World Unity/Volume 4/Issue 1/Text

World Unity Volume 4, Issue 1

Next→

Return to PDF view Proofread once

[Page i]

A STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE, as its title implies, will endeavor to interpret and record those significant changes in present-day thought which mark the trend toward worldwide understanding and a humanized civilization able to release the finer aspirations of mankind.

Its essential purpose is to make accessible to awakened minds the views and conclusions of creative workers on subjects of truly general interest and importance. The emergence of new and higher values in philosophy, science, religion, ethics and the arts from the alembic of universal unrest resents the focal point of vision for World Unity Magazine.

To create a medium capable of responding faithfully, without prejudice of race, creed, class or nationality, to the uprush of the spirit of the age wherever or however manifested this is the ideal to which World Unity Magazine is devoted; and faith in humanity arising at last to asert its organic oneness, the foundation on which it stands.

Constructive suggestions will be heartily welcomed from progressive individuals and organizations to assist the Magazine to fulfill its function as a clearing house of ideas and plans reflecting the organic trends of the age toward world unity and cooperation. The Magazine will endeavor to publish significant articles of a stimulating character, without assuming responsibility for its contributors’ views. [Page 1]

WORLD UNITY

C. F. ANSLEY W. W. ATWOOD A Monthly Magazine for those who seek the world outlook upon present developments of philosophy, science, religion, ethics and the arts

JOHN HERMAN RANDALL, Editor HORACE HOLLEY, Managing Editor HELEN B. MACMILLAN, Business Manager

Contributing Editors

A. MENDELSON BARTHOLDT BARON BAUDRAN L. F. DE BEAUFORT Gnarr A. Ba PIERRE BOVET EDWIN ARTHUR BURTT HARRY CHARLESWORTH No Poon CW RUDOLPH I. COFFES BAYARD DODOS GROROS DUHAMEL ANNA B. ECHSTEIN HAVELOCK ELLIS AUGUSTE FOREL C. F. GATE V. SCHULES GIVERNITE HELLMUTE VON GERLACH HERBERT ADAMS GIBBONS KAHLIL GIBRAN CHARLOTTE PERKINS GILMAN JOHN W. GRAHAM A. EUSTACE HAYDON WILL HAYES YAMATO ICHICHASHI MORDICAL W. JOHNSON RUPUS M. JONES DAVID STARE JORDAN SAMUEL LUCAS JOsn ERNEST JUDET VLADIMIR KARAPETOFF P. W. Kuo RICHARD LEB HARRY LEVI ALAIN LOCKS GROROS DE LUKACS LOUIS L. MANN SIR JAMES MARCHANT VICTOR MAROUERITTE R. H. MARKHAM ALFRED W. MARTIN F. S. MARVIN KIRTLEY F. MATHER LUCIA AMES MEAD FRED MERRIFIELD MARJA GRUNDMANN-KOSCIENSKA KARIN MICHABLIS FRANK H. HANKINS HERBERT A. MILLER DHAN GOPAL MUKERJI IDA MULLER YONE NOGUCHI HARRY ALLEN OVERSTREET DEXTER PARKINS JOHN HERMAN RANDALL, JR. M. D. REDLICK FORREST REID PAUL RICHARD CHARLES RICHET TR. RUTISEN NATHANIEL SCHMIDT WILLIAM R. SHEPHERD MARY SIBORIST ABBA HILLEL SILVER ISIDOR SINGER DAVID G. STRAD AUGUSTUS O. THOMAS GILBERT THOMAS ISABELLA VAN METER RUSTUM VAMBÉRY WALTER WALSH HANS WENBERG M. P. WILLCOCKS FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT

Editorial Office:-4 East 12th Street, New York City

WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE is published by WORLD UNITY PUBLISHING CORPORATION, 4 East 12th Street, New York City: MARY RUMSEY MOVIUS, president; HORACE HOLLEY, vice-president; FLORENCE MORTON, treasurer; JOHN HERMAN RANDALL, Secretary. Published monthly, 35 cents a copy, $3.50 a year in the United States, $4.00 in Canada and $4.50 in all other countries (postage included). THE WORLD UNITY PUBLISHING CORPORATION and its editors do not invite unsolicited manuscripts and art material, but welcome correspondence on articles related to the aims and purposes of the magazine. Printed in U. S. A. Contents copyrighted 1929 by WORLD UNITY PUBLISHING CORPORATION. [Page 2]

The Treason of the Intellectuals

WE ARE to consider those passions termed political, owing to which men rise up against other men, the chief of which are racial passions, class passions and national passions. Those persons who are most determined to believe in the inevitable progress of the human species, especially in its indispensable movement toward more peace and love, cannot deny that during the past century these passions have attained and day by day increasingly so—in several most important directions, a degree of perfection hitherto unknown in history.

In the first place they affect a large number of men they never before affected. When, for example, we study the civil wars which convulsed France in the sixteenth century, and even those at the end of the eighteenth century, we are struck by the small number of persons whose minds were really disturbed by these events. While history, up to the nineteenth century, is filled with long European wars which left the great majority of people completely indifferent, apart from the material losses they themselves suffered, it may be said that today there is scarcely a mind in Europe which is not affected—or thinks itself affected—by a racial or class or national passion, and most often by all three. The same progress seems to have taken place in the New World, while immense bodies of men in the Far East, who seemed to be free from these impulses, are awakening to social hatred, the party system, and the national spirit insofar as it implies the will to humiliate other men. Today political passions have attained a universality never before known.

—JULIEN BENDA [Page 3]

THE BEGINNINGS OF WORLD PEACE

The axis around which turns the problem of war and peace is the principle of neutrality. Since the days of Cain, it has been neutrality, whether the result of physical remoteness, self-sufficiency or deliberate political policy, which has nourished the war-making system and gradually brought it to its present sinister perfection.

So long as the principle of neutrality exists, no arrangements of organization and no pledges or aspirations can cut the roots of military conflict. War preparations will continue, in one form or another, so long as any considerable portion of humanity acts as if it stood outside the area of strife and is not responsible for its causes or initial decision. A natural condition during primitive ages lacking group contact and intercourse, neutrality has survived as an habitual reaction in an age when isolation has been completely annulled.

The principle of neutrality in the political realm corresponds to moral irresponsibility, economic independence and spiritual separateness. It serves to perpetuate the conditions of physical isolation, and thus conflicts directly with the basic social facts of the present day.

What are these basic facts?

The frontiers and political boundaries between the nations have become non-existent to the airplane and the radio. They have become non-existent to the modern industrial system. They have become non-existent to the conditions and factors out of which uncontrollable plagues are born. They have become non-existent to all institutions promoting science, education and the progress of thought. In the face of these facts, the assertion of [Page 4]neutrality is meaningless—it is the equivalent of the assertion that a people can retire into the isolation of primitive times. The plain truth of the matter is that neutrality no longer exists. Our attitude can no longer be one of deciding whether, in any given contingency, a policy of neutrality is wise or unwise. Since all participate in the consequences of war, all share the responsibility for its outbreak, regardless of the national agents or immediate issues concerned. The annihilation of distance between groups must now be followed by the annihilation of the sense of separateness between the members of every human society.

This is the dawn of universal peace. Perhaps humanity cannot soon enough adjust its thoughts and feelings to the physical unification of the world. Perhaps one more supreme disaster is needed to teach us that a humanity which has become one inter-related economic and cultural body, after long ages of blind struggle, must acquire a new mind and a new heart; but whether this process of readjustment from separation to interdependence, from competition to cooperation, and from spiritual estrangement to unity, be swift or slow, easy or tragic, the firm basis of world peace has been laid and a new stage of psychological evolution begun. The very sense of decay and frustration so prevalent in politics today is an indication that a new direction must be found for thought and effort in these fields. True sovereignty will only return to government when statesmen realize that international law is no arbitrary code, but the principles of righteousness applied to the affairs of men. [Page 5]

WERE THE NATIONS INSANE?

by HENRY BAILEY STEVENS Author of "A Cry out of the Dark"

STRANGELY self-righteous, the Nation sits in the dock facing its accuser.

"Are you guilty of participation in this crime-and this and this?" asks History, reviewing the details of first one war and then another.

Before the ghastly vision of a million torn bodies, the mangled homes, the charred wealth of a century, the Nation behaves curiously, smugly protests complete innocence, points an accusing finger always elsewhere, talks glibly of self-defence, and yet boasts of its own murderous prowess. When questioned as to its future intentions it makes no promises, casts a sinister glance around the court-room, talks volubly of its own guilt-lessness, and whets its knife.

Is it not time that an alienist was called?

Indeed, epithets of insanity, ranging from imbecility to mania, have already been applied. Novelists, describing the changed mental state of nations in the last war, have found their analogies in terms of madness. Civilians and soldiers alike have testified that they experienced a peculiar sense of living in a world that had suddenly become unbalanced. They stood as though in the presence of a raving maniac and saw with horror the devilish ingenuity of the instruments, the carefully planned traps, the hellish fury of the charge; and realized with despair that this was only a unit in the long array of similar brain-storms in the history of the race. The conviction of something foul in the mental processes of human tribes has persisted since the world war and grown stronger. [Page 6]Is the experiment, therefore, not worth attempting, to compare more closely the symptoms exhibited by nations with those already charted by psychiatrists in their studies of individuals mentally diseased? In short, to see if Horridum Bellum may be diagnosed in terms of personal pathology?

In examining the national mind one must of course ask the forbearance of those sociologists who see nothing more in crowd psychology than the sum total of individual reactions, as well as of those behaviorists who object to the term "mind" at all.

It is my purpose merely to determine whether we may translate the behavior of the nations into terms that have been generally used by psychologists during the past half century.

THE SYMPTOMS

Something there seems woven into the fabric of nations which permits them to commit war upon slight provocation and to repeat the deed, without apparently learning any lesson generation after generation. Perhaps an alienist's first note would deal with the relative instability of the national mind and the readiness with which it yields to terror, hatred and jealousy. I would hardly, for a personal grievance, stick a bayonet into the belly of a foreign peasant; but when I think of my country and the wrongs done it—now by England, now by Mexico, now by the Southern rebels, now by Spain and now by Prussianism—I conceive such an action as a holy duty. Of a sudden I find that millions in the land feel exactly as I, and that the Englishman, the Mexican, the rebel, et al. are also moved to stick bayonets into us.

This state of mind flames up often at extraordinarily slight provocation. Bismarck had only to edit a telegram so as to convey the impression that Napoleon III's ambassador had been rudely received by King William of Prussia to fan France into a fury that could only be assuaged by war; and the jealousy with which a nation views the treatment of its flag in foreign countries is notorious. Indeed the pretext for war often seems to have been unimportant compared with the certainty that each suc- [Page 7]

WERE THE NATIONS INSANE?

ceeding generation would find some excuse for its deadly heroics. Such remarkable resemblances are shown in charts of the wars of different nations that an alienist might well claim a periodicity in the outbreaks. Almost any century of ancient Greece, ancient Rome, Spain, Austria, France, England, Prussia, Russia, the United States, yields an average of four or five wars.

Here, for example, is Greece—Athens in particular. First there is the terror inspired by the black Persian cloud. For a long time everything is dark—the nightmare of the invasions—dead men, sacked cities, the horror by land and sea. Then the pall lifts. Man is again at peace with man; he rebuilds cities, chisels in stone, writes plays, inquires into the nature of himself. Also he is very proud of all the Persians that he has killed and the way he sent them back over the Hellespont groaning and humiliated. He is a conqueror not only of nature but of man, and in this fact an alienist ought at once to suspect a taint that grows and will crop out again; for now it is not the Persians that menace but the blood brothers of Sparta, who with efficient militarism challenge the supremacy of the Athenian state; and now, after the long suicidal fit of the Peloponnesus, it is the upstart Thebans, the Macedonians and the Romans. Gradually Athens seems to sink into a state of imbecility, smiling wanly through all the centuries of her ancient glory, babbling of her fights, of the Persians and the Spartans that she slew and of her own brave men that fell. But with her exhaustion the fierce passion of human herd to fight with human herd does not cease; it only breaks out in a new center. Rome and each of the countries of Europe have passed on to us, one after another, the loathsome legacy of their homicidal fits. In the fifteen decades of its existence the United States itself has broken out into six major wars, fairly well distributed over the period. England, France, Germany and Italy have each had about an equal number in the same time.

Perhaps no less obvious a symptom to be noted in the national mind is its unreliability. Victor Cherbulliez calculated that from 1500 B.C. to 1860 A.D. about eight thousand peace [Page 8]treaties were signed, each one supposed to secure permanent peace and each one lasting on an average two years! Alliances have been formed on the desires of the moment, not on any sympathetic relationship. After the days of Frederick the Great and Maria Theresa the history of Prussia and Austria was a constant shifting between alliance and enmity. France backed up the Napoleons in their antagonism to Russia just as enthusiastically as it salvoed the anti-Germanic alliance with Russia in 1891. Prussia and England had a warm bond of sympathy in the days when Blucher and Wellington were at Waterloo; yet it lasted scarcely a generation. The United States has swung from friendship to enmity and back again in its relations with England; and its treatment of the Indians shows a relentless encroachment and the violation of treaty after treaty. The dealings of the nations together have been like the fickle associations of wolfish packs, now hunting side by side and now fighting over the spoils. They have usually paid their bills in order to keep their credit; but this has been the principal indication that any permanent reliability could be placed upon their word—to say nothing of their friendship.

Along with this unreliability, and perhaps even more noticeable, is a complete lack of remorse for the terrible deeds committed. The situation seems to be this: that one nation will look with horror upon the acts of another, but is curiously incapable of applying the same viewpoint to its own acts. Europe was appalled at the fratricidal war between North and South in 1861-5, and saw much more plainly than America the enormity of a slaughter of a million lives. In like manner we were shocked in 1914 at the collective homicide in Europe. A nation even when at war seems still to recognize the criminality of the business, but it lays the entire responsibility for its own actions upon its opponent. The national mind, when confronted with a battle-field of slain and mangled bodies, will denounce to the heavens the atrocity of war, but all attempts to pin it down to any responsibility for its own participation therein fail; it slyly evades the point. [Page 9]

WERE THE NATIONS INSANE?

Moreover, there are certain positive traits whose significance may well be considered. Wherever in the slightest degree a nation's rights are in question, or whenever it thinks proper respect is not shown, it exhibits a general ill humor—a "touch-me-not" attitude. The ordinary individual mind will not prompt a man to kill another who may thumb his nose at him across the street; but if a foreign nation offers an insult to the flag, there are at once two alternatives: an apology, or collective slaughter. The code of international honor would seem, among modern individual adults, to verge on the ridiculous.

