World Unity/Volume 15/Issue 2/Text

←Previous

World Unity Volume 15, Issue 2

Next→

Return to PDF view Proofread once

[Page 64]

Volume XV, November, 1934

Religion and World Order. Christianity and Race Relations Horace Holley . J. C. McMorries

Why Not a Franco-German Federation? . A. L. Soresi, M.D. Peace and the Present Crisis

Francis H. White

Enduring Peace (poem) Oscar Newfang

World Advance: A Monthly International Review. Albert D. Belden

George Lansbury Geneva, September, 1934 National, International Ikhnaton The Institute and the University of International Relations International Hymn The Way Out (Book Review Essay) Notes on the Current Issue World Unity Reading List (1927-1934) 2. East and West

Evelyn Newman

. Comp. William P. Taylor Stanton A. Coblentz Mary Hull Myrtle B. Brown

Horace Holley [Page 65]RELIGION AND WORLD ORDER by HORACE HOLLEY

IV. THE PRESENT SPIRITUAL CRISIS

WHEN the creative power of spirit is withdrawn from the community as a whole, and the parts of the community engage in mutual struggle for predominance or survival, the life cycle of that social order has run its course.

Such is the nature of the present crisis. The old order was based historically upon Christianity in the West, upon Muhammadanism and other Faiths in the East. Each Faith had, in accordance with the principle underlying human society, developed a characteristic civilization representing a balance between legal, cultural, economic and social factors. All these regional civilizations had arrived at that stage in the cyclic process marked by the weakening of the original religious impulse, which bound the civilization together in one organism, and by the assertion of the superiority of the constituent parts over the whole.

As in Christianity a few centuries ago, so in Muhammadanism today, law, government, education and industry have thrown off the control of the religious tradition and undergone separate development, each seeking a fulfilment in terms of its own independent need and without reference to the general need of the community in its spiritual as well as material integrity. This development is more complete in the West, but the history of Europe since the Reformation has been paralleled in all essentials by the more recent experience of Turkey, Egypt and Persia.

The crucial point in this development is the transfer of social authority from a religious organization, by which it has been [Page 66]fatally abused, to a secular organization explicitly claiming to be unmoral. At the stage of religious decay where this transfer of authority takes place, the secular government cannot control the entire area previously controlled by the religious influence. The transfer is characterized by the rise of several independent secular governments which divide the body of believers into separate, and potentially competitive nations. Western nationality arose from the spiritual death of Christendom, and the nations of Islam are similarly independent and exclusive.

The next step in the process, which in reality is disintegration and not "progress" except in a local and temporary degree, consists in the reinforcement of the secular (unmoral) authority by such laws and instruments as it deems necessary to protect itself in the rapidly augmenting struggle for national existence. Religion is replaced by patriotism of an exclusive nature, and the social duty of man becomes defense of his national state. Militarism inevitably develops. Compulsory military duty, found necessary as economic rivalry follows the original territorial competition of the states, sets mankind upon the path of death.

In the modern world this complete divorce between spiritual and material values, enmeshing human life in a fatal net as economic and social existence come to depend upon struggle and competition rather than upon unity and cooperation, establishes a point of crisis imperilling the race. Authority, power and initiative throughout society are identified with unmoral institutions whose fiat controls a system of destruction well-nigh universal in capacity. On the other hand, the spiritual tradition of each race has become sterile, for ecclesiasticism is the negation of faith.

Such a jungle of competitive nationalism seems to reproduce, in terms of social organizations, the era of the pre-historic monsters marking an early stage in the biological evolution of the world of nature. Forms of life organized almost entirely for offense and defense had little available energy for the kind of response required in a changing world. Evolution left them behind. Their towering strength was their fatal weakness, and in their enormous aggressiveness they had no capacity to survive. [Page 67]

RELIGION AND WORLD ORDER

In the same way, the present stage of armed, competitive nationalism is essentially transitory and fugitive. The more aggressive it becomes, the less its capacity to meet social problems the only solution of which is non-aggression-cooperation. The states have waxed powerful upon the poverty of the people; their might is an illusion. They can destroy themselves by one final outburst of general war; or a series of revolutions, each perhaps small and almost unnoted, will evolve from them a type of government intelligent enough to deal with social relationships and moral enough to summon the highest and not the lowest impulses of an evolving race.

The key to future social evolution lies in the capacity for transformation rather than in mere progress and extension along the lines fixed by our prior history. For progress is the law of the cycle, but transformation is the sign that a cycle has run its term and a new age has dawned.

It is evolutionary progress when a form of life becomes larger, or fleeter by adaptation to its environment. This type of progress marks the biological world, where the natural environment is fundamentally constant. Likewise, when the social environment remains fundamentally constant, an institution progresses by growth in ways determined by its original character and aim.

Unlike nature, the social environment is subject to profound alteration. The development of machine production was more than progress from a small tool to a larger tool; it brought about an entirely different kind of society. Action and re-action in an industrialized society are not simply enlargement of the action and re-action of an agricultural, hand-craft society—it responds in quality to a different law. The plane has been raised from physical effort to intelligence.

As long as the simple law of progress applies to human society, the evil will be multiplied along with the good, the destruction will augment by the same ratio as the construction. Along with more schools and colleges, we have more armament. Along with more factories we have more industrial struggle and a greater class conflict. [Page 68]The symbol of transformation in the natural world is the organism like the butterfly, which at one stage is an egg, at the next stage is a caterpillar, becomes then a chrysalis in its cocoon, thence emerging as imago, the perfect insect with beautifully colored wings. Applying the law of simple progress to this organism at any preliminary stage, we would have merely a larger egg, or a greater caterpillar or a larger and stronger cocoon. Metamorphosis is the scientific equivalent of that organic change which takes place in human society at those critical stages marked by the cycles of religion.

It is by no means necessary to contemplate a simple extension into the future of the social agencies dominating this transitional era. The progress of national government into empire is strictly limited by inter-state competition, and the progress of religion into the condition of world empire by any one creed is no less impossible. The more fluid advance of the great industrial or banking units, which a generation ago seemed in process of attaining international domination, has since then been completely checked by the closing of trade boundaries and the assumption of economic control by the national states, not to mention the influence of organized class conflict flatly opposed to any such Napoleonic conquest.

But the obstacles to progress in that limited sense are the very conditions most favorable to that more organic progress represented by transformation. The armed states are nothing else than cocoons in which the metamorphosis from competition to cooperation is being even now effected."

The degree to which human society can undergo transformation, as distinct from progress by extension, depends wholly and exclusively upon spiritual factors. A sense of justice too long thwarted by a social order-a conviction of peace and brotherhood flagrantly suppressed by the authoritative régime-these elements in the soul of man determines the character of the new order which arises from the wrecks of the old. [Page 69]

CHRISTIANITY AND RACE RELATIONS

by J. C. MCMORRIES Lincoln University

I. THE PROBLEM

WE are indebted to Dr. W. E. B. DuBois for the following definition of the central problem that commands our attention:

"The problem of the color line, particularly in America is well known. It is the question of the treatment and the place in society and in the State, of the descendants of African slaves who were freed by the Civil War. Not only are these persons, numbering some twelve million or more, more or less physically distinct from the nation because of color and race, but also they are otherwise segregated because slavery made them poor, kept them ignorant and plunged them into such sickness and crime as poverty and ignorance always cause. For these and other reasons they form in the United States an inferior social caste.

"This is the problem of the color line as it presents itself in the United States. But, of course the color line extends beyond our own country. The majority of the people of the world are colored and belong to races more or less distinct from the white people of Europe and North America. Because, however, of imperial aggression and industrial exploitation, most of these colored people are under the political or commercial domination of white Europe and America, and their consequent problems of self-government, social status, and work and wages present the greatest difficulties the world over."*

With this definition or statement of the central problem in our minds, let us now consider the subject for discussion, "Christianity and Race Relations."

• From an article in "The Christian Century," December 9, 1930.

[Page 70]

2. THE POPULAR VIEW REGARDING THE RACES OF MEN

"The popular view with reference to the races of men is to think of them as mentally different and consequently different in personality. When this attitude is accompanied by a more or less strong feeling of aversion for a racial group different from one’s own it is customary to call the condition 'race prejudice'. Some times the feeling is not so strong and we then call it 'race tolerance." According to Lord Bryce, "we find more of tolerance than prejudice until, strange to say, the present century, when the situation has so changed that race prejudice is a real menace to human happiness."

Perhaps, the most striking example of the popular view is found in traditional beliefs regarding the Negro. It is held that the Negro is inherently inferior—in mind, in character, even in blood. Many of the older college libraries contain volumes piously defending slavery on this ground. An intellectual justification of caste was built up that is slow to down. In order to justify the enslaving of fellow men in a country founded on the principle of personal liberty, sophistry had to be called in. Scientists offered voluminous proof that the Negro was hopelessly inferior, for his mind closes up at an early age and further learning is impossible.

A passage in the Bible—Genesis 9: 22-27—was offered to show that the Negro is the object of God’s peculiar curse, his very color a visible sign of his ordained servile status. However, the passage states that it was drunken Noah instead of God who pronounced the curse. And there is no indication that anyone was turned a shade darker by the curse.

The popular view refers in similar manner to the Japanese, Chinese, Mexican, Indian and other colored people. All are held to be inferior to the Nordics, who have been ordained to rule the world. We are told that, "There are those who right now wish to band together the Nordic races (the long-headed, yellow-haired, gray-eyed peoples of northern Europe and North America) in an alliance defensive against the other and, of course, 'inferior races of men'." Fear of a rising tide of color has been expressed. All

1-From Race Psychology" by Thomas Russell Garth, pp. 3-4, 1931. 2-From "Race Sentiment in History," University of London Press, 1915. 3-From "Training World Christians" by Gilbert Loveland, p. 55, 1921. [Page 71]of this propaganda has resulted in evoking race prejudice and antagonism. Narrow racial consciousness has been produced not only in the Nordics but in the darker peoples as well. For instance, a few years ago, Marcus Garvey, a West Indian Negro, said, "The bloodiest of all wars is yet to come, when Europe will match its strength against Asia; and that will be the Negroes' opportunity to draw the sword for Africa's redemption."

A few words of criticism may be offered just here, for the popular view with reference to the races of men has been challenged. It is held that. "Belief in inequality is a 'science of white people' who have set it going and seek to so maintain it. Since to begin with, they regard themselves as better than others they take such white traits as they deem desirable and vaunt them as superior traits." But the notion of racial inequality must either stand or fall with the scientific evidence as it is produced.

Professor Garth states that he is "convinced after an examination of the literature that we have never, with all our searching found indisputable evidence for belief in mental differences which are essentially racial. Differences as found can usually be shown to be due to one of the two causes, modification (nurture) or selection, and often these are complicated by the results of careless measuring....And if there are no measurable differences, we are compelled to think of similarities, which would bring us to the alternative that there is only one racial mind, just human mind."

3. THE UNPOPULAR VIEW REGARDING THE RACES OF MEN

This bring us to the unpopular view regarding the races of men. "Upon inquiry we find that the word 'race' with its ethnic conotation first appeared in the English language less than three hundred years ago and that it has experienced some slight changes in meaning since then. The primitive concept of race of course antedates our English word race. Prehistoric man certainly based his concept of race not so much on lineage as on similarities of anatomical feature, language, custom, and other facts evident to the senses. He violated any regard for a common lineage, it seems, by the practice of wholesale amalgamation. Consequently, if there

1-To Negro conference in New York City. August, 1920. 3-From "Race Paychology" by Thomas Russell Garth, p. 6, 1981. -From "Race Psychology" by Thomas Russell Garth, pp. 10, 24, 1931. [Page 72]were originally primary races, these were early so blended that it would be unreasonable to think of a pure race as existing today.... Racial groups of today are combinations of the archetypes (original types) and these are to be regarded as being in a state of flux. We may say finally along with Haddon that a "racial type is after all an artificial concept, though long-continued geographical isolation does tend to produce a general uniformity of physical appearance." As a chief among the Dakota Indians once put it: "There are birds of many colors—red, blue, green, yellow—yet all one bird. There are horses of many colors—brown, black, yellow, white—yet—all one horse. So cattle; so all living things animals, flowers, trees. So men; in this land where once were only Indians are men of every color—white, black, yellow, red—yet all one people." And of even broader significance we note the familiar statement of the Apostle Paul, "The God that made the world and all things therein....made of one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth." Christ gave us the doctrine of the Divine brotherhood inevitable. "It takes a God and a man to make a Parenthood of God. And a divine fatherhood makes human religion, but it takes an ideal God—a Father—and two men—brothers—to make the Christian religion."

