Chapter IV: Part 4

“But in order that a controversy between States, justiciable in this Court, can be held to exist, something more must be put forward than that the citizens of one State are injured by the maladministration of the laws of another. The State cannot make war, nor enter into treaties, though they may, with the consent of Congress, make compacts and agreements. When there is no agreement, whose breach might create it, a controversy between States does not arise unless the action complained of is State action, and acts of State officers in abuse or excess of their powers cannot be laid hold of as in themselves committing one State to a distinct collision with a sister State.

“In our judgment, this bill does not set up facts which show that the State of Texas has so authorized or confirmed the alleged action of her health officer as to make it her own, or from which it necessarily follows that the two States are in controversy within the meaning of the Constitution.”

CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN INDEPENDENT NATIONS SUGGEST THEMSELVES
WHICH ARE NOT CAPABLE OF JUDICIAL SOLUTION AND YET ARE QUITE
CAPABLE OF LEADING TO WAR

Thus suppose _C_ nation in the exercise of its conceded powers admits to its shore, and indeed to its citizenship, the citizens or subjects of _A_ nation and excludes those of _B_ nation from both. The discrimination is certainly within the international right of _C_ nation, but it may lead to acrimony and war. This is not a justiciable question, nor one that could be settled by a court.

The so-called General Arbitration Treaties negotiated by Secretary Knox with France and England used the word “justiciable” to describe the kind of questions which the parties bound themselves to submit to arbitration. They defined this to include all issues that could be decided on principles of law or equity. The issue whether a question arising was justiciable and arbitrable was to be left to the decision of a preliminary investigating commission. The term justiciable and indeed the whole scheme of these treaties were suggested by the provision for settling controversies between States in the Federal Constitution and the construction of it by the Supreme Court. The controversies between States, decision of which was not determined by rules furnished by the Constitution or by Congressional regulation, were strictly analogous to questions arising between independent nations, and were to be divided into justiciable and non-justiciable questions by the same line of distinction. The treaties were not ratified by the United States Senate, but their approval by England and France and by the Executive of this country constitutes a valuable and suggestive precedent for the framing of the Constitution and jurisdiction of an arbitral court to be one of the main features of a league of peace between the great nations of the world.

Now, is it idle to treat such a league as possible? Well, let us take England and Canada. For a hundred years we have been at peace. For that century we have had a frontier between us and Canada four thousand miles long which is entirely undefended by forts or navies. We have had issue after issue between the two peoples that because of their nature might have led to war. But we have settled them by negotiation, or, when that has failed, by arbitration, until now it is not too much to say that the “habit” of arbitration between us is so fixed that a treaty to secure such a settlement in future issues would not make it more certain than it is. I concede that conditions have been favorable for the creating of such a customary practice. The two peoples have the same language and literature, the same law and civil liberty and the same origin and history. Each had a wide domain, in the settlement and development of which their energies and ambitions have been absorbed. The jealousies and encroachments of neighbors in the thickly populated regions of Europe have not been present to stir up strife. And yet we ought not to minimize the beneficent significance of this century of peace by ignoring the fact that many of the issues which we have settled peaceably seemed at the time to be difficult of settlement and likely to lead to war. The Alabama Claims issue and the Oregon Boundary dispute were two of this kind.

It is interesting to note that we now have two permanent arbitral English-American Commissions settling questions. One of them is to determine the equitable rules to govern the use of waters on our national boundary in which both nations and their citizens have an interest, and to apply them to causes arising. The analogy between the function which the Supreme Court performed in the Kansas and Colorado case in regard to the use of the Arkansas River and that of this Commission in respect to rivers traversing both countries and crossing the border is perfect. Having thus reached what is practically the institution of a League and Arbitral Court with England and Canada for the preservation of peace between us, may we not hope to enlarge its scope and membership and give its benefits to the world?

Will not the exhaustion in which all the belligerents, whether victors or vanquished, find themselves after this awful sacrifice of life and wealth make them wish to make the recurrence of such a war less probable? Will they not be in a mood to entertain any reasonable plan for the settlement of international disputes by peaceable means? Now, can we not devise such a plan? I think we can.

The Second Hague Conference has proposed a permanent court to settle questions of a legal nature arising between nations. But the signatories to the convention would under such a plan not be bound to submit such questions. Nor were the conferring nations able to agree on the constitution of the court. But the agreement on the recommendation for the establishment of such a court shows that the idea is within the bounds of the practical.

To constitute an effective League of Peace we do not need all the nations. Such an agreement between eight or nine of the Great Powers of Europe, Asia, and America would furnish a useful restraint upon possible wars. The successful establishment of a Peace League between the Great Powers would draw into it very quickly the less powerful nations.

What should be the fundamental plan of the League?

