few months
how dangerous a great war may be to neutrals, and
how difficult it is for us to keep from being drawn
into it. It would, therefore, be the best self-protection
for the United States to lend its aid to some plan by
which world peace may be better preserved.
The suggestion that the United States might find it-
self subject to the dictation and coercion of foreign
powers, if it became a member of this League, is without
foundation.
Of course the United States would thereby agree that
it would not commence hostilities against another mem-
ber of the League without first submitting its grievance
to a court or council of conciliation, and if it violated
this provision would find itseh opposed by the other
members of the League. But it is not thinkable that
the United States would adopt such a course of action.
We, least of all nations, should refuse td submit cur
cause to the examination of an impartial body — a
method of adjustment of international differences,
26 ENFORCED PEACE
which we have practised ourselves and have constantly
urged upon the world throughout the whole period of our
national existence. When we had submitted our
case and a decision had been rendered we should be
left free to follow any course we should then deem
best.
There is another consideration which shows our join-
ing the League would be to our advantage from military
and economic considerations.
If the League to Enforce Peace is adhered to by the
principal nations of the world, its immediate effect will
be the" reduction of armaments for the reason that the
nations will no longer have to be "on edge." The
commencement of hostilities for a period long enough to
examine the question and render a decision, which could
scarcely be less than a year, is forbidden. There would,
therefore, not be the possibility of sudden descent by one
nation upon another without warning. This would
mean that there would not have to be that instant readi-
ness to repel attack which some of the nations of Europe
have felt it incumbent upon them to maintain.
This would improve the situation of the United States
in the possible event of a foreign war because the people
of this country will never consent to maintain a great
standing army in time of peace, and any consideration
which tends to lessen the burden of armaments abroad
will place us upon more of an equality with other great
powers.
This abatement of the struggle for supremacy in a:r-
mamentswillof itself enormously improve the possibility
of peaceful settlements. Nations which are not in in-
stant readiness to fight are much more apt to turn their
thoughts to amicable adjustment than those which are
only waiting a favorable opportunity to strike the first
blov:.
But there is another and a far nobler reason why the
United States ought to join a League to Enforce Peace.
Copyright, Pirie MacDonald, Neuj York
OSCAR S. STRAUS. A.B., LL.D.
Member Executive Committee, League to Enforce Peace
ENFORCED PEACE 27
We have been the leader in the cause of peaceful inter-
national settlements. We are the greatest neutral na-
tion and in spite of our differences with certain of the bel-
ligerents, our disinterestedness and our sense of justice
are recognized abroad, and in the opinion of competent
statesmen across the water, our cooperation at this great
crisis is necessary to the success of this plan, or any plan
having the same end in view. If now we should '
stand aloof from a great undertaking which with
our help could be successful and lead the world a
step toward the firm establishment of peace we would
be recreant to our duty and fail to realize our great
destiny.
No one contends that the program of the League to
Enforce Peace is perfect; no one believes that it will
abolish war instantly, even among its members, but that
is no reason for refusing it support. We do not con-
demn our educational systems because they have not
put an end to illiteracy, or our rehgious or moral in-
stitutions because there is still evil in the world; we try
to make these institutions better. The question is
whether the estabhshment of the program of the League
to Enforce Peace will on the whole tend to prevent war,
and tend to promote harmony and good will among
nations. If so, we should give it our support.
There can be no doubt that it will be of value in the
great world movement toward a permanent organiza-
tion among nations, which will some day provide for the
suppression of international disorder as promptly as
disorder is now suppressed in the best regulated com-
munities.
Oscar S. Straus, A.B., LL.B., LL.D., Chair-
man of the New York Public Service Commission,
former Secretary of Commerce and Labor, former
U. S. Ambassador to Turkey, member of the per-
28 ENFORCED PEACE
manent court of Arbitration at The Hague, etc.,
read the following paper :
PREPAREDNESS AGAINST THE REBARBARIZATION OF
THE WORLD
Lord Haldane, the Lord High ChanceUor of Great
Britain, than whom there is no higher authority upon
international relationship, in an address before the
American Bar Association at Montreal in September,
1913 — eleven months before the war began — said:
"The barbarism which once looked to conquest and
the waging of successful war as the main object of
statesmanship seems as though it were passing away.
There have been established rules of international law
which already govern the conduct of war itself and are
generally observed as binding by all civilized people
with the result that the cruelties of war have been
lessened. . . . It is this spirit that may develop as
time goes on into a full international 'sittlichkeit.'"
He expressed what was then the prevailing opinion
of thoughtful men throughout the world. Alas, we have
all experienced a rude awakening and a change of mind.
Our hopes and philosophies respecting the progress of
civilization and the maintenance of peace have been
dashed to the ground, and in the face of the awful and
shocking reaUties we have been compelled to come to
the conclusion that more effective agencies than moral
securities and aspirations must be provided in the future
in order to hold in check the unmoral tendencies, the
greed and thirst for conquest which still dominate inter-
national relationship. We have learned so long as force
sits in the judgment-seat of some nations, force must sit,
if not in, certainly behind, the judgment- seat of every
other nation unless they can come to an agreement to
place a mightier force behind the judgment-seat of a
ENFORCED PEACE 29
sufficiently large group of nations that will combine to
maintain peace with justice.
Sir Edward Grey in a recent interview said: "Un-
less mankind learns from this war to avoid war, the
struggle will have been in vain." This should be our
hope and this should be our aim, and in recognition of'
this truth we are assembled to instruct public opinion,
to prepare our people — and through them our govern-
ment— to take its share, befitting its greatness and its
responsibilities to itself and to the world, in the inter-
national reconstruction which must follow, unless we
and they are willing to suffer the evils and devastations
of recurring wars tending to the rebarbarization of the
world. Men have learned to check violence within
nations and must find some way to suppress or largely
reduce violence between nations.
In the days of slow wars an interval separated a state-
of peace from the state of war. Nations could more
readily postpone their preparations for war until the war
clouds threatened and could postpone the raising of
armies until the time approached for using them; but
all this is changed. The present war began after an ul-
timatum of only a few days, and immediately thereaf ter-
the armies of Germany were on the march through
Belgium.
At three different periods during the last twenty-eight
years I saw at close range at Constantinople the play of
the diplomacy of the great European powers. With
rare exception, in important vital issues, the diplomacy
of the stronger nations won out and that of the weaker
nations correspondingly failed.
It is a mistake to believe that armies and navies lie
useless when not engaged in war. As a matter of fact
armies and navies are the potential forces behind di-
plomacy when vital interests are at stake and their po-
tentiality is in the background and often the controlling
factor in obviating the development of conditions that.
so ENFORCED PEACE
lead to war or that project nations into war, even at
times against their own will.
Let us not deceive ourselves by failing to see that this
war has let loose throughout the world the spirit of
conquest, the hunger for territory, and the rivalry for
domination on land and sea. Even our efforts to
maintain our neutraUty instead of making for us friends
have made us envied, distrusted, and by some nations
hated. But entirely apart from the menace of foreign
attack, if we are to be an effective influence, either now
or hereafter, in the promotion or maintenance of the
peace of the world, the measure of our influence will cer-
tainly not be in proportion to our weakness but in
proportion to our available strength. It is said by some
that to enlarge our naval and military forces will of itself
be a provocative of war in that it will prompt the spirit
of militarism. This is true where armaments are piled
up for the sake of domination or of conquests, but arma-
ments for defense — subordinated as they always must be
imder our form of government to the civil power — are
not the promoters of militarism but a bulwark for the
maintenance of the reign of law and of justice and for the
security of all those ideals which constitute the elements
of enlightened and progressive civilization.
A war such as this could never have engulfed the
nations, had their international relationship and founda-
tions been rightfully constructed. For many years
past, and especially since the Franco-Prussian War,
historians, statesmen, and publicists foresaw and fore-
told that a condition of armed peace with its ever-in-
creasing burden of competitive armaments would in-
evitably lead to war unless a reconstruction could be
effected by the embattled nations of Europe upon the
basis of peace.
Count Benedetti, the French Ambassador at the
court of Berlin, at the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian
War, in his "Studies in Diplomacy," distinctly stated at
ENFORCED PEACE 31
the time that the Triple Alliance of 1879 between Ger-
many and Austria, to which Italy was joined in 1882,
would necessarily be a portent of war, or to use his
words:
** It is in fact armed peace that the three powers have
organized, and can peace under arms be lasting?"
The Marquis of Salisbury, in 1897, made the state-
ment that "The federation of the European nations is
the germ of the only possible mutual relation of these
States which can protect civihzation from the frightful
eflfects of war."
The German Chancellor in his speech in the Reichstag
on August 19, 1915, said, "An unassailable Germany
would give us a new Europe," and then adds, "An
England able to dictate its will to the world is incon-
sistent with the peace of the world."
He was right in his diagnosis when appHed to his
enemy but wrong when appHed to his own country.
His statement is itself an additional proof that the
dominance of power is not safe in the hands of any one
nation, and can only be entrusted for the security of
each nation in the hands of the united nations.
It is quite the vogue now to refer with ridicule to the
two Hague conferences and to the efforts made to avert
the catastrophe toward which Europe was so rapidly
drifting. The tendencies were in two diametrically op-
posite directions which have been graphically described
as Utopia and Hell. If the pacifists, who animated and
encouraged their governments to participate in the
peace conferences at the Hague in 1899 and 1907 and
who looked with hopefulness upon the results that would
follow, have met with disappointment, certainly they
have not fallen farther away from the realization of their
ideals than have the miUtarists in the condition of hope-
lessness and remoteness of results they aimed speedily
to achieve by the war which now engulfs the world.
In other words, the failure of the miUtarists has certainly
32 ENFORCED PEACE
been as decisive and infinitely more appalling than has
been the failure of the peace advocates in achieving
their end.
This world war is a distinct proof that neither
pacifism without wig^f, nor might — unless dominated by
right — can be effectual in securing a permanent peace.
As we survey the history of nations we find three
distinct methods of world organization which were de-
eloped, tried, and found wanting. The first of these
was the dominance of nations by great world powers
such as Greece under Alexander, whose invincible
phalanxes dominated Europe, Asia, and Africa. The
disciplined power of Rome which supplanted that of
Greece was another example. But as Greece was sup-
planted by Rome, so Rome in turn was overthrown by
the onrush of the northern barbarians.
Following the Napoleonic wars there was developed
a second method of keeping the peace — the system of
the Balance of Power and of the Concert of Europe
under which, instead of one dominant nation, several
nations united together in offensive and defensive
aUiances.
This plan developed in our day in a third arrange-
ment by which it was hoped that peace and order would
be maintained among the nations through group al-
liances; namely, the Triple Alliance on the one side and
the Triple Entente on the other. This Dual arrange-
ment dividing Europe into two vast and powerful camps
it was hoped would have the effect which is epitomized
in the expression that "one sword will keep the other
in its scabbard."
But this war proves that it has had a contrary effect;
it has multiphed the swords on both sides, it has de-
veloped militarism as never before, and has piled up
those crushing armaments that are to-day clashing
against one another in the most frightful and bloody
war in all history.
ENFORCED PEACE S3
These several methods and plans from Alexander the
Great to William II each in turn collapsed with increas-
ing frightfulness. They were built upon false founda-
tions; they were built as strongholds for war and not as
strongholds for peace. It follows by the hght of the
logic of history that for the future the world must seek
other methods than such as have failed so woefully to
maintain righteous peace. It must be a righteous peace,
for peace to be lasting must be founded on justice and
respect for law.
Any future plan to be lasting must take into consider-
ation the two antagonistic schools regarding the applica-
tion of moral principles to international affairs, and in so
doing reconstruct international relationship, not as here-
tofore exclusively on the basis of war, but dominantly
on the basis of peace. This cannot be done by the
dominance of a single power. That method has been
tried and has failed. It cannot be done by a division of
power. That also has proved a failure. It must be
done by a unity of power; by placing the might of the
united nations as guardians of the rights of each nation,
on the same principle as we constitute the joint power of
the forty-eight states of our Union as the guardian of the
right of each state.
While "righteousness exalteth a nation," the present
war gives incontrovertible proof that righteousness will
not protect a nation unless all other nations are likewise
exalted by righteousness. When that time arrives we
shall have reached the millennium which from present
indications is sufficiently remote to justify a search for
ways and means that will serve the purpose of the wc
in the intervening time.
It is a fact, which we would deceive ourselves in failing
to recognize, that fundamental changes in the progress
of mankind have rarely if ever been possible save by
war or as a sequel to war. The history of the nations
from the Armageddon to the invasion of Belgium teaches
34 ENFORCED PEACE
that war will not be banished until the leading and more
powerful nations become civilized enough to create an
organization that will not only induce but will force re-
sort to other means than war and that will be able to im-
pose necessary and fundamental changes without war.
The greatest curse of war is that it settles international
diflferences by the force of might and not by the arbitra-
ment of right, and when so settled it will continue in the
future as in the past to breed war. National weakness
does not make for peace. On the contrary, as the world
is at present constituted, it invites a disregard for funda-
mental right; it invites aggression and war. Power and
preparedness within limitation have a restraining in-
fluence and are most helpful in leading controversies to
settlement by peaceful negotiations. A nation without
power is compelled to submit either to conquest or to
humiliating conditions. When vital interests arise be-
tween strong and weak nations they are more likely to
lead to war than when they arise between two strong
nations. We need not look far for examples for this
unfortunate condition. The present war in its origin
affords a striking instance.
Many plans have been devised but no one in my
judgment has laid a better foundation for international
peace than the one that has been adopted by the League
to Enforce Peace. Herbert Spencer in his "Principles
of Sociology" some thirty years ago stated:
"A federation of the highest nations exercising
supreme authority — ^may, by forbidding wars between
any of its constituent nations, put an end to the re-
barbarization which is continually threatening civiUza-
tion."
Some such plan was recommended by Sir Edward
Grey and proposed by him to Germany as a safeguard
against aggression on the part of the Triple Entente, on
July 30, 1914. This proposal was embodied in a tele-
gram to the British Ambassador at Berlin. He said:
ENFORCED PEACE 35
"If the peace of Europe can be preserved and the
present crisis safely passed, my own endeavor will be to
promote some arrangement to which Germany could be
a party by which she could be assured that no aggressive
or hostile policy would be pursued against her or her
aUies by France, Russia, and ourselves jointly or sep-
arately. I have desired this and worked for it as far as
I could through the last Balkan crisis, and Germany hav-
ing a corresponding object our relations sensibly im-
proved. The idea has hitherto been too Utopian to
form the subject of definite proposals, but if this present
crisis, so much more acute than any that Europe has
gone through for generations, be safely passed, I am
hopeful that the relief and reaction which will follow
may make possible some more definite approachment
between the powers than has been possible hitherto."
Unfortunately this proposal was only put forward at
the eleventh hour when misrepresentation, irritation,
and suspicion had poisoned the air; all of which em-
phasizes the necessity that arrangements for peace must
be made in advance not only of mobilization but of the
irritations which produce war, and that such arrange-
ments must be made with the same precautions and
preparedness as the nations have hitherto given to
preparations for war.
It is to be hoped that out of the extreme suffering and
sacrifices that this war imposes there may arise supreme
wisdom among the nations. Either there will be a new
day or a darker night; all depends upon how this war
will end and what bulwarks the nations will erect against
future cataclysms such as we are now witnessing.
In conclusion, let me repeat, America though not a
belligerent is equally concerned in the world's peace as
are the nations at war. We must take a part in the re-
construction. Norman Angel significantly says, that if
we do not mix in the European affairs Europe will mix in
our affairs. We owe it to ourselves, to humanity, and to
36 ENFORCED PEACE
the world to lend our best efforts and to make our fullest
contribution to that reconstruction which must come.
Civilization has been undermined. The temples of
the false gods have tumbled into ruin. The most bar-
baric and colossal war has not put God, but man, on
trial. It has put existing international relationship on
trial; it has put expediency and the doctrine of might on
trial. It has revealed the fact that we cannot have one
standard of morals within a nation and a different and
lower standard as between nations.
All the machinery that has been devised in the past
for the maintenance of peace has been left to volunteer
effort. The resort to treaties of arbitration, to the Hague
Tribunal, to the Commissions of Inquiry, was volun-
cary. We must at least put forth as much compelling
force for the preservation of peace as has heretofore been
put forth for the preparations for war. Let us hope
that out of the bloody trenches will arise a new inter-
national conscience which will put no geographical limi-
tations upon right and justice.
Instead of a general staff in each nation preparing for
war, there should be a general staff of the united nations
preparing for peace. Bluntchli was perhaps right in his
opinion that the federation of Europe would be easier to
bring about than was that of the German Empire.
Federation gives cause for hope — hope that out of the
agonies and appalling sacrifices of this war may arise a
higher sense of international justice and a nobler hu-
manity under the protecting shield of the united powers
of the united nations.
Edward A. Filene, President of William
Filene's Sons Co., of Boston, Director of the Cham-
ber of Commerce of the United States, and active
in commercial, civic, and political work, evoked
the most remarkable demonstration of the con-
ENFORCED PEACE 37
ference when, after relating the parable of the
Good Samaritan and proposing that this country
should play the part of the Good Samaritan to
the rest of the world added :
"But it is our first duty to rid the Jericho Road of
thieves."
Mr. Filene's address follows:
THE LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE AND THE SOUL OF
THE UNITED STATES
This war will, on the one hand, determine whether or
not democracy can survive in Europe, and, on the other
hand, it will determine whether or not democracy de-
serves to survive in America. The efifect of this war
upon our nation is destined to be just as profound,
though more quietly produced, as though we were among
the belligerents. While war is hardening Europe
through sacrifice, we may let war soften America
through prosperity and find ourselves at the end of the
war "a peaceful nation unprepared for peace." I am
convinced that the future of American democracy and
the very soul of our nation is at stake in the part we play
in the present crisis.
This war has emphasized the fact that the United
States has become a world power. It has compelled
America suddenly to think in terms of world civilization.
Carefully sheltered from the recurrent storm and stress
of European poUtics by our geographical location and
our traditional policy of isolation, we have, as a nation,
grown both powerful and rich, but the war has shaken
down about our ears the House of Isolation. We have
learned that isolation from world affairs is henceforth
impossible, and that cooperation in world affairs is
imperative. But we are groping for a program. The
38 ENFORCED PEACE
bigness of world demands makes hesitant a nation
accustomed to national demands only.
But international problems are fundamentally the
same as individual problems, except they are bigger.
To find a program for relations between nations, we
need but to apply the principles of enhghtened relations
between men. In fact, I know no better guide for
American action in the present crisis than a very old
story about the duty one individual owes another. The
story is famihar to you.
" A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho,
and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his rai-
ment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half
dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest
that way; and when he saw him, he passed by on the
other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the
place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the
other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed,
came where he was; and when he saw him, he had com-
passion on him, and went to him, and bound up his
wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own
beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two
pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him,
'Take care of him: and whatsoever thou spendest more,
when I come again, I will repay thee,' 'Which now of
these three, thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that
fell among the thieves? ' And he said, * He that shewed
mercy on him,' Then said Jesus unto him, ' Go, and do
thou likewise,'"
To-day the world is wounded, CiviUzation has fallen,
bruised and beaten by the roadside. There are only a
few nations far enough removed from the conflict to be
able to go in peace along the highway. Of all these
nations, we are the most powerful. The United States
may take either of two attitudes in the present crisis.
Like the Levite, it may do the selfishly safe thing, pre-
ENFORCED PEACE 39
serving merely its own comfort and safety, or like the
Samaritan, it may let the unfortunate situation in which
the world now finds itself awaken it to the truth that
strength owes a debt to weakness and that order owes a
debt to disorder.
We have come to a time when the Good Samaritan is,
in theory at least, accepted as an illustration of the min-
imum social respbnsibiUty that any civilized man
must accept. The Good Samaritan is the classical
example of remedial charity prompted by pity. The
millions of dollars we have given to relief funds might
indicate that the United States has adequately played
the role of the Good Samaritan, but I am convinced that
were this parable stated to-day, it would not limit
the action of the Good Samaritan to dressing the
wounds and paying the hotel bill of the victim, but
would have him start a practical movement for ridding
the Jericho Road of outlaws, instituting adequate poHce
protection, and making the road a safe avenue for
travel. In other words, remedial charity is no longer a
complete answer to give to suffering. We must add
preventive measures.
The parable of the Good Samaritan, therefore, sug-
gests two fines of action for the United States. It sug-
gests refief measures; and we ought to give of our wealth
to the point of sacrifice in the relief of the immediate
suffering caused by this war. But it suggests also that
relief measures are not enough, that it is a fine thing to
organize a wrecking crew, but that it is even more val-
uable to prevent a wreck. Hand in hand, therefore,
with our reUef measures as a nation, it is our duty to do
our share in helping the world put into operation some
plan that will make war less probable and will, in the
future, to some extent at least, prevent the suffering we
are now trying to reUeve.
We are met to-day to advocate the estabUshment of a
League of Nations to enforce peace by a common use of
40 ENFORCED PEACE
the economic and military power of its members as the
one practical preventive program. I wonder if in urg-
ing that the United States take vigorous initiative action
in behalf of this proposal, we fully realize that by so
doing our nation would not only be rendering to a war-
shadowed world the service of constructive statesman-
ship, but would also be exercising in its own behalf the
soundest economic, political, and spiritual foresight.
The United States could, in no way, write a better in-
surance poUcy for its future material prosperity than by
bending every efifort toward the estabUshment of some
international plan that would make war less probable,
for if, at the end of this war, the nations of Europe are
compelled to enter once more an extravagant rivalry in
armaments, the whole business competition of the world
will become so complicated and destructive that our own
material prosperity will hang in the balance.
The United States could, in no way, display keener
political foresight. For the time has passed when the
United States can be a law unto itself. The United
States with its great wealth and power is a responsible
citizen in the community of nations. Either it must
consciously take its place now as a world power or it will
later be dragged reluctantly at the heels of forces and
fears which it cannot control. It is better freely and of
our own accord to prepare ourselves to answer the call to
world responsibility and world duty than to be driven in
fear half to prepare ourselves for defense alone.
The United States could, in no way, display greater
spiritual foresight than by cooperating with the nations
of the world in preventing those recurring floods of war
that over night sweep away so many important results
of generations of civilized effort.
Even before the war, we were, as a nation, at the
crossroads in our spiritual development — using the word
spiritual in its broadest sense. In the physical conquest
of the continent, we paid the price of an over emphasis
ENFORCED PEACE 41
on the material side of life, an inevitable by-product of
every pioneer period. But when a nation blazes its last
trail and passes its last frontier, unless the spirit of con-
quest that marked the period of the physical establish-
ment of its cities, its farms, its factories, and its railways
can be turned into the spiritual development of its
people, it is due for a dechne. The very virtues of a
nation's youth may become the vices of a nation's
maturity.
Our fathers laid the foundations of this republic in the
faith that the political and social order that they
established would be fundamentally different from that
of old-world states, and would act as a spiritual leaven
among the governments of earth. We have been so
busy clearing forests, estabUshing cities, erecting fac-
tories, and building railroads, that we have come near
forgetting the spiritual and social responsibility that the
tradition of our fathers laid upon us. If we are not to
prove recreant to the faith of the men who founded our
nation, we must recover the lost thread of our spiritual
mission as a people.
This war has given us an opportunity that we would
have been compelled to seek in other and smaller fields
had not the war confronted us with a great duty. I be-
Ueve that if we do our share in helping the nations lay
the foundations of more lasting world peace, we will find
that this war has given us the opportunity for the great-
est moral and spiritual adventure of our national life —
an adventure in which we shall consciously dedicate the
energies of our nation to a compelling ideal, pull our-
selves together in a vast, organized, unselfish expression,
and reawaken the spiritual impulses that sustained the
founders of this republic.
If, at the end of this war, we fail to do our full share
toward helping to secure more lasting peace, we shall
prove recreant to a great duty and a great opportunity
— probably the greatest opportunity that has ever come
42 ENFORCED PEACE
or ever will come to us as a people. And with a nation
as with an individual, the deUberate avoidance of a
great duty inevitably results in a distinct loss of moral
and spiritual power, and whenever the spiritual power of
a nation is seriously diminished, the material power of
the nation is, in time, imdermined, just as the Roman
Empire, when wealth and luxury relaxed its sterner
virtues and tore down its moral fabric, declined in wealth
and power and passed from the rank of a first-class
nation.
But if so great emphasis upon the spiritual interests
involved seems an impractical argument for a business
man to make, it is fortunate that in this instance the
economic argument coincides with the spiritual argu-
ment. For the definite outlook is that, unless law can
be substituted for war to the greatest practical extent in
the settlement of international disputes, the United
States will face, after the conclusion of this war, one of
the most serious and extensive business reactions it has
ever experienced.
The grounds for predicting this reaction are clear.
Europe will come to the end of the war financially de-
pleted, at the one time when she needs money more
urgently than ever in her history. The interest bills on
war debts and the expense of reestablishing war-
ravaged industries will create a demand for funds so in-
sistent that Europe will be compelled to make an un-
heard-of onslaught upon markets abroad; for the sale of
goods in foreign markets will be the most available and
practical method by which Europe can secure the money
she needs.
There is every reason to believe that the United
States will be the first to suffer from the severe and de-
structive competition that will result. In this com-
petition, the United States will be forced to reckon with
a new efiiciency in Europe. The countries that have so
efl&ciently organized their resources for war will, in the
ENFORCED PEACE 43
end, so organize their resources for production. In fact,
reorganization for this purpose is already under way.
The crushing taxation that will aggravate the poverty of
Europe will cause the peoples of Europe to share with
the governments of Europe their imperative desire for a
trade war for the capture of markets, as a means toward
rebuilding the industries of Europe, once more putting
the nations upon a normal basis, and lessening the
necessity for such crushing taxation. So that we may
expect the peoples of Europe to carry over into the con-
test for economic reconstruction much of the spirit of
sacrifice they have shown in the contest for mihtary
success.
There are indications that by the end of the war, prac-
tically all of the nations of Europe will erect high tariff
walls which will seriously restrict trading between the
nations that are now enemies. Extensive preparations
are aheady under way for splitting Europe into two
rival business camps after the war, just as to-day it is
spht into two rival military camps. These tariff bar-
riers will be another force causing the nations of
Europe to bend every effort to capture the trade of
the United States and other neutral nations. If
the business energy of Europe, spurred by desperate
necessity, focusses upon the neutral markets of the world,
it is clear that the South American and other neutral
markets, where our trade has been none too large in the
past, will be an increasingly difficult, if not impossible,
field for us. Before the war, I strongly advocated the
extension of our trade in South American markets, but
the present outlook is that in those markets we will face
a competition based upon such urgent necessity for sell-
ing and such low wage labor that it will be impossible
for us to compete successfully without sacrificing our
present standard of living.
If we permit the nations of Europe to flood the mar-
ket of the United States with goods made by workmen
44 ENFORCED PEACE
who, for patriotic reasons, have accepted wages de-
cidedly lower than American wages, it is clear that not
only American labor but American capital will seriously
suffer. For if the laboring people of Europe have only
their time to sell, and if the employer who buys that time
must pay such a price for it as will leave him a profit in
the markets where he sells his goods, it follows that the
buying power of the entire European people will be re-
duced. Some Americans are suggesting a high pro-
tective tariff against foreign goods, but if foreign prod-
ucts are kept from our markets, how can Europe
pay for what she will want from us when the war is
over?
Then, too, if we attempt to protect American business
from the necessity-driven competition of Europe by the
use of high tariffs, we will discover that, in many in-
stances, nothing short of a prohibitory tariff will shut
out the low wage competition that we fear. But pro-
hibitory tariffs would mean a serious loss of revenue for
our government, a loss which we would probably try to
make up by an increase in direct taxation. Adding to
such a loss of revenue a preparedness program demand-
ing an annual expenditure of $500,000,000, we will
probably face the necessity of raising, largely by direct
taxation, something near a billion dollars annually over
and above what we are now raising by direct taxation.
Throughout history, governments have gone down in an
effort to levy direct taxes to the satisfaction of all classes.
Whatever may be our individual views on direct taxa-
tion, we know that the practical result of any effort to
raise so huge a sum by direct taxation will result in
serious class strife.
But if Europe should face the necessity of no other
expenditures than those of interest bills and the expense
of reconstructing her industries, the situation, though
extremely difficult, would not be an impossible one.
Unless the war continues for so long as to upset all
ENFORCED PEACE 45
reasonable calculations, the expense of the war will
probably represent no more than a loss of four or five
years of the normal production of Europe. For we
must remember that Europe will come to the end of the
war with an adequate labor supply, because the ex-
tensive introduction of women into the ranks of labor,
which has taken place and will increasingly take place,
will make up the loss of male workers through the de-
struction of war. But, if at the end of this war, no
method but war is left for the settlement of future dis-
putes that are bound to arise between nations, every
nation in Europe will be compelled to resort to a rivalry
in armaments more extensive and more expensive than
ever before. The extent to which any nation of Europe
will arm will be determined not by what that nation can
reasonably afford, but by the extent to which the other
nations of Europe arm'. The expense of such a rivalry
in armaments added to the interest bills on war debts
and the expense of replacing the destruction of war, will
create a need for money so continuously urgent that the
trade competition, which we have reason to fear, will not
only be made more intense and more destructive, but
will continue so much farther into the future that no
man can reasonably predict the end of the serious busi-
ness reaction that will come to the United States, in
common with the rest of the world.
We display a superficial grasp of modern economic
conditions, if we think American prosperity can long
exist side by side with European poverty. The
agencies of credit, transportation, and exchange have
made fluid the wealth of the world. President James
A. Farrell, of the United States Steel Corporation, in a
recent address to a group of representative business men
at New Orleans, recognized this truth in his apt state-
ment that "There can be no stable prosperity at home
unless we are able to make Uberal sales of American
goods abroad."
46 ENFORCED PEACE
I am convinced that the United States is due for some
business reaction, even though the rivalry in armaments
be made unnecessary, but if the expense of rivahy in
armaments could be materially decreased, the reaction
might be kept within such bounds that we might reason-
ably meet it. So that the business prosperity of America
demands that we do not "pass by on the other side,"
but that we take a constructively helpful attitude in
helping the world make war less probable and peace
more lasting.
There is not a right thinking man in America who
would not be willing to make sacrifices if he thought
thereby he could make more lasting the peace of the
world. But the average man is at a loss for a concrete
program. If the average American could become con-
vinced as to what is the next practical and possible step
forward in the substitution of law for war, there would
be no question about his support of the proposal. The
best practical thinking of the world, as well as the
accumulated experience of history, indicates that the
only method by which peace may be made more secure
is by substituting law for war among nations just as we
have substituted law for war among individuals.
The substitution of law for war among individuals
within the nations has meant the estabUshment of courts
with power enough behind them to insure their opera-
tion; it has meant the disarmament of the individual
and the creation of a pohce force, as the only body with
the legal right to use force in the maintenance of order.
There is no reasonable ground to hope that the nations
of the world will go that far at this time. We have not
gone far enough in international matters yet to expect
either the disarmament of nations or the creation of an
international army and navy to police the world.
But we have reached the point where we may reason-
ably hope that the community of nations will, at the end
of this war, do what every primitive commimity sooner
ENFORCED PEACE 47
or later does, namely: In a primitive community, before
courts and police have been created, when the honor of
its women and the property of the town are no longer
safe from outlaws, all men, even the most peace loving,
unite in forming a Vigilance Committee, in which they
agree to combine their force to restrain law-breakers and
maintain the peace of the town.
The United States is to-day in the exact position of a
man of peace in a frontier community. It is our duty
to advocate and to stand ready to join an International
Vigilance Committee, in which the nations shall agree to
use their combined powers, both economic and military,
to compel any nation to submit its grievance for exami-
nation to an International Court or Council of ConciHa-
tion before declaring war. And this is the program of
the League to Enforce Peace — not a proposal to disarm,
not a proposal to organize an international government,
not a proposal to create an international police, not
a proposal to enforce decrees, but simply a pro-
posal that the nations shall join in enforcing a delay in
the declaration of a war until an impartial court and
the public opinion of the world have had a chance to
examine the asserted cause of war. There is little
doubt that if every supposed cause of war had to stand
examination before the eyes of the whole world, nine
out of every ten wars would be prevented.
To the duty of leadership in this movement we are
now called; and in urging that the United States now
take initiative, we are not sketching an impossible hope.
Evidence is daily accumulating that at the end of the
war the opportunity to cooperate with the nations of
Europe in forming such a League will be definitely
ours.
Let me state why we may expect the nations of Europe
to be in a receptive mood toward this proposal:
(i) The nations will know that they dare not trust
in the permanence of the present alliances for mutual
48 ENFORCED PEACE
protection in the future. Practically all of the nations
that are now aUies have at some time been enemies;
practically all that are now enemies have at some time
been allies. Wars between the members of an alhance
over opposing national interests are apparently in-
evitable, unless there is provided some method other
than war to deal with the difiFerences that are bound to
arise.