None ever felt the social unity of our race more deeply than Jesus. All through his teachings emphasis falls upon the solidarity of the human family. Rauschenbush says that, "Jesus was personally very sociable. He evidently enjoyed mixing with people. He liked the give-and-take of life. He had friends. A group of men and women gathered around him who gave him their devoted loyalty. He in turn needed them. The denial of Peter and the betrayal of Judas hurt him, partly because they were defections from the comradeship of his group. In Gethsemane he craved friendship. He prayed to God, but he reached out for Peter and John. The longing for friendship and the unrest of loneliness are proof of a truly human and social nature."

So we may see that science and the religion of Jesus unite in emphasizing the social unity of our race. Jesus declared that men belong together. He ignored all ceremonial and ecclesiastical re-

1-ibid. pp. 7-9. 3-The Indian Book by Curtis, Harper & Brothers. 3-The Bible, Acts 17:24-26. 4--From lectures of Dr. Walter 8. Athearn, Boston University, 1921. 5-From "Principles of Jesus", pp. 18-19. [Page 73]

CHRISTIANITY AND RACE RELATIONS

quirements, and put his hand on love as the central law of life, both in religion and in ethics.

Now we may contrast the popular and the unpopular views with reference to the races of men. While the popular view stresses racial difference, the unpopular view stresses racial similarity. While the popular view, on the basis of unscientific theories and prejudice, divorces the peoples of the world, the unpopular view, on the basis of scientific facts and the Religion of Jesus, unites the peoples of the world in one family. While the popular view promotes haughty domineering superiority on the part of white people who constitute less than one-third of the population of the world, the unpopular view promotes equality and self-realization for all the people of the world. While the popular view makes for rivalry and the exploitation of the weaker group by the stronger, the unpopular view makes for cooperation and the "New Deal". While the popular view leads to strife and suffering, the unpopular view leads to peace and plenty. Therefore, we shall advance toward a new social order as rapidly as we can adopt the view that there is only one race-the human race. So called races are not species based upon essential difference, but mere varieties, based upon accidental characteristics.

4. SELI-REALIZATION AS THE END

The real task confronting the Christian world today is not the discovery of a technique by which religion can assist a minority group in its struggle for justice in some particular country. This may be important and necessary. But our task must not fall short of the great objective of self-realization for all the peoples of the world. Let us now inquire into the meaning of the term self-realization.

"Green taught that the essential element in 'the nature of man is the rational or spiritual principle within him. Man has appetite, as the animals have, and, like them, he has sensations and mental images; but these, and everything else in man's nature, are modified by the fact that he has reason.

"The true self is what is perhaps best described as the rational [Page 74]self. It is the universe that we occupy in our moments of deepest wisdom and insight.""

Again, the true self is the social self. "It is sufficient for our purpose to say that it is in relation to our fellow-men that we find our ideal life....The 'I' or ideal self is not realized in any one individual, but finds its realization rather in the relations of persons to one another."

Society must be regarded as an organic unity. "The parts of it are necessary to each other, as the parts of an animal organism are; and it is in all the parts in relation to one another, rather than in anyon of them singly, that the true life is to be found. 'We are members one of another." For example, "As the body can suffer no disease in any limit save at the expense of the whole, so a world bound up as one can afford no.... tyranny anywhere." "The ideal life of one requires others to compliment it, and it is by mutual help that the whole develops towards perfection." Therefore, we can realize the true self only by realizing social ends.... We must realize ourselves by sacrificing ourselves. "The more fully we so realize ourselves, the more do we reach a universal point of view—i. e. a point of view from which our own private good is no more to us than the good of any one else. This is self-realization, but it is self-realization for the sake of the whole." In the highest natures, the self is incarnate in nothing less than humanity.

5. THE PRESENT WORLD CRISIS

Today, we are living in a world of great social unrest. It is obvious that blood relationship is inadequate. It must be supplemented by something spiritual. The bond between the peoples of the world must be a spiritual tie. Spiritual relationship is even more important than blood relationship.

The world faces a crisis today, due mainly to the fact that while we are related mechanically, we are unrelated spiritually. "The world is today one body. Cable and wires and wireless are its nerves, transmitting the messages that are impulses to action. Ships and railways and air routes are its arteries, carrying the pulsating blood of humanity".... Surely, "the world is one vast whis-

1-From "Maunal of Ethics" by John B. Mackenzie, pp. 248, 251. 3-bid, p. 292. 3-bid, p. 193. 4-From Training World Christians" by Gilbert Loveland, p. 18. 6-From "Manual of Ethica" by John B. Mackenzie, p. 392. 6-Ibid, p. 294. [Page 75]

CHRISTIANITY AND RACE RELATIONS

pering gallery." But mechanical force has been substituted for vital force. Things have become more important than persons. "The whole trend in industrialization is mechanistic and dehuman- izing." "A dehumanized or depersonalized world is a Christless and a Godless world, for the essential characteristic of the divine nature is personal. Christ placed such high valuation on life, on the sacredness of personality, that when this valuation is lowered or debased, the very citadel of religion totters and falls.... Bergson, the French philosopher, has given us a remarkable description of the present world crisis and has clearly shown that the failure lies in our inability to enlarge our souls and to broaden our spiritual vision. The chief function of science has been the multiplication of man's physical powers.

"Telescopes and microscopes have increased the power of our eyes; telephones have stretched our hearing to some three thou- sand miles; telegraphs have made our voices sound round the earth; locomotives and steamship lines, better than seven-league boots of ancient fable, have multiplied the speed and power of our feet; the French big guns have elongated the blows of our fists from two feet to twenty-five miles. Man never had such a body since the world began. The age of the giants was nothing compared with this. But man's soul, there the failure lies. We have not grown spirits great enough to handle our greatened bodies. The splendid new powers which science furnishes are still in the hands of the old sins, greed, selfish ambition, cruelty." Small wonder that the spirit of extreme nationalism stalks the earth, and with economic rivalry and race discrimination, constantly threaten the peace of the world. Small wonder that we look upon a world all bound up in one destiny, each of the several members closely re- lated to the other, yet everywhere unrest and confusion.

Greed, selfish ambition, and cruelty are obvious factors in the present undesirable situation between the so called races of men. They are factors today because the peoples of the world have failed to realize the true self-the rational self and the social self. We have grown physically and mechanically, but spiritually and socially we have stagnated and decayed. Let it be burned into your hearts

1-From Training World Christians" by Gilbert Loveland, p. 17. 2-The Personalist, Vol. V., No. IV. October 1914, pp. 267-368. [Page 76]and minds that the peoples of the world must be related spiritually as well as mechanically. Then, and not until then, will the great human problems such as the Problem of the Color Line be solved and the human family find happiness.

6. IS CHRISTIANITY THE REMEDY?

But how can the peoples of the world realize this spiritual and social unity? Is Christianity the remedy? The first answer to the latter question is a categorical negative. Theoretically, Christianity makes this claim, i. e. of uniting all men with the bond of brother-hood. But from the viewpoint of practice, Christianity in its present sickly and adulterated condition is not adequate to meet the needs of race relations or to solve any of our great human problems. Surely, a religion whose history is tainted with the slave trade; whose missionaries have often served as forerunners of imperial-ism; whose churches have often allied themselves with capitalism, and have zealously preserved the color line, cannot bring about the spiritual unity of the peoples of the world.

The second answer to this question is a conditional affirmative. If Christianity becomes Christian, it can and will relate the peoples of the world in such manner as to bring happiness to mankind. "A brotherhood of men in which the principles of the Sermon on the Mount shall prevail is an ideal far away it may be, but it is an essential note in that earthly kingdom which Jesus Christ came to found.

"Other religions make the claim to be universal; the Christian claim is unique in this, that all it makes bold to proclaim is epitom-ized in the person of its Lord and Master Jesus Christ. He is the perfect personality; he made the Golden Rule live in daily practice; he is the universal man, and with all that, he is the living Saviour and Master who through his Spirit is in actual contact with men."*

ACID TEST OF CHRISTIANITY

Race rela Christian pr and nation In address , the acid test of genuine Christianity. Our s worthless if it cannot make men of all races ave together in love and fellowship as brothers. ne Bantu-European Student Christian Conference,

• From "Rens of Mankind" by Edmund D. Soper, pp. 329-330.

[Page 77]

CHRISTIANITY AND RACE RELATIONS

Dr. Edgar H. Brookes of South Africa said, "To the race situation Christianity must bring two things-the light of truth and the fire of love, a wise enthusiasm and an enthusiastic wisdom."

There are hopeful signs. Selfishness is being challenged by men and women who are actually in rebellion against our present unchristian social order. "While the unchristianized Apostles of self-interest are urging the Nordic peoples to get together in a league against all the colored peoples, pitting race against race in a manner that will inevitably bring the human family to fratricide on a world scale, Christians are teaching that all men are sons of one Father, and that races should live side by side in mutual helpfulness. The one is interracial war; the other is interracial cooperation."*

But in the interest of efficiency and effectiveness, Christians must rid themselves of every weight or stumbling block that impedes progress. For instance, the color line must be removed from the churches of Christ in America. If Americans wish to make the world Christian, first of all they must make America Christian.

Again, "To save the individual, has rightly been and rightfully continues to be the chief function of the Church, but not the only function. The churches must realize as never before that they share in a common responsibility for a Christian world order. They must be convinced that the world is the subject of redemption and that the ethical principles of the Gospels are to be applied to industry and the relations of men, races, and nations." Recognizing the fact that the problems of race relations are largely economic of base, and that the whole trend in industrialization is mechanistic and de-humanizing, Christian people must set up competitive agencies that humanize.

In conclusion, it is necessary only to say that, "The practice of the Christian principle of brotherhood on a world scale—that is the human family's only hope."

From "Training World Christians" by Gilbert Loveland, p. 57. [Page 78]

WHY NOT A FRANCO-GERMAN FEDERATION?

by A. L. SORESI, M.D.

EUROPE, notwithstanding the enormous progress made by the other continents, is still the center of the world and for years to come will preserve the old supremacy. This is true even taking into consideration the fact that some units like the United States of America and Japan have acquired world importance, in some respects superior to any single European country. Whatever affects Europe affects also, to a great degree, the whole world. Japan may take a slice of China, or two South America Republics may be fighting each other, the world looks upon such events as annoying perhaps, but not worthy of causing any loss of sleep: two European countries look at each other crosseyed and the world becomes anxious. The peace and welfare of the whole world depend mostly on the behavior of Europe. This statement is not made with the intention of minimizing the importance of the other continents. It is made only to point to the fact that for ethical, social, religious, economical, historical reasons Europe is still and will be for some time the key continent in world affairs. If Europe could be kept at peace, the rest of the world would also be at peace; if European countries are warring between themselves, the rest of the world will also be pushed on the battlefields. From these premises we can logically draw the conclusion that lovers of peace should make every effort to eliminate the causes of friction between European countries and thus preserve world peace.

Admitting that Europe is the key continent in world affairs, we have to see if there is a key country in Europe which has the same relation to European affairs as the European continent has to [Page 79]

FRANCO-GERMAN FEDERATION?

world affairs. The socalled great European Powers named in alphabetical order are: England, France, Germany, Italy, Russia. England, Italy and Russia can be eliminated at once as not possessing the fundamental elements indispensable to the key country. They would not hold the key position of Europe mainly because of their geographical location. England as an island situated at the western portion of the Continent is obviously isolated from the rest of Europe. Its vast far flung empire growing more restless day by day absorbs practically all its energies. Italy located at the southern extreme of the Continent is almost an island itself completely surrounded and closed in by the Mediterranean except on its northern part, where the Alps separate it from the rest of Europe. Italy is not a rich country, has neither coal nor iron, it is not industrialized enough to suffice to itself. Russia, located at the eastern extreme, could never dominate the seas surrounding Europe and the other far flung countries; is poor, is still under-industrialized; its interest in the solution of too many extremely difficult home problems absorbs practically all its thoughts and energies.