It seems to me that it ought to contain four provisions. In the first place, it ought to provide for the formation of a court which would be given jurisdiction by the consent of all the members of the League to consider and decide justiciable questions between them or any of them, which have not yielded to negotiation, according to the principles of international law and equity, and that the court should be vested with power, upon the application of any member of the League, to decide the issue as to whether the question arising is justiciable.

Second—A Commission of Conciliation for the consideration and recommendation of a solution of all non-justiciable questions that may arise between the members of the League should be created, and this Commission should have power to hear evidence, investigate the causes of difference, and mediate between the parties and then make its recommendation for a settlement.

Third—Conferences should be held from time to time to agree upon principles of international law, not already established, as their necessity shall suggest themselves. When the conclusions of the Commission shall have been submitted to the various parties to the League for a reasonable time, say a year, without calling forth objection, it shall be deemed that they acquiesce in the principles thus declared.

Fourth—The members of the League shall agree that if any member of the League shall begin war against any other member of the League, without first having submitted the question, if found justiciable, to the Arbitral Court provided in the fundamental compact, or without having submitted the question, if found non-justiciable, to the Commission of Conciliation for its examination, consideration, and recommendation, then the remaining members of the League agree to join in the forcible defense of the member thus prematurely attacked.

First—The first feature involves the principle of the general arbitration treaties with England and France, to which England and France agreed, and which I submitted to the Senate, and which the Senate rejected or so mutilated as to destroy their vital principle. I think it is of the utmost importance that it should be embraced in any effective League of Peace. The successful operation of the Supreme Court as a tribunal between independent States in deciding justiciable questions not in the control of Congress nor under the legislative regulation of either State furnishes a precedent and justification for this that, I hope, I have made clear. Moreover, the inveterate practice of arbitration, which has now grown to be an established custom for the disposition of controversial questions between Canada and the United States, is another confirmation of the practical character of such a court.

Second—We must recognize, however, that the questions within the jurisdiction of such a court would certainly not include all the questions that might lead to war, and therefore we should provide some other instrumentality for helping the solution of those questions which are non-justiciable. This might well be a Commission of Conciliation—a commission to investigate the facts, to consider the arguments on both sides, to mediate between the parties, to see if some compromise cannot be effected, and finally to formulate and recommend a settlement. This may involve time, but the delay, instead of being an objection, is really one of the valuable incidents in the performance of such a function by a commission. We have an example of such a Commission of Conciliation in the controversy between the United States and Great Britain over the Seal Fisheries. The case on its merits as a judicial question was decided against the United States, but the world importance of not destroying the Pribiloff Seal herd by pelagic sealing was recognized and a compromise was formulated by the arbitral tribunal, which was ultimately embodied in a treaty between England, Russia, Japan, and the United States. Similar recommendations were made by the court of arbitration which considered the issues arising between the United States and Great Britain in respect to the Newfoundland Fisheries.

Third—Periodical conferences should be held between the members of the League for the declaration of principles of international law. This is really a provision for something in the nature of legislative action by the nations concerned in respect to international law. The principles of international law are based upon custom between nations established by actual practice, by their recognition in treaties and by the consensus of great law writers. Undoubtedly the function of an Arbitral Court established as proposed in the first of the above suggestions would lead to a good deal of valuable judge-made international law. But that would not cover the whole field. Something in the nature of legislation on the subject would be a valuable supplement to existing international law. It would be one of the very admirable results of such a League of Peace that the scope of international law could be enlarged in this way. Mr. Justice Holmes, in the case of Missouri vs. Illinois, to which I have already referred, points out that the Supreme Court in passing on questions between the States and in laying down the principles of international law that ought to govern in controversies between them should not and can not make itself a legislature. But in a League of Peace there is no limit to the power of international conferences of the members in such a quasi-legislative course, except the limit of the wise and the practical.

Fourth—The fourth suggestion is one that brings in the idea of force. In the League proposed, all members are to agree that if any one member violates its obligation and begins war against any other member, without submitting its cause for war to the Arbitral Court if it is a justiciable question, or to the Commission of Conciliation if it is otherwise, all the members of the League should unite to defend the member attacked against a war waged in breach of plighted faith. It is to be observed that this does not involve the members of the League in an obligation to enforce the judgment of the Court or the recommendation of the Commission of Conciliation. It only furnishes the instrumentality of force to prevent attack without submission. It is believed it is more practical than to attempt to enforce judgments after the hearing. One reason is that the failure to submit to one of the two tribunals the threatening cause of war for the consideration of one or the other is a fact easily ascertained, and concerning which there can be no dispute, and it is a palpable violation of the obligation of the member. It is wiser not to attempt too much. The required submission and the delay incident thereto will in most cases lead to acquiescence in the judgment of the Court or in the recommendation of the Commission of Conciliation. The threat of force against plainly unjust war—for that is what is involved in the provision—will have a most salutary deterrent effect. I am aware that membership in this League would involve on the part of the United States an obligation to take part in European and Asiatic wars, it may be, and that in this respect it would be a departure from the traditional policy of the United States in avoiding entangling alliances with European or Asiatic countries. But I conceive that the interest of the United States in the close relations it has of a business and social character with the other countries of the world—much closer now than ever before—would justify it, if such a League could be formed, in running the risk that there might be of such a war in making more probable the securing of the inestimable boon of peace to the world that now seems so far away.