(2) The nations will know that if they again enter a
state of armed peace that the necessary rivalry in arma-
ments will cause such crushing burdens of taxation that
sooner or later the masses will rise in protest.
(3) The nations will know that, unless they effect
some arrangement that will give greater security against
war, social and democratic progress will be a virtual im-
possibility. As a war machine, an autocratic govern-
ment is more efficient than a democracy; and if the
nations of Europe must stand on the eternal defensive,
the masses as well as the statesmen will be sympathetic
toward the type of government that affords the best
protection from invasion.
But beyond these reasons why Europe should be
favorable toward the establishment of a League to En-
force Peace, there is evidence that Europe is favorable.
To Theodore Marburg, as an envoy of the American
Branch of the League to Enforce Peace, there has been
given by letter and by word of mouth, assurance of the
unqualified support of the proposal by such statesmen
as Sir Edward Grey, Lord Bryce, Premier Asquith, and
others.
Although " the will to cooperate " be strong in Europe
the success of the proposal will depend largely upon the
initiative of the United States, for the hatreds en-
gendered by the war will make it difficult for any one
nation of Europe to give effective leadership to such a
proposal. Then, too, this war will have proved
America to be the biggest and safest source of those
ENFORCED PEACE 49
supplies upon which the success of modern warfare de-
pends— a fact that will lend weight to any international
suggestion we may make.
Every counsel of wisdom urges us as a nation to stand
upon this platform. It is sound business pohcy. A
peaceful world makes possible a permanently prosperous
America. It is sound pohtical policy. It will mean for
us a foreign policy under which we shall consciously
assume that responsibihty in world affairs that duty de-
mands. It will mean for us a domestic poUcy that
will clarify many of our vexed questions. If we unite
upon this program, all differences about the degree of
preparedness necessary will be easily adjusted; for if we
should adopt as our slogan "National Preparedness for
International Peace," every man and woman in America
would feel it to be not only a duty but a privilege to pre-
pare themselves to do their share in preserving the peace
and order of the world. The fear of militarism would be
removed, for if we pledge our arms to the defense of the
peace of the world, and agree to submit our disputes ta
an International Court before declaring war, we thereby
protect ourselves against the possibility of our ever wag-
ing a war of conquest, and make impossible our hasty
entrance into any war.
And if there ever should come a time, which is doubt-
ful, when we would be compelled to use our naval and
military power for the purpose of forcing another nation
to abide by its agreement to submit disputes to an Inter-
national Court, we would not be "going to war" in the
ordinary sense. It has been well said:
"A nation removed from the confhct and taking part
in the struggle merely out of a sense of duty to humanity
and respect for its pledged word, would be performing an
act so different from the ordinary meaning of going to
war that one might well look for a different word by
which to characterize it. It would, in effect, be posse
comitatus going out to preserve the peace. It would be
so ENFORCED PEACE
the difference between the bloodthirsty cut-throat and
the consecrated policeman, who batters down a door be-
hind which a madman, armed to the teeth, has en-
trenched himself."
The consecration of a nation's resources and arms to
such an endeavor would inevitably produce that
spiritual awakening that always accompanies sacrifice
for a worthy cause; and would awaken to new vigor
those qualities of devotion to duty and to the common
good that will go far in helping us solve our problems of
labor, of business, of our civic and political life.
Gentlemen, the opportunity that now confronts our
nation will put to the test our spiritual capacity as a
people. I cannot beheve that we will merely give of our
wealth to relieve the suffering of war, but leave the high-
way of the world still infested with outlaws. I know the
spirit that animates the men and women of our nation,
and I know that the United States will not "pass by on
the other side" but will resolutely do its share toward
helping the world make war less probable and peace
more lasting, that the United States will give its
allegiance to the program of the League to Enforce
Peace.
The closing paper on the general subject of "The
Platform" was by Hamilton Holt, Litt.D., LL.D.,
Editor of the Independent, as follows:
THE LEAGUE PROGRAM, PREPAREDNESS, AND ULTIMATE
REDUCTION OF ARMAMENTS
Except for the extremists in both camps — and they
are after all very few — the pacifists and preparationists
are not as far apart as they think. Both want peace,
both want adequate defense. The pacifists dwell per-
haps most on the end to be achieved, the preparationists
most on the means to the end.
Photo by Aimi Dupont, New York
HAMILTON HOLT, Litt.D., LL.D.
Vice Chairman of the Executive Committee, Le.ague to Enforce Peace
ENFORCED PEACE 51
The pacifists, however, have the broader vision.
They are internationaUsts. The preparationists are
nationaUsts. They concern themselves mostly with
national security. The only difference between both
groups seems to be this: the preparationists say that
armaments are our only final protection against an-
nihilation; the pacifists say that armaments lead us
directly to war; that if you prepare for a thing you get
what you prepare for, and there never would have been
this war if some nations had not been prepared. Now
if we are candid as we ought to be in approaching a sub-
ject of the magnitude of this, we must admit that arma-
ments do protect us when we are in trouble, but on the
other hand they do get us right into the trouble. The
problem before us is how to solve that paradox: how
can we have the full protection that armaments afford
and at the same time disarm; for if we cannot do this we
must admit that it is a law of nature that war is to con-
sume all the fruits of progress — an admission that hu-
manity can never accept.
I believe the League to Enforce Peace furnishes the
common ground on which the pacifists and the prepara-
tionists can unite, because the League provides for all
sanctions, moral, economic, and physical, to maintain
law and order, and furnishes the only scientific formula
for the ultimate reduction of armaments.
The great German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, said
over one hundred years ago that we never could have
universal peace until the world was politically organized,
and it never would be possible to organize the world
politically until the peoples and not the kings ruled.
And, he added, we have got to rid our hearts of that feel-
ing of hatred and hostiUty that so many of us cherish
against other races and creeds and peoples and na-
tions.
Now, if this be the true philosophy of peace, and it
seems to me to be the most fundamental analysis I have
52 ENFORCED PEACE
ever read on the peace movement, then, when this great
war is over and the stricken, sobered people attempt to
rear a new civiUzation on the ashes of the old, they have
got to do three things.
They have got to extend democracy everywhere, even
here in the United States of America.
They have got to instill within themselves a spirit of
hospitality and good will to other peoples.
They have got to create the international machinery
for doing international business; that is, they have got to
organize the world pohtically.
The extension of democracy will be brought about, if
at all, by forces within the nations. James Bryce, in his
^'American Commonwealth," says that all nations in the
world to-day, some slowly, some quickly, but all with
unresting footsteps, are coming to adopt the American
form of government. At the present moment all na-
tions, with the insignificant exception of Siam, have
some form of representative government. Russia has
its Duma, Turkey and Persia have their parliaments;
and perhaps the real trouble in China to-day is that
they have not got popular government fast enough.
The extension of democracy will be brought about by
forces within the nations going on irrespectively of peace
or international movements.
The extension of the spirit of good will and hos-
pitality will likewise be brought about by forces within
the nations. Largely, I suppose, this task will devolve
upon the schools, colleges, and churches.
But the political organization of the world will not be
brought about by forces within the nations. It will
rather be achieved by joint action of the governments
of the nations, and there, and there only, is the phase of
the peace movement where the United States can exert
influence outside of its own boundaries.
The League to Enforce Peace primarily finds its
activity in this third aspect of the peace movement,
ENFORCED PEACE 53
that is, it is the machinery by which reason can enthrone
itself in the world.
There are four stages in the evolution of world or-
ganization.
First, the creation of the machinery: courts, parlia-
ments, and executives. The first Hague Parliament
took us through this stage.
Second, the agreement to use the courts and con-
ferences. There is no such agreement on earth to-day.
Third, the proposal to put force back of the agreement.
Fourth, and last, the proposal to put force back of the
decrees of the international courts, councils, and legis-
latures.
Our League to Enforce Peace jumps over the second
stage into the third. We do not think it possible, or
practicable, to suggest that the nations go to the fourth
stage yet, though they will go eventually.
How then can we organize the world for peace, and
the outcome of peace, which is disarmament? Before
we can discuss this question intelligently we must ap-
prehend the three-fold function of force in international
relations, and this not one in a hundred persons seems to
understand.
Internationally speaking, force can be divided into
three kinds: international poUce, aggression, and de-
fense. Aggression and defense sometimes are inter-
changeable terms and cannot be considered separately,
but in the main they represent distinct and even an-
tagonistic ideas. International pohce force is almost
wholly good. It means the enthronement of reason,
if necessary, by force. Aggression is almost wholly
bad. It means the imposition of your will on some
one else, without the right of the other person to say
whether your will is just or not. Any lawyer, any
jurist, will show you that this is the height of injustice
in personal relations.
Defense may be a glorious duty or a necessary evil;
54 ENFORCED PEACE
but in either case it is nothing but the neutraUzation of
offense. Therefore the problem of the peace movement
is to reduce the force of offense down to that of an inter-
national poUce, because defense will automatically cease
when offense ceases.
How can that take place? The London Spectator,
hitherto considered an intelligent journal, suggested
recently one way. It said: "Let a nation disarm all
the other nations by force and then disarm itself."
Such an idea is too preposterous to discuss. We have in
our own constitution a clause forbidding the govern-
ment to disarm an individual ; otherwise we would have
no ultimate way of ridding ourselves of tyrants.
Another way would be to call a conference of the
nations and all agree to disarm. Such a course is
absolutely impossible. There are too many mediaeval-
minded nations still on earth.
But is there no other way? There is. It may be here
and now that there are enough nations — and there have
got to be enough who are ready to disarm in advance of
the others. How then can they do this with safety to
themselves? Let them establish a League to Enforce
Peace based on the principle of the United States and the
principle of England. Let me explain. When our
forefathers estabUshed the United States, the State of
New York and the State of Virginia each had a separate
navy. But by the adoption of our constitution they
abohshed their separate navies, or their right to say
whatever they wanted to say by force in interstate
affairs, and in return they were guaranteed home rule
and local autonomy by the combined power of all the
states. But more than that, the taxes that they paid
for protection were less than they had previously paid to
the state treasuries for state protection. In other
words, by pooling forces, their taxes were less, and they
consequently disarmed.
Let the nations in the League to Enforce Peace do
ENFORCED PEACE 55
likewise. Let them create a court to settle justiciable
questions, a legislature to make rules, and let them dis-
arm, as our forefathers did, i.e., down to the point where
they in Congress assembled agreed that the forces of the
Union were strong enough to preserve it from enemies
within or without. Let them reduce their armaments
to the point where the combined armaments are a little
larger than those of any one. Let the League to Enforce
Peace therefore have courts, parliaments, executives,
and disarmament to the safety point on the American
plan and be prepared to use force against nations that
will not forswear force on the English plan.
I can make this point clearer by an analogy. Sup-
pose instead of talking about forty-six great states we
speak of forty-six farmers on the western frontier all
engaged in growing grain, and all armed to the teeth.
It is perfectly evident that instead of raising grain they
would be raising Cain. Suppose there were fifteen to
twenty of them who had more sense than the others.
They would soon get together to devise ways and means
of estabhshing peace. How would they go about it?
Not by making arbitration treaties one with another and
leaving their dispute to a third man to decide. They
would rather get together and form a posse comilatus, a
vigilance committee, a league to enforce peace, and they
would say, "Woe betide any man who hereafter breaks
the peace of this community." And if they were strong
enough they would maintain it but if not they would in
all probabiUty be "shot up" themselves. But soon
some man on the outside of the group would say to him-
self, "These men are the progressive men of this com-
munity; I had better cast my lot with them." And as
this man joined the group it could disarm a little and as
other men joined the group they would be able to reduce
their force a Uttle more and a little more, until finally one
or two armed men, policemen, could maintain the peace
of the community and the rest would go about unarmed.
56 ENFORCED PEACE
Apply this analogy to the nations. Suppose the
majority of the great powers joined the League. Sup-
pose the League had a total army of two miUion. Sup-
pose Russia stays out and has an army of one million.
It would be no use for the League to keep up an army of
two million for Russia. You could reduce the force of
the League to one and a half million, or even one and a
quarter million, and still be protected and safe from
Russia. But in the meantime, the hberal men in
Russia will be seeing that the nations in the League are
getting greater protection for themselves for less taxa-
tion and finally Russia would apply to join the League.
And when Russia came in there would be a pro rata re-
duction of the armaments of the League down to the
size of the next most heavily armed nation and so on
down until nearly all the nations were in the League and
the armaments were reduced to an international police.
Now that is the theory of a League of nations. It
may not be worked out just in that way when this war is
over but that is the theory. We are Uving under the
competitive theory of armaments now, and under that
theory armaments must continually go up.
The object of the League to Enforce Peace is to sub-
stitute for that competitive theory the collective theory
of armaments. It seems to be the destiny of the United
States to lead in this movement. The United States it-
self is the greatest League of Peace knowTi to history.
The United States is a demonstration that all peoples
and races can come here and live in peace together imder
one form of government.
Every president of the United States has advocated
peace through justice. All, from the first great Virgin-
ian, George Washington, to the last great Virginian,
Woodrow Wilson, has abhorred what another great
Virginian, Thomas Jefferson, called "the greatest
scourge of mankind."' Is it too much to suppose that
the man who happens to be President when this war is
ENFORCED PEACE 57
over cannot do for the world if he has the courage and
vision something similar to what George Washington
did for our States after the Revolutionary War was over?
Stranger things than that have happened in history.
Let us add, then, to the Declaration of Independence a
Declaration of Interdependence.
CHAPTER III
PRACTICABILITY OF THE LEAGUE
PLATFORM
Discussion of the practicability of the program
of the League to Enforce Peace, which was the
general topic at the second session of the first
annual assemblage, was opened by William Howard
Taft, B.A., LL.B., LL.D., formerly President of
the United States, president of the League to
Enforce Peace. Mr. Taft's paper follows:
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PROPOSALS
To me has been assigned the discussion of the con-
stitutional objections to the proposals of the League to
Enforce Peace. These objections, so far as I under-
stand them, are directed against the first and third
planks in our platform. The first plank reads as follows :
"First: AH justiciable questions arising between
the signatory powers, not settled by negotiation,
shall, subject to the limitations of treaties, be sub-
mitted to a judicial tribunal for hearing and judg-
ment, both upon the merits and upon any issues
as to its jurisdiction of the question."
This looks to an organization of a permanent court
by the signatories to the League. It contemplates the
opportunity of any member of the League, having a
58
Copyright, 191 2, Moffttt Studio
WILLIAM H. TAFT
Presitlent of the League to Enforce Peace
ENFORCED PEACE 59
cause of complaint against any other member of the
League, to sue such member in this court and bring it
into court by proper process. The complainant's
pleading will, of course, state its cause of action. The
defendant may wish to question the jurisdiction of the
court on the ground, for instance, that the cause of
action stated by the complainant does not involve a
justiciable issue; that it can not be decided on prin-
ciples of law or equity.
The court, upon this preHminary question, must
decide upon its jurisdiction. If it finds the question
not to be justiciable, it must dismiss the complaint,
but it may properly refer its investigation to the
Commission of Conciliation. If it finds that it is jus-
ticiable, it must require the defendant nation to answer.
What I have to discuss is whether the President
and the Senate, constituting the treaty-making power
for this Government, may consent, for and on behalf
of the United States, to the settlement of any justici-
able issue arising between the United States and any
other member of the League by this permanent court;
and whether it may leave to that court the power to
decide whether the issue raised is a justiciable one. It
was argued against a similar provision in the general
arbitration treaties with England and France, that
such a stipulation constituted a delegation by the
President and Senate of the authority reposed in them
over the foreign relations of our Government, and
therefore that it was ultra-vires. Both upon reason
and authority this objection is untenable. The United
States is a nation, and, from a foreign standpoint, a
sovereign nation, without limitation of its sovereignty.
It may, therefore, through its treaty-making power,
consent to any agreement with other powers relating
to subject matter that is usually considered and made
the subject of treaties. The well-known language of
Mr. Justice Field, in the case of Geofrey v. Riggs^
6o ENFORCED PEACE
133 U. S. 258, leaves no doubt upon this point. It is
•as follows:
"That the treaty power of the United States
extends to all proper subjects of negotiations be-
tween our Government and the Governments
of other nations, is clear. . . . The treaty
power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in
terms unlimited, except by those restraints which
are found in that instrument against the action
of the Government, or of its Departments, and
those arising from the nature of the Government
itself, and of that of the States. It would not
be contended that it extends so far as to authorize
what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the
character of the Government, or in that of one of
the States, or a cession of any portion of the ter-
ritory of the latter without its consent. But with
these exceptions, it is not perceived that there
is any limit to the questions which can be adjusted
touching any matter which is properly the subject
of negotiation with a foreign country."
Issues that can be settled on principles of law and
V equity are proper subjects for decision by a judicial
tribunal. Such issues have been settled by Boards of
Arbitration, agreed to by independent sovereigns since
there were governments. The first provision agreed
to by the United States for an arbitration of this kind
was in the Jay Treaty in 1794; and since that time
there have been eighty-four international arbitrations
to which an American nation was a party. In forty,
or nearly one-half of these, the other party was an
European Power, while the arbitrations between Amer-
ican nations were forty-four. To about two-thirds
of aU of these the United States was a party, the num-
ENFORCED PEACE 6i
ber of arbitrations between other American powers
being fourteen. Of this number, there were ten that
related to questions of boundary, which are, of course,
questions capable of solution on principles of law and
equity.
In such cases, it was never suggested that the Govern-
ment was delegating any power at all to the tribunal.
A submission to a judicial decision is not a delegation
of power as to an agent. It is a submission of an issue
to a judge. It is a misnomer to call such a sub-
mission a delegation, or to determine its validity on
principles of delegation of power as that is limited in
constitutional law. In the discussion of the general
arbitration treaties in the Senate, there was a suggestion
that the agreement to submit to a court questions
which had not yet arisen described only by definition
and classification, with power in the court to take
jurisdiction, was more of a delegation of power than
the mere submission of an existing question to arbi-
trators. There is, however, not the slightest difference
in principle between the two. If one is a delegation,,
the other is. If one is invaUd, the other is; and if
one is not invalid, the other is not.
Nor does the right to determine jurisdiction of the
court involve in principle any more of a delegation than
the mere voluntary submission of the issue to the court.
It only somewhat enlarges the issues to be submitted.
The question whether the court has jurisdiction of an
issue is dependent on the question of law, involving
the construction of the treaty, and such a subject
matter is the commonest instance of the class of ques-
tions submitted to arbitration or a court. More than
this, the Senate has consented from time to time to
arbitrations on issues which may arise in the future
and defined by language of the treaty of submission.
The last notable instance, and the one which in-
volved a really permanent court is the advice and
62 ENFORCED PEACE
consent by our Senate to the Hague International
Prize Court Convention in which a permanent inter-
national prize court was established, and the United
States bound itself to submit all questions arising be-
tween it and foreign nations in respect to questions of
prize in naval warfare, to this international prize court,
and to abide the decision, even though that decision
might involve, as it generally would, the reconsidera-
tion of an issue already decided by the Supreme Court
of the United States. The treaty is not in force be-
cause England did not finally approve, but our Senate
approved it. The International Prize Court must of
necessity pass upon its own jurisdiction, and by agree-
ment between the parties, its decision is to be accepted
and to be carried out in good faith. The question as
to whether commissioners of arbitration, under the
Jay Treaty, had power to determine their own juris-
diction was brought by Rufus King, American Minister
in London, to the attention of Lord Grenville, who
submitted the question to Lord Chancellor Lough-
borough. The Lord Chancellor resolved the difficulty
by declaring:
"That the doubt respecting the authority of the
Commissioners to settle their own jurisdiction
was absurd; and that they must necessarily decide
upon cases being with, or without, their com-
petency."
A similar question was raised by the British Govern-
ment in regard to the power of the Geneva Tribunal to
deal with what were known as the "indirect claims,"
and her arbitrators decided that they did not have
jurisdiction of the indirect claims, and this was ac-
quiesced in by both Governments.
In correspondence with the Chilean Minister over
ENFORCED PEACE 63
an arbitration between this country and Chile, Mr.
Obiey, then Secretary of State, used this language:
"But the question whether any particular claim
is a proper one for the consideration and decision
of an international commission is necessarily one
which the commission itself must determine. The
conventions under which such commissions are
organized usually describe in general terms the
class of cases of which the commission is to take
jurisdiction, and whether any particular case pre-
sented to it comes within this class the commission
must, of course, determine. The decisions of the
late commission, both interlocutory and final,
are binding upon both Governments, the latter
absolutely so, the former unless reversed, after
proper proceedings for a rehearing."
I come now to the other objection. The third plank
of the platform is as follows:
"Third: The signatory powers shall jointly
use forthwith both their economic and miUtary
forces against any one of their number that goes
to war, or commits acts of hostility, against an-
other of the signatories before any question
arising shall be submitted as provided in the fore-
going."
It is objected to this clause that it violates the Con-
stitution in that the effect of such a treaty signed by
the United States would take away from Congress the
power conferred upon it by section eight of article one,
to declare war.
I had the pleasure and privilege of hearing Mr.
Bryan advance this argument at the Lake Mohonk
Conference. He said that we should need an amend-
64 ENFORCED PEACE
ment to the Constitution before we could agree to any
such provision. He said that in order to carry out
the provision we must have a joint council of the
powers to determine when the time had arrived for
military action and war, and that this would sub-
stitute the action of the council for the constitutional
discretion of Congress.
I venture to think that this view is wholly without
foundation. Although it is not necessary, I am willing
to accept the assumption that some kind of a council
would be appointed by the powers to make the an-
nouncements when the time had come for the use of
economic and mihtary forces against the recalcitrant
member. Does that take away from Congress the
power to declare war? It does not. If the war is a
foreign war, it could not be begun under the Con-
stitution until Congress had declared war. The
President would not be authorized to direct the Army
and the Navy to begin war until Congress had declared
it.
What, then, would be the situation if the fact were
announced upon which the obligation of the United
States to make war arose under this treaty? It would
be to make war by Constitutional means, that is, by
the preliminary declaration of Congress that war ex-
isted. Congress might decline to exercise that power
and refuse to declare war. What would be the effect
of that? It would merely be a breach of faith on the
part of Congress, and so a breach of faith on the part
of the United States and we would not go to war. The
treaty making power under the Constitution creates
the obligation to declare war in certain contingencies.
That obligation is to be discharged by Congress under
its Constitutional power to declare war. If it fails to
do so, and thus comply with the binding obligation
created by the treaty making power, then it merely
breaks the contract of the Government. It is left to
ENFORCED PEACE 65
Congress to carry out that which we in a Constitu-
tional way have agreed to do. Thus to impose in a
Constitutional way by treaty an obligation on Congress
is not to take away its power to discharge it or to re-
fuse to discharge it.
In 1904 we entered into a treaty with the Republic
of Panama, the first article of which is:
"The United States guarantees and will main-
tain the independence of the Republic of Panama."
/ What is the necessary effect of this guaranty? It
necessarily means that if any nation attacks Panama
and attempts to take territory from her or to subvert
her Government, the United States is under treaty
obhgation to make war to defend Panama. Was it
ever supposed that such an obligation took away from
Congress the power to declare war? This treaty obli-
gation makes it the duty of the Government to declare
war under certain conditions that may arise, creates a
contract obligation to the Republic of Panama that
it shall do so, and this duty can only be discharged
through the action of Congress in declaring war. Does
that deprive Congress of its Constitutional power to
declare war? It seems to me the question answers
itself.
In our relations with Cuba we find in the present
treaty:
ARTICLE I
"The Government of Cuba shall never enter into
any treaty or other compact with any foreign
power or powers which will impair or tend to im-
pair the independence of Cuba, nor in any manner
authorize or permit any foreign power or powers to
obtain by colonization or for military or naval pur-
66 ENFORCED PEACE
poses or otherwise, lodgment in or control over any
portion of said Island."
ARTICLE n
"The Government of Cuba consents that the
United States may exercise the right to intervene
for the preservation of Cuban independence, the
maintenance of a government adequate for the pro-
tection of life, property and individual liberty, and
for discharging the obligation with respect to Cuba
imposed by the Treaty of Paris on the United States
now to be assumed and undertaken by the Govern-
ment of Cuba."
ARTICLE m
"To enable the United States to maintain the in-
dependence of Cuba, and to protect the people
thereof, as well as for its own defense, the Govern-
ment of Cuba will sell or lease to the United States,
lands necessary for coaling or naval stations at
certain specific points to be agreed upon with the
President of the United States."
It is quite clear from these three articles that the
Government of the United States binds itself to main-
tain the independence of Cuba and to exclude other
governments from lodgment in the Island. Now, if any
Government attempts to filch territory from Cuba or to
subvert the government, it becomes the duty of the
United States to make war and defend against such in-
vasion. Does this treaty obligation thus created take
away from Congress the power to declare war? It only
creates the obligation on the part of the United States to
wage war, and in discharging this obligation Congress
must act, or the Government must be recreant to its
agreement.
GEORGE GRAFTON WILSON, A.B., A.M.. Ph.D., L.L.D.
Professor of International Law at Harvard L'niversity; Honorary Vice
President, League to Enforce Peace
ENFORCED PEACE 67
Thus, by reason and precedent, it would appear clear
that this third plank of the platform of the League is not
in any way an attempt to take from Congress the
power which it has to declare war under the Constitu-
tion. The suggestion that in order to carry out such
an obhgation on the part of the United States, it would
be necessary to amend the Constitution, grows out of a
confusion of ideas and a failure to analyze the differences
between the creation of an obhgation of the United
States to do a thing and the due, orderly and Constitu-
tional course to be taken by it in doing that which it has
agreed to do.
Taking up another phase of American National
policies George Grafton Wilson, A.B., A.M., Ph.D.,
LL.D., professor of international law at Harvard
University and lecturer on international law at
the United States Naval War College and author
of various works on the subject of international law,
presented the following:
THE MONROE DOCTRINE
There have been some arguments against the plat-
form of the League to Enforce Peace. One of these
arguments most frequently advanced is that the carry-
ing out of the platform of the League would violate the
so-called Monroe Doctrine. These words, " the Monroe
Doctrine," have been used to designate or to conceal
such a variety of ideas and practices that it is necessary
to start with some premise as to what the Monroe
Doctrine may be.
If the Monroe Doctrine is, as Professor Bingham
says, an "obsolete shibboleth," it is clear that the re-
lation of the platform of the League to the content of the
Doctrine would be one of historical and speculative in-
68 ENFORCED PEACE
terest only. If on the other hand it is, as Mr. Petin
says, the substitution by the United States of an
''American law for the general law of nations," the re-
lations of the Monroe Doctrine to the platform of the
League would be a fundamental question. If the Mon-
roe Doctrine is an assertion of the "supremacy of the
United States in the Western Hemisphere" or "supre-
macy in political leadership," there would also be reason
for careful deUberation. A cursory investigation would,
however, show that the Monroe Doctrine is not a part
of international law.
The statement of the Doctrine has varied. Early
discussions in the cabinet before the Doctrine was set
forth in Monroe's message seem to have been as lively as
some later ones upon the same subject. Jefferson, when
consulted upon the advisability of a pohcy which would
not "suffer Europe to intermeddle with cis-Atlantic
affairs," comparing the Declaration of Independence
with this Doctrine, said: "That (the Declaration) made
us a nation; this sets our compass and points the course
which we are to steer through the ocean of time opening
before us." In the early days of the Monroe Doctrine the
aim was to avoid further European interference in
American affairs. Later, particularly from the days of
President Polk, the Doctrine assumed a more positive
form. Bismarck is reported to have called the Doctrine
a piece of " international impertinence." In 1901 Presi-
dent Roosevelt in his annual message declared: "The
Monroe Doctrine should be the cardinal feature of the
foreign policy of all the nations of the two Americas, as
it is of the United States," and in 1904 that "the Mon-
roe Doctrine may force the United States, however re-
luctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrong doing or im-
potence to the exercise of an international pohce power."
President Taft intimated in his message in 1909 that
"the apprehension which gave rise to the Monroe
Doctrine may be said to have disappeared already and
ENFORCED PEACE 69
neither the Doctrine as it exists nor any other doctrine
of American poHcy should be permitted to operate
for the prepetuation of irresponsible government, the
escape of just obUgations or the insidious allegation of
dominating ambitions on the part of the United States."
The construction of the Panama Canal gave rise to
new problems. The rumor that foreigners were making
purchases of land about Magdalena Bay in Mexico led
to pronovmcements in the United States Senate, in 1912,
that the United States could not view foreign possession
of this or any such harbor " without grave concern " and
it was admitted that this was a "statement of poUcy,"
allied to the Monroe Doctrine of course, but not neces-
sarily dependent upon it or growing out of it.
As in the early days the United States considered it
within its rights to assert a policy defensive in its nature
but for the preservation of its well being, so in later days
the same general policy has taken differing forms.
President Wilson early in his administration endeavored
to assure the Americas of his desire for the cordial co-
operation of the people of the different nations, and a
little later he asserted "We are friends of constitu-
tional government in America; we are more than its
friends, we are its champions," and in the same message
he declared that the United States "must regard it as
one of the duties of friendship to see that from no quarter
are material interests made superior to human liberty
and national opportunity." President Roosevelt had
in 1 901 asserted that the Doctrine referred not merely to
European but to "any non-American power." This
was recognized abroad, as Sir Edward Grey said in 191 1
of the United States: "They had a poUcy associated
with the name of Monroe, the cardinal point of which
was that no European or non-American nation should
acquire fresh territory on the continent of America."
In December, 1913, Mr. Page, the American Ambas-
sador to Great Britain, announced a late form of policy,
70 ENFORCED PEACE
saying: "We have now developed subtler ways than
taking their lands. There is the taking of their bonds,
for instance. Therefore, the important proposition is
that no sort of financial control can without the consent
of the United States be obtained over these weaker
nations which would in effect control their govern-
ment."
These and many other views regarding the significance
of the Monroe Doctrine show the varying forms in
which the United States has stated its opposition to the
permanent occupation of territory or acquisition of
pohtical control in the American hemisphere by non-
American powers. It has seemed necessary to present
these differing ideas of the Monroe Doctrine to show
that it is not law and to show that as a manifestation of
policy it is not set forth in any single formula.
As single nations and as groups of nations have
policies which vary in different parts of the world and as
the conflict of policies rather than the violation of
established law is the frequent cause of international
difference it is evident that if the League to Enforce
Peace cannot provide any aid in case of conflict of
policies its function will be comparatively restricted.
The conflict of policy would rarely take form which
would make justiciable methods practicable as a means
of settlement.
This being the case reference of such matters would be
to the Council of Conciliation provided for in the second
article of the platform of the League to Enforce Peace.
The first article provides for justiciable questions and
the second states: "All other questions arising between
the signatories and not settled by negotiation, shall be
submitted to a Coimcil of Conciliation for hearing, con-
sideration and recommendation." Here it should be
repeated that the League to Enforce Peace does not bind
itself to carry out the recommendation which the Coun-
cil of Conciliation may make but merely binds itself to
ENFORCED PEACE 71
see that no power goes to war over such a matter until
the question has been submitted.
The conflicts of poUcy would in most cases be settled
by ordinary diplomatic negotiations between the parties
concerned. Even the Hague Convention of 1899 and
1907 for the Pacific Settlement of International Dis-
putes ratified by twenty-eight or more of the leading
states of the world states that: "In case of serious
disagreement or dispute, before an appeal to arms, the
signatory powers agree to have recourse, as far as cir-
cumstances allow, to the good offices or mediation of one
or more friendly powers." (Art. 2.) The Convention
of 1907 deems it "expedient and desirable that one or
more powers, strangers to the dispute, should on their
own initiative" tender such offices. The United
States, however, in signing this Convention made reser-
vation that, "Nothing contained in this Convention
shall be so construed as to require the United States of
America to depart from its traditional pohcy of not in-
truding upon, interfering with, or entangUng itself in
poUtical questions or policy or internal administration
of any foreign State; nor shall anything contained in the
said convention be construed to imply a reUnquishment
by the United States of America of its traditional at-
titude toward purely American questions. "
The United States has, however, also within recent
years, particularly since 1913, become a party to a large
number of treaties in which "The High Contracting
Parties agree that all disputes between them, of every
nature whatsoever, to the settlement of which previous
arbitration treaties or agreements do not apply in their
terms or are not applied in fact, shall, when diplomatic
methods of adjustment have failed, be referred for in-
vestigation and report to an international commission,"
and "they agree not to declare war or begin hostiUties
during such investigation and before the report is sub-
mitted." "The report shall be presented in the maxi-
72 ENFORCED PEACE
mum period of one year, but the High Contracting
Parties, by mutual accord may shorten or extend this
period." Some of these treaties are to remain effective
for five years from the date of ratification and then till
twelve months from notice of intention to terminate the
treaty. These treaties have still some time to run.