France and Germany have each a more favorable geographical position than the other three. Both have free access to important seas: France to the Atlantic and to the Mediterranean; Germany to the Atlantic and to the Baltic. Both have splendid connections with the rest of Europe. Both are rich. Both can be considered to have been developed industrially and agriculturally to the highest degree. Both possess iron and coal. Yet neither enjoys the key position. In fact, France has no access to the Baltic: Germany no access to the Mediterranean. France has direct communication with all the west-southern and a limited portion of the Northern parts of Europe and through the Mediterranean to all the European countries located along it, as well as the northern coast of Africa and the Asiatic countries through the Suez Canal. France's communication through central and eastern Europe is very limited: bordering France we find Germany, Switzerland, Italy, the latter two countries separated by the Alps. Germany has no access to the Mediterranean and consequently no direct communication with the European countries bordering it, nor with the northern coast of Africa, nor with the [Page 80]Asiatic countries through the Suez Canal. Germany's access to the Baltic allows her direct communications with all the countries of northern Europe; by land she has direct or indirect access to practically all countries located west, north, east, and south.

France and Germany know that they do not hold the key position of Europe. France and Germany each crave to hold such position; each knows that the other is ready and willing to pay almost any price for it, hence a deadly rivalry created and inflamed by a superpatriotism leading to mutual hatred. Socalled patriotic propaganda in both countries has created a spirit of hatred, has infected with anti-French or anti-German virus respectively every French and every German born. It has glorified hatred to a point of transforming it into something noble, as if a Frenchman's mission were to prevent humanity from becoming Germanized and a German's mission were to prevent the world from falling under the spell of La Belle France. The leitmotif running through European history is the antagonism between France and Germany. European and to a certain extent world history, should be studied and interpreted taking as a basis the struggle between France and Germany. Neither France nor Germany has spared and is sparing efforts to overcome the other. The end has always seemed to justify the means no matter how objectionable, no matter how costly in men and money. Both France and Germany believe they do the right thing, neither sees that often they have done and do injustice and damage not only to others but also to themselves. The story of the diplomatic intrigues of both countries would fill many volumes: many events still mysterious or only partly explained would be understood if such history could be written. This struggle fomented by misguided superpatriotism has caused untold, unnecessary suffering to two noble, most intel ent and likable people, the French and the German, who deserve a better fate than to waste their wonderful energies in fighting each other. Unfortunately, neither France nor Germany seem to realize the futility of their perennial destructive struggle. Frenchmen have killed thousands of Germans and Germans have killed thousands of Frenchmen. French soldiers have destroyed German cities, German villages, German bridges, [Page 81]

FRANCO-GERMAN FEDERATION?

German monuments: German soldiers have destroyed French cities, French villages, French bridges, French monuments. French soldiers have raped German women: German soldiers have raped French women. "Delenda Germania" yells the superpatriotic Frenchman: "Delenda Gallia" yells the superpatriotic German. The barbarous Roman motto: "Delenda Cartago" cannot guide the more civilized people of today. Victorious France crushed, but did not destroy Germany: victorious Germany crushed, but did not destroy France. Neither country truly desires or would be able to destroy the other.

The conflict between France and Germany can be viewed as a game of seesaw. Look at them: France gains the top position; sees Germany down, crushed by her fall, she feels secure: her enemy is down at the bottom and she will keep her there. Fatally the board swings and France finds herself at the bottom, crushed by her fall, looking at victorious Germany on top and scheming how she can regain the upper position. France regains the upper position, to lose it again to Germany. The bloody futile game goes on for centuries, many thinking it to be an historical, geographical, biological fatality like the alternate rising and setting of the sun.

It would seem that misguided superpatriotism has blinded the French and the Germans: they fail to see that the fatal rules of this seesaw game leave no choice to the country which finds itself at the bottom. There is only one way by which it will be able to gain the upper position: it must, whatever the cost, pull down the one which is on top. France and Germany should realize how dangerous a game they are playing. They should realize that if the lower position is actually very bad, the upper is far from being desirable: by no stretch of the imagination can it be called stable or safe. Any false movement may cause a fall, which means not only a fall, but the fatal lifting of the enemy and the beginning of a new deadly struggle to regain the top. The only alternative is the loss of balance on the part of the players: both hitting the ground violently, both being perhaps irreparably injured. Nothing but irreparable injury to both France and Germany can be reasonably expected, if a new war should be waged between them with the destructive [Page 82]means already developed and in course of development in the two countries.

History has proven without any doubt that the antagonism between France and Germany has caused untold misery, not only to them, but to all Europe and to the rest of the world. It has also proven that this antagonism is futile, sterile: neither country has gained permanently any real benefit from the bloody victories each won over the other. The final aim of the patriotic Frenchman, as well as of the patriotic German, has been and still is to give Frenchmen and Germans respectively the maximum of security for the pursuit of individual happiness and progressive national endeavors. Neither the Frenchmen nor the Germans have ever gained any security. Their individual happiness consisted in feeding the monster of war with the flesh of their children in the stupid illusion that "dulce est pro patria mori." Their progressive national endeavors have been handicapped by the necessity of first thinking how each one could best defend himself from the other. So to speak, the Frenchmen and the Germans have slept with their guns under their pillows, always ready to shoot; their minds agitated, disturbed by horrible nightmares caused by a bloody antagonism that allows no rest, no peace.

The misguided superpatriotism of the French and the Germans has created a dark atmosphere of prejudice against one another. Like all prejudiced people they fail to see and interpret facts in their true light. Indeed let us ask ourselves the following questions: Has the antagonism between France and Germany benefited either country, truly and permanently? The answer must be an emphatic "no." To mention only their last two major conflicts, we see that Germany victorious in 1870 has been defeated and apparently crushed in 1918. Fifteen years after the crushing defeat of Germany, and the complete victory of France, is either country safe, secure, happy, wealthy? Crushed Germany has gone through bankruptcy, revolutions and appears to be a volcano ready to explode. Victorious France is feeling so shaky that a national loan of 10,000,000,000 francs, issued at the beginning of January, 1934, has not been supported by its citizens. The Stavisky scandal, not [Page 83]so terribly important in itself, involving only 200,000,000 francs, has assumed enormous importance, destroyed a ministry and may be a threat to the very existence of the political order governing the country. Can any man, whether born in France, in Germany or in any other country, feel that the lives, limbs, health, property of millions of Frenchmen, of millions of Germans, omitting the mention of other millions, have been sacrificed for a just cause, have been destroyed to create something worth while, something they feel proud to have paid for with their lives, limbs, health and property? If we could lift for a moment from their graves the Frenchmen and the Germans who, for their Country, lost their lives on the battlefields and show them the fruits of their sacrifice, would they look around happily and return smilingly to their graves whispering: "Dulce est pro patria mori?"

Can either France or Germany gain permanently the coveted key position of Europe? History gives the most emphatic answer: No. If no permanent benefit can come to either country, if neither will ever be able to gain permanently the coveted key position, why do France and Germany continue their futile bloody struggle: can anything be done to stop it? France and Germany vainly struggle against one another because a misguided superpatriotism has created a dark atmosphere of prejudices, has dimmed their vision about world and national affairs, has created a peculiar national psychology in both countries. France and Germany have friends and admirers all over the world: people who admire not one country and hate the other, but admire and love both countries. These friends of France and Germany should form an association the aim of which would be to use the moral influence created by love, admiration and friendship for both countries to dissipate the antagonism existing between them. I firmly believe that the Association of Friends of France and Germany could accomplish perhaps the greatest task of history: world peace. The final aim of the Association should be the promotion of a federation between France and Germany. Such a federation would be the cornerstone on which the temple of peace and progress could be built permanently. I understand that the reader will at first think such a federation [Page 84]utterly impossible and justify such opinion with numberless reasons, one apparently more logical than the other. These reasons were almost summarized during a discussion on the subject thus: A Federation or Union between Farnce and Germany is a physical and psychological impossibility; in fact as impossible as a union between ice and fire. The analogy between the physical incompatibility of the French and the Germans and the physical incompatibility of ice and fire, may be absolutely true. This fact may consequently induce the friends of France and Germany to feel that however desirable from an ideal point of view may appear a Federation between France and Germany, in practice such a Federation is impossible. Taken separate y France and Germany may be as destructive and incompatible as fire and water. However, human intelligence can put ice and fire properly together and obtain steam, one of the most powerful and beneficial forces known to civilized man and utilized by him in millions of ways to create living conditions for the billions. If humanity has thus succeeded in harnessing to her advantage two brutal elements, why should not she succeed in coordinating the immense intelligent, well meaning power of two civilized people and obtain peace, the most essential element for human happiness?

A federation between France and Germany must not be considered just as a conception beyond realization, but as the only practical solution of the problems concerning the two countries; as the only means to assure the peace of Europe and the mightiest contributor to world peace. History teaches us that all attempts to remove the causes of antagonism between the two countries have failed miserably; whether these attempts were the results of peaceful friendly approaches, intrigues, or armed interventions. Nothing has happened to induce us to believe that friendly approaches, intrigues or armed interventions will be more helpful in the future, than they have been in the past for the very simple reason that they cannot remove the causes of friction between the two countries. It is not beyond historical reason to state that, unless and until the causes of friction are removed, there will be friction and antagonism between France and Germany. At the present we [Page 85]

FRANCO-GERMAN FEDERATION?

shall only mention one fundamental cause of friction and antagonism in order to prove the assertion made above. Germany, and I mean the Germany of the Kaiser, the Germany of Ebert and Von Hinderburg, as well as the Germany of Hitler and any possible Germany of tomorrow, feels, is convinced that she needs a direct outlet on the Mediterranean. No power in Heaven or Hell can and will stop Germany from making any imaginable attempt to secure such an outlet. France is as determined to keep Germany out of the Mediterranean as Germany is determined to get in. Germany needs the outlet for her trade with Africa, Asia and Southern Europe: France is determined to keep Germany out of the Mediterranean to protect her trade, her colonies, and her Mediterranean coast. A federation between France and Germany would instantly, completely and forever remove this fundamental cause of friction and antagonism between them. Marseilles could become the Mediterranean port of the Franco-German Federation with tremendous advantages to both countries.

A Franco-German Federation would not mean that either France or Germany would lose, or in the slightest degree diminish their national individuality; it would mean that France and Germany have recognized that the abolition of the barriers existing between them would be of immense advantage to both. It would mean that instead of being compelled to waste the greater and better part of their resources and energies in watching, antagonizing, fighting each other, they could devote them to foster the progress, welfare and happiness of their citizens. It would mean that instead of intriguing against each other in a futile struggle to gain a problematic, insecure supremacy over one another and sacrificing to that unattainable end the lives, health, property, security and possibly independence of their citizens, they would gain peacefully and maintain without difficulty a position of undisputed supremacy in Europe and form the most powerful, influential, progressive unit in the world.

It will be the aim of the proposed Society of Friends of France and Germany to present detailed discussions on the problems relating to a Franco-Germany Federation. At the moment, we shall only [Page 86]call the reader's attention to this fact: Along the very borders of France and Germany has prospered for many years a country, namely Switzerland, more closely knitted together than any racial unity in the world, notwithstanding the fact that the citizens of this historic republic are not homogenous as to nationality: do not speak the same language; there are no natural geographical frontiers on any side. In Switzerland, Germans, French and Italians preserve their national characters, and although the Germans outnumber the other two nationalities almost three to one, there has never been on their part any attempt to Germanize the minority or to affect it in any respect or manner. All the 4,000,000 Swiss are very proud of being Swiss citizens: they are united for the common good because they are convinced that: In union there is strength.

What 4,000,000 patriotic, independent, progressive, cultured German, French and Italian citizens of Switzerland have done for the common good, can also be done to proportionately greater advantage by 110,000,000 patriotic, independent, progressive, cultured French and German citizens of France and Germany. There are no two other people on earth each with such marvelous individual attributes as the French and German, who could integrate one another so thoroughly and successfully as to form an ideal union, which would mean not only strength, but also progress and, for the whole world, peace. [Page 87]

PEACE AND THE PRESENT CRISIS

A Statement Adopted by The Philadelphia Yearly Meetings of The Religious Society of Friends

I

THIRD MONTH, 1934

HE world is menaced by another war. This war which threatens is not inevitable. It can be prevented, but the should be inexcusably blind if we failed to look with open eyes and comprehending minds at the unmistakable trend of events toward the increasing danger. Europe is tense with issues. In the Far East national interests and policies are in conflict. Faith in the agencies and processes of peace has given way to discouragement. Disarmament is at a standstill. Nations, including our own country, are arming more powerfully than ever. And in a deeper realm of life, sinister ideas-belief in force, exaggerated nationalism, glorification of the state, belittling of the individual-are at work like poison in the minds of men.

