World Unity/Volume 8/Issue 3/Text

←Previous

World Unity Volume 8, Issue 3

Next→

Return to PDF view Proofread once

[Page 149]

WORLD UNITY

INTERPRETING THE SPIRIT OF THE AGE

JOHN HERMAN RANDALL, Editor HORACE HOLLEY, Managing Editor

CONTENTS

JUNE, 1931 Vol. VIII No. 3

John Morley — Frontispiece Challenge of World Unemployment — Editorial The World’s Economic Dilemma — Norman Angell Apostles of World Unity: XXIX. John Morley — Walter Walsh Economic World Welfare. III. — Amos Stote World Citizenship and Governments — Carl A. Ross Round the World Log of a Sociologist: VIII. Turkey — Herbert A. Miller The Unity History Schools The Problem of Armaments. III. — Dexter Perkins Leaves of the Greater Bible: XI. Prayers of Ancient Greece — William Norman Guthrie Equality as Equalizing — John Herman Randall, Jr. Round Table

(Contents indexed in the International Index to Periodicals)

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 and in all other countries (postage included). THE WORLD UNITY PUBLISHING CORPORATION and its editors welcome correspondence on articles related to the aims and purposes of the magazine. Printed in U. S. A. Contents copyrighted 1931 by WORLD UNITY PUBLISHING CORPORATION. [Page 150]

JOHN MORLEY

Apostle of World Unity [Page 151]

EDITORIAL

NOTHING Could have thrown into such high relief the maladjustment that exists between the economic realities of today and the political theories and practices of the governments of nations, as did the sessions of the International Chamber of Commerce held in Washington the first week of May. In view of world economic conditions these meetings were most significant. Some forty different countries were represented, with nearly a thousand delegates, including those from this country.

In his brief welcoming address President Hoover saw fit to stress solely the problem of disarmament, thus ignoring all references to the various other problems to be considered and which affect the policies of the United States. It was a strong, clean-cut statement of the necessity for disarmament, in which the President placed the chief responsibility for world peace upon big business and the pressure it might exert upon governments. But it left the President open to the criticism of side-stepping all other crucial problems in which this country is vitally involved.

Other speakers—notably George Theunis of Belgium, Sir Arthur Salter of England, Jean Parmentier of France, Melvin A. Traylor, banker of Chicago, Hugh Cooper, President of the American-Russian Chamber of Commerce, and Kenkichi Kagami of Japan—while accepting President Hoover's suggestion in principle, went far beyond it in analyzing the profound underlying reasons for the present economic crisis, and the measures which they believed would have to be taken to meet it. Behind the whole discussion was the evident realization that one economic era was passing and that a new one was beginning. The challenge of high tariffs, war [Page 152]debts and reparations, markets in undeveloped countries, and of the great economic and social experiment now going on in Russia, was clearly in every speaker's mind.

As Sir Arthur Salter said: "Never has history seen such a tragic demonstration of the fundamental solidarity and interdependence of the world's interests, and of the imperative need for concerted world effort in research, in consultation, in policy and in action. Happily the world has, as a spur to such efforts, not only the prospect of disaster that threatens in its absence, but a rich promise if it succeeds."

The clear, frank and vigorous statements made by the outstanding speakers as they dealt with the crucial economic problems were most refreshing and significant, in decided contrast to the resolutions passed by the International Chamber. The resolutions against tariff barriers, on disarmament, on war debts and reparations, were weak and colorless. Such an important subject as Russian trade was not touched upon at all.

It is no wonder the New York World-Telegram asks: "Why should one thousand business leaders from some forty countries meeting in the depths of the world's worst depression, be as lacking in courage and intelligence as their resolutions indicate?" Is it because, with notable exceptions, business men are not yet "aware of the new relations into which we have come on this planet?" Or is it because these supposedly powerful and free business leaders are not yet brave enough to refuse to act as yes-men to the dictation of their respective partisan governments?

In his recent book, "The World's Economic Dilemma" Prof E. M. Patterson of the University of Pennsylvania, lays his finger on the crux of the present situation when he says: "The dilemma that confronts all nations today is this: How can a world economically united but politically divided be successful in the business of making a living?" The real obstacle is the maladjustment between the economic realities of today and political theories and practices that have become obsolete.

J. H. R. [Page 153]

THE CHALLENGE OF WORLD UNEMPLOYMENT

by NORMAN ANGELL Member of Parliament, Editor of "Foreign Affairs"

THE ECONOMIC BREAKDOWN

T is doubtful whether the peoples of the West have yet realized the significance of this fact: the worst stage of the economic break in the United States, the stage which meant breadlines, more unemployed and a fiercer penury for them in America the golden than even in poverty-stricken Britain, was the stage which synchronized with that point in the development of the Russian Experiment which proved that, whatever the fate of the Five Year Plan, Communism had come to stay, was proving itself (especially on the land) materially successful; that it would work."

If Communism steadily improves in its results while Capitalism steadily gets worse; or if the workers of the West get the impression that such is the case, whether it is so or not, the results are likely to have an importance on the life of the West transcending any other single factor whatsoever—"the greatest event since the Crucifixion" as an English statesman (neither Communist, Socialist, nor Labor) said privately the other day.

Assuming that this parallelism of worsening Capitalism and improving Communism continues, Russia will not have to indulge in "plots" or propaganda in order to bring about revolutionary disorder over much of the Western world. It will be born naturally out of the demonstrated failure of the present system and the maddening sense of impotence which is now beginning to infect the unemployed millions and those racked by the fear of unemployment.

This does not mean that the inevitable outcome will be Communism; it may be varying forms of Fascism; it is far more likely to be just prolonged confusion and chaos. It may well be that the [Page 154]thing which so many now hate and fear-an orderly Communism-will come to be regarded as infinitely preferable to the state which the impending upheavals may produce.

The Western proletariat will argue: if the ignorant Russians can bring Communism by violence and revolution, we can. It will be a false argument-but men are largely guided by false arguments. Never was it more necessary than in considering the effect of Russia's development upon the West, to remember that the facts are less important than what the Western proletariat will regard as the facts.

The degree of success which Russian Communism may appear to show will be sufficient to cause the disaffected minorities of, for instance, the British Labor Party, to become more exasperated at the fact that "nothing happens but talk," more vocal, and to cause larger sections of the electorate to respond to that exasperation.

To mention Russia raises so many prejudices that a word as to the point of view from which the Communist experiment is regarded in this survey may be necessary.

This present writer regards some of the moral foundations of Russian Communism with something akin to loathing. The denial of intellectual freedom, the normal use of terrorism for intellectual coercion, the reintroduction of the old dogmatic error that absolute truth can be ascertained by a small body of men, whether calling themselves a Church or a party, and laid down for the acceptance and guidance of mankind on penalty of torture and death; the idea that this can be accepted as a fundamental principle of society (even if it is only to be regarded as applying to the first few generations of the new order), must end in steadily worsening human character and intelligence and the capacity for truth. The deliberate cultivation of hate and intolerance as a social motive, the deliberate maintenance throughout whole generations in peace time of that mentality which the Western belligerents only displayed during the darkest years of the war-all this surely is dangerous to the last degree, certain in the long run to be morally debasing and certain also, ultimately, to provoke in some future generation another revolution for the reassertion of human freedom. [Page 155]That statement has been put in strong terms in order to keep the issues clear. Strong feeling as to certain moral implications, not of Communism, but of Communism as enforced in Russia, should not blind us to the recognition of fact, of a pregnant portentous parallel. The feature of the industrialized civilization of the West which shouts at us at this moment is its unmanageability. The machine has got out of control. We accept unemployment and economic disaster as a manifestation of nature, a "blizzard," the act of God, and we tell the millions that we can do nothing for them, that man is helpless. The Russians deny that man is helpless, the machine unmanageable. If they can demonstrate that management and direction are possible, that it can be controlled for the benefit of the mass, they will not need to show as high a standard as in the West. The masses would be prepared to accept for a long time a very low standard, if Communism can be shown to work at all; if indeed it seems to work.

AMERICA RUSSIA

Consider the parallel just referred to. Nowhere in the world, and never in history, had the Capitalist industrial system been brought to such success as in America. It had all the advantages: a new country, virgin soil, a population having undergone in the process of emigration a "natural selection" for energy and enterprise; freedom from certain social and political disabilities that cursed the old world; remoteness, "insulation." Added to this were quite fortuitous advantages from the war; the disappearance of its debtor condition, and the exchange for it instead of a creditor one, by the accumulation of vast profits inherent in its position as neutral. Her captains of industry were largely free from the Trade Union restrictions and the costly social legislation of which European employers are so apt to complain. Yet, despite it all, the world blizzard has proved so devastating that widespread bankruptcy, vast financial losses, hunger, want, anxiety, discontent stalk through the land.

The claims made, therefore, for the potentially high productivity of the present system leave one cold; the high productivity [Page 156]itself may produce want.

Now turn to Russia. Ten years ago that country was being devastated by a famine as great as any in modern European history, following upon defeat in war, revolution, the utter destruction of the older order, civil war, invasion, blockade, chaos—all that having overtaken a great unorganized conglomeration of over a hundred million illiterate peasants.

And that vast mass was made the subject of an entirely new experiment in social and economic organization which might well have appalled the most highly organized and disciplined people in the world. The experiment on the material side is working. This does not mean that the standard of life is higher in Russia than in the West—it is probably a good deal lower. It does mean that in many respects it is far better than the old Russian standards, has prospects of great improvement, and—most important of all—that the great mass of Russians have come to believe in it and support it. A hundred million peasants are seeing that land which never in the past adequately fed, warmed, clothed or sheltered them, suddenly rendered, in parts of it at least, enormously more productive; already here and there pouring forth its fruits in a great flood, where originally there was a feeble and intermittent trickle. It may be entirely true that Capitalism, organized as in the United States, would have done as much; that today the Russian standard of life comes nowhere near the Western and may not do so for ten or fifteen or twenty years, or may never; that the material achievement may not justify the moral cost. But if the optimism, the hope, the passionate conviction which animates the Russian millions has survived the miseries of the last ten years, there is no reason at all why it should not survive the next twenty, and, during that time, achieve a sufficient measure of success to stand in the minds of the suffering unemployed of the West—if they continue to suffer—as the vindication of the Communist method.

It is precisely this hopefulness, the blazing conviction of salvation revealed by the Russian millions, side by side with the pessimism of the West, which is perhaps the most important feature of the whole situation. [Page 157]

THE INSTRUMENTS OF CAPITALISM

And the irony of it is that the instruments with which the Russians have done this thing are instruments forged by Capitalism, and that without that characteristic product of Capitalism-mechanized industrialism-it could never have been done at all; and the further irony that this vast unlettered mass have managed to do what the highly skilled captains of industry of America, Germany, Britain, have not yet been able to do; to prevent this servant, the Machine, becoming the master, making us who created it its slaves by causing high productivity to become itself a cause of want.

The Russian system does not present the outrageous paradox of the Chicago breadline. Hundreds of thousands of men starving and freezing because America has too much food and too much fuel. If there is abundant food and fuel in Russia it is available for the people, unless there is some physical difficulty of insufficient railroads or rolling stock, itself a difficulty to be overcome by more production or improving administration. There is nothing inherent in the system itself which causes plenty to provoke want.

No one can dispute the breakdown in the West any more than we can dispute the weather. The Machine having thus got desperately out of order and the world having been thrown into chaos, what organic change do the captains of industry in, say America and Britain, propose to make in order to correct the defect and prevent its recurrence?

They don't propose to correct it by any organic change at all. The assumption is that in due time it will correct itself; that apart from this "operation of natural forces," accentuated by the reduction of wages and the standard of life, we are beyond human aid. Just why they say this will be considered in a moment. Let us consider for a moment some of the effects of saying it.

EFFECTS ON INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

Here are these helpless unemployed millions-if we count the wives and families of the unemployed white world today we are dealing with a mass of something like sixty or seventy million folk, with as many rendered anxious and depressed by the fear they may [Page 158]join the vast army of misery tomorrow-standing idly beside the material and the tools which they might use. The dominant mood it sets up is exasperation, intensifying any pre-existing grievance. Its political effects are pronounced. The Nationalist movement in Germany drew its strength from the economic malaise: the Communist movement in that country from the unemployment.

Although the trouble has largely arisen from economic Nationalism it stimulates economic Nationalism, as witness the increase of tariffs in Australia, India, the United States, and the resurgence of Protectionist movements in Britain, with even orthodox economists turning to Protection (though with the growth of Nationalism it would be pretty certain to result in a sort of economic Balkanization, like the Protection of Scotland or Wales against England and reversion to a fiscal heptarchy). It intensifies the persecution of minorities (as witness the intensification of anti-Semitism which accompanies these depressions). If the mood of Hitlerism, having so much of its roots in the economic chaos grows, we shall be faced by Nationalist conflicts the outcome of which must, if unchecked. be war. If the last war, before the coming of successful Russian Socialism, meant revolution, what will the next war produce in the way of revolution when it has been proven that Communism can be made to work with everything against it, and when the great Socialist State of the world possesses one of the greatest armies in the world, and would certainly not stand idly by if civil war were going on in, say, Germany between bourgeoisie and the proletariat?