Plainly, therefore, the United States is already bound,
possibly in some cases under the Hague Convention,
and certainly under these other treaties, of which there
are a large number, to submit disputes even involving
the Monroe Doctrine to a body which would meet the
requirements of the platform of the League to Enforce
Peace. These treaties are with France, Great Britain,
and Russia as well as with other European states and
with South and Central American states. The Presi-
dent in proclaiming these treaties declares that he has
"caused the said treaty to be made pubhc, to the end
that the same and every article and clause thereof
may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the
United States and by the citizens thereof."
A dispute in regard to the Monroe Doctrine or in-
volving its principles whatever they may be would
surely be included in the agreement made by the United
States to refer disputes "of every nature whatsoever"
to an international commission for investigation and
report. This principle has had endorsement by leaders
in preceding administrations as well as in the action
upon these treaties by the present administration and
is therefore not to be regarded as embodying partisan
policies. The United States is already bound to act
as regards the Monroe Doctrine in disputes which may
arise with most states in a fashion in exact accord
with the second article of the platform of the League
to Enforce Peace. The aim of the League is secured
when the question which negotiation has been unable
to settle is submitted "for hearing, consideration and
recommendation" and it makes little difference whether
ENFORCED PEACE 73
the body to which it is submitted is called an "inter-
national commission" or a "council of conciliation."
If then the United States and thirty or more nations
are already bound to the principle of the second article
of the League's platform so far as the Monroe Doctrine
and other matters are subjects of dispute, there would
seem to be no reason for raising the question of prac-
ticabiUty of that part of the program at the present
time. Its practicability has already been formally
declared, and as embodied in treaty provisions is a
part of the law of the land.
Any further discussion as to the practicability of
the appUcation of the League's program to differences
arising in regard to the Monroe Doctrine would in-
volve the question whether treaties already made will
be observed when put to the test. Put concretely
the question may be, will the United States which has
made treaties with certain states agreeing to submit
to an international commission disputes "of every
nature whatsoever" find it practicable to submit a
dispute arising in regard to the Monroe Doctrine to
such a commission or will the United States disregard
the treaty, and did the United States so intend in
making the treaty? It is to be hoped and it must be
believed that these treaties were made in good faith
and that the parties to the treaties intend to observe
their provisions. It has even been announced that
the United States proposes to observe in principle
toward other nations not parties to such treaties the line
of conduct prescribed in these treaties. These treaties
are called treaties for the "Advancement of Peace" and
declare as their object "to contribute to the develop-
ment of the spirit of universal peace" or "to serve
the cause of general peace." Accordingly the enforce-
ment of these treaties is regarded by these states as
at least desirable for the sake of peace.
Under the general practice and law of nations the
74 ENFORCED PEACE
violation of a treaty may be a just cause of war. If
this be so then it is particularly essential that treaties
for "the development of the spirit of universal peace"
be kept. It would seem to be a simple proposition
that the greater the risk of violation of a treaty the
less ready a state will be to violate the treaty. This
principle generally prevails though at times states dis-
regard all risks. If there is behind a treaty the com-
pelling force of the fact of a signed agreement and the
physical resources of the other signatory only, the
fact of the agreement seems often, even in modern
times, to have had little weight, and the sole deterrent
seems to have been the physical power which might
be felt if the agreement was not observed. This has
given rise to the maxim often quoted that "a treaty
is as strong as the force behind it." There is un-
doubtedly some truth in the maxim.
The program of the League to Enforce Peace pro-
poses to adopt what is beneficial in the maxim and to
put behind treaties a degree of force which weak states
might by themselves be unable to command. If imder
the provision by which the United States and other
states have agreed to refer to an international com-
mission all differences there is a reservation as regards
matters affecting the Monroe Doctrine this reservation
is not expressed or implied.
There has been for many years evidence that treaties
needed behind them some sanction. The one sanction
which all nations recognize is that of force, whether
it be economic, physical or other force. By the state
which scrupulously observes its treaty engagements
this force is never felt or feared. By the state that is
not considerate of its treaty obligations this force is
feared and may be felt. The state that proposed to
observe its international obligations would seem to
have almost a right to demand that it be secured against
violation of its rights by a party which has agreed by
ENFORCED PEACE 75
treaty to observe them, particularly when the party
which observes its international obligations has in
rehance upon the promise of the other party refrained
from building up a force to inspire fear in that party.
All that a State can reasonably demand is that its side
of a controversy be heard and considered impartially.
The League to Enforce Peace proposes to secure such
hearing and consideration for both parties but beyond
that does not propose to go even if the subject of the
controversy be the Monroe Doctrine.
The question has been repeatedly asked, what would
be the position of the United States as a member of
the League to Enforce Peace if a non-American Power
should through purchase acquire St. Thomas from
Denmark or a coaling station in Central America from
some American State? Suppose the question is in
regard to the purchase of St. Thomas by a non- American
State? Denmark maintains that as sovereign she has
the right to sell. The non-American State buys. The
purchaser attempts to enter into possession. The
United States cites President Grant in 1869 to the
effect that "These dependencies are no longer regarded
as subject to transfer from one European Power to
another." The United States could not without violat-
ing an existing treaty with Denmark go to war with
that State without first submitting the matter to an
international commission. If the purchaser were
France or any of several other European states similar
treaties would bind the United States to await the re-
port of the international commission before taking
hostile action. In other words the United States is
already bound by treaties with Denmark, Italy, Nor-
way, Sweden, France, Great Britain, Spain, Russia,
etc., to submit just these questions to the procedure
recommended in the League platform.
The answer to those who ask the question as to
what the United States would do as a member of
76 ENFORCED PEACE
the League in the supposed case of a dispute over
the transfer of St. Thomas would be that the United
States would keep its treaty agreement and submit
the question to the international commission if the
purchasing State was among those with which there
is a treaty and this would entirely meet the obligations
as a member of the League. Consequently in this
case there would be no new obhgations. If the pur-
chasing State should be one with which the United
States has not one of these recent treaties but if the
purchasing State be a member of the League, the United
States would be under obUgation to submit the con-
troversy not to a court of justice or of arbitration, but
to a council of conciliation or international commis-
sion for hearing, consideration and recommendation
for the Monroe Doctrine is not a matter of law, but a
matter of policy. The same is to be said in regard to
the question in regard to the acquisition of a coahng
station. In brief the United States would be obhged
so far as members of the League were concerned to do
exactly what it is now obhged by treaty agreement to
do with most of the states of the world, and as those
treaty states would probably be the members of the
League the conditions would be changed m no respect
except that behind the treaty obhgation would be the
sanction of the justified use of economic and military
force in addition to other sanctions.
Further it may be said if, when in dispute, the Monroe
Doctrine as applied by the United States is not a
poUcy upon which the United States is willing to await
hearing, consideration and recommendation, then the
United States has not acted in good faith in signing
these recent treaties, and it may also be said if the
American poUcy as embodied in the Monroe Doctrine
will not stand the test of investigation and consider-
ation it is time for the United States to be determining
why it should longer give to the Doctrine its support.
ENFORCED PEACE 77
As the plan of the League for submission of con-
troversies such as might arise over the Monroe Doctrine
has, on the initiative of the United States, already
been embodied in treaties with a greater part of the
states of the world, such a plan cannot be regarded as
impracticable without condemnation of the judgment
of those who are in control of the affairs of the world,
and this judgment the League to Enforce Peace, having
the well being of the world in view, does not criticize
and condemn but supports and commends.
Talcott Williams, A.B., A.M., L.H.D.,
LL.D., Litt.D., Director of the School of Journal-
ism, of Columbia University, dehvered an address
on "Entangling Alliances," as follows:
ENTANGLING ALLIANCES, NOW, AND IN WASHINGTON'S.
DAY
The United States won independence in large measure
through its alliance with France. Since, it has been a
country without alliances. Alone of earth's greater
powers in the past century and a quarter it has made no
alUance in peace or in war. It has shared, now and
then, in some "concert of action," as in restoring order
in Peking in 1900. More than once, it has joined in a
common policy, as in suppressing the slave trade, when
its men-of-war acted with those of other countries, in
removing crime against humanity. When the in-
dependence and integrity of China were threatened in
1902, it timed its protest with that of England so as to
have on Russia all the effect of united action. A direct
alliance it has avoided and still avoids; but in the
absence of any alliance ratified by treaty, it has not
hesitated in the past 60 years, in suppressing the slave
trade, in protesting against Armenian massacres in
78 ENFORCED PEACE
Turkey, in organizing the Congo Free State, in deciding
the future of Morocco in the Algeciras Conference — in
all using its moral weight and its national forces for a
common end so that its action worked the same fruitful
result as an alliance. Where other nations in 1907,
Russia, France and England, negotiated identical
treaties with Japan mutually guaranteeing existing
territorial possessions in the Far East, the United States
made its pledge of policy to the same end through a note
drawn by John Hay. Those who confuse the League to
Enforce Peace with "entanghng alliances" forget both
that the United States has used its military forces on
land and at sea to enforce a common policy mutually
pledged with other lands and that conditions have radi-
cally changed since Washington accepted the French
AUiance to secure independence and later pointed out
the peril of international entanglement.
Washington's warning, in his Farewell Address,
against ''Entangling AlHances," has influenced the
American people as has no other phrase in its annals.
It killed the public movement to act on the alliance
with France impUed in our treaty though through that
treaty and its mutual pledges of joint and mutual
action our independence was secured. It strengthened
the hands of President Adams in breaking with France,
and bringing the war at sea, whose trophies are still
at AnnapoUs, and the Water vliet arsenal, forgotten of
all Americans.
The phrase "entangling alliances," and the spirit, so
terse, so direct, so exact a definition of the diplomacy
of the day, stayed Jefferson from aligning us with
France. It brought the purchase of Louisiana out-
right, as Bonaparte saw was necessary, instead of the
temporizing of our envoys at Paris. This precept
kept clear our diplomatic policy when a century ago,
Latin America rose in revolt. It preserved the Monroe
Doctrine, though suggested by England, as a promise
ENFORCED PEACE 79
made to ourselves and not as a compact expressed
or implied with any other nation whatsoever. It
warned us against the many proposals from the Pan-
American Congress of John Quincy Adams to the close
of the Spanish-American war, thick sown, in its un-
pubhshed diplomacy, with intimations of possible com-
mon action or understandings among envious friends.
What "entangling alliances" meant, our own day
has seen when the one only such alliance in force when
Washington spoke, led Portugal to ofiFer to send its quota
to the trenches in France under a treaty a century and a
half old, though within a few years, England's warships
in the Tagus forced from Portugal on twenty-four hours'
notice, submission of an ancient colonial right which
demanded and deserved arbitration. In the vast
European quarrel, Portugal had no interest, past, pres-
ent or prospective, but an "entanghng alliance" left
no option.
Of such alliances, the world Washington knew was
full. The world we know has eight great powers, whose
united action for peace could pacify the world. Six are
in Europe, one, Japan, in East Asia, and, one, the
United States, looks out, the umpire of a world at war.
Washington, when he warned the country his sober and
loyal service had created, against "entangling alliances,"
looked out on an earth divided into many lands, dissi-
dent, dissonant, none dominant, none acting alone. All
Europe, strong or weak, had to accept alliances which
entangled national pohcy and strangled national free-
dom because only by this path^ could safety be secured
by the weak and power by the strong. European diplo-
matic relations at the close of the eighteenth century
were a confusing reticulation of nearly sixty states.
These are no more to-day in all the world. Europe
has only a third of this number, and six are dominant.
No great power existed a century ago in the sense we
understand it. Russia in the decades Washington
8o ENFORCED PEACE
knew twice sought a league of neutrals to preserve the
safety of her merchant trafl5c. So perilous a danger to
the fleet of England was held the fleet of Denmark that
midway between the Battle of the Nile and Trafalgar, it
was destroyed by Nelson in a day of unbroken peace be-
tween the two flags, without warning, and without any
declaration of war, whatsoever. The open and avowed
justification was that relations between France and
Russia might place the Danish fleet at the disposition
of Napoleon.
This result was liable for any State caught in the mesh
of alliances all Europe shared. Nor was Europe alone
thus divided and subdivided. Asia has to-day only
nine independent states, of which three enjoy but the
shadow of sovereignty. In British India alone there are
1 06 native rulers, whose government salute attests the
fact that in Washington's day, and for most of the Hst
much later, these rulers held an independent sovereignty.
Add the many states of the Central Asian Khanates, of
Indo-China and Malaysia, and when Washington de-
hvered his Farewell Address there were at least 150
Asiatic states to be reckoned with. Africa has but two
independent states to-day. Washington negotiated
with twice this number of African states and savage
kingdoms, tribes and Mohammedan Sultanates made
the total number of negotiable powers known on the
coast of Africa over fifty. Taking islands and in Wash-
ington's day, the world had at least 400 civilized, semi-
civiHzed, barbarous and savage states, acting independ-
ently, where to-day there are less than sixty. Nearly a
third of these are in the American hemisphere where con-
solidation or recolonization has been prevented through
the protection of the United States,
It was in such a world, with as many states in Europe,
who in Washington's own day had entered on war, as
there are in the world to-day; with sevenfold this num-
ber, in all the earth and the seas thereof, ready to make
ENFORCED PEACE 8i
all manner of mutual agreements for local ends, for com-
mon action in war, peace, or in preparation for war, as
was true of the demand of the four Barbary states, —
that Washington warned a growing nation, weak,
peaceful, and isolated that it should not cast in its
lot with the wrangling, entangling alliances of Europe,
or those trade agreements, which were the early basis of
the Anglo-Indian Empire. Alliances between nations,
peoples and dynasties; mutual privileges based on re-
ligion; great tracts of ocean and sea, like the Spanish
Main, the Red Sea and Indian waters, held as a com-
mercial preserve from the days of discovery; Malay-
sian and Polynesian islands, straits, and ports where
some hardy naval commander from the days of Magel-
lan to the days of Cook had obtained protection for the
trade of his flag at the cost of safety and security for the
vessels of other lands; — as was England's avowed policy
even in the Mediterranean — these all made a diplomatic
labyrinth in whose blind alleys, any state, any tribe, or
any colony might find itself dragged to war by compacts
to which it had never been a party.
"In order that he might rob a neighbor whom he had
promised to defend," wrote Macaulay of Frederic the
Great, "black men fought on the coast of Coromandel
and red men scalped each other by the Great Lakes of
North America." Louis XIV by a dynastic treaty
sought to lower the Pyrenees and bring Spain into per-
petual alliance with France; before the final harvest of
that treaty was garnered, the Malagasy of Madagascar
were stirred to rapine, Hindus fought under Lally and
Clive in a quarrel not of their making, and won victories
for them infructuous. New England colonists lie
buried to this day about one Louisburg and another
Lewisburg in Pennsylvania records the high tide of the
vain endeavor of France to preserve what had come in
the close of a struggle over the fruits of an alliance
whose only reUc to-day is the presence of the last of the
82 ENFORCED PEACE
Bourbons on the throne of Spain. From Charles V to
Napoleon, there had been no great war in Western
Europe not rooted somewhere in a treaty and no Euro-
pean alliance whose seal was not soon or late, whether
broken or kept, the sign of an Apocalyptic destruction
in which "fire mingled with blood were cast upon the
earth and a third part of the sea became blood."
The alliances which had brought disaster to every
European land were known to Washington, whose
patient reading of European history is attested by the
worn volumes he left at Mt. Vernon. Our own treaty
of alliance with France in whose negotiation he had
shared, was challenged by Franklin who signed it, when
he opened negotiations with England. The Napoleonic
wars had proved it a blunder from which only Washing-
ton's wisdom and restraint, denounced as cowardice,
saved us. The country was rent in twain by partisans
of France and of Great Britain. Mobs attacked great
processions expressing sympathy with one or the other.
Washington holding even the scales of neutrality, de-
nounced by the friends of both parties and suffering
much that war might not come, left to his successor the
legacy of peace when war was the heritage of other lands
bound by leagues innumerable which drew small states
and weak through their meshes to aid lands, larger and
more powerful, in a world of small and warring states.
In the light and fact of his day, his advice to the
American people to beware of entangUng alliances
showed the penetration of the statesman and the far-
sighted patience of a philosopher called to rule the
nation he had founded. To-day the hundreds of
states he knew and read of in history, atlas and books
of travel have been consolidated. Asia is divided be-
tween three great empires — Russia, England, and China,
and but two of these hold power over the future of the
continent. All Africa is parcelled between European
powers weak or strong. In Europe and in Latin
ENFORCED PEACE 83
America alone are there left, in one a group of small
states, thickly settled and, in the other, sovereignties
large in territory but far short of their opportunity in
power and population.
In Washington's day no nation was great enough and
strong enough to command the situation in any part of
the world. No great nation could act alone. Napo-
leon's failure proved this. Earlier, Louis XIV had met
a like defeat in a like purpose to secure soHtary su-
premacy. No common action could then be secured on
any subject. No common policy existed. No common
agreements guaranteed safety to any states. No one
power could stretch the shield of its power over two con-
tinents as does the United States, under the Monroe
Doctrine, over North and South America. No great
sphere of influence kept the peace over great areas as
England's sphere of influence in Asia does over nearly
2,000,000 square miles. No such step as neutralization
for the protection of small states had been proposed.
World relations and responsibilities the world did not
yet know, recognize or protect even by opinion. The
larger powers of Washington's day were weak, too weak
to assert their position. The smaller powers were too
numerous to be curbed, consolidated or controlled.
Through the century that has passed since Washing-
ton's warning was uttered, a continuous evolution has
been in progress. Small states have disappeared by the
hundred. Large states have grown stronger. Inter-
national law and diplomacy have created an entire
system of new agencies for common action and mutual
concord. If neutralization has, for a season, failed in one
significant instance, Belgium, it is recognized as a prin-
ciple and one which will not again be lightly attacked.
The " concert " of great powers has again and again pre-
vented war and protected treaties. As the two colonies
of Massachusetts Bay united in a Commonwealth and
like mergers took place in Connecticut and Rhode
84 ENFORCED PEACE
Island; as these three made their joint New England
league; and later thirteen colonies united in the Con-
federation and developed into a Union — so in Europe
and in Asia, compact, conquest and consolidation have
laid the foundation and brought the possibility of com-
mon action not by entangling alliances among a world
of many states, but through the united but indepen-
dent and masterful action of a few great states, strong
enough to enforce peace. Two navies, of England and
the United States, could already create and enforce the
peace of the waters. No single state can to-day meet
the mihtary resources of all directed to an end the
world approved.
Through all the nineteenth century, the world has
gravitated to great empires which hold the world's
destinies. Six are in Europe; but why tell their familiar
names — ^Austria-Hungary, England, France, Germany,
Italy and Russia; one is in Asia, Japan. United for
peace with the eighth of these great powers, the United
States, these seven realms could hold a fretful world in
awe. Seven of them divided have brought the worst
war in history, the worst in origin, in extent and in the
evil worked.
Washington, in his Farewell Address, predicted the
coming power of the American people, and the wider re-
sponsibilities it must some day meet. He, more than
any other American, created our indissoluble union of
indestructible states led by him through war to
constitutional peace, that peace between the oceans
which makes even the pax Romana but a little
thing.
To-day in a world of a few large states, he would if he
were living lead the United States to a constructive
league between great nations, in order to carry the world
from perpetual war to lasting peace by substituting for
the entangling alliances of his day the world League to
Enforce Peace, possible in our day.
JOHN BATES CLARK. A.B., A.M., Ph.D., LL.D.
Member Executive Committee, League to Enforce Peace
ENFORCED PEACE 85
John Bates Clark, A.B., A.M., Ph.D., LL.D,
Professor of Political Economy, at Columbia Univer-
sity, and Director of the Department of Economics
and History of the Carnegie Endowment for Inter-
national Peace, presented the following:
THE EUROPEAN NATIONS- AND THE LEAGUE PROGRAM
The world demands a league of some kind for pre-
serving peace and, for the first time, much of the world
expects to get it. It is the purpose of this paper to pre-
sent an adequate ground for that expectation. There is
a natural development toward such a union. Hereto-
fore the effort to create it has seemed like forging a ship
by oars and poles against a rapid stream, while at pres-
ent it is more Uke steering a ship down such a current.
After the war some international unions will exist in any
case and, if the demand for peace in states neutral
and belUgerent is effectively organized, one of the
unions may quickly become a league of peace and,
after an adequate time, it may become the league
which we hope to see established. If so, the war
itself will have carried us, not to the final "federation
of the world," but to a half-way station on the road
thither.
Forecasts for the coming state of the world are al-
ways guesses but there are some points on which we can
now guess with confidence, and the most important of
them is that the two alhances which are now at war will
continue in existence. They were formed by their com-
ponent states for mutual defense and will still be
needed for that purpose. Not one of these countries
can afford to expose itself single-handed to attacks of its
enemies. France will not leave the shelter of the En-
tente and brave the entire power of Germany, nor will
any state in either combination so isolate itself. It is
86 ENFORCED PEACE
futile to demand that states in a firm protective union
should dissolve and trust for security to a treaty with
present enemies. This single fact of two powerful and
lasting alliances already formed takes the effort to
create a league of peace completely out of the Utopian
realm to which a PhiUstine world has always consigned
it. While it may prevent the immediate formation of an
all-embracing imion, it creates a condition out of which
such a combination may later grow and it fairly well en-
sures peace in the interim.
Two international unions, each enormously powerful,
are now contending with each other and the victorious
one will be able, if it will, to ensure the world against an-
other war. These international bodies have no mis-
givings as to using force. They are now using it with-
out stint in performing their original function of pro-
tecting their members, and they will stand ready to use it
again for a similar purpose. There is an advantage in
making this fact the starting point in planning a future
league of nations. It will stand before us two-thirds
completed.
P If we should assume that nations were quite inde-
pendent, and should formulate a detailed scheme for
uniting them in a new alliance without reference to the
unions which exist, we should encounter an army of
objectors who would criticise details of the plan and
many would reject the plan as a whole because of this.
If, on the other hand, we look at one of the alliances as it
will exist and find that it will be capable of preserving
the peace and vitally interested in doing so, the main
question whether there shall or shall not be any league
of peace will be settled and we shall have nothing to de-
bate except the question whether, in some secondary
particulars, it can be improved by amendment. Its
existence and its chief features will not be in ques-
tion.
This describes the probable situation at the close of
ENFORCED PEACE 87
the present war. There are three possible outcomes of
it, namely, a draw, a crushing victory by one side, and a
moderate victory by one side, leaving the opposing one
strong. Most guesses favor the last named alternative.
Neither side will probably destroy its adversary and yet
one or the other will win. If that shall occur in fact,
there will be the brighest outlook for permanent peace
that has ever existed. A league that will be able to
prevent war and profoundly interested in doing it will be
estabUshed on the European continent. The alHance
which wins the victory will become ipso facto a league
of peace and it will be capable of becoming, in due
time, the nucleus of that greater federation of states
of which idealists have long dreamed. Let us assume
for illustration, that the Entente has won. It contains
four great states, a number of smaller ones and is allied
to a great Asiatic power. The leading powers maintain
a certain balance and no one of them preponderates
over all the others. There is a small danger that in
Europe they will trench on each other's territory,
though it is possible that they may have their minor
dissensions and need the services of mediators or an
international court. This is saying that the chief in-
stitutions suggested by our own platform would be of
great service to the victorious nations and would have a
large chance of being adopted. If an opposing aUiance
still exists, harmony and coherence among the members
of the successful league will be of immeasurable im-
portance. The slightest rift in their union would be
highly perilous and a positive division might bring down
upon them at once a powerful hostile force. The awful
tragedy of the second Balkan war is a warning written
on the sky in letters of fire against quarrels between
members of a victorious union of states, and arbitral in-
stitutions should find favor with the members of that
union, whichever it is, that shall conquer the opposing
one. So much of our platform as would create a court
88 ENFORCED PEACE
and a system of arbitration it should welcome and put
into practice.
Will it also adopt the third section of our platform —
the one which provides for forcibly compelling states
to submit quarrels to arbitration and adjudication?
What our platform calls for is a relatively modest
exercise of force and it encounters far less opposition
than would arise if it involved also enforcing the
court's decisions. Nevertheless it is the most dis-
puted portion of our platform, and possibly the great-
est hght that we can gain on this question will come
from asking how the alliance which wins the present
war will probably regard it.
If only one of these international unions constituted
the league of peace, the question of compelUng its
members to submit their quarrels to a court or an
arbitral board would be a complex one and guesses
as to the answer would be uncertain; but conceivably
it might agree to this measure. With the opposing
alliance still in existence, any quarrel between the suc-
cessful states would be perilous and actual fighting
would almost certainly lead to disaster. Whether, on
the one hand, two of the allied states were left to fight
out a quarrel alone or, on the other hand, all the mem-
bers were united in defending one of them against the
other, the calamity might be about equally irreparable.
The war will leave the two alUances in such a position
that an open quarrel between states in the victorious
one would so paralyze it as to put it at the mercy of
its antagonist. This, of itself, affords a highly effective
security against quarrehng, and whether, in the period
immediately following the conclusion of the present war,
the successful group of nations will or will not bind
themselves to use their collective forces to compel their
members to refer their differences to some tribunal be-
fore fighting, it is not easy to guess with much confi-
dence. What will happen in a later period is more im-
ENFORCED PEACE 89
portant, and I venture to predict that a time will come
when the enforcement clause will have a greatly in-
creased chance of adoption.
It is far easier to form a confident opinion as to what
would happen if both alUances were at once united in
the same league of peace. Here guesses have a broad
basis of fact to support them. If the allies in the
Entente and the Central powers are together in the new
combination, can this general body safely adopt the
provision for compelUng a resort to tribunals? I ven-
ture to say that one strong reason will prevent it from
doing this. To bind all these nations immediately
after the war to unite in attacking any one of them
which should refuse to arbitrate a quarrel might com-
pel the present alUes of the recalcitrant state to fight
against it in behalf of one of their present enemies.
Its comrades in arms would have to desert it and fight
for its enemy and their own and, during the period
when friendships and enmities are at their height,
they are not likely to do so.
Let us say that a quarrel has arisen between England
and Germany over African colonies and that England
regards these as her sovereign territory and declines
to place her claim in the hands of an arbitral court or
to call in a board of conciliation. It would be the duty
of France to join in attacking England, her present
ally, in behalf of Germany, her present enemy; and
in any quarrel which could arise between late antagon-
ists, and in which mediation should be refused, some
nation or nations would be in this position. France
is now bound to defend England against attack by a
nation outside of the Entente; England is under a
similar obligation toward France, and this mutual
bond is far too essential to be waived. It has saved
the French State from defeat and dismemberment.
Intimate relations have grown up between the coun-
tries that are now fighting shoulder to shoulder and
90 ENFORCED PEACE
they are very unlikely to tolerate anything which would
weaken these ties. Any deliberate planning on their
part to make a division in their own ranks result from
a quarrel with an outside power is nearly unthinkable.
li venture, with deference, to express the opinion that,
if both the present alliances should come at once into
a league of peace, the appUcation of force that is
proposed in our platform would have to be deferred
to a time when the present aUgnment of friendships
and hostiUties should have passed far in the back-
ground.
The entire question of what would be done if the
two present alHances should come at once into a single
imion is of less importance than it would be if there
were a greater probabiUty of their doing this. There
is little risk in saying that immediately after the war
they will not so unite and that, for the safety and well-
being of the world, it will be best that they should
not do so. A imion so composed could not be trusted.
Jealousy, distrust, and a revengeful spirit are poor
materials to make a league of peace from. There
would be very little coherence in any single body in
which both the Teutons and the Western powers were
combined. Lack of coherence is the weak point in a
league of any kind and would be a fatal point in such a
composite body. This would suggest a temple of
peace in which sticks of dynamite were inserted be-
tween courses of stone. Outside of a league, however,
a hostile power may give it the greatest coherence
it can possibly have. Nothing can cement a union of
states like a great common danger. Inside of the
union states full of hostility to the other members of the
League would, in all probability, make its working im-
perfect and its existence precarious.
The critical question then is: does this describe a per-
manent condition and is there no union making for peace
into which all the present enemies can ever come? Very
ENFORCED PEACE 91
far from it. There is a type of union with which all of
them can come at once. There are things which
enemies can do for their mutual benefit, and when they
have done them many times, their enmity tends to fade
into the background and give place, first, to confidence
and good will and positive friendship. Time has its
talismans and can cause what begins as a forced and un-
welcome toleration of one people by another to convert
itself by easy stages into actual fraternity. There is a
highway in sight, along which unfriendly nations can
walk, if they will, toward and finally to the realm of
fraternal union. They must make treaties of peace and
can make treaties of arbitration. In due time they
can cooperate in putting life into the institutions at The
Hague. France, England, Russia and Italy on the
one side, and Germany, Austria, and Turkey on the
other, with their several smaller allies, can together
create a High Court of Nations. They can develop
and codify international law. They must resume
their economic activities and can so direct them that
causes of friction shall gradually be reduced and com-
mon interests shall be magnified. They can hold
conferences at intervals and let them become, as
decade after decade shall pass, more frequent and
influential. In the end, let us profoundly hope, a
single, strong and binding league of nations can be
created with every institution foreshadowed by the
program of our own organization, and others besides,
all buttressed by common interests and vitalized by
community of feeling. Then may armies and navies
shrink to small dimensions and the laboring power
they have absorbed may be used to develop the re-
sources of the earth and conquer poverty — of which
there will be a vast amount to be conquered. In the
midst of the most terrific war of history cosmic forces
have steadily tended in the direction of this outcome.
The things that are seen are frightful but temporary,
92 ENFORCED PEACE
the things that are unseen are eternal. Out of one of
the fighting leagues may evolve the federation that,
later, will convert dreadnaughts into cargo carriers,
huge guns into tools of industry and the fighting in-
stinct of men into healthful rivalry in the activities of
peace. The beginning of it all is a victorious league
emerging from a war ; the end is the banishment of the
war demon and the creation of what would to-day seem
hke a paradise. In the furnace of an awful strife we
are fashioning at this moment the beams and girders
of a peace temple which will be no mere vision, but a
substantial earthly reality, having, however, the form
and color of the brightest vision that the imagination
of man can paint.
R. G. RHETT
President of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States
CHAPTER IV
AMERICAN INTERESTS AFFECTED BY
THE LEAGUE PROGRAM
One of the obvious topics requiring considera-
tion by the first annual assemblage was a con-
sideration of the program of the League to Enforce
Peace from the standpoint of various National
interests affected. An informative paper showing
how the business interests of the country viewed
the League's program was presented by R. G.
Rhett, of Charleston, S. C, President of the
Chamber of Commerce of the United States. Mr.
Rhett's paper follows :
AMERICAN BUSINESS AND THE LEAGUE TO ENFORCE
PEACE
Had any one attempted to tell you the views of the
business men of this country on any proposition four
years ago, it could only have been his personal opinion^
and it would have been impossible to verify its accuracy.
There was no practical way in which these views could
have been collected and expressed. There were na-
tional trade organizations interested in particular lines
of business any of which could have ascertained the
views of their members. There were local chambers
of commerce any of which Ukewise could have ascer-
tained the opinions of the business men in their respec-
tive locaUties. But it was only in April, 191 2, that an
93
94 ENFORCED PEACE
organization was formed for the purpose of ascertain-
ing the collective views of the members of both na-
tional trade associations and local chambers of com-
merce located in every part of the nation. It is true
that the Chamber of Commerce of the United States
has not enrolled in its membership all such organizations,
but it has 750 of them, comprising more than 350,000
business men, firms, and corporations, in which every
state in the Union is represented. When they speak
with the two-thirds majority required by the Consti-
tution of the Chamber, there can be no doubt that they
voice the sentiments of the business men of the coun-
try.
It is one of the cardinal principles of the National
Chamber that its policies shall come fresh from its
membership in response to referenda in which the ques-
tions are presented clearly and concisely and supported
by the best arguments obtainable pro and con. Neither
the President nor the Board of Directors has the power
to determine what these policies shaU be. It is their
duty to see that these questions of policy are properly
submitted to the membership in the referenda, and
where there is a two-thirds majority vote in favor
of any proposition, it is their further duty to carry
such proposition into effect.
In November, 1915, the Board of Directors of the
National Chamber sent out a referendum on the sub-
ject of the proposals of the League to Enforce Peace.
In response to that referendum more than 96 per cent, of
the vote was in favor of the proposition that the United
States take the initiative in securing conferences for
the purpose of estabUshing rules for the better protec-
tion of Hfe and property at sea; to be followed by suc-
cessive conferences for the adoption of amendments to
meet changed conditions. By practically the same
majority the membership voted to approve of the prop-
osition that this country take the initiative in forming
ENFORCED PEACE 95
a league of nations, which shall agree to submit justi-
ciable questions arising between any of its members to
an international court, and non-justiciable questions
to a council of conciliation for their respective decision
or recommendation, before resorting to war. With
reference to the proposals for enforcing these agree-
ments first by economic pressure and then by military
force, the vote of the organization members revealed
a majority of 77 per cent, in favor of the former but
only 64 per cent, in favor of the latter. This was six-
teen votes short of the two-thirds vote required to
commit the chamber to its support.