In the face of this menace we declare our faith in those abiding truths taught and exemplified by Jesus Christ-faat every individual of every race and nation, is of supreme worth; that love is the highest law of life, and evil is to be overcome, not by further evil, but by good. The relationship of nation to nation, of race to race, of class to class must be based on this Divine law of love, if peace and progress are to be achieved. We believe in those principles, not as mere ideals for some future time, but as part of the eternal moral order and as a way of life to be lived here and now. War is a colossal violation of this way of life. If we are true to our faith we can have no part in it. [Page 88]We affirm the supremacy of conscience. We recognize the privileges and obligations of citizenship; but we reject as false that philosophy which sets the state above the moral law and demands from the individual unquestioning obedience to every state command. On the contrary, we assert that every individual, while owing loyalty to the state, owes a more binding loyalty to a higher authority—the authority of God and conscience.

We maintain that war is unnecessary; that justice can be better secured by pacific agencies already established, that provide the methods for settling controversies without war if only the nations have the will to use them. It is not the agencies of peace which I have failed the nations, but the nations which have failed the agencies of peace. It is the part of religion and statesmanship to support these peace institutions and to perfect them as instruments of justice instead of maintaining great armies and building huge navies. We remind the nations that they have renounced war and pledged themselves to use only the machinery of peace. We appeal to them to redeem their promises.

Our own country is facing a great issue:—Shall she co-operate wholeheartedly with other nations in organizing the world to prevent war and provide justice, or shall she go her own way, insist upon complete freedom of action, refuse all commitments and responsibilities for peace, and rely upon her own armed power?

Between these courses our nation must choose. We appeal for the right choice now, before it is too late. We urge our country to abandon the policy of power, the policy of huge armaments. We appeal to our nation to devote her prestige, her moral force and the abilities of her statesmen to the international institutions which can prevent war, and make it possible to achieve justice by pacific means. We urge her to join the World Court. We appeal for immediate steps to find the way in which our nation can make her contribution to world peace through the League of Nations.

May we practice the Divine law of love in every relationship. This law interpreted in our economic life means cooperation for the common good rather than competition for individual supremacy; in our racial, class and national relations it means achieving acy; [Page 89]the more abundant life through understanding, justice and cooperative service; in our personal lives it means the surrender of special privilege and material power in order to achieve the supreme goal of a universal brotherhood. Only by achieving in our personal lives some measure of the mind of Christ can we hope to create and maintain national, international and social agencies for the building of the Kingdom of God on earth.

FRIENDS PEACE COMMITTEE, 304 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

ENDURING PEACE

by FRANCIS H. WHITE

Enduring peace! For this, oh God, we cry And toward the heaven stretch out Our anguished arms; A thousand million hurl the prayer on high To be forever free From war's alarms.

The sun-crowned heights of peace we strive to gain Through night and storm and blinding Mist of tears, Yet back from echoing crags the sad refrain, "Enduring peace you cannot Here attain."

Still fight we upward-through sleet and hail, Though buffeted and torn We shall not fail; The zeal that conquers all consumes our soul- From pain to peace we rise, Let thunders roll! [Page 90]

WORLD ADVANCE

A Monthly International Review by OSCAR NEWFANG Author of "The Road to World Peace," "Harmony Between Capital and Labor," etc.

MUST CAPITAL AND LABOR FIGHT?

HE capital-labor strife presents a problem of world-wide ex-tent. It is the fundamental cause of the establishment of of the Nazi-Communist fight in Germany, of the general strike in England, of the current epidemic of strikes in America; not to mention the industrial struggles of less prominent countries, such as Spain, Chile, Mexico, Australia and Cuba.

The basic reason for capital-labor friction is, that the divi-sion of the proceeds of industry is not made on any principle of justice or by any rule of reason, but is made solely by economic force. The division of the joint fruits of capital and labor is deter-mined solely by the relative economic power of capitalists and work-ers, power enforcing its demands through threatened or actual in-dustrial warfare.

The principal method used in both camps to enforce their de-mands is organization and united action; and the principal weapons used by organized capital and organized labor are, respectively, the lockout and the strike. Greater completeness of organization, either on the part of employers' associations or of trade unions, does not in any way promote a just and reasonable solution of the problem of division; it simply improves the fighting position of the two an-tagonists and makes for wider, more prolonged and more bitter economic wars. Economic force, not economic justice, remains the determining factor in distribution. [Page 91]

Only the Value Added by Manufacture Can be Divided Between Capital and Labor

In attempting to reach a rational and just basis for the division of the proceeds of industry between capital and labor, the first question is: What can be divided? The answer is that, in the long run, only the value added by manufacture, and no more, can be divided between the capital and the labor which have jointly produced this added value. If more than the added value is distributed, the capital of the enterprise is impaired; and, if this excessive distribution continues, the business must finally stop for lack of working materials.

It is true that the workers and the capitalists in an industry can for a time increase the share of both by passing on to the consumer the increased wages and dividends in the form of increased prices. However, if this is done in all industries, the general increase of prices which is caused simply results in a reduced purchasing power of money, and real wages and dividends remain as before. The only method by which, in the long run, there may be a larger amount to divide between capital and labor is by the creation of a larger manufacturing value; that is, by increased production. There is no possible way by which more can be divided than is produced.

It is also true that, during the period of incomplete organization of capitalists and incomplete unionization of workers, the strongly organized industries, if their product is indispensable and no substitute for it is available, can take advantage of their less strongly organized brethren and can for a time maintain relatively higher wages, dividends and selling prices than the unorganized or poorly organized trades: but this advantage lasts only until the organization of all industries is completed, when it again becomes true that the only way to increase real wages and dividends is by increased value added by manufacture, by increased production.

The Business Partnership Indicates the Just Method of Division of Proceeds

When all the questions of organization, however, such as those of the famous Section 7A in the American National Recovery Act, [Page 92]have been fought out, and organization both on the part of capital and of labor is complete, no approach whatever has been made to a solution of the problem of the just division of the proceeds of industry, so that the division may be made by the rule of reason instead of the rule of force and industrial war. After capital and labor have cooperated loyally in the production of values, in what way can a fair and reasonable division of these values be made between them? Perhaps the best guide to the solution of the problem is found in the procedure of the ordinary business partnership.

When a group of men form a partnership for the manufacture of a commodity, in what way do they divide the proceeds of their joint efforts? There are three steps which such partners take. First, each partner has a preliminary drawing account during the year covering his necessary living expenses; next, they pay a fair and reasonable annual dividend on the capital which each partner has put into the business; and, finally they divide the remaining earnings among themselves as partnership profits. If the profits of the business in any year increase, the preliminary drawing account and the fixed dividend on capital employed remain the same, but the amount divided as partnership profits is correspondingly increased. If the year proves less profitable, the amount distributed as partnership profits is correspondingly less.

There may be years in which there is not enough profit realized to make any distribution of partnership profits, and in such years the partners receive only their preliminary drawing accounts and their respective shares of the dividend at the agreed rate. If the year's result is so bad that not enough profit is realized to pay the full dividend agreed upon, it is customary to consider the unpaid dividend as cumulative and payable out of the earnings of subsequent years, before any further partnership profits are distributed. If the earnings of the business, say in a period of depression, continue year after year to be insufficient to meet a moderate dividend on the capital employed, it is customary for the partners gradually to reduce their preliminary drawing accounts until at least a reasonable dividend can be paid on the investment. [Page 93]

Application of the Partnership System to Large-Scale Industry

Can this reasonable and fair method of dividing the proceeds of industry between capital and labor be applied to large-scale corporate business, in which capital is represented by thousands of investors, and labor by thousands of workers? I see no reason why it cannot. The only fundamental change that is necessary in our present system of industry is the limitation of dividends on capital to a reasonable, cumulative yield, as is now done with the public utilities and the railroads, and the distribution of any earnings in excess of such dividends among all the active workers who give their full time to the business, in proportion to their wages or salaries. The application of the partnership system would involve the determination by impartial public authority of a reasonable yield upon capital for each year, and the enactment of a national law limiting dividends or other distributions to capital to this rate. It would also involve the permission to labor to elect its own auditor, to act with the capitalists' auditor, in seeing that the accounting methods are honest, and that no milking of the enterprise for the benefit of management or owners through subsidiary companies, through bonuses, etc., is done.

In case of disagreement between the auditors of capital and those of labor, appeal would lie to impartial public accountants representing the government, to the courts of the land for decisions and to the national legislature for any necessary legislation. The present regulation of the accounting methods of the railroads by the Interstate Commerce Commission would serve as model and precedent in this field. It will be observed that the possible disputes arising under this system would be limited to questions of fact (which are justiciable) and would not involve demands (which are not justiciable).

How could a fair dividend rate under this partnership arrangement be determined? It is of course evident that, since the degree of risk varies in different lines of business, a single dividend rate for the whole of industry would not be just. Investments would flow to the staple lines, in which the risk is smallest, and hazardous [Page 94]and new lines of industry would not be able to obtain sufficient capital. A fair method of determining the rate of dividend for each industry would be, to find the average annual yield on bonds resting upon that industry, which is not a difficult process, and to fix the dividend rate for each year at a figure about 1 per cent or 1½ per cent above that average yield. If this margin proved too large and flooded the capital market, while starving the bond market, it could be reduced; if too small, increased. The annual average bond yields could be determined by the Department of Commerce or some similar organ of the government.

If this reasonable dividend on capital was not earned by a company, what procedure could be followed to regulate the preliminary drawing accounts of the workers; that is, their current wages and salaries? It is suggested that, when the limited dividend is not earned in any year during the following year the wage scale be reduced 5 per cent; on the other hand, that the wage scale be increased 5 per cent whenever the earnings above the current dividend amount to as much as a 20 per cent bonus distribution on the payroll. While it is evident that such an arrangement gives dividends a certain amount of preference over wages, this is offset by the limitation of dividends and the division of all surplus earnings among workers. This flexibility in the wage scales, in contrast to our present rigid wage system, in which rates can usually be altered only through strikes or lockouts. would, as we shall see later, have a great effect in making operations continuous and employment permanent. It would also make investments more secure, reasonable dividends more certain, and would therefore greatly encourage the accumulation of capital and the establishment of new industries to absorb the increasing numbers of workers in a growing population.

Advantages of the Partnership System Over the Wage System

What advantages would the application of the partnership principle to the capital-labor relation have over our present wage system? Perhaps the greatest would be the continuous distribution of sufficient purchasing power to balance production, clear the markets, and avoid the periodical breakdown and stoppage of our [Page 95]economic machine in crisis and depressions. In prosperous or boom periods the wages of the workers would automatically rise with the growth of production and profits and would thus afford the necessary purchasing power to keep the increasing production moving into consumption and prevent that glutting of the markets which causes the crisis of industry with the resulting crash and depression. Under the wage system the increase of profits in boom periods goes principally to capital and is largely used through investment to increase production instead of to consume production and keep the channels of trade unclogged by surplusses. Under the partnership system production and purchasing power are tied together and move up or down together.

The second advantage of the partnership system over the wage system would be the softening of the question of hours. Employers would have no motive in demanding longer hours, if they could not benefit from them; if the increased earnings would go to the workers, not to the employers. On the other hand, workers would not be so keen for shorter hours, if the reduction of earning which would result did not affect the dividend of the capitalists, but came out of the bonus distribution of the workers. The regulation of hours could therefore with much less friction be adjusted at the point which would afford continuous employment to all the workers. As the efficiency of machinery increased, the hours of toil for the workers could be lightened, as is now being attempted in the United States under the N.R.A. Probably an agency consisting of representatives of capital, labor and government could be formed to determine the length of the working week in accordance with the state of employment. If there should be 10 per cent of unemployment, a 10 per cent reduction of hours would by and large absorb the unemployment. This softening of the friction on the length of the working week, together with the previous advantage of an adequate distribution of purchasing power to clear the markets, would make for continuous operation in industry, full employment of the workers, and regular dividends on capital.

The feeling among the workers that they were receiving the full social value of their labor under the partnership system would [Page 96]produce a much greater friendliness and cooperative spirit between management and workers, and consequently a product much larger in amount and superior in quality. Workers would feel that any increase in the product would mean an additional bonus distribution for themselves, and that any increase in seconds and inferior products would mean a reduction of their earnings. Furthermore, every worker would be interested in seeing that his fellow "did his part" and did not loaf on the job, which would lower the workers' earnings. The elimination of strikes and lockouts which would be possible under the partnership system would save many millions of dollars annually to both capital and labor, and would thus increase the earnings of both.

It may be mentioned here, that the final solution of the capital-labor problem would require international action for the establishment of fair and equal terms of international competition in hours of labor, minimum age of employment, regulation of female labor, and sanitary conditions of work. It is significant of President Roosevelt's long views that he has placed the United States in the International Labor Organization.