In war this ill humor of course increases, and not only toward the enemy but toward other nations not in the war. We were on the verge of a quarrel with England during our Civil War; and in the years 1914-17 both England and Germany were as resentful toward us as we were later toward Sweden. Any neutrality that is not benevolent is almost enough to make a nation an enemy. More than this, we are ill-humored toward ourselves. We wish to impeach our LaFollettes, to expel inoffensive clergymen; and let a violinist be an Austrian, or let a man neglect to stand when we sing the Star Spangled Banner, or let a minister pray for the misguided Kaiser's soul, and we would show them immediately that this is America and that America does not tolerate such nonsense. Nor is our behavior different in this respect from that of other countries at war.

An exaggerated self-esteem and a marked tendency to pious phrases and saws must also be admitted to the diagnosis. We boast of our national exploits in a manner that individuals would consider intolerable, and with each of our wars this braggadocio has grown. We, who "licked" the British lion twice, and Mexico and the rebels and Spain, have considered ourselves the prize nation of God. In this respect we are no less human than the other nations. This national madness—"hubris" as the Greeks called it—inflated to its Gargantuan size the ego of Germany until it passed from conceit to a symbol of insolence.

As for hypocritical religiosity, the Kaiser's relations with God were long ago accepted into the fold of trite jokes. A type [Page 10]of writer always quite popular in time of war was Leon Bloy of France, who wrote as follows:

"France is so far ahead of all other peoples that, no matter who they be, they should feel honored at being allowed to eat the crumbs destined for her dogs. A whole, homogeneous France whose geography has remained unchanged for three hundred years is necessary to God, because otherwise He would not exist and He would not be completely God. No matter what crimes or sins of faithlessness France may have committed, God will never allow her to be crushed as He needs her for His own glory, and the foul Lutherans who mutilated her half a century ago will be punished with inconceivable severity."

American Monday morning newspapers were not lacking during the war in quotations of a somewhat less fervent strain, and the names of Jesus and of God were continually linked with the slaughter. At the time of the Crimean War no less a person than Charles Kingsley wrote:

"For the Lord Jesus Christ is not only the Prince of Peace, He is the Prince of War, too. He is the Lord of Hosts, the God of armies, and whoever fights in a just war against tyrants and oppressors is fighting on Christ's side, and Christ is fighting on his side. Christ is his captain and his leader, and he can be in no better service. Be sure of it, for the Bible tells you so."

Observations of the changing state of consciousness which accompanies war show a certain baziness or stupor just before violence begins. The menacing war cloud hangs over the country like an aura before an epileptic attack. We feel a sense of struggling against an inexorable hand. Who can forget those few fateful days in latter July, 1914, when all Europe seemed to be caught in a net? In the United States this phenomenon came several times, was fought off, and in its culminating phase in early 1917 lasted for several weeks. "The country has grown decadent," shouted the militarists. "It has forgotten the heroes of the Revolution and the Civil War. We are too proud to fight." "We are drifting into war," warned the pacifists, "and we do not seem to care." All the while the great mass of the nation [Page 11]

WERE THE NATIONS INSANE?

II

heard both sides shouting, realizing that it was apathetic, under the influence of some strange stupor. When at last the final provocation came, the stupor left us. The country was no longer inert. Its torpor had been only a natural, even though unusually long, prelude to participation in war.

In 1898 this haziness of consciousness was of much shorter duration and more intense.

As the state of violence approaches, there is also a constant narrowing of the mental horizon. To think of England previous to August, 1914—the militant suffragettes, Sir Edward Carson's army, the Derby races—is like looking back through an underground tunnel. In the United States the feeling at first was that the war was a barbaric crime, brought on by all the nations concerned, after standing for years with chips on their shoulders. Then we began to believe that Germany with efficient savageness had precipitated the conflict. As our rights became involved, the instinct was to break off diplomatic relations, to refuse to speak to this barbarian; then the Zimmermann disclosures touched off the deep wellsprings of national terror. We were moved to declare war, to seize ships, to lend money to the allies, then to send a small expeditionary force, and then to pour out our resources—the whole of them if necessary—to crush and kill these mad dogs, or Huns, or wolves—we could no longer think of them as human beings. Our viewpoint constantly narrowed. Conscription, a bridled press, the forsaking of free speech—these things which had seemed intolerable before the war, one after another we accepted. Any expression of opposition to our will was swept aside by the mighty force that had surged up in us. We saw black; reason was dethroned and subservient. "This is what war means," we said, and adjusted ourselves accordingly.

We could now hear with relish that 5000 Germans had been killed. The more the better! And this was not a temporary emotion; it lasted as long as the war.

The consciousness of the nation during war, however, by no means remains at the same pitch. Periods of rapidly recurring excitement may be noted. Sometimes there has appeared a maniacal willingness to attack every nation in sight; where the outbreaks [Page 12]have had a religious base, as in the "Holy Wars" of the Moslems, this has been particularly evident.

More frequently may be observed unaccountable delusions. Spies, to be sure, are naturally suspected behind every bush; but reason fails to fathom what Gilbert Murray calls "the semi-insane suspicions of Prince Louis of Battenburg, of Lord Haldane and of persons even more exalted," which spread through England. The reports that Secretary Tumulty was in the German employ, that he was in prison, and that he had been shot were so persistently believed that they had to be denied by Mr. Tumulty himself. Even when not at war nations may exhibit this phenomenon, as the Dreyfus case well shows. The French Revolution was largely a succession of such delusions running, one after another, through the totally unbalanced mind of the mob.

A PRELIMINARY DIAGNOSIS

Taken singly no one of the foregoing symptoms would be evidence of mental disease, but considered together they are most damaging. One may fancy a psychiatrist reporting in some such fashion as this:

"The mind-bundles of the nations show such instability and undevelopment as to suggest the diseases of epilepsy and imbecility. Many of the manifestations of the war spirit give some indications of other kinds of insanity. Every country, for instance, has a terror of foreign invasion that amounts to the apprehensiveness of acute melancholia, and an imperviousness to the drain upon her vitality during war that resembles a katatonic stupor. Many nations have exhibited a delusion about the conspiracies against them that is almost paranoiac, and others show a maniacal willingness to throw themselves against the whole world. Yet these particular disorders may be ruled out of the diagnosis since the national consciousness does not show consistently the requisite symptoms. It is in the periodic occurrence of the nation’s wars, the readiness with which it yields to the impulse of violence, and the lack of any moral sense that we find the deepest suspicions of mental, unsoundness. [Page 13]

WERE THE NATIONS INSANE?

"The term 'epileptic' has quite a distinct place in mental pathology from the term 'insane', and has broadened until it covers almost as many states. The classical conception of epilepsy—that of a fit in which the afflicted person loses consciousness, foams at the mouth and has convulsive spasms—is now considered merely one of the physical manifestations of the nervous disorder which Lombroso went so far as to declare was at the bottom of all habitual crime.

"There are distinct characteristics which mark out the epilepsies, however.* The disturbance of consciousness is likely to be periodic; at other times there is little evidence of abnormality, except for the fact that the person is irritable and 'touchy', and may be easily provoked into fits of violence. The mental disturbances are preceded by a momentary stupor, or haziness of consciousness, after which the mental horizon definitely narrows. These symptoms are usually accompanied by an exaggerated self-esteem and a superficial religiosity. Krafft-Ebing, for instance, speaks of the irritability, combativeness, brutality, and moral defect of poor epileptics, who, with a prayer-book in the pocket and the word of God on their tongues, have the most extreme wickedness in their hearts.'

"Furthermore, the minds of the nations seem stunted, or at least undeveloped, particularly in their lack of moral sense. At the slightest impugnment of what they term their 'national honor' and from motives that to an individual would be entirely inadequate, they commit the most frightful crimes. They apparently do not fear the consequences of their actions; and they exhibit neither shame nor remorse either for the lives they destroy or the land and property they pre-empt. Rather they boast of their exploits, declare God and righteousness to be on their side, and build monuments to those who have led them in their carnage. 'As a rule they are able to carefully differentiate

---

• The symptoms as given by Krafft-Ebing, Kraepelin, Tanzi, Jelliffe and White do not vary in any important respects. I have in the main followed Kraepelin because his phraseology is more succinct. See Textbook on Insanity, by R. von Krafft-Ebing, F. A. Davis Co., Philadelphia, 1904; Lectures on Clinical Psychiatry, by E. Kraepelin, William Wood & Co., New York, 1913; Mental Diseases, by E. Tanzi, Rebman & Co., New York, 1909.

[Page 14]in the abstract between what is right and what is wrong as applied to their personal environment, but in practice their ability to make these distinctions bears no relation to their actions and conduct.'* They show an ability to plan schemes cunningly and carefully to enrich themselves at the expense of weaker nations, but they exhibit a lack of judgment in carrying them out. Among themselves they have a sort of criminal code, but even this they will violate if occasion arises. Their own immorality tends after a time to produce general degeneracy and decay.

"They spend the greater part of their resources in weapons and instruments to produce the destruction which follows when they are provoked, or when they have some scheme which they desire to carry out. Their most obvious characteristics, in addition to their instability, are their moral insensibility and their utter lack of remorse.

"These are the characteristics of what has come to be known as the moral imbecile-a disputed term, to be sure, since there is some question as to whether a moral sense is inherent or acquired through processes of education. Waiving this question for the moment and using the term 'imbecile' to designate those forms of abnormality in which the faculties are stunted so that they do not develop beyond the child stage, we would conclude that:

"Based on the standards of the modern individual adult the national mind exhibits the symptoms of the moral imbecile with an epileptic tendency. It is hardly considered safe for an individual showing these symptoms to be at large."

WHAT IF THE NATIONS ARE SIMPLY GROWING UP?

Have we a right, however, to judge the national mind by modern adult standards? We do not call the undeveloped and unstable mind of the child either imbecilic or epileptic; nor has science in its guesses at the barbaric crudities of prehistoric man

• The Imbecile with Criminal Instincts," by Walter E. Fernald, in the American Journal of Insanity, April, 1909.

[Page 15]

WERE THE NATIONS INSANE?

used these adjectives. Lombroso, indeed, found the brains of the savage, the criminal and the epileptic so much alike that he evolved his sweeping theory of atavism, under which the last two classes were considered a reversion to the first. Similarly, the theory of innate depravity was used to account for the criminal behavior of children. At any rate it seems evident that an alienist who spied upon savages in the bush or children in a school-yard would need to readjust his standards.

For a time the world of boys is one of first, second and third-rate powers, according to the physical prowess of each. A boy in the upper powers will not hesitate to use violence and to play the tyrant over a boy in a lower rating; a dispute passes quickly into anger and thence into a fight. Gradually these impulses are inhibited either by sympathy or by reason; the mind becomes more stable. In my own case I find strange memories now when I meet boys with whom I used to go to the grade school—memories of a time when I was mortally afraid of this one, and unmercifully tyrannical with that one, and with another on terms of mutual respect. I can hardly imagine having a fight with them now; it is not that we are afraid of the law, but that our minds have "grown up."

Similarly, the chief difference in the conventional pictures of the modern and of prehistoric man is that the former lives upon a more complex instinctive level with a much greater use of reasoning power and of self-control. Romanes lists sympathy as one of the later instincts to appear; and its development together with that of reason has served as a check on pugnacity, fear and anger. The fact that throughout the history of civilized peoples murder has been considered an abnormality indicates that the self-controlled mind has been the normal type among individuals for an indefinitely long period.

If the State shows indications of developing inhibitory power, may not its instability and emotionalism spring from a primitive rather than a diseased mind?

The collective mind of such primitive groups as the early Teutonic tribes, the Huns of Attila, and the Athapascans [Page 16]and Apaches in America presents hardly any mental processes except the instincts of hunting, pugnacity and fear. Within the tribe individuals may sympathize with each other, and reason to a certain extent; but the tribe does not know sympathy or reason. When Attila and his horde threatened Rome, Leo the Great interviewed the chieftain and recalled to him how Alaric, the Goth, had died after sacking the Imperial City; the same fate would assuredly come from Heaven to Attila if he did not spare Rome, said Leo. In this way Attila’s mind went through what may be called a reasoning process, but the herd behind him did not reason; it had a blind instinct to follow its leader and went with him away from Rome as willingly as it would have gone inside.

The savage tribe required no provocation for war; the mere sight of another group seems to have been sufficient for it to attack in a wild burst of frenzy; and if war did not come often enough to satisfy the craving, then the tom-toms would beat and search for an opponent would be made.

The first great change noticeable in this mind-bundle is the addition of an instinct of acquisitiveness, a change which marks in a general way the transition from the savage to the barbarous state. Animals, instead of being killed, are collected and domesticated, not at first, it is believed, with any reasoning purpose, but as a "matter of fancy." The Vandals did not carry furniture, jewelled cups and golden candle-sticks away from Rome in order to pawn them into food, but because they were moved by the same instinct that prompts a child to collect curious things; and it is to be noted that the bloodthirstiness of the more settled Vandals and Goths was inhibited to some extent by their acquisitiveness so that they were not so terrible to conquered peoples as the more savage Huns.

In the same way the tribe collected foreign people as captives and exhibited them. Often it tortured them for its own amusement. The turning of captives into slaves and of animals into beasts of burden, the use of money instead of barter, these are indications of a new faculty permeating the mind-bundle of the [Page 17]

WERE THE NATIONS INSANE?

tribe a faculty that put the human herd upon a distinctly different plane from that of the animal pack, and made the tribes over into nations. When two neighboring groups could say in effect to each other: "We have a common enemy. United tribes can deal better with a common enemy. Therefore, let us unite," they achieved a feat of reasoning. In such wise the ten tribes of Israel united first into a loose confederation and then a kingdom under Saul; so joined the Medes and the Persians, the Hellenic City-States, the Five Nations of the Iroquois, the Indian tribes of the Aztec Confederacy, and the thirteen colonies of white Europeans in America.

Does this not suggest that the mind-bundles of society tend to follow the same course of mental evolution that has characterized the evolution of the individual mind?

What is the spirit of "Christianity" but a manifestation of the new instinct of sympathy? What is the history of civilization irself but a record of the strivings of mankind at group reasoning? What is democracy but collective self-control?

Gradually the instinct of acquisitiveness has been modified. No longer does the State whip its prisoners of war into slavery; the barbaric negotiations of the Congo have been reduced to a state of furtiveness at least; and while many States are still interested in the childish accumulation of colonies and mandates, they have to treat their holdings so well that they are beginning to realize in chem a philanthropic as well as a selfish enterprise.

Just as in the individual the interplay of reason and of sympathy modify or slough off the lower instincts of pugnacity, fear and acquisitiveness, so do they operate in the mind-bundle of the State; and the twentieth century has already seen several instances of a curious phenomenon at work in society-that of self-control.

In 1905 Norway and Sweden, after masterful restraint, concluded that it was better for them to separate peacefully than to fight and as a result are probably closer together today than were the North and the South twenty years after the Civil War. Chile and Argentina, also, settled by arbitration a boundary [Page 18]controversy and erected upon a peak of the Andes their statue of Christ pledging that the mountains should crumble before they would break the peace. Again and again, in the United States the pugnacious impulse has swept through the country crying that we should "go down and clean up Mexico"; yet counteracting and modifying it has been an instinct of sympathy that said that Mexico was smaller than we and was going through a period of stress such as we ourselves had known; and also a voice of reason that told us we would not only waste our strength in a ceaseless guerilla warfare, but would alienate our South American friends.