It is interesting to note that on the question of employ-
ing miUtary force, the large chambers gave a majority
of a Uttle over 63 per cent., the small chambers a little
over 65 per cent., and the trade associations about 67
per cent — the average of all organizations, as I have
said, being 64 per cent.
It is also interesting to note some of the comments of
the chambers in casting their votes. For instance, the
Peoria Association of Commerce in voting against either
economic pressure or military force, states that in view
"of the alleged unpreparedness of the country it desires
to protest against the government of the United States
entering upon any such propositions as those embodied
in recommendations 4 and 5" (Economic pressure and
military force).
Again, the Merchants' Association of New York, in
declining to vote on the question of military force, states
that " had question 5 been submitted so as to cover the
proposition of international police power by the exercise
of military force without being predicated upon the use
of economic pressure the vote of the association would
have been cast in its favor." This organization, by the
way, casts ten votes, and, in passing, let me say that no
chamber has more than ten votes.
Again, the Pittsburg Chamber of Commerce did not
96 ENFORCED PEACE
vote either for or against the recommendations concern-
ing economic pressure or miUtary force as in its opinion
the problem of creating the necessary means for the en-
forcement of the decrees of any international tribunal
should be left to the deUberation of the proposed inter-
national conference.
It therefore may be safely said that the business men
of this country are heartily in accord with all the pro-
posals of the League save that pro\iding for the use of
military force in the event of the failure of economic
pressure. With reference to this the majority of the
business men seem to be in favor of it, but the Chamber
of Commerce of the United States of America, under its
constitution and by-laws, is not committed to its en-
dorsement or support.
Business ought to be and is pecuHarly sympathetic
with any effort to substitute cooperation for conflict.
Competition under proper restraint is a constructive
and beneficent force, but beyond control it becomes com-
mercial warfare. It is now many years since the loss
and waste resulting from this kind of warfare turned the
thoughts and activities of business men to cooperation.
It required sacrifices of individual prerogatives and ad-
vantages at times, but the resultant good so outbalanced
the bad — the gain so outweighed the loss — that every-
where we find the business men seeking cooperation and
avoiding conflict. The changes in methods of travel
and communication which have brought business men
closer together have likewise brought both the people
and the governments of nations into closer contact.
The Hague conferences did much to cultivate a spirit of
cooperation amongst them, and indeed, marked progress
seemed to be making in the direction of universal peace.
But the fact that the greatest of wars which the world
has ever known is now raging furnishes abundant proof
that the time had not yet arrived, in 1914, when the
great nations of the world were willing to make the
ENFORCED PEACE 97
sacrifices necessary to prevent war by enforcing peace.
Is not the time rapidly approaching, and will it not be
ripe at the close of the present war, when the spirits of
both people and the rulers of all nations have been so
chastened — some by suffering, others by the contempla-
tion of that suffering — for the formation of a League
which gives promise of securing to the world a hope of
permanent peace, with sacrifices which seem infini-
tesimal in comparison?
For many years it looked as if man had turned his
thoughts and energies from the conquest of his fellow-
man to the conquest of nature. His genius was har-
nessing one by one her mighty forces and bending them
to his use. Steam, electricity, gas, and many other
treasures gathered from her exhaustless storehouse were
yielding him power for production, transportation,
travel and communication in infinite volume and
variety. When his ingenuity began to turn some of
these forces into instruments of destruction, the con-
sequences were so appalling, that it looked as if these
new weapons of war might prove the most effective in-
strumentalities for insuring peace. It was a vain hope
as the present war has proved; but the horrors of the
battle are obscuring its splendors. War is no longer so
handsome as it was — to use the President's expression
— and we may well hope that the achievements
of peace may outshine the deeds of war as now con-
ducted.
Many methods of securing peace have been tried,
covering limited areas and limited combinations of
nations, and in some instances with marked success; but
steam, electricity, and gas have brought all nations so
close together that war between any of them seriously
affects almost every other.
With the opening of the European War, business in
this country for a while was paralyzed; exchanges were
closed; values were suspended; bankruptcy stared whole
98 ENFORCED PEACE
sections of the nation in the face; distress and suffering
was precipitated in almost every section and would
probably have continued had not one set of belligerents
controlled the seas. Confusion and chaos in business
reigned everywhere not only in this country but in the
entire world. Great prosperity is now coming to many
people in America, in consequence of the peculiarly
fortimate conditions in which we have been placed,
but upon the cessation of hostiHties confusion will
again reign and business wiU require another adjust-
ment.
It is clear that our need is for some method of securing
practically universal peace. The general propositions
presented by the League to Enforce Peace make for that
end and should appeal to every nation. It isn't pro-
posed to bind any nation to abide the decision of a
tribunal nor accept the recommendations of a council of
conciliation, but it does force all nations in the League
to submit their contentions to an investigation and
criticism which will naturally be world-wide. It does
compel every nation joining it to give the most careful
and deliberate consideration to every controversy and
especially to the consequences likely to ensue from con-
flict; and it also enables the people of the countries in-
terested to understand the question and to have some
voice in the course which their governments shall
pursue.
Agreements unsupported by some means of enforce-
ment amount to Uttle — we have seen how little in the
present conflict. Can the great nations agree upon an
effective method of enforcement which shall not itself
contain dangerous germs of conflict? The proposals of
the League present two progressive methods. The
National Chamber endorses the first and doubts the
second; but out of them can probably be worked prac-
tical safeguards if the nations can be induced to ap-
proach the problem in a spirit of cooperation by mutual
ENFORCED PEACE 99
concession — ^keeping in mind always the comparison of
the gains with the sacrifices.
There is another point of view which appeals strongly
to business. Together with a great majority of the
people the business man is calling for greater prepara-
tion for defense not only in a military way but in an
economic way. The vote which has just closed in re-
sponse to a referendum of the National Chamber on
that subject shows just how strongly he feels on this
question. Over 99 per cent, of the vote was in favor
of the military forces of this country both on sea and
land being so increased and the industrial resources so
coordinated as to make fully available the military, in-
dustrial, and financial strength of the nation. Ninety-
nine per cent, of the vote was in favor of the restoration
of the Navy to its former position as second in the At-
lantic with surplus in the Pacific for the adequate protec-
tion of our coast, our possessions, and our trade routes.
Furthermore, over 94 per cent, of the vote was in favor
of compulsory miHtary training for our youths.
And why does he feel so strongly on the subject?
Not because he wants this country to become an aggres-
sor, but because he wants insurance against the aggres-
sions of other countries. He wants to remove all temp-
tation from every nation or combination of nations to
attack us, by convincing them that it would be a hope-
less task.
While he believes in insurance and uses it in every way
possible, his instinct is to seek the best security at the
least cost. Now, in the first place, extensive military
preparedness has not proven an altogether effective and
safe insurance. It necessarily cultivates a spirit which
is itself a constant menace. It is a necessary form of in-
surance so long as other nations insist on military
preparation, but the proposals of the League would seem
to open the way for a limitation upon it and a substitu-
tion of what even in its proposed form would seem in-
loo ENFORCED PEACE
finitely more eflfective and less expensive, and what, if
once begun, may lead to better and better safeguards.
As to the cost, I wonder how many have the faintest
conception of what it amounts to. In this country
where we have paid Uttle attention to our army, and in
late years have permitted our navy to fall behind, the
proportion of our revenues devoted to preparations for
defense and to provision for those who have partici-
pated in its wars is almost beyond belief. The Massa-
chusetts Commission on the Cost of Living made a re-
port in 1910, showing that 71^ per cent, of the national
income for the 31 years previous thereto had been ex-
pended for these purposes in the following proportions:
Army, 20.2 per cent.; Navy, 11.9 per cent.; Pensions,
28.7 per cent.; Interest on debt, 10.7 per cent. It
would appear then that only 28I per cent, of these
revenues are devoted to the purposes of the civil ad-
ministration of national affairs and national develop-
ment. It is particularly striking that the cost of taking
care of those who have participated in war or those im-
mediately dependent upon them is greater than the
entire cost of the civil administration of national
afifairs and of all goverrmiental developments of our
country.
Whatever business men can contribute toward the
success of the purposes which the League has in mind, I
feel sure that they will be willing to contribute cheer-
fully and generously. Those who have organized the
League and have carried it forward to its present splendid
position in the pubUc esteem and confidence, deserve the
warmest congratulation and the heartiest support from
the people of the entire country, and I am confident that
they have it in full measure.
The attitude of business interests toward the
League program was further discussed by Harry
ENFORCED PEACE loi
A. Wheeler, LL.D., vice-president of the Union
Trust Company, of Chicago, former president of
the Chamber of Commerce of the United States,
and secretary of the Chicago Association of Com-
merce in the following address:
THE league's service TO THE WORLD
This has been a remarkable day, and the strength,
the force, and the clarity of the able addresses to which
we have listened must have impressed you, as they have
me, with the fact that the League to Enforce Peace,
under the splendid leadership which it possesses, is
born to a great world service at a time when the world
needs service and sacrifice, as at no other time in its
history, to restore its equilibrium.
All that has been in my mind to say upon the subject
assigned to me seems insignificant in the face of the
weightier considerations here advanced, and I am
strengthened in my previously formed opinion that it
must be infinitely easier to discuss the political, senti-
mental, or humanitarian significance of the purposes of
the League rather than to discuss the effect of these
purposes upon the material prosperity of the nation.
Material prosperity is variously interpreted, and
all too often the definition possesses no broader horizon
than individual selfishness. There is a predatory
prosperity which has its birth in opportunism and sets
the rewards of shrewdness and cunning above the
general welfare of the state. There is a constructive
prosperity which disregards speculative considerations
or temporary advantage and pins its faith to stable
evolutionary processes. Those whose vision does not
extend beyond the selfish gain of to-day would not see
in the platform of the League an assurance of material
prosperity, but those who recognize the reality of that
higher selfishness, which profits most when the whole
I02 ENFORCED PEACE
body politic is raised to a higher level of civilization,
will share with us in the belief that in the platform of the
League is embodied principles which make for the
healing of national strife.
The world of business is supposed to be coldly-
material, yet the world of business is for settling
its own and international disputes by conciliatory
methods.
In September, 1912, when all civilized nations sent
their representatives to Boston to participate in the
Fifth International Congress of Chambers of Com-
merce, what sentiment was most frequently uttered
and productive of the most enthusiastic applause?
It was the contention by men of business from all
lands that international amity should be preserved by
the arbitration of international disputes, and by con-
ciliation wherever diflferences failed to lend themselves
to arbitration. The very principles for which this
League stands were the principles most vehemently
spoken by men of all lands and most generously ap-
plauded by all.
We are told that the present war is being fought that
commercial opportunity may be unimpaired. That is a
libel upon commerce. As a matter of fact, it is not in
the name of commerce that such a war as is now pro-
ceeding in Europe could possibly be fought, nor for
commercial advantage, nor for commercial supremacy.
Diplomacy has failed civilization, and desires to find
some excuse, no matter how bad, for its failure when
put to the crucial test in July, 19 14.
Additional evidence of the interest of commerce
in the principles of the League to Enforce Peace may be
found in the Sixth International Congress of Chambers
of Commerce, held in Paris during the early summer of
1914. There, a month before the declaration of war,
the commercial interests of fifty or more nations re-
iterated their good will for each other, and their desire
ENFORCED PEACE 103
for encouraging a peaceful means of solving both com-
mercial and political differences.
The League to Enforce Peace has a great respon-
sibihty and the time is crucial. This nation of ours
likewise has a great responsibility, and its time is
crucial. If this conference shall be dissolved without
finding a way in which to carry to the farthest corners
of our country those principles for which we stand,
if we shall go back to our homes without finding ways
and means of bringing public sentiment up to a point of
agreement with what we know to be the only logical
process of setthng international differences, there will
rest upon us a responsibility which we shall not bear
lightly in the years to come, and we shall place our
nation in a position where in the days of readjustment
it will be infinitely more difficult to treat with other
nations.
To my mind the United States stands as a beacon
at the crossroads of the world. To what harbor shall
we light the nations? To the harbor of fancied ex-
clusiveness where the anguish and strife of a world in
readjustment finds no responsive chord? To the har-
bor of selfishness where material gains, brought in part
from the misfortune of others, are used as a barrier
against the appeals of those who stretch out hands
imploring aid? To the harbor of inordinate ambition
where the vision is blinded to all but the goal of our
own supremacy? In these harbors the League to
Enforce Peace has no place and no anchorage, but if
we shall undertake to light the nations to a new civiliza-
tion, where might shall not be right, where the strong
shall find it a privilege to help the weak, and the rich to
succor the poor, where national power and national
influence and national wealth shall be held as a sacred
trust in the interest of humanity, there we shall find
the League to Enforce Peace, with its principles broad
written over the banner of time, and there this nation
r
L
104 ENFORCED PEACE
will fulfil its destiny in guiding the way for the nations
of the world into a harbor of continued peace and
amity.
The interests of the workingman in any con-
structive effort to promote peace with justice was
discussed by Samuel Gompers, president of the
American Federation of Labor. His address fol-
lows:
AMERICAN LABOR AND A CONSTRUCTIVE SETTLEMENT
OF THE WAR
No class has more to lose and less to gain in war than
the workers. No class renders such sacrificial service
during war and bears such staggering burdens after
war as does labor. In war, labor sees the results of
years of struggle for wider justice swept away. In one
mad moment the clock of industrial progress may be
turned back for a generation. War diverts the mind
of peoples from the constructive work of humanizing
and democratizing the relations of men. Recognizing
this, workingmen the world over have avowed their
allegiance to the cause of peace and have sworn un-
dying opposition to the forces that make for war.
Before the present war, the working people of the
several countries now in conflict sincerely gave inter-
national pledges that they would not fight each other.
I confess that I banked strongly upon these pledges,
but in an hour of crisis, brought about by forces over
which workingmen had little control, their pledges
were shattered by the hurried ultimatum of Kaiser
and King, of President and Czar. Secret diplomacy
and arbitrary autocracy lifted the battle standards,
raised the cry that the integrity of the fatherland was
at stake, and placed the workingmen of all the nations
Copyright, 1902, /. E. Purdy, Boston No. 8
SAMUEL GOMPERS
President, American Federation of Labor
ENFORCED PEACE 105
in a position where adherence to their pledges and to
the larger interests of humanity would have branded
them as traitors. Under the urgency of the situation,
with autocracy and miUtarism resorting to their accus-
tomed stage tricks for arousing patriotic emotions,
instinct prevailed over reason and the laboring men
of the nations rushed into the paths that had been
marked out by the diplomatic and ruling classes.
But when the smoke of this conflict is cleared, with
renewed energy, the laboring men of the world will
begin to lay anew the foundations for an international
peace that will safeguard and minister to the interests
of justice, democracy, and larger opportunity for all.
But for even a more immediate reason, America's
workers are vitally interested in the kind of settle-
ment that shall come at the end of this war and in
its effect upon industrial conditions in the United
States. For it is obvious that at the epd of this war
labor may have to enter into great struggles to get and
hold its just dues. These struggles may become more
acute in the United States should an industrial reaction
ensue after the close of the war.
Organized labor stands, of course, for group action
instead of an individual competitive scramble with
those in direst need setting the standard. Of course,
when there is a scarcity of work and a multitude of
workers, collective bargaining faces an added difficulty.
And yet such conditions are the definite outlook,
if the settlement of the present war is the ordinary
one, a mere diplomatic jockeying on the part of the
nations for the best position in the next race for arma-
ments, the kind of settlement that is sure to be made
unless labor, agriculture, business, and all classes, can
effectively cooperate for a different and better kind of
settlement.
Let me state briefly what will cause this reaction, if
it comes. If, at the end of this war, nothing but war
io6 ENFORCED PEACE
is left as a method for settling the future disputes that
are bound to arise between nations, every nation, our
own included, will be forced into an extravagant com-
petition in armaments as a defensive preparation against
the next great conflict that will be but a question of
years. The interest bills and the expense of recon-
structing demoraHzed industries will be burden enough
to bend the back of Europe for a generation, but if
there be added the greatest naval and miUtary appro-
priations of history, it becomes clear that Europe will
face the most desperate need of income she has ever
known. To meet this need, Europe must carry over
into the economic struggle for the recovery of the
markets of the world much of the grim spirit of sacrifice
that she has shown in war, and institute the most
severe and destructive competition known to industrial
and business history. In that competition, our de-
mocracy, its institutions, its methods, and its prosperity
N/ will be put under a greater strain than it has ever
known.
Whether or not this suicidal competition is to be
inevitable depends, largely, upon whether or not the
mind and heart of the world unite in substituting a
higher standard of moraUty — law for war, in the
settlement of future disputes between nations, thereby
making less necessary another competitive race for
armaments, and thus removing one of the biggest
expenditures that will make necessary the destructive
race for trade which I have mentioned.
The fear of an industrial and business reaction in
America is not born of theory, but is based upon evident
proof that the present military war is to be followed
by an economic war unparalleled in the intensity and
destructiveness of its competition. Definite organiza-
tion is already under way in practically all of the nations
of Europe in preparation for a race for markets that
will be the goal of this economic war. This organiza-
ENFORCED PEACE 107
tion is being directed not only by the governments
of Europe, but also by the private industrial and busi-
ness interests of Great Britain, France, Russia, Ger-
many, and other belligerents. It is the declared purpose
of the statesmanship and commercial leadership of
Europe to convert the present military alUances into
future trade alliances. The plans being made for this
economic war are animated not only by a desire for
retaliation against former enemies but to capture the
greatest possible share of the trade of the world, as a
means for liquidating war debts, sustaining credit,
rebuilding war-damaged industry, and financing such
military preparations for the future as conditions may
render inevitable.
Every day brings added proof also that the nations of
Europe will, at the end of the war, set up formidable
tariff barriers that will seriously restrict trade between
the nations now at war and force them to compete
more keenly in the neutral markets of the world, in-
cluding the invitingly rich market of the United States.
The erection of these tariff barriers will be forced upon
the governments of Europe, not only to meet the urgent
need of revenue, but also to make each nation as nearly
self-sufficient as possible, for this war will have proved
and enforced the fact that a nation that can most
nearly supply all its needs by its own industries, were it
walled in from the world, will be best able to protect
itself and conserve its interests in the event of war.
The extraordinary pressure for funds will force
exports from Europe upon a bigger scale than ever
before. Europe will be more eager to sell and less
able to buy than ever in history. If Europe exports at
a maximum and imports at a minimum, the outlet for
the products of American labor will, of course, be
restricted. The poverty of Europe will make her not
only a poor customer but also a fierce competitor.
Our whole problem of foreign trade will be made
io8 ENFORCED PEACE
increasingly difficult. The result may be the piling
up in America of a great surplus of manufactured goods.
Even before the war, we were beginning to feel the
pressure of our surplus and the necessity for increased
foreign trade. Such a serious limitation upon the
exportation of American goods, as any extensive busi-
ness reaction after the war would involve, would, in a
short time, make for scarcity of work and react in-
juriously upon American labor.
Going back a moment to the proposition with which
we started: The prosperity and welfare of American
^ labor are largely dependent upon the prosperity and
welfare of the American nation. Granted great pros-
perity to the nation, with a wide margin of profit to the
employers, and granted the proper organization of
labor for collective bargaining, there is always the
chance, at least, to reach justice and equity; but if the
United States suffers a serious business reaction, the
American employer may have a less margin on which
to deal with the problem of wages, and coUective bar-
gaining will face an increasingly difficult problem.
All of which means that American labor has far-
reaching interests at stake in doing its share to help
bring about such a settlement of the present war as will
prevent any abnormal reaction upon the prosperity of
the United States, and will give the industrial and
business interests of the whole world an opportunity
to compete along more nearly normal lines.
But above and beyond the desire of America's
workers to secure a settlement that will safeguard the
material interests of themselves and the nation is their
desire to see a settlement that will render war less
probable and peace more permanent in the future; for
the interests of the men and women of labor are identi-
fied with those of peace. War has never meant to them
opportunity for gain or exploitation. It has always
meant to them sacrifice and suffering in the actual
ENFORCED PEACE 109
fighting of the war and the bearing of heavy burdens,
after the war. Certainly working people have bought
with their flesh and blood the right to a voice in deter-
mining the issues of peace and war; and in the general "V
reorganization that will follow the present war, the
workers will insist upon having voice and influence.
Labor is committed to the principle that peace is the
basis of all civilization.
Peace is not a chance by-product of other conditions;
it is the fundamental necessity of aU government and
of all progress — industrial, intellectual, social, and
humanitarian. One of the main purposes, therefore,
of governments and of all classes within governments
must be the maintenance of more permanent inter-
national peace.
Since the burdens of war fall more heavily upon the
workers than upon any other class, and since war
diverts attention from the progress of that social and
industrial democracy which holds the hopes of labor
in its balance, it follows that labor, more than any other
class, is interested in the estabhshment and main-
tenance of a more permanent international peace.
Although bearing most of its burdens, labor has had
little to say in the declaration and conduct of the wars
of the past, but in self-defense and in the interest of
civilization, labor must have an increasing voice in the
peace of the future.
In any program looking toward the establishment of
more permanent peace among nations, labor will insist
upon the following principles:
I. It must be a program under which the military
forces of the world will be rescued from the dictation
of arbitrary autocracy and absolute secret diplomacy
and dedicated to the maintenance of a higher standard
of morals, founded upon law and justice; a program that
will so safeguard the use of military power that it can-
not be used by the reactionary forces of privilege in im-
no ENFORCED PEACE
perialistic aggression, or dragged like a red herring across
the path of democratic progress.
2. It must be a program elastic enough to admit of
those fundamental changes that the growing life of the
world makes inevitable. Any international arrange-
ment that does not afiford peaceful methods of securing
the results that now can be achieved only by successful
^ fighting will make Httle headway against war. Labor
will oppose any federation of nations so organized that
the more powerful nations can use the machinery to
maintain the status quo against the demands for change
made in the interest of democracy and larger oppor-
tunity for the masses.
3. It must be a program under which the small
nation, as well as the large nation, will have a free
hand in every just and individual development; a
program that will make it impossible for a few strong
nations to dictate the policies and development of the
world. It must not deny to small and dependent states
that final right of revolution that sometimes is the only
road to justice and freedom.
4. It must be a program that will give the masses
greater influence in those decisions that plunge nations
Nj into war; that is to say, a program under which the
powers of autocracy and absolute secret diplomacy
cannot, over night, rush a nation into war before the
citizenship of the nation has a chance to express itself.
5. It must be a program under which the inter-
national machinery that is created will afford a medium
through which all classes of society can voice their
V I judgment and register their demands. We must not
delude ourselves into thinking that the international
problem will be solved entirely by the estabHshment
of an international court along traditional fines, pre-
sided over by lawyers to pass judgment upon violations
of established international law. The fact is that the
real causes of modern wars are not so much violations
ENFORCED PEACE in
of established law, as they are conflicts over new prob-
lems and new needs that have not yet become a part
of international law. So that any adequate interna-
tional program must include the establishment of a
system of stated international conferences in which the
representatives of such democratic interests as labor
and business can present and discuss, not under any
established rules of evidence but in the spirit of impar-
tial examination, those difficulties and differences that
threaten to give rise to war.
These principles represent not only the international
program for which labor will work in the future, but
they represent essentially the program for which labor
has been contending through the years. But labor
understands that a program so vast, involving as it does
the interests of every human group, cannot be estab-
Ushed and maintained by one class alone. Labor under-
stands that humanity is one; that the problem of
humanity is a common problem, that any international
order of things to be permanent must safeguard the
interests of all classes. Therefore, labor is profoundly
concerned in the creation and adoption of some inter-
national program for which all classes, labor, agricul-
ture, and business can work side by side in sincere co-
operation for those principles that will best insure the
triumph of justice and opportunity for all classes the
world over.
In so far as the program of the League to Enforce
Peace represents an effort to meet the conditions I
have outhned, it demands the interest and careful
scrutiny of every man who has the interests of labor at
heart.
As I understand it, the essential proposals of the
League to Enforce Peace are these:
I. That the nations shall band themselves together
in a federation and agree to delay, in every instance^
the actual declaration of war until the dispute at issue
V
112 ENFORCED PEACE
has been thoroughly examined by an international
tribunal, and the pubUc opinion of the world given a
chance to express itself.
2. That there shaU be an International Court to
consider questions that can be decided upon established
law and evidence.
3. That there shall be a Council of ConciHation to
consider questions that are not ordinarily regarded as
justiciable, such as questions of national honor.
4. That in addition, there shall be at stated intervals
international conferences for the progressive amend-
ment of international law.
5. That the nations of the League shall agree to turn
their united strength — first in the form of a business
and economic boycott, and finally in concerted miUtary
action if the boycott is not effective — against any one
of their number that wages war without first submitting
its dispute for complete examination to one of the
International Tribunals created.
The hope of the League's program is, I take it, that
by forcing nations to stop and count ten before striking,
there will result a cooUng off period that will greatly
reduce the probability of war, if not prevent most wars.
There is no proposal that the decrees of the Court or
Council shall be enforced; if, after the decision of the
Court, a nation feels that it must fight to gain justice
and freedom for its rightful development, the League
provides no organized penalties. The program does
not propose any tightly organized international govern-
ment, but suggests that the nations shall cooperate to
form a sort of International Vigilance Committee and
say: If any one nation starts to "shoot up the world"
without J&rst giving legal processes a chance to adjust
its difiiculty, the other nations shall treat that nation as
an outlaw and shaU pool their economic and mihtary
power in an efifort to force it to give law a chance.
It is not for me, by word of mouth, to commit the
ENFORCED PEACE 113
laboring men of America to any particular program in
international aflFairs; but I may be permitted to com-
ment upon the way the proposals of the League to
Enforce Peace appeal to me as a representative of
labor.
The League's program wisely refrains from attempt-
ing to stop the present war. Hating war as I do, I am
free to confess that if I could stop this war now by a turn
of my hand, I would not do it. I hold that something
must be determined by this war, and that something is
whether the future belongs to autocracy and mihtarism
or to democracy, liberty, and humanity. These are the
points at issue and they have not yet been determined.
The League's program also wisely recognizes that we
have not yet reached a point where the total disarma-
ment of nations is a practically possible proposal. The
labor movement is a militant movement, and the work-
ers understand the necessity for power and its uses. The
labor movement has never advocated the abolition of
agencies for the enforcement of right and justice, or the
abolition of the military arm of government, but it does
demand that military forces shall be so organized as to
prevent their misuse and abuse as instruments of
tyranny against the workers; to render impossible the
pernicious results of militarism — the building up of a
separate military caste and the subversion of civic Ufe to
military government and military standards. If this
program can succeed in making our military and naval
forces not only our arm of defense, but, in addition, our
contribution toward the maintenance of more permanent
peace throughout the world, a long step in this direction
may have been taken.
The League's program wisely recognizes the danger of
creating a league of nations that would undertake to
enforce the decisions o/an International Court, and con-
tents itself with enforcing the submission to an Inter-
national Court of all disputes for examination. Until
'?
V
114 ENFORCED PEACE
democracy is more nearly universal, until democracy be-
comes a social and industrial fact as well as a political
catchword, a League with power to enforce decisions
would almost certainly become the repressive tool of the
reactionary and privileged forces of the world.
The League's program, by suggesting the use of an
economic boycott on an international scale as a means of
enforcing law and justice, pays a tribute to the increas-
ing importance and power of industrial forces in world
affairs. But such a boycott must be left to the vol-
untary action of the peoples of all nations. What an
International Court or League should do is to invite the
representatives of all nations involved for a hearing and
then declare its findings, holding the nation at fault
guilty of such violations as the judgment of the Court
or League may determine.
If a nation or nations fail or refuse to be represented,
judgment should be taken by default, but in either event
the opinion of the Court or League should be declared
to the world as to which nation is responsible for the
threatening conditions. An official or compulsory boy-
cott must be avoided at all hazards.
Labor wiU insist that such careful thought and con-
structive statesmanship be put into the working out of
the methods in each country by which such a boycott
would be applied, that the workers would be insured
against the possibility of being forced to bear more than
their just share of the necessary sacrifice involved, and
that their freedom of action would not be jeopardized.
The wage earners of the United States, who have so often
proved their patriotic loyalty in the civic life of the
nation, as well as in the nation's wars, stand ready to
bear their just share of any economic sacrifice that may
be necessary to maintain the peace of the world, but
they must insist that it be only their just share.
But the final question is not whether, at this stage, we
all agree upon every detail of a program. Evidence is
ENFORCED PEACE 115
daily accumulating that indicates that some such a
league of nations is practically certain to be formed, if
not at the end of this war, in the not far distant future.
The bitter experience of this war will prove to all
nations that the system of small group alliances, armed
to the teeth and eternally growling at each other, is a
poor way to run the business of the world. It seems
practically certain that instinct, as well as reason, will
react against this system of armed peace toward some
larger federation of the nations. Since such a Court or
League as contemplated appears to be the inevitable
goal toward which the whole evolution of law and gov-
ernment is tending, the laboring men of this and every
other nation will feel it their duty and privilege to lift
their voice in counsel at every step of the plans and
propaganda, in order to make more certain the triumph
of democratic principles and methods in whatever final
form such an international institution may take.
Carl Vrooman, Assistant Secretary of Agricul-
ture, who was called on at the last moment by Presi-
dent Taft to take the place of Oliver Wilson, presi-
dent of the National Grange, discussed the program
of the League to Enforce Peace from the standpoint
of the American farmer as follows:
AMERICAN AGRICULTURE AND THE LEAGUE TO ENFORCE
PEACE
I come from the great Middle West which, as a friend
of mine has said, is " honeycombed with pacifism." The
Middle West has more peace sentiment in it — has more
pacifists to the square mile, than any other portion of
this country, and this is all the more interesting because
the Middle West is one of the places where the people
have profited most from this war. Farmers of that
ii6 ENFORCED PEACE
section have been feeding the millions of people in
Europe who but for them would have gone without
bread. Kansas alone last year received $125,000,000
more on her wheat crop alone than she received on an
average during the preceding five years. And yet, re-
ceiving as she has this profit from the war, the Middle
West is filled as no other part of the nation is, with a
militant peace sentiment.
But do not misunderstand me. While the great
American wheat belt is coining money as the result of the
present European War, the farmers of that fair region la-
bor under no delusions as to what it would mean to them
should this country be plunged into the present Euro-
pean vortex of destruction. I suppose there is no class
of our citizens that would suffer more if the United
States should become involved in war than would our
farmers.
We farmers do business on a smaller margin of profit
than do any other class of business men. Our profits
run all the way from 5 per cent, down to nothing, and
then on below zero, until the farmer who is farming for a
living becomes merged in the agriculturist who is farm-
ing as a pastime. The result is that any considerable
increase in taxes hits the farmer harder than any one else
because it takes away from him a large proportion of his
net profits. If there is any one thing that is always
certain to increase the taxes of the country by leaps and
bounds, it is war. In many of the European countries
to-day one half of the people's incomes is being taken
by the government for war uses.
Moreover, with the outbreak of hostilities, credit
facihties are always seriously curtailed, and again the
farmer is the one who in such a crisis always suffers most.
Our banking system has been developed primarily to
meet the needs of our urban population.* After its
needs are taken care of, the farmer, if he has gilt-edged
This statement was made before the passage of the Federal Farm Loan Act.
ENFORCED PEACE 117
security and will pay the price, is allowed to take what is
left. In time of war the chances are that there would
be practically nothing left for the farmer in the way of
credit facilities. Any business man knows that to be
deprived of credit facilities means to be financially ham-
strung.
And thirdly, and most important of all, in case of war
a very large percentage of our armies would necessarily
be made up of our farmer boys. And however much the
farmer objects to heavy and unnecessary taxes, however
much he objects to having his business crippled by hav-
ing his credit facilities curtailed, still more does he
object to war because of the heavy toll of life it exacts
from the young manhood of the land. In no crisis in
our history have the farmers been slow to present their
best and bravest as a bulwark for their country's de-
fense. They always have shown their wiUingness, when
the necessity was imperative, to pour out their treasure
and their blood without stint in defense of this great
democratic republic, the world's greatest citadel of
human liberty. But they are irreconcilably opposed to
any war that can be avoided without loss of honor and
our national self-respect.
I have spoken in the Middle West a good many times
during the past six months. Recently I addressed some
eight or ten of the agricultural colleges, speaking in the
morning on agriculture and in the afternoon on military
education. I have never had more inspiring audiences
than those audiences of young men in uniform — young
men representing not a military caste, young men not
destined for the professional exercise of arms, young
men prepared to do the hard work of the world — to ex-
ercise the peaceful pursuits of husbandry. And yet
along with their education in scientific agriculture, they
were gaining a knowledge of the science or art of national
self-defense. As a result of this system of military edu-
cation in our land-grant colleges, while West Point turns
ii8 ENFORCED PEACE
out about 125 graduates each year, ofl&cers ready to take
the field, the agricultural colleges turn out each year
5,000 men most of whom within six months of intensive
mihtary training under actual war conditions could be
made into officers capable of leading, with splendid
efficiency, our troops against a foreign foe.