THE CLEVELAND CONGRESS

BY
JOHN WESLEY HILL

This is a topsy-turvy world to-day. Thinking men—and women too, for that matter, stand aghast at the harking backward to barbarism. In one fell swoop, as it were, from a plane of ostensible civilization the greater part of the civilized universe has been plunged into a veritable maelstrom; an indescribable cataclysm of heinous warfare and matchless bestiality. Danté in his wildest dreams painted no such Inferno and the end blacker in perspective than the background of a Doré painting is not yet!

Out of the chaos what may come is a matter of rife speculation for future historians. But that there is a sovereign remedy for the avoidance and future recurrence of such world racking evils of carnal pillage, wholesale murder and strife, is a fact that cannot be gainsaid and the keynote for that panacea was sounded at Cleveland on three gala days, this last May, when the first great World Court Congress was held with an enthusiasm and earnestness almost unprecedented in the history of such assemblages in this country.

This whole land was just awakening from a commercial and industrial somnolence, unrecorded except in days of panic and war at home, when the Congress was convened on May 12th and the progenitors of the great movement had many misgivings as to their ability to induce the staid business man of this country to lay aside his duties even for the movement and attend.

Marts and ’changes had been closed; industries idle and nearly the whole business world at a standstill for months past when the call for the Congress was sounded and it was thought by some of its warmest advocates that so many difficulties beset the way that but a meagre gathering could be assembled. To the astonishment and gratification of the big men back of the movement just the reverse was true and it is doubtful if a more representative body of Americans ever assembled under one roof. A one time President, Senators of the State and Nation, members of Congress, great Captains of Industry, Educationalists, Bankers, Brokers, Ministers of the Gospel, diplomats and men of conspicuous prominence in nearly every walk in life thronged the immense armory in which the Congress was in session for three days, and the initial movement for a great World Court begun.

Some idea of the intense interest in the all-important prospect may be had from the statement that no less than twenty-eight governors of various states of the Union signed the call for the Congress. More than one thousand delegates answered the roll call, representing national and civic life in all its different branches. Some of the more conspicuously prominent men present were ex-President William Howard Taft, John Hays Hammond, Judge Alton B. Parker, Henry Clews, Theodore Marburg, Rabbi Joseph Silverman, James Brown Scott, of the Carnegie Peace Foundation, Denys P. Myers, of the World Peace Foundation, Hon. Bainbridge Colby, of New York, Dr. Francis E. Clark, Dr. Samuel T. Dutton, Hon. Henry Lane Wilson, William Dudley Foulke, Senator Atlee Pomerene of Ohio, Harry A. Garfield, son of the late President Garfield, Thomas Raeburn White, Bascom Little, Herbert S. Houston, Vice-President of Doubleday, Page & Co., Thomas B. Warren, Senator Warren G. Harding, Emerson McMillin, and numerous others.

From noon on Wednesday, May 12th, until late Friday evening, the Congress was constantly in session and many memorable addresses were made by men notable in the world of affairs. The various addresses delivered put peace before the world as a business proposition. They discussed the economic side of war and demonstrated that peace is necessary to business stability and prosperity, that war directs and masters men, money, and measures, diverts them from the legitimate channels of industry and concentrates effort upon destruction instead of the constructive processes which are essential to public and private welfare. The horrible slaughter and devastation of war are brought to the consciousness of the people of all countries by the gigantic contest now raging, more vividly than ever before, and the emotions engendered lead many good men and women to the suggestion of all kinds of idealistic and impracticable schemes for bringing the war to an end and ushering in universal peace. But when we look at the character of the nations engaged in the struggle and of the men who direct the policies of these nations, and at the deep underlying causes which precipitated the conflict, we perceive that peace cannot be restored by mere sentiment, nor can the permanence of peace if it is once secured, be guaranteed by mere paper treaties. The problem of peace is a problem which requires law as the basis of its solution. It is a problem which cannot be solved by sentimentalists and dreamers, but must be grappled by strong and clear visioned men. The failure of many merely sentimental peace movements in the past has tended to bring the cause of peace into ill repute. Those who called the World Court Congress at Cleveland felt that the time had come when strong hands were needed to launch an effective movement, and they accordingly summoned an array of men which has never been surpassed in any gathering, for collective wisdom, knowledge of the world, experience, and practical business sense. The discussion conducted by these men was in no wise historical or sciolistic, but based upon the solid foundation of reason, law, justice, and feasibility. The speakers were informed by knowledge and experience; many were adepts in the science of business and finance and government and practical politics. Some were experts in international law, and diplomacy. The plan they proposed must commend itself to practical business men for its workability, no less than to idealists for its justice and essential benevolence.

