T

HE World's Court League and the New York Peace Society have very recently combined their activities in an organization known as the League of Nations Union. Both these societies have a record of long-continued and earnest advocacy of peace and the rule of law rather than that of might. The platform of the World's Court League begins with the words: "We believe it to be desirable that a league among nations should be organized." It has published the "World Court Magazine," which is to be continued as the LEAGUE OF NATIONS MAGAZINE by the combined organization. This publication is unsurpassed in the variety and quality of its articles in the representative men who have. contributed to it. The New York Peace Society, originally founded in 1815, perhaps the earliest date of any peace society, has been the centre of activity, not only in New York but elsewhere, for propaganda in favor of arbitration and the promotion of international good-will. Indeed in the earlier months of the war, plans for the formation of the League to Enforce Peace were formulated in its office.

or

There have been numerous proposals in the past for a League to secure international cooperation and the orderly settlement of controver

sies, not merely by theorists or dreamers, but by practical statesmen and men of affairs. But the world was not ready for so beneficent a scheme. Alliances for the dominion or advantage of the few have been numerous, but no merging of the interests of all. The most terrible and destructive of wars has left its burning lesson. Humanity. demands that disputes between nations be no longer decided by a mad rush into bloodshed and savagery, but by the deliberate application of principles of right and justice. Again, a fruitful source of war in the past has been the domineering, insolent spirit of sovereigns and dynasties, supported by highly disciplined armies, and surrounded by an ambitious military class, believing in the right of conquest and constantly bent upon aggression. It was for their overthrow that this war was fought and won. Lasting peace was our aim. Thus, the possibilities for a League of Nations are now infinitely better than ever before. The time is ripe and every friend of peace should be alert. It is not safe to postpone until the future, for such a course would threaten defeat.

An unfortunate difference has arisen as to the immediate steps to be taken. On the one side the opinion which seems to have the largest sup

The

port in the United States Senate, has been expressed that the first requisite is an immediate peace. It is alleged in support of this view that a state of anarchy is threatened in Europe, that in the substitution for governments heretofore existing of new governments and new countries detached from the old, steps should be taken to frame a treaty of peace which will settle questions immediately pertaining to the late war. It is said the League of Nations should wait and be the result of deliberate consideration in the future. other view is that complications now existing are so manifold and that such substantial differences exist between countries which have been allied against Germany, that their solution will require time. Permanent and satisfactory peace can not be secured by agreement with Germany alone, but the fundamental causes of disturbance must be removed. It is also maintained that questions which are sure to arise in the future imperatively require some organization which has prestige and authority for their settlement. The Conference at Paris decided in favor of the latter method on the 25th of January, and decided to take up first, or at least as an integral part of the treaty, plans for a League of Nations, and a report was made on February 14, which is now before the world.

Far-reaching and most beneficent results are outlined in this report. They are sufficient to satisfy the most ardent aspirations of the friends of peace and rational progress. The utmost stress is laid

upon the avoidance of war. War anywhere and everywhere is proclaimed to be a matter of the utmost interest to the whole world. Arbitration and conciliation are carefully provided. Membership is limited to self-governing nations which give satisfactory evidence that they will observe their covenants. Provision is made for frequent meetings of an executive council, and a body of delegates intended to represent the whole civilized world, both of which are to give periodical consideration to matters of universal interest. The Covenant abolishes by one decisive stroke secret diplomacy, and asks for a revocation of treaties heretofore made which may endanger the world's peace, or stand in the way of the more enlightened policies which the Covenant sets forth. The limitation of armaments is provided for, also the control of the manufacture of munitions. The so-called backward nations are made the special care of the more advanced nations, and an effort is forecast to substitute for the policy of exploitation in vogue for so many centuries one of helpfulness and good will. It is proposed that international agencies, social and commercial, the central offices for which are now widely scattered, should be combined under the jurisdiction of the new league. The whole instrument breathes a spirit of necessity for international cooperation instead of repulsion.