Now we farmers always try to reduce things to their
lowest common denominator and to their simplest
terms. Therefore, if I speak of this great theme in
simple terms, you will understand that this is the way
that these ideas project themselves to the average
farmer.
From time immemorial, civilization has rested upon
the broad backs of the agricultural laborers of the world,
and yet before their eyes has opened up no vista of op-
portunities for them, or for their children, save only that
of a narrow path, with the horror of unending drudgery
on'^^the one side and the hell of starvation on the other.
Millet's "Man with the Hoe," celebrated by Edwin
Markham's marvelous poem, painted a true picture of
agriculture before the advent of what we know as the
" science " of agriculture — before man had learned how to
focus trained intelligence upon the problems of hus-
bandry and thus to learn how to unlock the hidden re-
sources of nature and bring forth a golden flood of agri-
cultural products greater than man had ever seen before.
In the past, when the farmer was the mat of civiUza-
tion, he looked around him on every side and through
his heavy and hopeless eyes he saw nothing but enemies.
The consumer was his enemy, trying to beat down his
prices — or he thought he was. The middleman also
was his enemy or he thought he was; he saw himself
girdled around with a steel band of enemies conspiring
to pin him to the earth. He rebelled at this situation
and thought that his only hope for an increase of pros-
perity for himself and for his family lay in war — politi-
cal and industrial war. But in arriving at this point of
ENFORCED PEACE 119
view, he merely accepted the same view of life that
had been held for thousands of years by every
class in society. This was the conception of hfe that
dominated human thought on this planet until very
recently.
But that conception is giving way now to a truer one.
For example, the Federal Department of Agriculture is
discovering, and helping the farmer to discover, that he
is not surrounded by enemies, and that even those who
to-day are his enemies are potentially his friends. And
while in the past it sometimes has been true, as the
farmer has suspected, that the business man regarded him
very much as the farmer regarded his sheep — as a
creature to be sheared, and sometimes even to be skinned
— to-day the business man also is getting a new and
truer conception of business. Our more enlightened
business men are becoming imbued with a new ideal, and
why? Because the white light of science has illumined
their pathway, as it has the pathway of the farmer.
Both are learning to-day this new lesson, or rather this
new application of an old truth, that civilization pro-
gresses as fast as, and no faster than, man learns to co-
operate with his fellows in the pursuit of their common
interests. We have demonstrated recently to the farm-
ers of the country that with the aid of science and by
working together instead of at cross purposes, they can
increase enormously the productivity of human toil.
And not only can they increase their yields per acre, but
they can also increase the prices they get for those
yields.
The future in this world belongs to those nations
which learn soonest and most thoroughly that the best
way to enrich themselves is by increasing their pro-
ductivity; by unlocking the hidden resources of nature;
by inducing their citizens to work together for their com-
mon advantage instead of wasting their energies
fighting about their dififerences, real or imaginary. Only
.I20 ENFORCED PEACE
thus can man's energy be used at the highest pitch of
human efficiency.
Having learned this lesson on our farms and in our
factories, why not apply the same great truth to our in-
ternational problems? Therefore, I think I am safe in
saying that a majority of farmers would be willing to
present for your respectful consideration the suggestion
that the time has come for the formation of an inter-
national syndicate of nations to underwrite the peace of
the world.
Anything that is properly underwritten, is an assured
success. An underwriting syndicate, before it makes a
move or risks a dollar, always concentrates enough
power behind a venture to put it through. That is,
as I understand it, the foundation principle upon which
the League to Enforce Peace is working. When the
farmer considers the problem of peace and war on an
international scale, he asks himself this question,
"Where peace exists to-day on our planet, how has it
been brought about, and how is it maintained?"
So far as I am aware there is only one known method
of maintaining a permanent peace, and that is, first of
all, by the creation of a dominant public consciousness
in favor of peace. You cannot have peace if a majority
of the people are not in favor of peace. But once you
have established a public opinion that favors peace —
not a unanimous public opinion, for such a thing does
not exist on this planet and probably never will — but a
dominant public opinion, and that public opinion is
able to establish some tribunal to which it can refer
disputes, and to back up that tribunal with a poHce
power strong enough to enforce its decrees, then you
will be able to estabHsh peace on a sound and perma-
nent basis. And that is the only way that peace has
ever been established in any country.
Now is it true that a majority of mankind are in
favor of peace? If it is true, if a majority of the power
ENFORCED PEACE 121
— the financial power, the intellectual power, the will
power of mankind, is for peace, then assuredly we can
devise some mechanism through which that power can
operate in the interest of peace. But if a majority
of the men of this generation were animated by the
predatory spirit, then all talk of peace upon the part
of this generation would be unavailing.
How about our nation? It is divided into two great
classes — two great schools of thought. On one side
we see the men who are wiUing to give to society an
equivalent for what they get from society, who are
willing to create all the wealth that they utiUze and
consume on this planet. These are the workers, the
creators, the people who know that the best pathway
to power is by the way of productive, not predatory,
effort. But there are some people still among us —
reversions to type — who have the motives and the
mental outlook of the cave man — who still beUeve it is
the correct thing to go out into the world to see how
much one can acquire, by cunning or strength, of the
product of other people's toil. In other words, there
are still people among us who are animated by the pred-
atory instincts of the jungle. Fortunately these
people are not in a majority in this country. These
people are not in a majority in most countries, and that
is our only sound basis of hope for the establishment of
an enduring peace.
How can we coordinate the minds, the will power,
the hopes, and the material power of the people on this
planet who beUeve in the productive process, instead
of the predatory process, as the only legitimate path-
way to power? That is the basic problem before this
assembly and before the world to-day. That it is
possible of solution no one should doubt who realizes
that the masses of every country in the world are in
favor, not only of mihtary peace, but also of industrial
peace. The masses of every country are beUevers in
122 ENFORCED PEACE
liberty, and believers in justice. The love of liberty
and justice is not dependent upon culture spelled with
a. C or a. K. Therefore, if we can formulate here some
plan that will give expression to this slowly but ir-
resistibly growing sentiment of mankind in favor of the
productive type instead of the predatory type, then
peace as an abiding possession on our planet is assured.
Thus it becomes apparent that our hope of peace is
founded on something more soHd than "bits of paper,"
or the understandings and misunderstandings of diplo-
mats, or the kaleidoscopic adjustments and readjust-
ments of secret diplomacy, dictated by the supposed
requirements of high finance.
Remember the Scriptures say not that the peace
talkers but that the peace makers shall be called the
children of God. We have a good deal of peace talk
going on from one end of this country to the other.
Some of it has been very useful, and probably aU of it
has had its uses, but if this organization has any one
distinguishing virtue, it seems to me to be that it can be
counted on to get results, that it is composed of the
genuine "peace makers" of these United States.
Newton D. Baker, B.A., LL.B., Secretary of
War, made the following remarks;
AMERICAN IDEALS AND THE LEAGUE PROGRAM
Some years ago I went through the mountains of
West Virginia in an automobile, along a road projected
by George Washington. No other automobile had as
yet been through that country, and at what was a post
house, originally, on top of a mountain, I saw a splen-
did-looking American woman standing on the doorstep.
Just beyond there was a fork in the road, and I stopped
to ask which of these two roads led to Martinsburg.
Her reply was:
Copyright, Underwood y Underwood
NEWTON D. BAKER, B.A., LL.B.
Secretary of War
ENFORCED PEACE 123
"I have not the least idea. It is said to be about
twelve miles down one of these roads. I was born in
this house, I have lived here forty years, I have never
been farther away from it than the church you see
yonder, and I never expect to be."
And a thousand times since then I have wondered
whether there was some little landmark, some little
monument, relatively two miles away, that was cir-
cumscribing my vision; whether I was exactly like that
good woman who had selected hterally two miles as the
limit of periphery of her extensive migrations; whether
like her I was really tied to some post not much farther
away.
I want to talk about American ideals, not as though
they were some fixed and unchanging thing, not as
though the founders of this government and projectors
of our institutions had discovered something impossible
for human intelligence to exceed, but as an expanding
and growing thing, a cloak that will cover the frame
of our activities and that will grow as they grow.
It is always difficult to summarize and abstract the
ideals of people. We rarely see people when they are
busy about their ideals. If we go out into Hfe we find
this man with his plough and that man with his plane,
the lawyer with his books and the doctor with his
medicines, busy with the ordinary things of Hfe,
but not, except in extreme cases, about their ideals;
certainly not about the common ideal that we speak
of as the ideal of America, and it is only when some great
invocation is uttered to all the people that each man
forgets his special interest, the farmer turns his hand
away from the plough, and the artisan drops his plane,
and the lawyer forgets his books, and we touch the
thing that can be called the nation's ideal.
It is fortunate that the ideals of America cannot be
put into a paragraph or a sentence. You can state
almost anything in language if you are willing to make
124 ENFORCED PEACE
the necessary disclosures, but the difficulty about sen-
tences and definitions is that they are inelastic. So I
think we have no statement of American ideals that can
be regarded as a final thing, and yet I beUeve if you
take our history from the Declaration of Independence
down to the present time it will be foimd that America
has stood for the opportunity of man in the world as
against things, that we have had an attitude that pre-
disposed us toward human freedom and human Uberty,
that we have desired to estabhsh justice among our-
selves, and, treating ourselves as an aggregate, to be
just, and to invite justice from others.
American history, for the first century, was a struggle
to preserve a kind of individuahsm which was ideal
under the conditions which civilization had then as-
sumed. Thomas Jefferson said a short time before he
died, in writing to a friend : " We are a nation of farm-
ers and small merchants, and there is no manufactur-
ing among us." He was thinking of us as individuals
aggregated into a nation. Each man was in a sense
economically sufficient for himself and his pohtical
philosophy, was a corollary of his economic self-
sufficiency. Jefferson was filled with the classical
ideas that came from an intimate knowledge of the
history of Greece, and the territorial subdivisions of the
human race were an ever-present thought in his mind.
But we have outlived all that. We have come to a
time now when no man fives to himself, when the artisan
at his bench is dependent upon some producer of raw
material in the antipodes. There has come a situation
in the world in which, whether we want to or do not
want to, whether it is good business or just ordinary
V idealism, we are obliged to take "a, planetary view"
of the human race.
And so we come to the question of what is going to
happen to the ideals of America, if the League to En-
force Peace is successful in impressing its program.
ENFORCED PEACE 125
Let me turn that round: suppose the League to Enforce
Peace is not able to impress its program here in America.
When this war is over in Europe, the people are going
to demand preventive statesmanship. The possibiUty
of a recurrence of this nightmare wiU no longer be
tolerated. The economic forces, the industrial forcesT)
labor and reUgion, and learning and science and art, '
already in an intimate and intricate system of exchange v x^
and interchange between nations, are going to rise as ^
the voice of the people in favor of some such expression (^j,
of the popular conscience of the continent of Europe as , \
is desired by the League to Enforce Peace. Now sup- \
pose they get up such a League. Suppose that Europe
asserts itself and determines to have that sort of regu-
lation of international relations, and we are not in it.
What then will be the relation we shall bear to the rest
of the world? Their intimacy together, without our
partnership in it, may some day become confusing to
us. And if we, now in the dominant moral position in
the world, decline to join hands with the circle that is
quite certainly destined to be formed by the nations
of the world for the preservation of peace, they will
form the circle, and we shall be on the outside of it.
Clearly, some sacrifices are entailed. As civilization
advances some of us see that what once seemed a neces-
sary part of our individualism whether among men as
individuals or among nations, comes to the sacrifice,
that the advance of civilization is attained by the
sacrifice to some extent of individual freedom of action
for the common good. The very beginning of private
law, by which individuals are restrained from acts of v
violence and aggression on one another and the peace ^
of society preserved, involves a surrender of some part
of the native freedom of the savage or the frontiersman.
And so, when this League to Enforce Peace comes, it
may well be that some individualism that was originally
a part of what would have been given as a definition
126 ENFORCED PEACE
of American ideals may have to be surrendered into the
keeping of the nations of the earth as trustees of the
common good. But out of it there will have arisen
more than a compensation for it, a better understanding
among nations and peoples of the earth, an understand-
ing that will prevent the recurrence of what we now
have.
It is said that analogies, however argumentative, are
never conclusive, but let me draw your attention to
another thought. The order we have in society now
which prevents me from going down into this hall and
engaging in a fight with some other man of my size and
creating a disturbance of the peace and comfort of this
audience, is based upon this thought: It is intolerable
that the business or the reHgion or the thought of any
society should be disturbed by any mere individual
broils. Philosophers in the law sometimes say that it
had its origin in the thought, when every fighting mem-
ber of the tribe was needed to resist aggression, that the
tribe could not allow its members to be fighting one an-
other because it needed its full strength to fight some-
body else. And I think that may have been a part of
the original initiative of order getting itself estabHshed
into law. Almost the earliest recognition of the right of
society to enforce peace that we have in Anglo-Saxon
society is where, when a man fought and slew another,
the slayer was fined, and the fine divided, one half going
to the relatives of the victim and the other half to the
state, whose peace had been offended by that con-
troversy.
And so, in our public indictments now, when a man
fights or slays, or does any other sort of crime, it is
against the peace and dignity of the state, and the basis
of it all is that, adopting the maxim of Kant, that each
man must act upon that principle which is fit to become
universal law, and applying that to the acts of individ-
uals, we have the principle that if A has a right to be
ENFORCED PEACE 127
violent all individuals have an equal right to be violent.
Then we say, as a necessary conclusion, that society
cannot tolerate individual violence which will interfere
with its prosperity, with its dearest and tenderest re-
lations, which will thwart the progress of its soul
toward real liberation.
We can take that analogy and apply it to the nations.
Now that the peoples of the earth have come to be so' /
intimately dependent upon one another, what was oncQ ^^^
good humanitarianism has become necessary businesS| '^
consideration and we are able to apply the analogy by^
saying that a world interrelated as ours now is, with o^
men here depending on men there, with no man and;
no nation able to stand isolated and alone, it has become
intolerable to the human race to have a condition in
which unprovoked and aggressive warfare can be'
brought about by the action of individuals and nationsj
Now, I have only one other thought to add to this,
and that is: Why should America be specially con-
cerned in this business? For one great reason. As
things now seem, we have less to gain and more to give
than any other nation in the world. It is because, as I
see it, America's ideals, or its ideal, is to be the leader
of the human race in giving — in giving to mankind a
new lease on hfe, new codes of Uberty, new opportuni-
ties for justice. It is because I believe that to be the
ideal of America that I think the purpose of this
League and its invitation to the rest of the nations of
the earth is perfectly consistent with and in fulfilment
of our ideals.
CHAPTER V
PLANS FOR GIVING EFFECT TO THE
LEAGUE PROGRAM
The discussion of plans for giving effect to the
program of the League to Enforce Peace was led
by Theodore Marburg, A.M., LL.D., publicist
and former minister to Belgium, with the following
paper:
THE LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE: A REPLY TO CRITICS
In a small flower shop in the humbler quarters of a
Southern city a young hospital nurse, still in training, is
asking the price of roses, her rounded cheek, itself a rose,
half turned to the open door. The daily tasks of the
hospital training school are exhausting. But she has
managed to embroider a workbag — a wedding present
wrought by her own hands — and she seeks to adorn the
package with a few buds. Embroideries and carved
wood, chiseled marble and wrought metal, music and
the painter's art and letters, she is aware, give life a rich
setting. To the question she puts there is no reply,
only a thoughtful look. Such a voice as is "an ex-
cellent thing in woman " repeats it. Then the woman of
the shop, quietly:
"I heard you the first time, dear, and I've heard your
voice before. You were good, so good, to my Alice at
the hospital. How badly she was burned by the over-
turned lamp! And how patient to the end!"
Then, turning to her boy, she bids him give the lady
128
THEODORE MARBURG, A.M., LL.B.
Vice Chairman of the Exec-uti ve Committee, League to Enforce Peace
ENFORCED PEACE 129
all the flowers she may need. And she herself pins a
white rose on the young nurse's bosom.
Now, the qualities disclosed in this simple incident
are not mere ornaments of men. They constitute the
very basis and condition of all progress. The philosophy
of ruthless suppression and domination is based on the
biological principle of the advantage to the individual
of fierceness and cunning in the struggle for existence.
But this philosophy overlooks a conflicting and more
far-reaching biological principle, namely, the superior
advantage of group action conditioned on altruism.
The buck standing on guard while the herd feeds, the
wild goat coming back to the top of the pass to see
whether there be a wolf or other enemy following before
he moves on with the herd ! What have we here but the
beginnings of altruism? It is altruism which alone
makes group action or cooperation possible, and co-
operation has played a greater part in higher evolution
than the individual qualities of fierceness and cunning.
The dictates of humanity — ^kindness, consideration, and
pity — are therefore equally grounded in philosophy.
They are the very foundations of society, which began in
the animal world before man and without which human
progress would have been utterly impossible.
To apply the principle of cooperation based on
altruism to the society of nations, as it has already been
applied within the state, is the aim and purpose of the
League to Enforce Peace. Its platform lacks details
and elaboration; it does not lack definition, nor has
there been lack of study and public discussion of its
possible workings. We have to overcome the initial
difficulty of getting the powers to agree to any plan.
Therefore the simplicity of this one. It is felt that
if the nations can be induced to subscribe to its funda-
mental principles the envoys charged with the duty of
perfecting the plan will be equal to all questions of
detail, program, or organization. The plan contem-
I30 ENFORCED PEACE
plates "not a league of some states against others,
but a union of as many as possible in their common
interest."
The central idea of the League is that wars are the
result of the condition of international anarchy out of
which the world has never yet risen; that they will not
cease until justice prevails and that justice cannot
triumph until the world organizes for justice.
We find within the modern state certain institutions
such as legislature, courts, and executive, which aim
to prevent strife among men and to promote the general
welfare by promoting legal and social justice and by
enlarging opportunity. This system was apphed to
the states, originally sovereign entities, composing
the American Union. Entering the Union involved a
certain surrender of sovereignty and independence
and a sacrifice of the principle of equahty in the un-
equal representation in the lower house of the Federal
Legislature. The interests of the states, economic and
other, had often clashed and resort to arms between
them had not been unknown. Because of this fact
some of them were slow to consent to the plan.
But the workings of the Continental Government,
crude as it was, convinced men that in this direction
lay progress, in this direction light for the world; and,
though with hesitation and misgivings on the part of
some, all finally took the step. Once only in a century
and a quarter has the peace between them been dis-
turbed. True, the South was forced to abandon the
institution of slavery, and lack of protective duties
against the cheaper agricultural products of the West
caused farms to be abandoned in New York and New
England. But individuals moved freely from one
section to another. There was no suppression of local
aspirations and ideals. On the whole, the welfare of
each made for the welfare of all. To-day the benefits
of the Union are unquestioned.
ENFORCED PEACE 131
We naturally ask ourselves why the same organiza-
tion which brings justice and peace and orderly progress
within the nation may not be applied with equal suc-
cess between the nations. Far from representing a
confusion of ideas, it is the essence of logic. The ques-
tion is: how far can we attempt to go in the direction
of such organization at present? On this question
the League to Enforce Peace occupies a middle ground.
Because of this fact it faces criticism by two opposing
groups. One maintains that we go too far, the other
that we do not go far enough.
Men who previous to the present war were opposed
to the introduction of the element of force in inter-
national institutions have now come to regard it as
essential.
The principal declared purpose of the League to
Enforce Peace is to make immediate and certain war
upon any nation which goes to war without a previous
hearing of the dispute. A Council of ConciUation
will entertain disputes arising out of a clash of political
interests. Incidentally a true international court of
justice is to be set up to entertain justiciable questions,
and there are to be conferences from time to time to
formulate and codify international law. In the mea-
sure in which nations are estopped from fighting, the
growth of law will be stimulated and resort to inter-
national tribunals become more frequent. These latter
happy results in their turn will diminish resort to
arms.
But it is manifestly not justiciable questions, nor
even the nebulous state of international law, which,
by and large, brings war. War arises principally out
of conflicts of pohcy. To deal with these successfully
is the immediate problem before the world. The
demand for a hearing of the dispute once complied
with, nations, members of the League, are then free
to go to war as under present conditions. That is to
132 ENFORCED PEACE
say, the League as such stops short of enforcing the
judgment or award. In fact, it is a question whether
the Council of Concihation, unless requested to do so,
will proceed to an award at all, though it must be re-
membered that nations submitting a dispute to any
tribunal may, and often will, enter into an agreement
beforehand to respect the decision.
The failure to enforce the judgment or award is a
source of objection to the League's program on the
part of men whose opinion is entitled to respect, among
them Charles W. Eliot. Their criticism is that, unless
the verdict be enforced, many wars will still take
place, and that if a nation may be called upon to de-
fend its position by force of arms after a hearing, arma-
ments must be maintained. Both of these criticisms
the League admits to be valid. The check upon war
would be much more effective if the nations could be
persuaded to accept a plan providing not only for
compulsory investigation, but for an award, and finally
for a sanction which would insure the execution of the
award. But the desirable is not always the reaUzable.
It is felt that although in the interest of world peace
they ought to be willing to give and take, as a matter
of fact the great Powers would not enter into an agree-
ment to submit all disputes to a tribunal if they were
bound to carry out the award. Great Britain, for ex-
ample, might have the question of Gibralter or Egypt,
or a sphere of influence, brought up; Japan, the ques-
tion of Korea or her activities in China; the United
States, the Monroe Doctrine or the question of oriental
immigration. To be something which governments
at the present stage of world feeling and enlightenment
are likely to adopt the plan must, therefore, omit the
feature of executing the award.
Under existing practices, when two nations enter
an arbitration they do so voluntarily. The nature
of the question to be decided is defined in the pre-
ENFORCED PEACE 133
liminaiy agreement and they know beforehand the
worst that can befall them. When at present, there-
fore, they consent to arbitrate a question they do it
in the full expectation of abiding by the result. To go
further and enter into general treaties in pairs looking
to the settlement of future disputes is still a very dif-
ferent matter from entering into a common treaty with
a large group of nations. In the former case each
nation knows pretty well the antecedents, pohcy, and
interests of the contracting party. In the latter, that
fact is much more comphcated. The United States,
for example, would be willing to go much farther in a
treaty with Great Britain than in a treaty with the
Balkan States or Turkey. There still remain in the
plan two steps which constitute an advance over exist-
ing practice, namely, (a) the obligation of the signatories
binding themselves to use the tribunals they may set
up; (b) the use of force to compel them to do so, if
recalcitrant.
Now why do we base such high hopes on a mere
hearing? Because experience, municipal and inter-
national, points to its great value in warding off actual
strife. In the state of Massachusetts a provision for
compulsory investigation of labor disputes in the quasi-
public services has long existed. The power to sum-
mon witnesses and lay bare the facts of the dispute,
without proceeding to a judgment, has prevented labor
war in these services. In Canada we witness the
successful working of the Dominion law covering
similar disputes and properly extended to coal mining,
the stoppage of which vitally touches the public inter-
est. In the international field there is the Dogger
Bank affair, referred successfully to the International
Commission of Inquiry set up by the First Hague Con-
ference.
Such a league as is proposed would necessarily have
an executive council or directorate, sitting at the
134 ENFORCED PEACE
capital of some small country, and charged, among
other duties, with one certain duty of overwhelming
importance; namely, that of declaring war in the name
of the League on any nation which went to war with-
out a preliminary hearing of the dispute or an earnest
attempt to secure one. This is the one sole cause for
war by the League.
War on land cannot well be made without invading
the territory of the enemy. It will be remembered
that at the beginning of the present war France retired
her forces a certain number of kilometres within her
own borders. If some such rule as this were set up,
the locus of the first battle, a geographical fact, could
be easily determined, and there would remain no doubt
who the offender was. No provocation, whether by
threat, either of word or of preparation, nor even an
alleged act of injustice, would be accepted as an excuse.
There would be no conference of the Powers to deHber-
ate as to what action, if any, should be taken, to raise
in the breast of the would-be aggressor the hope that
dissension among the Powers might lead to the cus-
tomary inaction. The Executive Council would be
in being, charged with one supreme and certain duty:
to make war upon the offender. That duty to declare
war in the name of the League is a heavy responsibihty,
and therefore the fact on which the Executive Council
is asked to act should be an easily ascertainable fact.
Warlike preparation is not an easily ascertainable
fact, nor is that of unjust acts. Both are facts most
difficult to ascertain, and therefore are to be neither a
ground for the declaration of war by the League nor an
excuse for war by the nation offending against the
provisions of the League.
The constitutional power of the United States to
enter into such a compact already exists. Mr. Taft
has pointed to its exercise in connection with the
treaties guaranteeing the integrity of Cuba and Panama.
ENFORCED PEACE 135
They carry the obligation to use force if necessary.
When the contingency contemplated by the treaties
arises, Congress, which alone has the power to declare
war, would be called upon to fulfill the treaty obliga-
tions. The country was justified in taking this risk
because the treaties make for the security of Cuba and
Panama and so for peace.
Our critics, pointing out that conciHation is a volun-
tary process, assert that to force conciliation is a con-
tradiction in terms. They set up their own straw man
and then proceed to knock him down . The League
does not force conciUation. It simply forces a hearing,
leaving the parties free to accept or reject the finding.
Under the League, nations are prevented from going to
war to get what they suppose to be their rights until, by
means of a hearing, not only the outside world but
— that which is of high importance — their own people
have the facts of the dispute spread before them. They
are not prevented from indulging in that costly pastime
if, after a hearing, they still hold to the opinion that
they are being wronged.
Meantime, pending the hearing, each disputant is
enjoined by the League, under penalty of war, from con-
tinuing the objectionable practice or proceeding with
the objectionable project.
The judicial tribunal which the League aims to
create will be a true World Court with permanent
judges, and the assembly an embryo world parliament to
meet periodically. The Court, while set up by the
League, wiU be open to any nation electing to use it.
And there is no reason why the Parliament, though con-
vened and prorogued by the League, may not be com-
posed of representatives of all nations, a true
development of the Hague Conferences and the
InterparUamentary Union. If, now, the League should
fail of its main object and melt away, these institutions
should remain , a valuable legacy to the world. Far from
136 ENFORCED PEACE
running counter to the promising current of arbitration^
the project therefore is moving with it.
By far the weightiest argument against the League is
the entangling alhance argument. Of this it should be
said that when avoidance of such alliances was enjoined
by Washington we were a small country highly vulner-
able because of our comparative weakness. Who shall
say the same of us to-day? A people of one hundred
milHons, with untold wealth, so placed geographically
as to be practically unconquerable by any single power or
likely combination of powers! The dominant trait in
Washington was his sense of duty. Were he aUve to-
day would he not recognize the obligation of his country
to fulfill a duty to the society of nations instead of tak-
ing advantage of its fortunate geographical position to
shirk that duty? He saw what cooperation meant for
the Colonies. Would his vision be less clear in sensing
the great need of our day, the overwhelming importance
of international organization to take the place of inter-
national anarchy? America may on the surface ap-
pear a selfish nation but she has been stirred to her depth
by ethical movements in the past and may be counted
upon to rouse herself in similar fashion again. An ap-
peal in a high cause involving sacrifice, even hard-
ship and suffering, would go farther to-day than
is dreamed of by the high priests of gain and ease and
security. Thousands of Americans who have not shut
their eyes and ears to the sights and sounds of this awful
day are ready for some attempt to destroy the monster,
war, and ready to have their country play its part as the
mother of men.
A people wedded to justice will not be afraid to as-
sume its share of responsibility in a league of nations in
order to lighten the curse of war in the world even though
it involves risks. For the principal objection to war is
that it is such a wholesale source of injustice, public and
private.
ENFORCED PEACE 137
We teach our children not to mind so much what is
•done to them, but to mind very much what is done to
others; to be slow to resent little offenses and sHghts,
and even injuries they themselves suffer; but to be ready
at all times to act when some one else is being persecuted
or injured. We teach them, too, that the only fear any
one should have is the fear of doing wrong. Has not
the day arrived when these should likewise be sub-
stantially the standards of conduct for nations? I say
"substantially" because the standards of private con-
duct are modified for nations by the fact that the nation
is a trustee of the interests of its people and of its special
form of civilization, including the political principles
which it represents.
In most civilized countries, the day is past when a
principal obligation of the individual is to insist on his
rights. It is the side of duty, rather than rights, which
is emphasized to-day; and the new order of international
society toward which the nations are moving will do the
same.
I fell strongly that the present evil of recurring war is
due largely to the selfish motives which have dominated
the policies of all nations in the past. The United
States probably has been governed by them less than
other countries but even its attitude leaves much to be
desired. A better day cannot dawn until it is realized
that in general the future interests of a nation will he
found to lie in the direction of a present duty to the society
of nations. The fact that Europe permitted the crime
of 1870 made possible the crime of 1914. The tragedy
we are now witnessing holds within it the seeds of un-
told future disaster for all of us. And unless the neutral
world realizes the significance of it, unless it acts now
as if the society of nations were already in existence and
assumes its full share of responsibility for the triumph
of the right, the seed will bring its harvest.
Has not the time come when this great country should
138 ENFORCED PEACE
stand for the right, should strike for the right when
necessary, and should help organize the world for right?
And how much less frequent the need of striking at all
when such absolute and potential power as a league of all
the great nations will represent shall be back of the
right!
Until we have such organization no country can be
really free. Plato has defined the free man as he who
has sufficient control over his appetites to be governed
by reason in choosing between good and evil. What
nation to-day is free to choose between good and evil?
How few the nations that would not lay down the
burden of armaments if they felt themselves free to do
so! Within the state true Uberty is secured only by a
surrender of license; that is, by self-denial and by a
measure of restraint imposed upon each by all. Society
implies restraint: self-restraint and restraint from
without. In the society of nations there can be no true
liberty without surrender, in some measure, of sover-
eignty and independence. It is the duty of the United
States to help in organizing the world for justice be-
cause it is only through justice that peace can be secured.
A selfish policy which leaves a government apathetic to
a universal woe and causes it to act only when its own
rights are trespassed upon cannot produce peace. There
must be cooperation with other nations in the cause of
justice.
Thus much for sacrifice if sacrifice be called for.
But, while ready for it if need be, we carmot admit
that the plan of the League to Enforce Peace would
actually involve the United States in wars. The
League would not be instituted unless it embraced all or
nearly all of the great nations. Its miUtary power would
thus be overwhelmingly preponderant. Now, what is
the dominant demand of the League? A hearing of the
dispute before going to war! Could any demand be
more reasonable, more just? We are charged with
ENFORCED PEACE 139
planning an oligarchy implying oppression. If we
sought to enforce the award of a tribunal in disputes in-
volving conflicts of poHtical policy there would really be
danger of oppression. To avoid this we should then
demand that the League embrace not only all or nearly
all the great nations but the smaller progressive nations
as well, so that out of their united action substantial
justice might emerge. But what injustice, what oppres-
sion, can arise from a demand for a hearing which leaves
the disputant free to go to war afterward? And is there
any nation, however powerful, which would refuse this
reasonable demand if faced, as it would be, with the
alternative of having to wage war against practically the
civilized world?
The French Ambassador at Rome reports San
Giuliano's view, July 27, 1914: "Germany at this mo-
ment attaches great importance to her relations with
London and he believes that if any power can determine
Berlin in favor of peaceful action it is England." Two
days earher, July 25, Sazonof had asked that England
place herself clearly on the side of Russia and France.
Such an act on the part of the British Cabinet was not
possible, until Belgium was invaded, because it was
doubtful whether the people of the British Isles would
support the government in a hostile attitude toward the
Central Powers. But the opinion is general to-day that
if Germany had known with certainty that England
would line up against her, she would not have declared
war. Under the plan of the League Germany would
have known that she would have not only England to
reckon with but Italy and the United States and the
"ABC" countries of South America, not to mention
minor members of the League. Now is it reasonable to
suppose that, facing such a possibility, she would have
denied Sir Edward Grey's demand for a conference over
the dispute?
The only loss a nation could suffer by a hearing would
I40 ENFORCED PEACE
be that of being deprived of the advantage of superior
preparedness. And is not that one of the very ad-
vantages we want to take away from nations in the
general interest? Nations bent on aggression would
go through the form of a hearing and proceed with their
designs afterward. There would, therefore, still be
wars. But it is inconceivable that the League as such
would ever be called upon to wage war under the terms
of the compact. It is possible that after a hearing the
nations may still regard a threatened war as so unjust or
so dangerous to the world at large that they wiU come to-
gether anyway and say: ''This may not be." But
that they may do now.
Objection is made that the League plan calls for co-
operation with monarchies. In many constitutional
monarchies such as those of Italy, Holland, the Scandi-
navian countries, etc., the people practically enjoy self-
government. France and Switzerland are republics
and England is a true democracy despite its monarchical
form of government. Drawing our love of liberty
originally from England, we have paid back the debt.
The example of the successful practice of a broad
democracy here encouraged its growth not only in the
mother country, but generally throughout the world.