Does not democracy imply self-control, if indeed the two terms are not synonymous? More and more as the masses participate intelligently in government, it seems that they are bound to reflect the average individual, who is tolerably self-controlled.

To understand the interplay of democracy, Christianity and war on the one hand, and self-control, sympathy and pugnacity on the other, we need only to compare what happens when a man fights with what happens to a nation. Aroused either through fear or anger, the pugnacious instinct causes a man to lose his self-control. For the time being it inhibits his sympathy and his reason; he can think of nothing but his great anger or his great fear and the great necessity to fight. His whole being goes over to it; the horizon of his consciousness narrows just as his eyes contract. Similarly, when a nation gives way to the pugnacious impulse, it begins to lose its democracy; its power tends to leave the people and to reside in the administration. Its Christianity has to tone down perceptibly. It is as difficult for a nation to fight and be sympathetic and reasonable as it is for a man.

The development of these faculties in the mind-bundles of society has required scores of centuries. The collective mind is still, from the standpoint of the individual, primitive. It can still be moved more readily into fits of anger in which it will commit the most terrible deeds; its democracy is still crude; its [Page 19]

WERE THE NATIONS INSANE?

impulses of acquisitiveness, fear and pugnacity are still stronger in the average state than its intellect; but the fact that it is a developing, rather than a stunted, mind is the hope which should brighten the heavens after the dread darkness of war. Even in the World War there were several outstanding indications of psychological development. Each one of the governments realized as never before the necessity for "propaganda" to convince their peoples of the necessity to fight. There was even the spectacle of airplanes dropping literature for the enlightenment of an enemy people—an appeal to reasoning power. Moreover, the widespread feeling throughout the world that the war was a crime and the attempt to fasten responsibility for it which is still continuing indicate a comparatively new development. This moral sense is still crude, often hypocritical, but its glimmering should be cherished, nevertheless.

Perhaps even more noteworthy has been the appearance of an entirely new technic in dealing with a foreign army. In the past this organized group upon the border has always enraged a nation, filled it with the wildest forebodings. All of the ancient dangers—the slaveries, the tortures, the rapings, welled to the surface. "This thing, this army, must not be," the nation declared; and if the army, nevertheless, continued to exist, and even became more threatening, the nation was thrown into a fit of terror. Through its quivering mind ran the instinct to fight, sweeping all else before it. Now, in this century, we have seen the peoples of the Ruhr, of India and of Ireland more or less successfully adopting that attitude of passive resistance which many an individual before now has found of greater value than his fists. If this means that the nations of the future will be able to inhibit fear, then we may indeed have hope.

The catastrophe of the last war, however, from this viewpoint lies not only in its obvious phases; it lies even more in the fact that society's nervous energy has been terribly consumed. This very consumption has rendered the nations more irritable with each other; for "exhaustion of nervous energy always [Page 20]lessens the inhibitory power." The more strength a man has spent in fighting, the less likely it is that he can keep from fighting another time; and this truth may apply none the less forcefully to nations. From this point of view the ability of mankind to regain its self-control and apply reason to its group problems will be the measure of its collective development.

In the court-room History cross-questions the alienist.

"In the face of this evidence, do you find the defendant insane?"

"The diagnosis is complicated," replies the expert, "by the immaturity of the accused. It seems more probable that he has simply formed evil habits. Perhaps as he grows up and acquires more education on how to conduct himself, he will create a world in which it is safe for him to live." [Page 21]

DISARMAMENT—THE YET UNSOLVED PROBLEM OF INTERNATIONAL PEACE

by F. B. CLARK Department of Economics, Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas

1. Disarmament v. Maintenance of Peace.

The terms disarmament and maintenance of peace are sometimes thought of as conveying separate ideas. In fact, they may be employed in different senses. But for the purposes of this paper they are inter-dependent.

Any plan of disarmament that does not assure a satisfactory plan of peace maintenance cannot logically be considered a plan of disarmament. Similarly, any plan of universal peace maintenance which does not contemplate disarmament will more than likely defeat itself. The problem of disarmament, therefore, is fundamentally one as to whether or not there can at the same time be disarmament and universal peace maintenance.

Frequently the term disarmament is employed to connote scrapping of the equipments of war. It is because of this inaccurate use of the term, it would seem, that the confusion has occurred. In this paper the term disarmament is not meant to imply the scrapping of the equipments of war. It implies instead a logical and, if you please, a scientific adjustment of these equipments to the purpose intended. The best replica of the conception is that of the London policeman. The London policeman is (with the exception of the policeman’s billet) without arms. Yet he is recognized as the most respected and the most feared policeman in the world. He is looked upon as a representative of the British law. An offense against him is an offense against England and all [Page 22]of the forces of law and justice that England commands. The symbol of the disarmed London policeman is the symbol of dis- armament as the term is employed in this paper. Disarmament and maintenance of peace, therefore, denote and connote the same thing.

2. Civil War v. International War.

Similar confusion exists in the minds of some people regard- ing the nature of war. The word as usually employed is applicable to all sorts of armed contests regardless of their nature. It is true that the word war does cover many different sorts of armed con- flicts. It is that fact that makes it imperative that any careful analysis of the problem of disarmament begin with at least the distinction between international war and civil war.

It may be true that civil war has sometimes led to inter- national war, and vice versa. But the independent national entities are sufficiently well defined for almost any school-child to be able to tell when there is civil war and when it is international. It is further self-evident that a solution of the problem of civil or international war need not carry a solution of both. Civil war is, if possible, more terrible than international war. The fact that civil war may result in international war makes it imperative that any effective plan of war elimination include both civil war and international war.

1. Pacifism v. Militarism.

The two plans for the elimination of war which, on the sur- face, appear farthest apart are pacifism and militarism.

Pacifism is a sort of "return good for evil" philosophy. The feeling seems to be that armaments are the result of international distrust. This feeling of distrust grips the nations of the world, and as long as the distrust exists disarmament is impossible. The pacifists would, therefore, provide that any particular nation take the step of disarmament first, with the assumption that con- fidence would inspire confidence. The pacifists would have their own nation disarm regardless of consequences, assuming, of course, that other nations would follow suit. [Page 23]

DISARMAMENT THE YET UNSOLVED PROBLEM

Now pacifism has these two main objections: (1) Insofar as any sanity exists among combatants each believes that it is prompted by high ideals. About all that can be said for the good for evil theory is that it is a high ideal. Combatants at least believe that they are moved by great principles. Turning the other cheek in war, or even in the preparation for war, would more than likely be taken as an indication of the recognition of inferiority on the part of the nation that might attempt it. (2) There is such a thing as insanity among nations. In fact, all war and preparation for war has an element of derangement. Armament itself has an element of derangement, inspired, of course, by fear. The only way to control a crazy person is by force. Turning the other cheek to an insane man is itself senseless. Preparedness, therefore, simply means protection from irresponsible neighbors. Since we cannot know with certainty what to expect from other armed nations, we must be able to "get them" if they try to "get us." This is particularly important since all war is more or less maniacal.

Militarism is prompted by exactly that motive of defense, although it has a more dignified way of expressing it. To the militarist, pacifism is a most abhorrent thing, for it tends to cripple a nation at the time when it needs to be strengthened.

In his book "Maintenance of Peace," Lieut. Col. S. C. Vestal traces the causes of all important wars of history. His thesis is that throughout the centuries peace and war have been merely that of maintenance of or challenge to the principle of the balance of power. He found that pacifism has always tended to flourish in nations which are threatened. His conclusion, a conclusion which I am assuming is typical of militarism, is that peace can be maintained only by an assurance of the maintenance of the balance of power. This assurance can be accomplished only by a well-planned program of preparedness in each important nation of the world. The following quotation is illustrative of Vestal's conclusion:

"It should be laid down as a fundamental principle of world policy that an unlimited expansion of naval force shall not be [Page 24]permitted to any nation which can be approached, or which can approach its neighbors by land; for if a nation, having command of the sea, were strong on land, it could, with assistance of its sea power, overcome its neighbors and build up an overwhelming military and naval power; if, on the other hand, it be weak by land, it will be overcome by the strongest land power, it will become a maritime province of that power, and command of the land and sea will pass into the hands of a single nation-to the destruction of free government." (Vestal: "Maintenance or Peace" P. 554.)

Again he says: "How shall a nation know when to throw its weight into the scale against another nation as a menace to the balance of power? The answer is brief. Whenever a nation with the most powerful army in the world begins to try to outstrip in military preparations the country with the most powerful navy or whenever a nation with the most powerful navy in the world begins to try to outstrip in military preparations the country with the most powerful army, that nation becomes a menace to the balance of power and the enemy of all mankind. When Germany with her powerful army began to compete with England in naval preparedness she plainly showed that she aspired to obtain a predominating position in the world. The same could have been said of England if she had begun in time of peace to raise land forces superior to those of Germany." (Ibid. p. 555.)

Assuming the above quotations to be a fair statement of the militarists' conception of preparedness, the conclusion is inevitable that pacifism and militarism are fundamentally the same thing. No pacifist assumes that nations should not be allowed to maintain sufficient forces for the purpose of police protection. Pacifism is therefore a program of limitation of armaments. Any agency which would have the power to say to other nations that they should not go beyond any point in preparedness would logically have the power to establish limitations of armaments. Why not make the limitation that of internal police protection once and for all? Since no such agency exists, it would appear [Page 25]that both pacifism and militarism have to be rejected as containing any promise of an effective solution to the problem of war elimination.

2. The Treaty Plan of War Elimination.

Probably nothing is more nearly universally taken for granted in societies for the promotion of peace than that if all nations would agree by treaty to submit their disputes to some sort of commission of inquiry or arbitration court, that war would forever be "outlawed." In fact, the term "outlawing of war" is widely employed. The outlawing of a thing which is itself a nullification of established systems of law is a paradoxical expression.

A book could be written on efforts to solve the problem of world peace by means of treaties. But the whole matter can best be focussed by a single illustration from our own history. The following provision was included in our treaty with Mexico in 1848:

"Art. XXI. If unhappily any disagreement should hereafter arise between the governments of the two Republics, whether with respect to any interpretation of any treaty stipulation in this treaty, or with respect to any other particular concerning the political or commercial relations of the two nations, the said governments, in the name of those nations, do promise to each other than they will endeavor, in the most sincere and earnest manner to settle the differences so arising, and to preserve the state of peace and friendship in which the two countries are now placing themselves, using, for this end, mutual representations and pacific negotiations. And if, by these means, they should not be enabled to come to an agreement, a resort shall not on this account be had to reprisals, aggression or hostility of a any kind, by the one republic against the other, until the government of that which deems itself aggrieved shall have maturely con- sidered, in the spirit of peace and good neighborship, whether it would not be better that such difference should be settled by arbitration or commissioners appointed on each side, or by that of a friendly nation. And should such course be proposed by either [Page 26]party, it shall be acceded to by the other, unless deemed by it altogether incompatible with the nature of the difference of the circumstances of the case." (World Peace Foundation Leaflets, Vol. IX, pp. 485-6).

Occasion did not appear for the application of this agreement until the Huerta incident in 1914. In this case Mexican soldiers at Tampico arrested a paymaster and whaleboat's crew of one of our vessels, who had landed to load gasoline purchased on shore. The incident, which resulted in the subsequent occupation of Vera Cruz, created a critical posture in American-Mexican relations. Our government demanded an apology of Huerta. The apology was to take the form of a salute of the American flag. Huerta suggested that if the American Government would agree to simultaneous salutes, he would be only too pleased to do this, but that he did not desire to salute first because he believed that the United States government would not return the salute and would thereby humiliate his government. The atmosphere grew hot, and after several exchanges of notes, President Wilson announced in an address to Congress his intention to take forcible action. The Senate and House adopted the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the President is justified in the employment of armed forces of the United States to enforce his demands for unequivocal amends for affronts and indignities committed against the United States; be it further

"Resolved, That the United States disclaims any hostility to the Mexican people or any purpose to make war upon them."

The occupation of Vera Cruz followed, and little was heard of an appeal to Art. XXI of the treaty of 1848.

An instance of this kind is enough to show the hazard of reliance on treaties as a solution to the problem of war.

What, then, are the fundamental reasons why the problem does not lend itself to the treaty plan of treatment? Mainly two: (1) The impracticability of securing universal ratification. Nations simply won't do it. To the extent that they even make the gesture they are inclined so to modify the language of the proposed treaties as to make it possible for them to save their [Page 27]faces in the event that war becomes in their estimation inevitable.

(2) Words in and of themselves have no binding power. We have seen by illustration that a nation can resort to armed conflict without admitting that it is at war. If all nations of the world should accept, without reservation, the most binding treaty that could be written not to resort to war, it is doubtful that there would be any substantial effect toward the end intended. If occasion for hostilities arise, hostilities might develop with each side maintaining that they are not at war. The most that could possibly be accomplished would be the invention of a new term to apply to that which we now call war. And it should be further noted that treaties could hardly find any application at all to the problem of the extinction of civil war.

3. International Law

In the early years of the twentieth century the doctrine was prevalent that it was possible to abolish war by a comprehensive plan of expansion of international law through codification. The thought seemed to be tacitly accepted that civilization had outgrown war anyway, and that about all that was needed was an international recognition of that fact. Along with this went the feeling that if war did come it was possible so to hedge it about by restrictions as to make it a rather harmless affair anyway. A spirit of that kind prompted the calling of the Hague Conferences.

The work of the Hague Conferences is too much to include in this paper. But the widespread disregard of the conventions in the late war lends support to our contention that any effort to eliminate war by treaties is futile. At any rate the Hague Conferences have given way to the League of Nations. The Hague conventions, however, must be considered more than mere treaties. They were really halting efforts to create rudiments of international legislation. A fuller development of that plan of approach is contained in the League of Nations.

Without question the most ambitious effort that has ever been made in the history of the world to create an international law-making body is that contained in the League of Nations.. [Page 28]President Wilson and his associates seemed to think that owing to the exhausted condition of the leading nations, the idea of a world state would captivate their imagination. The hope appeared, therefore, to be that of creating out of the ruins of the most disastrous war of history an institution which would nullify any likelihood of a future war. President Wilson’s sacrifices in this particular will probably forever stand as one of the most heroic casualties of history, for he certainly gave his life in the effort to create a sentiment in this country strong enough to override the opposition of the Senate to the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles, a part of which treaty was a draft of the first widely accepted constitution for a government of the world.

A brief summary of the scheme of government contained in the plan of the League of Nations will be desirable before attempting an appraisal of it as an instrumentality for the abolition of war.

(1) Membership

Membership in the League is open to all sovereign nations. But as yet all nations have not seen fit to join. Of those which have joined three have withdrawn. Nothing in the covenant effectively hinders secession. The League therefore belongs to the class of governments known as a confederacy.

