Answer to Anti-Militarists.

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

As nearly as I can follow the anti-militarists, their arguments amount to this: the continued prevalence of rain is due to the pernicious custom of carrying umbrellas and wearing galoshes and mackintoshes.

Did an inadequate army keep Great Britain out of the present war? Did un-preparedness save Belgium? Has complete military inefficiency given China any voice in the disposal of her own territory?

Apart from a few owners of Mexican property, no one in this country favors an aggressive foreign policy, but we are bound to protect our own rights and the rights of others whose interests we are pledged to safeguard. The events of the last few months have shown that no rights, moral or loyal, are safe unless backed by force. So long as international highwaymen exist and there is no international police to cope with them, peaceful nations must arm in their own defence. The present conflict will probably dispose of a few of the more notorious highwaymen, but there are others, and no one has yet come forward with a practical plan for an international police force. Unless we are willing to hand over our belongings and forfeit not only our influence but our self-respect, we must fight when cornered. We do not want a war, but if one comes, let it be short and decisive.

National weakness is not a source of international strength--not yet. Harvard has always done its share in the past; a machine-gun company is a small contribution to the future. F. SCHENCK '09.