and Germany. We not only desire it, but with equal fervor we pray for it, but we differ irreconcilably as to the means of securing it.

"If it were merely a personal difference it would be a matter of little moment, for all the presumptions are on his side-the presumptions that go with power and authority. He is your President. I am a private citizen without office or title-but one of the hundred million of inhabitants.

"But the real issue is not between persons; it is between systems, and I rely for vindication wholly upon strength of the position taken.

"Among the influences which governments employ in dealing with each other there are two which are pre-eminent and antagonistic -force and persuasion. Force speaks with firmness and acts through the ultimatum; persuasion employs argument, court investigation, and depends upon negotiation. Force represents the old system-the system that must pass away. Persuasion represents the new system-the system that has been growing, all too slowly, it is true, but growing for nineteen hundred years.

"In the old system, war is the chief corner stone-war, which at its best is little better than war at its worst; the new system contemplates a universal brotherhood established through the uplifting power of example.

"If I correctly interpret the note to Germany it conforms to the standards of the old system rather than to the rules of the new, and I cheerfully admit that it is abundantly supported by precedents -precedents written in characters of blood upon almost every page of human history. Austria furnishes the most recent precedent; it was Austria's firmness that dictated the ultimatum against Serbia which set the world at war.

"Every ruler now participating in this unparalleled conflict has proclaimed his desire for peace and denied responsibility for the

war, and it is only charitable that we should credit all of them with good faith.

"They desired peace, but they sought it according to the rules of the old system They believed that firmness would give the best assurance of the maintenance of peace, and, faithfully following precedent, they went so near the whirlpool that they were one after another sucked into the contest.

"Never before have the frightful follies of this fatal system been so clearly revealed as now. The most civilized and enlightened -aye, the most Christian-of the nations of Europe are grappling with each other as if in a death struggle. They are sacrificing the best and bravest of their sons on the battlefield; they are converting their gardens into cemeteries and their homes into houses of mourning; they are taxing the wealth of today and laying a burden of debt on the toil of the future; they have filled the air with thunderbolts more deadly than those of Jove, and they have multiplied the perils of the deep.

"Adding fresh fuel to the flame of hate, they have daily devised new horrors, until one side is endeavoring to drown non-combatant men, women, and children at sea while the other side seeks to destroy non-combatant men, women, and children on land.

"And they are so absorbed in alien retaliations and in competitive cruelty that they seem, for the time being, blind to the rights of neutrals and deaf to the appeals of humanity. A tree is known by its fruit. The war in Europe is the ripened fruit of the old system.

"This is what firmness, supported by force, has done in the old world. Shall we invite it to cross the Atlantic? Already the jingoes of our own country have caught the rabies from the dogs of war. Shall the opponents of organized slaughter be silent while the disease spreads?

"As a humble follower of the Prince of Peace, as a devoted believer in the prophecy that, 'They that take the sword shall perish

with the sword,' I beg to be counted among those who earnestly urge the adoption of a course in this matter which will leave no doubt of our government's willingness to continue negotiations with Germany until an amicable understanding is reached, or at least until, the stress of war over, we can appeal from Philip, drunk with carnage, to Philip, sobered by the memories of an historic friendship and by a recollection of the innumerable ties of kinship that bind the fatherland to the United States.

"Some nation must lead the world out of the black night of war into the light of that day when 'swords shall be beaten into plowshares.' Why not make that honor ours? Some day-why not now?-the nations will learn that enduring peace can not be built upon fear-that good will does not grow upon the stalk of violence. Some day the nations will place their trust in love, the weapon for which there is no shield; in love, that suffereth long and is kind; in love, that is not easily provoked, that beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things; in love, which though despised as weakness by the worshipers of Mars, abideth when all else fails."

The Lusitania crisis ended with the third note, sent on July 22, which concluded with the statement that if Germany, without warning, sank any more vessels carrying American passengers, it would be considered a "deliberately unfriendly act." President Wilson himself inserted those words in the note which had been drafted by Secretary Franklin K. Lane. Robert Lansing, former counsel to the Department of State, was given the portfolio in Bryan's place.

Though Bryan and the President parted with such outward expressions of good will, the break between them never was mended again. It was riven open in 1920 when Bryan openly opposed Wilson's stand on the league of nations. The rift was hopelessly widened when the Wilson forces, in the convention of 1920, threw Bryan's league plank out of the party platform.

CHAPTER XXIV

Patriotism and Pacifism

Bryan's Stand Before and After War Is Declared-Early Views on Peace in General-Thousands Cheer Him at Madison Square Garden-Statement Explaining His Criticisms of President Wilson's Preparedness Policy-London Peace Congress Speech, 1916 -War-Bryan's Offer of Service Commoner's Editorial-Chicago Chautauqua Meeting, a Pro-War Address-Pendulum Swings Again After War-League of Nations Clash with Wilson-Patriot Higher Than a Partisan.

"Gladly would I have given my life to save my country from war, but now that my country has gone to war, gladly will I give my life to aid it."

This declaration by William Jennings Bryan prefaced a lecture he delivered in Albany, Georgia, on the 6th of April, 1917.

But it might also be used as the declaration of Bryan's life; of his reconciliation of the zeal of a peace-loving citizen with the service of an energetic patriot, in time of war. As a young man Bryan, you will remember, volunteered for service in the SpanishAmerican war, serving with the rank as a colonel in command of a regiment. But after the war, with the exigency removed, Bryan became an advocate of peace, personal and partisan.

The pendulum swung far in favor of peace. There was his famous lecture, "The Prince of Peace." There were scores of other articles, editorials, informal talks. During his membership in President Wilson's cabinet, with the portfolio of Secretary of State, Bryan bended his energies to the consummation of thirty peace treaties. Later, the ideal of peace, and his idea of how that ideal should be achieved, compelled him, he believed, to resign from the position of Secretary of State and break with Wilson, the man whose nomination he had really brought about.

So much for Bryan's attitude before the United States actually declared war. Once our country had given her ultimatum, the pendulum of Bryan's pacifism swung just as far, just as sincerely, and just as energetically, in the direction of active patriotism.

It is with these seemingly antithetical points of view that this chapter is concerned. Only Bryan found nothing inconsistent in the two swings. For, as he expressed himself in the pronunciamento at the beginning of this chapter, he would gladly have given his life to keep his country from war, but once war was declared, he would as gladly have give his life to aid the immediate and successful prosecution of that war.

First, let us consider that earlier, more detached viewpoint when, in "The Price of a Soul," Bryan is talking, more or less generically, of the value of peace, and of the righteousness which is both the cause and, sometimes the result, of peace.

In this speech he says, in part:

"I challenge the doctrine, now being taught, that we must enter into a mad rivalry with the Old World in the building of battleships -the doctrine that the only way to preserve peace is to get ready for wars that ought never to come! It is a barbarous, brutal, unChristian doctrine-the doctrine of the darkness, not the doctrine of the dawn.

"Nation after nation, when at the zenith of its power, has proclaimed itself invincible because its army could shake the earth. with its tread, and its ships could fill the seas, but these nations are dead, and we must build upon a different foundation if we would avoid their fate.

"Carlyle, in the closing chapters of his 'French Revolution' says that thought is stronger than artillery parks and at last molds the world like soft clay, and then he adds that back of the thought is love. Carlyle is right. Love is the greatest power in the world.