Social democracy, which is opportunity to rise in life
and is largely the result of economic conditions, is
greater in all new countries than in the countries of the
old world. It is greater in Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, and the United States than in England. But
when we come to political democracy, which is the op-
portunity for the will of the people to express itself in
law, there is more of that in England than in the United
States. If one knows what the wiU of the English
people is he can pretty well gauge the action of the
English Parliament. Is the same true here? Old age
and disability pensions every justice-loving man of the
United States would like to see estabhshed here. Have
ENFORCED PEACE 141
we got them? And if it be the fault of Federal or State
constitutions does this alter the fact?
The question has been asked: can the United States
afiford to become party to a treaty which would justify a
league of nations under certain conditions in using force
against it?
George Grafton Wilson has pointed out that the
Bryan treaties, providing for obligatory inquiry, bind
the United States now to a course of action exactly like
that laid down in the second article of the platform of
the League to Enforce Peace. It will be recalled that
these treaties, of which there are many, call for the sub-
mission of all disputes whatsoever, not resolvable by
diplomacy, to an international commission for investi-
gation and report, and forbid the disputants from de-
claring war or beginning hostiUties "during such in-
vestigation or until the report is submitted" provided
that the report shall be presented in the maximum
period of one year, which period may, however, be
shortened or extended by agreement. The League
extends the application of this principle to a wide group
of nations. But it does not stop there. It goes farther
and declares that it will make war upon any nation which
breaks the treaty. That is to say, it makes provision
for compulsory inquiry instead of obligatory inquiry.
Now in exactly what way are the interests of the
United States affected by this further step? The
Bryan treaties, now in force, cover disputes "of every
nature whatsoever." So does the League compact.
Both, therefore, cover matters of vital interest. But
both simply call for investigation and report, not for
enforcing an award. If the award of the tribunal is
not to be enforced how can the legitimate interests of
our own or any other country be jeopardized by such
treaties? Surely we can afford to submit questions
involving even the Monroe Doctrine for investigation
before we go to war over them. And this is all the
142 ENFORCED PEACE
League demands. No nation will be forced to settle
disputes. They may continue them indefinitely if
they choose, just as we continued the fisheries dispute
with Great Britain for three quarters of a century.
The only thing they may not do is to go to war over a
dispute before it has been submitted for investigation
and report. In other words, unless the United States
should, under the League, do what it has already
obligated itself under the Bryan treaties not to do, the
League would never have occasion to use force against
it. A nation which cannot submit any question under
the sun for a hearing before going to war over it has
a poor case indeed.
Coupled with this consent to a hearing, which
necessarily involves delay, there must be some pro-
vision for preventing nations from proceeding, under
penalty of war, with an objectionable act pending the
hearing. For the solution of this problem we turn
to the power of injunction which under municipal
law is lodged in the courts. The League would un-
doubtedly exercise a similar power. In other words,
the United States would not be estopped from main-
taining the Monroe Doctrine after a hearing of the
dispute, and it would be protected against violations
of it pending the hearing by the power of injunction
lodged in the Executive Council of the League or in
one of its tribunals.
What we desire is that the Powers should commit
themselves now to the principle of obligatory inquiry
and a league of nations to enforce it and pledge them-
selves to set up such an institution after the war.
We have the whole-hearted endorsement of the
principle by President Wilson, by Senator Root, by the
Secretary of War, Newton D. Baker, and by a host of
eminent Americans. If now we can add to this sup-
port of private individuals and oJ05cials, a resolution
of the Congress of the United States, favoring the
PHILIP H. GADSDEN
Member Executive Committee, League to Enforce Peace
ENFORCED PEACE 143
principle, we could then ask Mr. Taft to go abroad as
the representative of this unofficial body and endeavor
to secure the adherence of foreign Powers. You will
recall the fact that the Congress of Vienna did only so
much as it was obligated to do by the preUminary
Treaty of Paris. And, unless we get the Powers com-
mitted now, there is grave danger that when the war is
over we will find it difficult to get a hearing. On the
other hand, if they do so commit themselves now, the
various governments can proceed at once to a study of
the project, and the envoys who meet to frame a treaty
of peace will come not only with a matured plan, but
with positive instructions to reach an agreement if
possible.
Philip H. Gadsden, president of the Charleston,
S. C, ConsoHdated Railway and Lighting Com-
pany, delivered the following address:
PERFECTING THE ORGANIZATION
In all of the great crises through which the world
has come, when men were confronted with the appar-
ent destruction of all which, up to that time, had
been held most dear, when in despair they wondered
if civilization itself were not at stake, history shows
that in every such instance, out of the stress and strain,
sorrow and anguish of the moment, there was gradually
evolved in the minds and consciences of men in diflferent
parts of the world, first, a vague thought or suggestion
which gradually grew until it assumed the form of a
definite proposition, as an answer to the voice of
humanity and as a solution to the problems then con-
fronting the human race.
The next step in the process, we find, has been that
this vague and undefined thought or aspiration has
been formulated into definite shape and submitted
144 ENFORCED PEACE
to the judgment of the world for its criticism and
analysis. If it came out of this crucible of public
opinion, it definitely estabhshed itself as a principle
of action, as a guide for the conduct of men, and from
that point on its influence upon the human race was
dependent upon the effectiveness of the organization
which could be created to support it. All great move-
ments which have left their mark upon the history of
the world and have become the guiding principle of
human conduct have had their origin under similar con-
ditions; have gone through the same orderly develop-
ment, and their effectiveness and general acceptance
throughout the world has been, in every instance, de-
pendent upon the effectiveness and force of the organi-
zation which could be built up for their support.
A plan of organization was adopted at a conference
called in Philadelphia in June, 191 5, which it is my
privilege to explain.
The object of the League was expressed to be to
estabhsh and maintain peace after the close of the
present war, not to end the European conflict. The
organization of the League consists of a President,
fifty-one or more National Vice-Presidents, a National
Chairman, a National Secretary, a National Treasurer,
a National Executive Committee of twenty-five to be
elected annually by the General Committee, and a
General Committee of two hundred and fifty to be
appointed annually by the Chairman of the National
Executive Committee. The organization was further
perfected by the creation of the following National
Committees:
Finance Committee.
Committee on Foreign Organization.
Committee on Information.
Committee on Home Organization.
Each committee to consist of twenty-five members.
In addition there was created a National Committee,
ENFORCED PEACE 145
representing directly the state organizations and
composed of one member and one alternate from
each state, to be elected annually by the state com-
mittees of such states.
The next step in perfecting the organization of the
League was to create an organization in every state
of the Union and upon the recommendation of the
Committee on Home Organization, the state organi-
zations consist of State Chairman, a State Secretary
and Treasurer, with the necessary assistants, a State
Committee, a State Executive Committee, and stand-
ing state committees on Finance, Information, and
State Organization. In order to put the League in
still closer touch with the people, a plan of county
organization has been adopted, similar in every respect
to the state organization. The conference at Phil-
adelphia elected an Executive Committee of twenty-
five, composed of men representing all sections of this
country, who have, during the last twelve months,
earnestly and enthusiastically devoted themselves to
the work of creating an organization which would
bring home to the people of the United States the great
principles included in the proposals of the League. A
distinguished list of honorary vice-presidents has been
elected, of men and women, educators, men prominent
in public life, leaders in the commercial and industrial
life of the nation, both men and women representing
on one hand what has come to be known as the pacifist
movement and others who have been and are now
taking active part in arousing pubHc sentiment in this
country to the necessity of adequate defense of its
liberty and institutions. Representing, as many of
them do, opposing views on these great questions,
they have, one and all, enthusiastically and patriotically
accepted service as vice presidents of this organization,
convinced that the proposals of the League offer a
common meeting ground, and furnish the only practical
146 ENFORCED PEACE
plan which has yet been suggested for accomplishing
what each and aU are striving for, the orderly peace of
the world.
What we need at this time is to perfect the organi-
zation which we have planned, so that in each state,
county, and city of the United States there shall be
state, county, and mimicipal committees composed of
enthusiastic men and women, convinced that in work-
ing for the advancement of the League, they are en-
gaged in the most important work which they have
ever been called upon to perform. To do this work
satisfactorily it is necessary that we should become
saturated with the principles for which we stand and
especially be prepared to combat the arguments ad-
vanced against it.
Among the many lessons which this frightful war
has taught us, is the realization that the isolation
of this country from European questions and Euro-
pean wars and strifes, if it ever really existed, has
come to an end. The chief criticism which the mem-
bers of the League are called upon to meet is, that by
becoming a member of a league of nations, such as
we propose, the United States will be called upon to
abandon the advice of Washington against entering
into entangling alliances. Based upon this admonition
of Washington, the political policies of this country
have been framed upon a theory that the United States
of America is sufficient unto itself; that it is not con-
cerned in the interests or pohcies of other nations;
and that it can work out its destiny without regard to
the great influences working throughout the civilized
world.
Even in the days of Washington these proposals
were only measurably true. There never has been
a time, it seems to me, in the history of the world
when one nation could justly take the position that
the problems confronting the human race and which
ENFORCED PEACE 147
were being worked out in sorrow and in strife by other
nations were no concern of theirs. The extraordinary
development in transportation which has come about
within comparatively recent years; the improvement
which has been produced in the transmission of in-
teUigence throughout the world; the internationaliza-
tion of capital and economic and industrial forces and
of postal facilities, are conclusive evidence of the fact
that the great leaders in the field of transportation
and transmission of inteUigence, the economists, the
postal authorities, the masters of industry, have long
since come to a realization of the fact that no one
nation was sufiicient unto itself. The great war which
has destroyed so many of our theories and illusions
has brought home to us, convincingly, a realization ^of
the fact that we are a member of the great family of
nations, and that we can no more relieve ourselves of the
responsibilities and duties of that position, than can one
of the states of this Union reheve itself of the responsi-
bihties and duties growing out of its membership in the
great federation of the United States, or can any man
divest himseh of the responsibilities for the main-
tenance and care of the members of his own family.
This, my friends, is the opportunity and privilege
which the League to Enforce Peace holds out to us and
to every thinking man and woman in the United States
to-day. As with everything else in the world, which is
really worth the doing, it requires of us personal service
and service implies sacrifice. We must enter into this
great work with enthusiasm and with zeal. If, as we
beheve it to be, it is easily the most important and far-
reaching subject which can appeal to the human mind,
then we must enter upon its prosecution with a high
purpose, to give our thoughts, our time, ourenergies, and
our means to arousing the dormant conscience of Ameri-
cans; to instill in them the doctrine of the brotherhood of
man. It is not often that the opportunity comes to the
148 ENFORCED PEACE
individual citizen to take an active part in a great world
movement, to feel that its success, in a measure, depends
upon his individual effort, but it is so in this, and that
thought should inspire us to our best efforts. What is
needed in this country of ours is a revival of the ideals of
the founders of the Repubhc: a rekindling of the fires of
patriotism and broad humanity which burned so
brightly in the early days of this country's life.
The extraordinary success which has been ours in
commerce and industry has insidiously weaned us
away from the things of the spirit, which only are
eternal, and threaten to foster in us a selfish commer-
cialism whose poisonous vapors tend to stifle all the
generous and natural aspirations of a free people.
What is most needed, therefore, in my judgment, for
a general acceptance by the people of the United
States of the proposals of the League, is to arouse and
stimulate the national conscience — to cultivate a broader
view of our duties and responsibilities, as a member of
the great society of nations, and so as a people, acquire a
spiritual vision which will lead us to do our utmost in
solving the problem of the ages, and help us and the
world to hasten the time when we will measurably, at
least, realize that greatest of all benedictions conferred
upon the human race: "Peace on Earth, Good Will
toward Men."
J. MoTT Hallowell, attorney, of Boston, dis-
cussed organization plans more exhaustively in
the following paper :
PLANNING THE CAMPAIGN
A plan of organization is Uke a problem in mathe-
matics with a human element added. The most
effective plan is that one which is planned as a strategist
plans a campaign. First, determine exactly the ulti-
J. MOTT HALLOWELL
ENFORCED PEACE 149
mate goal which it is sought to reach. Second, esti-
mate the forces which must be marshalled in order to be
able to overcome the obstacles which lie between you
and the goal. Third, work out the plan for securing
these forces and putting them into effective operation.
The ultimate goal of the American Branch of the
League to Enforce Peace is to have the United States
lead the way in forming a league of nations which will
carry out the proposals of the League.
The force which must be marshalled in the United
States in order to reach that goal and successfully to
maintain the position when reached is the indorsement,
with understanding, of a commanding number of the
citizens of the United States. The favorable opinion of
scholars, statesmen, and even of the President of the
United States and a ratifying Senate is not enough.
This is so for two reasons. In the first place, prob-
ably any national administration, before attempting to
bind the United States to such a radical step, would
much prefer to feel that the proposals and their logical
consequences were understood and endorsed by those
people upon whose backing the administration must
depend if the United States, after joining the league of
nations, should be called upon to do its part in enforcing
the peace. In the second place, because if any adminis-
tration should so pledge the faith of our country and
should afterward be called upon to make good its word,
its abiHty to do so would depend upon the strength of
the public opinion endorsing the pledge. Without the
endorsement of this pubUc opinion the President of the
United States and the ratifying Senate would not have
formed a League to Enforce Peace, but would merely
have attached the official signature of the United
States to one more scrap of paper. Within any republic
the strength of this international League to Enforce
Peace will vary in proportion to the strength of the
pubhc opinion which backs its proposals, because this, in
I50 ENFORCED PEACE
the last resort, is the force to which the administration
in power must appeal in order to provide ways and
means to enable it to carry out its part of the inter-
national agreement.
The third and present step, therefore, in the plan of
organization of the American Branch of the League to
Enforce Peace, should be to devise ways and means for
having its proposals understood and endorsed by a
majority of the citizens of the United States. It might
well be that official action before this endorsement is
secured might be premature and invite initial defeat.
When this popular approval is secured, favorable action
by any administration in power will follow almost as an
inevitable consequence.
The first essential in a methodical plan for securing
the favorable public opinion of a majority of the citizens
of the United States is that the active work in building
up a public following should be done by state branches,
one in each state. If a successful state branch can be
estabhshed in every state, national success will come
rapidly. No national organization for our purpose can
conduct a campaign over the entire country. There
should be forty-eight campaigns going on at the same
time, one in each state, and each conducted by its local
state branch.
The plan suggested below for organizing state
branches has already been tried for five months in the
state of Massachusetts and so far has worked success-
fully. It may very well be true, however, and probably
is, that in different states this plan would have to be
modified in order to meet varying local conditions.
The following is submitted as a practicable plan of
procedure.
Mr. Hallo well here proceeded to give a minutely
detailed account of the steps in organizing the state
ENFORCED PEACE 151
of Massachusetts. Experience here taught that a
minimum capital of five thousand dollars was re-
quired with which to begin organization. It was
further found that the Secretary and the Chairman
of the State organization had to devote practically
all their time to League affairs for the first six
months. Mr. Hallowell continued:
The appeal of the League is not to the emotions but to
the intellect. In many other appeals for public support
an advocate starts either with an appeal to the emotions
or with an appeal for a purpose the merit of which is
admitted, as for instance raising money to assist the
suflferers from a volcanic eruption or a great fire. The
proposals of the League, however, are to most people so
novel that a condition precedent to obtaining this sup-
port is an appeal to their intellect to show that the
cause has merit. This will account in many places for
its slow growth where less important but more emotional
causes obtain rapid success. It will on the other hand,
however, give it lasting strength.
The work of the national organization should in-
clude work of the nature usually done by a general staff,
namely to assist and cooperate with the state branches.
It should insist that the monthly reports on progress be
filed with it regularly by each state branch. These re-
ports should be carefully studied, and assistance to the
state branch either by advice or by other ways should
be furnished where needed. In this way the national
organization will guide the entire campaign, will know
just what progress is being made in each state, just
where work is most needed, and where it can be most
effectively done. It will also have the requisite data to
enable it to know with some degree of intelligence when
a majority of the people of this country endorses the
proposals of the League. When this time arrives the
152 ENFORCED PEACE
next step will be the work of applying the force which
will have been created; in other words, causing the
United States Government to begin the formation of the
league of nations. To make action by any national
administration effective it ought to have the backing of
a big majority of the states.
Methods of enlisting the support of public
opinion were discussed by Herbert S. Houston, M.A.,
president of the Associated Advertising Clubs of
the World, vice-president of Doubleday, Page &
Co., publishers, and chairman of the Committee
on Information of the League to Enforce Peace, in
the following remarks:
PUBLICITY PLANS
I am asked to speak about our publicity plans. I
was reminded as I sat there of Burke, standing in the
Commons, pointing to the reporters in the gallery, and
saying: "There sit the Fourth Estate, and through
them I speak to all the miUions of English-speaking
people." There are two or three thousand people
gathered here, but through the newspaper men sitting
here at these desks have gone out over the wires mes-
sages and cables, information and news, which have
been on the first page of every newspaper in the world,
and to-morrow morning with President Wilson's
address we shall have first-page position in every im-
portant newspaper in the United States and the world.
We have undertaken to be not a publicity committee
in the ordinary sense of trying to get from newspapers
space that they sometimes give but grudgingly, but have
gone to newspapers and great periodicals of America
and said, "Here is a great international movement of
the highest importance to every thinking man in every
countrv in Christendom, and this committee wants to
Copyright, Underwood iS Vnder:iooa
HERBERT S. HOUSTON, M.A.
Treasurer and Chairman of Committee on Information, League to
Enforce Peace
ENFORCED PEACE 153
cooperate with the newspapers and publishers and give
them what they want." That is the policy which your
committee has followed from the beginning.
Let me illustrate how that has worked out with the
Chambers of Commerce referendum. That referendum
was submitted and we followed it up with a plan of
localizing our news. Judge Taft prepared a most in-
teresting statement that was sent to the president of
every Chamber of Commerce in the country. We sent
this statement also from headquarters in New York to
every paper; for example, to Richmond, Va., and when
Mr. John Stewart Bryan sent a reporter to the Chamber
of Commerce he got, as local news, this letter from Judge
Taft, supplemented by an interview with the president
of the Chamber of Commerce in Richmond. And that
happened all over the United States. I could have
brought here to-day practically a trainload of clippings.
We are having thousands and thousands of columns in
the leading newspapers of America, in the leading news-
papers and journals of the world.
It is not due to any cleverness on the part of your
committee, it is due to the fact that we are cooperating
with the newspapers to give them what they want.
When we began the question as to the word "pub-
licity" came up. All American newspapers have in-
tense dislike for the very word "publicity." Dr.
Lowell, by a real stroke of genius, solved the question.
Horace in the Ars Poetica says that a man wins im-
mortality who creates a word. Dr. Lowell surely wins
that immortaUty, because he suggested that we call the
committee the Committee on Information. And that
is what we have tried to be, a committee on information.
As a member of the Committee on Information, I
want to give some information about a man whose name
has not been mentioned yet in this convention, as far as
I know, a man who in season and out of season has been
doing the work of this organization, from that heated
154 ENFORCED PEACE
day in June in Independence Hall, when the League to
Enforce Peace was formed.
I refer to that great, silent, modest, tireless secretary
of the League to Enforce Peace, WilHam H. Short. In
an experience of twenty-five years in organizations, in
business, and in the publishing field, I have never seen a
man who was such a tremendous dynamo of energy and
resistless power. In the publishing business we are al-
ways seeing men who are spectacular, who are con-
tinually seeking the spothght. Here is a man who
shrinks from putting himseh into the spotlight. But it
is men of that t3TDe, who are willing to sacrifice to the
uttermost, who will make this work that we are doing
known all over the world.
William H. Wadhams, A.B., LL.B., Judge of
the Court of General Sessions of New York, pre-
sented the following paper:
MOBILIZATION OF OUR FORCES
We propose a Council of Conciliation and a Court of
General Sessions of the Peace of the World. How are
we going to bring the nations into court? If a man
violates the law, he is brought into court by the police.
But the police are but a small number of men represent-
ing the whole citizenship. So behind the police we must
have a public opinion which supports the pohce. The
poKce are necessary to give instant and organized ex-
pression to that public opinion which sustains them.
The real power which brings men into court is the
public opinion behind the police. That opinion is based
upon the ideals of our country. It is our conception of
right between man and man, our conception of the
meaning of the right to enjoy life, liberty, and the pur-
suit of happiness which sustains the police. We have
set up standards of individual conduct which hale men
Photo by Pack Bros.
W. H. WADHAMS, A.B., LL.B.
Member Executive Committee, League to Enforce Peace
ENFORCED PEACE 155
into court when those standards are defied. If nations
are to sustain a world court they must set up standards
of international conduct which will hale nations into the
world court.
What are the means by which we may bring this
about? We must first mobilize our forces in America.
We must mobilize the great forces that make and direct
pubHc opinion. We must go forward with our national
and state organizations and thereby spur existing pubUc
opinion and bring together those who already have the
fight. We must organize the torch bearers. When I
was helping to take up the collection this morning, one
man handed me this card, on which he had written:
"To help carry forward the work of the League I sub-
scribe service." If there is to be a conquest of reason
and a sweeping away of ignorance and tyranny, we
must have the enlistment of service. But we must do
more than organize our own numbers, we must make
use of all existing agencies.
The principal reason for the failure of the new genera-
tion to reach the height to which it should have climbed
over the mistakes of the past is the neglect of child cul-
ture. The greatest cause of the continuance of war is
the neglect of child culture. The most impressionable
material in the world is the mind of a child. He who
moulds the mind of a child is creating a force that is
going to throw out energy even as radium does, a con-
tinuing force that is to make the future of the world.
Wh "!n we look into the eyes of a fittle child we are look-
ing into the eyes of the future. We have more power
than the prophets; they merely declare their forecast
of the future; but when we shape the mind of a child
we mould the future of the world.
If we are to have a new world we must have a new
education. We must have a new education in element-
ary schools. Examine the books which are read in the
nursery and which are put into the hands of our fittle boys
156 ENFORCED PEACE
and girls and which mould their first impressions. Will
you be astonished to find that slaughter and fighting and
war are made to seem good and wise? Then the child
goes to school and is imconsciously taught to march
where the last generation marched. History must
be taught. The story of the race and of the na-
tion must be told; it may be so taught as to be a
guide to the future, to illustrate sacrifice for great
causes, to inspire valor and patriotism. But many
elementary histories glorify victory by arms regardless
of its purpose and mark the triumphs of history by the
number of dead and exalt the conquerors, those who
produced the greatest slaughter, as the heroes of the
world, merely because they were successful in war. To
so teach a child who has not yet learned the great prin-
ciples and purposes of government is to corrupt the
young mind. It may be that we should postpone the
teaching of elementary history until it can be taught to
minds already mature enough to understand its mean-
ing. ^
Again, Latin is an important study as a foundation of
language. How important I leave to the pedagogues.
Our boys and girls begin their study of Latin by march-
ing through Gaul with Caesar, following the Roman
eagles to victory and conquest. Always marching,
fighting, killing as a glorious occupation! Is it neces-
sary to culture that we should take an instrumentaUty,
which while teaching the mind to think, moulds it to a
standard that has meant disaster in the past? The
mind must be trained in perception, in analysis, in
memory, but let us see to it that the means which are
used to train the mind do not themselves poison the
mind.
Let us summon all the college presidents to help
mobiUze our forces. The colleges not only exert great
influence over their students and the public, but also
determine what shall be taught in the secondary schools.
ENFORCED PEACE 157
I would prescribe as a requirement for admission to
every college an elementary course in world peace.
Let us mobilize all the teachers of youth who are going
to build for us the generation to come, in whose hands is
to be placed the fate of the world. Is it not time to
direct our attention to the study of those things which
will produce a citizenship with the vision and determina-
tion to put into effect and maintain the new order? If
we are really in earnest let us teach that an appeal to
reason is more noble than an appeal to force, that jus-
tice is of greater value than might. If we are really
in earnest we must provide a new education that will
give us new ideals, a new pubhc conscience that will
sustain the court we propose to establish.
We must also call upon the women of America to help
us mobilize our forces. The women have great power
to help. They have a knowledge of the value of life.
They beheve in the conservation of men. They beUeve
that the greatest sacrifice is not in death but in Ufe, in
service to the world. The women can do much to
establish the new standards. They direct the thought of
men, for the man's mind is fashioned at his mother's
knee, when as a boy he receives those first impressions
that stay with him through Ufe, that guide him in all his
actions. We should mobilize the women's organizations
and clubs and summon to our aid the teachers and the
business and professional women.
And we should have the help of organized labor, and
we should have the help of organized agriculture, for
they gain the least and suffer most by war. We should
mobilize business and call on Chambers of Commerce
and Merchants Associations, because the peace and
prosperity of all nations is essential to the prosperity of
each. We should welcome the aid of the peace so-
cieties, because we share their vision of universal peace.
Those who believe in preparedness should give us aid
for our program takes the curse of miUtarism from pre-
158 ENFORCED PEACE
paredness. We should prepare. But what is adequate
preparedness? That is a difficult question to answer.
Are we to build navies in competition with the navies of
the world? Are we to enhst armies in competition with
the armies of the world? Are we to burden ourselves
with intolerable taxation after the manner of the old
world? Our League presents the only answer, for with
the formation of a league of nations to enforce peace, the
measure of preparedness — that is of armed force — would
be the pro rata share of each country to the united force
necessary to the maintenance of peace. Our plan lifts
the burden of preparedness and shows the way to dis-
armament.
There are some things worse than war. Slavery is
worse than war; failure to assert righteousness against
unrighteousness is worse than war. If we do not have
any other means, we will have to resort to force. We
are now dependent on force. It is a substitution of
other and better means that we propose to provide.
Armament is to be used to assure a hearing, and thereby
guarantee peace. This plan of ours imposes upon pre-
paredness a peaceful purpose. It is a justification of
preparedness.
Our preparedness shall be used only for the purpose of
maintaining peace. We propose to the nations of the
world a new era of order and justice. We do not pro-
pose longer to tolerate aggression; we recognize the
family of nations, each with the right to develop in its
own sphere, we desire no territory, we desire no spheres
of influence, we are ready to submit our demands to a
world court and to withliold action until judgment is
pronounced. Our preparedness is for the purpose of
establishing the rule of reason and to maintain the
Court of the World. This is a new patriotism greater
than has ever prevailed in the world before.
Copyright, Harris \i Etving, Washington, D. C.
WOODROW WILSON
President of the United States
CHAPTER VI
BROADER ASPECTS OF THE LEAGUE
PROGRAM
Throughout the sessions of the first annual
assemblage of the League to Enforce Peace dis-
cussion was maintained on a lofty plane. The
climax was reached by President Wilson, who
made the closing address at the dinner which
ended the conference. President Wilson said:
When the invitation to be here to-night came to me, I
was glad to accept it — not because it offered me an op-
portunity to discuss the program of the League — that
you will, I am sure, not expect of me — but because the
desire of the whole world now turns eagerly, more and
more eagerly, toward the hope of peace, and thereis just
reason why we should take our part in counsel upon this
great theme. It is right that I, as spokesman of our
Government, should attempt to give expression to what
I beUeve to be the thought and purpose of the people of
the United States in this vital matter.
This great war that broke so suddenly upon the world
two years ago, and which has swept within its flame so
great a part of the civilized world, has affected us very
profoundly, and we are not only at hberty, it is perhaps
our duty, to speak very frankly of it and of the great in-
terests of civilization which it aflfects.
With its causes and its objects we are not concerned.
The obscure fountains from which its stupendous flood
159
i6o ENFORCED PEACE
has burst forth we are not interested to search for or ex-
plore. But so great a flood, spread far and wide to
every quarter of the globe, has of necessity engulfed
many a fair province of right that Hes very near to us.
Our own rights as a Nation, the Uberties, the privileges,
and the property of our people have been profoundly
affected. We are not mere disconnected lookers-on.
The longer the war lasts, the more deeply do we become
concerned that it shofuld be brought to an end and the
world be permitted to resume its normal life and course
again. And when it does come to an end we shall be as
much concerned as the nations at war to see peace
assume an aspect of permanence, give promise of days
from which the anxiety of uncertainty shall be lifted,
bring some assurance that peace and war shall always
hereafter be reckoned part of the common interest of
p mankind. We are participants, whether we would or
\ not, in the hfe of the world. The interests of all nations
V' j are our own also. We are partners with the rest.
j What affects mankind is inevitably our affair as well
1 as the affair of the nations of Europe and of Asia.
One observation on the causes of the present war we
are at liberty to make, and to make it may throw some
hght forward upon the future, as well as backward upon
the past. It is plain that this war could have come only
as it did, suddenly and out of secret counsels, without
warning to the world, without discussion, without any of
the deliberate movements of counsel with which it
would seem natural to approach so stupendous a con-
test. It is probable that if it had been foreseen just
what would happen, just what alliances would be formed,
just what forces arrayed against one another, those
who brought the great contest on would have been
glad to substitute conference for force. If we our-
selves had been afforded some opportunity to appraise
the belligerents of the attitude which it would be our
duty to take, of the policies and practices against which
ENFORCED PEACE i6r
we would feel bound to use all our moral and economic
strength, and in certain circumstances even our physical
strength also, our own contribution to the counsel which
might have averted the struggle would have been con-
sidered worth weighing and regarding.
And the lesson which the shock of being taken by
surprise in a rhatter so deeply vital to all the nations of
the world has made poignantly clear is, that the peace of
the world must henceforth depend upon a new and more
wholesome diplomacy. Only when the great nations of
the world have reached some sort of agreement as ta
what they hold to be fundamental to their common in-
terest, and as to some feasible method of acting in con-
cert when any nation or group of nations seeks to disturb
those fundamental things, can we feel that civilization
is at last in a way of justifying its existence and claiming
to be finally estabhshed. It is clear that nations must |
in the future be governed by the same high code of i
honor that we demand of individuals.
We must, indeed, in the very same breath with
which we avow this conviction, admit that we have
ourselves upon occasion in the past been offenders
against the law of diplomacy which we thus forecast;
but our conviction is not the less clear, but rather the
more clear, on that account. If this war has accom-
pHshed nothing else for the benefit of the world, it
has at least disclosed a great moral necessity and set
forward the thinking of the statesmen of the world
by a whole age. Repeated utterances of the leading
statesmen of most of the great nations now engaged
in war have made it plain that their thought has come
to this, that the principle of public right must hence-
forth take precedence over the individual interests
of particular nations, and that the nations of the world
must in some way band themselves together to see
that that right prevails as against any sort of selfish
aggression; that henceforth alliance must not be set
\
\
162 ENFORCED PEACE
up against alliance, understanding against under-
standing, but that there must be a common agreement
for a common object, and that at the heart of that
common object must lie the inviolable rights of peoples
and of mankind. The nations of the world have be-
come each other's neighbors. It is to their interest
that they should understand each other. In order that
they may understand each other, it is imperative that
they should agree to cooperate in a common cause,
and that they should so act that the guiding principles
of that common cause shall be even-handed and im-
partial justice.
This is undoubtedly the thought of America. This
is what we ourselves will say when there comes proper
occasion to say it. In the dealings of nations with
one another arbitrary force must be rejected and we
must move forward to the thought of the modern world,
the thought of which peace is the very atmosphere.
That thought constitutes a chief part of the passionate
conviction of America.
We beUeve these fundamental things: First, that
every people has a right to choose the sovereignty
under which they shall live. Like other nations, we
have ourselves no doubt once and again offended
against that principle when for a Uttle while controlled
by selfish passion, as our franker historians have been
honorable enough to admit; but it has become more
and more our rule of life and action. Second, that
the small states of the world have a right to enjoy the
same respect for their sovereignty and for their terri-
torial integrity that great and powerful nations ex-
pect and insist upon. And, third, that the world has
a right to be free from every disturbance of its peace
that has its origin in aggression and disregard of the
1 rights of peoples and nations.
So sincerely do we believe in these things that I am
sure that I speak the mind and wish of the people of
ENFORCED PEACE 163
America when I say that the United States is willing
to become a partner in any feasible association of
nations formed in order to realize these objects and
make them secure against violation.
There is nothing that the United States wants for
itself that any other nation has. We are willing, on
the contrary, to limit ourselves along with them to a
prescribed course of duty and respect for the rights
of others which will check any selfish passion of our
own, as it will check any aggressive impulse of
theirs.
If it should ever be our privilege to suggest or initiate
a movement for peace among the nations now at war,
I am sure that the people of the United States would
wish their Government to move along these hnes: First,
such a settlement with regard to their own immediate
interests as the belligerents may agree upon. We have
nothing material of any kind to ask for ourselves, and
are quite aware that we are in no sense or degree
parties to the present quarrel. Our interest is only in
peace and its future guarantees. Second, an univer-
sal association of the nations to maintain the inviolate
security of the highway of the seas for the common and
unhindered use of all the nations of the world, and to
prevent any war begun either contrary to treaty
covenants or without warning and full submission
of the causes to the opinion of the world, a virtual
guarantee of territorial integrity and political indepen-
dence.