At the bottom of the whole problem of industrial peace lies the human element. There will be no permanent peace between capital and labor until wage-slavery, the relation of master and man, has been replaced by partnership, the relation of human brotherhood in production. The labor problem is part of the age-long struggle of mankind up from slavery, up from serfdom, up from feudalism, up from wage-slavery to freedom, equality and brotherhood. [Page 97]

GEORGE LANSBURY

by REV. ALBERT D. BELDEN, B.D.

An honest man has been described by one of the poets as “the noblest work of God” and George Lansbury is the divine simplicity of character similar to that of Henry Campbell Bannerman, the Liberal Premier who preceded Asquith, and who was extraordinarily successful as a Premier. It is the fashion in Great Britain to talk of George Lansbury as though he were an honest simpleton and to say “of course, he is not clever” but it is difficult for the honest man to obtain a reputation for cleverness. The absence of duplicity and chicanery from his character appears to the worldly spirit as a hopeless handicap for effective dealing with life. But this point of view fails to allow for the fact that an honest character is the finest foundation for a clear-seeing mind and that so often the Gordian knots of life’s problems are best tackled by the simple process of cutting them.

It can be safely prophesied that if George Lansbury comes to the Premiership, and it is not unlikely, it will be a Premiership of deeds rather than words and of brave, simple, heroic policies much more likely to prove a tonic to the present state of the world than the timid tortuousness of the clever people.

George Lansbury’s father was a contractor for railway construction and coal depot work. George was born in the year 1859 at Halesworth in Suffolk. When he was six years old the family removed to Kent for the building of the London Chatham & Dover Railway. Afterwards they removed successively to Woolwich, Bethnal Green, and finally to Whitechapel. As a result George Lansbury’s early education was very scanty. Whitechapel in those far-off days of 1865 was very different from what it is to-day. It [Page 98]abounded in dairies, piggeries, small farms and market gardens. Our hero received his best teaching at a school attached to Whitechapel Church and for many years after his school-days he kept in touch with his schoolmaster, Michael Apted—"a real good sort" as Mr. Lansbury describes him, and also with the Rector, the Rev. J. F. Kitto. One of the effects of this education was that he in company with his fellow-scholars developed a keen interest in the politics of his time. He has always been a voracious reader, especially of historical works.

It was the Rector of Whitechapel who later married him to Elizabeth Jane Brine. In their early married life Mr. & Mrs. Lansbury were the leading lights of the Whitechapel Band of Hope, and he was the Superintendent of the Sunday School attached to the Church. Their life was one of Puritanic simplicity; they never dreamed of attending either a theatre or a music-hall, and yet while Mr. Lansbury has absorbed the strength and simplicity of the Puritan outlook he has never been the stern, lugubrious, kill-joy fanatic the Puritan may all too easily become. Indeed he has lately, at the ripe age of 75, become the champion of a brighter England and although a life-long teetotaller, always ready to defend his teetotalism, he recently, as First Commissioner of Works to His Majesty's Government, opposed absolutely the appeal of the Temperance Members of Parliament that he should refuse a license for the sale of strong drink at Hampton Court. His contention was that Prohibitionists must attain their ends by straightforward constitutional methods and not attempt to impose teetotalism on the country without a mandate. This is a striking illustration of his straightforward honesty and his love for democratic procedure.

Mr. Lansbury served a long apprenticeship to politics in the local-government of Poplar which is closely adjacent to Whitechapel.

On a certain day in the early 'nineties, Lansbury left his job of veneer dryer in his father-in-law's timber yard, to take his place on a relief committee of the Poplar Board of Guardians, where he sat side-by-side with Will Crooks and a few others who were the advance guard of the Liberal-Laborism of the day. His very first action [Page 99]was characteristic. He was asked to take tea with the Chairman of the Committee, and innocently asked who was to pay for the tea. When he was told he would be the guest of the Chairman he replied that he would rather pay for his own tea, as being a mere workman he would not be able to return the compliment. After that, everybody paid. It was a small matter but it marked him out as a man of sturdy principle.

For twenty years he was in the van of the rising Socialist attack on the Municipal bodies of London, and became the fierce opponent of all who sought to exploit Municipal power for private ends, the "boodlers, jerry-builders, and body snatchers" as he called them. He used to remark with a certain grim humor on the eagerness of undertakers to become members of the Workhouse Committee from which position they might keep a watchful eye on the old people, weighing up their expectation of life, and taking their general measurements with a practised eye with a view to the time when their final demand on the community for a deal coffin would fall due.

Those years spent in fighting the battle of the destitute, sick and the aged, and of unwanted, neglected children, laid the foundation of that great love of Lansbury by the common people which is his supreme strength in present days.

He has always been peculiarly a man of the people. For example, he has never mastered the art of shaving himself, and almost every morning he may be seen taking himself along the Bow Road, often in carpet slippers, to one of the local barbers' shops where the business is not only shaving but the inevitable chit-chat of the barbers' establishment, and no devotee of the shop is too humble for the man of the people to take an interest in, or with whom to exchange political views.

Throughout a long life, he is now half way through his seventies, Mr. Lansbury has served the cause of Socialism on the platform with unstinted devotion. His vitality has always been amazing. After a week of hard work in his earlier years, which would send younger men to a week-end of rest, he would devote Saturday afternoons to taking parties of school-children over the Houses of [Page 100]Parliament, always impressing them with the Liberal aspects of British politics. The Sunday would find him in some remote part of the country, proclaiming his message of Social redemption throughout the whole day. This, combined with exacting labor in local affairs, and in the development of the Labor Party, has made up a life of perpetual toil.

His passionate love for the poor, and fierce championship of their cause is well illustrated by an incident which occurred when as Members of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law, he and Lord George Hamilton were visiting the Workhouses all over the country. Lord Hamilton broke into praise of one of these Institutions and turning to Lansbury said: "This is all right; no complaints here; you can say nothing against this. It is really delightfully clean and comfortable." The reply was direct and forceful enough to be shocking: "O yes, my lord, it is too damned clean, too well regulated. Get up with a bell, breakfast with a bell, dinner and supper likewise, then bed with a bell, and at the end heaven or hell with a bell! You would not live here an hour! You would not be found dead here by choice, neither would I. What is not good enough for you and me is neither clean nor comfortable enough for others."

There is a most amazing instance of a retort of his to the Prince of Wales (later Edward VII) when they were discussing the conditions of the aged poor. The Prince was a Member of the Commission of Enquiry and asked Mr. Lansbury just what he meant by the need for a variety of food, and suggested it might mean an occasional biscuit. Lansbury's answer caused a commotion! "Well, if you give them biscuits, you will have to supply them with teeth!" The point of the reply was that biscuits for the paupers were made by a firm supplying dog biscuits. Royalty was not at all upset by this answer and in a day or two Lansbury received a letter of congratulation from the Prince upon his evidence.

As His Majesty's First Commissioner of Works in the recent Labor Government, he won the admiration of all parties by the devotion and courage that he brought to his task. He certainly did succeed in making London brighter and that he earned the gratitude of the people is shown by the notice his works secured from [Page 101]

GEORGE LANSBURY

the Editor of "Time and Tide" 20th September 1929: "Mr. Lansbury is one of those Ministers whose names should have a permanent place in history, and especially in books of history for children. He will be remembered, it may be, as the First Commissioner for Good Works."

Mr. Lansbury like many another leader in the Labor Party in Britain has known the inside of prison. The lead that he gave in the administration of unemployment relief and public assistance in Poplar brought down upon him the vengeance of the Tory Government. Mr. Lansbury eventually led the Members of the Poplar Borough Council into prison. The idea, we are told, was that a few weeks' sojourn away from the heat and turmoil of a heedless and unsatisfactory world might draw public attention to a great public scandal which nobody but the victims ever wanted to hear about. The result of this business visit to His Majesty's Prison of a few Poplar councillors was that Poplar became richer by more than five hundred thousand pounds a year.

The situation arose out of the fact that the maintenance of the unemployed was strictly local, with the result that prosperous boroughs like Westminster and others had only to maintain a kind of sample of the poor of London, while populous boroughs like Poplar were simply overwhelmed. Now the Poplar Borough Council, like every other in London, had to pay away large sums of money to the London County Council, the Metropolitan Police, the Metropolitan Asylums Board, etc., every half-year, so in order to draw attention to this scandal the Councillors refused to pay these levies. They levied a rate sufficient only to pay for the Council's local services, leaving the central bodies to get their share as best they could. When they were ordered to increase the rate so that the extra money for these Central Bodies could be found, they refused to do so and found themselves committed to prison.

The Government at the time made many unofficial promises to deal with the Rates question of London on the lines of the Poplar demand if only these Councillors would purge their contempt of Court by levying the rate. Mr. Lansbury, however, was too honest and simple to be caught by such guile. It was up to the [Page 102]Government to get him and his colleagues out of prison not by vague promises but by action. The public supported the councillors and enormous processions marched continually round the prison with bands and banners.

Eventually a satisfactory document was drawn up which enabled the Councillors to walk out of prison in the sure knowledge that the reform which thirty years of constitutional agitation had failed to bring about would at last be effected. The result was that every poor Borough of London received many hundreds of thousands of pounds for the relief of their indigent poor.

In the great economic crisis of 1931 Mr. Lansbury was among those members of the Labor Cabinet who resigned rather than be responsible for cutting the benefit of the unemployed, and here is a characteristic statement of his concerning it. "For myself I refused to stick to the fleshpots of office and betray the poor on whose confidence and votes my whole public life depended. Also, as an Englishman, I refused to accept the blatant dictation of American and British bankers, led by the Bank of England and Treasury officials.

"We waited in Downing Street for telephone messages from New York. The Deputy-Governor of the Bank of England and some of his colleagues were in one committee room waiting, so they said, to receive the message, and a message was read to the Cabinet."

"In a world of abundance, the money-muddlers and greedy usurers demand that masses shall starve.

"We in Britain have often led the world in peaceful, ordered change. We can do it again."

It was the great privilege of the present writer, in the Christmas of 1932, to accompany Mr. George Lansbury on a visit to Lossiemouth to plead with the Prime Minister for the release of Mr. Tom Mann, an old man of some 76 years of age, a well-known agitator of advanced Left views, because he had been charged and imprisoned under the revival of some very ancient and oppressive acts of British law, one of them dating as far back as Edward III. Although our mission proved unsuccessful in its main object, it focussed tremendous public attention upon what was essentially [Page 103]

GEORGE LANSBURY

a travesty of the law and did a great deal of good. I refer to it particularly because of the insight it gave me into the character and personality of the man of the people. When our work was done and we were returning after a very hectic time with reporters, cinema photographers, etc., the ex-Cabinet Minister relaxed and regaled us with some of the most characteristic songs of the East End of London. It was a peep into the simple, hearty jollity of a soul possessed of a good conscience and was a revelation of his great love of the common people.

It is safe to prophesy if Mr. Lansbury comes to real power in England as more than probable in the next Election, we shall see things happen and our expectation might well be expressed in a passage from Tennyson of which Mr. George Lansbury is particularly fond:—

<poem> "As long as we remain, we must speak free, Tho' all the storm of Europe on us break, No little paltry State are we, But the one voice in Europe; we must speak; That if to-night our greatness were struck dead There might be left some record of the things we said. If you be fearful, then must we be bold, Our Britain cannot salve a tyrant o'er, Better the waste Atlantic roll'd On her and us and ours for evermore. What! have we fought for Freedom from our prime, At last to dodge and palter with a public crime? Shall we fear them? our own we never fear'd. From our first Charles by force we wrung our claims, Prick'd by the Papal spur, we rear'd. We flung the burthen of the second James. Tho' niggard throats of money-lords may bawl, What England was, shall her true sons forget? We are not money-lenders all, But some love England and her honour yet. And these in our Thermopylae shall stand, And hold against the world this honour of the land." </poem> [Page 104]

GENEVA, SEPTEMBER, 1934

by EVELYN NEWMAN Professor of English, Rollins College

THE fifteenth ordinary Assembly of the League of Nations met in a rather inauspicious atmosphere this September. For one thing, discouragement over the seeming futility of the disarmament committee meetings last spring remained in the Geneva consciousness. For another, directed and resolute action toward desired objectives seemed lacking. Uncertainty was everywhere apparent during the first few meetings.

For those who had attended thrilling assemblies in the old John Calvin Hall of the Reformation during the days when Briand and Stresemann talked together, when the Viking Nansen and the Scotchman Ramsey MacDonald could be seen towering over the others holding friendly converse, when the influence of Lord Robert Cecil was as pervasive as it was beneficial in the peaceful settlement of disputes, this gathering in the big barnlike Geneva parliamentary building seemed at first totally lacking in personality and interest.