One great, rhymic, world-bettering ideal was the motif, the soul inspiring theme of all those addresses and invocations for a World Court—a World Court where men may carry their grievances like men, not beasts of the field, and have their differences adjudged on the basic principles of equity and the fundamentals of justice; a World Court which might be a tribunal in prototype of the greatest court of the greatest peoples in the universe; a World Court which by its rulings would make not possible the mobocracy which menaces to-day; a court which by its laws unto itself will preclude beyond possibility such wars of extermination as are existent to-day!

The Congress proceeded from the very first with the machinery of a great National Convention. It had been said that no such gathering of peace advocates and their factional followers could be assembled without petty bickerings, harsh argument, and debate. Nothing could be further from the resultant fact. Not a note of discord marred the proceedings and the preliminary work looking to the establishment of the international peace tribunal was accomplished with dispatch and fine promise. The speakers of honor and the delegates to a man seemed to be inspired with the work ahead and the vital import of final achievement.

The titanic struggle between the great powers abroad was not touched upon. Nothing was said or done that could possibly embarrass President Wilson or his advisors and all thought and effort was for future prevention rather than momentary cure. Former President Taft’s address, delivered on the opening day of the Congress, had largely to do with the question of arbitration. He dwelt upon its grave importance and did not think it necessary in the constitution of an effective league of peace to embody all the nations. An agreement of eight or nine of the great powers of Europe, Asia, and America would furnish a useful restraint upon possible wars and its successful establishment draw into it eventually the less powerful nations. The Hon. Alton B. Parker set his seal of approval upon such an international court and called attention to the fact that it already had had the careful consideration of the forty-four states comprising the Second Hague Conference; by the Institute of International Law; by the approving leading powers since 1907 and by the American Society for Judicial Settlement of International Disputes at no less than four annual conferences. A World Court patterned after our own Supreme Court—the greatest court in the history of the world—he thought entirely possible and practicable.

Senator Warren G. Harding of Ohio inferred that the projected World Court would give a new stamp on the sacredness of international contracts and that he said was a guarantee of peace itself.

The World Court was just as feasible as a family court, declared Hon. John Hays Hammond, although it did involve more elements as a tribal court. The time was ripe, he declared, for the higher règime of pacific reason and moral adjudication and America should voice the world groping and moral inquiry of the race and cause them to crystallize into a new world state “where men shall learn war no more.”

After setting forth the limitations of the World’s Court which perforce of necessity turns to the future rather than the past the Hon. Henry Lane Wilson asked “How vast would be the gain to humanity and civilization, how greatly would the number of wars be reduced, and how enormously would the horrors of conflict be diminished, if such a court were now in existence?”

The purpose of the Congress, said Bainbridge Colby, was to bear aloft the standards of justice and of law; of justice as the mightiest concern of mankind—of law as its indispensable instrument. Mr. Colby positively denied that force had dethroned reason and declared that “The purpose of this Congress is to assert the undaunted and unshaken belief of the freest people in the world, that God still reigns, and that justice is mightiest in the mighty.”

Rabbi Joseph Silverman made an appeal for the awakening of a new spirit of patriotism which would point the way to a great World Court for peace. “We are worse off to-day,” he asserted, “than men were in the days of savagery. The savage went forth with his bow and his arrow and his tomahawk, and one savage could, at best, with one shot kill one human being. But the modern civilized man goes forth with Krupp guns and cannons and bombs and shells and submarines and automobile and airship, and one human being to-day, with these arts and sciences of civilization, one human being, pressing one button, with one shot can kill ten thousand human beings, and destroy hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of property. One savage can kill one man—one civilized man can destroy a whole city.”

Mr. Henry Clews in an address entitled “An Epochal Event,” called attention to the fact that the World Court Congress was an event of supreme importance and attracted world wide attention and interest that could not fail to help the cause of permanent peace. The movement, he avowed, for the creation of a great International Court of Justice “brings us a step nearer to that sublime idea of the inspired writer when men ‘shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks,’ and they shall hear no more of war upon the surface of this fair earth.”

