WOULD FROM LEAGUE OF POWERFUL NATIONS

In an article in the current issue of "The World's Work". President Lowell makes an appeal to pacifists, preparationists and plain people, to interest themselves in the principles of the League to Enforce Peace, which he with ex-President Taft and others Organized at Philadelphia, in Independence Hall, on June 17.

The main feature of the league's proposals, which is that joint military forces of a league of the great powers be used to compel nations to arbitrate their disputes before going to war, was originated by President Lowell.

The article says:

"There are three currents of opinion about war in this country which are unaware that they are all on the same side. They are represented by the pacifists, the preparationists, and the rest of the people who in ordinary times do not think about the subject at all.

"The pacifists feel intensely the horrors of war, not only in our won land, but throughout the world. They regard it rightly as one of the greatest scourges of mankind--one of the darkest blots on our civilization. They have formed innumerable societies to abolish it; and large sums of money have been given to aid their work. But they give the impression of seeing the end more clearly than the means, and appear to think that war can be forever drowned out by a flood of talk, that the pen can grind the sword into a plowshare. Some pacifists speak as if any alternate were always preferable to war; and yet very few of them would carry the principle of non-resistance so far as to reduce this country to the condition of china, a prey to the foreign spoiler. Between national subjection or humiliation and war they would not hesitate. Nor are they, with few exceptions, unwilling to adopt such means as may be necessary to avert wars, or to reduce their frequency--even though the means were necessary to attain the end. To such people, those who advocate seriously any rational means of advancing the cause of universal peace can appeal with confidence of a respectful hearing.

"Defencelessness no Protection".

"The preparationists, on the other hand, fix their attention primarily on the means of securing the safety of our own land from injury by war. They realize that defencelessness is not the best protection from aggression. Knowing that we do not covet the possessions of others, they believe that foreign nations are less likely to quarrel with us if we are well able to defend ourselves. Few again, if any, of these men want to increase our military forces in order to go to war; and they are, no doubt, right that a reasonable state of preparation is far more likely to avert than to precipitate hostilities. There is no danger of our becoming a military people embarked upon the career of conquest. But perhaps these men do not fully appreciate the importance to us of preventing wars elsewhere; of using our own preparedness as part of a larger plan of policing the whole world; and of preventing so far as possible the starting of a conflagration which may set us afire, however small our connection with the people who strike the match, and our direct interest in the questions that caused them to do so. To the prepara- tionists, therefore, the suggestion of a league to enforce peace ought to appeal as a means of doing on an international scale the thing they are seeking to do for the United States.

War Brought Home to People

"Finally, the great mass of citizens, who do not under ordinary conditions think much about the prevention of war, have had its terrible results brought home to them in a way that has not happened since the days of our own Civil War. Moreover, they regarded that struggle, even while it was going on, as a catastrophe which could never be repeated. But now they have seen a contest, based upon conflicting national interests that might at some future time apply to this hemisphere; and they have stood themselves upon the brink of war, although the interests at stake between the contending powers in no way affected this country. They have been like the man who thinks he is so careful about his own domestic affairs that it is unnecessary to insure his buildings, until his neighbor's house catches fire. To the great mass of our people the advocates for a league to enforce peace can well say that the proposal they urge is one that should be carefully considered by every one.

"Although war may for a time stimulate trade and manufactures, and thereby prosperity, in a neutral country sufficiently distant from the scene of conflict, it must ultimately be paid for, and in the end every part of the civilized world inevitably bears some share of the loss. This is the more true the larger the war. The waste and dislocation are certain to bring in the belligerent countries a depression of business that will go round the world. The self-interest of all nations, therefore, as well as the cause of humanity, ought to make every country desire peace among others as well as for itself. This is universally admitted by our people today. It is accepted as an axiom; but the means to the end are uncertain. We have been fascinated by the idea of arbitration, of an international tribunal, of conferences at the Hague, of treaties to regulate peace and war; and yet everyone knows that in the relations of private individuals such arrangements, valuable as they are, would be insufficient without a power to enforce them. In private life, contracts would be broken frequently, if no damages could be exacted for the breach. But nations are not more scrupulous than individuals in breaking an agreement when the temptation is strong, and war comes only when temptation is strong and passion or pressure is great. In fact, most men who have thought deeply on these subjects are becoming convinced that there must be some form of compulsion to make countries respect the rights of others; as the lawyers say, the obligation must have a sanction.

Proposal does not go Far.

"The suggestion for a league of nations to enforce peace does not go very far--not far enough to please those who look forward to a universal federation of the world, but probably quite as far as is practicable. It proposes that the members shall agree not to go to war with one another before submitting the matter in dispute -- whether strictly a question of international law or not--to an impartial body selected to examine it; and that all the members shall pledge themselves to declare war on any of their number that begins hostilities against another without submitting the question in that way.

"Now observe, the members of the league do not bind themselves to accept the award, but only to present their case and hear the decision. Let us consider the probable effect in a concrete case. Take that of the controversy with England about Venezuela, and suppose, what did not happen, that feeling in the two countries had run dangerously high. If the league had consisted, besides these two nations, of France, Germany, Russia, and Japan, neither England nor the United States, however excited, would for a moment have thought of risking war with all the other powers. They would have done just what in that case was done, submitted the whole matter in dispute to arbitration, and even if the decision had proved distasteful, passion would have had such time to cool that the result would in all probability have been accepted, or the parties would have agreed upon a compromise.

"A nation that desires war and is prepared for it would, by submitting the case to a court, lose the advantage of surprise by a sudden attack and hence would be less anxious to go to war. The mere fact of delay would give time for sober second thought, and for the advocates of peace within the country itself to make their protests heard. If time is given, war can hardly be made without the support of public opinion, and the dream of those who have been urging that the people must be consulted would be fulfilled. In short, the essence of the proposal is the enforcement of delay.

An Overwhelming Force Needed

"But many good men ask: Why resort to military force? Why not try milder measures; a conference of the members of the league, or commercial non-intercourse? To pledge nations to declare war is a dreadful thing. Apply the same question to the maintenance of order within a city. Why have a policeman, and why should he be armed? If he sees a burglar breaking into a house, or a highwayman attacking a wayfarer, why should he not call a meeting of the city council for conference Why instead of having a police force, should not the citizens agree to boycott offenders? The answer is clearly--because it would not be effective in preventing violence. By the time such remedies can be applied, the harm is done; in the case of nations the war has begun, and the world is ablaze. The fear of an international boycott may be great, but for a country that has prepared elaborately for war it is slight compared with the prospect of an armed conflict with all the other great powers of the world. What is needed is the certainty of collision with an overwhelming force. Such a force, if it could really be created by a league to enforce peace, would probably never be used. The very fact of its existence would be enough to ensure the year's truce of God.

"Allusion has been made to the nation that has prepared elaborately for war. One of the great objects of all men who desire peace is to reduce the armament of Europe, to lessen the extent of preparation for war. But among their most cherished plans is that of forbidding the sale of munitions by a neutral nation to a belligerent, which would have exactly the opposite effect. It would put a premium on preparedness, for when war broke out the unprepared munitions abroad, would be in a hopeless condition against its neighbor armed to the teeth. If we want to reduce excessive armaments, and the spirit of militarism that goes with them, we must seek to curtail the advantage of preparedness, and that is precisely what is done by securing de-