It must be said, however, in this connection, that the Covenant, as it is called, requires clarification in some of its provisions, and it would

the friends of the League of Nations should be untiring in every activity on its behalf. A campaign of education is required, alike by public addresses and through the press, by the circulation of literature which should clearly show its advantages. It now seems probable that the question of a League of Nations will be the question of greatest interest for weeks and months to come. It is natural that it should be so, for the future depends so largely on an effective settlement which shall diminish in the greatest possible degree the danger of war.

The three objections which seem to be most vigorously presented in this country are, first, that this Covenant will embroil us in the controversies of Europe, and that these are not of our concern. This argument can no longer be made. Whatever happens in the remotest region of the globe is now a matter of the greatest interest to America. The question of our participation in world affairs was definitely settled when we entered the war, and we now realize that our entrance into it was not caused by the disregard of our rights on the sea, though that may have been the immediate cause of our declaring war, but was rather the fact that an irrepressible conflict has arisen between opposing ideas of popular rule and autocratic dominion, between the sovereignty of the sword and the rule of law, a question which must be settled, it is to be hoped, for all time.

The next objection is that in the Covenant we abdicate essential prerogatives of sovereignty. On examination of the document it will appear that this objection is less for

midable than has been maintained. If some degree of sovereignty must be relinquished the consideration of the greater good requires it. After such frightful suffering, in which we, though bearing a notable part, have suffered much less than other countries, it is time for a spirit of selfsacrifice and a reasonable degree of altruism.

The third objection is that the Covenant compels us to abandon the cherished Monroe doctrine, which has been a fundamental policy for nearly one hundred years. Of this it must be said, that a careful study of the scope of the Monroe doctrine does not justify views which are very commonly expressed. In the next place, if the document provides anything in this regard it makes the Monroe doctrine applicable throughout the whole world for the protection of all weaker nations from outside aggression, going much farther even in the protection of nations everywhere than we have for the protection of the countries of Central and South America.

It is of the utmost importance that every true patriot in the United States should be alive to the supreme importance of this question. It is not a time for partisanship, personal differences and grievances should be put aside. A new and grander era is promised in which law and liberty shall be the accepted policy of all nations. The League of Nations presents the most effective means for that end, and every effort should be made for perfecting its provisions and rendering it permanently effective.

T

are

HERE are clouds that look like mountains and vanish as you approach them. There mountains that look like clouds and deceive nine men out of ten into thinking that there is nothing solid about them till the procession draws near and climbs their slopes. That is where the men of to-day find themselveson Delectable Mountains such as they had never expected to see except in a vision. The hoped-for League of Nations has been a ality since the Entente began unitedly to fight for the freedom of the world, but it took on vast strength when America joined it and gained coherence and firmness as, in a score of economic ways, the states composing it cooperated much as though they were literally a unit.

re

This League evolved a practical constitution under the stress of the war and it seems about to take on a more literal and formal one. Even if it should utterly reject the new form of union that is now proposed, the world could never again be what it was before the transformation that war has made. Union, formal or informal, has come to stay, and the transformation extends to the people themselves. They are world citizens, whether they know it or not dependent on each other for freedom, order and prosperity. Not a single one of the nations that fought through the war to its victorious

end would feel safe or be so, in the years that are coming, without the protection of the others. The enemies of the Entente are also internationally minded and would make a League of Nations modeled after their own plans if the Entente should, by strange fatuity, neglect to make

one.

What is seriously before us for discussion is not the question whether a League of Nations shall or shall not exist, but how nearly the League that must and will exist shall conform to the particular plan that the Commission of the Peace Con

ference has reported.

ference has reported. It is a cautious plan and will not much affect the sovereignty of the states that may accept it; it satisfies most of the world and nearly satisfies most of America. A change or two would make it more acceptable to our people and remove most of the reluctance and the vague dread that make some of us hesitate and make a few vow that they will have no League whatever. This form of union, a modified form or no form at allsuch are the three alternatives among which our people are choosing, and it is clear already that a great majority favor the second of them and reject the first and the last. The syllogism in nearly all our minds is a very simple one; (1) we must not and will not have another war sevenfold worse than the present one;