willing to die for an idea. The sweet revenge, therefore, is this, that we believed in righteousness, and now we are ready to make the supreme sacrifice for it, the supreme sacrifice of throwing in our fortunes with the fortunes of men everywhere. Mr. Taft was speaking of Washington's utterance about entangling alliances, and if he will permit me to say so, he put the exactly right interpretation upon what Washington said, the interpretation that is inevitable if you read what he said, as most of these gentlemen do not. And the thing that he longed for was just what we are now about to supply; an arrangement which will disentangle all the alliances in the world. Nothing entangles, nothing enmeshes a man except a selfish combination with somebody else. Nothing entangles a nation, hampers it, binds it, except to enter into a combination with some other nation against the other nations of the world. And this great disentanglement of all alliances is now to be accomplished by this covenant, because one of the covenants is that no nation shall enter into any relationship with another nation inconsistent with the covenants of the League of Nations. Nations promise not to have alliances. Nations promise not to make combinations against each other. Nations agree that there shall be but one combination, and that is the combination of all against the wrongdoer. And so I am going back to my task on the other side with renewed vigor. I had not forgotten what the spirit of the American people is, but I have been immensely refreshed by coming in contact with it again. I did not know how good home felt until I got here. The only place a man can feel at home is where nothing has to be explained to him. Nothing has to be explained to me in America, least of all the sentiment of the American people. I mean about great fundamental things like this. There are many differences of judgment as to policy-and perfectly legitimate sometimes profound differences of judgment; but those are not differences of sentiment, those are not differences of purpose, those are not differ ences of ideals. And the advantage of not having to have anything explained to you is that you recognize a wrong explanation when you hear it. In a certain rather abandoned part of the frontier at one time it was said they found a man who told the truth; he was not found telling it, but he could tell it when he heard it. And I think I am in that situation with regard to some of the criticisms I have heard. They do not make any impression on me, because I know there is no medium that will transmit them, that the sentiment of the country is proof against such narrowness and such selfishness as that. I commend these gentlemen to communion with their fellow-citizens. What are we to say, then, as to the future? I think, my fellow-citizens, that we can look forward to it with great confidence. I have heard cheering news since I came to this side of the water about the progress that is being made in Paris toward the discussion and clarification of a great many difficult matters and I believe that settlements will begin to be made rather rapidly from this time on at those conferences. But what I believe, what I know as well as believe, is this: That the men engaged in those conferences are gathering heart as they go, not losing it; that they are finding community of purpose and community of ideal to an extent that perhaps they did not expect; and that amidst all the inter-play of influence-because it is infinitely complicated-amidst all the interplay of influence, there is a forward movement which is running toward the right. Men have at last perceived that the only permanent thing in the world is the right, and that a wrong settlement is bound to be a temporary settlement-bound to be a temporary settlement for the very best reason of all, that it ought to be a temporary settlement, and the spirits of men will rebel against it, and the spirits of men are now in the saddle. When I was in Italy a little limping group of wounded Italian soldiers sought an interview with me. I could not conjecture what it was they were going to say to me, and with the greatest simplicity, with a touching simplicity, they presented me with a petition in favor of the League of Nations. Their wounded limbs, their impaired vitality were the only argument they brought with them. It was a simple request that I lend all the influence that I might happen to have to relieve future generations of the sacrifices that they had been obliged to make. That appeal has remained in my mind as I have ridden along the streets in European capitals and heard cries of the crowd, cries for the League of Nations, from lips of people who, I venture to say, had no particular notion of how it was to be done, who were not ready to propose a plan for a League of Nations, but whose hearts said that something by way of a combination of all men everywhere must come out of this. As we drove along country roads weak old women would come out and hold flowers up to us. Why should they hold flowers up to strangers from across the Atlantic? Only because they believed that we were the messengers of friendship and of hope, and these flowers were their humble offerings of gratitude that friends from so great a distance should have brought them so great a hope. It is inconceivable that we should disappoint them, and we shall not. The day will come when men in America will look back with