vately, "I know the people look for the dismemberment of Germany, and some look for her destruction, but this is not the intelligent opinion or intelligent desire. Germany is an indispensable part of the world's industrial, commercial, financial, and political organization. To destroy Germany would be a world loss." The opinion of eminent political and financial people in England is that Germany can never repair the total damage she may inflict. So far as England is concerned, next after the destruction of Germany's war-power, giving insurance of a European peace, comes first the indemnification of every financial loss that Belgium suffers. This is now estimated at from $1,500,000,000 to $2,500,000,000.

What there will be left over in the way of Germany's ability to pay, aside from the Kiel Canal, Alsace and Lorraine, and German Poland, is problematical.

To have Germany able to pay even a part of the damage she is inflicting upon the world, she must be put back upon her industrial feet. Therefore, I have declared, when asked about this matter, that in the end England would be found the best friend of Germany. But conquered and destroyed must be the Prussian war

machine of aggression, or crumbles the art and industry of republican France and the democracy of English speech, thought, and govern

ment.

CHAPTER XVI

THE LESSONS FOR AMERICA

Wealth is National Defense

plies International

-

Gold Mobilization - Food SupNo Financial Independence - Tariffs as

War Causes Are We in a Fool's Paradise?

THE lessons for the United States and for all America from this war are so many that it is difficult to arrange them in order.

The first lesson is that nations can be no longer isolated units. A hundred years ago the United States desired to be free from Europe, - from its political system, its wage system, and its social system. To-day the United States cannot desire to be freed from any country in the world. Its Panama Canal, its demand for a mercantile marine, for countries to take its cotton and cotton goods, and its inquiry as to where it can get potash salts and chemical dyes, all show the interrelation of modern business which has broken all national boundaries.

England is talking to-day of a closer federation in her empire to follow this war. She is asking why she alone should be the protector of the seas, and of the peace of Europe, not only for

THE LESSONS FOR AMERICA

165

herself and her colonies, but for the whole world. She is already talking of a federation for the empire by which Australia, Canada, etc., will have direct representation in Parliament, and assist directly in bearing the burden of the maintenance of peace. I doubt if a British federation will strengthen the British Empire. Mutual interest is the great federator. The unwritten Constitution of England has more binding force than the written Constitution of the United States. The Triple Entente is stronger and more binding than the Triple Alliance.

The whole world is interested in the maintenance of peace, and it should not be the business of any one nation or empire to maintain the peace of the world.

Secondly, if the burden is put upon England to maintain the peace of the seas and the peace of Europe, she must have a growing empire to support that burden.

Already the English people see the spread of her influence which is to follow this war and make Cecil Rhodes's dream of a Cape to Cairo railroad a reality for Africa. Egypt, Palestine, and Asia Minor are hereafter to be restored in fertility and give a new civilization to the shores of the eastern Mediterranean.

Is it to be assumed that with the new development for Africa and Asia, Europe is going to abandon her interest on the continents of America?

Will not the very force of these developments make a foundation for European developments in North and South America?

Have we not seen that the British Empire has still some interest in the Panama canal? Is it to be supposed that when peace succeeds in Europe, and the European nations lie down together for another period of mutual development, France will make no inquiry concerning her $300,000,000 of property in Mexico? Or that England will adopt Mr. Bryan's idea that any Englishman or American who goes into Mexico cannot look for any protection from his home government?

I believe that Lord Cowdray is to-day the foremost business man in England. He represents oil lands in Mexico worth intrinsically more than $100,000,000. Is it the policy of the British government to say, "Cowdray, forget it, and come over and develop Mesopotamia; living is unsettled in Mexico, and Uncle Sam has told 'em to fight it out"?

A third lesson the United States will receive from this war is the value of large units in busi