Make such discount of the foregoing as any passing ray of sunshine in the gloom may suggest and there must remain a residue of exasperated helplessness, resentment, resulting in instinctive and temperamental animosities sufficiently great to give furiously to ponder and to justify this generalization concerning the present unemployment.

The international future depends mainly upon the degree to which some solution is found for this major economic problem of our modern industrialized civilization; the success or failure of the Western nations in meeting the present economic crisis. [Page 159]

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE DIFFICULTY?

If one is to discuss the international, or any other implication of this problem, we must have some notion of its nature in the sense of having some clear idea of how it arises.

How does unemployment arise? Voluminous and learned books have beeh written in the attempt to answer the question; yet in its fundamentals it is quite simple.

Unemployment is a result of badly coordinated division of labor. A family on a primitive peasant farm, deriving everything they need directly from the soil, never know unemployment in our sense at all. The weather may prevent them from working, the drought render their work fruitless. But the absurdity of starving because they have produced too much never arises. And it never arises because the producer is also the consumer; the employer the employed; the seller the buyer, which means that the necessary coordinations are completely within control. When, however, a village arises, and one of the peasants becomes a blacksmith, no longer growing his own food, but depending upon getting it in exchange for bill-hooks or hoes which he makes, then be may well face unemployment. If the peasants have all the hoes they need, he will offer hoes in vain in exchange for potatoes, and may well starve in the midst of plenty.

In that situation two courses, broadly, are open to him. He may go back to being a peasant, growing his own food and making his own tools. It will mean a low standard of life; the peasants are no longer having their tools made by a specialist. But, at that standard, it will be a more secure life. Or he may remain a blacksmith, but adjust his activities more expertly, make something other than hoes which the peasants do want, and for which they will give food. But if he goes on with these elaborations he will soon find the coordinations passing altogether outside his control. He will arrive at a point where he is making machinery in a factory for some distant country where some war or revolution or drought or bank failure may ruin his business. He has improved his standard of life; he is perhaps rich. But he is at the mercy of events on the other side of the world which he cannot control as he could control things while [Page 160]a simple peasant.

And that allegory represents broadly the alternative remedies before us; to go forward to still higher standards of life—to making, that is, the standards which have heretofore been the standard of a few the standards of all—which will mean increasing control over ever-increasing complexities; or to go back to less efficient production which will be more easily controlled but which will give lower standards of life.

The latter course is apt to be the more popular of the two. The Protectionist, finding that the natural advantage of some foreign country makes it possible for that country to produce some commodity more cheaply than it can be done here, and, faced with the adjustment involved in withdrawing from that form of production and going into another, prefers instead to sacrifice the advantage which the natural foreign cheapness gives him. Trade Union resistance to labor-saving machinery is one of the same general nature. And both may be successful in avoiding unemployment—at the cost of a general lowering of standards. Apply the method with complete thoroughness and you will get a complete cure for unemployment. Pass a law forbidding absolutely the importation into this country of anything whatsoever, and you will cure unemployment at one blow, for we should have to set every available man, woman and child to some form of labor (as we did during the war) in order not to starve to death. If a successful blockade, or some catastrophe of nature, actually achieved this end, there is no doubt whatever (in view of the war experience) that, faced by famine, we should find means of employing all available idle labor; and the unemployment problem would be solved. But our people would face a coolie standard of life. Which means that our problem is not to cure unemployment, but to cure unemployment without reducing, or sensibly reducing, the standard of life.

It is not a mere coincidence but in the very nature of the case that countries of very high standards of life should show a high unemployment figure, and countries of low standards of life a low one. Countries of the lowest standard—agricultural China, India—have no unemployment at all. One statistician, who more than any [Page 161]

THE CHALLENGE OF WORLD UNEMPLOYMENT

other man in England perhaps has studied this question, said recently: "If I were to venture an over-simplified and over-sweeping generalization from my studies it might be something like this: As things are in the present system you can have high per capita productivity, wealth for the community, and unemployment. Or you can have low productivity and low unemployment; you cannot have great wealth, high productivity and no unemployment."

An illustration, based on what is incidentally a perfectly true story, will clarify still further certain aspects of the problem; and will also throw light on certain much canvassed cure-alls.

(To be continued) [Page 162]

XXIX—JOHN MORLEY

by WALTER WALSH Free Religious Movement, London

JOHN MORLEY. By simple name this distinguished apostle of world unity lives in the thoughts and affections of those who, like the present writer, were associated with him personally in the tumultuous forward movements of his day. We hardly recognize him in the lordly robes of "The Right Honorable John, Viscount Morley of Blackburn," with which in his later years he was clothed by a grateful country. His grave, strong countenance looks back upon us—not through the golden mist of the House of Lords but through the cloudy contests of the House of Commons, and his steady voice repeats his own test of a public man: "What arms did your man carry in the serried conflicts of his time? Did he let them rust, and trust for safety to his shield? What pace did he strive to keep with the revolving forces of his age? Did unnoticed tributaries force the channels of his life, at this point or that, to run off into barren sands?" The writer and publicist who proposed that test in introducing his two noble volumes of "Recollections" has in the same book furnished the means of applying it. Here (to quote the spacious words of John Milton) is not merely a "good book but "the precious life-blood of a master-spirit embalmed and treasured up on purpose to a life beyond life." Its strong serenity reflects the known character of its author, and sums up the mortal conclusions of one of the wisest and sincerest of men in a period not lacking men sincere and wise. It displays the manner in which a sane and robust mind looked at the world his workshop, not his playground, faced its evils and hastened its good, and played a manly part among the noblest Romans of them all. [Page 163]

JOHN MORLEY

The personal story is soon told. In the last week of 1838 John Morley saw the light at Blackburn, a manufacturing town in Lancashire. His father was a surgeon of Yerkshire stock, his mother Northumbrian. His religious training was evangelical without beng bigoted, and his parents intended him for the church. But Oxford, which has been the grave of many a youth's churchmanship, shook his foundations: "The force of miracle and myth and intervening Will in the interpretation of the world began to give way before the reign of law," and he turned away from orthodoxy to that which is variously described as agnosticism, rationalism, and utilitarianism, remaining to the end of his life an obstinate dweller in the outer court of the gentiles. He disbelieved religiously; for the writings of no other non-christian contain more of the marrow and fatness of religion than do those of the author of "Compromise." His books on "Voltaire," "Rousseau," "Diderot and the Encyclopædists," prove how far he was from (for example) the Roman poet Lucretius whom he described as "a pagan without religion or the feeling for religion." The feeling for religion never evaporated through all the turmoil of Morley's career. After Oxford, he felt the influence of George Henry Lewes, George Eliot and Frederick Harrison, and came near to joining their "Church of Humanity," but was restrained partly by John Stuart Mill ("my chief master") and partly by his own anti-sectarian instinct. He never wholly escaped the influence of Comte, however, and in later years averred that if he had to wear a label it would be that of "Positivist." He was also attracted to Comte's survey of history, and the restraining hand of Comte is noticeable through the many parts he played in public life.

When he renounced journalism for politics his prospects were naturally prejudiced by the agnosticism which he never disavowed; and when (after two preliminary defeats at Blackburn and Westminster) he stood for Newcastle-on-Tyne, the cry of the bigot could hardly fail to be heard in the land. But the electors preferred integrity to theology, and retained him as their representative for a dozen strenuous years during which he fought seven severe battles, winning six and losing the seventh (1883-1895). The electors of [Page 164]the Montrose Burghs in Scotland immediately invited him to con test the seat, which he won and retained for another dozen years (1896-1908). Both Newcastle and Montrose were well satisfied with the only reference to religion he ever condescended to make in an electoral address: "Religion has many dialects, many diverse complexions, but it has one true voice, the voice of human pity, of mercy, of patient justice, and to that voice your candidate, to the best of his knowledge and belief, has always done all he could to listen."

Religion des imperceptibly into politics. Lord Acton, speak- inganatholic, feared that Morley's politics, being non- ught also be non-human; not understanding that ethics might be as soundedly based on reason, moral sense and social sympathy; or that one who keyed his public life to "half a dozen eternally noble, vibrating, far-sounding words: Right, Justice. Equality, Fraternity, Progress," and remained "invincibly sure that Progress stands for a working belief that the modern world will never consent to do without," might be trusted to augment the humanization of politics which went forward with mighty impetus during the Victorian period. To Morley, indeed, Progress was a continuous disintegration of Privilege before Justice as a governing principle: "The law of things is that they who tamper with veracity. from whatever motive, are tampering with the vital forces of human progress. The one commanding law is that men shall do right, if the very heavens fall." A certain inborn stateliness of nature and aloofness of manner dissembled the warmth of his humane sym- pathies, and a certain school of criticism expressed itself in the words of a plain-spoken woman: "You are too haughty. You are not at heart a real democrat." Far from him, in truth, were the arts of the demagogue, yet on great occasions his moral fervor was immense and inflaming, and he avowed his willingness to be re- proached as "philanthropist" and "agitator," considering that most of the good work of the world had been done by them. Conserva- tive instincts were deeply rooted in him, without a doubt, and even when he favored a revolutionary change it was regarded as a means of compassing a conservative end. Like Mill's his mind equally [Page 165]

JOHN MORLEY

abhorred ignorant change and ignorant opposition to change, and he astonished the Gallos of the House of Commons by the tenacity of his belief in the solution of political problems and the industry with which he sought to work out such solutions. Sometimes this gave a semblance of opportunism to his activities as if he had no body of consistent political faith; than which nothing could be farther from the truth, though he did not set up for a model of consistency, and was never too proud to own a change of mind. If to spell God with a small "g" offended Dr. Joseph Parker, he would good-humoredly revert to the capital "G" in deference to the larger expediencies of human intercourse and political unity. He diagnosed himself as "A cautious Whig by temperament, a Liberal by education and training, and a Radical by observation and experience," and when asked to advise the unlearned what poet they should start with he would recommend Byron-the rebel! But he never seemed to outlive the positivist influence of Comte, to which he added the practical methods of Edmund Burke, his co-mentor with Mill: "I had only adopted from Burke the doctrine of plain commonsense, that the man who meddles with action must consider consequence, balance probabilities, estimate forces, choose the lesser evil, courageously acquiescing in the fact that things in politics are apt to turn out second best.... The age is not what we all wish, but the only means to check its degeneracy is heartily to concur in whatever is best in our time."

The high-minded opportunism of Morley was wide gulfs apart from the non-human statecraft of Machiavelli, concerning whom, in his book bearing the name of the famous Florentine, he said that the popular clamor against him was based upon a sound instinct. Rather would we put him with Gladstone and Campbell-Bannerman in the forefront of Victorian humanists such as Tennyson so happily portrayed:

And statesmen at her council met Who knew the seasons when to take Occasion by the hand, and make The bounds of freedom wider yet.

In those years before the League of Nations the word "[Page 166]Internationalism" had not become the vogue, and though in his "Life of Richard Cobden" Morley did full justice to Free Trade and to Cobden as "the international man" whose "bagman’s millennium" superior persons did ill to scorn, he dismissed the idea of practical cooperation in the common interest of European democracy as a dream: "Alas, like the dream of the international socialists such union had far too little common basis against divergent tongues, race, tradition, economic interest, spiritual faith." Happily, he lived long enough to see the "dream" partially materialized in the League of Nations.

The less hopeful word "Imperialism" was more frequently heard, and Morley stood out broad-breasted against the "pirate" Imperialism which was submerging the world. At a Press conference he called upon his fellow journalists to stand against the "rebarbarization" of the nations. Although not "pacifist" in the accepted sense, he recognized that Militarism and Liberalism could not live in the same world, and lamented that the pulpit was never so bad as when war was in the air. He thought it odd that Muhammadans should come to a Christian government to be taught not the Sermon on the Mount, but—the noble arts of human slaughter. "That is the worst of war, it ostracises, demoralises, brutalises reason."