Emerson McMillin discussed the composition of “The World Court.” He would not brook the thought that there was not patent and paramount need for such an institutional tribunal. The necessity for an International Court was so obvious that it was not a subject for discussion. The delegates of forty-five states would not have supported it at the Hague Conference if there had not been a great desire and a growing demand for it. He called attention, in his warm advocacy for the establishment of the Court, to the records of the two Hague Conferences. In 1899 it was but necessary to suggest the creation of a World’s Court to have it promptly put aside as impracticable. After a lapse of but eight years the 1907 Conference adopted the following: “The Conference recommends to the signatory powers the adoption of the project hereunto annexed of a convention for the establishment of a Court of Arbitral Justice and its putting in effect, as soon as an accord shall be reached upon the choice of the judges and the constitution of the court.” This received the unanimous support of all the conferees.

In a logical appeal for such a court, U. S. Senator Atlee Pomerene of Ohio, presented some startling facts. “My friends,” he said, “the other day the Cleveland _Plain Dealer_ said, editorially, that according to the best estimates up to date there had been lost in this horrible war, 5,970,000 men. Think of it. In the great State of Ohio, which Senator Harding and I have the honor to represent, according to the last Federal census there were only 4,700,000 souls, men, women, and children. To-day there are, perhaps about 5,000,000 souls in Ohio. In other words, in the short space of about eight or nine months, nearly one million more men have been lost than we have men, women, and children in Ohio, all because the heads of governments are worshipping old Mars.”

Thomas Raeburn White presented to the Congress a series of technical provisions for the appointment of judges to the International Court of Arbitration. They could be easily surmounted, however, he thought, and in an address on “The Method of Procedure,” the Hon. James Brown Scott declared that great as these difficulties were in the selection of judges, they were not insuperable.

President Harry A. Garfield, of Williams College, in a discussion on “The Minimum Number of Nations Required to Successfully Inaugurate the Court,” thought that four of the great powers would suffice for an inaugural. He called attention to the fact that Mr. Thomas Raeburn White, speaking at the third national conference of the American Society for Judicial Settlement of International Disputes in December, 1912, analyzed the articles of the convention providing for the establishment of the court and showed that the question was clearly left to the Powers represented at the conference, and could be adopted by any two or more of them when they saw fit. There appears to be no serious dissent from this proposition.

There were other numerous addresses by men of nation-wide importance. There were utterances that will go down through the aeons of a new history-making civilization.

Men who had come to the Congress with the air of dreamers went away surcharged with the inspired atmosphere of accomplishment. As Bainbridge Colby had said it was no new thought, no new ideal, this scheme of the World Congress for a World Court. It had come down through the centuries. But in the other ages, ay, even in the latter years there had been no such dire necessity for this purposed International Tribunal. To-day was a different day with a different need. Jew and Gentile, capitalist and laborer touched shoulders and joined hands in the common weal and the great cause at this World Congress for the World Court. The Rabbi pointed out in one breath that the arrow of the savage killed one man and the gun of civilization destroyed a whole city and all within! In the next the figures of a grave Senator pointed to the horror that in a few months of civilized warfare 1,000,000 more souls have been hurled into eternity than there is population in the Buckeye State. Small wonder that the cardinal, incontrovertible facts and figures so widely disseminated through the press of this country have staggered the comprehension and understanding of humanity the world over. For the wassail cries of the royal rioters in warfare of all other ages are but miniature in comparison with those in this era of infamy.

* * * * *

A word in conclusion to the Mayor Newton D. Baker, Bascom Little and the people of Cleveland. Partly by chance and partly by design this almost matchlessly beautiful lake city was selected for the initial sessions of the World Congress. By municipal experts the world over, Cleveland is counted one of the greatest accomplishments in latter-day city building extant. Environment is everything and I shall always believe that so much was accomplished at the Congress because of the perfection of arrangements and the fitting surroundings to say nothing of the incomparable hospitality of the city. Since my return to New York and the offices of the International Peace Forum, I have been besieged with inquiries in relation to these accomplishments. Beginning with the month of July, a great magazine entitled THE WORLD COURT published under the auspices of the International Peace Forum will make its appearance on the book stalls. Many of these inquiries will then be answered. Its main purpose will be to advocate the establishment of a World Court which I am almost prone to prophesy is already assured. In addition the magazine will carry departments of Art, Music, Literature, the Drama and Information. Its editors and contributors will be eminent men of letters and it will carry a department under the title of “World Comment” which will hold and interest every thinking man in this and other lands. This magazine will have many kind words for Cleveland. That city itself may well feel proud of its achievements in behalf of the World Congress and a World Court.

And for a surety it was an epoch and an honor in the brilliant history of that great city. When the World Court is established the name of the city of Cleveland will ever be associated with it. And the two names will spell peace—International, national, commercial, and industrial peace—the peace that passeth all understanding and the peace that a tired world is crying for with that soul-racking wail that comes only from the soul of a strong and helpless man.