But as the eye grew accustomed to the scene, one from the press gallery could pick out personalities from the delegations representing the fifty-four or fifty-five nations (Germany and Japan were, of course, absent) on the floor of the house. Of the powerful as well as picturesque statesmen of former days, there remained only the large and somewhat genially explosive Titulesco, the slender Hymans, looking more like Einstein than ever with his aura of silver hair, Edward Benes, slightly balder and more reserved than of yore, and the small vivid Madariaga heading their delegations of Roumania, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, and Spain. Of the more recent members, tall, rawboned De Valera, leader of the Irish Free [Page 105]State, and heavy-set, energetic Hambro of Norway were among the most interesting.

Since the seating is arranged according to the French alphabet, one could easily pick out the various countries. Invariably, the greater powers were placed down the central section fronting the rostrum. The ten women delegates made conspicuous the countries they represented by the mere fact that there were so few of them. Stalwart old Fröken Forchhammer was still an alternate from Denmark, and Kerstin Hesselgren was a full voting member from Sweden. The other women alternates were Mrs. Couchman from Australia, Countess Starhemberg (mother of the Prince) from Austria, Miss Horsbrugh, M. P. from Great Britain, Signorina Campoamor from Spain, Countess Apponyi from Hungary, Dr. Ingeborg Aas from Norway, Madame Kluyver from The Netherlands, and Mlle. Vacaresca from Roumania. This is indeed a small number to represent one half the human race, but Commissar Litvinoff assured a group of American women who called upon him several days after Russia's acceptance that it would be increased by at least one next year, when Russia would send a woman as full delegate empowered to vote.

Though the early meetings were lacking in special features of interest, the proceedings gave a thrill to an onlooker of imagination; for after all there sat many of the most important governmental representatives of a large portion of the so-called civilized world.

The usual procedure of the opening meeting was carried out. Edouard Benes, the foreign minister of Czechoslovakia as president of the Council, presided. His speech was sane and statesmanlike. He briefly summed up the various indictments against the League made by its unfriendly critics during the past months. Foremost among them was the so-called failure concerning the conference for the Limitation and Reduction of Armaments. He declared that the responsibility for failure was not upon the League but upon the individual states who had as yet refused to allow their representatives to make sufficient compromise for any collective advance toward disarmament. The other indictments were the withdrawal [Page 106]of Japan and Germany from the family of nations and the failure on the part of the League to handle the question of Manchukuo, to ease the prevailing tension between Japan and the Soviet Union, or to stop the war between Bolivia and Paraguay concerning the territory of the Chaco. Committees from the Council of the League, in cooperation with representatives from South American states and from the United States of America, had been vainly endeavoring to bring about a reconciliation for the past two years. In spite of these harrassing facts, he believed that the League had made great effort toward aiding the cause of justice and peace in each situation. On the debit side, the League had done actually constructive peace work in its settlement, with the aid of Brazil, of the serious dispute between Peru and Colombia regarding the territory of Letticia. It had supplied machinery for the arranging of friendly pacts for special cooperation and non-aggression and for certain joint agreements of three great powers which had been made last spring to insure the independence of Austria. Added to these items in favor of the League, he believed Russia's desire and possible accomplishment in becoming a member would infinitely strengthen League work and give an added atmosphere of encouragement. He closed his address by warning world statesmen concerning their responsibility for war, declaring that they now possessed to a greater extent than ever before the means of preventing war. If such a catastrophe fell upon their people, they would be held responsible, not only by their respective countries but by the moral judgment of the world. "The League of Nations can become only so strong in its political position as its member nations will make it in the coming years."

After this speech, the election procedure for the new president was announced. As always, it was by secret ballot, the leading delegate of each country coming up to the rostrum box to drop in the vote of his group. Mr. Sandler, foreign minister of Sweden, was elected by a large majority. He is a lean, middle-aged, capable man who has done yeoman service for many months as a member of the disarmament conference. He made an excellent presiding officer, tactful, but alert and decisive in his judgments. At the [Page 107]announcement of the election returns, Mr. Sandler took the chair and dismissed the meeting with the statement that he would call the members of the general Assembly concerning the formation of the various committees for the handling of the questions upon the agenda.

The most important of these questions, other than those of the mere routine of the governing machinery were, of course, the entry of Russia into the League and the dispute between Bolivia and Paraguay. Both these vital matters could not be handled in the Assembly until a way had been paved for such general discussion by resolutions upon them made in committee meetings. It was voted that the sixth, (the political section) committee was to handle the question of Russia's entry. As for the situation between Bolivia and Paraguay, long sessions of both the sixth (political) and the fifth (social) committees were given over to it. It was also handled in the first (legal) section.

The problem of Russia's entry was made acute because of the violent objection of many of the smaller nations. It was reported that Switzerland had even threatened to withdraw from the League, should Russia be admitted. Madariaga had been elected as chairman for the political section. After a rather sensational speech by De Valera in the Assembly, in the course of which he impugned the statesmen for carrying on back-parlor discussions which should be held from the Assembly floor, concerning Russia, Madariaga placed the question on the agenda of the sixth committee for Monday afternoon, September the 17th.

The meeting was held in one of the larger rooms of the new wing of the Secretariat, built for the meetings of the disarmament section. Into this room large enough for three hundred but packed with five hundred or more, mostly men journalists, gathered members of the political section. Representatives from forty-eight states sat in the meeting, which was skillfully presided over by the astute Spaniard. Impassioned speeches against Russia's entry were made by Motta of Switzerland, Jasper of Belgium, Cantilo of Argentine, De Graeff of The Netherlands, and Da Mata of Portugal. All made very much the same point, the danger of communist [Page 108]propaganda aimed at the foundation of the established governments of most of the countries who were members of the League. These speeches were vociferously applauded.

M. Barthou, foreign minister of France, made the longest and best speech in favor of Russia. He declared that M. Motta's point brought up the question of doctrine in which one system would be opposed to another; but as politicians, League members must look at actual facts. One fact was obvious, a great country of one hundred and seventy millions had asked to be admitted to the League. It laid down no conditions but accepted, on the contrary, those of the covenant. Article I of the covenant provided that the League should be a universal body. In welcoming Russia into the League they were acting in the spirit of the covenant. The interests of peace urged that she should be admitted. France, Great Britain, Italy, and several other European countries wished her admitted. To refuse her would throw a great responsibility on the nations making the refusal. To admit her would be in the interests of the League and of world peace. Captain Eden of Great Britain, Baron Aloisi of Italy, M. Beck of Poland, and M. Benes of Czechoslovakia all made brief speeches in favor of Russia's entry, as did Mr. Skelton of Canada and Tevfik Bey of Turkey. Chairman Madariaga added his appeal in her favor, and the vote was taken by roll call, with the result of thirty-eight for, three against, and seven abstaining.

An Assembly meeting was called for the next afternoon at six o'clock for the final procedure. M. Madariaga, in recognition for his service as chairman of the sixth committee was allowed to make the proposal speech before the house. In part, he said as follows:

"I was very proud, as the representative of Spain, to be called to this platform when Mexico and later when Turkey entered the League of Nations. Chance and the confidence which you have been good enough to show me, have now given me the honor of the opportunity of proposing the admission of Russia into the League.

"I confidently express the hope that the great American [Page 109]Republic whose cooperation is so essential to us, will by its entry in due course, add to that element of universality which is the very fundamental essential, not only of the success but of the existence of the League of Nations."

President Sandler then called for discussion from the floor. Again Mr. Motta of Switzerland, M. Cantilo of the Argentine Republic, and M. Da Mota of Portugal spoke against Russia's entry. Mr. De Valera of the Irish Free State, though he had the week before pleaded for Russia's entry, spoke at length asking that Commissar Litvinoff give assurances from the Russian government concerning its keeping faith with more than one-third of the inhabitants of the globe who proclaimed themselves followers of Christ that anti-Christian propaganda would not be sent out from Russia. Persia and Turkey spoke in favor. The vote was then taken for the entry with the result of thirty-nine in the affirmative. This number gave the required two-thirds for admission. The same procedure was carried out for the election of Russia to a permanent seat on the Council with forty affirmative votes as the result. President Sandler then inquired concerning the Russian delegates' credentials. When informed by the credential committee that they were satisfactory, the conclusions of that committee were adopted.

The president in a hearty voice declared: "I invite the delegates of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics to come and take their places in this Assembly."

A ripple of amusement ran through the tense and crowded house since the three Russian delegates had already been seated, through a mistake on the part of the ushers. The president continued: "On behalf of the Assembly I have the honor to greet the delegation of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics which will from today take its place among us... I do not feel called upon to attempt an estimate of the true significance of the event which is occurring today. It will be for the future to show us all its consequences for the destiny of humanity.

"Having said this I think it is my duty to proclaim that this day of September 18, 1934 marks a decisive point in the history of our League, which has been increased today by a member bringing [Page 110]into the scale of international cooperation—organized in a definite and concrete manner by the covenant—the weight of a population of one hundred seventy millions, playing an extremely important part in the life of two continents.

"I ask the Soviet delegation to give us its assistance in our work for the welfare of the world, and I take this opportunity of once more expressing my faith in our League. Born of war and distress, may it insure peace in the world and may it bring happiness to the peoples. I call upon Mr. Litvinoff, first delegate of the Union of Socialist Republics."

There was silence for a moment; then in the hushed expectancy of the crowded house, Mr. Litvinoff walked sturdily to the platform and started reading in slow and rather stumbling English his long but powerful speech. He thanked the president and the members of the Council and the Assembly for electing Russia into their membership. He then launched into a discussion of his country and its relation to the League of Nations: "The entry into the League in the fifteenth year of its existence by Russia, one of the greatest states in the world, does undoubtedly call for some explanation," he declared, proudly adding that Russia represented a new state in its internal, political, and social structure, in its aspirations and ideas. He admitted that it was not surprising that such a state should come up against intense hostility for a time. He adroitly reminded the Allied nations of their abortive attempts toward armed intervention in the internal government of his country. He criticised some of the League covenant:

"Had we taken part in the drawing up of the covenant of the League we would have contested certain of its articles. In particular we would have objected to articles 12 and 15 for the legislation in certain instances of war. That is why I stated in my letter of the 15th to the president of the Assembly our satisfaction over the proposal to alter these articles. Further, we would have objected to article 22 on the system of mandates. We also deprecate the absence in article 23 of undertakings to insure race equality.

But he explained that these objections were not important enough to keep Russia out of the League... "The Soviet Union is [Page 111]itself a League of Nations in the best sense of the word, uniting over two hundred nationalities, thirteen of which have a population of not less than one million each, and others, such as Russia and the Ukrain, a population running into the scores of millions. I will make so bold as to claim that never before have so many nations co-existed so peacefully within a single state, never before have so many nations in one state had such free cultural development and enjoyed their own national culture as a whole and the use of their own language in particular. In no other country are all manifestation of race and national prejudice so resolutely put down and eradicated as in the Soviet Union... Before the Soviet régime, all nationalities except the dominating Russian were being stamped out by violence and oppression. At the present time the periodical press in the Soviet Union comes out in fifty languages. The national policy of the Soviet Union and the results of this policy have received their due, both from friends and foes visiting the Soviet Union and studying the national question on the spot."

Thus he went on and on enumerating the challenging points of difference in his country. Delegates, visitors, and press representatives quietly slipped away by twos and threes until the big hall was almost empty. Only Great Britain, France, and a few smaller delegations lingered. But the Commissar never faltered nor did he seem to notice his rapidly dwindling audience. He was talking for his own country's press reports as had so many other statesmen in the days before. What better forum possible!

An hour and a half had passed. He was drawing to a close: "I will only mention the active part taken by the Soviet delegation in the preparatory commission of the disarmament conference and in the conference itself. On behalf of the Soviet government the Soviet representative declared its readiness for any degree of disarmament, taking its stand on far-reaching proposals for the insuring of peace, some of which have received world-wide recognition and even application... The Soviet government has never ceased working at this task throughout the whole of its existence. It has come here to combine its efforts with the efforts of other states represented in the League. I am convinced that in this, our common [Page 112]work, from now on the will to peace in the Soviet Union with its hundred seventy million inhabitants—peace for itself and for other states will make itself felt as a powerful factor.”

As the speaker left the platform, President Sandler, without more ado, pronounced the Assembly dismissed. The hour was 8:25 P. M.