The necessity of choosing sides came, as great occasions often do, without sound of trumpet. The little rift that widened till it split the historic Liberal Party showed itself in connection with Gladstone’s Home Rule for Ireland policy, announced in 1886. A tiny group of important Liberals announced themselves as "Liberal Imperialists," of whom Morley wrote: "Destined as time went on to exert much influence for good or evil on the fortunes of their country... they had idealisms but were no Utopians... had the temper of men of the world and the temper of business. They had conscience, character, and took their politics to heart." Conspicuous was Lord Rosebery, author of the ill-omened phrase, "the predominant partner" (England, as distinguished from the smaller populations of Ireland, Wales and Scotland); and Morley particularly names Asquith, Grey and Haldane (memorable in after his [Page 167]tory as the trio who were in command through the events which culminated in the fatal August, 1914). Liberal Imperialist opposition to Irish Independence could be defended only by appealing to such opinions and feelings as took for granted the concentration of imperial unity in an Imperial Parliament where "the predominant partner" always held the trump card. Hence it grew by what it fed on. Its operative, even if unconfessed, principle was the forcible establishment and maintenance of racial ascendency, first in the British Islands, and then throughout the world. It was in opposition to this principle that our apostle of world unity found his vocation. The spheres in which his policy operated were four in number, and permit of geographical definition-Ireland, India, South Africa, Europe. We can do little but summarize great occasions.

Ireland

Morley filled the office of Secretary of State for Ireland twice, in 1886, and again in 1892-5. Up to that point he had had no administrative experience, yet he was universally regarded as the indispensable man for the crisis. He was one of the few public men who had publicly broken with the church, yet he was received with approbation by the Catholic hierarchy as the only possible ruler of one of the most Catholic nations in Europe. This former editor of "The Fortnightly Review" and "The Pall Mall Gazette," during his brief apprenticeship in the House of Commons was already marked out by his sagacity and knightly chivalry for one of the most important administrative posts in the service of the crown, in a distracted and rebellious land concerning which he quoted a former President of the United States, John Adams: "The Management of so complicated and mighty a machine as the United States, requires the meekness of Moses, the patience of Job, and the wisdom of Solomon, added to the valor of David." For the first time in eight terrible centuries of tyranny, rebellion and bloodshed, Dublin Castle was occupied by an Irish Secretary pledged against coercion, and committed to a policy of self-government. The Irish had been called the blockhead nation of Europe, but he thought that in their government of Ireland the blockhead's cap was no bad fit for her British Rulers. To resort to the cheap and easy pressure of exceptional law was for him impossible. He would govern [Page 168]Ireland on the true principles of Liberalism, the principles of self-government that sustain the strength and greatness of the empire. Like many another apostle he did not immediately gain his end. A score of years passed. A last frantic hurricane of terrorism was let loose by "the predominant partner," from which emerged an independent Ireland with her own seat at the League of Nations in Geneva.

India. The year 1905 was a fateful one for two great territories, Russia and India. From 1905 till 1910 John Morley held the post of Secretary of State for India, a gallant exchange of the storms of the Irish Sea for the cyclones of the Bay of Bengal. The wave of revolutionary unrest which today is sweeping over the Indian Empire was already heaving under the influence of Tilak, Ghose, Chandra Pal (boycotter and non-cooperator, forerunner of Gandhi) and others who passed on the watchword: "India for the Indians." The policy of "Swadeshi" came to birth. "Swaraj" was to come a little later. The crisis had been precipitated by the partition of Bengal in accordance with the imperial dictum: "Divide et impera." The disastrous policy was afterwards annulled by royal decree, but political conditions appeared to force the new Indian Secretary into temporary acceptance, to the grief alike of Indians and their British sympathizers. This was characterized at the time as Morley's martyrdom, though it was in truth the martyrdom of India. In a situation cluttered up with contradictions he had to steer a course between loyalty to Britain which decreed that nothing should be conceded that might shake the security of British rule, and justice to India which must not extend to "impossible" independence: "Say what we will, the House of Commons is your master and mine, and we have got to keep terms with it. As Roosevelt said to me: 'I must try not to quarrel with Congress; if I do, I'm no use. Cleveland broke with Congress, and it was the ruin of him.'" He recalled having heard a French President speak, and noted that the speech was "marked by the same promise of justice and amelioration that Europe had lived on since 1848." India too. For there was the Anglo-Indian bureaucracy to be got over and a headstrong militarism under Lord Kitchener to be intimidated. Between the British [Page 169]Scylla and the Indian Charybdis this man with the head and heart of a great Roman proconsul was forced into a policy of mingled concession and coercion. The most he could promise was that if India would be patient, by and by, and step by step, Great Britain would build up a system in which the natives of India should have a far greater share in the government of their country, and he made his contribution by introducing various reforms in the true spirit of Liberalism. But meantime law and order must be maintained, in the course of which Indian patriots were imprisoned, Indian leaders deported, Indian newspapers gagged. No wonder if the proud democrat felt tired and sought some easement of his load by exchanging the turbulence of the House of Commons for the quietude of the House of Lords (1908)—though to the dismay of his old radical comrades. He felt that in no other way could he go on with the chivalrous task of liberalizing the government of India. When in 1910 he finally surrendered his portfolio, the greatness of his efforts toward unity were acknowledged by India's own trusted leaders.

South Africa

History now goes back to the year 1899 when the Boer War (1899-1902) was frowning over the horizon. John Morley, though he sought for quiet to get on with his huge literary task, "The Life of Gladstone," and though he doubted whether any war was unpopular in this country at its start, flung himself into the breach: "You may carry fire and sword into the midst of peace and industry: it will be wrong. A war of the strongest government in the world with untold wealth and inexhaustible reserves against this little republic will bring you no glory: it will be wrong. It may add a new province to your empire: it will still be wrong." By word and work he strove to turn the tide of public opinion, and strongly backed the Peace Crusade organized by his former prodigious henchman on the Pall Mall Gazette, William T. Stead. He endorsed his chief's (Campbell-Bannerman's) denunciation of 'methods of barbarism. When all was over, and Great Britain had torn down the flags of two independent republics, the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, he had melancholy confirmation of his non-imperial principles: "The very word empire is in history and essence [Page 170]military; emperor means soldier; all modern history and tradition associate empires with war." He had forseen that "war inevitably meant incorporation," but he hastened to the support of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman when that gallant Prime Minister (while Imperialism blasphemed) minimized the injustice by conferring on the conquered provinces the practical equivalent of independence. full Dominion Status.

Three years before the declaration of war, as if he felt the tremors of the yet hidden volcano, he prophesied in the House of Lords, laying his finger on the danger spot, the secret and falsely denied diplomacy of Sir Edward Grey: "I do not say there is no real conflict of interest between England and Germany. But this I do say: That conflict is not a conflict that could possibly be averted or suppressed or conducted to a hopeful issue either by war or the shock of battle, or by any diplomacy starting from fixed antipathies and prepossessions, whether those antipathies and prepossessions are in the mind of the government or in the minds of its agents and informants abroad." At an earlier date he had met Kaiser Wilhelm II and noted "a golden impression he appears to have left in the mind of everybody, namely, that he does really desire and intend Peace."

The circumstances leading up to and attending that fatal August, 1914 are clearly set forth in Lord Morley's Memorandum of Resignation, a post-mortem publication issued by his nephew fourteen years after the outbreak of the war and ten years after the armistice, and indispensable to a knowledge of the truth. The Memorandum consists of notes of conversations and Cabinet meetings made during the ten days that the tremendous issue of War and Peace lay in the scales heavily weighted for war by the years of secret diplomacy and entente engaged in by the three Liberal Imperialists, Asquith, Grey, and Haldane, now at length, but too late, exposed to the full knowledge of Morley and such of the Campbell-Bannerman school of Liberalism as still survived. "The old Liberalism had done its work, and the time had come for openly exchanging imperial landmarks, and extinguishing beacons that needed new luminants"... "The war and our action in it led to my retirement from public office." More pointedly in his Recollections: [Page 171]

JOHN MORLEY

The blunders and precipitancy of folly-smitten rulers let loose a fierce hurricane of destruction and hate that swept quietude out of the world for a long span of time to come." In brief detail he narrates the process by which the considerable peace group in the Cabinet was worn down by the Premier’s (Asquith) persuasions till it was reduced to four, then two—the two who actually did resign, the two Johns, Burns and Morley. This final appraisement of the war Cabinet: "I parted from friends without a wound or even a scratch. I could not comprehend them all, and two of them I had no choice but to judge."

One might be disposed to regret that publication of facts did not follow immediately on resignation. The position of those who actively opposed the war through all its stages would have been fortified if they had been vouchsafed this flashlight upon the war Cabinet at work. It would have put them in possession of facts they might surmise but could not prove, and would have enabled a deluded public to learn by what duplicity and incompetence the war was made. Diplomacy had shown itself as able as ever to dupe governments and governed alike. The published opinion of so wise and trusted a statesman that his country could and should have been kept out of the war might have shortened, if it could not stay, the agony. Yet perhaps, because he was so wise, he judged better. He had fought the Boer war. He fought the European war while there was a ray of hope. He knew that every war was popular at the start, and that after the war had once got under full way argument had little chance. Above all, he plainly felt that the old order was passing, and that he, an old man and tired, must pass with it. He had kept his soul and had not thrown away his shield.

His two noble volumes of "Recollections" conclude with an Epilogue where he is seen meditating among the fading heather with Marcus Aurelius in his hand and a little four-footed friend by his side. He is still not sure about many things, about life and man and fate and the future. But he is sure that Bacon was right when he penned this deep appeal from thought to feeling: "The nobler a soul is, the more objects of compassion it hath." [Page 172]

III. THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

by AMOS STOTE Publicist, Paris, France

PERHAPS the most significant recognition given the International Chamber of Commerce as a power devoted to world peace and progress comes to it from the League of Nations. Since 1923 the International Chamber has attended, on invitation, all League conferences and meetings dealing with questions relating to finance, transport, communications, arbitration and, in fact, any subject having an economic position to be considered.

And let no one get the idea that the League extends these constant invitations merely as a diplomatic gesture of deference due to the fact that the International Chamber represents most of the business organizations of all countries. The League desires, and receives, the assistance of the International Chamber at these meetings, and secures the great help of the latter body in presenting League findings to business interests, everywhere.

The frequency of these invitations to attend League affairs has brought about the development of a regular course of procedure at the headquarters of the International Chamber of Commerce. The result being that the representation it has at each meeting is composed of those best qualified to serve the interests of both organizations. In addition to one or more delegates from the particular Committee of the International Chamber dealing with the subject under examination by the League, the active director of the department covering that subject also attends these gatherings.

The League of Nations recognizes the International Chamber of Commerce as the official spokesman for the business world. It [Page 173]

Economic World Welfare

also appreciates the fact that in being able to draw on the organized resources of the Chamber for information, opinion and support it is in no danger of being led astray by biased services unduly influenced by any national considerations, or by any undue pressure which could be brought by international interests representing any given branch of commerce, finance or industry.

It is because the International Chamber is the clearing house for the affairs of every type of organization having to do with any business activity required by our modern social existence; it is because of the commercially limitless representation it provides that the League finds it as valuable and authoritative as it finds it emotionally detached from any special pleadings.

The problems of China and the problems of nations which did not exist until a few years ago, problems of the Far East and problems of the Far West, these must be brought into harmony by the International Chamber of Commerce. For it is an organization made up of many countries and many flags. An organization which has set its aim at making national barriers over into boundaries, serviceable outlines for the assembling of peoples into convenient working units which offer them the most efficient and enduring means for progress through constructive peace.

So we find it logical that the League of Nations should look to the International Chamber of Commerce for support of many of its activities, and consider it a most powerful ally. That is why frequent exchanges of proposals and suggestions pass between these groups in the conduct of their regular operations. Informal consultations are frequently in progress, and frequently the League requests technical data from the International Chamber.

And even as the International Chamber sends its representatives to League meetings, so the League sends its delegates to the Congresses and meetings of the International Chamber. These latter come in their official capacities and address these conventions as officials of the League, frequently speaking directly for the League.

The first great instance of the close cooperation which exists between these two institutions relates to the Rome Congress of the International Chamber of Commerce, held in 1923, when that [Page 174]organization was but three years old. At this Congress many of the most important resolutions passed were based upon subjects which had been announced for consideration by the Customs Conference organized by the League of Nations and to be held somewhat later that year. By reason of this advance action on the part of the International Chamber it was possible for the League meeting which followed to carry on with the full assurance that it had the support of those business interests which would be most affected by the proposals to be offered by the Customs Conference.

The value of such cooperation, value not only to the progress of the two organizations but to the world at large, can hardly be over-emphasized. With the knowledge that hundreds of commercial bodies, and consequently thousands of commercial houses, were prepared to support its Customs Conference and findings by bringing pressure to bear upon the governments of many countries naturally gave the League gathering a confidence and a power it could not otherwise have had.

Such instances as this give concrete illustrations of how these two groups are actually working together for the common cause of mankind. An even more striking example of such combining of activities is illustrated by what transpired at the Stockholm Congress of the International Chamber in the summer of 1927, which was attended by five officials of the League as duly accredited delegates.