* * * * *

I shall never forget the evening of the last session of the Congress. As I wended my way out of the armory, the city arose before me in all its multicolored splendor—the passing throngs of men whose martial air proclaimed their success as plain as the gold lettering on the haberdasher’s windows, the beautifully gowned and garmented women and the streets and avenues in all their kaleidoscopic picturesqueness. And then another picture of the cities of the old world laid bare in want and woe and war.

God forfend such ill fortune to you, Cleveland, in the evil days for assuredly you have contributed your share to the Cause of Peace.

REVIEW OF BOOKS

=A Short History of War and Peace.= By G. H. PERRIS, Author of “Russia in Revolution,” “The Life and Teaching of Tolstoy,” etc. Membre de l’Institute International de Paix. 50 cents net. Home University Library. New York, Henry Holt & Company; London, Williams and Norgate.

Mr. Perris, who like all other authors of the Home University Library series is a recognized authority of his subject. He gives a brilliant summary, condensing into a nutshell the steps by which the nations have passed from a state of constant war to a state of comparative peace, and shows that soldiers of genius no longer appear because the environment is unfavorable and the demand has failed, Othello’s occupation’s gone. The mechanism of war has killed the art of war; and this mechanism is doomed itself because, while it can reap no recompense, its cost in use is likely to bring its owners to the pit of bankruptcy, famine and revolution.

In summing up Mr. Perris says: “So far from being based upon unchangeable passions, the nature of man as “a social animal” is based upon material and moral interests which have undergone deep changes, indeed, but in a certain general order and direction. We can trace these changes both in the structure and the function of successive societies established in the course of the swarming process by which the earth has been filled.” He shows that the ideas of arbitration have been gaining ground slowly but surely.

=Belgium.= By C. K. ENSOR, sometime scholar of Balliol College, Oxford, England. With maps, 50 cents net. Series of the Home University Library, number 95, pp 256. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1915.

The events of August, 1914, and their sequel have shown Belgium to many in a new light. They have seen a nation where they had supposed that there was only geographical expression. They have seen martial courage where they had forgotten that it had been famous for centuries. They have been surprised to find in this little land so much civic patriotism.

Belgium is the most accessible country on the Continent to the English: and it has been visited by numberless Americans since Longfellow’s day, but it is proverbially easy to overlook what lies under one’s nose. Those of us who have long been aware that Belgium is something more than a collection of old buildings and Old Masters, or a stopping place on the journey to Germany or Switzerland, can but welcome the new interest which is taken in her by the wider public on both sides of the Atlantic, for she is worthy of it. The episode which the world pities is not an historical accident, ennobling by chance the record of an ignoble people. If under the ordeal they have become great, it was because they had greatness in them.

The author in speaking of the architecture of Belgium has his doubts as to how much of it will escape the devastation of the European War. “But in any case the first sequel of peace in Belgium must be rebuilding. It will be fortunate then,” the author says, “that in consequence of the building fever of recent years the country is equipped beyond the ordinary needs of its size with architects, builders, trained workmen, and experience, which may enable its ruined towns to rise purified and beautified from their ashes.” This statement may be true if the architects, builders, trained workmen and other workers have not been killed in battle. The devastation of Belgium, alone is argument enough for the rest of the world to quit the foolishness of war.

=An Open Letter to the Nation with Regard to a Peace Plan.= By JAMES HOWARD KEHLER, New York: Mitchell Kennerley. 1915, pp 25.

The letter in this neat little volume is addressed to The President, The Ministers of Government and The Congress of the United States: To the Members of the Peace Societies: To the Press and to the People:

There is a lot of good common sense in this letter. For example, in the opening of the letter the author asks that the name of the War Department be changed to that of the Peace Department, and that its Ministers hereafter be known as Secretaries of Peace, and that what are known as War Policies hereafter may be known as Peace Policies. He shows that in reality the Secretary of War is really a secretary of Peace, and that his primary office is not to make war, but to avert it, and the degree of his prestige is in direct ratio to his success in preserving the peace and tranquility of our people, and that our war budgets are in fact peace budgets, etc.

Of course, we know that the Secretary of War does not have a thing to do with the diplomatic correspondence that arranges for a war, but nevertheless the idea of giving significance to the symbolism of the names of the offices and their ministers has considerable value.

=The Socialists and the War.= By WILLIAM ENGLISH WALLING, author of “Socialism As It Is,” “Progressivism and After,” etc., etc. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1915. 512 pp. $1.50 net.