But I did not come here, let me repeat, to discuss a
program. I came only to avow a creed and give
expression to the confidence I feel that the world is
even now upon the eve of a great consummation, when
some common force will be brought into existence
which shall safeguard right as the first and most
fundamental interest of all peoples and all govern-
ments, when coercion shall be summoned not to the
i64 ENFORCED PEACE
service of political ambition or selfish hostility, but
to the service of a common order, a common justice,
and a common peace. God grant that the dawn of
that day of frank dealing and of settled peace, con-
cord, and cooperation may be near at hand!
Henry Cabot Lodge, A.B., LL.B., Ph.D.,
United States Senator from Massachusetts, and
a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign
relations, spoke of the
GREAT WORK OF THE LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE
It is well, in understanding anv great work, and the
work of this League is a very great work indeed, to
know precisely where we stand; and I have been glad
to learn that the League has laid down as a principle
that it is not engaged in attempting to bring the war
in Europe to an end, that its work hes beyond that
war, for I have a somewhat deep impression that
when the peace we all hope for comes, it will not be
brought about by expeditions from the United States,
nor by mass meetings and resolutions, no matter how
admirable such resolutions may be. The United
States has led the world in the matter of arbitration.
From the day of the Jay Treaty of 1794 and the
Pinckney Treaty of 1795 down to 191 2, eight-four
arbitration treaties had been negotiated by the execu-
tive of the United States, eighty-three had been ratified
by the Senate, and only one, the treaty of 1897 with
England, rejected. I think that is a remarkable rec-
ord. We have carried the principle of voluntary
arbitration to its Umit, and it is well to recognize that
it has a limit, because when we undertake to put into
treaties for voluntary arbitration questions which no
nation, when the stress comes, will submit to arbitra-
tion, we do not advance the cause of peace, but quite the
Copyright, CUnedinst, Washington, D. C.
HENRY CABOT LODGE. A.B.. LL.B., Ph.D
United States Senator from Massachusetts
ENFORCED PEACE 165
reverse; for we do vast mischief by making treaties
which we know in our hearts we are not prepared to
carry out when the time comes.
The limit of volimtary arbitration has, I think, been
reached. Much has been achieved by it. It has taken
out of the range of arms a large mass of questions which
once were causes, frequently of war, constantly of re-
prisals, and by the general consent of civilized mankind
has put them before a tribunal and had them there de-
cided. If we have reached the limit of voluntary arbitra-
tion what is the next step? I think the next step is that \/
which this League proposes and that is to put force be-
hind international peace. We may not solve it in that
way, but if we cannot solve it in that way it can be
solved in no other.
You cannot keep order in your cities unless you put '
I'orce behind the will of the community and behind
the peace of the citizens. The peace of your states is
maintained by force. It rests upon the militia and
the constabulary of the states. The peace of the
United States can only be secured and maintained by
an ample, thorough national defense. We have not
that defense now. I trust that we have entered on the
path that will lead us to the upbuilding of our national
defense both in the army and in the navy. I hope
this not only to make our peace secure, but because we
as a nation shall find it very difficult to induce others
to put force behind peace if we have not force to put
behind our own peace. I know, and no one, I think,
can know better than one who has served long in the
Senate, which is charged with an important share of
the ratification and confirmation of all treaties — no
one can, I think, feel more deeply than I do the dif-
ficulties which confront us in the work which this
League undertakes. But the difficulties cannot be
overcome unless we try to overcome them. I believe
much can be done. Probably it will be irr^possible to
i66 ENFORCED PEACE
stop all wars, but it certainly will be possible to stop
some wars and thus diminish their number. The way
in which this problem is to be worked out must be
left to this League and to those who are giving this
great question the study which it deserves. I know the
obstacles. I know how quickly we shall be met with
the statement that this is a dangerous question which
you are putting into your agreement; that no nation
can submit to the judgment of other nations, and we
must be careful at the beginning not to attempt too
much. I know the difficulties which arise when we
speak of anything which seems to involve an aUiance.
But I do not believe that when Washington warned
us against entangling alliances he meant for one mo-
ment that we should not join with the other civilized
nations of the world if a method could be found to
diminish war and encourage peace.
It was a year ago that in delivering the Chancellor's
address at Union College, I made an argument on
this theory: that if we were to promote international
peace at the close of the present terrible war, if we were
to restore international law as it must be restored, we
must find some way in which the united forces of the
nations could be put behind the cause of peace and law.
I said then that my hearers might think that I was
picturing a Utopia, but it is in the search for Utopias
that great discoveries have been made. "Not failure,
but low aim, is the crime."
This League certainly has the highest of all aims for
the benefit of humanity, and because the pathway is
sown with difficulties is no reason that we should turn
from it. It is the vision of a perhaps impossible per-
fection which has led humanity across the centuries.
If our aspirations are for that which is great and
beautiful and good and beneficent to humanity, even
when we do not achieve our end, even if the results
are little, we can at least remember Arnold's Unes:
Photo by Matzenf, Chicago
SHAILER MAITHEWS, D.D., A.B., A.M., LL.D.
Dean of Divinity School, Chicago University
ENFORCED PEACE 167
" Charge again, then, and be dumb.
Let the victors, when they come,
When the forts of folly fall.
Find your body at the wall."
Shailer Mathews, D.D., LL.D., Dean of the
Divinity School of Chicago University and pres-
ident of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ
in America, discussed
WHAT THE CHURCHES HAVE AT STAKE IN THE SUCCESS
OF THE LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE
It is one of the gratifying facts of recent days that
Jew, Romanist, and Protestant have united in cham-
pioning the cause of peace as a great common divisor
which runs through all rehgious organizations. The
churches, under whatever name organized, represent
in a social form that underlying conviction which we
all have that the significance of life is not to be found
simply in economic forces, but rather in those spiritual
values which tower above all economic, geographic,
miUtary, and even social forces. These churches thus
involved in a common interest find themselves pro-
foundly concerned in the success of every well-intended
effort to bring peace into history. But we are less
interested in peace than in the causes which make
peace inevitable. If there is anything worse than a
war based upon injustice, it is a peace based upon in-
justice.
The churches have at stake two or three fundamental
matters. There is first the great question whether
ideaUsm of a spiritual sort can be made practical and
administered. Good people do not always have good
sense. The attempt to organize this League to En-
force Peace is an attempt to bring good sense into
superlative ideals.
i68 ENFORCED PEACE
In the second place, the churches have at stake the
great question as to whether moral ideals which are
significant in the case of individuals are also significant
in the case of nations. They have never been tried.
The League to Enforce Peace intends to try them.
God be with it in its attempt.
In the third place, the churches have at stake a
closely aUied question, which is more than a question.
It is a fundamental belief of every religious man that
an ideal becomes an enthusiasm only when it involves
sacrifice. An ideal that costs nothing is only a piece
of social bric-a-brac. IdeaHsm for which you are
ready to die has a driving power that makes history
go forward. And we bring forward at this time, in
this League to Enforce Peace, an ideal that dares call
upon nations as well as individuals to sacrifice. It is
an educational appeal, it is a profoundly spiritual
appeal; and when you have spirituality coupled witli
education, and faith in God coupled with common
sense you have a marvellously effective combination.
In this undertaking the church also dares hope that
patriotism will become a cooperative rather than a bel-
ligerent virtue. There are many people who are ready
to die for their country who will not pay taxes to their
country. There are many nations who are ready to
fight for their rights who are not ready to stand for other
nation's rights. The great issue before humanity, as I
see it at the present time, is perfectly simple, to be for-
mulated in this simple way: Are you, as a nation, ready
to give justice? The League to Enforce Peace intends
to socialise rights; we hope to handle nations as posses-
sing not only rights but duties. We hope that by its
program it wiU be shown that spirituaHty, common
sense, and cooperative patriotism may be united into a
splendid, devoted effort to give to the other nations the
justice which we claim for ourselves.
And, Mr. President, if the churches have something
ENFORCED PEACE 169
at stake, in the success of this League, the League has
something at stake in the success of the churches. The
church is not a parasite on social progress. In the same
proportion as the churches realize their supreme function
in social evolution, can they contribute influences which
will help forward, control, and rectify social progress it-
self.
I stand for religious people, who are not ashamed of
being religious. Itishard totalkof reUgion without seem-
ing to talk professionally, but in all seriousness religion
iaia big thing in life. It is more than church-going. A
tremendous passion and thirst for justice characterizes
our new religious epoch. We have something to give to
the nations that will make this League possible, because
you cannot make a League to Enforce Peace successful
among people who do not want peace. All reforms
would be easy if it were not for folks. And the church
is engaged in making folks interested in the things for
which this League stands. Therefore our relationship
is mutual. Religion is hardly reUgion if it does not tend
to express itself creatively. And reUgion always does
express itself creatively at those points where men are
stirred by some great social ideal. The man who has a
religious message, whatever may be his creed, whatever
his theology, has something which the world needs,
and which, by God's grace, at the present time it will
get. Religion has become international. Religion has
ceased to be a matter of merely saving a man's soul from
something which may happen some time in the future.
ReUgion wants to look out for dead people, but it has
much more interest in live people. This is a splendid
opportunity which the church has. It can swing into
the great movement for social reform, and social evolu-
tion, and social recreation. It can call upon a world of
persons who have come out of the universe to trust the
Spirit of the Universe whom we may love and whom we
may emulate in sacrificial social-mindedness. And thus
lyo ENFORCED PEACE
the church may help bring in a kingdom of justice and of
peace. If that be Utopia, so be it. I would rather pre-
pare for Utopia than for Hell.
Prof. Franklin H. Giddings, LL.D., Professor
of Sociology and the History of Civilization at Co-
lumbia University, former president of the Ameri-
can Sociological Society, former president of L'ln-
stitut Internationale de Sociologie, and author of
various works on sociology, presented the following
paper :
HOW SOCIAL PROGRESS DEPENDS ON THE SUCCESS OF THE
LEAGUE PLATFORM
The European War has not only devastated: it has
disillusioned. In the life of every successful man there
comes an hour of maximum peril and of supreme test.
He has struggled with difficulty and with disappoint-
ment; so far he has been safe. Then, perhaps suddenly,
achievement and recognition have awakened in him a
new and intoxicating sense of power. As before his
imagination exaggerated difficulties to be overcome, so
now his judgment underestimates the obstacles with
which he has yet to contend. The day will come when
he will find himself responsible for the performance of ob-
hgations that will tax aU his strength, call for the perfect
play of his intellectual powers, and demand the utmost
steadfastness of an unfaltering purpose. Only when he
has come safely through this ordeal, and has been tried
as by fire, will he know himself as he is, and the world as
it is.
As with the individual man so with the nation; so
with mankind.
Nations that have slowly grown through centuries of
poverty and relative obscurity have suddenly found
FRANKLIN II. GIDDINGS, A.B., Ph.D., LL.D.
Professor of Sociology and History of Civilization, Columbia Uni-
versity
ENFORCED PEACE 171
themselves important in the world's affairs. Face to
face with obHgations, in arrogance and overweening con-
fidence they have rushed upon destruction, or, measur-
ing themselves truly and organizing their resources
effectively, they have written imperishable lines upon
the scroll of history.
In the nineteenth century the whole world of Western
civilization awoke to the reahzation of achievement and
to a consciousness of power for which no parallel, or
precedent, or dream, had prepared the human mind or
the moral forces of character. Through experimental
science a new mastery over physical nature had been at-
tained. Material wealth, and the enjoyments which it
yields, so grew and multipUed that even trained
economists began to speak Hghtly, as of discredited
dogmas, of the laws of diminishing return and popula-
tion increase.
It was obvious that this new power of man, over the
conditions of material Hfe, was the power of intellect.
Intellect not only explored and discovered; it organized,
directed and applied. To the possibiUties of recombina-
tion no limit could be assigned. Man could recreate his
world. Knowledge no less than comfort could be
diffused. The ancient evils of ignorance and of poverty
could be banished together.
With abundance possible for all, and enlightenment
assured as a universal condition, the strong need no
longer remorsely crowd the weak to the wall in the
struggle for existence. The brotherhood of man might
supersede warring states. We looked upon the vision
of a limitless moral progress.
Unhappily, in making this forecast, we unconsciously
buUt upon an unwarranted assumption, and we forgot
one of the most indubitable generalizations from the ex-
perience of the race. We assumed a matter-of-course
relationship between reason and reasonableness, and we
forgot that, although knowledge comes, wisdom lingers.
172 ENFORCED PEACE
The assumption has been shattered. The civilized
world has not lost its faith that moral progress is pos-
sible but it will not again base its hopes upon the un-
tested beUef that mankind necessarily becomes better if
it becomes richer and more comfortable. It will not
again so appallingly underestimate the forces of evil that
have yet to be encountered and overcome. Like the
strong and forward-looking individual who has suffered
defeat but not destruction, it will now resurvey its task,
take more careful stock of its energies and its resources,
and go forward in the full realization of the magnitude of
the work in hand.
This prediction we are able to make because the
evidence abounds that our now disillusioned world is not
a discouraged world. He is a poor observer who sees in
the European War only the most appalling waste of life
and treasure that history records. He is pot a less poor
observer who sees in it only waste made worse by dis-
illusion. It has been, and is, the most tremendous
stimulus to self-examination, to resolution, and to de-
termined effort that has ever provoked the moral ener-
gies and the intelUgence of man to fresh exertion.
The self-examination will be thorough. It was the re-
morseless Nietzsche who proposed the revaluation of all
values. The reappraisement has begun, and already we
know that the resulting scale of values will not be what
Nietzsche anticipated, and what his disciples, the
philosophers of f rightfulness, have striven to estabhsh.
In the new appraisal the rightfulness of means wiU rank
at least with the desirability of ends. Of all criteria that
have from time to time been suggested to discriminate
civilization from barbarism, recognition of the moral
quahty of the means employed to attain desired ends is
the most certain. And of all the measures that have
been used to determine the extent of moral progress in
distinction from material advancement, none is so pre-
cise as the amoimt of behavior which punctilliously re-
ENFORCED PEACE 173
gards the procedure by which individuals and govern-
ments attempt to attain their purposes. The masses of
men have been slow to perceive these truths, always
clear to the few. The war has flashed them on a screen
upon which the eyes of the world are riveted. The
maxim that the end justifies the means, and the philos-
ophy that might makes right, are revealed in all their
moral nakedness as the ethics of barbarism.
Monstrous beyond all other discredited ways of at-
taining ends desired, is aggressive war. To check the
resort of nations to this means of aggrandizement, and to
work tirelessly to make it ultimately impossible will,
from this day forth, be the most serious task, not only of
the ethically-minded few, but of millions of common-
sensible citizens in every land, brought now to realize
that no end consonant with progressive civilization can
justify original resort to the devastating and morally
disintegrating procedures of savagery.
With the reappraisal of values in their abstract
quahty as right and wrong, we are reappraising them
also as expressions of concrete fact, of practical reaH ties,
of working energies. We have arrived at a truer
estimate of the tremendous power that inheres in the
surviving passions, the traditional prejudices, and the
actual convictions of the masses of living men in this
democratic age. The peace of the world cannot be
estabhshed by conventions alone. Statutes and treaties
are powerless against lawless might or the avalanche of
wrath. If peace is to prevail, peace must abide in the
minds and the hearts of men. It must be a mastering
desire. We know that this desire xias awakened in the
multitude. To strengthen it, and to organize it, is the
imperatively important work that calls for all the edu-
cational resources and the untiring effort of those to
whom has been imparted the power to inspire and to
direct. Desire must be fortified by thought. The
power of reason which has given man command over
174 ENFORCED PEACE
material resources, must be directed upon the mighty
task of making man himself reasonable. It is not an
impossible task. The multitude to-day is beginning to
think, and thought will react upon behavior.
One further reappraisal there will be; it has already
begun. We shall revalue the means by which we seek to
attain ends not only according to their quahty as right
or wrong, but also according to their effectiveness. In
this reappraisal we shall reestimate the dreamer and his
dream. Conscious progress begins in dreams. Not
until we have seen the vision of better things do we plan
and work to make the vision real. But dreams do not
come true through dreaming. We hve in a universe of
material things and forces, and our ideas, our aspirations
are effective only as they organize physical energies
and set them at work upon the task to be done. We
have dreamed of world peace, but we shall not get it by
dreaming. We shall get it only by organizing and bring-
ing to bear upon the interests and the forces that make
for war, an adequate physical force, backed by adequate
material resources.
Herbert Spencer in his autobiography tells us that
his great-grandmother Spencer used to admonish her
grandson, Herbert's father, to impress upon her grand-
daughter-in-law, Catharine, the imperative necessity
of looking ahead and making provision for the future.
Always her parting words to him were: "Tell Kitty
to forecast." Forecasting has not been a habit of
collective mankind — least of all of democracies. But
collective forecasting has now become imperative. In
the movement for pieparedness in this nation we see
the possibiUty that this prudential virtue may be
strengthened. But if war is to cease, there must be
forecasting in a larger way than would suffice to pre-
pare one nation only for defense. There must be
agreeing action by many nations collectively strong
enough to restrain any power that would break the
A. LAWRENCE LOWELL. A.B., LL.B., LL.D., Ph.D.
President of Harvard University. Chairman of the Executive
Committee, League to Enforce Peace
ENFORCED PEACE 175
peace — as the single state is strong enough to restrain
the criminal individual, or the forces of local insurrec-
tion. The strength of the restraining group must be
more than moral: it must be the strength of physical
force. A league to pass resolutions, and to offer
advice, will not avail: it must be a league to enforce
peace. The preamble and the platform which the
League to Enforce Peace, here assembled and repre-
sented, has adopted, state the simple, obvious con-
clusions of experience. In one way only has the area
of peace been widened as the centuries have passed.
The law-breaker and the war-maker have been restrained
by authority armed and employing force. History
offers us no suggestion of any other possibiUty. In a
federation of nations desiring peace, and adequately
organized to prevent war, rests our hope of the further
material and moral progress of mankind.
Dr. a. Lawrence Lowell, A.B., LL.B., LL.D.,
PhJD., president of Harvard University, chair-
man of the Executive Committee of the League to
Enforce Peace, spoke as follows:
A PLATFORM UPON WHICH THE WHOLE WORLD CAN
STAND
The program of the League to Enforce Peace is
essentially contained in its title, and indeed the only
immediate change made by the meeting at Philadel-
phia in the preliminary plan that had been proposed,
was a change in the title, by inserting the word "en-
force." This change was important because it drew
attention to the true significance of the plan; because
it alienated those who were really opposed to the prin-
ciples advocated by the League; and because it at-
tracted many men who saw that these principles were
no mere nebulous abstraction, but something con-
176 ENFORCED PEACE
Crete which it might not be impossible for the nations
of the world to approve, adopt, and put into operation.
I shall, therefore, dwell not on the program, for it has
been discussed fully during the last two days, but on
the title of the League.
The title contains three prmcipal words, which can
best be taken up in reverse order. The last of these
words is Peace, a thing almost all men profess to desire;
and after the calamities we have seen casting their
dark shadow over Europe during the last two years,
it is needless to argue here the value of peace on earth
and good wiU toward men.
The advocates of the League make no claim that
it is possible to maintain peace now and forever —
to aboHsh all future wars. Such a condition must
for a long time be beyond the skill of man to attain.
But they do seek to establish a condition in which
no wars shall be undertaken save, such as are, humanly
speaking, inevitable; in which a nation shall not resort to
war until every other means of averting a conflict has
been exhausted — until efforts to obtain justice by
judicial methods have failed. Arbitration, or sub-
mission to judicial decision, has already been applied,
largely to the questions about which governments
do not want to go to war, and much has been done
thereby to remove the lesser causes of friction, misunder-
standing, and ill will among nations. But we beHeve
that it is possible to go farther and agree that no nation
shall take up arms against another over any contro-
versy, however much the question may affect its
interests or touch its feelings or its honor, until it has
brought, or offered to bring, the matter before
some international body, charged with the duty of
rendering a judgment or suggesting an adjustment.
Nations would hardly be willing to bind themselves
to submit to a tribunal all questions and abide by the
result. They may not have implicit confidence that
ENFORCED PEACE 177
the question will be fairly decided, but they can surely
have confidence that it will be fairly heard — that each
side will be given a full opportunity to state its case and
pubUsh its evidence and its argument; and this every
nation ought to be wiUing to do. Surely governments
cannot take the ground that one of their sacred rights
is that of going to war without giving any reasons
therefor. In the words of the Declaration of Inde-
pendence, "A decent respect to the opinions of man-
kind requires that they should declare the causes which
impel them."
In preventing war a pubhc hearing is not less im-
portant than a judgment, because it makes for delay
before men's minds are inflamed by war; and thereby
gives an opportunity for pubUc opinion in the world to
develop, for other nations to intercede, and above all
for the people of the countries involved to form and
express their views in a way that is wholly impossible
after war has once broken out. Governments ought
not to be able to drag their people into a terrific struggle,
where men must fight and not think, without giving
them a chance to consider the cause or the wisdom of
the war. No outside country has any right to question
the form of government that a nation may prefer; but
tlie world has a right to demand that a people shall
not go to war without knowing why and being con-
vinced of the necessity; and yet as the world is organ-
ized to-day a government can often refuse to delay, or
allow the time for reflection.
The second word in the title of the League to En-
force Peace, is "Enforce," and the essential idea in the
proposal is that these principles shall be enforced.
Mr. Root has pointed out that international rights and
duties have hitherto been treated like private rights
and duties in civil society, as matters affecting only
the parties thereto; whereas many international obliga-
tions reaUy touch the whole world, and not merely
178 ENFORCED PEACE
the nations directly affected, so that their violation,
like the corresponding acts of individuals, may be re-
garded as offenses against a criminal law of which the
pubUc at large is the guardian. A breach of the world's
peace, Uke a breach of domestic peace, is an offense
against public order which the public ought to have
some right to prevent. Nations that go to war break
the peace of the world, and the world has at least a
right to insist on knowing the reason for the war. It
has a right to go farther and demand that peace shall
not be broken until an opportunity has been given to
ascertain where justice lies; to try mediation and
arbitration; and to consider calmly whether or not the
matter at issue requires the sacrifice of war.
In saying that the world has a right to insist upon
this, we mean that it is justified in compelling nations
to go to arbitration and state their case before they
take up arms. But in order that the compulsion may
be effective, the method of enforcement must be cer-
tain, and sufficient for the purpose. In the terrible
face of war there is no use in shaking the rattle of an
unarmed watchman or in convening councils that talk
and will not act. The object is not to consult about
the punishment of an offender, but to prepare a de-
terrent that will prevent the offense. The delinquent
who contemplates a breach of the peace, without an
offer to state the case before an international tribunal,
must know that retribution will be certain, instant, and
irresistible. Such a deterrent can be provided only if
it is known that the great nations will use forthwith all
their powers, moral, economic, and military, to enforce
the principle of no war before arbitration. Nothing
less will be effective, and such a doom no nation would
dare to face.
The remaining word in the title is "League." No
single country can enforce a Pax Romana on the modern
world; to attempt it would be to make itself a Don
ENFORCED PEACE 179
Quixote in search of perilous adventures, to suffer
defeat and become a laughing stock. It can be under-
taken only by a league of nations strong enough and
trustworthy enough to overawe any single state or
combination of states that might venture to disregard
its law of peace and war. Whether such a league can
be formed or not, we do not know. The question
bristles with difficulties for statesmen and international
lawyers, which there is no use in attempting to minimize
and which require learning, skill, patience, and good
will to solve. But one thing we do know — that such
a league is not possible unless our country is willing
to join it; nay, more, unless we take a prominent
part in its formation.
Washington warned us to avoid entangling alli-
ances with foreign powers, and the advice was good
in his day, when we held an isolated position in the
world, when wind was the only means of crossing
the water, when steam and electricity had not shrunk
the earth to its present size. Yet fifteen years after
the Farewell Address we were at war with England, and
hardly more than ten years later we had announced
the bold policy of protecting aU the independent states
of North and South America from aggression by Euro-
pean Powers. So far as the outside world is concerned,
the Monroe Doctrine spread a sort of Pax Americana
over the two western continents; and we have main-
tained it for nearly a century, at one time in Mexico
in the face of a great and gallant martial nation. To-
day we cannot retain the old isolation if we would.
We are too populous, too prosperous, too powerful,
and the world has become too small, its seas too nar-
row, its continents too close together. We are faced
by the alternatives of standing aloof from the rest of
the world if we can, defending ourselves and working
out our destiny by the strength of our own arm if we
must, a stranger and perchance an IshmaeUte among
i8o ENFORCED PEACE
the nations; or of taking our part, if we may, in shaping
with others the progress of mankind and helping to
bring order and peace over the earth as the waters cover
the sea.
Benjamin Ide Wheeler, A.B., A.M., Ph.D.,
LL.D., Litt.D., L.H.D., President of the Univer-
sity of California, Berkeley, Cal., spoke as follows:
ENFORCING THE RECOGNITION OF JUSTICE
If anything can be done to abate the chances of
war, it must be done in the general field of the pro-
gram sketched out for this League. So overwhelming,
indeed, is the assent in the marts of opinion, as to stir
a distrust that the sketch is a curtain dropped at the
line where the troubles begin. In all human affairs
we are justified by experience in leveling suspicion
against any scheme which offers simplicity and beams
upon us with an easy, smihng face. It is also true,
however, in all human affairs that to secure coopera-
tion among great masses of humans the first requisite
is the provision of a vast and simple sweep of level
standing-ground. We must presume that the relative
bareness of the scheme before us represents a fair effort
to bring together as a basis of organization, the maximum
of that in which we can presumably agree and the
minimum of that concerning which we are likely to
disagree.
Even as it is, our optimism may have led us too far in
tempting us to use the word peace. The associations
which come to us from the hopeless and light- winged use
of that word in organization, movements, and orations
warn us that what we perhaps meant to say was: League
io Enforce the Recognition of Justice. It is a delusion
and a snare to speak or think of peace as a normal
•status of human affairs, to which we must seek return.
BENJAMIN roE WHEELER
A.B., A.M., Ph.D., LL.D., Litt.D., L.H.D.
President of the University of California
ENFORCED PEACE i8i
It is a delusion to think out our problem in that order — ■
a delusion of the same cast as the old-time argument
from "the state of nature," This argument from
the state of nature finds no standing in anthropology nor
for that matter in zoology. Man is by anthropology
and zoology a homicidal mammal. He kills and often
eats his enemy. The normal status of human affairs in-
volves competition, contention, strife. With that he
starts; from that he must seek to advance. Advance
comes only by the intrusion of time and wider con-
sideration in the place of impulse and inconsiderate
violence. Then the reasonableness begotten of time
may strike the balance we call justice. For the recog-
nition of justice we must have the check of time, and for
time we must have, so far as we know the mood of
human affairs, the check of power. What we need to
find is some form of expressible innate power in human
society which will induce the recognition of justice.
In seeking such a form of power and the mechanism
for its expression we find ourselves engaged in a strange
new quest. Rising to face us at every turn stand bristling
the barriers of that new nationalism which until to-day
we had esteemed as the protecting walls of national
liberty and the chief guarantee of human freedom — and
namely, as against all arbitrary assignments to aHen
dominion and government from without. These pro-
tecting walls are built out of unity of language, the in-
heritance of common traditions, the possession of com-
mon goods in folklore, poetry, festivals and dance, cos-
tume and manners, the memories of great names and
deeds, a common attachment to mountain and river,
and the romance of places, a high patriotism mingled
with prejudice and a vehement chauvinism; and of late
years, with accelerating zeal, these walls have been
building themselves ever higher through the artificial
cultivation by organized effort of national songs and
reverence of the flag and through artificial revival of
i82 ENFORCED PEACE
vanishing tongues, costumes, festivals, traditions
coupled with a concurrent antipathy and outrooting
zeal toward various forms of foreign usage and produc-
tion. History as well as poetry have been used to stir
the flame upon the altars of national pride.
Lord Bryce discussed this subject in his remarkable
address before the University of London on February
22, 1915, and I quote his words: "Men's souls are raised
by the recollection of great deeds done by their fore-
fathers. But the study of the past has its dangers
when it makes men transfer past claims and past
hatreds to the present. . . . The learned men and
the Hterary men, often themselves intoxicated by their
own enthusiasm, never put their books to a worse use
than when they filled each people with a conceit of its
own super-eminent gifts and merits."
The development of this new nationahsm is a pecuHar
product of the nineteenth century having its roots in the
American and French Revolutions. The completest
type of new nationahty is found in the Kingdom of
Greece, which bases its right to be in the inheritance of
tongue and traditions and glorious memories from the
great Greece of antiquity. But on every hand in
Europe these nationaHties-by-natural-right are forcing
their colors through in disregard of the boundaries in the
old political map. Poland insists on asserting itself
against the triple division. Bohemia persists in the use
of its own language for its schools and universities and in
the maintenance of every other mark of its own in-
dividuality. So the Magyars and the Serbs and the
Roumanians and the Bulgars. Norway differentiates
itself from Swedes and Danes, even to a shuffling off of
the Danish standard of the written language. Italy
sets everything at stake in behalf of the Italia irredenta.
Ireland will not be obhterated.
This new nationalism, shaped in the high sentiments
of loyalty and patriotism, has undoubtedly brought with
FRANK S. STREETER. LL.D.
Member Executive Committee, League to Enforce Peace
ENFORCED PEACE 183
it into the world a new and uplifting passion, a new
object of sacrifice and service, a new type of the religion
of the state. But there is reason to fear, and we may
not be blind thereto, that it has also brought with it the
possibility of certain grave perils, among which are two:
a slackened allegiance to the cause of humanity at large,
and a magnified sentiment of national pride, involving
wounded honor and satisfaction bv the oldtime route of
the duel.
In seeking the form of power which shall set check
upon war, we must utiUze that very spirit of nationalism
which through unguarded assertion of national claims
has involved us in world peril.
If, in the hysterical haste of those last sad days of
July, 1914, when speed begat speed in accelerating ratio,
some power could have arisen to set brakes by which
speed could have automatically begotten delay, there
would have been no war at the time. But the time-
factor involved the occasion, not the cause of the war.
The cause was the earthquake fault running from
Central Europe through the Balkans and on, by the
southeasterly trade route on the line of the Bagdad rail-
way, toward the Persian Gulf. It ran in Asia parallel
to the Suez route of England and across the face of the
Russian advance, and in Europe, it ran through the
crust of the Balkans weakened by the recent disruptions
of the newly emerging nationalities. Another great
fault-hne runs somewhere, north and south, through the
bed of the Pacific Ocean. And there are others: but it
is first and foremost in reference to these two, and in
terms of these two, that our immediate effort must be
shapen. To undertake the automatic and unerring
production of peace — all kinds of peace at all times and
everywhere — is an inspiration of foUy.
Frank S. Streeter, LL.D., of Concord, N. H.,
a member of the original National Provisional
i84 ENFORCED PEACE
Committee calling the Philadelphia Conference, a
member of the Committee on Resolutions at that
Conference, and a member of the Executive
Committee of the League from its organization,
told of a variation on the League to Enforce
Peace and its results in his state as follows:
THE NEW HAMPSHIRE WAY
I come here to make a report of a modified plan of
organization which we found it necessary to adopt in
New Hampshire. We have there created an organiza-
tion which combines in its purposes the two ideas of
national defense and the proposals of this League to
Enforce Peace. I want to read the objects as stated in
our constitution.
"First. To advocate and to aid in bringing about
the increase of the naval and miUtary strength of
the United States so that this nation may always be
prepared and able to repel invasions, to protect its
territory, its people, and its national honor.
"Second. To advocate and urge that the
United States join a league of nations binding the
signatories to the definite proposals adopted at In-
dependence Hall, June 17, 191 5, by the League
to Enforce Peace."
And here follows in the constitution the four definite
proposals of the League. Friends have asked me to ex-
plain why in New Hampshire this plan of organization
was adopted. Briefly it was this:
Soon after the Independence Hall proposals, in which
many of us participated, but before they had taken root
in New Hampshire, there was organized a New Hamp-
shire Defense League, and many of our prominent
citizens heartily supported it. Being believers in the
purposes of that League, many of us did not hesitate to
join it, and at the next meeting of the Executive Com-
ENFORCED PEACE 185
mittee of this organization in New York the question
was submitted whether the same man at the same time
could consistently be an active member of both organiza-
tions. The Executive Committee said yes, and this con-
clusion was published the next morning under the
authority of the committee. When we came to organize
the branch of this League in New Hampshire it was
speedily found that the great majority of our citizens
desired not only to lend encouragement to the In-
dependence Hall proposals, but also earnestly beheved
that it was the duty of this Government without delay
to provide for reasonable and adequate national defense.
In this situation, and because demanded by the public
opinion of my state, we created this new organization to
promote both purposes. An efiFective organization was
created, and within the last two weeks there have been
enrolled somewhere between seven and eight hundred
members, and some of our people are very enthusiastic
with reference to the interest that is being aroused.