Yet even that fact is not so significant unless one takes into consideration the fact that only a month before the Stockholm Congress there had occurred in Geneva a World Economic Conference initiated by the League for the study of the problems of international trade. At that time many of the subjects discussed and much of the data employed had been provided by the International Chamber with the knowledge that results achieved there would clarify and support the resolutions to be proposed at its own convention.

Consequently the Stockholm Congress was almost a continuation of the Geneva Conference, though it carried affairs much farther for the reason that the later meeting was able to provide the sanction of the business world and the active support of business [Page 175]organizations throughout many nations. What Geneva proposed, Stockholm initiated. What the League of Nations found desirable in the cause of all men at work the International Chamber of Commerce, through its member organizations, was able to set in motion. Business men from fifty countries got back of these resolutions. They returned to their native lands determined to do their best to bring the world somewhat nearer economic harmony.

Something of the spirit which animates the International Chamber of Commerce and which has, consequently, brought it into intimate relations with the League of Nations, is suggested by a statement printed in the introduction to the official report of the Stockholm Congress. This statement reads:

"Trade is not an end in itself. It is only a means to an end. The general economic welfare is its goal. It is in such a sense, and with a view to the welfare of all sections of the community in all countries, that the Congress desires its conclusions to be interpreted."

It is no wonder the League of Nations finds an able ally in the International Chamber of Commerce, when the latter functions according to that presentation of aims. But this relationship, this collaboration which must exist between these two bodies if each is to do its full service in the cause of world peace and progress, was emphasized at the Stockholm Congress in the address made by that distinguished official of the League of Nations, Sir Arthur Salter, when he said:

The League, as an official organization, responsible to the governments... has a direct and official entry into the counsels of governments and the action of departments... The International Chamber on the other hand, as an association of the great business organizations which are directly concerned in their daily work with the impediments we are trying to remove, have at once a special knowledge of their nature, and a special interest in their removal; while at the same time your collective influence upon governments, if external, is not necessarily for that reason less powerful... The freedom of action open to you and not to the official, gives you a inving power which we without you can not possess. If the League can offer the machinery for achieving administrative reform, [Page 176]it must look to you for much of the motive force...

"With your wholehearted aid, but scarcely I think without it, we may hope for the realization of what the members of the Conference declared to be their unanimous desire, and that we shall now see 'the beginning of a new era, during which international commerce will successively overcome all obstacles in its path that unduly hamper it, and resume that general upward movement which is at once a sign of the world's economic health and the necessary condition for the development of civilization.""

There one finds, in that statement of a League official, the necessity for united effort if both the League of Nations and the International Chamber of Commerce are to serve the world to the best of their abilities. [Page 177]

WORLD CITIZENSHIP AND GOVERNMENTS

by CARL A. Ross Attorney

THE approach to world peace ever since the Armistice has been through governments. It was surely conventional that the war should end with a peace dictated by the victorious governments. Here was a given state of facts, of past occurrences, from which certain results would follow by the application of the ancient rules of the game of war; a certain status of peace would result, the armed status quo would be replaced by the prior peace status. However, 1918 faced a new problem resulting from the new industrialism and the new economic and political conditions, which were among the underlying causes of the war, but were not settled by the war. Mass production, fast transportation, instantaneous communication, in short our new industrialism, was given an impetus by the war rather than conquered or solved. Political unrest in the form of labor problems and communism were among the underlying causes of the war, but instead of solving any political problems the war created new ones, Sovietism and Fascism and the unrest of the East. Consequently when the governments at the Peace Conference attempted to go farther and dictate a peace that could be projected into the future, a peace involving the new industrialism, a peace involving the new political unrest; in short, a peace that could be securely controlled only by a power to meet the new economic and political conditions as they might arise under the new industrialism (the very antithesis of a peace based on known facts) it can readily be seen that the governments encountered a task vastly more difficult, involving radically different and more extended powers than the task of merely ending belligerency. We maintain that the governments at Versailles were [Page 178]wholly unfitted for this task before them. We admit they were competent to end belligerency, but they lacked the inherent power to establish the new peace. They were organized for the agricultural age and so far as power machinery and our new industrialism is concerned they might as well have been organized in Nebachadnezzer’s time as in the latter part of the eighteenth century.

Take the so-called "big-five" governments at Versailles; the United States, France, Great Britain, Italy and Japan, the governments that have led since then in the promulgation of our peace plans; in 1918 how modern were their governments in form, what basic change had any of them developed over the status of our government in 1789? Japan, Italy and France all have governments of later date than the United States, but they have developed no more modern way of handling exterritorial questions than the United States has under our 1789 constitution. This constitution has been amended numerous times, but none of these amendments has established any new way of handling exterritorial questions. In fact, between 1789 and 1918 no amendment of any constitution of any government and no new constitution of any republic had been made that affected exterritoriality to such an extent as has the development of our Monroe Doctrine since 1823. But does the Monroe Doctrine make the problem of the New Peace easier, does it help solve exterritorial questions? Does it not rather lead to our 1931 imperialism and antagonize the establishment of the New Peace? It is true that since 1918 (and some claim as a result of the blunders at Versailles) two new forms of government have arisen which attempt in their own way to solve this question of exterritoriality. We refer to Sovietism and Fascism. One of the grave charges made against both these new forms of government is that they lack a capacity to cooperate with other governments in establishing the New Peace. Neither of these governments has developed any new system that meets the approval of pacifists. Their armaments and alliances point to the old policy of force, balances of power and the closed sea. Without arguing further the merits of their respective schemes of government, it is sufficient for our purpose to point out that the success of either would mean that all other governments would have to [Page 179]conform to Sovietism or Fascism respectively, in order for either of these forms to have a fair trial at establishing world peace. In other words, Sovietism and Fascism are but our 1931 imperialism personified. In the form of these governments surely, we can see no hope of establishing the New Peace any more than in the democratic or monarchical republics of the 1789 type.

To get a better perspective of the economic and industrial conditions of 1789, as contrasted with the conditions of today, one has only to read "A World Community" by John Herman Randall, recently published in World Unity. We wish here to quote some of Mr. Randalls' conclusions.

"From the economic viewpoint the world has changed to a greater extent within the last four generations than in the twenty centuries that have elapsed since the beginning of the Christian era. In the whole range of our economic life, as nations and peoples, we are today living in a world that has already become internationalized; it is only on the political side of the life of nations that we are still trying to live as if we were independent, self-supporting and sovereign entities; and the simple fact is that there is no such nation in the world today. What science has done, and that in the short space of a century, has been to bring us all together into one physical neighborhood; we are living today on this planet in what amounts to one geographic community."

Thus we see that in 1789 we had no world community, we did not have our forty-eight States, the government consisted of only thirteen States scattered along the Atlantic seaboard; and it was particularly for the needs of these thirteen original States, with their crude and limited commerce and industry, that our government was formed. It was designed to establish cooperation in no larger community, in no community more advanced in industrialism.

Let us now look particularly at the problem of government for these thirteen States in 1789. What was the fundamental underlying fact that made Union possible? Was it not that the thirteen States taken as a whole had the characteristics of a community, even though in an industrial sense it was larger community to operate than the entire world today? The thirteen States had certain common interests [Page 180]of paramount importance; namely, the interstate or exterritorial problems of each individual State. The aggregate of these exterritorial interests bulked large and the associations between this community of States was so intimate that these exterritorial matters could no longer be adequately handled through diplomatic channels between the sovereign States. In effect they said, we are a community, we will no longer treat each other as foreign nations; since we are a domestic neighborhood, we will recognize the fact and form a domestic government and hereafter handle our interstate intercourse on a domestic basis.

How was it done? How expressed in government or constitutional form? They created an American citizenship co-extensive with the American community, just as we now advocate creating a world citizenship* co-extensive with the world community of today to handle the international or exterritorial matters of the nations on a domestic basis.

Citizenship is the principal thing lacking in all our present day peace plans; it would "implement" the Peace Pact, the World Court and the League itself. All our present peace plans fail to establish any citizenship co-extensive with the community interests they seek to control. Rather in organizing these peace institutions, by recognizing the national sovereignty of each nation, they intensify national citizenship in each nation till it seeks to expand to embrace the world community. This constitutes 1931 imperialism, the attempt of nations to extend their domestic citizenship to embrace world citizenship. This national imperialism tends to competition rather than to cooperation. Imperialistic nations agree in one thing only, they agree in that, one and all, they want or covet the same thing, a world citizenship for themselves. Thus we see that world citizenship is the prize all nations are struggling for today. The League is thus in the position of a referee of a race between our 1931 imperialistic nations, the prize being the extension of national citizenship till it is co-extensive with the world community, and "the devil take the hindermost." Is it surprising that clashes occur and are now threatening between these nations budding imperialism? Is it surprising that the League, the Peace Pact and the World Court are powerless? Is it surprising that the

\* See "World Citizenship" by Carl A. Ross in World Unity, April. 1929. [Page 181]

WORLD CITIZENSHIP AND GOVERNMENTS

lover of peace feels the need of "implementing" one and all these tentative peace institutions? In view of the fact that all governments now in the League are seeking to usurp the world citizenship that belongs, inherently, to the League, who can contend that these governments are the proper agencies out of which our peace institutions should be formed? Are they not inherently disqualified for the task of establishing international cooperation and peace?

This has been said in another way and from another viewpoint, by Henry Brailsford. "Britain and France are not nations; they are empires. Italy would fain imitate them. Japan has her subject alien territories of Korea and Formosa and her virtual protectorate over Manchuria: even Belgium and Holland have their little overseas empires, and Poland, Czecho-Slovakia and Roumania, reconstituted and aggrandized by the war, are military powers of the second rank, which must constrain large alien populations to an unwilling loyalty."

As soon as these imperialistic tendencies of our 1931 governments are thus disclosed as competative with world citizenship, the reaction of the liberals is that the case for world citizenship is rendered desperate, world citizenship cannot contend with such violent tendencies, world citizenship is hopeless, visionary. But did the thirteen original States have no imperialistic tendencies, was there no territory outside the recognized limits of the thirteen States, that the separate States sought to "constrain to an unwilling loyal-

"Ultimately did not Massachusetts seek to extend Massachusetts citizenship over western New York, did she not claim a "mandate" over important parts of Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin; did not Connecticut also claim other western lands just south of those claimed by Massachusetts; did not both claim by a title from Charles 1. King of England, all lands not occupied to the Mississippi River, and was there no contestant for this western empire? Did not Virginia have an equal paper claim to these tracts claimed by Massachusetts and Connecticut and to other western lands? Did not the Carolinas and Georgia likewise lay claim to the Mississippi River, and it was a goodly heritage, a Garden of Eden. Surely national imperialism was rampant in America at the close of the [Page 182]Revolutionary War. What conquered and subdued these imperial desires and plans of the thirteen sovereign States but citizenship in a community that embraced not only these original conflicting and quarreling nations, but also the backwards territory these sovereign States were seeking to acquire? Did it ultimately or temporarily work any great hardship on Massachusetts, Connecticut, or Virginia that they "lost" these western empires? They were possibly lost to the political entities of the States, but not to the citizens, the whole citizenship still owned them as much as they ever did. Rather did not their citizenship under our constitution open the door so that the people in all those rock-ribbed coastal States were able to take advantage of opportunities anywhere in this western empire without fighting each other for it? As we read the history of the West, the Union disturbed no man's title to lands or other property whether he hailed from one State or from another; rather, the Union was so beneficial to those western pioneers that their lands increased in value, their investments were secure and inventories of personal properties were soon written up. Besides, did not the rapid and peaceful development of this western empire greatly enrich the original States? Would the United States today, would Massachusetts, Connecticut or Virginia have attained their present prosperity without our federal citizenship, and was not this citizenship the effective cure for the imperialism of that day? What would today tend more to dissipate our national jealousies and our world-wide depression, than opening the door to world markets by establishing world citizenship?

We believe we can cite exceptional authority for our contention. James Bryce did not write of world citizenship, but he discussed American citizenship, its counterpart, although he called it "The Federal System" or "Federalism."

"Federalism furnishes the means of uniting commonwealths into one nation under one national government without extinguishing their separate administrations, legislatures, and local patriotisms. As the Americans of 1787 would probably have preferred complete State independence to the fusion of their States into a unified government, Federalism was the only recourse. So when the [Page 183]

WORLD CITIZENSHIP AND GOVERNMENTS

new Germanic Empire, which is really a Federation, was established in 1871, Bavaria and Wurtenberg could not have been brought under a national government save by a Federal scheme.

"Federalism supplies the best means of developing a new and vast country. It permits an expansion whose extent, and whose rate and manner of progress, cannot be foreseen, to proceed with more variety of method, more adaptation of laws and administration to the circumstances of each part of the territory, and altogether in a more truly natural and spontaneous way, than can be expected under a centralized government, which is disposed to apply its settled system through all its dominions. Thus the special needs of a new region are met by the inhabitants in the way they find best; its special evils are cured by special remedies, perhaps more drastic than an old country demands, perhaps more lax than an old country would tolerate; while at the same time the spirit of self-reliance among those who build up these new communities is stimulated and respected.