The author here presents a documentary statement of the position of the Socialists of all countries; with special reference to their peace policies, and includes a summary of the Revolutionary state Socialist measures adopted by the Governments at war. The editor of this work is a well known writer on Socialism, being the author of “Socialism As It Is,” “Progressivism and After,” and other books along this line, of which it may be said that this is his best effort.

About three fourths of the book consists of documentary statements of Socialists of all countries toward the war, and the running editorial comments set forth vividly the conditions under which the various statements were made with an indication of why they are important.

The Socialist and a good many others who are great on asking questions will find a few here that are well answered in a fair way. Would the common people of Europe have declared war? Have the peoples of Europe definitely accepted monarchy, or is republicanism a force to be reckoned with? If one side forced the other side to disarm, would this partial disarmament make for total disarmament, or would it make for a war of revenge? And many other questions of a similar nature. A large part of the material utilized by the author, has appeared, under his editorship in The New Review. The Socialists believe that war should be ended immediately, or when the present European war becomes a “draw.”

=Defenseless America.= By HUDSON MAXIM. New York: Hearst’s International Library Company. 1915. Price, $2.00, pp. 318.

This volume has been named “A call to arms against War.” A phalanx of facts are presented upon the defenseless condition of this country. After reading this volume we seem to be as helpless as a new-born baby. As a fact we are a new born country. The United States is the youngest of the family of nations, but nevertheless we are a lusty youngster.

It is a fact that self-preservation is the first law of nature. Self-preservation should also be the first law of nations. Is that the case in this country? Upon this subject Mr. Maxim has written this interesting volume.

Every person has a right to his own opinions, and he also has a right to have such opinions as he thinks are right. That is an undisputed privilege. Many think that the United States is well enough prepared, while on the other hand many think that this Government is in a precarious condition on account of its lack of defensive material. Mr. Maxim in accordance with the title of his book holds the latter view. According to his first chapter, any statement against heavier national armament is a dangerous preachment.

Ernest Haeckle has said that there is nothing constant but change. He might have said also that there is a no more consistent thing in its constancy than human inconsistency. And Herbert Spencer rightfully said that, as he grew older, the more and more he realized the extent to which mankind is governed by irrationality. Billings was probably right when he said, “It is not so much the ignorance of men that makes them ridiculous as what they know that is not so.”

=German Philosophy and Politics.= By JOHN DEWEY, Professor of Philosophy in Columbia University. New York, 1915. Henry Holt & Co. Price, $1.25 net, pp. 134.

Dr. John Dewey, one of the world’s greatest philosophers, here gives the unprofessional philosopher a succinct notion of the development of classic German philosophy from Kant to Hegel. All technical details are omitted. Professor Dewey gives some interesting side-lights on German war philosophy, and shows how German thought took shape in the struggle for German nationality against the Napoleonic menace, and how profoundly that crisis affected the philosophy of morals, of the state, and of history which has since that time penetrated into the common consciousness of Germany.

Doctor Dewey thinks that cavalry generals who employ philosophy to bring home practical lessons are mighty rare outside of Germany. More significant than the words themselves are their occasion and the occupation of the one who utters them. Outside of Germany it would be indeed hard to find an audience where an appeal for military preparedness would be reinforced by allusions to the Critique of Pure Reason. By taking the statements as given by the German philosophers one can understand the temper in which opinion in Germany meets a national crisis. When the philosopher Eucken, who received the Nobel prize for contributing to the idealistic literature of the world, justifies the part taken by Germany in a world war because the Germans alone do not represent a particularistic and nationalistic spirit, but embody the “universalism” of humanity itself, he utters a conviction bred in German thought by the ruling interpretation of German philosophic idealism. By the side of this motif the glorification of war as a biologic necessity, forced by increase of population, is a secondary detail giving a totally false impression when isolated from its context. Philosophical justification of war follows inevitably from a philosophy of history composed in nationalistic terms. The author says that history is the movement, the march of God on earth through time. Only one nation at a time can be last and hence the fullest realization of God.

=The War and America.= By HUGO MÜNSTERBERG. D. Appleton & Co., New York and London. 1915. $1.00 net, pp. 210.

=The Peace and America.= By PROF. HUGO MÜNSTERBERG. D. Appleton & Co., New York and London. 1915. Price $1.00 net, pp. 280.

These two illuminating books written by Professor Münsterberg of Harvard University, give a wealth of information regarding the causes of the Great War. He is known as perhaps the greatest psychologist in America to-day. He is, however, well qualified to write on this great subject on account of his intense interest in the outcome of the conflict, and also on account of his great desire for peace between nations.