After the climax of Russia’s admission, interest waned. The committees worked on steadily day by day. In the fifth committee (the social section) real progress was made in connection with traffic in women and children by the unanimous passing of a resolution to recommend urgently to all governments in the civilized world the abolishment of licensed houses of prostitution. Many governments have already abolished such houses. It was encouraging to hear representatives of states still allowing such houses make apology for their governments.

In the sixth (political) committee the chief matter of interest for the remaining time was the discussion of the war between Paraguay and Bolivia over the Chaco district. In spite of the fact which critics are constantly citing that the war has not been stopped, attendant upon the fifth and sixth committee discussions would compel any fair critic to realize the efforts that have been put forth by the League Council and various committees. At several meetings of the sixth committee, the representatives from Paraguay and Bolivia must have felt embarrassed and unhappy over the unanimous disapproval expressed. They were often appealed to and sometimes severely criticised. Mr. Skelton of Canada, the chairman of the League committee of investigation, finally summed up the League’s indictment by saying that both Paraguay and Bolivia were exhausting their national strength, killing off their youth, and breaking down the whole framework of the League of Nations for world cooperation. A review of the long efforts made by South American countries in cooperation with representatives from the United States of America was given by many speakers.

At the final meetings, another committee of twenty was created by the Assembly. In that committee meeting, Alberto Guani of Uruguay compelled the appointing of a sub-committee of eight [Page 113]Latin-American countries to attempt conciliation. Recommendations under article 15 of the League covenant are to be prepared by experts headed by M. Avenol, the executive secretary of the League.

The two other states that joined the League this fall are Afghanistan and Ecuador. Now among all the nations of the world, the only countries of any size outside the League are our own United States of America besides Germany, Japan, and Brazil, who have been members and will undoubtedly return to the fold in time.

All together, this September Assembly in Geneva ended on an infinitely higher note of achievement than even the best friends of the League could have hoped for at its beginning. It is agreed that the evolution of the covenant in many ways must come, that regional pacts within the League framework may be substituted for some of the cumbersome League machinery of the present moment. But any fair and intelligent person who attended this year's Assembly with its accompanying Council and various committee meetings could not fail to leave Geneva with a mind newly stretched to the grasp of world problems and a keener realization, sympathy for and understanding of the immense complex task in which are engaged men and women from all parts of the world, men and women of ability, energy, and great sincerity, whether they be members of the Secretariat or of the cooperating nations within the League. [Page 114]

NATIONAL, INTERNATIONAL

ONE-LINE WISDOM Compiled by WM. P. TAYLOR

English laws punish vice; Chinese laws reward virtue. Goldsmith. England, the land of scholars and the nurse of arms. Goldsmith. I am in Germany but I can't find the country. Gorkey. Policy, the creed of diplomats. Greely. He who changes country changes luck. Guicciardini. Love of country strengthens individual and national character. Hamilton.

Combinations of men are distasteful to tyrants. Hemans. The French are not international egotists. Herriot. There is nothing nobler than humanity. Hindoo. To the noble, the whole world is one family. Hindoo. No nation with a good home-life can be destroyed. Holland. Combination will resist oppression. Inchiquin. To God belong the East and the West. Islam. Nations are ruled by expediency. Ismaeloff. Courtiers are the moths and scarabs of states. Jonson. Fear must rule in a despotism. Kossuth. A fugitive must not forget the past. Kossuth. Nations, like individuals, interest us in their growth. Landor. Democracy is government of the people, by the people and for the people. Lincoln. Laws, the sovereign of sovereigns. Louis XIV. Communism means barbarism. Lowell. Evolution, too long deferred, means revolution. Ludwig. Maxims are the condensed sense of nations. Mackintosh. School-houses are the republican line of fortifications. Mann. Clemency is a kingdom's best preserver. Marcus Aurelius. Education is our only political safety. Mann. Royalty should consist in virtue, not pomp. Marston. I am returning to Copenhagen where there is real civilization. Meyer. [Page 115]

NATIONAL, INTERNATIONAL

Not kings, alone, the people, too love their flatterers. Mirabeau.

The Prussian school-master won the battle of Sadowa. Moltke.

Virtue is necessary to a republic. Montesquieu.

He is no king who fears to fight for his country. Montezuma.

The fascist loves his neighbor-but with differences. Mussolini.

Democracy-political equality-is an illusion. Mussolini.

America grows on the follies of Europe. Napoleon.

The European oligarchy detests me. Napoleon.

The Scotch for accuracy. Nicholson.

Let our last sleep be in the graves of our native land. Oceola.

Dew depends not on parliament. Otis.

The majority proves that mediocry, only is approved. Pascal.

The best service to the State is making citizens acquainted. Plato.

A war is not to be timidly shunned or unjustly provoked. Pliny.

One murder makes a villain; a million, a hero. Porteus.

Subjugate the barbarians. Probus.

But 100 Americans think in international terms? There are not that many in Europe. Reinach.

We (French) are alone in the world, as knowing how to think. Rivière.

Despotism ever pleads necessity. Rynders.

There is a higher law than the constitution. Seward.

Like men, nations are purified and strengthened by trial. Smiles.

Let the bugles sound the truce of God to the whole world, forever. Sumner.

I never hear of a Cuban election without getting goose-flesh. Taft.

A national party must have a national issue. Tilton.

Quell rebellion, before it spreads. Vespasian.

One country, one constitution, one destiny. Webster.

ANONYMOUS

African To be better off, is not necessarily, to be better.

American In America, one always wants to be somebody.

The Americans (at the Hague) were concerned only about 'points'. [Page 116]

Chinese

The Chinese republic requests the prayers of the Christian nations.

English

An Englishman is never generous but always fair. With an Englishman, nothing is sacred but property. The English have been made by solid material success. With an Englishman-from his long experience-conventions are convictions. The English win because they understand the nature of things. Victoria longed for Christ’s coming that she might lay her crown at His feet.

French

The French like to leave nothing to chance. The French, in Africa, accomplished more by buttons than the Germans by bayonets.

German

From a pebble a German can construct a universe. The invasion of Belgium was the greatest concentration of history.

Greek

The Greek civilization of the 5th century, B. C. was the highest known.

Indian

We live in fellowship with the eternal.

Japanese

Firm but kind.

Jewish

The fierce intellectuality of the Jew. The ancient Jew smelled a rose and praised God. The Canaanites proved Israel.

Scandanavian

When a Swede makes up his mind to do a thing he does it. The north wind made the Vikings. [Page 117]

NATIONAL, INTERNATIONAL

Scotch Scotland, the most romantic land in the world.

Swiss We teach our youngest children to do everything right or not at all.

Miscellaneous He who is obsessed with race prejudice has not learned the bigness or glory of life.

It is time for the practical application of Christianity to international affairs.

It is the destiny of the human race to grow into completeness.

IKHNATON

by STANTON A. COBLENTZ

(Egyptian ruler, fourteenth century B. C.; introduced religious reforms and espoused peace; later execrated and denounced as "criminal")

The lips of time but rarely speak his name, Lone Pharaoh of the forward-darting sight, Who, peering on the towers of love and light, Was cursed as traitor to his people's fame.

The ears of time are full of praise and blame, But not for him, whose half-forgotten might Sleeps where the sand-dunes drift, this king whose fight For peace was deemed a sooty mark of shame.

Yet though the silt of dynasties lies deep And dusty winds devour each columned aisle, Hail him, the first of that long martyred file Who sow in sorrow that the throng may reap!

All kindlers of the Forlorn Torch still keep The altar-fire he lighted by the Nile! [Page 118]

THE INSTITUTE AND THE UNIVERSITY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

by MARY HULL Author of "Progress by Tilic Guidana," etc.

A SIGNIFICANT feature of the post-war period is the spontaneous development of organizations for the consideration of international questions in widely separated sections of the United States. This development is obviously a tacit admission of the inadequacy of our political system and of the current method for the formation of public opinion, and it manifests a reaching out for a more rational mode of reaction to international situations. Although, for the most part, these organizations are confined to small groups of leading thinkers whose ideas are not reflected in politics, still they constitute, we may reasonably assume, the nucleus of the "international mind" in America; and with the spread of such organizations and in particular with the extension of World Unity Conferences which make a wider popular appeal, we may hope to build up the national consciousness that we are now citizens of the world.

A promising organization of the type to which I refer, the Institute of International Relations, has held annual sessions for some eight years.

The Institute was organized in 1926 under the auspices of the University of Southern California in order to furnish for the people on the West Coast an opportunity such as was enjoyed in the East at the Institute of Politics in Williamstown, Massachusetts, to study the problems of international relations, in the belief that a wider understanding of these problems conduces to "universal goodwill and world peace."

Membership to the Institute, to quote the official bulletin, "is [Page 119]

THE INSTITUTE AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

by invitation extended to those whose interest and experience have fitted them to take a constructive part in some of the Round Table discussions. Universities, Colleges, Learned Societies, and other selected organizations are invited to send a maximum of five delegates..."

"An invitation can be accepted for the year only in which it is received. Friends of the Institute who desire that invitations be extended to certain persons known by them to be qualified to participate in the program will confer a favor by sending names to the Executive Office, University of Southern California, Los Angeles."

"A registration fee of $10.00 is charged each member and delegate, which entitles him to attend all sessions of the conference. University student membership is $5.00."

The program of recent conferences consisted of evening lectures by eminent speakers open to the public without admission charge; afternoon general conferences open to the public on payment of a registration fee; morning round table discussions confined to members and to the delegates who represented variously civic, social, educational, philanthropic, and religious organizations; and luncheon meetings featured by addresses on special topics. A great variety of subjects is covered, among them, the Kellog Peace Pact, the renunciation of war, our Latin-American policy, international commerce and finance, the resident alien problem of the Southwest, reorganization of the Department of State, foreign policies of American political parties, Japan, the new China, the Near East, international aspects of the fine arts, etc.

The program of the last day of the 1928 conference was devoted appropriately to the dedication of the new University of International Relations on the campus of the University of Southern California.

This university was chartered in 1924, but did not complete its organization until four years later.

"Its purpose", explained at the dedication by Dr. von Kleinsmid who is at once Chancellor of the new University and of the Institute and President of the University of Southern California, [Page 120]

The World We Live In

"is to furnish opportunities for the training of statesmen for consular and diplomatic service, business men for commerce and foreign business administration, politicians for world service, and teachers for departments related to world affairs in colleges and universities.

"It further aims to advance the cause of world peace by supplying the facilities for accurate knowledge."

The purely academic activities of the University of International Relations function through the various colleges and schools of the University of Southern California.

The more general aim is furthered by the annual and occasionally semi-annual sessions of the Institute of International Relations which the University maintains, by an Interparliamentary Union which meets once a week, by supervised study in foreign lands, by provision for exchange professorships, by special lectures open to the public, and by serving as a depositary and distributing center for scientific and scholarly publications of other approved organizations engaged in the solution of international problems.

The forty-fourth modern movement presented in the department "The World We Live In." [Page 121]

INTERNATIONAL HYMN

by MYRTLE BASTIAN BROWN

Clearer vision lends to nations, Large and small, in earth's domain, Love to all of God's creations. Love, alone, is wholly gain.

Broader make our hearts' allegiance, Let no intervening sea, Let no older, rightful regents Nullify such loyalty.

Recognizing as our brothers All who tread this earthly ball, Faithful each unto the others, Filial sons to God of all.

Hatred nevermore shall govern, Gone the rule of tooth and claw, Joy and plenty shall be sovereign, Peace and liberty through law.

Poverty shall know dispersal, Time and distance lesser grow, Justice's law be universal, Each his kingly right shall know.

Self dethroned, all eyes uplifted, See a planet's flag unfurled, Symbol that the clouds have rifted Unifying this, our world. [Page 122]

THE WAY OUT II.

Beyond Hatred, by Albert Leon Guérard. Scribner's. World Tides in the Far East, by Basil Mathews. Friendship Press. The Road to Prosperity, by George Paish. Putnam. A New Deal, by Stuart Chase. Macmillan. A Guide Through World Chaos, by G. D. H. Cole. Knopf.

Professor Guérard has written a hearty, substantial book in vindication of his faith in the democratic ideal. By comparison of democracy in the two countries, France and the United States, his vision attains perspective. "Shirk the problem of democracy we cannot. We are on our way, and we cannot help wondering where we are going." He presents the thesis that democracy is not a political mechanism but a social attitude capable of bringing about universal reconciliation. "Beyond hatred" is the aim and the ideal, let the method followed at any one time or place be what it may.