"Federalism prevents the rise of a despotic central government, absorbing other powers, and menacing the private liberties of the citizen. This may now seem to have been an idle fear, so far as America was concerned. It was, however, a very real fear among the great-grandfathers of the present Americans, and nearly led to the rejection even of so undespotic an instrument as the Federal Constitution of 1789."

If Bryce's Federalism or world citizenship inaugurated not by governments but by the peoples allows nations of differing characteristics to unite and become a peaceful community, while retaining "their separate administrations, legislatures and local patriotisms," is it an unwarranted inference to draw that the individual governments were unfitted for this task that Federalism or citizenship easily accomplished? If Federalism or American citizenship was needed in the colonies to settle and develop the West, how much more is it needed today to develop the backward countries of the world which require so much more the latitude in self-expression that Federalism allowed our western pioneer States? Surely had not Federalism intervened the conflicting national imperialisms of [Page 184]Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Virginia and the other States would have been left in much the same position in which we find ourselves today under the League and Mandates respecting the development of backward countries and the successful termination of this development could have transpired only by the rise of someone among the thirteen States, extending its citizenship as "a despotic central government, absorbing other powers, and menacing the private liberties of the citizens."

Our governments are only what we people have made them and we people have fabricated them by means of the citizenship of our own persons. There is no other thought-substance or material substance to use in constructing governments, since patriotism, loyalty, sovereignty, etc., are only phases of citizenship. The corollary of this is plain: that where governments need changing or remodeling, as where they have not grown and expanded from the agricultural age to meet new industrial and political conditions, or where exterritoriality has outgrown them, or where the community has outgrown them, under these conditions, only we, the people, can do the remodeling through some appropriate combination or division of these, two elements, "the persons of the citizens,-the only proper object of government," and citizenship; new combinations or groupings of the people and new divisions of citizenship, the new groupings to conform to the limits of the new community and the new divisions of citizenship to be such as to permit the old groupings, the old communities, our national governments, to retain their separate administrations, legislatures and local patriotisms." The power that creates is the only power that can peacefully revise or remodel, as "The Federalist" shows.

"As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory, to recur to the same original authority whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish or new-model the powers of the government." Madison also politely reminds the stronger of the thirteen States that they cannot, under the Union, develop imperially. "The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted [Page 185]with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other."

Will anyone today contend that the thirteen States, as governments, could have accomplished our salvation a century and a half ago? Were the State governments fitted for the task? Are our national governments any better fitted for our task today? Are they not beset with the same problem of exterritoriality, the same problem of mandates, interwoven into the same problem of imperialism? Can anyone point to any government today, so organized that it can cope with our new industrialism, with the new questions arising from the birth of our new world community; can any of our 1931 governments, or any group of them in the League, the Kellogg Pact or elsewhere, or all of our governments together, so grow as to register and meet the needs of our world community and at the same time permit these same nations, widely differing in characteristics, to retain "their separate administrations, legislatures and local patriotisms?" Can they proceed except as a "centralized government-disposed to apply its settled system through all its dominions," irrespective of the local peculiarities of these new peoples and their special needs? If certain League advocates or certain advocates of the World Court or of the Kellogg Pact, believe that either one or more or all of our peace institutions can peacefully accomplish such a desired end, we would ask them to point to some historical parallel supporting their contention and quote from some authority equal to James Bryce.

As a result of our dawning world consciousness, the public is [Page 186]inclining to some sort of World Union and it is clear that this Union must function as a government; but what is a government without citizens; as well have an ocean without water! The League system of peace institutions is laboring to create a government without citizens. The League's ocean of government has other governments, its nation members, in the place of the water of citizenship. This constitutes the imperium in imperio we have talked about and all must agree that governments masquerading as citizens are a failure. If we eliminate the League system of peace institution, we have left National Imperialism and World Citizenship, both of these systems strong because both are based on citizenship. Few champion National Imperialism, except the ruling obligarchy of Sovietism and Fascism respectively, more would champion "implementing" the League institutions. However, when the liberals read "The Federalist" and "American Commonwealth" aright, they will realize that the League and its allied institutions can be "implemented" only by adopting world citizenship. None of our governments, weak or strong, can do without citizens and when the League has citizens we shall have World Citizenship-and World Peace.

The seventh contribution to a symposium on "The Coming World Order," edited by Archie M. Palmer. [Page 187]

TURKEY

'Round the World Log of a Sociologist-VIII by HERBERT A. MILLER Department of Sociology, Ohio State University

Not so long ago a visit to Constantinople gave one a real introduction to Turkey, or rather the Turkish Empire, but now the interest is limited to the city itself. Its unparalleled location and its significance in both local and world history can never be taken from it, nor can Angora ever get the political importance which it has taken from Constantinople, for Turkey is after all now only a peasant state of some fifteen million inhabitants with a capital in the interior.

But Turkey is more important than its numbers. It is the relic of a great and important empire which deserved its bad reputation, and the new Turkey knows that it must over-compensate for this reputation; that fact needs to be understood in an analysis of many exaggerations which prevail.

The Turks and Constantinople were for centuries the very symbol of Islam. Now manifestations of a religion are probably as hard to find here as in Russia. The dilemma of Islam is that its center has slipped out and disappeared. Since all Moslems had the habit of looking in this direction they will continue to do so, and what Turkey does will have a wide influence, though, for the present, it is somewhat in abeyance. Our Moslem guide in a ruin near Agra, in India, questioned me a good deal about Turkey and we figured out together to see if he had money enough to come here. Turkey means something to him and he felt in regard to its religious tendencies as a child whose parent has done some unexplainable thing, but still is his parent.

There has been no anti-religious legislation in the sense of that [Page 188]attributed to Russia, but first all influence of religion in secular matters was ruled out, and then in the substitution of nationalism for religion, any manifestation of religion is "Old Turk," which is the bitterest form of opprobrium. The people will say that they are still Moslems, but they are like the majority of our prison population which is "Christian."

Their greatest problem comes from the fact that having lost their empire and their religion, there is nothing left that is Turkish except the people themselves—certainly the land is not. The archeology, history and art are Hittite, Assyrian, Greek and Roman, their handicraft Greek and Armenian, and their commerce also, though it was first developed by the Venetians and Genoese. Their political significance in the recent past came from the accident of location and was created, not by the Turks, but by the competition of the Russians, Germans, English and French. When I said something like this to a leading Turk in Angora he started to flare up, but quickly admitted that while the Turks had a history, it was not primarily related to Turkey.

The only part that the Turks played in the old Turkey was that of soldiers. Now with the idea of imperialism given up, and a certain discredit to the military life which is characteristic of our time, the only military emphasis they can make is the glory of having driven out the Greeks and defied Europe. That I think is where they begin.

Their present leadership is entirely in the hands of those trained as soldiers, because under the old régime, the only people who could study outside Turkey without arousing suspicion were those who went to German military schools. The result is that Pashas, or Generals, hold all the leading positions. This accounts for some of the energy and efficiency as well as some of the bureaucracy and absurdities.

Some people call the Turks dreadful—and there is a basis for this but they are also polite and likeable. Their "dreadfulness" comes from the suddenness with which they have taken up the unfamiliar toy of self-direction, with nothing brought from the past to guide them. Since they have never acted for themselves, they now [Page 189]

Turkey

without question follow a leader. There is probably no other country except Japan in which there is such acquiescent unity as in Turkey. The result is stability, energy and hope. I was asked in Angora what I thought was the greatest change in the four and a half years since I was there and I replied that I thought it was increase in confidence. I was expected to say that it is the remarkable increase in construction.

Angora, or Ankara, as it is now officially named, is a remarkable city, and a symbol of the new Turkey. The original city is very old. The old temple ruin was first Hittite, then Greek, and finally a mosque, and most of it has been a ruin for many hundreds of years. When Angora was selected for the capital it was customary to poke fun at it as a mud village, in comparison with the glory and splendor of Constantinople, but it was a most logical choice. Constantinople was altogether too grand to be the capital of such a peasant state as the new Turkey, and there were many other things against it. The whole history had been one of political intrigue, both internal and foreign. Its population was peculiarly international, and there would have been no possibility of cutting loose from the traditional corruption.

Ankara was deliberately chosen to escape this and to have a location not too accessible. It is fourteen hours away on an express train. When I was there four years ago it reminded me of our new military camps during the War with its rush and crudeness. Criminals were still hanged in the streets for moral effect. I saw one left on the busiest corner until the middle of the day, but it must have been the last one, for the custom has long been discontinued. At that time the people who had to live there accepted it with what fortitude they could, but they showed that it required fortitude. Now they have enthusiasm and speak with disdain of Constantinople. Ankara is really a modern city with several suburbs. Formerly I stayed at the worst hotel I have ever been in except a Chinese inn; this time we were in a thoroughly modern hotel—even swanky. Of course there is some "swank" about a good deal of Angora and Turkey, but what can you expect of generals! You get none of the impression of extravagance that you get at New Delhi, though [Page 190]there is some waste. The residences that were built in large numbers were mostly from plans taken from the Ladies' Home Journal, I was informed, and they look it. Practical houses with no sign of oriental architecture.

The great fact in Turkey is "The Ghazi." He looks very much like Mussolini, but to my surprise he is blonde. He was not in Ankara, so I could not even try to see him, but I did have long talks with two of the five men who have most influence in the affairs of the Republic. Mustapha Kemal is the dictator, though he is actually president and must be re-elected by parliament each year, but no one forgets that he is the savior of the country and the promotor of all the new things for which there is so much enthusiasm. He permits a large number of statues of himself to decorate the country. but the presidential residence is a small and simple house. Much has been written about him and I will not add anything except that he is the dynamo. If he should drop out there is no personality to take his place, but the program is so well established that I think there would be no danger of a change or demoralization.

Turkey is a Republic, but there is only one political party. Suffrage for the election of members to this seems to be universal for men, and women will soon be admitted. It is now felt that conditions are on such a firm basis that a few representatives of the opposition will be elected in the fall. While the reputation of the "Old Turk" for corruptness was very bad, people, whose opinion I consider sound, say that now in high places there is no corruption, and the officials work very hard at their jobs. As one foreign diplomat said, there are ten thousand people in Turkey who have the new ideas, and all the rest are exactly the same as they have always been

The Ghazi is a social reformer, whether largely for the sake of reform or for the success of Turkey, I do not know. Four years ago Angora was full of beggars, now there are none; probably the only city in oriental history without them, but the Ghazi let it be known that he thought they were bad for the reputation of the city.

The first spectacular radical reform was the removal of the fez which had become the world wide symbol of a Moslem. This was done five years ago, a few weeks before we were here previously. [Page 191]

TURKEY

It was done to make the Turks look like other people so that they would not be handicapped by their appearance. It was easier to enforce because it was easy to show that the fez had been adopted trom the Greeks, but after the order had been issued, wearing a fez became a sign of counter revolution, and a considerable number of non-conformists were hanged and the fez disappeared. The discarding of veils by women was not introduced so drastically, but was first suggested on the ground that the women's faces were too pretty to keep covered, and finally the veils were prohibited. I have not seen one since I came into Turkey though I have seen several women partly covering their faces. After the depressing black veils of Syria this has been a great relief.

The next drastic radical reform was the changing of the alphabet to Roman letters. This was relatively easy, as said by President Gates of Robert College in the June Current History, because there was such a large proportion of illiterates who did not know the old alphabet. When the order was issued it was carried out with dispatch. A time limit was set for learning the new alphabet, and every sign has been changed. I have not seen a single relic of an old sign in Arabic letters since I have been here. Now everyone between 16 and 45 who cannot show evidence of ability to read must go to school an hour a day for two years, and this applies to women as well as men.

In my opinion more important than illiteracy in making the change easy is the fact that there was no Turkish literature; all their classics were Arabic, and their alphabet was merely the adoption of the Arabic alphabet into a language that differed radically from the highly developed literary language of the Arabs.

Translations, or rather transliterations, are being printed as rapidly as possible. There are already textbooks for all the schools. For the present all the older students can read the old alphabet so they can read those things that have not yet been reprinted. It is planned to introduce into the advanced classes in a few years a course in Arabic writing so that access to old sources may be possible. The order has been issued for a new dictionary which shall be the basis of the new language. This is being made very carefully [Page 192]and will probably take ten years. There is a deficiency in Turkish for modern terms and an elastic expression which comes with an old and literary language. French is being used as a model because it is a language which has great flexibility of expression. Again, since unlike the Arabic, French is not an old literary language, there is no objection to taking the accepted Greek roots of scientific words and making them Turkish. The Arabic movement does this as little as possible.