The War and America discusses the essential factors and issues of the European War and their meaning and import for Americans. All the fighting that has been done through the thousands of years past were nothing but mere skirmishes as compared with the conflict of to-day. The one great lesson for America in the European conflict will show that the loss and waste will be so much larger than the righting of a possible wrong will amount to that it will be utterly impossible to even think of going into a war on a large scale as has been done in the Great War. All concessions could have been granted a half dozen times over by each and every nation involved in the conflict, and yet, the cost would have been but a mere drop in the bucket as compared with what it now amounts to, after one year of hostilities. Professor Münsterberg says: “A gigantic destruction of human life such as this war demands must naturally force on everyone the wish for a substitute which is less painful to the imagination.” Perhaps good will come of the war in that respect. It will be such a lesson to the world that it will be thoroughly awakened to the real danger of the present foolish method of settling international disputes. Professor Münsterberg is a writer of great fame, having written more books on Psychology than any other man, he gives a broad interpretation to that peculiar state of international affairs which have ultimately to reckon with the Peace Movement.

THE INFORMATION DESK

An article by Ellis B. Usher, of the University of Wisconsin, in a current magazine, says the vote of the State is steadily falling off. In the year 1900 the percentage of votes cast to the voting population was a fraction above 74. In 1912 the percentage had fallen to 46½, and in 1914 it was only 43. Professor Usher attributes the steady decrease in the number of votes cast to the disgust of the voters with the primary election laws and other meddlesome legislation. “We have attempted,” he says, “to substitute machinery for citizenship. We have cumbered our statute books with laws, and expected them, unaided and automatically to create citizens faithful to their duties. Instead, this new machinery has proved an annoyance, and a restraint upon the electorate, and has defeated that untrammeled action by the voter that is of the highest essence of citizenship.”

* * * * *

In his address at the annual meeting of the United States Steel Corporation, Judge Gary the Chairman of the Board of Directors, said there had been quite a general feeling that the government of the United States had not pursued a well defined and consistent policy toward business, but that on the contrary it had been the policy of some of the governmental agencies to interfere with, to delay and obstruct natural progress; to punish and destroy rather than to regulate and encourage. He thought there were signs now of a fairer policy, and consequently of a better business outlook.

* * * * *

Jose Cascales Munoz, ex-professor of sociology in the University of Madrid, Spain, has issued an eloquent plea for peace. He says that disarmament can be brought about only by an agreement of the stronger powers and the formation of an international army to support the decisions of a world court to which all international disputes must be referred. For the establishment of such a world court a world conference would be necessary. Professor Munoz thinks that if even three strong nations could unite for the formation of such a world court the others could gradually be brought into line, and little by little the work would be made perfect.

* * * * *

The New York Peace Society has sent a letter to President Wilson setting forth the Society’s views on national defense and armament. The letter was signed, among others, by Andrew Carnegie, Oscar S. Straus and Jacob H. Schiff. It declares that the United States needs a powerful navy for defense, but never for aggression, and that our systems of national and state militia should be extended on such a basis as to constitute an adequate land defense.

* * * * *

Prof. Kuno Meyer, speaking of the recent activities of Japan, says: “This is a golden opportunity for Japan. She realizes that the European nations cannot interfere with her and that America will not.” This is attributing selfish and material motives to Japan. If she is animated by such motives it is certainly an opportunity for her to push for the hegemony of Asia while the nations of Europe are cutting each other’s throats, and the American nations are anxiously waiting to see what the effect of the great struggle is to be upon the Western Hemisphere.

* * * * *

A correspondent of a daily paper suggests that automobiles be equipped with “cow-catchers,” or some device which would throw any unfortunate pedestrian, who happens to be run into, aside, instead of drawing him under the wheels. This suggestion is worth considering. A cow-catcher on an automobile might not be ornamental, but if it would save human life the owners and operators of the machines could stand a little ugliness. Besides, there is sufficient ingenuity among auto-builders to make a device of that kind that would not be positively hideous. If properly constructed it would often save property as well as life and limb.

_The_
BILTMORE
NEW YORK

America’s Latest and Most Refined, and New York’s Centermost Hotel

Only hotel occupying an entire city block, Vanderbilt and Madison
Avenues, 43rd and 44th Streets, adjoining Grand Central Terminal.

1000 ROOMS OPEN TO OUTSIDE AIR 950 WITH BATH

ROOM RATES FROM $2.50 PER DAY

_Suites from 2 to 15 rooms for permanent occupancy_

Large and small Ball, Banquet and Dining Salons and Suites specially
arranged for public or private functions.

JOHN McE. BOWMAN
_President_
]

_Reproduced from an actual photograph_

_Rock Ballast, Electric Power, Third Rail, Electric Automatic
Signals._
]

“The Water Level Route”

“There is a certain
solidity and permanence
about this concern which
smacks of nothing
unfinished.”

_Albert W. Atwood
in Harper’s Weekly_

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

1. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in spelling. 2. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed. 3. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_ and bold text in =equals signs=.