swelling hearts and rising pride that they should have been privileged to make the sacrifice which it was necessary to make in order to combine their might and their moral power with the cause of justice for men of every kind everywhere. God give us the strength and vision to do it wisely! God give us the privilege of knowing that we did it without counting the cost and because we were true Americans, lovers of liberty and of the right! "The Period of Aloofness Is Past" W By NICHOLAS MURRAY BUTLER RITING in the New York Tribune, a Republican newspaper, under date of February 25, Dr. Butler says: A society of nations is wholly in accord with Republican traditions, Republican principles and well established Republican policy. The only formal declaration known to me to have been made on this subject by any party convention in the United States is that adopted by the Republican State Convention held at Saratoga on July 19 last. That declaration reads: "We favor the immediate creation by the United States and its Allies of a League of Nations to establish, from time to time, to modify, and to enforce, the rules of international law and conduct. The purpose of this League should be, not to displace patriotism or devotion and loyalty to national ideals and traditions, but rather to give to these new opportunities of expression in cooperation with the other liberty loving nations of the world. To membership in the League any nation might be admitted that possesses a responsible government which will abide by those rules of law and equity, and by those principles of international justice and morality which are accepted by civilized people." It would be most unfortunate for this question to become a partisan one, or to fail of consideration on its merits regardless of any party declarations hitherto made. Nevertheless, it may be helpful for Republicans to ask whether the draft plan that has been submitted for discussion and amendment, as a result of the preliminary work of the peace conference at Paris, is or is not a league of the type described in the declaration just quoted. If it is a league of this type, it will be a logical deduction from the foreign policies of the McKinley, Roosevelt and Taft administrations, illuminated by the lessons of the war. If it is not a league of this type, then we may well strive to shape it so that it will become such while the plan is still open to discussion and amendment. Blindly to oppose any better form of world organization because we do not like some of the details of the plan now proposed, is political madness, as well as in the highest degree reactionary. The draft plan is so ill drawn and so full of unnecessary difficulties that its critics will have an easy task in making those facts plain to the people. The constructive critic, however, will not content himself with opposition to any plan whatsoever because he does not like some of the points of this plan, but will endeavor to show how it may be transformed into a wiser and a better plan. It is probable that the difficulties in the way of acceptance by the Senate and the American people generally of any plan for a society of nations may be summarized under two heads: First, agreement upon the principles of international law and international administration which are hereafter to prevail in the world; and, second, agreement upon a method for their enforcement that will not displace the Monroe Doctrine. If the votes of the two Hague conferences of 1899 and 1907 be taken as a starting point, it should not be difficult to put into the draft plan a succinct statement of principles of international law and conduct upon which the whole civilized world will agree. The question will then arise as to the enforcement of these principles. There are grave objections to any plan which will compel America to accept responsibility for matters of international administration in Europe, in Asia or in Africa, and there are equally grave objections to any plan that will substitute for the Monroe Doctrine international control on the part of the nations of Europe and Asia of matters affecting the American continents alone. It might be worth while to consider whether, given a single code of principles of international law and international administration, the world might not then be divided into three administra tive areas: First, Europe, Africa and the parts of Asia immediately adjoining Europe and Africa; second, the American continents, and, third, the Orient, including Japan, China and Siam. Should these three administrative areas be created, all owing allegiance to a common code of law and principle, then the world would have, in effect, a Monroe Doctrine for each area, and the original Monroe Doctrine would be preserved unharmed and unamended. Should any exceptional breach of international law and order take place within a given administrative area, as when Germany invaded Belgium in 1914, which the forces of law and order within that area were unable to subdue, the similar forces in one or both of the other administrative areas could then be called upon to take part in upholding the principles to which all alike had given allegiance. Americans, and especially Republicans, will recall two striking sentences in President McKinley's, last speech, delivered at Buffalo, on September 5, 1901: "No nation can longer be indifferent to any other." "The period of aloofness is past." These