These are spectacular reforms, but there are a multitude of other far-reaching ones. Under the old régime the poor peasant was fearfi exploited by taxes, but now his taxes are lightened and uniformly assessed, but the city people who used often to escape are now very heavily taxed, and their bitterness is vocal.

The financial condition of Turkey is very bad, because it has no industry, and the Greeks and Armenians who had a monopoly on commerce and such industry as there was have been driven out The Government is undertaking vast enterprises which it has to pay for by internal taxes, but it always balances its budget and has no foreign loans, because it is afraid of getting under the control of a creditor power. This fear is constantly with them because of the difficulty under which they live from the necessity of meeting their payments on the pre-war Ottoman debts. They are determined to take no chances of getting into another fix of the same sort.

Probably the most fundamental reform was the complete shelving of the Islamic law, which was all they had, and the substitution of systems lifted complete from Europe. The civil law from Switzerland, the commercial from Germany, and the penal from Italy. I had the good fortune to have lunch with the dean of the national law school, who himself had to learn the system new. but who is very enthusiastic about it. I asked if the back communities did not settle their difficulties by the old system and he said that the national law applied without exception.

Part of the "dreadfulness' of the Turks to which I referred above is due to the methods in the application of the new law. I am reminded of high school youngsters who have started a debating society and been introduced to Roberts Rules of Order. I have often [Page 193]seen them entirely forget what the order was for in their insistence on the rules. No one here dares to use the common sense method when the rule is stated. There was a missionary last year who was being transferred from Greece to Turkey. He was entitled to bring in his household goods free. He brought them to Constantinople and left them in the custom house and then went to America for his furlough; the week before he returned a law was passed that goods could come free if the owner accompanied them. He has been unable to get them out of the customs house but he can get them in free by taking them back to Greece and coming back with them. This he is going to do in order to save six hundred dollars. Nothing but time and experience can ameliorate such absurdities as that, of which I have heard of many.

Foreigners are under suspicion, as is quite proper after the historical experience of Constantinople. The French and the English are the most unpopular, the Germans would be in the same class if they were not quite different from the pre-war Germans. George Young, an Englishman who must have been in the diplomatic service here, has written an excellent book entitled "Constantinople." In it he says something that I have suggested a number of times this year: "Our British aloofness is no doubt a help in governing Eastern subject races; but only so long as they remain subject."

The peculiar fact is that there is no objection to adopting whatever is felt to be advantageous from the West. This, as I have suggested, is because they have nothing of their own to go back to, and so long as they can make a religion of nationalism and keep out of the toils of creditors, there is no loss of self-respect in the attempt to become westernized.

The great instrument in this new process is assumed to be education and there is a very ambitious educational program which is retarded in part by lack of money and people who have training to be teachers; also from the fact that, since all the commercial places formerly held by Greeks and Armenians have to be filled by Turks, the call of business offers more opportunity than teaching. It is not yet possible for much teaching to be done by women though there [Page 194]are several normal schools for girls, as the old idea still prevails that girls should marry young.

This latter fact, however, is in harmony with the government policy to have a rapid increase in population. Turkey is under populated because of its continuous wars, but fecundity is high. and it is a goal set to have the present population of 14,000,000 increased to 40,000,000, without immigration, in twenty-five years.

which, if it occurs, will be the most rapid natural increase that has ever taken place. There is a National Child Welfare Association which employs two Americans to frame a policy that is expected to provide the proper conditions for the new population to grow up in

This Turkish experiment has in it elements that are new. When Japan decided to become modernized it had something old to start from and return to, but Turkey had nothing but ill repute to start with and is setting itself to the task of springing full fledged into the community of modern nations. I think she will succeed. [Page 195]

THE UNITY HISTORY SCHOOLS

Under the direction of F. S. MARVIN, M.A., F.R.H.S.

The idea of these schools, which have been held nearly every year since 1915, was first mooted at a gathering of the London Adult School Union on the first of August, 1914. It was the day on which war was declared between Germany and Russia and the world was on the eve of the greatest cataclysm in history. Then was the time to turn one's thoughts to those greater and more permanent forces which have built up the world community of the present, imperfect as it is, but growing, as we hope, stronger in unity in spite of the most terrible shock which could have been imagined. Mr. Marvin undertook to consider a plan for historical studies on the lines of Unity and Progress, and the first Unity History School was held in August, 1915, at Woodbrooke, the social and educational settlement of the Society of Friends, near Birmingham.

The subject was "The Unity of Western Civilization" and it gave name and color to all which have succeeded it. The common foundations and the essentially identical spirit of the Western civilization which sprang from Greece and Rome were exhibited in their various aspects. The audience of the first year were eager to continue, and in the second course, in August, 1916, the conception and the fact of "Progress" were studied, being the dynamic aspect of the static conditions of "Unity" which was the subject of the first School.

From the Unity History Schools has come a notable series of volumes under Mr. Marvin's editorship, perpetuating the valuable papers presented at the successive Schools. The Unity Series, published by Oxford University Press, have met with cordial response both in England and America, and can be profitably read and [Page 196]studied by any who wish to grasp the large outlines of European thought struggling with the vital problem of peace. More even than the scholarly thought, perhaps, is the underlying spirit of peace which is encountered in these books. Some of the titles are "The Unity of Western Civilization;" "Progress and History." "The Evolution of World Peace;" "Science and Civilization; "Western Races and the World."

During August, 1931, the Tenth Unity History School will be conducted in the city of Stockholm. Among the lecturers are: The Swedish delegate to the League of Nations, Mr. Unden; Dr. Nat than Soderblom, Noble Peace Prize, 1931; Professor Herbert Din gle, Imperial College of Science; Mr. Hartley Withers; Mr. F. S Marvin, and special lecturers on architecture. The subject for con sideration this year is "The World at Peace." Information may be obtained from the Honorable Secretary, Mrs. K. E. Innes, B. A.. High Oaks Road, Welwyn Garden City, Herts., England.

The twenty-eighth modern movement presented by WORLD UNITY in its department "The World We Lise in." [Page 197]

THE PROBLEM OF ARMAMENTS. III.

by DEXTER PERKINS Department of History and Government, University of Rochester

IN THIS article, I shall be chiefly concerned with the question of land armaments. Before beginning an analysis of this subject, however, I wish to call my readers' attention to the unhappy sequence of events with regard to the naval question since my last contribution to World Unity two months ago. At that time it appeared that an understanding had been reached between the French and Italian governments with regard to this important matter. Today, the outlook is far different. The hoped-for accord proves to lie in the future; and the tone of the two foreign offices does not appear to be a very hopeful one. Indeed, there has been a perceptible worsening of the relations of France and Italy, and perhaps of France and Great Britain. To both London and Rome, the present French stand seems a retreat from the position assumed in the optimistic discussions of two months ago; and the attitude of the British and Italian governments towards the Austro-German customs union has been far from satisfactory to the government in Paris. The meeting of the Council of the League, which impends as I write, may materially alter this situation; but one can hardly be extremely optimistic with regard to the immediate future. A candid facing of the facts does not give us a very pleasant picture.

The same thing must be said, I fear, with regard to the problem of limiting or reducing land armaments. The way to such reduction is going to be long and arduous; no Pollyanna-like assumptions of inevitable success can be justified; it is only by facing the problem realistically, and with a full sense of its difficulties, that progress can be made. I make no apologies, therefore, for devoting [Page 198]the major part of this discussion to the obstacles that lie ahead.

The peace treaties which followed the Great War provided for the limitation of the land armaments of the vanquished states, "in order to render possible the general limitation of the armed forces of all nations." The military forces of Germany were reduced to 100,000 men, recruited on a basis of long-time service; conscription was abolished; and restrictions on the manufacture of armaments, and on the possession of certain types of material were also incorporated in the terms of the agreement. Similar provisions were written into the compacts with Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria. These various limitations were to be part of a general process, and the Council of the League, by Article 8 of the Covenant, was charged with the preparation of plans for general reduction. Thus the peace treaties held out the fairest hopes for the future.

For some time thereafter, however, very little was done. It is to be suspected that the powers which emerged from the Great War with their national interest and aspirations fairly well satisfied are not particularly anxious to surrender the great practical advantages which came from the limitation of German, Austrian, Hungarian and Bulgarian armaments, while their own forces are subjected to no restrictions whatsoever; at any rate this is the view of substantial elements in France, in Poland, and in other of the so-called Succession States. But it could also be argued with some plausibility, in the period immediately following the peace treaties, that the way to reduction of armaments was through the establishment of security, and the major efforts of the forward-looking statesmen of Western Europe during the period from 1920 to 1925 were directed to the attainment of this end. There was, as my readers may remember, the draft treaty of 1923; there was the abortive Geneva protocol of 1924; there was the series of treaties signed at Locarno in 1925. The emphasis of this early period was on setting up a system of guarantees which would make the reduction of armaments more practicable.

I do not think that it can be denied that there was much to be said for the view herein represented. There are still those who believe that no really important progress can be made with regard to [Page 199]

THE PROBLEM OF ARMAMENTS

land armaments in Europe until there exists a really powerful international authority; and whether or not this be true, it was certainly the part of wisdom to seek to remove suspicions and allay international tension before attempting to deal with such a thorny problem as that of armaments. It is not strange, therefore, that the armament question began to be intensively studied only in 1925.

It was at the end of that year that there was constituted the Preparatory Disarmament Commission. This body was composed, not only of representatives of the principal European members of the League, but also of representatives of the United States and Germany, and, after December, 1927, of Soviet Russia. It has held a number of sessions extending over a period of five years, and at the end of last year produced the draft convention to which I have already alluded.

The long delays incident to the drafting of this convention are not difficult to understand. Both land and naval armaments, and ever air armaments, were brought under discussion. The immense number of technical questions involved afforded ample opportunity for the forces of obstruction to operate, and the reliance often placed upon the views of the technical experts increased the difficulties of agreement. On the naval side, the tension in Anglo-American relations during 1927 and 1928 was undoubtedly a factor of importance. In questions of land armament, the unwillingness to surrender a position of special advantage on the part of France and her allies undoubtedly prolonged the discussions. With so many elements of tension still to be taken account of in the relations of Continental European states, the wonder is that any convention at all could be agreed upon, even in a tentative, fragmentary, and imperfect form.

It must be conceded at the outset that the draft convention of last December may rightfully have applied to it all the adjectives which I have just employed. There is hardly any important decision reached in the convention which is not subject to qualification or reservation by some important state; and it must be understood also that the critical and central problem of writing definite figures into the agreement was entirely postponed. A basis for discussion has [Page 200]been provided; the elements of a general plan have been suggested; but a great variety of matters remain to be definitely treated by the General Disarmament Conference which, as matters stand today, will meet on February 2, 1932.

The first important question with which the draft convention deals is the limitation of personnel. That the number of men actually employed in the armed forces of the state on land, on sea and in the air was from the beginning not difficult to agree upon. But a difficulty arose immediately in the effort to define such persons accurately. Some countries have armies recruited by voluntary enlistment; others have armies raised by conscription. In the latter case, should those who have passed through the colors be counted, or should only those actually under arms be included in any schedule of military strength? This question was long a subject of warm discussion in the sessions of the Preparatory Commission. The countries which have conscript armies were anxious to exclude reserves from the calculation of effectives; the countries with a voluntary system took the contrary view. Finally, more with an eye to registering some advance toward a convention, than because of any change of opinion, Great Britain and the United States, which had at first demanded that reserves be counted, reversed their attitude. Over the protests of Germany, supported by Soviet Russia and some of the smaller European countries, the convention finally provided for the limitation only of those on active service. Some concession to the contrary viewpoint, however, is to be seen in a provision fixing a maximum term of service, which no country is to be permitted to exceed. The length of this term of service is, however, not indicated, but will have to be determined by the General Conference.

The next important question covered in the convention is that of the limitation of material. Here again a sharp divergence of viewpoint was manifest from an early period in the deliberations of the Commission. Two methods of limitation were advocated: direct limitation, and budgetary limitation. When the question was examined in all its complexity, a good case could be made out for either of these methods, or perhaps it would be better to say that the difficulties in the way of either were almost equally numer [Page 201]

THE PROBLEM OF ARMAMENTS

ous. It is no less perplexing to seek to equate one type of tank with another, for example, than one monetary unit with another. In either case, there are a host of practical problems that cannot be ignored. The final decision of the Commission was in favor of budgetary limitation of material used in war on land. In the upshot of the matter only one country, the United States, opposed this system entirely; although Germany, Italy and Soviet Russia advocated combining it with direct limitation. Mr. Gibson, the representative of the United States, has stated in behalf of his government that on this point no concession can be made; but he added that this country would accept direct limitation for itself if other countries could agree upon the application of the budgetary principle. While this assurance has a certain air of generosity, it may be that the reluctance of the American government to accept budgetary limitation will adversely affect the attitude of other states at the forthcoming conference. This seems to be particularly true with regard to Japan.