The League began with forty-two original members. In spite of the withdrawals it has since increased its membership by eleven. All of the victorious allies joined except the United States, Equador, and Hedjaz. Other nations not members at this time are Russia, Turkey, Mexico, and a few small states. The signatory powers of the covenant are more nearly universal than any previous effort at a world alliance.

(2) Organization

As an organization for any kind of political efficiency the League of Nations is disappointing in all particulars. It does possess, nevertheless, the rudiments of a government. At least there are deliberative and slight suggestions of executive agencies. There is also a court. Outwardly, therefore, the League looks a little like a government. [Page 29]

DISARMAMENT-THE YET UNSOLVED PROBLEM

The organization is made up first of the assembly of delegates from the component states. There are five of these from the British Empire as representatives of its members and one from the Empire as a whole. Other nations send one delegate each.

Supplementary to the assembly is the council. This is at this time composed of three types of members, (1) permanent members whose interests are so general that all questions arising are assumed to affect them; (2) elective members who hold office by rotation from the assembly designated by it to represent nations of similar limited interests; and (3) states specially concerned with particular matters under consideration. Generally, however, the council is thought of as composed only of permanent and elective members, the permanent seats representing the British Empire, France, Germany, Italy and Japan; and the non-permanent members representing other members of the League and elected by the assembly. Brazil and Spain were included among the non-permanent members, but having taken offense at not being given permanent seats, they have served notice of withdrawal. The council is a sort of board of directors acting more or less under the supervision of the assembly.

Resolutions whether passed by the council or assembly to carry weight must be passed by an unanimous vote.

The League agencies are (1) the Secretariat, which is possibly best thought of as civil service employes of the League, (2) advisory commissions, only two of which were provided for in the Covenant, but since then have become very numerous, (3) the International Labor Organization, a sort of clearing house of information regarding the labor policies of the countries of the world; and (4) the Permanent Court of International Justice, created by the League in conformity with Art. 14 of the Covenant.

The agency of the League which has become most widely discussed, and the thing about the whole matter that has been formally accepted by the United States, is the Permanent Court. Although accepted by the United States, yet the reservations tacked on here have forbidden that our acceptance become effective. The Court, nevertheless, deserves special comment. [Page 30]For a long time it has been assumed by students of international affairs that if there could once be created a permanent court of justice for international disputes, the power of binding precedent would soon establish an effective agency of international peace. The effort to create a court has in the past failed on account of the fact that a court of more than fifteen members would be too unwieldy. The way had not been found by means of which fifty or more nations could have equal representation on a court of fifteen members. The League has cut the Gordian knot with the following provision:

"The Court shall consist of fifteen members; eleven judges and four deputy judges. The number of judges and deputy judges may hereafter be increased by the assembly, upon proposal of the Council of the League of Nations, to a total of fifteen judges and six deputy judges."

The fact that all nations have a chance at representation in the Assembly and that the Assembly elects the judges is explanation of the possibility of the court's existence.

When we reflect carefully on the function of the court in international relations as an agency for the preservation of peace, we can easily see that the sponsors of that idea are chasing a phantom. This is evident because of two things: (1) War always results from a frenzied state of public opinion. In that state of frenzy, what agency would ever get nations into a court? If wars were in the nature of duels, deliberately planned and executed, it is conceivable that the existence of a court might have some influence in preventing wars. But even duels have first to be made criminal. (2) Wars are not judicial but are political in nature. No nation should know better than the United States the futility of attempting to settle political controversies in courts. (Cite the Dred Scott case.) That fact alone would make forever futile any effort to eliminate war by means of a court of justice.

Space will not allow further discussion of the League of Nations except to say that on any count the League is not an effective agency for war elimination. It will no doubt become a powerful agency for settling other international problems, and [Page 31]in that way probably help some. Probably the most defiant provision in the Covenant is Art. XI, which reads as follows: "Any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any member of the League or not, is hereby declared a matter of common concern to the whole League, and the League shall take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations."

It is possible that through revelations made apparent by the advisory committees the above provision might conceivably be employed to nip in the bud an incipient conflict. In fact, this power has already been employed in a few instances. But it is hard to see that the League of Nations is to any extent an effective guaranty of war elimination. The fact becomes more impressive when we consider the trend of armaments since the last war.

(1) Universal Republicanism

Along with other plans of war elimination which have been tacitly assumed to be a guaranty of peace, if they could be accomplished, is that if all nations should become republics, war would be unthinkable. Probably the most effective expression of this philosophy is that contained in Kant's Perpetual Peace. The theory is that war is in fact a sport of kings. The rank and file of men don't want to fight. Give this rank and file the control of their governments and the world will be safe against war.

The inaccuracy of this assumption is readily apparent because of at least three considerations: (1) No distinction is made between civil war and international war. The experience of republics regarding this as a plan for the elimination of civil war is overwhelmingly on the negative side. (2) Man is incurably endowed with the missionary spirit. Popular dominance in one nation may not mean the same that it does in another. Communism is ideally the epitome of democracy. Who would question the fact that communism could precipitate international conflict? (3) If we grant the assumption, the fact itself is beyond the power of human ingenuity. The very slowness of the process, if nothing else, would condemn it as an effective assurance against war. [Page 32]These remarks are not intended in any way to disparage the principle of democracy in government. In the opinion of the writer no other form of government is comparable to it. But it is impossible to see that merely government form is enough to prevent conflicts between sovereignties.

(2) Super-Labor Government

No better statement of the revolutionary program of labor groups has been found than that contained in Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto:

"The Proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with bourgeois family relations; modern industrial labor, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.

"Not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons—the modern working class—the proletarians.

"The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.

"The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian nations, into civilization. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e. to become bourgeois themselves. In a word it creates a world after its own image."

The philosophy underlying this, if philosophy it can be called, is that in all important nations labor unions—unions of [Page 33]the proletariat-are being formed, which unions tend to expand into an international organization which is destined to overthrow the governments as they are now constituted, bringing into being a higher social order. In this higher social order the implication is that war as other forms of oppression will be eliminated.

The efforts of Marxian socialists have struck terror to the established governments. There is unquestionably a tremendous power for good or evil in organized labor. But more than fifty years have passed since the publication of Marx's Communist Manifesto, and as yet the change has not come.

For the purpose of this paper little need be said in answer to the solution of the war problem projected by labor groups. Our point of view is that of government in accordance with scientific principles. Since the underlying philosophy of the concept of the world labor state does violence to the accepted doctrines of political science and economics, the whole effort, although somewhat alarming, has to be rejected as containing no substantial hope of solving the problem of war elimination.

(3) Universal Christian Fellowship.

The following quotation will show how far persons fired with religious enthusiasm will go in their effort to compel a positive recognition of their programs of action.

"The Christian church cannot get the music of God into the ears of the modern world so long as it plays second fiddle to the state. Somewhere there must be a voice to say to our elected officials, thus saith the Lord,' to assert some higher guidance and control for humanity than the nationalistic, capitalistic state with its war-making tendencies. If the church cannot evolve this moral and spiritual authority, where else can it be found? If the development of the church in recent years in activities of public welfare, in cooperation with government, means that the church is to be subordinate to politicians in making vital policies of common life, then our last condition is worse than the first. Have we separated the church and state for this, that the church should finally be controlled by the state? . . . . [Page 34]"If the church wants to prevent the state from destroying mankind in war, let it today morally excommunicate the state by separating itself from it in deed as well as in word. Let it say that it will never again use the ecclesiastical function in support of war. This will give mankind a moral base from which to change those parts of the nature of the state which now inevitably make for war. Then let the church fill its words with authority by proceeding to necessary deeds." (Editorial in the Christian Century, Feb. 7, 1924.)

When we read such words as those we are thankful that our ancestors have fought and broken the power of that tyrannical institution over the minds of men. The "thus saith the Lord" doctrine forever remains condemned from lack of documentary evidence. As soon as any man, however solemn his expression, and however devout his prayer, dictates the behavior of his fellow men under a "thus saith the Lord," doctrine, he is in danger of becoming a tyrant. Voltaire's request for the priest's credentials when he came to his bedside at the time of his last sickness, has forever given the lie to any man who poses as God's special agent. A posture of the kind here presented becomes especially hazardous if it takes the form of meddling in politics.

By way of comment on the plan of settling the question of universal peace through Christian fellowship, it should certainly be observed (1) that the bloodiest wars of history have been religious wars. Owing to the fact that such has been the case in the past, any combination of religion and politics as here interpreted is certainly to be feared. (2) As long as the Christian workers will limit their activities to the elevation of the moral and religious standards of private individuals, it is not likely that anything but benefit will result. But any kind of coercive religious philosophy is to be once and for all exorcised from any program of war elimination. (3) Since the Christians have had two thousand years to accomplish their task, it is doubtful that we may expect any immediate result from the effort here projected. (4) Persons dealing with present-day problems have to forget their religious preferences, not, of course, their ethical [Page 35]standards, but their religious preferences. There is hardly a religion that does not pose as the only religion. As soon as a diplomat assumes the superiority of one religion over another, he bids fair to lose his grip.

III. A Program of War Elimination.

Since all of the plans for war elimination heretofore advanced have been found, in this discussion, to be logically inacceptable, there can be but one of two consequences. Either we must conclude that the problem is impossible of solution or we must present a suggested solution of the problem which does not contain the objections noted.

Now that the writer is not willing to admit that the problem is incapable of solution, he hopes that he will not be considered presumptuous in offering a solution different from any heretofore advanced. It is hoped that persons working at the problem of world peace will consider it on its merits. The problem is one of such tremendous importance that it would appear that every possible way of escape from it ought to be carefully examined.

(1) International Psychology Childish.

The very majesty of sovereignty seems to exert a strange influence on those who are its agents. Anyone who has observed the phenomenon of diplomacy must have been struck by the childishness of the whole matter. It is indeed puzzling that nations have found any basis for action in common when we consider how exaggerated insignificant incidents become when they apply to the behavior of diplomats.

The Huerta incident recited above is a good illustration of the childishness of international dealings. Yet it is hard to see how the embarrassment could be avoided. When any matter of priority comes into play, even in such matters as position in a procession, order of arrangement at a banquet table, etc., there have resulted many cases of critical impassés. When a group of mere men are involved, each is usually satisfied to rely on his own forcefulness of personality for distinction, but not so with representatives of sovereign states. They must each receive [Page 36]exactly the same treatment. If someone had not suggested the alphabetical plan of arrangement it is hard to see how the simplest problem of international processional arrangement could have ever been settled. Yet the fact that they have agreed to accept French as the language of diplomacy gives us hope that there may be some logicality in international dealings.

The childishness is probably explained by the doctrine of equality of nations. That doctrine of equality is the foundation of all international affairs. The doctrine itself seems to be a survival of the eighteenth century doctrine of equality, just as international law has its foundation in the theory of natural laws. The natural rights doctrine has been abandoned in modern political theory, as has the doctrine of the equality of man. Yet any program of international action has to be based on assumptions which on the face of them are untrue. The psychology, therefore, becomes child psychology.

If one, so to speak, hands one nation a stick of candy, and does not present one of exactly the same color and sweetness to the others, trouble may result. Diplomacy, to be effective, has to be candy diplomacy. The observations here made may appear rather undignified in that they apply to the behavior of persons in very high positions. Yet no person is capable of placing himself before the public without having his conduct admired or criticized. Although it may not be good diplomacy to admit that diplomats behave like children, yet the records show that to be the case.

(2) The Starting Point in National Policy and not in Treaties

Since, as we have shown, treaties cannot safely be relied upon as assurance against war, the question arises as to whether or not another source of international relations can be relied on. The answer seems to be found in what has come to be known as national policy. Nations are more loyal to their policies than they are to their treaties. In fact, wars invariably result froma conflicts in national policies. It would seem, therefore, that since nations are more loyal to policies than they are to treaties, and since wars have their origin in national policies, it is here that the effort to destroy war should be concentrated. [Page 37]A standard illustration of a national policy is our own Monroe Doctrine. A national policy is a consistent attitude of any nation toward anything that affects its international interests. If a nation consistently acts in a certain way regarding one of these questions its policy is said to be established. A nation's personality is in fact a composite of its policies.

The greatest significance of national policy is its flexibility and freedom from legislative handicap. Policies are widely known. New policies may be announced by the executive without the approval of the legislative branches of the government. If an executive announcement regarding matters of international concern strikes a responsive note throughout the nation, and encounters no serious opposition in the legislative branch of the government, a policy is born. It seems to the writer that it is in this field of operation that the foundation for a plan of effective war elimination should be laid.

(3) The Senate Obstacle Harmless.

The United States would be a member of the League of Nations but for the plan of ratification of treaties by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. It is so hard to obtain the necessary majority for treaty action that any effective plan of war elimination which involves the participation of the United States must find its basis of action in a procedure not requiring the two-thirds vote of the Senate. The two-thirds requirement being the result of a constitutional provision which in turn would require a two-thirds vote to change, stands little chance of being modified. The constitutional obstacle, however, may prove a blessing in disguise. If it had not been so we might have been deluded into believing that assurance against war could be found in treaties. We might thus have been lulled into an unsafe assumption of security against war.

As we hope to show, the power of the Senate over the matter of international peace can be broken in the legislative sanction of a plan of action based on national policy. In other words, the President can by message request the approval of Congress of an action based on national policy and receive that [Page 38]approval by a majority vote of both houses. No question of treaty need arise.

Basing the action on national policy might also remove another ambiguity. There has been some disagreement between Senator Borah and President Coolidge regarding the constitutionality of a treaty which might kill the war-making power of Congress, President Coolidge maintaining that the treaty would be unconstitutional and therefore void, and Senator Borah taking the reverse stand. Now, congressional legislative sanction of an avowed national policy cannot be avoided on any such ground. It may, as we hope to show, destroy the danger of the war-making power ever having to be exercised. But there can be no question of the exercise of one constitutional power preventing the exercise of another constitutional power by the same agency.

(4) Separation of the Problem of War from other International Problems

In practically every discussion of the problem of world peace the assumption is made that all international controversies are capable of being settled without the resort to war. Yet in every concrete plan of concerted action the issue of war and peace becomes mingled with other international disputes. If international controversies are capable of being settled without resort to war, why not once and for all separate the problem of war from other international questions and treat it as a separate and distinct thing?