declarations marked the beginning of a new world attitude on the part of the people of the United States. The proposals contained in Theodore Roosevelt's address before the Nobel Prize Committee, delivered at Christiania, Norway, on May 5, 1910, should not be overlooked at this time, since some of them go even beyond the provisions of the present draft plan. "It would be a master stroke if those great powers honestly bent on peace would form a league of peace, not only to keep the peace among themselves, but to prevent, by force if necessary, its being broken by others. The supreme difficulty in connection with developing the peace work of The Hague arises from the lack of any executive power, of any police power, to enforce the decrees of the courts." For several generations the American government has had a large part in the development and establishment of international law and order. On many occasions, through resolutions of the Congress, through executive declarations, through diplomatic correspondence, through special treaties and through participation in numerous international conferences and conventions, the American people have exerted far-reaching influence in making international law and in developing an international public opinion. Republicans in particular must not allow their justifiable resentment at the President's methods and policies to drive them into an unstatesmanlike attitude, and one wholly out of harmony with their long tradition, on the greatest question now before the court of public opinion. Vol. V, No. 4. Published monthly, $2 a year, by League of Nations Union, Educational Building, 2 West 13th Street, New York, Entered as second-class matter, March 5, 1919, at the post office at New York, N. Y., under INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE WORLD'S COURT LEAGUE Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, President Dr. Aristides Agramonte, Habana, Cuba. Mr. George Louis Beer, 329 West 71st Street, M. Enrico Bignami, Villa Coenobium, Lugano, Switzerland. Dr. R. Brenes Mesén, Secretary of Public Instruction, San José, Costa Rica. Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, President of Columbia University, New York. President of the Council. Dr. W. Evans Darby, "Jesmond," 59 Norfolk Road, Seven Kings, Essex, England. Dr. M. Diaz Rodriguez, El Ministro de Fomenta, Caracas, Venezuela. Professor Guglielmo Ferrero, Historian, Viale Machiavelli, No. 7, Florence, Italy. Dr. Edoardo Giretti, Deputy in Parliament, Bricherasio, Italy. Dr. Juan Silvano Godoi, Museo de Bellas Artes é Histórico y Biblioteca Americana, Asunción, Paraguay. M. Henri Golay, Secrétaire général du Bureau international de la Paix, Berne, Switzerland. Dr. Charles Noble Gregory, 1502 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. Dr. Alonso Reyes Guerra, San Salvador, Salvador, C. A. Mr. Carl Heath, Parliament Chambers, Great Smith Street, Westminster, London, S. W., England. Mr. F. W. Hirst, 27, Campden Hill Square, W., London, England. Mr. John A. Hobson, 3, Gayton Crescent, Hampstead, N. W., London, England. Dr. William I. Hull, Professor of History and International Relations, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pa. Dr. Toyokichi Iyenaga, Managing Director The East and West News Bureau, Woolworth Building, New York City. Jhr. B. de Jong Van Beek en Donk, Prinsessegracht, 19, The Hague, Netherlands. Baron K. Kaneko, Tokio, Japan. Hon. W. L. McKenzie King, The Roxborough, Ottawa, Canada. Gen. F. D. Légitime, Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Hon. Theodore Marburg, Baltimore, Maryland. Dr. Rafael Montúfar, Villa Montúfar, Paramus Road, Ridgewood, N. J. Dr. Ernesto Nelson, Universidad Libre, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Dr. Otfried Nippold, Professor of International Law, Thun, Switzerland. Mr. Alex H. Nordvall, Stockholm, Sweden. Prof. L. Oppenheim, Whewell House, Cambridge, England. M. Paul Otlet, General Secretary of the Union of International Associations, 4, Rue Edouard VII., Paris, France. Sir George Paish, Limpsfield, Surrey, Eng. land. Sir Gilbert Parker, 20, Carlton House Terrace, London, S. W., England. Dr. Jules Prudhommeaux, General Secretary of the "Association de la Paix par le Droit," and of the European Bureau of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 8 Rue Jacques Boyceau, Versailles, France. Hon. Paul S. Reinsch, Minister, Legation of the United States, Peking, China. Dr. Charles Richet, Hospital No. 82, CôteSt. André (Isère) Paris, France. Hon. William Renwick Riddell, The Supreme Court of Ontario, Osgoode Hall, Toronto, Can. Dr. Dámaso Rivas, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. Dr. Theodore Ruyssen, Rue Monjardin, 10, Nimes, France. Mr. Fernando Sanchez De Fuentes, Habana, Cuba. H. E. Baron Y. Sakatani, Koishikawa, Haramachi, Tokio, Japan. Dr. Albert A. Snowden, 149 Broadway, New York City. Dr. Jokichi Takamine, Equitable Building, New York City. Judge William H. Wadhams, 126 East 80th Street, New York City. Hon. Edward Wavrinsky, Stockholm, Sweden. Rt. Hon. Lord Weardale, Carlton Gardens, London, S. W., England. Prof. George G. Wilson, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Mr. H. Charles Woods, Warnford Park, Bishop's Waltham, Hampshire, England. Mr. L. S. Woolf, Hogarth House, Richmond, Surrey, England. Mr. Israel Zangwill, Far End, East Preston, Sussex, England. Dr. E. S. Zeballos, Buenos Aires, Argentina. |