In the matter of naval armaments, matters proved more simple. Here direct limitation was applied in the decisions of the London conference. But the obstacles to extending this method farther, to cover France and Italy, as well as the United States, Great Britain and Japan, have not yet been surmounted. The negotiations between Paris and Rome have not, at the moment of writing, actually been broken off, but an agreement between the French and the Italian governments is rather an event to be ardently desired, than one to be expected, at the present time. Here, too, the way is by no means clear.

As to air armament, a practicable method of limitation was very hard to discover. It is extremely difficult to differentiate between civil and military aviation. In finally deciding to limit only the latter, the Preparatory Commission found itself obliged to draw up an article defining what military aircraft actually are. How satisfactory this definition will prove to be, and how effective, is a matter on which serious doubt must be expressed. Military airplanes, however, as defined in the draft convention, are limited both by numbers and horse-power, as are also dirigibles. [Page 202]Finally, in the field of budgetary limitation, a limitation of total expenditures was agreed upon. To this, as to budgetary limitation of land armaments, the United States objected. Germany, also, reserved decision. On this point, too, therefore, there is still room for debate at the General Conference.

There are other aspects of this draft convention which deserve to be examined. In particular the great question of enforcement of any measures of limitation actually agreed upon must be considered. But these matters, together with a general evalu...ion of the convention, I shall postpone to another article. The matters already discussed will serve to illustrate the very many practical problems which stand in the way of limitation of armaments. The political situation of the moment in Europe is not particularly favorable. I shall, perhaps, wish to say something on this subject in my next discussion. [Page 203]LEAVES OF THE GREATER BIBLE Compiled and Edited by WILLIAM NORMAN GUTHRIE Rector, St. Mark's in-the-Bouterie, Nete York

INVOCATION TO DIONYSOS

In springtime, O Dionysos, To thy holy temple come, To Elis with thy Charities, Rushing with thy bull's foot, come O Noble Bull, O Noble Bull!

PINDAR'S DITHYRAMB

Look upon the dance, O Olympians, Send us the grace of victory, ye Gods! Who come to the heart of our city Where many feet are treading And incense ariseth (in clouds)! In sacred Athens, come To the market place enriched By every art, and blessed of name! Take your portion of pansy twined Garlands, of libations poured From the culling of spring, And look upon me as I start Beginning with Zeus my song of rejoicing! Come hither to the god ivy-bound Bromios, we mortals name him And him of the mighty voice! I come to dance and to sing [Page 204]Child of a high-born father And a woman of Cadmus' race. The clear signs of fulfillment Are not hidden whensoever the chamber Of the purple robed hours is opened, And nectarous flowers lead the fragrant spring Then are flung over immortal earth The lovely petals of pansies And the roses are decked in our hair And the voices of song are loud With the pipes, and the dancing floors are loud With the calling of Semele crowned!

ECHOES OF PRIMITIVE GREEK LITURGIES, IN AN AESCHYLEAN CHORUS

O, all ye gods and goddesses, Fend from us the on-rushing evil... Who is there to rescue, Who will assist us, Of all the gods or goddesses? To the images of which of their god-heads Shall I, a suppliant, kneel? O, ye blessed beings, Firmly seated on your thrones, (In this city of Thebes) It is full time we should gather and Cling to your effigies! Why do we delay so? Is it through too exceeding grief? Hear ye, O hear ye not, the clash of shields? When, if not now, shall we engage in supplications Bearing in procession the holy veils for your images, And the wool-tufted living boughs?... What wilt thou do, O Ares? Abandon thine own land, Thou ancient patron of our country? [Page 205]

PRAYERS OF ANCIENT GREECE

God of the golden helmet Look on thy city, yea, look with favor upon her,, The city well-beloved of thee. Ye gods, protectors of the land, Come ye, come ye all! And behold a suppliant band of maidens Praying to be saved From bondage foul... O. do thou, great Zeus, almighty Father, Ward off our capture by the foe... But do thou especially, Power that delightest in war, Very daughter of Zeus, Become our saviour now, The saviour of our city, O Pallas!... And thou who curbest the steed, Lord of the sea, Armed with the three-pronged fish speak O. Poseidon, grant, O grant us, A respite from our fears! Thou, too, O Ares, Have pity on our fate! Guard the city that bears the name of Cadmus old, Show thy love of it Interfering visibly on its behalf, O Kypris, who art the ancient mother of our race, Ward off these ills, For are not we the issue of thy blood? Thee, thee, therefore, we approach Raising our voices in heaven-moving petitions! And, O thou Lychean king, thou wolf-slayer, Become wolfish unto our hated foes, In answer to our wailing cries! And O thou virgin daughter of Latona, Artemis! Hold thy bow in readiness... O Queen Hera! O beloved Artemis... [Page 206]O Apollo, divine friend... O Zeus, from thee alone Can come the righteous issue of this contest Which shall put an end unto this war! And thou also, blessed Queen Pallas, Our own, enthroned upon our fastness, Deliver thy seven-gated sacred seat! O ye dieties, all powerful to save, Ye mighty guardians of the towers of this land, Ye gods, ye goddesses, Surrender not to an alien host, Speaking a strange tongue, Your city hard-pressed now by the foe! Hearken to the virgins, hearken, As in divine duty bound, The prayers they offer with out-stretched hands, O ye gods, our friends, And by closing round our city As a ring of great deliverers, Prove, O prove, that ye love your land and people! Remember our public votive offerings, And, as ye remember, help!

Be mindful, we pray you, of the solemn rites And sacrifices performed at the altars of your city.

THANKSGIVING FOR RESTORED SANITY OF A BELOVED TRIBAL LEADER

I thrill with eager desires, I leap for gladness of heart, lo, lo, O Pan! O Pan! O Pan! O Pan! Pan that walketh the waves, come from the snow-beaten heights from Kyllene's mountainous ridge! Come, O my King, that leadest the dance of the Gods, that thou with me may'st thread the dance of windings wild, Nysian, or Knossian, named; For now I needs must dance for very joy. [Page 207]

PRAYERS OF ANCIENT GREECE

And King Apollo, o'er Icarian waves, coming, the Delian God, in presence manifest, may He be with me, gracious evermore! And Ares, too, hath loosed the dark calamitous spell from off these eyes of ours: Io, and lo still! Once more, and yet once more! And now, O Zeus, again a day clear, cloudless, fair, may dawn upon our swift-speeding o'er the waves

For Aias rests from grief, And now with awe profound, Duly worships the Gods With meekest sacrifice. Time, with great changes, bringeth all things low, And never shall the word "impossible" Pass from my lips, since now Aias from wrath hath turned, And the hot mood that 'gainst the Atreidae raged.

PRAYER OF SOCRATES TO PAN

O, well-beloved Pan- And whoso else beside be in this place Divine- Grant me the boon for the inner man, of growth in soul unto beauty! And for the outer man, that whatso I possess be friendly unto mine inmost Self! May I ever deem the wise man the only rich, And of wealth grant me such plenty But no more as a man of self-control can bear to have, yet play his man's part well!" [Page 208]So have we-for my part-prayed in due form and measure due- -And, for that friends have all things common, Let me also share this prayer with you.

EPICTETUS HYMN OF PRAISE

If we had any understanding Ought we not, both in public and private, Incessantly to sing and praise the Deity And rehearse His benefits? Whether we dig or plough or eat Ought we not to sing this hymn to God? For what else can I do- A lame old man- But sing my hymns to God? Were I a nightingale Should I not play the part of the nightingale? Were a swan, Should I not play the part of a swan? Then seeing that I am a rational being Is it not my duty to praise God? This assuredly is my express business, And this thing, therefore, I do! Nor will I ever desert my post So long as I am allowed to keep it. And I call on you my friends meanwhile To join me in the same song of praise. [Page 209]

EQUALITY AS EQUALIZING

by JOHN HERMAN RANDALL, JR. Department of Philosophy, Columbia University

IN OUR world of modern industrial interdependence, the great ideals of the revolutionary social movement of a century ago seem to many thoughtful minds to have lost their relevance and pertinence. Liberty, equality, and fraternity meant for our forefathers a definite political program: the abolition of restrictions upon free business enterprise, the destruction of legal and political privilege, and the breaking down of the barriers to the growth of unified national feeling. That negative liberation having been largely achieved in Western civilization, those ideals of a past struggle have remained our heritage, more as the consecration of our present state of blessedness than as aims to be worked for. But notoriously the achievement of the program of political Liberalism let loose a flood of new economic energies that have in their turn transformed our world. Although the ideals of that historic creed remain to this day the social aims that still awaken widest response, they seem to multitudes to have grown hopelessly inadequate to the demands of an industrialized life. Whole nations have turned to other gods, while even where they are most loudly proclaimed the old spirit of hope and promise has left them, and they are most often used as an apologetic for a situation that has grown intolerable.

It is of course possible to abandon to the historical museum the slogans of other days, to forge a new set of weapons with which to wage our own battles. But in England and in America at least, there still resides in our heritage of past ideals a fund of emotional loyalty and attachment that makes it worth while to ask whether what has meant so much cannot be reinterpreted to express the aspirations of the new industrial day. Whatever their historic function, [Page 210]liberty and equality and fraternity cannot for us mean merely negative political states, the absence of certain traditional legal restraints. In the dynamic world of modern industry, in the condition of economic interdependence into which we have been hurried, they must be active processes of social adjustment, problems to be worked at unceasingly in the sweat and dust of detailed realities. Much effort has been expended to reinterpret liberty as a process of liberalizing the conditions of social life through collective control and planning, and fraternity as the process of achieving world-wide brotherhood through the fostering of intelligent cooperation. As yet equality has been somewhat neglected by those to whom the Eighteenth Century notion of the equality of man seemed totally inapplicable in the diversified life of modern industrialism.

R. H. Tawney has endeavored to undertake for this past idea! the same kind of reconstruction that others have accorded its fellows. May not equality likewise be regarded, not as an empty abstraction, not as a political and legal axiom, but as a challenge to creative social action? Granted that it has come to mean that rich and poor alike are forbidden to steal a loaf of bread, that wise statesman and barbarous gangster have an equal voice at the polls. Might it not mean a process of equalizing, as means and opportunity allow, the externals of life, in the interests of further liberating human energies and fostering the functional unity of industrial society?

Mr. Tawney has long been known as one deeply concerned with creating a genuinely religious aim in the working of modern economic life. His volume was first delivered as lectures upon a foundation devoted to "research towards the Christian ideal in all social life." A truly religious passion runs through his attack upon the present "religion of inequality." Yet for him equality means something very practical and concrete, a definite objective to be attained by patient experimentation in social action. "Equality is an arithmetical metaphor for a relation between human beings, and the interpretation to be placed on it varies from age to age, since it depends on the practical realities of the economic environment.

R. H. Tawney, Equality. Harcourt Brace. xii. 288 pp. [Page 211]

EQUALITY AS EQUALIZING

It was the glory of the liberal movement, at least in France, to have poured its doctrines into the mould of a universal creed, so that the truths which it propounded were framed, not for Frenchmen, nor for the age of Louis XVI, but for men. But, if its vision embraced the whole world of human effort, its feet were planted on the solid ground of its own generation. The privilege which it attacked was no vague epitome of human injustices, but concrete and specific; the equality which it demanded was not a shadowy abstraction, but definite and precise." Just so must the equalizing upon which modern society must embark be based, "not on any doctrinaire enthusiasm for an abstract principle, but on the desire to mitigate grave practical evils."

With such realistic vision Mr. Tawney devotes himself to the persistent class distinctions and class feeling of England, and there is about his book the peculiar aroma of the best traditions of English thought. Much that he has to say is applicable only to a country like England, where the inequalities produced by industrialism so often express themselves in the pattern of the still older feudal inequalities which happier lands, like France and America, have escaped.

And much in his program of equalizing, like the free provision of equal educational opportunities for all, does not strike at the most pressing difficulties of the American situation. Yet his fundamental reinterpretation of the ideal of equality, and his magnificent defence of it against its latterday detractors, is framed, like the ideas of the Eighteenth Century philosophes, for all men. It would be easy to apply his general principles to the relations between still larger groups of men, between nations, religions, and entire civilizations. "A high degree of practical equality," he remarks, "is necessary because a community requires unity as well as diversity, and because, important as it is to discriminate between different powers, it is even more important to provide for common needs. Social well-being does not depend upon intelligent leadership; it also depends upon cohesion and solidarity. It implies the existence, not merely of opportunities to ascend, but of a high level of general culture, and a strong sense of common interests, and the diffusion throughout society of a conviction that civilization is not the [Page 212]business of an elite alone, but a common enterprise which is the concern of all." Substitute the world community for the particular community of which Tawney is talking, and would not his statement apply just as well to the relations between, say, England and India, or the United States and Central America?