The war-making power is only one of the attributes of sovereignty. That a nation can safely give up the war-making power, provided the other important nations have done likewise, is also clearly evident. Just as we find in the case of the London policeman a replica of effective disarmament, so also in the administration of the British Empire we find an illustration of effective separation of the war power from other sovereign powers. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland (now), all have every earmark of sovereignty except the war-making power. The war-making power, of course, resides in the British Parliament. There is, therefore, no danger of war between members of the British [Page 39]

DISARMAMENT-THE YET UNSOLVED PROBLEM

Empire. Similarly, there is no likelihood of war between any of these self-governing states and England. It simply cannot be, because the war-making power resides in the British Parliament. These states are certainly better off than they could possibly be if they had to carry the burden of armies and navies. It seems, therefore, that we have there a suggestion that is entirely practical. The war-making power might be separated from other sovereign powers, and thus a foundation could be laid upon which might be constructed a plan for the elimination of war. [Page 40]

PEACE MAINTENANCE BY ECONOMIC ISOLATION

by WILLIAM H. BLYMYER International Lawyer

The peace plan developed in the following statement appears to possess advantages meriting careful examination by individuals and organizations seeking the elimination of international conflict in fact as well as in policy. The author's argument may be summarized as the insistence that a truly effective peace plan must combine the following features: Compulsory Arbitration (affording to each nation opportunity to eliminate unfavorable judges); the threat of Non-Intercourse as sanction for the decisions arrived at by the arbitrators; and General Disarmament. This plan was proposed by Mr. Blymyer many years ago, and has been approved by leaders in several countries.

WHILE the Kellogg-Briand Treaty records, in a formal and solemn way, the renunciation of war and the agreement that the solution of international controversies shall never be sought, save by pacific means, it makes no further provision as to those means. It is nevertheless expected in many quarters, that a move will soon be made to lend force to the first clause, by further disarmament; and, as that should raise the question of the adequacy of the machinery for settling controversies, the time for the examination of the latter problem is almost at hand.

The demand for the settlement of controversies can be just as insistent as that for war and the failure to develop means for doing it may become the greatest peril to the endurance of the treaty; for the former cannot well be kept within control unless the plan for accomplishing it is both in itself adequate and has been agreed upon in advance of the controversy.

This plan represents a study of those problems extending over forty years.

The present time seems to be more opportune than ever before for their consideration, not only through the fact that the nations in The League are constantly expressing the desire that America cooperate with them and a willingness to consider [Page 41]

PEACE MAINTENANCE BY ECONOMIC ISOLATION

alterations in The Pact (Covenant), whether by additions or the elimination of features that she may consider necessary, but also because of the fact that the defects of two great attempts to solve them which have not succeeded can now be studied.

Upon the whole, it could not have been expected that nations emerging from systems of monarchical rule and meeting just at the conclusion of the war, when feelings of vindictiveness were still dominant, could meet the expectations of a nation thoroughly inclined toward equality and pacific means.

Experience has already demonstrated, too, that The Pact contains basic provisions that are unworkable; as, for instance, those for the concurrent application of economic and armed forces to be arranged after the conflict has arisen and the time has come to decide against which nation, or nations, they are to be directed and which nations are to join in the attack; or, those for the partial reduction of armaments, qualified by such provisions as "taking account of the geographical situation and circumstances of each State," and subject to the prior "adoption by the several Governments" (Art. 8) in disregard of the obligation assumed by the acceptance of the Fourth of "The Fourteen Points:" "Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic (not national) safety"; or the provisions in The Pact for the settlement of disputes and the execution of decrees, so punctuated with qualifying clauses that any astute lawyer can show how a nation can thread its way out of its commitment, without violation of its terms.

The terms, too, are so complicated that almost no act can be undertaken without the necessity of preliminary interpretations of their insufficient and conflicting provisions, for the making of which there is no plan for the convocation of the power-conferring authorities, The Members of The League, but which are left apparently to the discretion of the political group, The Council, where they can be to a large extent shaped in the interest of its members.

As it is a world problem, there is no doubt but that America [Page 42]should, for her own good and that of all nations, cooperate in establishing the machinery under which order by pacific means can be had; but in the presence of such defects, it would not be wise to advance further towards admission into The League—which many of our citizens, without study, are urging or to enter with the hope of then being able to overcome the objections. We might find ourselves, as did Mr. Wilson at Paris, a hopeless minority of one; when, before entering, we can insist upon the rectifications as a prior condition.

These uncertainties can be eliminated by the substitution of a simple and single course.

A study of this plan will show that it is more in accord with that of the Arbitration Conventions of The Hague, to which almost all of the States in The League are also adherents, and much nearer American ideals, as it recognizes perfect equality among independent nations and the retention by the several States of all powers the surrender of which is not required for world order.

Under The Hague Conventions, each State is allowed to name but four Delegates and the duties of administration are left to an outside body, the discretionary powers of which are reduced to a minimum.

"A Permanent Administrative Council, composed of the diplomatic representatives of the Signatory Powers accredited to The Hague and of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, who shall fulfill the functions of President, shall be constituted in that City," etc. Article 28.

The nations confer no power to legislate under these Conventions, but only to act in a judicial capacity. The Delegates simply constitute a panel, called The Roll, of persons recognized as qualified to hear and determine international differences, from which nations in dispute may select arbitrators, if they choose.

There is even no provision for ever calling them together. The creation of this body, however, brought into existence a permanent group of men that could be utilized under a system of compulsory arbitration in two ways essential for world order. [Page 43]

Peace Maintenance by Economic Isolation

The one way is, as a basis for forming arbitration commissions should nations in conflict feel that they must proceed to a trial—in affording a list from which the selection of the umpire, or the arbitrators, might be made, not, as at present provided, by agreement or by some third party (for they may not agree or act, or not act promptly), but, by giving to the complaining nation the sole privilege of making the selection, unless the other nations in conflict join in the elimination, in rotation, of the names from The Roll, taking the last one, three, or five, for the umpire, or arbitrators, respectively.

The other way is as a tribunal, selected in the same manner, for determining the existence of a default, either in the failure to comply with a request to arbitrate the difference, or in the failure to submit to an arbitration decree, and for pronouncing the sentence; and, as these are simple acts, possible of performance at a single sitting, and as the decree would be invariable—non-intercourse until compliance—they could be accomplished generally with no delay.

It would permit the aggrieved nation to initiate the proceedings alone, without applying to any individual, or body, for permission; but, of course, under the responsibility of paying the costs, or damages, if it should do so without justifiable cause.

While an arbitration commission might give the parties great lengths of time in which to establish a case, the proceedings before the tribunal would be very brief.

There would be but one offense: a default, no matter what the particular conflict was, and but one way to remedy it: compliance. The failure would be a breach of the obligation to arbitrate or to comply under the convention, and therefore, an affront to all of the remaining nations. Moreover, no act could be graver; for, if it extended to a general defiance of the convention, it would mean the undoing of the whole establishment for world order and the signal for each and all of the nations to return to arms.

The firm establishment of such a system, however, so that each nation would be convinced of the fact that it must [Page 44]arbitrate, should its adversary insist upon it, and that compliance with the decree would be inexorable, would result in the disappearance, almost, of litigation; for with the knowledge that the decree, whatever it might be, must be met, the side that had doubts as to the justice of the cause and the side that knew that exact justice, just as it might conceive it, could seldom be expected, would make concessions and the case probably would never proceed further.

It would be much simpler, too, to provide now only for the pacific settlement of differences and leave other matters, in the nature of legislation, to be cared for by specific conventions, with the proviso, that matters wholly concerning the domestic affairs of a state, such as tariffs, the control of immigration, and the rights of foreigners, should be left, at least for the present, to the several states to be regulated as each saw fit, guided, it would be expected, by considerations of humanity, economy and international comity. The preliminary adoption of a code, it is maintained, is not essential; for attempts to make a perfect code have always baffled human intelligence and as some matters must be left to the free judgment of the arbitrators, a few more, after agreements as to some generally accepted principles, can as well be allowed to take that course. There is, moreover, no assurance, or even indication, that men today are much better prepared to undertake the task. It is essential, however, that final determination shall rest upon human judgment, which is the practice today in our highest courts; so, in commissions, such as are here provided, where the pick of intelligence and impartiality in the world would be had in the first instance, the equivalent can be expected.

To adopt this plan would be, in fact, but to continue the of The Hague Conventions, with modifications, not drastic form, but which would permit of the introduction of a compulsory system of law, without which disarmament and its object, security, cannot be achieved; and its simplicity and efficaciousness should appeal to all who can appreciate that, in a world abounding in complications, as we find it today, the rule of [Page 45]

PEACE MAINTENANCE BY ECONOMIC ISOLATION

justice cannot obtain without sacrifices. While the sacrifices, before consideration, may seem real, they, in fact, lack foundation, or are the price for security.

Attention is directed to the fact that many of the hindrances in legal systems as we know them, would disappear under a world system actuated by economic pressure. Only independent states would be litigants; each of them has an organized government and each occupies a defined territory. It would not be necessary, therefore, in order to secure compliance, to first establish "the commission of an act of aggression," or to wait until some state had invaded another, and then to blockade or attack it; but simply, that the remaining nations, each within its own border, obey the decree of an international tribunal by refusing to have intercourse with it. Were general disarmament first introduced, picture the helplessness of a nation that tried to force itself into the territory of another knowing that to persuade the latter to deal with it would be to involve the latter also as an offender of all of the states.

An appreciation on the part of the remaining states of the fact that world order could only be maintained by strict compliance with the decree, without which there would follow a reversion to the condition of armed force, would suffice to keep them in line did not the moral obligation do so.

The greatest departure from known trial systems would be in the simplicity of the inquiry on which to base the decree of non-intercourse or isolation; for it would only be necessary to suggest before the tribunal the fact of non-compliance, which fact would be generally known, and the burden of proof would be largely shifted to the non-complying nation.

The establishment of such a system would lead to another unexpected result. The procedure being so simple, the result would be almost ineluctable, and a nation would hardly press a claim of which it was not sure; or defend one, unless equally confident of success.

Nations would quickly realize that, if a case were contested, the result, at best, could be but human judgment with an [Page 46]uncertain result that might be very disastrous; and that, with such certainty as to the execution, if unfavorable, it would be far better to attempt to settle by negotiation and even to make a great sacrifice rather than to run the risk. As both, or all sides, would be actuated by a like fear, they would not, even in direct negotiation, resort to the making of impossible pretentions or even of unduly exaggerated claims; and consequently, not having indulged in a state of mental excitement, they would, as a rule, soon be ready to consider the claim with sufficient equanimity to bridge over the remaining difference. Moreover, it is pretty certain that each state would deem that a solution which it had helped to formulate, by give and take, would be more acceptable, than to be obliged to accept the decision of a third person, or body.

Nothing would prevent the administration of conciliation, did some other state conceive that it could aid in such an endeavor; but, if a system exists under which a solution is inevitable, and that mode comprises all of the safeguards conceivable, why render it inefficient by affording alternatives that do not promise a finality? The strength of the system would rest in this certainty, which is heightened by its great simplicity.

If effective means for a trial by the highest talent and device for impartiality conceivable are conceded, the remaining feature of the essential three is disarmament, and it is difficult to comprehend why, at a time when it is unreasonable, from recent developments, to suppose that any future war will be confined to conflicts between single states and none can surmise the array that may be opposed to it and furthermore when the fearfulness of the instruments of war is increasing almost every day, men will concentrate attention on their simple multiplication, instead of directing their best endeavors to the early establishment of the rule of reason, or simple justice.

Disarmament is primarily a mathematical problem the moment that it is admitted that any nation has the right to be as strong as the strongest, a proposition which no one today is disposed to dispute. As viewed today, armaments among the [Page 47]

PEACE MAINTENANCE BY ECONOMIC ISOLATION

strongest will be relatively equal; for, if one nation decides to increase her armaments in any branch, others are almost bound to match it. But why should this be done, when it will not give an advantage either to the one or to the other?

If then, it is wholly a matter of relativity, why would it not be just as well to start reductions and carry them down to a certain limit? The relative security to each nation would still be the same. The results, it is true, would not correspond to the strength of the individual nations in men and resources, but neither would they under further increases in the limits. The only difference would be, that, if a nation harbored an ulterior design to some day violate her obligation and break away, she would already have a more formidable nucleus on which to build; but, should world-policy make provision for such treachery? In each case, the line of limitation would be artificial with the distinction, that the one would relieve the peoples of the enormous burdens for war preparation, called, today, defense, and the other lead to chaos.

While before the war, a proposition for gradual or partial disarmament might have been entertained with some excuse for hopefulness, today two more great arms of warfare have arisen: the submarine and the apparently greater one of attack through the air with gases, disease-germs and explosives together with new devices for their launching; so that, instead of making regulations for comparative armaments in land and naval forces only, there are now four ratios to compute with no possibility of agreement as to equivalents.

For years before this new complication appeared, the claim was maintained, that no agreement in which the nations would have confidence, save one, could be made or even concluded, and its justification has been amply demonstrated in the futile attempts to accomplish this at Washington and Geneva in disregard of this principle. The League and our government, unprepared with any solution for the great problem, are simply standing in the arena helpless to aid.

Our government at present is first retarding progress by [Page 48]engaging in a little side discussion confined to the American continents, and then blocking it by espousing the British imperialistic view, that she and we, because of size and power today, should be the sole arbiters of world destiny, when war is a world problem, as all parts of the sea, the land and the air are involved and no section of the earth can be placed in safety, unless the movement is worldwide. While other nations are anxiously waiting for Great Britain and us to renounce this claim for special consideration and, as equals, to come in and even take the leadership, they are stayed so that they cannot aid, or even make their voices heard.

The one form of agreement by which disarmament can be accomplished is that providing for general disarmament—disarmament so thorough that no nation will longer place dependence in the force of arms, because none are at hand, and would be forced to submit its claims to the solution of reason, when all nations will be recognized as equals in matters of right.

This state of equality was within the reach of the nations when the "Wilson Points" were accepted by practically all of the great nations. What is needed today, is broadness of vision and a return to that starting-point.

This is not an argument that America should disarm and place herself at the mercy of other nations; but that all should act in unison, first destroying and disbanding the most powerful instruments and forces and working horizontally downward until the minimum, to be controlled by international direction as a police force, is reached.

How a nation shall arm is not its own affair. The peace of the world is a matter of general concern and the nations as a whole have a fundamental right to remove any menace to peace. There is no justification in the attitude of a few imperialists, a few munition makers and a few professional army and navy men that this situation should continue undisturbed and the world remain as an armed camp. The disquietude produced by the Monroe Doctrine and the submarine menace to the British Isles would vanish as the result of general disarmament. [Page 49]

PEACE MAINTENANCE BY ECONOMIC ISOLATION

If the nations are to recover their financial equilibrium, general disarmament is imperative and, as a creditor-nation, it is akin to madness for America to be furthering a world-order of naval and military power, forcing all nations to keep step, when liquidation is just ahead of the situation for many of her debtors and, if that movement once starts, it is bound to become general. [Page 50]

WORLD CITIZENSHIP

by CARL A. Ross Attorney

BT US call the League of Nations, first; Locarnos, big and little, second; Arbitration Treaties, third; World Court, fourth; Outlawry of War, fifth; are there other plans for peace? A United States of Europe, sixth; and Ambassador Houghton's proposal that the people conduct foreign affairs as they do domestic affairs, call it a Peoples Empire, seventh and last. There are many other suggestions for peace, but these may be classed with one of the above seven. After surveying this array one naturally asks, eventually, what?