As between America and France, he points out that America looks forward, and its ideals are principles rather than traditions. "From the point of view of science, of commerce, of industry, of philosophy, Europe is one, and very soon the whole world, East and West, will be one. But while all the thousand streams of modern civilization are converging into one mighty river, historical culture reverses the process. It looks backward. . . it preserves and emphasizes differences . . . " More fundamental than liberty, justice is made the motive of the democratic society, and justice requires that we learn how to apply to economic and other relations the principles we have learned how to apply in the political realm. The author meets squarely many of the anti-democratic theories advanced during and after the war, especially the theory of racial superiority. He also makes it clear that without a universal second-

A summary of the various principles of world development advanced in the books listed in the replies received by World Unity Questionnaire on Peace to the question: "What book written since 1918 most clearly shows the way out from the prevalent international problems" [Page 123]

THE WAY OUT

ary language, there can be no real international unity and cooperation. This book contains no world program, but it does convey a spirit of good will and appreciation without which no program can succeed.

"World Tides in the Far East" discloses the new character of the relationship between Orient and Occident in our own day. Professor Mathews sees with great clarity, and describes eloquently, the swift submergence of the old historical cultures of China and Japan under the waves of Communism, Nationalism and mechanized Industry. He understands that the revolutionary movement has already destroyed the old order and that the present crisis consists in attaining the goal of a new world order. Another great virtue of this book is that it holds the balance fairly between material and spiritual values—there can be no world order without world faith. "Still hidden from us, there is in keeping for man within the divine foresight a deeper principle of unity. In it we shall gather the values of both the Orient and Occident into a living conception of progress." On the other hand: "The reason why we awake every morning to find the latest world conference, whether on disarmament or economics, in semi-paralytic exasperation at the impossibility of reaching constructive agreed conclusions is that the goal in each man’s mind is national, while the facts are planetary." Hence the vital need of a world faith to burn away these illusions of separation. "If we could have the Golden Rule established on a world scale, man could make worthy use of what he already has." As Alfred W. Martin proved, the "Golden Rule" in one or another form was given by the founder of every great religion. What seems necessary, then, is for every creed to return to its own essential truth, rather than for any one historic faith to seek Empire. How is world order to be attained if Christians tell Muhammadans that their religion is "tragically shackled to the cruelties and grossness of the later life of its founder?" Despite this sectarian attitude, the work as a whole is exceedingly helpful. "What we are witnessing is due not simply to the decadence of worn-out systems but mainly to the upthrust of vigorous life: in a word, new creation." [Page 124]"In October 1926," we are reminded by George E. Roberts in his Foreword to the book by the Governor of the London School of Economics, "appeared the joint statement upon the subject of international trade relations which has been popularly called the 'Bankers' Manifesto.'... This plea of eminently practical business men of sixteen countries is for a policy of reciprocity which they profoundly believe will serve the common welfare... The Plea itself is necessarily brief, but the book by Sir George Paish... is an interpretation and amplification of it. . . The emphasis of the Bankers' Plea and of this book is upon the natural unity of modem society." Turning to the "Manifesto" we find this statement: "There can be no recovery in Europe till politicians in all territories, old and new, realize that trade is not war but a process of exchange, that in time of peace our neighbors are our customers, and that their prosperity is a condition of our own well-being." What the bankers foresaw came to pass—universal breakdown of credit and the worst depression of history. "The imminent danger, threatening Europe in particular and the world in general, is financial. If it is not averted the consequences will be more disastrous that the failure to avert the political danger in 1914," said this author in 1927—Cassandra reincarnated in a larger Troy beseiged by a more formidable foe. This book is the "Locarno" spirit applied to the economic realm. It marks a hill of vision that must be reclimbed. The recovery measures advocated by Paish at that time were: removal of restrictions upon international trade, settlement of war debts and reparations, and the application of the new principle of international cooperation to all the problems now confronting the nations. The meeting held at London in 1932 was hoped and intended to be just such a foundation of world recovery, but the United States abruptly withdraw her cooperation.

The book by Stuart Chase and that by G. D. H. Cole, both published in 1932, may justifiably be considered together. Both summarize the history of Industrialism, from its rise on the ruins of Feudalism to its present crisis; and both are "collectivist" in their economic philosophy. Stuart Chase writes, "The left road is the only road, and willy-nilly we must take it... Whatever the change, [Page 125]

THE WAY OUT

"it is going to be in the direction of more collectivism, more social control of economic activity, more government 'interference,' less freedom for private business." He examines three alternatives for America—violent revolution, commercial dictatorship, or the pressure of an aroused citizenship upon the government to "revise much of its business law, to institute certain powers and controls . . . Dismissing the first two as improbable, he suggests a program which will unify and coordinate business without Communism, at least in name. This program includes: a managed currency, redistribution of wealth by income and inheritance taxes, higher wages, elimination of tariff boundaries, a drastic curb on speculation, and industrial budget of national requirements, progressive shortening of the work week, unemployment insurance, reserve and continuing programs of public works, long term government budgeting, national and regional planning boards.

"A Guide Through World Chaos" is not so easy to summarize, because in reality it represents a complete rationalization of the Marxian attitude in relation to the post-depression era. It suggests the scrupulously written philosophy of a thoughtful man who has been converted to a religious faith. No book of the day, perhaps, is more revealing of that change which has taken place in the thoughts and feelings of a large number of conscientious people since the time, historically only yesterday, when Liberty was the watchword throughout the West. Since Socialism has become a force it must be understood, and there can be no fairer guide than G. D. H. Cole. "There are two alternatives before us—a reconstructed Capitalism or a plunge into the unknown seas of Socialist experiment...The reconstruction of Capitalism demands from national Governments and national capitalist groups an ability to think far more clearly, and to act with a far greater degree of promptitude and unity than they have yet shown. It involves at the least radical changes in the structure of Capitalism itself and the infusion of a large element of collectivism into the productive system and of far more equality into the system of distribution... My own choice is for Socialism."

H. H. [Page 126]

NOTES ON THE CURRENT ISSUE

THE article by Professor McMorries makes a vital contribution to the subject of race-relations, which has been given special prominence in World Unity for a number of years. There is no question but that race conflict penetrates to the heart of religion, revealing a fatal lack of reality which influence in other directions cannot counterbalance. It is good for every religion to be called to face problems which can only be solved by faith in its purity. The title of this article, in fact, might easily be reversed, to read "Race Relations and Christianity."

Both Dr. Soresi and Mr. Newfang deal with specific principles and concrete cases which supply a much-needed tangibility to the general aims of the magazine.

The editor will follow with interest, shared no doubt by every reader, the further development of the bold appeal made to the French and German peoples to federate and thus remove the chief obstacle to peace. It is to be hoped that the article on "Why Not a Franco-German Federation?" will reach some of those in both nations who are in a position to lend authority to the scheme.

In his practical plan of capital-labor partnership, Mr. Newfang proposes a remedy not merely for the problem of immediate industrial conflict but for the greater problem of depression. Every economist has agreed that the main cause of recurrent depressions is the unbalanced distribution of wealth—too much wealth for investment, not enough for current consumption. It would be difficult to find a simpler, juster and more efficient plan than his to found industry upon a stable basis and consequently relieve the national state of the greater part of that internal social friction which prevents governments from dealing with the realities of international relations. Here is an article not merely to be read, but to be handed on and widely discussed. [Page 127]

WORLD UNITY READING LIST

A Classified Index-1927-1934*

2. EAST AND WEST

AFTER MANCHURIA, by Syngman Rhee, October and November, 1932

BooKS ON THE ORIENT, by Hans Kohn, August, 1932

CELESTIAL AND TERRESTRIAL CURRENTS, by Merton S. Yewdale, June, 1934

CHINA AND JAPAN-World Crisis, by Grover Clark, October, 1932

CHINA AS SEEN FROM THE INSIDE, by Frank Rawlinson, May, 1934,

CHINA'S CHANGING CULTURE, by Frank Rawlinson, October, 1932 to May, 1933

CHINESE REVOLUTION AND CHRISTIANITY, THE, by Frank Rawlinson, May, 1931

CONFUCIUS AND THE WAR LORDS, by Herbert A. Miller, January, 1931

DYNAMIC CHINA, by Herbert A. Miller, February, 1931

EAST, BY WAY OF THE, by Alice A. Bailey, August, 1930

EAST, THE CHANGING, by Hans Kohn, October, 1934

EASTERN CIVILIZATIONS, THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SCIENTIFIC SPIRIT FOR, by John J. Coss, April, 1928

ETHICAL VALUES AS THE CONFUCIANISTS SAW THEM, by Frank Rawlinson, August, 1934

EUROPF AND ASIA, THE INTERACTION OF, by William R. Shepherd, December, 1927 to May, 1928

HAWAII: A SOLUTION OF THE RACE PROBLEM, by Herbert A. Miller, October, 1932

How ORIENT AND OCCIDENT CAN BE CORRELATED, by Taracknath Das, August, 1931

INDIA AND WORLD POLITICS, by Horace Holley, August, 1930

INDIA RENAISSANCE AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE, by Daljit Singh Sadharia, October, 1930

INDIAN UNTOUCHABLES, THE, by Stanley Rice, July, 1934

INDIAN UNITY, THE VEXED PROBLEM OF, by Kenneth J. Saunders, January, 1928

INDIO-CHINA AND ANGKOR, by Herbert A. Miller, March, 1931

KOREA-LAND OF THE MORNING CALM, by Herbert A. Miller, May, 1931

MANCHURIA, THE LEAGUE AND TREATY REVISION, by Frank Doane, August, 1932

MAN'S THREEFOLD WORLD, by Grover Clark, April, 1931

MATERIALISM AND SPIRITUALITY, by Stanley Rice, August, 1930

MEETINGPLACE OF THE EAST AND THE WEST (book review) by Horace Holley, April, 1931

MODERN MUSLIN'S PROBLEM, THE, by John Wright Buckham, September, 1930

NATIONALISM IN THE EAST, by Hans Kohn, October, 1930

ORIENT AND OCCIDENT, by Hans Kohn, October 1931 to October 1932

ORIENTAL STUDENTS' CONGRESS, by Amiyanath Sarkar, August, 1934

PACIFIC, UNITY IN THE, by Kenneth Scott Latourette, November, 1929

PALESTINE, by Herbert A. Miller, November, 1930

PLEA FOR PEACE IN CHINA, by Oscar Newfang, June, 1934

POLICIES OF THE POWERS IN THE FAR EAST, by Harley Farnsworth MacNair, April, 1932

QURAN, THE by Moulana Yakub Hasan, September, 1930

RACE CONFLICTS IN TODAY'S WORLD, by Hans Kohn, January, 1934

RACIAL FACTOR IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, by Sasadhar Sinha, July, 1934

RELIGION IN ASIA, by Herbert A. Miller, December, 1930

SHAMBHALA, by Nicholas Roerich, January, 1930'

SON OF MOTHER INDIA ANSWERS, A, by Dhan Gopal Mukerji, July, 1928

SYRIA, by Herbert A. Miller, July, 1931

TRANSFORMATION OF TURKEY, THE, by Walter Woodburn Hyde, October, 1932

TURKEY, by Herbert A. Miller, June, 1931

WEST, THE SPIRITUAL CRISIS OF THE, by Paul Richard, August, 1929

WHITE AND YELLOW-WHITE AND RED, by Herbert A. Miller, April, 1931

WHY EAST AND WEST ARE DIFFERENT, by Grover Clark, November, 1931 to February, 1932

"A limited number of back copies are available. 25c each, postpaid. [Page 128]

BOOKS ABROAD

An International Quarterly of Comment on Foreign Books Issued by the University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma

ROY TEMPLE HOUSE AND KENNETH C. KAUFMAN Editors

IN THE OCTOBER ISSUE:

The Drift of Peruvian Letters CARLETON BEALS

Aspects of Recent Polish Literature (concluded)....O. FORST DE BATTAGLIA

Maeterlinck and the Spirit of Belgium BENJAMIN MATHER WOODBRIDGE

Literature in the Third Reich PAUL DOUGLASS

Knut Hamsun at Seventy-five. RICHARD BECK

The New Deutsche Rundschau ERNST FEISE

A Survey of Lithuanian Literature ARTHUR P. COLEMAN

Germany Takes Stock WILLIAM A. COOPER

and reviews by such prominent critics as Sidney B. Fay, Albert Guérard, Samuel Putnam, Edward Larocque Tinker, A. A. Roback, Homero Serís, etc.

BOOKS ABROAD is an effective advertising medium. For rates apply to the Business Manager, TODD DOWNING University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma

$2.00 per year 50 cents per copy