The method used to bring the light of reason to bear upon the "dear respectable absurdities" of class feeling and discrimination is the barbed shaft of irony and ridicule. Where argument is of no avail in assailing deeprooted prejudice, a witty revelation of its preposterous inconsistencies will penetrate the armor of the victim. It would be a delight to cull a long series of the best of Mr. Tawney’s sallies. As social satire his work ranks with that of Veblen, with whom he shares the habit of quiet understatement broken here and there by the flash of the rapier. He is at his best in playing with those so injudicious as to venture a defense of existing inequalities, like Sir Ernest Benn or Clive Bell.

The equality for which Mr. Tawney pleads, needless to say, is not founded on "the romantic illusion that men are equal in character and intelligence," on the assumption of similarity between men It asserts rather "that while men differ profoundly as individuals i capacity and character, they are equally entitled as human beings to consideration and respect, and that the well-being of a society is likely to be increased if it so plans its organization that, whether their powers are great or small, all its members may be equally enabled to make the best of such powers as they possess." Nor did the past apostles of equality, even though their psychology failed to emphasize individual differences as ours does, really rest their case on so shallow a basis. "The equality which all these thinkers emphasize as desirable is not equality of capacity or attainment, but of circumstances, and institutions, and manner of life. The inequality which they deplore is not inequality of personal gifts, but of the social and economic environment. They are concerned, not with a biological phenomenon, but with a spiritual reiation and the conduct to be based upon it." And since equality is a spiritual relation, demanding equal care for differing needs of diverse men. the facts of biology or psychology no more undermine it than they [Page 213]undermine the equality before the law so painfully achieved. We have inherited such a tradition of legal equality, but we must create a tradition of economic equality. It is class distinctions in particular that must be overcome. It was by softening or obliterating, not individual differences, but class gradations, that past protests against inequality gained their ends. "A society which values equality will attach a high degree of significance to differences of character and intelligence between different individuals, and a low degree of significance to economic and social differences between different groups."

There is detailed analysis of the class feeling and the inequalities both in economic power and standard of living, as determined by income, which make the modern pretense at offering equal opportunity to all pretty much of a mockery—the statistics are effectively marshalled, and the irony is withering. Equal opportunity must be secured, not by offering a few prizes, but by social provision for minimum standards of health, education, and security. Inequality of economic power, if it be based on function performed and not on extraneous wealth, even inequality of income above certain minimum limits, Mr. Tawney does not reject. "The phenomenon which provokes exasperation is not power and equality, but capricious inequality and irresponsible power. Gradations of authority and income derived from differences of office and function promote social ends; distinctions based, not on objective facts, but on personal claims—on birth, or wealth, or social position—impede them. What is repulsive is not that one man should earn more than others, for where community of environment, and a common education and habit of life, have bred a common tradition of respect and consideration, these details of the counting-house are forgotten or excluded. It is that some classes should be excluded from the heritage of civilization which others enjoy, and that the fact of human fellowship, which is ultimate and profound, should be obscured by economic contrasts, which are trivial and superficial. What is important is not that all men should receive the same pecuniary income. It is that the surplus resources of society should be so husbanded and applied that it is a matter of minor significance [Page 214]whether they receive it or not."

Mr. Tawney's strategy of equality follows the general lines made plain by the program of the British Labor Party. He records the advances already made in communal provision of the essentials of life, and emphasizes how much more efficiently the same income can be collectively expended in raising the standard of living through the extension of social services than if merely distributed in increased wages to individuals. It will not always be so. "When the conditions of health, education, and economic security-not to mention beauty of environment-have been made a common possession, the time may have come to use the surplus that remains to provide a free income which the individual can spend at his own discretion." The "lion in the path"-the danger that the funds raised by taxation to effect this equalizing of conditions of living may impair the capital needed to extend industry-is slain with despatch. The problem is one of apportioning the national income to reduce expenditure which neither raises the quality of individual life nor promotes social efficiency, and to augment expenditure which heightens them. The provision of such capital, should it ever come to a choice between starving industry or starving workers, must be regulated by the State. In any event, the present is hardly a time to worry unduly about the lack of productive power!

Finally, Mr. Tawney fits this process of equalizing the conditions of life into the broader scheme of the functional society he has elsewhere so persuasively expounded, that society wherein freedom is achieved through diversity of function combined with equality of status. And his emphasis here is upon the extent to which socialism of industry has already occurred, and the painless process by which it might be hastened. Nationalization can proceed by many paths, of which expropriation is but one, and various forms of State-guided "rationalization" more seductive. England will doubtless muddle through with it piecemeal. But she will use democratic machinery, convinced that men can order their own destiny. The economic predestinarianism of both conservative economists and radical Marxians Tawney brushes aside. "May not the future of human society depend somewhat less than these stern apostles of [Page 215]

EQUALITY AS EQUALIZING

necessity would have us believe on the majestic, ineluctable operations of impersonal forces, and somewhat more on the heads and hearts of human beings? Men have given one stamp to their institutions; they can give another. They have idealized money and power; they can 'choose' equality. Though the ideal of an equal distribution of material wealth may continue to elude us, it is necessary, nevertheless, to make haste towards it, not because such wealth is the most important of man’s treasures, but to prove that it is not. It is possible that the ultimate goods of human life, which belong to the realm where to divide is not to take away, may more easily be attained, when its instruments and means are less greedily grasped and more freely shared."

Equality of material conditions Tawney proclaims as a necessary prelude to a spiritual ideal, the establishment of a functionally unified society. The equality that once awakened men’s aspirations, the protest against patent inequalities that violate common manhood, he has transformed into an active and continuous process of social readjustment, seeking unceasingly to bend collective effort to the undoing of the prejudices and discriminations social organization has itself fostered, and to the provision of more equal opportunities for men to realize their diverse latent powers in cooperative union with their fellows. [Page 216]

ROUND TABLE

"The Challenge of World Unemployment" by Norman Angell (reprinted by courtesy of "Foreign Affairs," London) no doubt reflects more directly the conditions existing in Great Britain than in other countries, but even discounting this fact his views develop a middle ground between compulsory State action and uncontrolled individualism which deserves careful consideration.

While America is Europe's future in many practical matters, Europe anticipates America in the realm of social theory. England today is perhaps a half-decade nearer feeling the full effects of the Soviet experiment than this country, and from this point of view the English author's analysis and proposed solution may have more influence here later on than now.

The tragedy of the individualistic point of view which resists too long the pressure of cooperative planning and social responsibility is that when it actually fails to work, it rushes to the extreme of State authority.

Many readers will probably feel that the most important point raised by Mr. Angell is the question, when will economic catastrophe be considered a "National emergency" as real as war?

From time to time it is pointed out by readers that World Unity does not give sufficient consideration to the subject of international language. This criticism is justified, but the failure has not been due to oversight but to lack of the proper material.

The editors are happy to announce that an article has been received on Dr. Zamenhof, founder of Esperanto, written by his daughter, Lidja Zamenhof, the one surely best qualified to describe him as an "Apostle of World Unity."

With this article will be published another entitled "International Language" by Helen S. Eaton, Assistant Executive Secretary, International Auxiliary Language Association. [Page 217]

ROUND TABLE

In "World Citizenship and Governments" we have the political theories developed by the founders of the United States re-examined and applied to the larger problem of international association. In the person of Carl A. Ross, the shades of Hamilton and Jefferson return to debate the question of what constitutional basis is most suitable to link together in effective unity the now sovereign and independent States of America, Europe, Africa and the East. Shall the peoples of the world continue to be separated by nearly seventy sovereign jurisdictions nearly all surrounded by armed frontiers, or shall they be united in one supreme sovereignty which shall delegate to the present national governments only that relative sovereignty required for the control of their respective domestic affairs?

Midway between these alternatives, as Philip C. Nash pointed out in World Unity for May, stands the League of Nations to which many sovereign States delegate a certain degree of jurisdiction, while retaining full political control over their own citizens.

The question may be discussed endlessly on its legal merits, but will finally be resolved from the point of view of sheer usefulness. If the present system of "independent" sovereignties, plus the League, can solve the fundamental problems of war, unemployment, and competitive religions, the project of World Government will remain merely a theory. If it cannot solve these or such new problems as may arise in future, a World Government is inevitable.

Meanwhile it must be remarked that the founders of the United States of America accomplished their task so thoroughly that their descendants are the most jealous in asserting the truth of a principle which logically turns against them in this question of federating the peoples of the world.

Far-off Korea, that forgotten land which had its heroic hour of political aspiration under the influence of Woodrow Wilson, has quickened again in American thought through the appeal of "The Grass Roof" by Younghill Kang. The name of Younghill Kang, with that of Lidja Zamenhof, appears this month for the first time in the list of those who sponsor the aims of World Unity. [Page 218]

A WORLD COMMUNITY

by John Herman Randall

HE book for those who seek to grasp the world movement as a whole factors, and a careful analysis of the trends making for international organization.

It has been included in the reading list issued by the National Committee on the Cause and Cure of War.

NATIONALISM AND INTERNATIONALISM

by Herbert Adams Gibbons

THIS book, Dr. Gibbons has infused his historical scholarship with a Ilifetime of personal experience and participation in international affairs The result is a study accurate enough for the classroom and interesting enough for the average reader.

"Nationalism and Internationalism" traces the evolution of political force from its first expression in the movement toward modern nationalism through the nineteenth century, to its present expression in international ism as the true outcome of national ideals.

SEVEN GREAT BIBLES

by Alfred W. Martin

Zorastrianism, Confucianism, Taoism, Muhammadanism, Judaism and Christianity that demonstrate the underlying unity and harmony in the texts from which these religions derive-a very history of the soul of man illumined from age to age by inspired teachers pointing the path to brotherhood and peace.

These three books have been published in the World Unity Library initiated and sponsored by this magazine. Per copy, $2.00. Any one title, with annual subscription to World Unity Magazine, $5.00; subscription and two books, $6.75; subscription and all three books, $8.50.

WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE 4 EAST 12TH STREET NEW YORK [Page 219]

THE INTERNATIONAL NOTE IN CONTEMPORARY DRAMA

The first scholarly presentation of the emergence of the peace ideal in the thought of Europe and America as expressed in the works of leading contemporary playwrights.

By EVELYN NEWMAN, PH.D.

THIS VOLUME is an interesting and important contribution to the culture of the new age. Dr. Newman has made a careful study of more than seventy contemporary dramatists who have dealt with the theme of war and peace, and her book records the emerging "international note" as it has been dramatized on the stage in England, France, Germany and America.

It is a work of extreme interest not merely for the student of drama, or for those who carefully follow the development of peace literature, but also for the general reader primarily concerned with human values and reactions.

Quoting from the author's Introduction: "It is an effort to exhibit, in review of contemporary drama of the three greatest belligerent nations in the World War, a common attitude of revolt against war." The final chapter is on America's Contribution.

Dr. Newman's gift of narrative and power of insight is already known to readers of World Unity, through her article on "The International Note in Pre-War Novels" published in December, 1930 and January, 1931.

Order through your bookseller, or from the publisher. Price, including postage, $2.10.

THE KINGSLAND PRESS 400 WEST 34TH STREET NEW YORK CITY [Page 220]

SEVEN REVOLUTIONS ARE TRANSFORMING HUMAN LIFE THROUGHOUT THE WORLD

I. Political Revolution The failure of self-centered national governments to solve the new i national problems of the twentieth century; the universal destructive of war; the inevitable development of a World State.

II. Industrial Revolution Superpower and production equipment which demands active internati markets and coordination on a world scale: machines create leisure.

III. Financial Revolution Transfer of economic power from European politics to American busit markets based on wages rather than wealth; stock ownership bridging between capital and labor: international bank.

IV. Scientific Revolution Man's victory over nature; an authority challenging religious practice tradition; source of new type of human character; apparently inexhaus supply of new inventions and appliances.

V. Religions Revolution Historic creeds and dogmas unable to relate men creatively to the new increased contact between the great racial faiths; need of a religiou perience to overcome racial, national and class prejudice and incu spirit of cooperation.

VI. Social Revolution Decay of small local communities; individualism versus society; ris submerged groups; slumbering Orient awakes; universal education; c of social gravity moves from agriculture to industry; lack of adjusti between political and economic forces; new common denominator in and movies; influence of aeroplane: Soviet Russia's challenge.

VII. Psychological Revolution The individual uncontrolled by traditional group ideals and discipl mental and emotional break with the past: acceleration of life requires balance between inner and outer being: the search for fulfillment satisfying faith.

ONLY AN INTERNATIONAL GROUP OF SCHOLARS CAN GIVE YOU THE KEY TO THESE WORLD-SHAKING EVENTS

Write for free booklet. o. sample copy at 25 cents, or yearly subscription at $ (to libraries. $2.50). Introductory subscription, four months for $1.00

WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE 4 EAST 12TH STREET NEW YORK (