In none of these seven plans have certain American institutions been adequately recognized. To explain the American institutions of "unit of representation," "sanctions" and "supreme law of the land," is to disclose American Democracy as revealed by our history and economic development, and to expound their relation to these current peace plans is our task. The limits of this article will only permit group analysis of these seven plans. The last two point in the right direction. The first five are futile if not dangerous in the light of American colonial history, because all of them are based on the sovereign nation as the unit, all five are based on war as the only effective sanction and all permit each nation to retain its own "supreme law of the land."

To elucidate the teachings of American history on the doctrines of "unit of representations," "sanctions" and "supreme law of the land," we should briefly note the parallel between the thirteen sovereign nations at the close of the Revolutionary War and the nations at the close of the World War. We have no [Page 51]

World Citizenship

space to draw the comparison in finance, commerce, industry, language, religion, in means of communication and travel; we can only point to the political similarity. At the close of each war a League was created with sovereign functions but lacking sovereignty since each league member retained full sovereignty. Naturally the results were weak hermaphroditic Leagues. Both were based on war as the only effective sanction and the written League covenants were not a supreme law in any land or nation. Let us carry the parallel further, the Confederation lasted less than the ten years the League has survived, when it was followed by our Constitution. Likewise advocates of a United States of Europe or of Ambassador Houghton’s “Peoples Empire,” as we have named it, seek to remodel the League into a World Union. May we not assume that this would be by a written constitution, which, like our Constitution, would change the unit of representation from the nation to the individual, would replace war by law as an effective sanction and establish itself as the “supreme law” throughout the entire group? As long as the “United States of Europe” excludes America, we shall drop that plan and hereafter refer to the “Peoples Empire” which might include America.

The great cry against such a Peoples Empire would be that it would ruin all nations involved because it could be accomplished only by limiting their sacred sovereignty. It is true that these 1929 gods would be shorn of power, but they are not flesh and blood, they are only phantoms; each is just the footless, toothless, brainless modern nationalism worshipped today. With the founding of a Peoples Empire, having incorporated in it these three doctrines, these phantom gods would no longer be able to thunder on Mount Geneva, their yammering “Fear, Fear!” would no longer be heard in the land. The flesh and blood citizen, on the other hand, would lose nothing, he would merely accept one more voting franchise. This is true to Anglo-Saxon tradition. Ever since our ancestors in England ruled themselves under the simple organization of the tun, for every new condition arising by advance in commerce and industry, we have developed a new governmental institution whereby the people could [Page 52]conduct these particular affairs directly. These forms of government have survived only when and as these various expressions of the I will of the people have been centered around the individual citizen. When the Roman roads widened the field of commerce and industry in England, a new political unit appeared, the hundred, still with the individual as the unit in which sovereignty lay. And so it has continued up to the present day, United States being the most extended and ambitious experiment, the largest concentric circle about the individual by which he expresses his sovereignty. Not all these new circles since the tun have been expanding circles, the city is a contracted circle about the individual for better handling of police and sanitary problems, also the school district is a still smaller circle, being often a part of the city or town or county, but still the individual is the irreducible unit.

There is now a long list of modern democratic institutions in United States that are daily proving their worth and each and all might be called concentric circles about the individual citizen, whereby he expresses a certain phase of his sovereignty in each according as the function of the sovereignty in each involves a wider or narrower group of his fellow citizens; or we may say that all these different expressions of government are concentric circles about the individual, each circle embracing only those individuals whose interests are in common regarding the function the group is to perform. When the tun first flourished, the people needed only one group for sanitary, educational, civic, national and international relations. Those were days when the wheelbarrow was typical of advanced means of transportation and the swift runner carried messages by word of mouth. The tun still survives in our New England Townmeeting, but look at the list in United States at the end of the nineteenth century, before the day of the airplane and wireless; the townmeeting, the village, the county, the city, the school district, the paragraph district, the farm drainage district, the sanitary district, the road district, the irrigation district, the judicial district, the state government, the congressional district, the federal government and all the other governmental institutions of our day in each [Page 53]

World Citizenship

of which the American citizen finds expression of some phase of his sovereignty, no more complicated than the times in which we live.

Should we not then expect the common people of America to reject the sovereign nation as the irreducible unit in the final or largest political association and insist on retaining the individual as the center of this new and larger association or circle to function for world peace? With this in mind let us study this concentric circle grouping further. We immediately see some are organized for general purposes and some for specific purposes. The more numerous class, including school districts, election districts and the like, are concentric circle groupings around the individual for some single specific object; while the township, the city, the state and the nation, comprise the other class of concentric circle groupings for general governmental purposes.

Further as to this class. The smaller these groups are geographically, the broader the scope of their powers of general supervision; or, conversely, the larger these concentric circles are geographically, the narrower the scope of their political control. This is natural, because the larger the group geographically, the larger the multitude and the more restricted would be any common interest. Let us apply this principle to the problem of world peace. It is said that today in all progressive civilized nations, that the common people abhor war, they do not want their children to be cannon fodder, whatever the ruling officials may want. There you have a common want and a group of individuals awaiting to be formed in a concentric circle. Let us limit the political scope of this circle to the extreme, let it function for peace only.

As we proceed to develop this international group into a concentric circle, we will follow these three doctrines; the unit of representation shall be the individual, law shall be made an effective sanction and there shall be a supreme law of the land throughout this new circle. We wish to quote from the Federalist, from John Fiske and from Andrew McLaughlin as we establish the importance of these three doctrines,—which we believe to be the sine qua non of any effective peace plan,—and, in order to [Page 54]make these quotations more easily understood, we deem it necessary to outline some of the articles of a constitution for this new and large concentric circle.

Preamble; Inasmuch as some limitation of national sovereignty as distinguished from the sovereignty of the individual is essential to secure peace, prevent wars of aggression and minimize the chances of civil war, and inasmuch as the peace of the world will best be secured by carrying out in a modified form the peace treaty of Versailles, we, the self-governing peoples to whom this constitution is submitted, do hereby ordain and establish the Peoples Empire.

Article. This constitution shall become operative only when and after it is agreed to by a majority of the citizens in each nation. Such adoption, in each nation respectively, shall be in such manner and form as is required for an effective amendment to the constitution or fundamental law of each such respective state.

Article. When adopted and ratified this constitution shall be the supreme law in all such lands respectively and any individual may claim protection thereunder in any and all courts and shall have a right of appeal to the supreme judicial authority hereinafter established. All legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of two branches, voting per capita and not by nations. The Congress shall have such powers only as are granted herein.

Article. The Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes to assume the present war debt of all nation members on the basis hereafter fixed and refund same, to declare war and make treaties of peace, to raise and support armies, a navy, an air fleet and other military forces, to regulate the manufacture, sale and transportation of arms and munitions of war and any power incident thereto.

Article. No nation entering the Empire shall thereafter have or maintain any military force whatever, except that ordinary police forces and militia may be maintained for ordinary police duties.

Article. It is hereby declared to be an inherent right of all [Page 55]peoples not to be unreasonably restrained in their intercourse with other peoples in any of the following ways; in the right of transit on international highways on land, water or the air; in the right of trade for the purchase of raw materials or for the sale of manufactured products and in the right of equal protection for investments in all countries.

Article. Neither the Congress nor any political subdivision shall pass any law unreasonably restraining the above rights to any other nation or to any individual, but in construing any law alleged to violate any of these provisions, the following principles shall control: the doctrine of the most favored nation, the open door, no differential taxes shall be levied, no armed force shall be used to collect debts, and immigrants need not be granted civil rights until they learn the language and become assimilated to the character and customs of their new domicile.

Article. The judicial power is vested in one supreme court for the Empire and in one appellate court for each nation member.

Article. All taxes shall be uniform, except that to effect an equitable refunding of the war debts and the payment of reparations, different rates of taxation for a period of years to balance their respective debits and credits are hereinafter established for each member. The differential rates hereinafter fixed for Germany and the Teutonic allies shall be in lieu of all further reparation payments.

The foregoing constitution-when completed-is hereby recommended to the people of all self-governing nations for adoption.

The year 1929 faces a serious attempt by Europe to revise debt settlements and reparations. In 1789 the thirteen states and the Continental Congress faced similar problems, only Europe was then the creditor, while 1929 finds Europe the debtor. Although our constitution did not formally provide for refunding the war debts as we have suggested be done, yet the creation of the new taxing power over such a large territory was a stroke of financial genius. Alexander Hamilton, our first Secretary of the Treasury, saw what it meant and quickly refunded the [Page 56]Revolutionary war debts so that the individual states were relieved of burdens they considered crushing and the new government easily retired the bonds. Our school, road, drainage and other special district bonds are an outgrowth of this idea. But the superiority of the U. S. Constitution in the financial field was not its only claim to greatness. It resulted in total disarmament on the part of all the thirteen states and established peace within the Union. It succeeded where the Confederation had signally failed. The Continental Congress was a Common Council of the States, intended to exercise some superintending power over their affairs without in any way affecting their sovereignty. In all these respects it was the prototype of the League of Nations.

The reasons why the U. S. Constitution accomplished what was impossible under the Confederation were clearly given by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist and we submit that they argue potently that a 1929 constitution of a Peoples Empire would accomplish what the League is powerless to do and what the common people want done.

"There is nothing absurd or impractical in the idea of a League or alliance between independent nations for certain defined purposes precisely stated in the treaty regulating all the details of time, place, circumstance and quantity; leaving nothing to future discretion; and depending for its execution on the good faith of the parties. In the early part of the present century there was an epidemical rage in Europe for this species of compacts, from which the politicians of the times fondly hoped for benefits which were never realized. With a view to establishing the equilibrium of power and the peace of that part of the world, all the resources of negotiation were exhausted, and triple and quadruple alliances were formed; but they were scarcely formed before they were broken. If the particular States in this country are disposed to stand in a similar relation to each other, and to drop the project of a general discretionary superintendence, the scheme would indeed be pernicious, but it would have the merit of being, at least, consistent and practicable.—But if we are unwilling to be placed in this perilous situation; if we still [Page 57]

World Citizenship

will adhere to the design of a national government, or, which is the same thing, of a superintending power, under the direction of a Common Council, we must resolve to incorporate into our plan those ingredients which may be considered as forming the characteristic difference between a League and a government; we must extend the authority of the Union to the persons of the citizens, the only proper objects of government.

"Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolution or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation. This penalty, whatever it may be, can only be inflicted in two ways: by the agency of the courts and ministers of justice, or by military force; by the coercion of the magistracy, or by the coercion of arms. The first kind can evidently apply only to men; the last kind must of necessity, be employed against bodies politic, or communities, or States. It is evident that there is no process of a court by which the observance of the laws can, in the last resort, be enforced against States. Sentences may be denounced against them for violations of their duty; but these sentences can only be carried into execution by the sword. In an association where the general authority is confined to the collective bodies of the communities that compose it, every breach of the laws must involve a state of war; and military execution must become the only instrument of civil obedience."

This is strong language Hamilton employs and there are many other passages of like tenor. John Fiske also attacks the Articles of Confederation on the same ground and his words alike are applicable to all Leagues, all treaties, to Outlawry of War and to World Courts created by treaties.

"The federal government (i.e., under the Articles), had possessed no means of enforcing obedience to its laws. Its edicts were without sanction; and this was because they operated upon states, and not upon individuals. When an individual defies the [Page 58]law, you can lock him up in jail, or levy an execution upon his property. The immense force of the community is arrayed against him, and he is as helpless as a straw on the billows of the ocean. He cannot raise a militia to protect himself. But when the law is defied by a state, it is quite otherwise. You cannot put a state into jail, nor seize its goods, you can only make war on it.

It has been frequently advocated in support of the League and all courts based on treaties, whether courts of arbitration or international courts, that there be some international army or navy to enforce their decrees. It is urged that the Covenant of the League be amended to provide for this, also that all such treaties should contain provision for such military force. However, the majority of people see that this merely unmasks the attempt to settle disputes without war, by openly recognizing what is patent without declaring it; namely, that war is the only effective sanction for a breach of all treaty obligations. Even our historians seem to have forgotten the teaching of our colonial history, where this same question was debated in our Constitutional Convention and solved. The best and briefest exposition of this solution which we have found are the following quotations from Andrew McLaughlin.

"Soon after the convention (Philadelphia 1787) adjourned, Madison, in writing to Jefferson, gave the reason for omitting from the Constitution a provision authorizing the central government to call forth the force of the Union against a delinquent state; it was omitted because a much more reasonable and efficacious plan was devised. 'It was generally agreed,' he wrote, 'that the objects of the Union could not be secured by any system founded on the principle of a confederation of Sovereign States. A voluntary observance of the federal law by all members could never be hoped for. A compulsive one could evidently never be reduced to practice, and if it could, involved equal calamities to the innocent and the guilty, the necessity of a military force, both obnoxious and dangerous, and, in general, a scene resembling much more a civil war than the administration of a regular government. Hence was embraced the alternative of a Government [Page 59]

WORLD CITIZENSHIP

which, instead of operating on the States, should operate without their intervention on the individuals composing them." " McLaughlin then shows that another ramification of this change of the principle of representation from the nation to the individual, is the often forgotten result that our Constitution became "the supreme law of the land." "This clause may be called the central clause of the Constitution, because without it the whole system would be unwieldy, if not impractical. Draw out this particular bolt, and the machinery falls to pieces. In these words the Constitution is plainly made not merely a declaration, a manifesto, dependent for its life and usefulness on the passing will of statesmen or of people, but a fundamental law, enforceable like any other law in courts. For the first time in history, courts are called upon by the simple processes of administering justice, in cases where private right or personal injury is involved, to uphold the structure of the body politic and the principles of the constitution.—If the states had voluntarily and with good humor lived up to their obligations under the old system, all might have been well. But they would not.

Under the Constitution, therefore, the new government was to act by its own laws on its own citizens; and in addition the states were to be placed in a distinctly legal relationship, and were to be bound to recognize their duties as legal duties; the Constitution was to be the supreme law of the land, enforceable in state courts, to be applied by state judges, to be appealed to by state citizens asking their own judges for justice. The states were not to be ordered by the central government to erase acts from their statute-books, or directed to do this or not to do that, they might pass illegal acts, but their own judges in the quiet of their own court rooms, at the instance of private suitors asking for their rights, were to be called on to disregard all state acts contrary to the law of the land.—The whole principle of the veto was contradictory to the theory, the underlying notion of the Constitution, as it took form and meaning in the minds of its makers; there could logically be no law—that is, no state act really legal—if it contravened the Constitution." [Page 60]Can we not see the force of these strictures as applicable not only to all Leagues and Peace Treaties, but also to all so-called "International Courts"? Do we realize that these same strictures are now in full force and must so remain, between all nations, whether democratic, communistic or what-not, until the day the people, in a reasonable number of enlightened, self-governing nations, supported by public opinion, get together and swear allegiance to one new democratic sovereign comprising their united citizenry so that this government can reach out through its courts and act directly on the individual by the sanction of law? No international court is possible. Such an institution is an anomaly. There never was and there never can be an institution that can be truly called an "International Court," because a court, the real American institution, can only be one branch of some one government. It cannot have two masters required to make it "international." Should this be attempted, which nation is to abandon its citizens to the tender mercies of such a polyandrous mistress? Let us suppose United States, Mexico, Brazil, England, France, Germany and Italy joined in a so-called "International Court." It makes little difference who the judges might be, the serious question is who would be subject to its jurisdiction, aside from its seven members? No one, because it is wholly impractical to amend our constitution to provide that:

"Whenever any citizen of United States is made a party to legal proceedings in this International Court, the constitution of United States shall, as to such citizens, no longer be the supreme law of the land, but on the contrary his person and property shall be subject to the decision of such court and the sheriff of such court may enter United States and take the property or person of such citizen under any properly certified decree of such court and from such action such citizen shall have no redress in any court of United States."