The reason for forming this New Hampshire organiza-
tion is because our people desire not only to support
the principles of this great movement, looking to-
ward the estabHshment and preservation of inter-
national peace, by force if necessary, but also that this
nation should put itself in readiness to defend itself. It
is their desire by all honorable means to avoid war, but
they shrink from the humiliation of our present helpless-
ness. They are not hunting for trouble, but they do not
want to be obUged to run if trouble comes. They em-
phatically reject the doctrine that a deliberate prepara-
tion to protect ourselves if war is forced upon us is
essentially a preparation for our forcing war on others.
They believe that reasonable and adequate preparation
to defend ourselves, by force, is the first requisite to en-
able this country either to lead other nations or to co-
operate efficiently with other nations in defending the
peace of the world by force. In an international league
i86 ENFORCED PEACE
created to preserve the peace of the world, by force if
necessary — the supreme object for which this great
organization was created — a member nation, the United
States for illustration, which is known to be powerless to
defend its own territory, its own citizens, and its own
national honor, would have very Httle influence or
standing.
Therefore, logically, if the United States hopes to take
any leadership or exert any substantial influence as a
member of a league of nations to enforce peace, its
ability to defend itself by force must be recognized by
the other members of such a league. Now, to show
where we stand, I will read two brief sentences, or para-
graphs, from our address to the patriotic citizens of New
Hampshire, recently sent out.
"Every New Hampshire citizen who loves his
country, loves peace, abhors war, and believes that
the United States should take the proper steps to
safeguard its honor, dignity, integrity, and the lives
of its citizens by reasonable but adequate prepara-
tion, is invited to become a member of this organi-
zation.
" Every New Hampshire man who desires to pre-
vent the recurrence of war, and who believes that
the United States should join with other civilized
nations in an effort to prevent further wars, and
to take all possible steps for the enforcement of
international peace, ought to enroll himself, and
thereby give his individual influence, so far as pos-
sible, for the support of this vital and fundamental
principle."
This organization was adopted for New Hampshire,,
because it was there demanded by public opinion.
This plan may not be valuable or useful in any other
state. Such a course is not suggested. It was put into
effect there because our New Hampshire citizens desire
to contribute their influence not only to promote the
ENFORCED PEACE 187
establishment of international peace but also to provide
for oxir national defense.
Mr. Streeter's brief speech, followed a little later
by a question propounded by Miss Mary Winsor,
representing the Woman's Peace Party of Penn-
sylvania, afforded President Taft an opportunity
to clear up any doubts that may have lingered in
the minds of any one regarding the policy of the
League to Enforce Peace. Mr. Taft said:
"We have attempted in this meeting to lay down
with all the emphasis possible the fact that what we
are here for is to promote four proposals and no more.
We are not here to discuss anything else, and because
they have seen fit in New Hampshire to invite others
to help finance a movement we have nothing to do
with it. We wish to emphasize this fact. It is not
the intention of the Executive Committee to go into
any issue except those that are involved in the four
proposals of the League."
Dr. Nehemiah Boynton, A.B., D.D., pastor
of Clinton Avenue Congregational Church, Brook-
lyn, discussed the ideal of the League to Enforce
Peace, saying in part:
AN IDEAL WITH LIMITATIONS
We, as ideahsts, are absolutely frank with the world
concerning our purposes and attitudes. We desire
no one to come into fellowship with us under any im-
pression which may be by any manner of means ill-
conceived. We say very frankly that when the court
fails, and concihation fails, with the very greatest
regret but with equally great decision, we will resort
1 88 ENFORCED PEACE
to force, in order to secure those larger rights of peace
for the world in which we fundamentally believe.
But while we say that, fairly and squarely, we want
people to understand that that is only the incidental
part of our propaganda: The essential of it is faith —
faith in humanity, faith in the soul of the American
people, faith in our purposes and in our ability to carry
the ideal for which we stand to a favorable, and one
day a successful, conclusion.
We are not ashamed to announce to the world,
either, that we limit our ideals. We put a limitation
upon our effort in order that we may send our ideal on
its certain itinerary through the various highways of
travel. We believe that a limited ideal is necessary
for the common peace. But while we thus limit our
ideal, we have the unHmited vision in the morning
hour of this splendid propaganda in the interest, of a
world peace. The vision is being caught wonderfully
by our men of affairs. There are multitudes of think-
ing people in our country who have been waiting for
just such a cause as this to catch the imagination and
to inspire the generosity of hundreds of thousands of
people in our country who to-day are sharing such
notable financial experiences that except something
comes to challenge their spirit of self-sacrifice it will
be with increasing difficulty that they retain the larger
proofs of their manhood.
This thing is going to be pushed with wisdom, with
character, with money, with brains, with sacrifice, with
the larger patriotism, until the international idea which
it represents shall become so generally accepted that
the day may dawn not too far distant, please God,
when the horrors of war shall be things of the past, and
the widening opportunities of peace shall be the provi-
sion for the sons and daughters of men.
APPENDIX A
PROPOSALS
We believe it to be desirable for the United
States to join a league of nations binding the
signatories to the following:
First: All justiciable questions arising between
the signatory powers, not settled by negotiation,
shall, subject to the limitations of treaties, be sub-
mitted to a judicial tribunal for hearing and judg-
ment, both upon the merits and upon any issue as
to its jurisdiction of the question.
Second: All other questions arising between the
signatories and not settled by negotiation, shall be
submitted to a council of conciliation for hearing,
consideration, and recommendation.
Third: The signatory powers shall jointly use
forthwith both their economic and military forces-
against any one of their number that goes to war, or
commits acts of hostility against another of the
signatories before any question arising shall be sub-
mitted as provided in the foregoing.
The following interpretation of Article Three has been
authorized by the Executive Committee:
"The signatory powers shall jointly use, forthwith,
their economic forces against any of their number that
I90 APPENDIX
refuses to submit any question which arises to an inter-
national judicial tribunal or council of conciliation
before issuing an ultimatum or threatening war. They
shall follow this by the joint use of their miHtary forces
against that nation if it actually proceeds to make
war or invades another's territory."
Fourth : Conferences between the signatory pow-
ers shall be held from time to time to formulate
and codify rules of international law, which, unless
some signatory shall signify its dissent within a
stated period, shall thereafter govern in the deci-
sions of the Judicial Tribunal mentioned in Article
One.
APPENDIX B
OFFICERS AND ORGANIZATION
President
WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT
Vice-President
ALTON B. PARKER
Honorary Vice-Presidents
^ Lyman Abbott. N. Y.
Edwin A. Alderman, Va.
Mrs. Fannie Fern Andrews,
Mass.
Bernard N. Baker, Md.
.Alexander Graham Bell, D. C.
'Victor L. Berger, Wis.
Ri;dolph Blankenburg, Penn.
Miss Mabel T. Boardman, D. C.
Edward Bok, Penn.
Theodore D. Bratton, Miss.
Clifton R. Breckenridge, Ark.
Arthur J. Brown, N. Y.
Charles R. Brown, Conn.
Edward Osgood Brown, III.
J. Stewart Bryan, Va.
Miss Mary A. Burnham, Penn.
Thkodore E. Burton, O.
John Cadwalader, Penn.
Francis E. Clark, Mass.
Edward Cummings, Mass.
Albert B. Cummins, Ia.
R. Fulton Cutting, N. Y.
Jacob M. Dickinson, III.
S. C. Eastman, N. H.
Woodbridge N. Ferris, Mich.
John H. Finley, N. Y.
Mrs. J. Malcolm Forbes, Mass.
John Franklin Fort, N. J.
Wm. Dudley Foulke, Ind.
David R. Francis, Mo.
Thomas F. Gailor, Tenn.
\ James, Cardinal Gibbons, Md.
^ Washington Gladden, O.
George Gray, Del.
Mrs. Borden Harriman, D. C.
Myron T. Herrick, O.
George C. Holt, N. Y.
William B. Rowland, N. Y.
Charles E. Jefferson, N. Y.
J. R. Kenly, N. C.
J. H. KiRKLAND, Tenn.
George H. Lorimer, Penn.
Edgar Odell Lovett, Tex.
Samuel W. McCall, Mass.
Francis J. McConnell, Col.
Samuel B. McCormick, Penn.
James B. McCreary, Ky.
Miss Kate M. McLane, Md.
Martin B. Madden, III.
Wm. Hodges Mann, Va.
Shailer Matthews, III.
Peter W. Meldrin, Ga.
Victor H. Metcalf, Cal.
Anson Mills, D. C.
John Mitchell, N. Y.
Mrs. John J. Mitchell, III.
Mrs. Philip North Moore, Mo.
N Richard Olney, Mass.
LeRoy Percy, Miss.
Lawrencc C. Phipps, Col.
George A. P»limpton, N. Y.
George H. Prouty, Vt.
Francis Rawle, Penn.
William T. Russell, D. C.
Jacob H. Schiff, N. Y.
j. g. schmidlapp, o.
Isaac N. Seligman, N. Y.
John C. Shaffer, III.
Wm. F. Slocum, Col.
Daniel Smiley, N. Y.
John A. Stewart, N. Y.
Frederic H. Strawbridge, Penn.
Miss M. Carey Thomas, Penn.
Henry St. George Tucker, Va.
Charles R. VanHise, Wis.
Edwin Warfield, Md.
Benjamin Ide Wheeler, Cal.
Harry A. Wheeler, III.
Andrew D. White, N. Y.
191
192 APPENDIX
William Allen White, Kan. Oliver Wilson, III.
George Grafton Wilson, Mass. Stephen S. Wise, N. Y.
Henry Lane Wilson, Ind. Miss Mary E. Woolley, Mass.
Luther B. Wilson, N. Y. Theoixjre S. Woolsey, Conn.
Secretary
William H. Short
Treasurer
Herbert S. Houston
Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
Horace R. Baker
Director Field Work
C. C. Michener
News Secretary
Charles Millington
Editorial Secretary
Charles Frederick Carter
Executive Committee
A. Lawrence Lowell, Chairman
Edward A. Filene )
Hamilton Holt V Vice-Chairmen
Theodore Marburg )
Charles H. Brough Anson Mills
John Bates Clark Arthur E. Morgan
Charles Stewart Davison LaVerne W. Noyes
Henry S. Drinker LeRoy Percy
Samuel J. Elder Leo S. Rowe
John B. Finley W. L. Saunders
Glenn Frank Finley J. Shepard
Edward W. Frost William H. Short
W. W. Fry Bolton Smith
Philip H. Gadsden Oscar S. Straus
John Hays Hammond Frank S. Streeter
John Grier Hibben Thomas Taggart
Herbert S. Houston William H. Wadhams
Harold J. Howland Charles S. Ward
Darwin P. Kingsley Thomas Raeburn White
Frederick Lynch Talcott Williams
William Howard Taft, Ex-Officio
Alton B. Parker, Ex-Officio
National Committee
Anderson, John C Alabama
Anderson, Larz District of Columbia
Ansel. Martin F South Carolina
APPENDIX 193
Atkinson, Harry M Georgia
Ballinger, Richard A Washington
Beck, James M New York
Bi-AKESLEE, George H Massachusetts
Bowie, Sydney J Alabama
BoYNTON, Nehemiah New York
Brewster, Chauncey B Connecticut
Burbank, Luther California
Burch, Charles N Tennessee
Burton, Marion L Massachusetts
Butler, Joseph G., Jr Ohio
Capper, Arthur Kansas
Chittenden, Hiram M Washington
Churchill, Winston Vermont
CoLViN, H. M Arizona
Cowles, William H Washin^jton
Cowling, Donald Minnesota
Crumpacker, Edgar D Indiana
Cutler, John C Utah
Darlington, James Henry Pennsylvania
Dennis. William C District of Columbia
Dering, Charles L Illinois
DiLLARD, James H Virginia
Dodge, Clarence P Colorado
Driscoll, Michael E New York
Eaton, Edward Dwight Wisconsin
Eberhart, Adolph O Minnesota
Farnam, Henry W Connecticut
Faunce, W. H. P Rhode Island
Fishback, Charles F Illinois
Fisher, Irving Connecticut
Frissell, Hollis B Virginia
Gage, Lyman J California
Garfield, Harry A Massachusetts
Goodrich, Casper F Connecticut
Grosvenor, Charles H Ohio
Hammond, Wm. R Georgia
Hanly, J. Frank Indianapolis
Hanna, Louis Benj North Dakota
Hart, W. O Louisiana
Hedges, Job E New York
Henderson, C. Hanford New Hampshire
Henry, Bayard Pennsylvania
Herring, Hubert C Massachusetts
Higginson, Henry L Massachusetts
Highland, V. L West Virginia
Hightower, G. R Mississippi
HoBBS, L. L North Carolina
Hooper, Ben W Tennessee
HuTCHiNS, Harry B Michigan
Ingraham, J. E Florida
Jackson, Charles C Massachusetts
King, Henry C Ohio
Knapp, Martin A. District of Columbia
Kochititzky, Otto Missouri
Kracke, F. j. H New York
Lawrence, Wm Massachusetts
McCabe, William Gordo'.' Virginia
McKinley, William B Illinois
MacCracken, Henry M. New York
Main, John H. T Iowa
Mansfield, Howard New York
Maxim, Hiram Percy Connecticut
Mitchell, Samuel C Delaware
Morris, Henry C. Illinois
Nichols, Ernest Fox New Hampshire
Northrop, Cyrus Minnesota
Peabody, Francis G Massachusetts
194 APPENDIX
Philipp, Emanuel L Wisconsin
Plantz, Samuel Wisconsin
PoE, Clarence North Carolina
Porter, Frank Chamberlin Connecticut
PuGSLEY, Chester DeWitt New York
Record, George L New Jersey
Rosewater, Victor Nebraska
Sanger, William C New York
Scott, Charles Mississippi
Shanklin, Wm. Arnold Connecticut
Sharpless, Isaac Pennsylvania
Sheats, W. N Florida
Sloane, Wm. M New York
Spencer, Nelson S New York
Swain, Joseph Pennsylvania
Sweet, William E Colorado
Taft, Lorado Illinois
Thayer, Wm. Roscoe Massachusetts
Thomas, J. T Mississippi
Thomson, James M Louisiana
Usher, Roland G. Missouri
Vincent, George E Minnesota
Watrous, Richard B District of Columbia
White, Francis A Maryland
Wilcox, Ansley New York
Williams, Chas. D Michigan
WiNSLOW, John B Wisconsin
Finance Committee
Edward A. Filene, Chairman
Herbert S. Houston Wm. L. Saunders
Finley J. Shepard Isaac N. Seligman
Charles S. Ward
Field Committee
Finley J. Shepard, Chairman
John Bates Clark Hamilton Holt
Glenn Frank Chester DeWitt Pugsley
Wilfred W. Fry Charles S. Ward
Philip H. Gadsden Harry A. Wheeler
Publications Committee
John Bates Clark, Chairman
L. Roy Curtiss Eugene Wambaugh
Oscar S. Straus Talcott Williams
Committee on Management
Wm. H. Taft, Chairman
John Bates Clark Herbert S. Houston
Charles Stewart Davison A. Lawrence Lowell
Edward A. Filene Theodore Marburg
George Munroe Forrest Finley J. Shepard
Hamilton Holt Wm. H. Wadhams
APPENDIX
195
Committee on Resolutions
Wm. H. Taft. Chairman
Philip H. Gadsden, Vice-chairman
George Gray Frederick Lynch
John Hays Hammond Frank S. Streeter
Darwin P. Kingsley Wm. H. Wadhams
Thomas RAEBimN White
National Office
George Munroe Forrest, Chairman
T. K. Cory
Wm. H. Short
Herbert S. Houston
Committee on Other Societies and Organizations
Wm. H. Wadhams, Chairman
George L. Beer
Chester DeWitt Pugsley
Edward A. Filene
Glenn Frank
Committee on Foreign Organization
Theodore Marburg, Chairman
John Bates Clark
Edward A. Filene
Wm. Dudley Foulke
Harry A. Garfield
John Hays Hammond
John Grier Hibben
Oscar S. Straus
Talcott Williams
Committee on Information
Herbert S. Houston, Chairman
Willis J. Abbott
General Felix Agnus
D. R. ANTHOi>nf, Jr.
Joseph Blethen
ScoTT C. Bone
George Booth
Herbert L. Briixsman
Paul Brown
John Stewart Bryan
Calvin Cobb
W. H. Cowles
James M. Cox
M. H. DeYoung
Solomon Bulkley Griffin
Major J. C. Hemphill
John Hicks
Wm. B. Howland
R. M. Johnston
Jc»in C. Kelly
Robert Latham
Francis B. Loomis
Thomas W. Loyless
Frederick Lynch
C. R. Macauley
Frank P. MacLennan
James MacMullen
Robert Lincoln O'Brien
S. A. F>erkins
Henry M. Pindell
Edgar S. Riper
Victor Rosewater
Ellery Sedgwick
John C. Shaffer
R. E. Stafford
John A. Stewart
Henry Watterson
Talcott Williams
Louis J. Wortham
N. C. Wright
Caspar S. Yost
INDEX
PAGE
Agricultural, colleges turn out potential oflScers . . . . ii8
laborers have few opportunities ii8
Agriculture, Department of , how it helps the farmer . . 119
Alliances, entangling, see entangUng alliances
military to be converted into trade 107
now at war to be continued 85
present two not likely to unite immediately after the war . 90
U. S. only great power that has not made 77
victorious one can prevent another war 86
America, concerned in World Peace 35
has less to gain and more to give than any other nation . 127
not sufficient unto itself 146
thought of , defined by President Wilson 162
American ideals, growing 1 23
no statement of final 1 24
surrender of some may be necessary 126
American labor, far-reaching interests at stake 108
may be injured by economic war 108
wants war made less probable 108
America's ideal is to be the leader of the human race . . 127
Angel, Norman, says we must mix in European affai'.- . 35
Arbitration, consented to by the Senate 61
84 treaties negotiated by the U. S 164
firstbyU. S 60
has done much to remove lesser causes of friction . 176
Umit of reached 164
ne.xt step after 165
only one treaty of rejected by the Senate 164
recent treaties by U. S 71
to which European Powers were a party 60
to which U. S. was a party 60
U. S. has led the world in 164
world justified in compelling 178
84 international 60
Armaments, collective theory of 56
how this nation may be forced into competition in . . 106
reduction of 26
Armies, large proportion made up of farmers 117
and navies, not useless in peace 29
Asquith, Premier, supports League proposals 48
Assemblage, first annual of the League to Enforce Peace 3, 10, 13
196
INDEX 197
PAGE
Autocracy, stage tricks for arousing patriotic emotions . . 105
war to determine whether the future belongs to . . . 113
Baker, Newton D., paper on American ideals and the League
program 122
Balance of Power, a failure 32
Benedetti, Count, calls triple alliance a portent of war . . 31
Boycott,asameansof enforcing law and justice .... 114
international must be voluntary 114
Boynton, Nehemiah, remarks 187
Bryce, Lord, favors League program 48
remarkable address before the University of London . . 182
says aU nations are adopting American form of government 52
Business, American, favors League proposals 94
paralyzed at beginning of war 97
prefers cooperation to conflict 96
world favors conciliatory methods of settling all disputes . 102
Chamber of Commerce of the U. S., how constituted . . . 94
referendum approves League proposals 9, 94
Chambers of Commerce, fifth international congress, for
arbitration 102
Child Culture, neglect of, a reason for failure of the new gener-
ation 155
Churches, fundamental matters at stake 167
represent conviction that the significance of life does not
lie in economic forces 167
Civilization, undermined 36, 38
Clark, John Bates, paper on European Nations and the
League program 85
Committee on Information, methods of operation . 153
Common Action, possibility of at hand 84
Concert of Action, often shared in by U. S 77
of Europe, a failure 32
Conciliation, Council of, character of questions to be con-
sidered by 17
non-justiciable questions, how referred to 59
enforced not proposed 135
Conference, international, proposed by Penn .... 20
national at Philadelphia 6
Congress' power to declare war cannot be abridged ... 64
Conquest, Spirit of 30
Constitutionality of League proposals 58
Council, Executive, see Executive Council
Court, International, see International Court
of Nations, how it might be created 91
Cuba, Independence guaranteed by U. S 66
relations with U. S. defined 65
Decisions of International Court not to be enforced . . . 113
why not to be enforced 132
Declaration of human rights 12
Defense, greater preparation for, demanded by business . . 99
198 INDEX
PAGE
Defense League, New Hampshire 184
Delegates, 2,000 at first annual assemblage 10
Delegation of power defined 61
Democracy, growth encouraged throughout the world by suc-
cess here 140
political, more in England than America 140
social, greater in new countries 140
war to determine whether future belongs to . . . . 113
Dinner at Washington described 10
Diplomacy, has failed civilization 102
play of 29
Disarmament, preposterous 54
total not yet possible 113
Disputes, settlement of not to be enforced 142
Dogger Bank affair settled by hearing 133
Dreams the beginning of conscious progress 1 74
Economic, struggle may be severe after war 106
war, unparalleled coming 106
Enforced decisions of an International Court reactionary . 114
peace proposed by William Perm 20
Entangling alHance argument not valid now 136
alliances, paper by Talcott Williams 77
alliances, potency of Washington's Phrase 78
Entente, France will not leave 85
European War, League to Enforce Peace not to interfere with 7
Europe, financial exhaustion 42
more eager to sell, less able to buy 107
new efficiency in 42
why receptive toward League proposals 47
Executive Committee, Interpretation of Article 3 . . . 8
Council, under League plan, would have one certain duty . 134
Exports on unprecedented scale after war 107
Farewell address. See Washington's farewell address
Farmers, constitute a large proportion of armies . . . . 117
small margin of profit 116
would favor peace league 120
would suffer much in war 116
young, acquiring a military education 117
Farrell, James A., says we must have more foreign trade . . 45
Filene, Edward A., paper by 36
Force, must be more than moral 175
France will not leave the Entente 85
Franco-Prussian War, armed peace since 30
Freedom of action, national 15
Gadsden, PhiHp H., paper on perfecting the organization 143
Geneva Tribunal no power to deal with indirect claims . 62
German Chancellor, on an "unassailable Germany" . 31
Germany attached great importance to relations with Eng-
land 139
Giddings, Franklin H., address 170
INDEX 199
PAGE
Gompers, Samuel, address on American labor and a con-
structive settlement of the war 104
Grey, Sir Edward, favors federation of nations . . . 34, 48
says world must learn to avoid war 29
Hague, The, see The Hague
Haldane, Lord, address before Amer. Bar Ass'n .... 28
Hallowell, J. Mott, paper on planning the campaign . . . 148
Hearing enforced by the League program 135
Holt, Hamilton, paper by 50
Houston, Herbert S., remarks on publicity plans .... 152
Ideals, American, how they grow 123
superlative, good sense in 167
with limitations 187
Income, National, how expended 100
Indorsements of the League 9
Information, Committee on, Methods of Operation . . . 153
International Congress of Chambers of Commerce, fifth,
favors arbitration 102
sixth, favors peaceful means of settling differences . . . 103
International Court, decisions not to be enforced . . . . 113
must decide upon its jurisdiction 59
permanent proposed 16
submission of issues to be enforced 113
InternationalLaw, system of new agencies created by . . 83
relationship on trial 36
Unions will exist after the war 85
Internationalists are pacifists 51
Isolation of U. S. no longer possible 179
Jay Treaty, arbitration under 60,62,164
Judicial Tribunal, proper subjects for decision by ... 60
Jurisdiction of Commissioners of Arbitration decided by them 62
Kansas, bonus on wheat due to war ... ... 116
Kant, Immanuel, on universal peace 51
Labor, American, may be injured by economic war . . . 108
American, outlet for products of, restricted 107
adverse to military caste 113
does not seek abolition of military force 113
has least to gain by war 104
more interested than any other class in peace . . . . 109
movement is militant 113
ready to bear its just share of sacrifice 114
supply 45
to insist on constructive statesmanship 114
what it wants in international settlement 109
will insist on being heard in reorganization after the war . 109
Law for war, substitution of 46
International, see International Law
League of Nations, a practical certainty soon 115
theory of 56
two-thirds completed 86
200 INDEX
PAGE
League to Enforce Peace appeals to intellect, not emotions . 151
born to a great world service loi
conservatism of claims 176
goal to have this nation lead in forming a league of nations 149
has highest of all aims for the benefit of humanity . . 1 66
how it might have prevented the present war . . 139
lacks detail but not definition 129
must be strong to be effective 1 79
not bound to carry out recommendations of council of
conciliation 70
not possible unless United States joins 1 79
not to be instituted unless it embraces nearly all great
nations 138
object defined 144
offers only prospect of preventing war 180
organization, in every state 145
origin of 4
outline of 144
platform states obvious conclusions of experience . . . 175
principal declared purpose 131
principles concrete and practicable 176
principles indorsed by President Wilson and others . . 142
program, consideration of 13
program demands careful study by labor iii
proposals 189
requires personal sacrifice 147
state branches essential 150
when and where organized 144
wisely refrains from trying to stop the war 113
League with power to enforce decisions reactionar>' . . 114
Lodge, Henry Cabot, on the great work of the League to
Enforce Peace 164
Lord Haldane, address before Amer. Bar Assn., extract from 28
Lowell, Dr. A. Lawrence, address by 175
Man a homicidal mammal 181
Marburg, Theodore, gets approval of League proposals from
European statesmen 48
reply to critics of the League to Enforce Peace . . . 128
Massachusetts plan of organization 150
Mathews, Shailer, address 167
Militarism, developed by balance of power 32
fear of removed 49
stage tricks for arousing patriotic emotions 105
Military, caste, labor averse to 113
education, young farmers acquiring 117
force, abolition not sought by labor 113
force fails of indorsement in Chamber of Commerce refer-
endum 95
Monroe Doctrine, George Graf ton Wilson on 67
Jefferson's definition of 68
INDEX 20 1
PAGK
Monroe Doctrine, not a part of International Law ... 68
spreads a Pax Americana over two continents . . . 179
U. S. bound to arbitrate questions under .... 72
variety of ideas of 67
Nation, none sufficient unto itself 147
National, duty to be just 15
Economic League indorses League proposals .... 9
freedom of action 15
income, liow expended 100
Nationalism, development of a new peculiar product of the
nineteenth century 182
new, a new type of religion of the state 183
spirit of , a cause of war, must be made a check upon war . 183
Nations, interests of all are our own 160
must be governed by same high code of honor as indi-
viduals 161
unfriendly can make treaties of arbitration .... 91
Navies, and armies, not useless in peace 29
two could enforce peace on the waters 84
Neutrals, war dangerous to 25
New Hampshire method. President Taft says League to
Enforce Peace has nothing to do with 187
New York State Navy 54
Objections, Constitutional, to League proposals .... 58
to League proposals 15
Officers of the League to Enforce Peace 191
Organization, Massachusetts plan of 150
minimum capital for a state branch 151
national, what its work should be 151
New Hampshire 184
Organizing, state branch of the League 150
Origin of the League to Enforce Peace 4
Pacifism, Middle West honeycombed with 115
Pacifists and preparationists not far apart 50
Panama, independence guaranteed by U. S 65
Panama Canal, new problems created by 69
Peace, America concerned in permanence of 160
breachof world's, an offense against public order . . . 178
hope for, rests in a federation of nations 175
limited ideal essential to 188
many methods of securing tried 97
must be supported by force 178
must depend on more wholesome diplomacy .... 161
not possible to maintain always 176
not the normal status of human affairs 180
sound political policy 49
world has a right to 162
Penn, William, proposed enforced peace 20
Philadelphia National Conference 6
Power, delegation of defined 61
202 INDEX
PAGE
Power, none great a century ago 79
Powers, 400 in Washington's time, fewer than 60 now . . 79
Preparationists and pacifists not far apart 50
Preparedness program, cost 44
President Wilson 10,159
Presidents of U. S. have all abhorred war 56
Prize Court Convention, The Hague, not in force . ... 62
Progress by war 33
hope for, rests in a federation of nations 175
Proposals of the League to Enforce Peace 189
constitutionality of 58
how they app)eal to a labor representative 113
interpreted 8
original form 7
Powers should be committed to them before peace is de-
clared 143
third, the most disputed 88
Public opinion, support of, essential to success of the League
program 149
the real power which brings men into court 154
Public right must take precedence over individual interests . 161
Referenda, how taken by Chamber of Commerce of the U. S. 94
Referendum on League's proposals 94
Religion, has become international 169
more than church going 169
Re- valuation of all values begun 172
Rhett, R. G., Paper on ^\inerican business and the League to
Enforce Peace 93
Salisbury, Marquis, favors European federation .... 31
Samaritan, Good, Parable applied 37
Sovereignty, every people has a right to choose . . . . 162
of U. S. not limited 59
Spencer, Herbert, for a federation of nations 34
Statesmanship, purpose declared 107
Status quo, maintenance not necessary under League pro-
gram 18
Straus, Oscar S., paper by 27
Streeter, Frank S., on New Hampshire plan of organization . 184
Taft, Wm. H., defines scope of League program .... 187
elected president of the League 7
paper on constitutionality 58
presides at Washington assemblage 11
Tariff, barriers to be set up after war 107
high in Europe 43
The Hague conferences promoted cooperation .... 96
Conventions of 1899 and 1907 71
First Conference, Dogger Bank affair referred to commis-
sion 133
Peace Conferences at 31
Prize Court Convention not in force 62
INDEX 203
PAGE
The Hague, Prize Court Convention, U. S. agreed to
abide by decisions 62
Theory, of a league of nations 56
of collective armaments 56
Treaties, Bryan, go farther toward war than the League's
proposals 141
Treaty, power to make unlimited except by Constitution . 59
violation of , just cause of war 74
with Panama 65
Tribunal, Geneva, see Geneva Tribunal
judicial, proper subjects for decision by , 60
Tribunal, nations not willing to agree in advance to abide by
all decisions of 176
Triple Alliance and Triple Entente fail to keep peace . . 32
United States, duty of 41
essential to League to Enforce Peace 1 79
foresight 40
isolation of , no longer possible 179
only great power that has not made alliances .... 77
sovereignty not limited 59
willing to join any feasible association of nations . . . 163
"Utopia and hell" 31
Utopia, search for, lead to great discoveries 166
Vigilance Committee, International 47
nations to form 112
method 55
Virginia State Navy 54
Vrooman, Carl, Paper on American agriculture and the
League to Enforce Peace 115
Wadhams, William H., paper on mobilization of our forces . 1 54
Wage earners, see Labor
War, abhorred by all Presidents of U. S 56
alleged cause a libel on commerce 102
always means sacrifice for labor 108
a result of a condition of international anarchy . . . . 130
arises principally from conflicts of policy 131
a wholesale source of injustice 136
cannot be begun until declared by Congress 64
constitutional obligation to declare in certain contingen-
cies 64
could come only suddenly and out of secret councils . . 160
curse of 34
dangerous to neutrals 25
delay might have prevented European 183
economic, unparalleled to come . . 106
farmers would suffer greatly in 116
has affected us profoundly 159
impossible to stop all 166
League to Enforce Peace wisely refrains from trying to
stop 113
204 INDEX
PAGE
War, lessons taught by 146
maker of, restrained by armed authority 175
monstrous beyond all other discredited ways of attaining
ends 173
most tremendous stimulus to self-examination . , . 172
not possible to abolish all future 176
not prohibited after award of International Court . . . 135
not so handsome as it was 97
progress due to ^^
power to declare, not taken from Congress 63
preventive statesmanship to be demanded after . . . 125
slow 29
some things worse than 158
three possible outcomes 87
to determine whether the future belongs to autocracy or
democracy 113
violation of treaty just cause of 74
warning of second Balkan 87
without giving reasons not a sacred right of nations . . 177
workers have least to gain from 104
world has a right to know reason for 178
Washington predicted coming Power of America .... 84
would favor a constructive league now 84
Washington's Farewell Address, admonition against entang-
ling alliances quickly disregarded 179
West, Middle, honeycombed with pacifism 115
Wheeler, Benjamin Ida, address by 180
Wheeler, Harry A. paper on the League's service to the world loi
White, Thomas Raeburn, paper by 13
Williams, Talcott, paper on entangling alliances ... 77
Wilson, George Grafton, paper on Monroe Doctrine ... 67
Wilson, President 10
address by 159
Workers, sec labor
World demands league to preserve peace 85
disillusioned but not discouraged 172
on the eve of a great consummation 163
organization, evolution of $3
organization, three methods tried 32
Peace Foundation indorses League proposals .... 9
THE COUNTRY LIFE PRESS, GARDEN CITY, N. Y.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY
Los Angeles
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below.
JAN 1 0 19§i
REC'D MLD
AUG slTOS^-^
OCT :^ 0195^
SEP 2 419^
^^C'O LD-URL
OCT 0 2 199T
BRIITLE REJECTED BY EINDERY
FormL9-20m-7,'61(C1437s4)444
UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
A 001 431 041 1
Univefsity of California, Los Angeles
L 005 415 410 9
iillliB^^^
ii
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11