If this court cannot get jurisdiction of the individual, it leaves only the seven nation members as possible litigants. Now suppose Mexico recovered a judgment for fifty million dollars against United States, or a decree that United States had two [Page 61]battleships more than our quota. What is to be done about it, what is the sheriff of such court to do? Shall he enter United States, levy on the Washington Monument or on the United States Mint? Shall he come to Hampton Roads and whistle for two battleships? Would he have any greater right to seize the property of American citizens in any foreign port or to take our battleships on the high seas? It may be contended that there should be no international sheriff, if United States entered such a court the government should voluntarily submit and pay the money or junk the battleships, that our congress should acquiesce and pass the necessary legislation to carry out such decrees. But likely these same people have failed to set an example of like submission to the decrees of our courts when pink and red public opinion suspect the decision. How about the Sacco-Vanzetti case? There the world learned that the American sanction of law could function peaceably in spite of popular clamor. But can we postulate there would be no popular clamor, no adverse public opinion against a similar decision of the World Court? Surely no senator or congressman would dare vote for such a measure till after a general election in which the issue was fought out. Supposing this course was followed, it requires what Alexander Hamilton calls "intermediate legislation." In the Revolutionary War period, Valley Forge was caused by a lack of such "intermediate legislation," so was the threat of the army at Newburgh; for lack of "intermediate legislation," the Continental Congress fled from Philadelphia to Princeton and many other untoward things happened. The slang for "intermediate legislation" is "rubber-stamp" and who can conceive that our United States Senate would "rubber-stamp" any decision of a non-American court?

Is it not becoming clearer why "foreign questions" must be transformed into "domestic questions," and why all the common people of all the enlightened nations must be grouped into one new democratic government to prevent wars, establish peace and avoid such blots on the fair names of peoples as Valley Forge or "History's Greatest Treck," the forced migration of over [Page 62]2,000,000 Christians and Muslims across the Ægean Sea with appalling massacres and atrocities in which the loss of life was over 300,000 even though this treck was largely carried out and sponsored by the League of Nations? Just another instance of lack of "intermediate legislation" on the part of a few influential members of the League because of a lack of public opinion, the fickle dame. Had this "foreign question" been turned over to the people and therefore properly transformed into a "domestic question," so that no "rubber-stamp" legislation was required of England, France or any other nation, could the wishes of this Union, so vitalized, have been thus easily frustrated by inaction? The Federalist answers.

"The result of these observations must be clearly this, that if it be possible to construct a federal government capable of regulating the common concerns and preserving the general tranquillity, it must be founded, as to the objects committed to its care, upon the reverse of the principle contended for by the opponents of the proposed Constitution. It must carry its agency to the persons of the citizens. It must stand in need of no intermediate legislations; but must itself be empowered to employ the arm of the ordinary magistrate to execute its own resolutions. The majesty of the national authority must be manifested through the medium of the courts of justice.

"To this reasoning it may perhaps be objected, that if any State should be disaffected to the authority of the Union, it could at any time obstruct the execution of its laws, and bring the matter to the same issue of force, with the necessity of which the opposite scheme is reproached.

"The plausibility of this objection will vanish the moment we advert to the essential difference between a mere non-compliance and a direct and active resistance. If the interposition of the State legislatures be necessary to give effect to a measure of the Union, they have only not to act, or to act evasively, and the measure is defeated.

"But if the execution of the laws of the national government should not require the intervention of the State legislatures, if [Page 63]

WORLD CITIZENSHIP

they were to pass into immediate operation upon the citizens themselves, the particular governments could not interrupt their progress without an open and violent exercise of an unconstitutional power. No omissions nor evasions would answer the end. They would be required to act, and in such a manner as would leave no doubt that they had encroached on the national rights."

In the long history of United States we have had very few instances of attempts of this kind. Alexander Hamilton, the author of this quotation, little knew that he would be killed by the one man, Aaron Burr, whose treason is well remembered.

This study opens many doors and we can only enumerate a few of the questions hardly touched on. The principal question is the extent of the power such a World Union would need. Can it not be so restricted that each nation would give up very little holy nationalism? It should be remembered that the citizen gives up nothing. What will be the reaction of the masses? It is clear that any effort to adopt such a constitution is a harmless undertaking since it could not be adopted except by a reasonable majority. If the masses in all real democracies decide they want it and adopt it, it is almost sure to work satisfactorily. To make the proof strong, suppose in all the progressive, self-governing countries, suitable amendments to their fundamental law were submitted to the people and the referendum vote was nine in favor to one against and by a like referendum a suitable constitution was adopted by the same majority; can anyone conceive that thereafter this same majority would not make the necessary concessions in actual practice to subordinate their old institutions so that the new government could function co-ordinately? This is what happened in America in 1789 when the majority was much less than nine to one and in the face of a strong royalist opposition. This for the masses: how about leadership, how about the official class, high ranking officials and other leaders of public opinion? Here is where the masses are likely to be led in opposition to the plan. In 1789 the Continental Congress, as a whole, opposed our Constitution and we can only expect our Senate to object to any curtailing of their own pet powers. [Page 64]Volumes might be written on debt funding, reparations and rates of taxation. Refunding Revolutionary War debts worked, the bonds were surprisingly good. Why cannot the same thing be done again? Even Russia's debt so refunded would be gilt-edged, would it not? If it works with debts, it suggests a world condition rather pleasant to contemplate: European budgets relieved of amortization of national war debts, relieved also of the huge annual cost of armaments, freeing money easily available for national programs of internal improvements. Furthermore these Empire Refunding Bonds would fill a long felt want in stabilizing international exchange, furnishing a firm basis for international credit and banking, in facilitating the transfer of international credits; in all these ways stimulating international trade and widening markets for mass production.

The only new doctrine we have mentioned is found in the fifth Article of our outline of a constitution, and for this we are indebted to the writings of President Glenn Frank of Wisconsin University. Thought and scholarship devoted to this phase of a constitution for a World Empire, it would seem, would be worth while. The plan herein outlined may be far from the eventual plan that will save us from another war. However, Hamilton, Fiske and McLaughlin make a very strong case against the nation as the unit and if we reject the nation, what is left but the individual, "the only proper object of government." Also, some sanction other than war must be found. It will not be public opinion, those to the contrary confess they do not understand what a sanction is. Public opinion expresses itself in adopting a sanction and thereafter this new sanction has to function independently of public opinion and sometimes in spite of public opinion, else it is nothing but fickie, ever changing public opinion. Law as applied in domestic courts is the only sanction history teaches us has ever displaced war, always the ultimate sanction. Finally, there must be one law by which all are judged and this law must operate to grant all equal privileges. No law, other than a "supreme law of the land," can well fulfil these conditions. [Page 65]

THE BASES FOR HUMAN ONENESS

by JOHN HERMAN RANDALL

WHERE shall we look for the bases of the modern idea of a unity that binds all individual members into one great whole, of a human oneness in which racial, national and individual differences exist, not to separate and divide, but to unite all in the larger service of the good of the whole? What is the foundation of the root idea of Democracy an equality in service, since we are all essential members one of another? Is the modern conception of the solidarity of mankind grounded in fact or is it only beautiful theory?

The essential fact in human history, as we read it today, is the slow awakening of a sense of unity, the gradual unfolding of a feeling of community between men, nations and races, the dawning possibility of cooperation, of undreamed-of collective powers, of a coming synthesis of the human species, of the eventual development of a common general ideal, a common universal purpose for humanity as a whole, out of all the present chaotic confusion. The struggles and bloodshed of all the past have proven the duty and even the right of every individual to be not another, but himself. But at last we are beginning to realize that one’s individual existence is not so entirely cut off as it seemed at first, that one’s entire separate individuality is but one of the many subtle delusions of the human mind. “Between you and me as we bring our minds together, and between us and the rest of mankind there is something, something real, something that rises through us and is neither you nor me, that comprehends us, that is thinking here and using us to play against each other in that thinking.”

This is no mere poetical statement; it is as hard a fact as [Page 66]any we know. We, you and I and everyone, are not only parts in a thought-process, but parts of one universal flow of life and blood.

THE BIOLOGICAL BASIS

From the biological viewpoint the unity of mankind is scientifically true. The scholars are agreed today that the human race, with all its various differentiations, goes back ultimately to one common source. The cradle of the race is now supposed to have been in the ancient land of India, somewhere in the vicinity of the Himalaya mountains. From that source through prehistoric times early peoples wandered to and fro, extending their migrations ever farther and farther, reaching even the western world-as witness the ancient ruins in Central America.

The differences that exist today between the various races of men, differences in language, in government, in religion, in dress, in manners and customs, grew up gradually through a long period of time and are due primarily to differences in environment, climate, soil, food, etc., as these primitive peoples became separated farther and farther from each other. But in spite of all these differences, the biological basis of humanity is one; the same blood flows in all our veins.

Mr. H. G. Wells has worked out the mathematical problem which anyone may verify for himself. Everyone has two parents and four grand-parents, and most people have eight great grand-parents; if we ignore the possibility of intermarriage, we shall go on to a fresh power of two with every generation. On this basis, in ten generations one would have 1,024 ancestors, in thirty generations, 15,745,024 ancestors, and in forty generations 1,956,282,276 ancestors. If we allow four generations to a century and disregard intermarriage of relations, the ancestors living only a thousand years ago, needed to account for a person living today, would be far more than the estimated present population of the world. Allowing for intermarriage, it only extends the time, it does not change the fact. In the case of the Jews, the most exclusive race in the world, for all we know, "one Italian proselyte in the first year of the Christian Era may [Page 67]

THE BASES FOR HUMAN ONENESS

I have made by this time every Jew alive a descendant of some unrecorded bastard of Julius Cæsar." The Chinese, who have been until recently segregated from the main stream of humanity, only defer the inevitable conclusion, they do not stave it off indefinitely. As Mr. Wells points out, "it needs only that one philoprogenitive Chinaman should have wandered into those regions that are now Russia, about the time of Pericles, to link East and West; for that matter, one Tartar chief in the Steppes may have given a daughter to a Roman soldier and sent his grandsons East and West to interlace the branches of every family tree in the world."

With the evidence that we have of the wide wanderings of prehistoric tribes, and remembering the ceaseless movements of peoples to and fro on the earth's surface, during historic times, with the inevitable intermarriage of individuals from different tribes and races constantly taking place, we realize how baseless is the idea that there is today any such thing as an essentially distinct or separate race.

As one of America's foremost anthropologists said in a recent address, "The world has nothing to fear, biologically, from the intermarriage of the races, for the simple reason that the races have long since become hopelessly mixed." The longer one lets his imagination play upon the incalculable drift and soak of the world's population, the more one realizes the tremendous fact of the biological oneness of humanity as a whole, regardless of all racial and national names which we still employ to separate peoples from one another.

The "blue blood" of an assumed aristocracy or the 100% type of patriotism that is to be found among all peoples, based upon accident of birth, turn out to be, from the scientific viewpoint, exploded myths, for which there is no real basis in fact.

Thus, from this strictly scientific point of view, our individualities, our states and nations and races are but "bubbles and clusters of foam upon the great stream of the blood of the species, incidental experiments in the growing knowledge and consciousness of the race." [Page 68]

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL BASIS

When we study the intellectual achievements of the various races and nations, we are profoundly impressed with the essential like-mindedness of all men. So long as there were no easy means of communication between different portions of the globe and men and nations lived of necessity separated lives, each group worked out its particular problem in its own way. It is thus that the ideals of government, social and economic systems, science, philosophies, the arts, morals and religions were originally de- veloped, each separate nation or race slowly working out its ideals, theories, and general system of knowledge, independently, as if there were no other races or nations in the world.

Today, with our modern transportation facilities, the tele- graph, the wonderful growth of travel between different coun- tries, however widely separated, the interchange of literatures and the extension of commerce, we realize how this old barrier of simple ignorance of one another has been torn away; and we discover that, all unconsciously, these different races and nations of men have been working out their separate destinies along essentially the same lines and toward practically the same great ends. Some, to be sure, for obvious reasons, have been moving more rapidly, some have made greater progress and approached more nearly their ideals than have others, but all have been moving along the same general lines of development.

All men, however isolated, have confronted the same uni- verse of mystery, have faced the same problem of human existence, have reflected upon the same experiences of the inner conscious- ness; and whatever the difference in the forms of the conclusions at which they have arrived, the content of those conclusions has been essentially the same. The human mind, the whole world round, is one; its activities conform to the same laws; its powers, given the same opportunities and an equal time for development, are practically the same.

Politically, the world is moving today toward some form of democracy, in spite of the Great War. [Page 69]

THE BASES FOR HUMAN ONENESS

If science be "the systematized body of ascertained knowledge," then there can be but one scientific system for the world. We cannot conceive of a Chinese science, or a German science, or a Russian science, or an American science. Science, in just so far as it is science, must be one—a world-science.

While the external forms of the art of different peoples have varied widely, in poetry, in music, in painting or sculpture, still we recognize that the fundamental principles out of which true art springs are the same for the world.

In the same way, though more gradually, we are beginning to see that all the past systems of philosophy have but been preparing the way for the coming of a world-philosophy in which the truths of the many various systems shall be comprised in a new and universal synthesis of thought.

The comparative study of the world's great literature reveals the same like-mindedness, the same outreachings toward truth and beauty, the same heart-hungerings for love and goodness. Even the forms of these different literatures are wonderfully similar, poetry and prose, drama and fiction.

The recent Science of Comparative Religion also reveals the same underlying unity in morals and religion of all peoples.

It has been proven that all such moral sentiments as justice, temperance, truthfulness, patience, love, mercy, far from being the peculiar property of any one religion, are found inculcated in the Bibles of all religions. The Ten Commandments of the Old Testament are more or less, and in slightly varying forms, to be found in all other sacred scriptures. It is also clear today that the great spiritual sentime: 3 out of which all religions have sprung, such as awe, wonder, rerence, aspiration, worship, are not only common to all, but h. ve found rich expression in all the varied systems of faith throughout the world. So that we can truly say that "while religions are many, religion is one."

It is this recognition that in the realm of the intellectual, moral and spiritual achievements there is an essential oneness, a world-life, in which all mankind participates and to which all men have contributed and must contribute, that not only. [Page 70]constitutes the psychological basis of Democracy but is rapidly drawing all nations into an ever closer unity that must eventually lead to an actual fellowship of humanity.

"chological basis for the oneness that all men, regardless of race adefinite development and along Still another phase of the of humanity is found in the fa or nation, seem to be capable the same lines, both mental and moral. John G. Paton, the Apostle to the New Hebrides, demonstrated in a single lifetime of heroic devotion, the possibility of transforming the cannibal natives of the South Sea Islands into civilized beings, with not only all the capacities of, but the ambition for, intellectual and moral development. Bishop Hannington revealed the same possibilities among the savages of Africa.

We watch the children of the immigrant as they stream from the steerage of the vessels at Ellis Island. They come from every land under the sun, they represent the most backward as well as the most advanced races. Their language is strange, their dress is peculiar, their skin is different in color. They come from countries where for centuries their ancestors have lived in ignorance, perhaps ground down by tyranny. But give these same children five or ten years in our schools and see the change. They not only catch up with and keep pace with our American-born boys and girls but in many instances they outstrip them, carrying off the honors in College and University, filling positions of usefulness, responsibility and leadership in all walks of life as they reach years of maturity. The brilliant students from India, China, Japan, Syria, etc., who in recent years have distinguished themselves at Harvard, Yale, Columbia and other American and English Universities prove the same possibilities for development among these Oriental races.

Or, take the so-called incorrigible bad boys who seem to stand outside the pale of normal human nature. There comes a Judge Ben Lindsey, who, with insight and love, takes these "bad boys" to his home, becomes their friend, teacher and guide, and proves the possibility of upright, useful citizenship in even "the bad boy." [Page 71]The confirmed criminal, apparently hopeless, turns out to be no exception when a Thomas Mott Osborne begins to treat him as a man, worthy of confidence and respect, or a Madeleine Doty does the same for the female offender. From the psychological viewpoint, all men are far more alike than they are different; and all, even the apparent exceptions, are susceptible of indefinite development and along the same general lines. It is here again that we find profound evidence for the democratic idea of human oneness, the solidarity of mankind.

THE PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS

Among present tendencies in modern philosophy is what is called Pragmatism. Without going into its deeper significance, it is enough for our present purpose to recognize that it represents an intensely practical movement in current philosophical thinking. The pragmatic philosopher is no longer interested in many of the subjects that have usually engrossed the interest of the typical philosopher-questions concerning the origin of things, the Absolute, the problem of evil, and in fact, all questions that belong naturally to the realm of speculation. He turns away from metaphysics, as such, not because there may not be truth in metaphysics, but because his interest, at least for the present, has been turned into new directions. He is concerned not with the heavens but the earth. He cares not so much for what may have been in the past, but for what may be today and tomorrow. He no longer inquires into the counsels of God so much as into the conditions of Society.

The questions he asks and for which he seeks the answers, are questions like these: What are the great underlying, dynamic forces in Society today? How can we come to understand them better, and so train them in the individual and guide them in society, as to harness them in the direction of lifting human life to higher planes in the whole range of its activity?

To quote from Professor William James, "A pragmatist turns his back once and for all upon a lot of inveterate habits dear to professional philosophers. He turns away from [Page 72]abstractions and insufficiency, from verbal solutions, from bad a priori reasons, from fixed principles, closed systems, and pretended absolutes and origins. He turns toward concreteness and adequacy, toward facts, toward action and toward power. It means the open air and possibilities of nature as against dogma, artificiality and the pretense of finality in truth." In other words, the hopeful sign in so much of our philosophy today is that it is becoming less and less speculative and more and more practical—a philosophy not to dream over or theorize about, but to live by a philosophy of action and of power. We are coming to see that our interest in speculative questions is not merely for any speculative value they may possess, but for the value of these questions to life itself, not only as respects the conduct of the individual but even more, for their influence upon the life of society as a whole.

The simple fact is, we are living in an age that is fast becoming socialized from top to bottom, and philosophy, like religion and ethics and everything else, has been lifted into a new region where it speaks in social terms. Our psychology has become socialized. Man does not live alone. There are no isolated individuals complete in themselves. Personality is recognized as a social product, and is impossible apart from social relationships. Education is being transformed in the same way, both as to its ideals and its methods. The same process is going on more slowly perhaps in religion; and it is not strange that our foremost thinkers at home and abroad are giving their attention more and more to the formulation of a true and adequate social philosophy.

The view of the earlier writers in this field was that everything in society was governed by fixed laws which could not be altered, as fixed and final as the laws of nature. Such things as disease, poverty, ignorance, drunkenness, vice, war, etc., had always existed in society and must continue to exist till the end of time. The most we could do was to apply palliatives to these conditions of human misery; we could never expect to change them. [Page 73]Today, however, our social philosophers are telling us that all these problems of society grow out of social conditions. Like any disease they have their causes, and these causes can be found and eradicated. The conditions that breed these social ills can be changed, and one day will be changed. Professor Shotwell tells us in a recent series of lectures that the essence of modernism consists in the fact that man has at length reached the point in his development where he holds the key to the future in his own hands. Henceforth, he will depend on no special providences, or any kind of divine intervention, as men have hitherto been prone to do; neither will he be content to resign himself to fate or accept conditions as they are. He knows at last that he can create whatever conditions he chooses, that he can make life for himself and his fellows whatsoever he will.

The philosophers are even helping us to believe in the possibility of eradicating selfishness from human nature. Two thousand years ago Plautus said, "Man to man is a wolf." Even if he has not so wide a range now as formerly, the wolf of selfishness still commits his ravages in every community. "Every man for himself," is still the working motto of our individualistic civilization. But though human nature is selfish, our modern philosophy is telling us that it can be changed, that indeed it is being changed. Professor Huxley, after remarking "I see no limit to the extent to which intelligence and will may modify the conditions of existence," adds, "and much may be done to change the nature of man himself. The intelligence which has transformed the brother of the wolf into the faithful guardian of the flock ought to be able to do something toward curbing the instincts of savagery in civilized man." The social control toward which our newer philosophy looks is based upon the possibility of something else in man and in society than mere self-interest.

The pioneers of social philosophy, men like Rousseau and Voltaire in France, and James Mill and Jeremy Bentham in England, dealt chiefly with the rights of man and had comparatively little to say about their duties. Today this is completely reversed and modern philosophy is saying comparatively little about the [Page 74]rights of men, but is laying the supreme emphasis more and more upon man’s duties to society. Nothing marks the advance made in social philosophy more clearly than this reversal of emphasis.

To sum it up, our dominant philosophy today is finding expression more and more in social terms; it has, as its great end, the control of those forces that make for the enlargement and enrichment of the lives of all; it regards the individual as a member of a living Whole, whose life in all the range of its activities should be lived for the good of all. To help him grasp this vital conception of his relation to society and enable him to five such a life in society is its practical aim.

Thus we see that in our philosophy today we find the basis for the unity and the oneness of humanity and also for the mutual interrelationship and obligation of all members of society to the good of all-which is the root idea of Democracy.

THE RELIGIOUS BASIS

To affirm true democracy, to say understandingly that sovereignty rests with the people, to realize the meaning of the equality of all men, is the same as to say, "The Kingdom of God is within you," which is the creed of the religion of democracy. Etymologically, the word "religio" means "binding together." And while religion in its historical manifestations has thus far been divisive and separative, it is only because real religion has never yet dominated the various religions of the world. For real religion, in the nature of things, must be all-inclusive, not exclusive. It also must take in the last man, woman and child. Like real democracy, it awaits the coming of the new and larger spirit, in order to find realization in the life of humanity.

At the foundation of every great world-faith, in the heart and mind of every truly great religious teacher or leader, there has always been the profound consciousness, more or less clearly expressed, that "God hath made of one blood all nations of men who dwell on the face of the earth," that all men have come forth from the same Infinite Source of life and that every individual [Page 75]

THE BASES FOR HUMAN ONENESS

ual possesses within himself something of that Infinite life, a "divine spark," however latent, that under the right conditions will flame forth into self-conscious divine sonship. "Ye are made in His image," is the earliest message of the Old Testament. "Ye are children of God," is the still clearer message of the New Testament.

When Jesus brushed aside all racial, national and creedal distinctions, and in reply to his questioners, said: "Ye say lo! here or lo! there, but I say unto you the Kingdom of God is within you," i.e., within each of you as individuals, and in the midst of society in just so far as it is realized by you, he saw man everywhere simply as a human being whom he also recognized to be potentially divine. His summing up of religion in the twofold ideal, love to God and love to one’s neighbor, his parable of the Good Samaritan, in which he makes every man the "neighbor," and his astounding declaration "Ye shall be perfect even as your Father is perfect," proves that he saw in everyone the possible response to the divine message. The religion of Jesus is real democracy because it implies infinity. He saw all men as "equals," because he saw all men as children of the same common Father and he knew that all men, the least as well as the greatest, had the same immediate access to the Infinite.

The obvious disparities become insignificant in view of this great commonness. "Infinity plus a million is seen to be no more than infinity plus one; the last man counts just as much as the first." We are all members of one great family, for God is the Universal Father and all men are brothers. If it were not for true religion, real democracy would be inconceivable; if any man’s soul is measurable and transient, real democracy is absurd. To grasp, in the realizing sense, Jesus’s thought that "the kingdom of God is within you," is to know that the kingdom of man and the Kingdom of God are one and the same thing. Thus the ideals of true religion and of real democracy lead to the same Great goal.

From this viewpoint, human oneness is nothing less than a mighty spiritual force born in the Eternal and emanating [Page 76]

NOTES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

Corresponding to this interval "be- tween war and peace," the deeper portents of which are beginning to be realized, the present issue of World Unity Magazine has been made a spe- cial number devoted to essential prob- lems of international peace. This con- centration of interest has necessarily been secured at the expense of the Departments and serial works, the regular publication of which will be resumed next month.

Due to the limitations of space, a number of special articles dealing directly with the subject of peace, which the editors hoped to include, must likewise be deferred. As origi- nally projected, the "Between War and Peace Number" of World Unity, in addition to the present contents, was amplified and made more signifi- cant by Dexter Perkins's article "Our Relations With Great Britain;" a sketch of Salmon O. Levinson, author of the principle of "outlawing war," by John Dewey; "World Peace and the Pact Against War," by R. H. Mark- ham; "How Shall the Plain Man Under- stand International Problems," by Nor- man Angell, and J. H. Randall, Jr.'s comprehensive review of James T. Shotwell's "War as an Instrument of National Policy."

Even without this material, how- ever, the current issue is privileged to publish a symposium on peace and world organization whose authors have contributed notably to public thinking on this theme. It is hoped that readers and friends of World Unity will bring the April issue to the attention of individuals and groups particularly concerned with the peace problem.

On March 25, the F. A. Stokes Company published a work which should be known to all friends of World Unity "Our Changing Civi- lization," by Dr. J. H. Randall, Jr., whose book review department in this magazine is recognized as the most authoritative comment on cur- rent books dealing with the different phases of internationalism. Of this work, John Dewey has written the Stokes Company: "I do not know when I have been so mentally excited as in reading Dr. Randall's 'Our Changing Civilization.' It is the most penetrating exposition of the present situation of the Western World that I know of; it sets forth the existing conditions in their causes and sweep of movement. Anyone who wants an understanding of how and why our present civilization is as it is, should read this book." It is gratifying to note in this connection that much of the material in Dr. Randall's volume was delivered as a series of lectures at the Institute of World Unity during its first season. [Page 77]

THE NEW LEADERSHIP

IN THE ancient Chinese wisdom, the thing that had become powerful and exalted was considered weak, for it contained the seeds of extinction; but the thing that was yielding as water was considered invincibly strong, for it could never be overthrown.

Nothing in the modern world seemed more powerful than Czardom, nor weaker than the cooperative movement among Russian peasants—yet Czardom went down in shameful agony, while peasant cooperation will yet endure and wear out the arrogant communism of the Soviet.

The world is crying out for a new leadership, a leadership which will repudiate every form of competition that divides, for the sake of that cooperative spirit making all people partners and fellow-servants; a leadership without exalted title and special emolument, based upon capacity to interpret the hidden realities of human kind.

Modern industrialism began in the person of the ridiculed inventor. True democracy will begin in those men and women who can raise themselves above inertia and build the equipment of leadership by studying the principles behind the stirring events of the day.

For this new leadership, World Unity Magazine month by month offers more than objective facts—it provides impulses toward understanding and the elements of effective local influence.

WORLD UNITY PUBLISHING CORPORATION, 4 EAST 12TH STREET, NEW YORK.

Please enter my subscription to World Unity Magazine. I enclose $3.50. (In other countries, $4.00.) [Page 78]

SCIENTIA

AGENTS G. E. Stechert & Co., New York Akad. Verlagsgesellschaft, Leipsis Nicola Zanichelli, Bologna Renascença Portugues, Porto “SCIENTIA❞ David Nutt, London Felix Aloan, Paris Ruis Hermanos, Madrid The Marusen Company, Tokyo

99 International Review of Scientific Synthesis Published Monthly (100 to 120 Pages Each Issue) Editor: EUGENIO RIGNANO

THE ONLY scientife review whose contributors are truly international.

THE ONLY scientific review having a really worldwide circulation.

THE ONLY review of scientifle synthesis and unification that deals with the fundamental questions of all sciences: the history of the sciences, mathematics, astronomy, geology, physics, chemistry. biology, psychology and sociology.

THE ONLY review, therefore, which, while of immediate interset to students of statistics, demography, ethnography, economics, law, the history of religions and sociology in general, by its numerous and important articles and reports relating to these sciences, enables the reader to know, in summarised and synthetic form, the chief problems of all other branches of knowledge.

THE ONLY review which among its contributors can boast of the most illustrious men of soience in the whole world. A list of more than 350 of these is given in each number

The articles are published in the language of their authors, and every number has a supplement containing the French translation of all articles not written in French. The review is thus completely accessible to those who know only the French language. Write for a free copy to the General Secretary of Scientia, at the following address, enclosing 12 cents in stampe of your country merely to cover packing and postage.

SUBSCRIPTION $10 per year, post free. OFFICE: 12, Via A. De Togni, Milan (116), Italy General Secretary: DR. PAOLO BONETTI

The International Journal of Ethics

JAMES H. TUFTS Managing Editor T. V. SMITH Associate Editor

For thirty-five years the leading quarterly in its field, The International Journal of Ethics numbers among its contributors the foremost writers in America and Great Britain.

Its province is both the central field of ethical knowledge and practice, and the bordering fields of law, politics, economics, literature, and religion. Promoting the study of ethics and of other sciences in so far as they bear directly upon conduct, the Journal is a common ground for the interchange of views between students of law and students of ethics and the social sciences.

Published quarterly in the months of October, January, April, and July Subscription $3.00 per year. Single copies 73 cents THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS