The University RecordVolume II JANUARY igi6 Number 1PREPARATIONS FOR PEACE1WALTER L. FISHER, LL.D.Former Secretary of the InteriorHalf-truths are dangerous because the element of truth which theycontain carries conviction and easily leads to its application far beyondthe real significance to which it is entitled. We are at present in gravedanger of just such a misconception of one of the most prevalent statements with regard to military preparation. The sentiment of thiscountry is undoubtedly opposed to militarism. Our ideals and purposesare peaceful. No imperialistic propaganda could hope to succeed if itscharacter and purposes were understood. The agitation for increasingour military forces is as a whole genuinely peaceful in its purpose.Certainly it makes its great appeal upon the ground that preparation forwar is essential for the preservation of peace. The proverbs of theancients and the utterances of our early Presidents are the mottoes itrepeats: Si vis pacem para bellum, "If you wish peace prepare for war."And undoubtedly in a world where selfishness and greed and lust ofpower still move the mass and the rulers of men to the extent they dotoday, where force is still believed to constitute a necessary if not aproper means of advancing national interests and national ideals,military preparation against war is an essential for securing peace.But there is real danger that we shall be misled — or may deceive ourselves— into believing that preparation for war is the most important thing forus if we desire to secure our own peace and to promote the peace of the1 Delivered (in part) as an address on the occasion of the Ninety-seventhConvocation of the University of Chicago held in Leon Mandel Assembly Hall,December 21, 19 15.12 THE UNIVERSITY RECORDworld. Nothing, it seems to me, could be more unfortunate than such aresult. If we wish peace, the most important thing is not to preparefor war — although that we should do. If we wish peace, the mostimportant — the all-important — thing is to prepare for peace; to do thethings that make for peace and that promote peace, not the thingsthat make for war and promote war. And yet these peaceful measuresare the things that are receiving scant attention.I am led to present to you some thoughts upon this subject becausethe significance of the great war in which the larger part of the civilizedworld is now engaged is the one absorbing interest of our whole intellectual lif e. I have no thought that I shall say things that have not beenbetter said by others — that I have anything original to impart. Iam moved by a deep conviction that mankind is struggling with destinyas it has seldom struggled before, and that it is the duty of every manand woman — and especially of every educated man and woman — tothink of this world-war, its causes, and its probable results; and, as histhoughts become at all definite, to express them, if it be only in confirmation of, or dissent from, the views expressed by others which are likelyto affect public opinion and public action. It is a time for each humanbeing, in humility and sincerity, to ask himself: "What do I think?What is the explanation of this appalling catastrophe and what is tofollow it ? What should and what can I, in my tiny circle of possibleaction, do to help, if ever so little, toward a right solution of the problemsit presents?"What might be called its purely academic interest is greater thanany other interest of the student. It pervades the library and thelaboratory, the classroom and the lecture-hall, and the quiet cloisters ofthe university. What a compelling stimulus to intellectual activity itis; what a zest it adds to all our studies in physical, political, social,and economic science; to what fierce tests it is subjecting our theories ofhuman progress and social evolution!There is nothing, indeed, so instructive, so absorbing, so essential forus — as individuals and as a nation — to understand as the mighty conflict that is now going on ; its causes and its consequences, its horrors andits folly. It is important for all of us to appreciate the reality of itshorror. But I am not qualified to picture this horror if I would, and thisis not the place or the occasion. It is fitting, however, for us to considerits folly, and how we in the future may escape such folly. "Wisdomis the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy gettingget understanding."PREPARATIONS FOR PEACE 3There is a call for the public service of educated men and womensuch as has not been heard in the world since the French Revolution.For we must go back to France and the Napoleonic era for any suchepochal events as are happening in the world today. It is quite possible, perhaps it is exceedingly probable, that the actual consequencesupon our whole intellectual, social, political, and economic outlook thatwill follow and result from this war will be greater than those that followed even that great upheaval of civilized society. It is only as weunderstand how fundamental are the issues that are forced upon usthat we shall meet those issues intelligently and wisely. Our danger,and the danger of Europe, is that we shall see its causes and effectssuperficially and shall devise superficial remedies and adopt a superficial settlement. There are so many essentially superficial phases ofthe situation that are nevertheless so important and so compelling intheir interest that we can all be forgiven for misconceiving their relativeimportance compared with the deeper issues; but it is only as we findand face these deeper issues of transcendent consequence that we shallwork good out of this awful evil that has fallen on mankind.Already the danger of one great folly from a superficial view ofthis war has become apparent, and that is that we shall think of it asdue to, and as an exhibition of, ruthless military power; that it is due towhat is called Prussianism, and that if we could just curb and destroyPrussianism the world could go on quite satisfactorily, upon the whole,and without any serious or fundamental disturbance of the establishedsocial, political, economic, and intellectual order. No mistake couldbe made so disastrous to the future peace and progress of mankind as this.Even if the Prussian war-god sits the saddle in Germany today wagingwar with a ruthlessness that appalls mankind and an efficiency thatcompels its admiration, nevertheless how pitiful would be the conclusionthat what appalls us is not war, but merely the ruthlessness and efficiency with which it is made.It was an American thinking of war in America who said that "Waris hell!" — not German war or English war or Russian war, but war,wherever waged or by whatever nation. There was never a great warwaged that did not produce all the atrocities of this war, on one side oron both. The scale of the atrocities may be greater, as the scale of thiswar is greater. Even the doctrine of frightfulness is a doctrine that hasbeen defended and practiced by every nation, even our own, withinsuch limits and under such conditions as each nation has determined foritself at the time and according to its exigency as it saw it. There are4 THE UNIVERSITY RECORDfew follies equal to the folly of imagining that war can be madehumane.Our own "Instructions for the Government of Armies of the UnitedStates in the Field" (General Orders No. ioo, 1863), issued underAbraham Lincoln, the most humane of Presidents, and again issuedwithout modification during the war with Spain in 1898, announced:To save the country is paramount to all other considerations.AND18. When the commander of a besieged place expels the noncombatants, in orderto lessen the number of those who consume his stock of provisions, it is lawful, thoughan extreme measure, to drive them back, so as to hasten on the surrender.19. Commanders, whenever admissible, should inform the enemy of their intentionto bombard a place, so that the noncombatants, and especially the women and children,may be removed before the bombardment commences. But it is no infraction of thecommon law of war to omit thus to inform the enemy. Surprise may be a necessity.No matter how clear the evidence may seem to some of us today,we are too near the event to be sure of our perspective. We must notforget how often "Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers." Even ifwe make certain that Servia was the occasion, not the cause, of thiswar; that Germany had prepared for "the day" and that she chose theday which she thought was most favorable to her; that she, and noother, precipitated this horrible cataclysm of cruelty and destruction —even if we spare whatever nation is responsible no part of the just condemnation of mankind for touching the match to the powder that hadbeen so assiduously laid throughout Europe, and that needed only thematch — how blind, how pitifully and perversely blind, we should be notto recognize that the fundamental error consisted in having a state ofinternational relations that was prepared for the match; that thefundamental responsibility, deeper than Prussianism, was with thenations that built and maintained their civilizations over a powdermagazine! Without now discussing whether any other basis of internationalism is practicable than the basis of national armament and ofmilitary force, how foolish, how unfair, to say that, in a society ofnations based on force, that nation which acquires and uses the greatestand the most efficient force is exclusively to blame for an explosion thatleads to a test of force! The matured and distant judgment of mankind will be little concerned with awarding praise or blame on the basisof the relative extent or efficiency of military preparation, or even of therelative ruthlessness with which military force was used in a state ofsociety based on force and on the use of force to secure or to retain theright to exploit other lands and peoples.PREPARATIONS FOR PEACE 5The truth is that the really great differences between the warringnations are only differences of degree — degrees of militarism, degrees ofdemocracy, degrees of political and economic intelligence. I do notminimize these differences. So gigantic is the scale on which the world-movement proceeds that these differences of degree become of hugedimensions and importance when the diverging lines are projected intothe expanded field of action. In war, international differences arecentrifugal. Chasms widen as the circumference of the conflict expandsand the conflict becomes more intense. War distorts and exaggeratesand intensifies every difference of national feeling, every national misunderstanding. If, however, it be true that Germany is more militaristic than England or France or Russia or Italy, it is true only as astatement of the degree in which each of these nations has been and ismilitaristic. If it be true that Germany believes that she has a nationalideal and peculiar national interests — political, economic, intellectual —which can be advanced by military force, the same thing is true of eachof her rivals. If it be true that militarism in Germany is a menace to theworld, it is also true that militarism in the rest of Europe is a menace tothe world. Does Germany believe that she has a peculiar mission toperform in the unfolding of civilization, that her form of political organization, her economic and intellectual processes, offer the greatest assurance of human progress, and that it is her duty as well as her right toimpose this Kultur on the world ? England has been obsessed by thesame megalomaniac folly. So have we. If, happily, we are less surethat we are the people, and that wisdom is in danger lest it die with us,can we claim anything more than that we have seen the futility of suchegotism, ever so little sooner and ever so little more clearly than someothers? Are John Bull and Brother Jonathan types of modest self-effacement and humility before the slowly unfolding secrets of theuniverse ?We have been reading much of the lords and prophets of war inGermany; but have they uttered anything more frankly militaristicthan Lord Roberts, "Little Bobs," the military idol of Great Britain?How was this Empire of Britain founded ? War founded this Empire — war andconquest! When we, therefore, masters by war of one-third of the habitable globe,when we propose to Germany to disarm, to curtail her navy or diminish her army,Germany naturally refuses; and pointing not without justice to the road by whichEngland, sword in hand, has climbed to her unmatched eminence, declares openlyor in the veiled language of diplomacy, that by the same path, if by no other, Germanyis determined also to ascend! Who amongst us, knowing the past of this nation, andthe past of all nations and cities that have ever added the lustre of their name to human6 THE UNIVERSITY RECORDannals, can accuse Germany or regard the utterance of one of her greatest a year andhalf ago [or of General Bernhardi three months ago] with any feelings except those ofrespect ?Norman Angell, in his recent book on America and the New WorldState, has collected this and many other quotations which demonstratethat there is an "Anglo-Saxon Prussianism" which differs only fromGerman Prussianism in the extent to which it has attained popularsupport or official power. And yet it was the bitter complaint of Bernhardi and Trietschke that their ideas had so little influence among thepeople or in official circles. The most interesting to me of all AngelPsquotations is that from the Belgian author, Doctor Sarolea, who, inhis book on The Anglo-German Problem, says:What is even more serious and ominous, so far as the prospects of peace are concerned, the German who knows that he is right from his own point of view, knows thathe is also right from the English point of view; he knows that the premises on whichhe is reasoning are still accepted by a large section of the English people. Millionsof English people are actuated in their policy by those very imperialistic principleson which the Germans take their stand. After all, German statesmen are only applying the political lessons which England has taught them, which Mr. Rudyard Kiplinghas sung, and Mr. Chamberlain has proclaimed in speeches innumerable. Both theEnglish Imperialist and the German Imperialist believe that the greatness of a countrydoes not depend mainly on the virtues of the people, or on the resources of the homecountry, but largely on the capacity of the home country to acquire and to retain largetracts of territory all over the world. Both the English Imperialist and the GermanImperialist have learned the doctrine of Admiral Mahan, that the greatness and prosperity of a country depend mainly on sea-power. Both believe that efficiency andsuccess in war is one of the main conditions of national prosperity.Now as long as the two nations do not rise to a saner political ideal, as long asboth English and German people are agreed in accepting the current political philosophy, as long as both nations shall consider military power not merely as a necessary and temporary evil to submit to, but as a permanent and noble ideal to striveafter, the German argument remains unanswerable. War is indeed predestined,and no diplomatists sitting round a great table in the Wilhelmstrasse or the Ballplatzor the Quai d'Orsay will be able to ward off the inevitable. It is only, therefore, inso far as both nations will move away from the old political philosophy that anunderstanding between Germany and England will become possible It is theideas and the ideals that must be fundamentally changed: "Instauratio facienda abimis fundamentis.,, And those ideals once changed, all motives for a war betweenEngland and Germany would vanish as by magic. But alas! ideas and ideals do notchange by magic or prestige — they can only change by the slow operation of intellectual conversion. Arguments alone can do it.Let us turn from the war lords of England and Germany to thosewho do not speak under the influence of military training or militaryPREPARATIONS FOR PEACE 7occupation. We are told by the translator of Dr. Paul Rohrbach's book,The German Idea in the World, that it —probably inspired more Germans than any other book published since 187 1, for everybody felt that it presented a generally true picture of the fatherland and indicated thepaths which the Germans had resolved to follow.This opinion I have had substantially confirmed by most competentauthority. I think it gives us a real insight into the ideas that havemoved the German people. You will note that the author does nothesitate to praise the Anglo-Saxon or to criticize the German, and thathis underlying and dominating purpose is peaceful expansion.The markets of the world! We need them today for our existence as positivelyas we need our own land, and the day is approaching with irrevocable certainty whenwe shall need them even more. We can be nationally healthy only so long as ourshare in the business of the world continues to grow, and only if this is the case shallwe be able to foster the inner values which spring from our national idea, and let themtake part with the other factors in the shaping of the culture of the world The German idea, therefore, can only live and increase, if its material foundations,viz., the number of Germans, the prosperity of Germany, and the number and size ofour world-interests continue to increase. As these foundations continue to grow theycompel the Anglo-Saxons to make their decision between the following twopropositions:Will they reconcile themselves to seeing our interests in the world maintainthemselves by the side of their own, and come to an agreement with us concerningthem ? Or will they fight, with force of arms, to remain the sole mistress of the world ?If they choose the latter, it will depend on our strength whether we conquer or surrender, or hold our own We have progressed, within a generation, with a rapidity which creates the beliefthat we can wipe out within a decade the losses of a century. But we grow dizzy,when we contemplate our political economy, shooting up to steep heights and restingonly on the small support of European Germany, especially when we compare it withthe much wider security across oceans and continents which England and Americahave built. It is here where the abyss is lurking into which our new grandeur may behurled unless we secure it with stronger props than are made of iron or gold. We havenow reached the point which illustrates a fact which no one can view too seriously,namely, that the world-power of the Anglo-Saxons does not rest solely on externalsupports, such as wealth, colonies, dominion over the seas and flourishing industries,but that corresponding to these material possessions a growth of character and of innerworth and an increase in the breadth of the Anglo-Saxon idea have actually justifiedthe people possessing them in reaching out for the dominion of the world The true attitude of England toward our navy and commerce is revealed by suchcomments as were contained in the famous article in the Saturday Review of September,1897, which made a great stir in England and the whole world, and frankly stated thatEngland's prosperity could only be saved if Germany were destroyed. "England,"the article says in part, "with her long history of successful aggression, with hermarvelous conviction that in pursuing her own interests she is spreading light among8 THE UNIVERSITY RECORDnations dwelling in darkness, and Germany, bone of the same bone, blood of the sameblood, with a lesser will-force, but perhaps with a keener intelligence, compete inevery corner of the globe. In the Transvaal, at the Cape, in Central Africa, in Indiaand the East, the islands of the Southern Sea, and in the far Northwest, wherever —and where has it not? — the flag has followed the Bible, and trade has followed theflag, there the German bagman is struggling with the English pedlar. Is there amine to exploit, a railway to build, a native to convert from breadfruit to tinned meat,from temperance to trade gin, the German and the Englishman are struggling to befirst. A million petty disputes build up the greatest cause of war the world has everseen. If Germany were extinguished tomorrow, the day after tomorrow there is notan Englishman in the world who would not be richer. Nations have fought for yearsover a city or a right of succession. Must they not fight for two hundred fifty millionpounds of commerce ? "Doctor Rohrbach says:We know very well that it does not reflect the feelings of the whole of England, butnevertheless of a considerable portion of the English nation The two political catchwords "Reaction" and "Government by feudal classes"which foreign public opinion frequently uses to describe German conditions, are notcalculated to bring success to the German idea in the world. But they are not theonly obstacles. Like other people we suffer from the defects of our virtues. Thereverse and unfortunate complement of that sense of duty and industry which wecall the positive poles of our character, are an offensive superiority and awkwardnessof behavior which are constantly putting us at a disadvantage Between thesetwo observations there is so much German awkwardness, indolence, and ignorance ofthe national idea in its highest sense, that we can explain the progress abroad whichwe have made only by the one thing in which we excel all other people: our exact andconscientious labor and our remarkable diligence.The real evil lies in the doctrine of political and economic imperialismcommon to so many nations — the doctrine that holds that the economicwelfare and progress of every nation and of its people depend uponsecuring constantly expanding markets and sources of supply, constantlyexpanding opportunities for trade; and that such opportunities are onlyto be found, or at least are best to be found, by acquiring politicaldominion over, or spheres of influence in, other countries, especially incountries relatively backward in industrial development, but capableof such development. If this is sound doctrine economically, if it reallyis enlightened selfishness, if it is not to be restrained by the sense of moralobligation to respect the rights of other nations, if, indeed, the wholetheory is to be gilded and disguised by a supposed moral obligation touplift the relatively backward peoples and develop the relatively undeveloped lands — the theory of the white man's burden — it would seem anirresistible conclusion that force must continue to rule the world, andthat peaceful civilization can go forward only under a dominant nation,or under a balance of power between several dominant nations.PREPARATIONS FOR PEACE 9I do not believe that this doctrine will indefinitely continue to control policies and international relations. It is not morally sound. Itis not economically sound. It is not even enlightened selfishness. Itmust and will disappear with the demonstration of its futility. Thisdoctrine and civilization, as the masses of mankind are coming to conceive of civilization, are irreconcilably opposed. Force as a means ofpromoting economic interests or of advancing intellectual ideals is certainto diminish and to disappear, just as certainly as human slavery andthe imposition of theological or religious dogma by force have alreadydisappeared. The rapidity of the process will depend chiefly, if notentirely, upon the progress of education and intelligence among the massof mankind. If, therefore, we desire to reduce the chance of war, eitherbecause it is right for the world that it shall be reduced, or because weare thinking only of ourselves and wish to escape its horrors, if ourdesire is to prepare for peace, the surest way to accomplish this result is,first, by seeing that our own national purposes and methods are notbased upon the desire for economic expansion by means of politicaldominion or special privilege, or any sort of sphere of influence that discriminates in favor of our people as against those of any other nation;and secondly, by doing everything in our power to bring other nationsto this same conclusion, including active co-operation with other nationsto produce this result.Our peace depends upon ourselves and upon the peace of the world;and one of the greatest steps toward the establishment of the world-peaceupon which our peace so largely depends is a sympathetic and effectiveco-operation between the Anglo-Saxon and the German and Scandinaviannations, to which Earl Grey has referred as "nearest to us in mind andsentiment."We are told that at the end of the war our potential enemies willcertainly be exhausted and unable or disinclined to take up a quarrelwith us. I wish I could have the assurance upon this score that some ofmy fellow-pacifists entertain; but I cannot forecast either our ownwisdom or the degree of human emotion and human folly that willsurvive — that possibly may be born of — the greatest exhibition ofhuman emotion and human folly that the world has ever seen. Ourfirst duty, our most enlightened selfishness, is to do everything in ourpower now and at the close of hostilities to remove the causes of war,to create alternatives for war; but as we cannot hope to remove everycause for war, as we cannot be sure that effective alternatives for warwill be devised or will be accepted, we have ourselves no sane alternativeIO THE UNIVERSITY RECORDbut to be prepared for effective defense. We have seen too clearly therealities of war to risk its coming or its consequences. Our defensemust be real or it will only add to our danger. Within the limits ofwhat is strictly necessary for defense our preparation must be made asthough it were certain to be needed. No fear that other nations willbe led by our example to increase their armament unnecessarily canstand for one moment against the possibility of our need. What isincumbent upon us is to make it as clear as possible that the characterand the extent of our military preparation are strictly defensive; indeed,our first inquiry should be into the possibilities of a military policy thatwill be on its face and in its essential characteristics defensive.With the greatest deference, and subject to correction by demonstration and not by assertion, I venture to suggest that there is such a thingas a defensive military policy, which is essentially different in importantparticulars from an aggressive military policy, and that the plans formilitary and naval preparedness which are being presented to us eitherby the President and his political advisers, or by the General Board of theNavy, or the General Staff of the Army, do not recognize or apply thedistinction.I am not discussing these things as an expert, nor do I assume thatmy audience is composed of experts. I am, however, not without thesupport of expert opinion, although it has not been allowed much publicexpression. And I assume that the great audience of our ordinaryfellow-citizens, as inexpert but as intensely and vitally concerned as weare, will in the end settle our military policy on sea and land, f or this isnecessarily the way of democracy. Admiral Mahan says :Justly appreciated, military affairs are one side of the politics of a nation andtherefore concern the individual who has an interest in the government of the state.They form part of a closely related whole, and putting aside the purely professionaldetails .... military preparations should be determined chiefly by those broadpolitical considerations which affect the relations of states one to another or of severalparts of the same state to the common defense.Robert Wilden Neeser, whose book, Our Navy and the Next War, is anargument for greater naval strength, nevertheless says:In the last analysis it is the people who govern, it is the people who must beinformed of their military condition. The regulations which forbid military andnaval men writing for publication for the purpose of discussion should be rewritten.The freest discussion on all military and naval topics by officers of both servicesshould be encouraged, such writings to be signed by the authors, for which they wouldassume the entire responsibility. When this privilege has been given, then the peoplewill have a means of getting at the truth and the authority in each case will be known.PREPARATIONS FOR PEACE IIBy sealing the lips of those capable of giving the truth we have encouraged scareheadarticles upon our naval preparedness which carry little weight and make no lastingimpression upon the minds of the people.Major-General Francis Vinton Greene has also called attention to thefact that Germany permits publication of frank discussions of militarysubjects — several thousand military books in a year as against severalscores at the most in English-speaking countries.At all events, whether they like it or not the experts must convinceus, untrained as we are. What we want and what we are entitled tohave is candor and the fullest, freest opportunity for the expressionof every sincere and intelligent judgment that has been or is beingformed within our military and naval service. We are dealing withwhat is alleged to be and what we believe is matter of life and death. Onsuch a matter the order prohibiting officers in our military establishmentfrom uttering and publishing opinions upon military policy1 seemsespecially unwise and leaves the country altogether too dependent uponthe officials or official boards that for the moment control the administration of our military and naval service. In that service are experiencedand serious students of the problems of military and naval policy whoseviews upon fundamentals and upon important details disagree with theviews of both the military and the political heads of our military andnaval establishments. These differences of opinion are not being givento the public. We are thus being led to the unwarranted conclusionthat there is unanimity among our experts as to the kind and extent ofmilitary preparation we should have.I am a convinced advocate of securing and utilizing expert advice inthe administration of public affairs. I have the highest regard andrespect for the officers in our naval and military service. I attach thegreatest importance to their opinions with respect to the things that willproduce the most efficient military preparation for war and that willproduce the greatest results in actual warfare. But what we are decidingis not the sort of an army or navy that will be most powerful in war,but what sort of an army or navy will be most effective for securing peace.And that is a question which involves issues of national policy that arenot exclusively military — in which, indeed, the military motive is ofsecondary importance.1 "Officers of the Army will refrain, until further orders, from giving out forpublication any interview, statement, discussion, or article on the military situationin the United States or abroad, as any expression of their views on this subject atpresent is prejudicial to the best interests of the service." — War Department, GeneralOrder No. 10.12 THE UNIVERSITY RECORDWe must tell the Navy Board and the General Staff — not havethem tell us — what it is we want an army and a navy to do; what arethe purposes for which we wish to use an army and a navy. Then andthen only can they tell us what kind of an army and navy will be bestadapted for our purpose. Otherwise their opinions and estimates mustnecessarily be based on the assumption that we want a military establishment adequate to defend all our outstanding possessions and obligations,and to maintain all our supposed national policies and interests, and in theevent of war, in the language of the recent report of the War College,"to insure a successful termination of the war in the shortest time."All this may sound somewhat captious and theoretical, of littlepractical value, but I am not without knowledge that there exists amongmilitary experts — and in our own military service — a recognition of thefact that there is a substantial difference between a defensive and anoffensive military policy and that it is not being recognized in the planswhich are officially recommended for our military preparation. We arebeing urged to support a military program which we are assured isintended only for defense; but it is not an exclusively defensive program. I do not intend to impugn in any degree the sincerity of itsadvocates — I think they believe that they are advocating a defensivepolicy; but they have not defined nor had defined for them what it iswe wish to defend, nor have they abandoned that hoary maxim ofmilitary science that a strong offense is the best defense.We shall make a serious mistake in all that we do toward militarypreparedness against war and for peace unless we tell our militaryexperts and tell them in a way that they will understand and acceptthat we want a military establishment planned and prepared for defenseand not for offense, even though offense may help defense — that weconsciously and definitely intend to abandon and to have them abandonwhatever military advantage there may be in having an army and anavy prepared to take the aggressive and to seek out and attack in forcean enemy away from our own boundaries and waters. Only in thisway can we convince the world that our object is pacific, that we arenot merely repeating the hollow assurances of other nations that havebuilt great navies and trained great armies in the name of peace only touse them for aggression when the opportunity and the temptation came.Only in this way can we be sure that we shall not yield to temptationwhen it comes. What is there in our national history to justify theclaim that we will not use force to extend our boundaries or our dominionover the lands of weaker nations, no matter how sincerely at this timePREPARATIONS FOR PEACE 13we intend not to do so ? What right have we to thank God that we arenot as other men, especially those Prussians? With an army and anavy designed for and substantially limited to the defense of our ownlands and shores, we can with some confidence and effectiveness advocate those principles and agencies of international policy that are bestadapted to reduce the chances of war.To illustrate what I have in mind, and not I alone, but others whosemilitary experience and training give greater weight to their opinions,let me ask you whether it is not clear that a real substantial clarificationof the Monroe Doctrine, adopting and extending the suggestions ofPresident Wilson's message, would not in itself do more to make waragainst this country unlikely than all the increase we are likely to makein our army and our navy ? We hear much of possible war with Japan.Should we not do more toward the prevention of such a war by discussing with Japan the issues surrounding Japanese immigration andthe Open Door in China man-fashion and in a way and with results thatwould do justice to our interests and to Japanese interests and to thatself-respect which Japan has earned her right to entertain ? If we reallyintend to give national independence to the Philippines, should we notremove a great menace to our peace if we could secure internationalguaranties of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Filipinonation ? If we should open the Panama Canal to the warships of allnations under international guaranties of the safety of the Canal itselfand of our peaceful ownership and operation of it, should we not make ita prize less likely to excite the cupidity of other nations and less likelyto lead to war with us ? If we did these things, should we not need anarmy and a navy quite different in character and size from those weshould need if we do not do them? Can we intelligently determinewhat sort of an army and a navy we need without considering what it iswe propose to defend ? If we retain all these possessions and interestsand international policies, where can we stop in our military preparation ? What folly to retain them if we do not propose to make seriousand adequate preparation to defend them, and could not make reallyadequate preparation if we would.It may be said that these matters really make no difference in thesort of military preparation we ought to make — that it will require thesame sort of an army and the same sort of a navy to defend our ownlands and waters that we should need to defend the Philippines andthe Panama Canal and to enforce the Monroe Doctrine. No doubt somemilitary authorities would make precisely this claim; but I venture to14 THE UNIVERSITY RECORDassert that excellent military authority is of quite a different opinion,and that it is supported by many considerations that appeal and shouldappeal to that great public which under our democratic governmentmust and should decide the fundamental questions of policy directlyinvolved.We are at least entitled to ask questions. If our navy is intendedonly to defend our own shores from invasion, could we not enormouslyincrease the number of our submarines for the same money that it isproposed to spend on dreadnaughts; and would not the result giveus a far more effective navy for purely defensive purposes? Doesnot a single superdreadnaught cost as much as many submarines,depending on the types selected? If modern war — if this war — hastaught us anything it is that a navy of the dreadnaught class is of littleif any practical value against a stronger navy of the same sort. Theweaker navy is inevitably bottled up. It dare not come out into theopen unless it is prepared to risk all upon the result of its unequal contest with a stronger force. Unless we are prepared to enter the endlesscompetition in naval expenditure, is not the navy of the era that endedwith this war a waste of money and a self-deception as an efficientinstrument of defense? Is not this confessed by the insistence of thosewho cling to this type of navy that the United States must increase itsnavy until it equals the navy of any other nation ? Some say any othernation except England, either because they are appalled at competitionin naval expenditure with England, whose existence as a world-powerdepends upon predominance at sea, or because they think we shouldassume that war will never occur between England and the UnitedStates. Some insist that we must have a navy equal in aggressivestrength to the combined navies of any two other nations except England; and that anything less than this will leave us without adequateprotection for the very reasons that are given as underlying the dread-naught naval theory. Has not this war demonstrated that a navycomposed chiefly of great numbers of submarines, supplemented by thetorpedo boat, the destroyer, and the aeroplane, would be of immensedefensive value against the most powerful dreadnaught navy afloat ? Isnot a single submarine an effective fighting unit against any fleet, while asingle dreadnaught is of practically no value whatever ? Might not a fewsubmarines encounter and destroy a mighty fleet, while a dreadnaughtnavy outclassed in strength by an invading squadron would lie impotentin the harbor ? Are we not about to commit this nation to a program ofdreadnaughts that need yet more and more dreadnaughts to make themPREPARATIONS FOR PEACE ISuseful ? Is it not wise to delay this program at least until we can knowmore than is now possible as to the place of the dreadnaught in thefuture navies of the world ? Secretary Daniels says that expert opinionon this subject has undergone great fluctuations within the past fewmonths. He has himself substantially increased the number of submarines for which the Navy Department is asking over the numberrecommended by the Navy Board. Why not spend our dreadnaughtmoney, at least for the present, on submarines and other defensiveagencies? Even Neeser asks the question: "With the offensive submarine now a certainty, should we continue to build battleships?"And his answer is an evasion and is also based upon the premise that"the ultimate aim of war is to command the sea." Having alreadycalled the offensive submarine "a certainty," he says: "The newcruising submarine, if a success, may become a serious menace to abattleship fleet; but it does not seem a sufficient menace to stop theconstruction of those ships which have so long and in the face of allchallengers held command of the sea."But it may be said that such a navy as I am discussing could not beused so effectively as the dreadnaught in foreign waters away from itsbase. Precisely so; and is not this one of its chief advantages to us?Could we do anything that would so effectively stamp our militarypolicy as intended only for defense as to create a navy that, while powerful for defense would by its very character have less power for aggression ? If we wish only to defend ourselves, do we need any other navy ?Can we do anything that will so completely convince the world that wemean what we say when we declare that we are arming only for peace ?Can we do anything that will so increase our power to influence othernations to adopt the policies and the agencies that make for peace?Even if we had to concede that a defensive navy would lack some of theaggressive power that we might desire in actual warfare, can we notwell afford to make this sacrifice for the immense gain in making warless likely to occur ?Is it not a choice between this policy and the race for naval supremacy which alone will enable us " to command the sea" ? Norman Angellmay be urging some propositions about which there may well be difference of opinion, but he has at least convincingly demonstrated onefallacy:Mr. Churchill lays it down as an axiom that the way to be sure of peace is to beso much stronger than your enemy that he dare not attack you. One wonders if theGermans will take his advice. It amounts to this: Here are two likely to quarrel;i6 THE UNIVERSITY RECORDhow shall they keep the peace ? Let each be stronger than the other, and all will bewell. This "axiom" is, of course, a physical absurdity. On this basis there is nosuch thing as adequate defense for either. If one party to the dispute is safe, the otheris not, and is entitled to try and make itself so.Is there not a distinctively defensive policy applicable to the armyjust as to the navy? The arguments for increased land forces andreserves seem entirely sound. But this does not relieve us — even uslaymen — from the necessity of considering what they should be and howthey should be obtained. I do not propose to discuss details of militaryorganization. It is important, however, for the public to understandthat there are differences of opinion and of interest in the army as towhat branches of the service should be increased. I am expressing noopinion, except that there should be complete freedom in the servicefor the public discussion of the issues.All the military opiuion about which I know anything is agreed thatfor a defensive policy we need trained officers, trained infantry, trainedartillery, adequate equipment, and both an adequate supply of munitionsand provision for increasing and maintaining an adequate supply of thethings for which modern war makes such insatiate demands. Doesthe program of preparedness that has been prepared for us contemplatethese things ? We are told that our preparation must be a genuine anda serious thing, that at the close of this war some victorious nation orcombination of nations may decide to use its trained and veteran troopsagainst us in resentment, or envy or lust of power or hope of loot, andthat we must be ready and remain ready, that we must keep our powderdry. We are told that only thorough training and the very best equipment for an army in the leash would avail for our defense. And howis it proposed to secure such an army ? Make a small increase in ourregular troops and give a citizen soldiery annually a few months'intensive training that will not interfere too seriously with their businessand professional occupations. Is there then no serious need for preparing against the possibility of a real invasion ?The truth is that at and for some time after the close of this warthe United States may be in less danger from attack than at any timein its history. We all hope with differing degrees of confidence thatout of the horrors and destruction of this war will come a real advancetoward some form of international relations and international arrangements that will reduce the burdens of armament and the probabilitiesof war. If our hopes were really more than hopes, this nation mightwell await the outcome without increasing at this time its militaryPREPARATIONS FOR PEACE 17establishment — not that we might not then take wise precautions tomeet the actual situation that will then be disclosed, but that we couldbe so much wiser then than we possibly can be now. It is because ourhopes are only hopes, and not certainties, that we are urged to preparenow against a possibility that might be so unspeakably disastrous tothis country, to its men, and especially to its women and its children,that we are not justified in delaying at least adequate preparation toresist attack. But if we are really to prepare against a real attack,what folly it is to be less than adequately prepared. We should analyzethe situation that is at all likely to confront us and meet that situation.What is the situation ?It seems clear that we need anticipate no attack from Great Britainor indeed from any of her allies for some time after this war, no matterwhat its outcome, unless we ourselves furnish some new and gratuitousoccasion for a quarrel. For a hundred years we have settled amicablyevery issue with Great Britain, and many of the issues have been peculiarly irritating and important to both nations. Our substantive relations were never more sympathetically friendly, and new causes wouldhave to arise to strain them. Our diplomatic relations were never soassured by treaties providing for the peaceful settlement of issues uponwhich we may disagree. Certainly this is true of Great Britain; andwith her friendship and the already increased and growing appreciationof the reality and value of the Anglo-Saxon tie, a war between the twogreat Anglo-Saxon nations is practically unthinkable. I mention GreatBritain because it seems not worth while to discuss the effect of ourproximity to Canada in the event of war. Canada is probably a hostage in our reach against war with England; but let us assume that itwould be a military asset for Great Britain. No other first-classpower except England has any foothold in North America from whichland forces could be drawn or in which they could be landed. Anyother formidable enemy would be compelled to transport its invadingarmy across the ocean. I have had no opportunity to examine or todiscuss with military officers in whose judgment I have confidence therecent report of the War College division of the General Staff. We areall, however, entitled to question its soundness or its availability, asthe President and the Secretary of War have questioned them. Theyare civilians like ourselves.General Greene, however, has discussed at some length the problemspresented to us in the event of such invasion and has advised us of theconclusions of such military students as Freiherr von Edelsheim in thei8 THE UNIVERSITY RECORDservice of the German General Staff. His conclusion is that our initialproblem would be to prevent the landing, or to defeat after it landed, aforce of 240,000 infantry with the ordinary normal complement ofcavalry, artillery, stores, etc., and that this is the largest force thatit would be practicable to transport to our shores as a single expedition.The War College now makes a larger estimate. Germany has permitted the public discussion of military problems of this sort. Wehave refused or restricted it. The weight of available military authority,however, seems agreed that we should have 500,000 trained soldiers tomeet an invasion and that this number of really trained men adequatelyequipped would successfully repel the invasion. It may be that, considering the disadvantages attending disembarkation, substantially lessthan this number would suffice for effective defense, provided they aretrained soldiers, and not half-trained militia or national guardsmen. Ispeak in no terms of disrespect of our militia — quite the contrary.I merely insist upon the fact, recognized by the intelligent militia officersthemselves, that men in active civil life who give all the time they canto military training cannot successfully oppose regular troops. Themilitia can quickly become an army, but it cannot be an army; and whatwe should need if an invasion threatened us would be an army. Then letus have an army — no larger than we need for the puprose of manning ourdefenses and repelling an invasion, but a real army of real soldiers adequate for this purpose and a militia adequate to fill the ranks as theyneed filling. I do not say 500,000 men; I say what number we needfor the defensive purpose which we intend to accomplish.The suggestion of universal military service in this country can beintelligently determined only by considering separately each of theobjects for which it is alleged to be desirable. Its main — its real —purpose is military. If it is not necessary or at least desirable for strictlymilitary purposes, it will never be adopted because of its alleged physicalor disciplinary benefits. And for what conceivable purpose of militarydefense should we train to arms millions of the young men of the UnitedStates ? From a military point of view this surely would be a senselesswaste of time, energy, and money. If we are to have an army, let ushave a real army, trained and efficient for its purpose. Let us have nosuperficial training of millions of schoolboys, no amateurish conscriptionof the adult manhood of the nation, creating a paper force immenselygreater than any possible need for any purpose that we ought to entertain only to demonstrate its inefficiency if a test of strength should come,to disseminate through the nation a false feeling of security, and toPREPARATIONS FOR PEACE 19encourage the natural tendency toward brag and bluster to which BrotherJonathan has been unfortunately susceptible.There is undoubtedly a strong feeling in the United States that, nomatter what we should do in the way of military preparation, we shouldbe in no danger of imperialistic ambition or that aggressive militarismwhich precisely the same policy has undoubtedly tended to create elsewhere. There is far greater danger from these sources than our peoplerealize. This false assumption of a superior resisting power of Americansto the allurements of imperialism and national expansion only makes thedanger more real. Human nature is essentially the same in Prussia andin the United States.It is not in Germany alone that the Nietzschean exaltation of theWill to Power stirs the atavistic savage that lingers in most of us andin some of us to an exceptional degree. Few Americans may believethat war is a biological necessity, but many are easily persuaded thatit is a necessity on other grounds, and its exhibition of primitive virtuesand barbarian vigor distracts attention from its hideous crueltiesand its senseless waste. We need to be constantly reminded that mankindis not degenerating because it is finding less use for some superb qualitiesof the animal and the savage, that evolution is out of the jungle, notback into it.If German blood or German training makes men more prone toexalt force in international affairs, it will be well for us to remember thatin 1910 there were in the United States 8,282,618 people who were bornin Germany, or one or both of whose parents were born in that country.This takes no account of more than 2,000,000 of our population similarlyderived from Austria.If the United States is to have increased military forces — and it seemsessential that we shall — let us not be blind to the dangers that are inseparable from military training and military strength. Let us endure withpatience the taunts of the militant pacifist whose motto is "Speaksoftly and carry a big stick." I try sometimes to visualize thatpeace-loving and peace-seeking community in which that motto iscarried into practical effect, as its distinguished author illustratesit in his own delightful way. Picture to yourselves the citizens ofChicago leaving their homes in the morning, each armed with abig stick, suited to his taste — one with beautifully polished knobson the heavy end of the stick and one with nails carefully disposed upon its surface, to emphasize the value of the weapon as adeterrent of force, and an incentive to peace — each swinging his little20 THE UNIVERSITY RECORDpacifier jauntily as he trudges sturdily or saunters leisurely along, speaking softly to those he passes about mollycoddles, cowards, and the Ananiasclub. How certain it would be that no thought of violence would disturbthe peaceful serenity of such a happy community. It is an excellentmotto, but hard to live up to; and we shall do well not to underestimate the difficulty. Nations, like individuals, when they carry bigsticks, seem predisposed to raise their voices.It is said that the disbandment of our armies after the Civil Wardemonstrates that military training will not create a militaristic sentiment in the United States, but it is not from those who have had actualexperience in war and have gone through the pit of hell, or at leastlooked into its mouth, that we need fear militaristic sentiment so muchas from the man who has merely worn the trappings and studied themanual of arms. It is the little knowledge that is the dangerous thing.Has consideration been given to the political dangers of an organized citizen soldiery containing millions of men, who would not regardthe military work seriously because war would not really seem imminent ?The suggestion of a new sort of army — a continental army — isobviously due to the desire to meet the difficulty of putting the militiaunder direct federal control; for it proposes nothing but a partiallytrained force of volunteers. Does it not seem far wiser to extend federalsupport to the militia upon condition that the training shall complywith federal requirements ?Has not Schornhorst shown us our true military policy, when bytransferring every man to the reserve as soon as he had been trained,the active army of 42,000 men, to which he was restricted by the Peaceof Paris, became the army of 150,000 that contributed so powerfully tothe defeat of Napoleon ? Why should we not adopt the policy of training our soldiers as intensively as possible and then transfer them, as soonas they are trained, to a reserve receiving proper pay from the government, and subject to be called to the colors whenever needed ? Wouldnot such a plan give us a vastly superior army to that available in anyother way ? Would it be any less a citizen soldiery because it had oneyear's continuous training instead of three months' training for each offour years ? Would not the interference with business or professionalactivity be far less and the cost to the country far less than under theplans proposed ?If some mechanical training accompanied the military training, itmight extend the period of active service; but might it not equip thesoldier for a more useful citizenship and make enlistment more attract-PREPARATIONS FOR PEACE 21ive? The same thought applies to the education of the reserve oftrained officers that should be provided.Universal military service would undoubtedly distribute the militaryburden, but it would create the burden for the sake of distributing it.It is not "shirking" to oppose the imposition on our people of a burdenwhich it is both unnecessary and unwise for them to assume. By makingservice in the army and in the militia of real value to those who enlist,as well as to the nation, we should create a military system that wouldjustify itself, and that would secure forces amply sufficient for ourdefense. There should be no illusion as to the effect — if not the purpose — of doing more than this. Our sons, once trained, would beavailable for war beyond our borders, and even statutory declarationsagainst using them there would not remove the consequences of theiravailability.1It may well be questioned whether the agitation for universal military training or any other form of conscription does not tend to discreditand to prevent a degree of actual military preparation which mightotherwise receive popular support.It is said that what we lack in the United States is discipline,and that military discipline will supply the need. We do wantcivic discipline, the conscious and willing subordination of immediate individual freedom of action to concerted and co-operativecontrol for the good of the community, a control in determiningthe extent and character and purpose of which the disciplinedshall have a voice. Shall we get this from a training that consistschiefly if not wholly in obedience to orders? No military disciplinein or out of the schools can be made much more than this for thegreat mass under the practical limitations that must prevail. Few,indeed, will be the individuals who will be trained to direct others,and these few will learn chiefly to direct the others in a routineessentially arbitrary and mechanical.Theirs not to reason why,Theirs but to do and die,1 On January 4, 1916, the Associated Press sent out from Washington a dispatchfor which it claimed exceptionally reliable information, stating that: "a navy equalin strength to those of any two world powers except Great Britain, and an army prepared to fight for the integrity of the Pan-American idea anywhere in Pan-America isthe ultimate aim of the plans of the military experts."On January 6, 1916, Secretary Garrison said before the Military Committee ofthe House of Representatives: "We have determined and announced that the sovereignty of the other republics of this hemisphere shall remain inviolable and musttherefore at all times stand ready to make good our position in this connection."22 THE UNIVERSITY RECORDis the ideal of military discipline, the quality we are called upon to praiseand admire in the soldier. It is an admirable ideal for military purposes,but not so good for civic purposes, and what we are now discussing is thealleged civic advantage of military discipline upon the young manhoodof the country.As to the suggestion that military drill in the public schools wouldbe justified on the ground of physical development President Lowell ofHarvard says that his experience on the Boston School Board convincedhim that military drill in the public schools is a mistake; that the boystired of drill, and were disinclined later to join the militia. He thinksother kinds of physical training are better, and that while his objectiondoes not apply to colleges, drill should be a very small part of militarytraining.Former President Eliot says:I feel strongly another objection to military drill in secondary schools, namelythat it gives no preparation whatever for the real work of a soldier. In the BostonHigh Schools military drill includes nothing but the manual of arms, company movements on even surfaces, and a few very simple battalion movements, mostly those ofparade. The real work of a soldier is to dig in the ground with pick and shovel; tocarry a burden of about fifty pounds on long marches; to run very short distancescarrying a similar burden; and to shoot accurately with a rifle; throw hand grenades;and use rapidly and well machine guns and artillery. Military drill in schools hasno tendency to prepare boys to do the real work of a soldier. The Swiss do not beginto train their young men for their army until they are about twenty years of age,except that they encourage voluntary rifle clubs for practice in shooting.Assuming, however, that there would be both physical and disciplinary advantages in military training, it would not follow that weshould obtain these advantages by compulsory military service.It is said that military training would increase respect for law andorder, and the proof of this is said to be the comparative statistics ofcrimes of violence in Switzerland and the United States. How aboutthe comparative respect for law in England and in the United States,although England has not adopted universal military training ?If we were situated as is Switzerland, where any war or seriousthreat of war is certain to require the military service of every able-bodied citizen, and where, even then, every unit in the small populationmust have the very highest military efficiency practicable, we mightjustify universal military training, in and out of the schools. We maybe sure that any attempt with us to train a citizen soldiery under theSwiss system would almost certainly be perfunctory, because it wouldnot be taken seriously. We must never forget that the discipline whichPREPARATIONS FOR PEACE 23Germany has given her citizens is a discipline which is not confined totheir service in the army. The German people are trained to regard thestate as the instrumentality through and by which they — each of themindividually and all of them collectively— can best advance their interests — can best secure for themselves the necessities and the pleasures oflife. Behind even the verboten is a larger consciousness of the advantagesof communal action, a larger practical realization of those advantages,than obtains in any other great nation today.Germany's industrial and social progress has been attained in spiteof, and not because of, her system of enforced military training andservice. Undoubtedly the conviction which has existed in Germanythat war was a real and constantly impending probability has had aninfluence, perhaps a determining influence, in securing the adoption ofcertain policies, such as the government ownership and operation ofrailroads, and the development of waterways in connection with therailroads as a "co-ordinated" and interdependent transportation system.The same conviction of the imminence of war has perhaps had its influence in securing some of the social and industrial legislation which soundviews of public policy justify and demand without the slightest regardto their military value. There is no evidence, however, that these socialand industrial results in Germany were due to the military training ofGerman citizens. Prussia is not the portion of the German Empire inwhich we find the most inspiring examples of peaceful progress. AgainI find Paul Rohrback instructive when he points out the antagonismof " the material provincialism of the small state and the old individualismof the German races, which in this case has been hardened and quickenedby the long political separation." He says:But we Germans of the Empire err if we think that this explanation settles thequestion. An equal share of the responsibility for the existing estrangement shouldbe laid at the door of the North German element which has gained hegemony in thenew Empire, and which shows its inability to achieve in the world what one may callmoral conquests. The shortsighted inflexibility of the North German, and mostespecially of the Prussian character, which can produce great things only among itsown people, is easily explained by the course of its history. It deserves great, andperhaps even the sole, credit for the growth of Prussia to the state of a world-power,and therefore, indirectly, for the union of the greater number of integral parts of theold Empire into the new Empire. Nevertheless, this special side of the Prussian character is developing more and more into an actual source of danger for our nationalfuture, especially in its modern unpleasant variations.No; German social and industrial progress is not due to militarytraining, but, as Paul Rohrback says, to German industry, and to the24 THE UNIVERSITY RECORDfact that Germany has made more progress toward having her government perform the true functions of government in its internal and peaceful relations to its citizens than has been made by other governments,especially our own. Unless our preparation is not only planned fordefense and is, as far as practicable, unadapted for aggression, the preparation itself will add to the possibilities of war, because we shall be lessafraid of the consequences of mistake and less on our guard against thosewho from ignorance or self-interest seek to persuade us to maintainunsound national ideals or purposes.Other nations may of course make the same sort of mistake; maypermit themselves to assert against us interests that are not their trueinterests or that they have no right to assert. We may have to defendourselves against aggression born of their mistakes, but so far as actualwar is concerned we are in far less danger from the selfishness or muddledthinking of other nations than we are from the selfishness or muddledthinking of our own people. We are defended, not only by our geographical separation from Europe and Asia, but by the character of ourcountry itself, its extent and physical conformation and, more than allthis, by the conflicting interests of our possible enemies. The balanceof power in Europe has always been more of a defense to us than evenour isolation. The conquest of the United States has been impossible —the attempt unthinkable — except by land and naval forces too large tobe spared from Europe. It was largely because of this condition thatwe succeeded in the war of the Revolution, and got off with a littlehumiliation in 1812. Only the creation in Europe as a result of this warof new conditions in which one or other of the contending parties isleft so completely crushed as to destroy all fear from that nation in themind of the victor or victors can possibly threaten us, and then the victormust have some motive, must see some advantage in making war upon us.No European nation can have any real motive to attack the UnitedStates except to prevent us from asserting claims or exercising rights inother countries which are not in accordance with its interests. Therecan be no motive of conquest, and it is equally unthinkable that anyEuropean nation would make war on us to impose discriminatory commercial or political conditions upon us, or merely to punish us or to lootus or force from us a money payment as the price of peace. Theoreticallyany of these things might happen; practically they can be dismissed fromserious consideration.If the United States becomes involved in war it will be because itasserts some right or claims some privilege outside of its own territory,PREPARATIONS FOR PEACE 25the assertion of which right or privilege runs counter to the interestsof some foreign power, or it will be because some foreign power assertsa similar right or privilege against us. We cannot of ourselves controlthe motives or the actions of other powers except by international agreement, backed by force or by measures short of force which may beequally effective for the purpose. Our first concern, however, is withour own attitude toward these matters. What are the rights or privileges we claim or wish to claim outside of our own territory ? Are weclaiming or are we likely to claim any rights or privileges that are likelyto be challenged by other nations ? What are the foundations for suchclaims ? Are they sound in principle and in law ? How important tous is their assertion if challenged ? Are they important enough to fightfor? Are there other remedies than war available to us if they arechallenged ? What are they ? Is our claim similar in character to thatof other nations, and should we take steps to unite all nations who areinterested in the same essential claim for its defense against a possibleaggressor? Should we unite North and South America in the defenseof our common interests, and if this seems desirable, why should we drawan artificial line excluding agreements with European nations in matterswhere our common interests are as clear as, or clearer than, our Pan-American interests ?To reach right answers to these questions we must above allclear our minds of the false doctrine that enduring economic interestscan be promoted by force. Undoubtedly temporary advantagescan be secured by the exploitation of other nations, especially — perhapsexclusively — undeveloped peoples and undeveloped lands ; but in the longrun the commerical interests of the world are mutual. Our prosperityis dependent upon prosperity elsewhere. Every nation obtains materialsor goods from others and sells to others its own surplus of materialsor goods. Every nation has most to gain by helping to advancethe trade of the world, to make all nations prosperous while fosteringits own commerce by every means consistent with sound economiclaws. So far as the happiness of the mass of mankind or of themasses of any particular nation is concerned, the adjustment of world-commerce to the natural laws of commerce wholly overbalances thetemporary advantages of exploitation. Otherwise it would be to theeconomic interest of this nation to encourage the continuation ofthe war in Europe so that we might continue our artificial trade inmunitions. We owe much to Norman Angell for his convincingpresentation in effective popular form of the economic fallacy that26 THE UNIVERSITY RECORDworld-commerce follows national lines and that imperialism is commercially profitable.The imperialistic theory is built upon the history of the BritishEmpire and upon a misunderstanding of that history, especially upon afailure to comprehend that economic conditions are now so radically andirrevocably different that the British Empire itself is commercially andpolitically revolutionized. The history of England cannot be repeatedany more than can the history of Rome, and wise men would not desireto repeat either if they could. We cannot ignore the process by whichthe world has been convinced that the welfare of the mass of the peopleis the real test of national success. Privilege may gain from exploitation,but not democracy; and democracy has come to stay as the economic,social, and intellectual ideal of civilization even more than as a politicalideal. This will be clearer to mankind after this war, and we may suspectthat it is becoming clearer and clearer during the war. Right now inthe trenches no power can keep the soldier from thinking and thinkingabout the state and his relation to it. Even if he is led to magnify thevalue of organization and efficiency, he intends to ask for organizationand efficiency in his interest and not in the interests of privilegeor class.The very first thing that we Americans should consider today isthe relation which we wish our government to assume toward us asindividuals and toward other nations. Our whole attitude toward thiswar and its results depends upon our conception of the function of thestate. What are our ideals of the individual life and of communitylife? Do we conceive that the most desirable fife for ourselves — forindividual men — is a life in which there is the least possible restraintupon individual freedom of action, not only the action of each man inthose things that concern him alone — if, indeed, there are any suchthings — but also in those things that affect others, leaving the result ofthe conflict between individuals to be decided by the relative strengthor cunning of the individual? There are those who, consciously orotherwise, really desire a world in which the strong, the astute, the intellectually and physically superior, are to have the fullest freedom toenjoy every advantage which they can obtain over their inferiors. Ifthey are shrewder, if more far-seeing, if they are stronger, more vigorousphysically and intellectually, they contend that it is their right to anticipate those who are less alert, less far-seeing, less cunning, in seizing thethings or the positions that are available, and that, having seized them,it is their vested right to hold them, even when it becomes clear that thesePREPARATIONS FOR PEACE 27things and these points of vantage are essential to the community as awhole and to the general mass of mankind. Men who hold this viewregard it as a merit, as a demonstration of worth, that they foresaw whatsome day the community would need, some natural resource, some particular piece of property, the potential value of which was not generallyappreciated at the time, and that they acquired it so that in the day ofneed they could profit from the needs of their fellows. We shall have toget rid of this idea in our individual and national life if we are to get ridof the most prolific source of war in the field of international relations.Let us not confuse creative industry with mere shrewdness or foresight or superior mental or physical capacity. Superiority of this kindshould have no reward for itself, but only for its exercise for the benefitof others, for the community as a whole. When it confines itself toforecasting the future and seizing now those things that are to be valuablehereafter, it has no real claim to the gratitude or the respect of others.It has added nothing to the wealth or the welfare of mankind. It may bedifficult to draw the line, but it is none the less certain that there is a lineof distinction between creative and predatory wealth; and the duty of thecommunity is to draw the line as rapidly as it can discern where it reallylies, and to approximate it even when its exact location is not entirelyclear. It is the business of the community to protect community interests and to promote community welfare. If there is anything clear inour philosophy or our history it is that civilization is developing in thisdirection:With thousand shocks that come and go,With agonies, with energies,With overthrowings, and with cries,And undulations to and fro.We know now that success in war depends — after the first shock-on social and industrial solidarity far more than upon the number oftrained soldiers that can be placed in the field. It is easier to enlist menand to train them if the front can be held for a time — in our case if thefirst invading expedition can be held off or seriously crippled — thanit is to organize the national economic and industrial forces to support thetroops if they are to be successful under the conditions of modern warfare.In his annual message of December 7 President Wilson emphasized ourduty in this regard:While we speak of the preparation of the nation to make sure of her security andher effective power we must not fall into the patent error of supposing that her realstrength comes from armaments and mere safeguards of written law. It comes, ofcourse, from her people, their energy, their success in their undertakings, their free28 THE UNIVERSITY RECORDopportunity to use the natural resources of our great home land and of the lands outsideour continental borders which look to us for protection, for encouragement, and forassistance in their development, from the organization and freedom and vitality of oureconomic life.The domestic questions which engaged the attention of the last congress are morevital to the nation in this its time of test than at any other time. We cannot adequately make ready for any trial of our strength unless we wisely and promptly directthe force of our laws into these all-important fields of domestic action.He then proceeds to select one pressing economic problem to whichto direct particular attention. He says:In the meantime may I make this suggestion ? The transportation problem isan exceedingly serious and pressing one in this country. There has from time to timeof late been reason to fear that our railroads would not much longer be able to copewith it successfully as at present equipped and co-ordinated. I suggest that it wouldbe wise to provide for a commission of inquiry to ascertain by a thorough canvass ofthe whole question whether our laws as at present framed and administered are asserviceable as they might be in the solution of the problem. It is obviously a problemthat lies at the very foundation of our efficiency as a people. Such an inquiry oughtto draw out every circumstance and opinion worth considering, and we need to knowall sides of the matter if we mean to do anything in the field of federal legislation.The issue thus raised will be found to go far deeper than mere changesin "the process of regulation." No lesson of the war has been moreclearly taught than that efficient transportation is of the very essence ofmilitary efficiency and strength. It is equally true, as President Wilsonsays, that the transportation problem in peace "lies at the very foundation of our efficiency as a people." Our present method of dealing with itis increasingly unsatisfactory to the private interests involved, and it isnot satisfactory to the public. We have secured many improvementsby adopting public regulation, but as this regulation proceeds it becomesmore and more apparent that the transportation system of the countryis essentially one interrelated and interdependent whole. There mayalways be a rivalry in economy and efficiency of service, but competitionfor traffic is moderated by a division of territory, or a gentlemen'sagreement, while competition in rates has almost disappeared.Governmental regulation has served to bring out clearly the essentially monopolistic character of our railroad system as a whole and thenecessity of that "co-ordination" to which President Wilson refers.The question is whether co-ordination in the public service can beobtained so long as our railroads do not have a common financial interestas among themselves, but only a common financial interest as against thepublic. Can a public service which is essentially monopolistic be satisfactorily performed as a competitive enterprise ? Are we not losing thePREPARATIONS FOR PEACE 29benefits of competition without obtaining the advantages of regulatedmonopoly ? We are certainly irritating and discouraging private enterprise based on competitive profits. So unsatisfactory is the resultthat some of our leading railroad officials regard public ownership as theonly escape from what they consider destructive regulation. Thequestion is whether "co-ordination" can be obtained without publicownership.Germany has owned and operated her railroads, from the point ofview of public service, in peace and in war, not from the point of view ofprofits, although the profits have been large. The probabilities seemto be that after the close of this war every railroad in Europe will benationalized. Military reasons may be the determining factors in thisresult, but it may well be questioned whether any satisfactory solutionof the transportation problem can be reached in any other way.Whether our government should take over our railroads and when andupon what conditions may raise many questions of expediency, butif we are to treat the issue with open mind it is important that weshould understand that if, in the public interest, the government shoulddo so, it will not be invading the domain of private enterprise, but willmerely be taking back to itself a function of government which, for whatseemed sufficient reasons of expediency, it had previously delegated toprivate agencies.I take it we shall all agree that if there is something which it is thetrue function of government to perform, that thing will never be performed as it should be until the government performs it. We maydisagree about what is the true function of government; but once it isdetermined that on principle the performance of a particular service isa function of government, that means, if it means anything, that underright conditions of government it will be better performed by the government than if left to private enterprise. If a government is not performing all of the functions of government it is to that extent a failure asa government. The results must continue to be less satisfactory andless efficient than they should be and can be if the government is performing all of its functions, is qualified to perform them, and is performing them properly. Now, nothing is more clearly settled in the law of thiscountry and in the principles upon which that law is based than thatrailroads as common carriers are performing a function of government.The Supreme Court of the United States, and many other courts, haveso held. (See United States v. Joint Tariff Association, 171 U.S., 505,570; Talcott v. Pine Grove, 23 Federal Cases, 652, etc.) Indeed, the3° THE UNIVERSITY RECORDconstruction and control of the public highway is historically and onprinciple one of the first of the functions of government; and a railroadis a public highway. My purpose in discussing this matter has beento indicate how deep the issues of industrial mobilization go. InEngland it already involves the relations of the trade unions to thegovernment.It is insisted by some that the abolition of war or even its substantialdiminution is an idle dream; that we may be reasonably certain that forone reason or another this country will be involved in war within acomparatively short time. Very well. It is now clear that industrialmobilization is as essential to modern war as is military mobilization,and such mobilization cannot be effectively made after hostilities occurunless the government already has the powers and is exercising theactivities essential to effective mobilization. It is even more difficultto agree upon the principles and to create the machinery for industrialmobilization than for military mobilization, and lack of actual experiencein applying the principles and operating the machinery may be disastrous in the one case as in the other. Do the prophets of war proposeto face now the problems of economic and industrial mobilization?If they do, it will be necessary to abandon some dogmatic assumptionswhich have heretofore formed and still form so large a part of our politicalthinking.One of the most significant things in the development of all modernthought has been the decline in the acceptance of dogma. Outsideof the exact sciences, like mathematics, we have learned to look withsuspicion and distrust on dogmatic statement of laws or principles.William G. Sumner says: "If you want war, nourish a doctrine. Doctrines are the most frightful tyrants to which men ever are subject,because doctrines get inside of a man's own reason and betray him againsthimself." Consciously and unconsciously, the pragmatic philosophyis succeeding the dogmatic, in science as it is in theology. Experimentis succeeding assumption as the sure foundation of human progress. Inno field is this so important as in the field of political and social science —of nothing is it so true as of government. In the United States we havebeen particularly in danger of dogmatic error because of the wideacceptance of the proposition that that government is best whichgoverns least, a dogmatic principle as vicious and unsound as the oppositedogma upon which socialism is based; for the dogma that the stateshould directly cover the whole field of human industry is equally fallacious. The truth, as usual, lies between. Government is not bestPREPARATIONS FOR PEACE 31when it governs least; nor is it best when it governs most. Government is best when it is doing well whatever will promote the welfareof the community most if done by the community than if left to bedone by part of the community. And yet, progress is unquestionably inthe direction of the extension of governmental activities into fieldsheretofore left to private enterprise, and we must be open-minded towardfurther movement in that direction. Germany is strong today in war,not only because she is prepared for war, but because she has gonefarther than other nations in the assumption by her government of thosesocial and industrial responsibilities which government should assumewhenever it is apparent that, by so doing, the welfare of the nation —the greatest good to the greatest number — will be promoted. She hasnot accepted socialism, but she has been hampered by no dogma that thestate must govern as little as possible. To the extent to which she hasaccepted and acted upon the principle that it is the true function ofgovernment to do whatever will promote the interest of the communitybetter if undertaken by the community than if left to private enterprise,just to that extent has she strengthened herself and secured the grateful loyalty of her people. So we, too, must proceed, if we would prepare for the constructive uses of peace that grateful recognition of thevalue of the nation to its people, and that patriotic support of the peoplefor the nation, which we are being exhorted to prepare for the destructivepurposes of war.In the long retrospect we shall find nothing clearer than that theevolution of government is steadily toward the assumption of newfunctions in the service of the people. Slowly, but surely, the movementhas steadily gone forward in this direction, and always over the protestsof those who have insisted that each advance was an unwarrantedinvasion of the field of private enterprise, of the rights and liberties of theindividual.Even the collection of taxes for the support of the state was oncefarmed out to those who found in it an opportunity for private profit.The practice found its justification in the claim that an army of tax-collectors would be a public menace, and that the government couldnot possibly collect the taxes as economically and efficiently as privateindividuals. Today it would be a rare individual indeed who wouldconceive that it is not the function of the state directly to collect thetaxes necessary for its own support.Time will not permit even the enumeration of other functions oncesupposed to be peculiarly private in their character, but which are32 THE UNIVERSITY RECORDnow exercised by the government almost as a matter of course. It isalmost axiomatic that the government shall conduct the Post-Office,shall supply water, and shall extinguish fires. All of these things wereonce regarded as peculiarly sacred to private enterprise. I once represented a client who owned and operated as a private profit-making enterprise the sewer system of a thriving middle-western town which wasprevented by financial limitations in its charter from performing thisprimary municipal function. In reading Ferrero I was amused andinstructed by his account of the sources of the wealth and political powerof Crassus in 69 B.C. Ferrero says:Since the houses at Rome were mostly built of wood, and the ^Ediles had so farfailed to organize efficient measures of prevention, fires were at this time exceedinglyfrequent. This suggested to him a very ingenious idea. He organized a regular firebrigade from amongst his slaves, and established watch stations in every part of Rome.As soon as a fire broke out the watch ran to give notice to the brigade. The firementurned out, but accompanied by a representative of Crassus who bought up, practicallyfor nothing, the house which was on fire, and sometimes all the neighboring houseswhich happened to be threatened as well. The bargain once concluded, he had thefire put out and the house rebuilt. In this way he secured possession of a large numberof houses at a trifling cost, and became one of the largest landlords at Rome, both inhouses and land, which he was then able of course to exchange, to sell, and to buy upagain, almost as he chose. Having become in this way one of the richest, if not therichest man in Rome, his power steadily increasing with every rise in the price ofmoney, Crassus soon became a dominating figure in the Senate and the electorate, andindeed among all classes of the community.Indeed, when, later, an aedile who sprang from the common people extended the function of government in Rome to include the operation of afirebrigade, his activities were very much resented, and the privileged classesfound it difficult to explain and impossible to justify his popularity withthe people. I have no doubt that Rome rang with the same argumentsabout the invasion of the field of private enterprise with which the publicownership of railroads, and other public utilities is received in thiscountry today.I am far from suggesting that, in any given community, at any giventime, it would be axiomatic, or even expedient, for the government toundertake all or any of these enterprises. I am merely asserting that itis by no means true that it should not do so solely because it wouldconflict with some dogmatic conception of the state. It is a question ofwise expediency under existing conditions in every case, rememberingalways that the inexorable law of social evolution is moving steadilytoward the assumption of community functions by the community.PREPARATIONS FOR PEACE 33The argument that the government has been too weak, too inefficientor too corrupt to be trusted with functions which might be performedby a better government is only a confession of the indictment againstour government and us. It is quite true that, in determining the ultimate interests of the community we must look for the long result. Wemust not destroy the incentives that are essential to progress. Thewhole fabric of existing civilization is based upon the institution of private property, upon the conception that in the existing stage of humandevelopment the best and most effective way in which to advance thewell-being of mankind is by an appeal to the self-interest or the necessities of individuals; but even if we are entirely sure that necessity andfinancial gain are the most effective incentives to industry for the massof mankind, are we not all coming to see that there is a point at whichwe overload the lure ? Once we rise above the pinch of poverty, andattain physical comfort and intellectual opportunity, are there not otherincentives besides money that will stimulate and attract the very highesttalent and the very greatest industry ? Is not this demonstrated by thefinancial sacrifices made by so many of the very best men in our publicservice? You know what are the desires, the hopes, the aspirationsthat animate you. What is it that you think would prove most satisfying and would call out the best there is in you ? Is it not the consciousand effective use of your faculties, for the accomplishment of thingswhich you think are worth while ? Is not the basis of real happinessobscured by false standards of success ? There are dangers in democracy, just as there are dangers in privilege, but mankind has definitelydiscarded the old ideal of aristocracy. The purpose of civilization is notto produce an efflorescence, but to elevate the mass. The aristocracyof the future is to be an aristocracy of service not of privilege, of achievement, not of acquisition.The very first and most essential of all our preparation must beto make our government — local, state, and national — what it shouldbe. This is the service for which we need universal training, and apatriotism that is nobler and more useful than all the patriotism of war.It is suggested that we already respond to the civic appeal moreeasily than to the appeal for military sacrifice, but Hiram Maxim says:I wonder why it is that we are not as enthusiastic in this social service work aswe are in attacking the problem of war. Is it that there is more glory and more thatappeals to the martial imagination in attacking war and warriors than there is in theprosaic, tame, and glamourless enterprise of simply saving human life in peaceful pursuits for the mere sake of saving it ?34 THE UNIVERSITY RECORDSenator Root has recently made an eloquent appeal for militarypreparation, in which he said:Do not let us deceive ourselves. Adequate preparation for the preservation ofour liberty means a vast expenditure, but it means more than that; it means a willingness for self-sacrifice, a spirit among our people, the length and breadth of theland, among the rich and the poor, among the highly educated and the graduates ofthe common school, among professional men, merchants and bankers, farmers andlaborers — a national spirit among the people of the land, and a determination to preserve the liberty and justice of the American Republic, and to make a sacrifice ofmeans and convenience, comfort, and if need be, of life, in the cause.To every word of this we should subscribe. But I wish the Senatorhad gone on to demonstrate — -as he could do so well — that the patriotismand self-sacrifices of peace are of more transcendent importance, evenas a preparation for war, than any present resolution of willingness tosacrifice "means and convenience, comfort, and if need be, of life," uponthe field of battle. I am not detracting in the least from the importanceof making defensive military preparations; but a determination topreserve the liberty and justice of the American Republic, and to makesome sacrifice of means and convenience and comfort in the piping timesof peace, will be our best preparation for war and our most likely insurance against it.Do not let us deceive ourselves. The United States of America,as a nation, is worth preserving, is entitled to our loyalty and devotion,only to the extent that it is an agency to promote the moral, intellectual,and physical well-being of its people, not some of its people, but all of itspeople — only to the extent that, in very truth, in the realities of theeveryday life of the men, the women, and the children who inhabit it,its conscious ideal is the greatest good to the greatest number. Tocarry out that ideal means a vast expenditure, willingly and intelligently made; it means a preparedness for self-sacrifice in times of peacequite as much as in times of war — nay, a greater self-sacrifice, becausethe progress of civilization is measured by the extent to which peacesupersedes and supplants war. It means a spirit among our people thelength and breadth of the land, among the rich and the poor, amongthe highly educated and the graduates of the common school and thoseto whom fortune unhappily has given no schooling at all, among professional men, merchants and bankers, farmers and laborers — a nationalspirit determined to make the American Republic an agency of libertyand justice at home and abroad.In the service of this ideal, let us destroy every special privilege andbe prepared to sacrifice means and convenience and comfort and, ifPREPARATIONS FOR PEACE 35need be, life itself to protect that government and the people it governsagainst every assault by force or cunning, whether from within or fromwithout. Let us make social justice and social service our nationalideal; and to this end let us control and develop our national resourcesin times of peace, not only that they may be mobilized in time of war,but because a government which is performing this sort of service toits people will be thus most effectively organized for peace. By allmeans let us have an army and a navy adequate for the defense of sucha nation, but let us realize that far more important than armies andnavies are our national purposes and policies.Are we really without the desire and the hope that the United Statesmay acquire exceptional advantages in the commercial developmentof other countries— let us say, in this hemisphere or parts of it, in Cubaand the West Indies, in Mexico and Central America ? Are we entirelyfree from the subconscious thought that here is our sphere of influence ?How far is this thought at the bottom of the modern development of theMonroe Doctrine, especially as conceived by Secretary Olney when hedeclared that "the United States is practically sovereign on this continent"? Is it because of its hoped-for economic advantages to us thatwe insist upon a doctrine which seems no longer to have any politicaljustification? Certainly we are no longer in apprehension that ourrepublican form of government would seriously be jeopardized if anyEuropean nation should acquire political dominion over, or should plantits colonies in, South America. Those countries repudiate and resentour assumption of a benevolent protectorate over their national interests.They look with suspicion upon all our declarations of disinterestedness,and point to our dealings with Mexico in the acquisition of Texas andCalifornia, and to other incidents in our history, as proof of the justice oftheir fears. Even the declaration of President Wilson, that this countrywill never again seek to acquire a foot of territory by force of arms,is regarded merely as the expression of a personal opinion, or as in thesame class with the diplomatic assurance of pacific intention which hasusually preceded the extension of the British, or the French, or theGerman, or the Italian domains.There is a clearer mutual understanding and a closer community ofpolitical and commercial interest between the principal countries ofSouth America and the great nations of Europe than between thosecountries and ourselves. The ties of race and language and religion arecloser. Few of our people understand how the eastward trend of thesouthern portion of this hemisphere brings South America into as close36 THE UNIVERSITY RECORDor closer proximity to Europe than to the United States, especially whenavailable trade routes are taken into consideration. South Americandevelopment has been financed in Europe, not in the United States,and to attempt to expand our commerce in that direction without assuming the large financial obligations that are essential to it is merely towork against the natural laws of trade.Pan- Americanism exalts physical geography, which is important;but commercial, intellectual, and racial geography is more important.Pan-Americanism must be based on and be measured by real mutualityof interest and obligation. We should recognize and strengthen ourmutual interests with Latin- America; but we should not forget otherequally or more important interests in Canada and Europe. The preservation of existing political geography to the south of us against changeby violence should tend to increase stability where this is especiallydesirable; but why should we insist that the Americas are a separateinternational unit over which the United States is to maintain a benevolent protectorate at its own risk, and without control over their domesticconditions or foreign policies ?To assert that the Monroe Doctrine is essential to our nationalsafety has become an absurdity. Monarchical institutions no longerthreaten our Republic. We have lived to see a republican form of government firmly established in France, and to see constitutional monarchydevelop steadily toward the essentials of representative democracy.We have lived for more than a century in immediate contact with agreat, self-governing colony of England, with the result that we haveinfluenced its institutions far more than it has influenced ours. Thewhole purpose of President Monroe's famous declaration, and the wholejustification for making it, have undergone a transformation so completethat nothing but the lack of intelligent discussion of the question canexplain the extent to which it is regarded as something as holy as theArk of the Covenant by so many of the American people.It is safe to say that we believe in something called the Monroe Doctrine because we do not understand it, and are making no attempt whatever to define it or to appraise its value to us. Let us not confuse itwith that doctrine which is practically recognized by all the great nationsof the world, viz. : that wherever a nation is in fact so situated that theacquisition or control of immediately adjacent countries by great andpowerful rivals would jeopardize its peace and security, that nation, inthe exercise of its right of self-defense, can justly insist upon its rivalrefraining from such an extension of its domain. The point is wellPREPARATIONS FOR PEACE 37illustrated by the declaration of Paul Rohrbach with reference to thepossible absorption of Holland by Germany. He says: "The resultingdisturbance of the political equilibrium in Europe would be so distinctlyin favor of Germany, that all the other states would be justified inrising in protest against it." The right of a nation to protect its vitalinterests has been universally recognized, subject always to the possibleexercise of superior force to override the objection. No nation hasquestioned the right of another nation to assert its vital interests,although it may have questioned its power to maintain them. The issueis an issue of fact. Does the particular thing which is threatenedjeopardize the vital interests of the protesting nation ?The Monroe Doctrine has never been accepted by other nations assound in principle, although the acquiescence of Great Britain has prevented it from being challenged; but if we were frankly to assert thatthe acquisition of Mexico by a European nation would be regarded asan unfriendly act because it threatened the vital interests of the UnitedStates, it is exceedingly unlikely that there would be any attempt todeny that we were justified in interfering. Whether we should assertsuch an interest in the future of Mexico would depend upon the questionof fact as to its influence upon our national security. Whether our interest would be admitted would depend upon the question of fact as to theeffect of the proposed action upon the vital interests of this nation. Itmight depend upon our military ability to sustain our position; butwhat I am trying to make clear is that the validity of the Monroe Doctrine depends upon principles of universal international application,and not upon principles peculiar to us or to the American continents.In the interests of national security, we should ourselves confinethe Monroe Doctrine to these limits. In its present vague form it isa menace to our peace and to the peace of the world— -all the moredangerous because we have not now, and we do not propose to have,military force sufficient to maintain it if it should be seriously questioned.Nothing is so dangerous to peace as the assertion of a right which isoffensive to others, which they believe to be unjustified, and which weare not, and do not expect to be, prepared to defend. It is in supportof the broader Monroe Doctrine and incidentally to get the support ofthe Pacific Coast that the Navy League is insisting that we should havea navy on the Pacific stronger than Japan's and another navy on theAtlantic stronger than the navy of any other nation except England — apolicy which fortunately, there seems to be no probability whatever ofthe United States being persuaded to adopt. And yet, if we do not have3§ THE UNIVERSITY RECORDsuch a navy, I must agree with Homer Lea when he says that "theMonroe Doctrine, if not supported by naval and military power sufficientto enforce its observance by all nations singly and in coalition, becomesa factor more provocative of war than any other national policy everattempted in modern or ancient times."Our greatest duty, therefore, is not to build fleets to maintain theMonroe Doctrine, but it is to consider whether the Monroe Doctrine,in any other sense than the protection of our vital national interests, isworth the risk of war and the cost of preparing for it. If it cannot bejustified upon the ground of defense, can it be justified upon the groundof self-interest ? The Monroe Doctrine may have helped drive Maximilian out of Mexico. It may have served us in some indeterminatedirections during the first half of our national existence, but if it hasprofited us in any other way the evidence does not seem to be available.Certainly we can show no financial profit, and no prospect in this direction.It may not be clear that our trade in Latin America would have beensubstantially greater if it had been colonized by European nations anddeveloped under their flags, but it certainly is not clear that this wouldnot have been the case. Our total trade with South America for theyear ending June 30, 1913 (unaffected by war), was a little over $360,-000,000. Our trade with Canada the same year was over $535,000,000.Approximately $162,000,000 of our South American trade was withBrazil alone, the greater portion being imports of coffee, which we maysafely assume would have sought a market in this country no matter underwhat flag the coffee had been raised. It seems equally true that oursales of agricultural implements to South America would doubtless havebeen as great if the flag of England or Germany or France or Italy orSpain had been flying in the southern portion of the hemisphere.I am not regretting the political independence of the South Americanrepublics. On the contrary, I share in the feeling of pride in theirachievements, which is perhaps not justified by our contribution to thatresult. I am merely pointing out that the further assertion of the Monroe Doctrine would seem to have no justification in the commercial resultsobtained by it; and the extension of our trade in the future will dependupon considerations with which the Monroe Doctrine has nothing whatever to do. But even if it were true that its abandonment would resultin some diminution of our commerce, which I do not believe, the losswould be utterly insignificant in comparison with the expenditure weshall have to make if the Monroe Doctrine is to be anything but asource of weakness and of danger.PREPARATIONS FOR PEACE 39There is a widespread popular impression that Germany has ulteriordesigns on South America, and that, if successful in the present war, shewill restrict the trade of other nations and discriminate against thiscountry. I find no justification for this opinion. I have no doubt thatGermany resents and disagrees with the doctrine of Monroe. I have nodoubt that, whether successful or unsuccessful in the war, she will seekto push her trade and commerce in South America. But all of theindications are that Germany has been looking to the Near and MiddleEast as the field peculiarly adapted for her political and commercialexpansion. It is the Bagdad Railroad and the ancient Babylonianempire upon which she seems to have fixed her desires, and with respectto which she so bitterly resents the restrictions for which she holdsEngland responsible. There is much misunderstanding about Germancolonization in South America. It is estimated that the total Germanimmigration now in Argentina, for instance, is only 30,000, while thereare 950,000 Italians, and 150,000 French.1 I have been unable to obtainthe total figures for Brazil; but in 1910 the immigration was 30,857Portuguese; 20,843 Spanish; 14,163 Italians; 3,902 Germans, etc.I shall refer to only one other matter of this character, and that isour relations with Japan; and I select them because we are supposedby many to be in greater danger of a collision with Japan than with anyother nation, unless it be Germany. It is said that Japan is likely toattack us, because we offer an enticing opportunity for loot, becauseJapan wishes to acquire the Philippines, and because she wishes toforce us to accept her people as immigrants and to treat them on a paritywith the immigrants from other countries.I think we may dismiss, as unworthy of our own intelligence, thesuggestion that Japan would make a wanton attack upon this countrymerely in the hope of exacting an indemnity or of pillaging our PacificCoast. Japan has done nothing that would justify the assumption thatshe would be influenced by such a motive, even if she could be persuaded1 The official immigration figures in Argentina for the period from 1857 to 1908are as follows:Italian 1,799,423Spanish 795,243French 188,316English 42,765Austro-Hungarian 59,800German 40,655Swiss 28,344Belgian 20,668Other 203,242The emigration was a little less than half the immigration.40 THE UNIVERSITY RECORDthat she would succeed. No nation in the history of the world has soclearly earned the right to have its motives, its intelligence, and itsachievements treated with respect than has Japan. Her ambition isclearly to secure the respect of the civilized world, and to deserve it.In my judgment she will be more punctilious in respect to internationalmorals than many nations that boast a broader civilization. But ifnothing else would restrain her, she is too intelligent not to know thatall she could secure in the way of pecuniary advantage would have tobe returned many fold in the competition of armaments that wouldinevitably ensue, until this country had made her atone for every wrongthat she had done to us. The day of the international marauder onany such scale as this is over.The Open Door in China is one of the issues which are thought tobe provocative of trouble with Japan. Hiram Maxim says a Japanesediplomat asked him by what logic we can proclaim America for theAmericans and disclaim Japan's right equally to proclaim Asia for theAsiatics. What is the answer? Baron Shibusawa recently said inmy hearing that Japan was especially desirous of cordial relations withthe United States for three reasons: first, because Japan recognizedmany obligations of gratitude to the United States for our conspicuouspart in the acceptance and development of modern conditions and institutions by Japan; secondly, because one-fourth of Japan's foreign commerce was with the United States, and Japan was anxious to retain andincrease it; thirdly, because the greatest world-problem was the adjustment and mutual understanding of oriental and occidental civilizationand that Japan believed the two nations best adapted to bring thisabout were Japan and the United States, working sympatheticallytogether for this purpose. Such speeches may be only internationalcompliments; but they deserve thoughtful consideration.As to the Philippines, there is no evidence that Japan desires themat this time, when her hands are full to overflowing with opportunitiesin Korea and China. And what is our policy in the Philippines ? Dowe really intend to establish there an independent nation ? Do we propose to retain control over its international policies after we have givenit independence ? If we do not control, do we none the less propose toprotect the Philippine nation against the consequences of its own policies,or to guarantee its sovereignty or territorial integrity ? If we seek toretain no special advantages over other nations in the commercialdevelopment of the Philippine Islands, and are animated by sincerelybenevolent motives, should we not seek to secure international guarantiesPREPARATIONS FOR PEACE 41that would be far more effective than anything that we alone can do toassure independence of the nation for whose existence we are to beresponsible ? Is it at all clear that Japan would not gladly join in suchan arrangement ?The remaining source of future trouble with Japan is the policywhich we adopt toward her with respect to immigration and the rights ofher people while residing in this country. There can be no question thatJapan resents the manner in which her people are being treated on thePacific Coast. Whether California is justified or not in the substanceof what she seeks by restricting the rights of the Japanese to acquireand hold land is entirely outside the point. The citizens of the UnitedStates are under restriction with respect to land ownership in Japan,and this subject is susceptible of diplomatic adjustment on a basis thatwill recognize the mutual self-respect of both countries. Japan has givenevidence of the most substantial character of her desire to meet and treatthis issue in a broad-minded and practical way. She asks merely thatit shall be so treated. If we treat her thus, and have California treather thus, we shall do more to reduce the probability of friction with Japanthan all the naval and military preparations we shall make against her.It is said, however, that we must enormously increase our navyif we are to protect our interests in the Panama Canal. Before the Canalwas constructed the argument ran quite the other way. The construction of the Canal was so to facilitate the passage of our fleet from theAtlantic to the Pacific, or the reverse, that it would double the efficiencyof the fleet, and constitute an asset of incalculable value in the event ofwar. Now, however, it has become merely an extension of our coastline, a vulnerable point which it is essential to take extraordinary precautions to protect. If this is true, we have gained only a militaryliability by the construction of the Canal, having admitted the merchantvessels of all nations to the Canal on a parity with our own. Proximityto the Canal is our only advantage over other nations so far as ourforeign commerce is concerned. If it is to take a huge navy to protectit so that it may be used for the passage of our fleets in time of war, therewould seem to have been little net gain from a military point of view.Should we not be far better off if, having made this splendid contribution to the commerce of the world, we should now completely neutralizethe Canal, under international guaranties, in which we should inviteall civilized nations to join ? The basis of the agreement might be eitherthe closing of the Canal to the warships of belligerent nations, or theopening of the Canal to all belligerents alike, upon the condition that42 THE UNIVERSITY RECORDno encounter should be permitted to take place within a specified distance from either entrance. The practicability of this plan would necessarily depend upon the extent to which the Canal could be secured frominjury or a surprise attack from some belligerent who did not respectits obligations. Either plan would probably result in greater protectionof our interests in the Canal than any security derived from the sizeof the fleet available for its defense in the event of war between theUnited States and any first-class naval power.But the necessity of naval protection for the Canal must be consideredin the light of General Goethals' testimony before the subcommitteeof the Committee on Appropriations of the Llouse of Representatives.General Goethals testified that on the assumption that the naval contesthad been ended, and that the control of the sea rested with the enemy,so that the enemy's transports were free and able to land troops, a forceof 25,000 men with proper land defenses would be able to hold off aninvading expedition against the Panama Canal at least as long as thetime that was necessary for the capture of Port Arthur. If this betrue, it would seem clear that the defense of the Panama Canal wouldnecessitate no departure from the defensive naval policy in which thesubmarine would largely replace the dreadnaught and the battle cruiser.The Canal is peculiarly adapted for defense by submarines and thereis a difference of expert opinion as to whether its land defenses shouldnot be confined to defense against raids.It will naturally be said that even if we abandon the policy ofextending our commercial interests by force or by the show of forceother nations will not do so, and unless we are prepared to assert ourrights in foreign lands our financial interests will suffer, our pride behumbled, and our people be humiliated and abused. There are casesin which we must be prepared to send warships into foreign seas toenforce respect for the flag of the United States, and for those who areentitled to its protection. The policies I am suggesting would neverleave this country without a navy containing sufficient warships tocompel the respect of or to punish those inferior nations from which weneed have any apprehension of wanton insult or ill treatment of ournationals. No civilized nation of consequence would in time of peacerefuse atonement for insult or injury to any of our people. We mayconclusively assume that every reparation would be made, and everyprecaution would be taken against the repetition of such an incident.Nothing but the willingness of the offending nation to proceed to warwould call for a larger navy than we should have; and our navalPREPARATIONS FOR PEACE 43policies in the event of war would depend upon, and be determined by,the larger considerations to which I have referred. Assuming thatwe were protected at home against invasion, we might effectivelyresort to other weapons than the use of force. There are some conceptions of national honor and of what is essential for its vindicationthat are reminiscent of the code duello; but they cannot long survive thatdiscredited institution.To the contention that we must have a navy adequate to protectour foreign trade and keep open the highways of commerce, it seemssufficient to reply that unless we develop a real merchant marine ourforeign commerce would be carried on neutral ships; that no blockadeof our extensive coasts could be made effective; and that nothing butthe dominion of the seas could give us an assurance of uninterruptedforeign trade if private commerce is not to be safe under the sanctionsof international law. General Greene has aptly said:We do not need and will not have in this country an army of seven hundredthousand men, as some ill-balanced enthusiasts demand; we are not compelled to andwe will not enter the battleship race of England and Germany. England must runthis race or die. We are not so situated, and it would be supreme folly for us to wasteour resources or our thoughts on any such contest.But a defensive military policy does not assume a policy of international isolation. If there is anything which this war and the issuesarising out of this war have made clear, it is that no nation can longerlive unto itself, and least of all that a great commercial nation like theUnited States can refrain from active and direct participation in thedetermination of those policies and the creation of those agencies bywhich law is to be substituted for war and the peaceful developmentof the world is to be assured. The peaceful development of the UnitedStates is indissolubly linked with the peaceful development of Europeand the world. We can no longer refrain from alliances because theymay involve us in issues from which, thus far, we have happily been free.We must take our place in the family of nations and assume our fullmeasure of responsibility. Nor need we despair of making substantialprogress toward the substitution of peaceful means for the settlementof international differences by force of arms.The declaration of President Wilson with regard to Pan-Americanism in his annual message should serve the useful purposeof directing public attention to the inapplicability of the old conceptions of the Monroe Doctrine to existing conditions. If this nation isreally definitely to abandon the role "which it was always difficult tomaintain without offense to the pride of the peoples whose freedom of44 THE UNIVERSITY RECORDaction we sought to protect, and without provoking serious misconceptions of our motives," and is to interpret the Monroe Doctrine as aninvitation to "a full and honorable association, as of partners, betweenourselves and our neighbors, in the interest of all America, north andsouth," it marks a tremendous forward step in the national policies ofthe United States. It must not be forgotten, however, that the invitation has not yet been accepted, and, above all, that it has not yet beenembodied in any international undertakings that can be regarded as asubstitute for the doctrine of Monroe.The President's message is admirable so far as it goes, but it leavesunanswered the question as to what this country would propose to doin any of the contingencies to which I have referred. Are we to have adefensive alliance with the Latin- American nations, and if so, upon whatmutual terms and conditions ? Can we, and shall we, make a real starttoward "the parliament of man, the federation of the world," by aPan-American alliance in the interests of peace? Undoubtedly therenever was an opportunity so favorable as this; and why should we notpress home our opportunity by inaugurating that League to EnforcePeace, which is the most practical of all the suggestions that have thusfar been made for the substitution of law for war by internationalagreement ?I trust that the Chamber of Commerce of the United States willseize the opportunity which is peculiarly within its grasp. Never, itseems to me, was anything more timely than the referendum whichis now being taken by that great national association of the businessinterests of America. I think it is safe to assume that few, indeed,in this audience are aware of an event which is almost epochal in itsimportance.On the second day of September, 19 15, a Special Committee of theChamber of Commerce of the United States of America, composed ofmen of large business experience, representing commercial institutionsof the highest and most conservative standing, unanimously recommended that Congress and the President be called upon to do all intheir power to promote the establishment of:1. A more comprehensive and better-defined sea law.2. An International Court.3. A Council of Conciliation.4. International Conferences for the better establishment and progressiveamendment of International Law.5. The organization of a System of Commercial and Financial Non-Intercourse,to be followed by military force, if necessary, to be applied to those nations enteringPREPARATIONS FOR PEACE 45into the foregoing arrangements and then going to war without first submitting theirdifferences to an agreed-upon tribunal.1The first four of these recommendations are regarded as based uponconsiderations so convincing that the committee appointed to formulatearguments against the recommendations involved, so that all phases ofthe question should be presented on the taking of the referendum, said:It is assumed that the first four proposals of the committee are directed to conditions so well understood that the agreement about the answers to them is so nearlyuniversal as to render unnecessary any attempt to formulate objections to them.As to the fifth proposal, the committee which is in charge of the referendum vote states that it involves the adoption of a new principle "which,however moderate in its immediate form, may be regarded as a departure from accepted rules of conduct in international law"; and it setsforth a number of objections, which it says "may be deserving of attention."All of these objections, however, were met in advance in the unanimous report of the special committee. Having already pointed out that"the problem of securing peace and justice among nations is simply anextension of what we have successfully solved in the national andmunicipal realms," and that international conferences have alreadysecured results of the greatest importance for the peace and progress ofthe world, the committee expresses the opinion that —This movement toward international agreement and law was gaining in strengtheach year. Stopped by the war, there is little doubt that it will revive stronger, andpursue its course in a more regular and systematic way when the war is over. Businessmen perhaps more than others should be anxious to support such endeavors for abetter understanding among nations, establishing more firmly enlightened standardsto govern their interrelations and furnishing a more elaborate and organic body ofinternational public and administrative law. The present war has again incon-trovertibly shown the fundamental need for this. The problem is, then, not new ornovel, but needs only to be broadened and organized to yield all the desired benefits..... There is a difference of opinion as to the employment of force to compel anysignatory nation to submit its cause to an international tribunal before going to war.Your Committee, however, believes that the great majority of the practical men of1 The preliminary count of the votes of the constituent members of the nationalchamber on this referendum, announced on January 5, 1916, showed the followingresults:Proposition 1, 763 in favor; 29 opposed.Proposition 2, 753 in favor; 21 opposed.Proposition 3, 744 in favor; 28 opposed.Proposition 4, 769 in favor; 13 opposed.Proposition 5 (a) 556 in favor; 157 opposed (economic pressure).Proposition $(b) 452 in favor; 249 opposed (military force).46 THE UNIVERSITY RECORDthe United States who hold themselves responsible for reasonable progress see thenecessity of the employment of an adequate pressure or force to compel signatorynations to bring their cause before an International Court or Council of Conciliationbefore going to war; because however desirable it may be, theoretically, not to useforce, yet the history of the last one hundred years, the many wars during that time,and the events of the present war have made apparent the fundamental need of aninternational power to enforce the submission of international disputes to a court.The alternative is constantly recurring wars, and, in the interval between these wars,the increasing absorption in preparation for war of the resources of the principal nationsof the world.The committee demonstrates the wisdom and the practicability ofthe use of economic pressure as a preliminary to the use of force, andpoints out that, while such pressure involves economic loss to the nationsthat apply it, "war, too, is costly and self -injurious to the nations whichessay it."Your Committee has studied sympathetically the arguments of those who, onprinciple, oppose all force, even to enforce law instead of war; likewise, the argumentof those who respect the tradition that the United States should "keep free of entangling alliances." It must be conceded that the latter described a past policy underwhich our nation has grown in prosperity and happiness. But your Committee isforced to see that our country is already directly involved in the present war, becausethe lives and prosperity of American citizens have been involved, and because thefuture peace and prosperity of our country will be involved in the settlement ofthe war.Your Committee believes that American citizens, realizing the world's imperativeneed of the substitution of law for war, if militarism is not to dominate, are ready, nay,feel it the clear call of duty, to take their share of the work and responsibility necessary to establish this substitution. We cannot escape if we would, we would not if wecould; the call of women and children, of the helpless and the weak, suffering indescribably from needless war, is an irresistible compulsion to all Americans, and, notleast, to American business men Knowing that civilization is made up of the work and suffering and martyrdomsof the past, we are willing, yes, anxious, to "pay back," in kind if necessary, whatwe are enjoying, if thereby we can help on this greatest forward step of civilization —the substitution of law for war. Your Committee believes that the time is ripe, asnever before, for the fundamental advance in civilization that the establishing of aninternational Court and Council represents Your Committee believes that itis practically possible that the time has arrived, if the United States will but do itsshare of the work. There is little real hope for success if the United States is not apart of it If, at the close of the war there exists the legalized purpose of theUnited States to join in the work needed to enforce peace, there will be a most practicalreason to expect success for this so necessary step forward. In fact, the beginning ofthe necessary organization may be in existence at that time, by reason of the agreementbetween the United States and some of the neutral nations of South America andEurope. It is a great opportunity, perhaps the greatest that has ever come to anynation. It is a great adventure practically within our power to promote — an enterprise that appeals to all that is best in us — an opportunity we will not miss.PREPARATIONS FOR PEACE 47Remember, these are not the words and this is not the action of abody of visionary enthusiasts; it is the unanimous recommendationof a special committee of the greatest commercial body in this country,appointed " to examine into the relations between the present war andbusiness, and submit suggestions as to the future." Nor is it the onlyindication of the progress of higher ideals in international relations.There is a despatch which was sent by Sir Edward Grey to SirEdward Goshen, British Ambassador at Berlin, at the very crisis of thediplomatic interchanges which preceded the war, which I have read andre-read with mingled feelings of sadness and hope. It has always seemedto me the most tragic of all the official documents which have been published by the warring nations, and, at the same time, the most encouraging. Just as it seemed inevitable that the explosion would occur, thatthe catastrophe must happen, after the suggestions and counter-suggestions, the complaints and counter-complaints had been discussedunder the forms and usages of diplomacy, Sir Edward Grey struck anew note that went straight to the heart of the underlying cause of allthe difficulty. On July 30, 19 14, he authorized Sir Edward Goshen tosay to the German Chancellor:If the peace of Europe can be preserved and the present crisis safely passed, myown endeavor will be to promote some arrangement, to which Germany could be aparty, by which she could be assured that no aggressive or hostile policy would bepursued against her or her allies, by France, Russia, and ourselves, jointly or separately.I have desired this and worked for it, as far as I could, through the last Balkan crisis,and Germany having a corresponding object, our relations sensibly improved. Theidea has hitherto been too Utopian to form the subject of definite proposals; but ifthis present crisis, so much more acute than any that Europe has gone through forgenerations, be safely passed, I am hopeful that the relief and reaction which willfollow may make possible some more definite rapprochement between the powers thanhas been possible hitherto.Sir Edward Grey did not indicate exactly what he had in mind, butwith the fate of Europe trembling in the balance, Utopia seemed nearerand more practically available than had seemed possible before. It wasto be "some more definite rapprochement between the powers than hasbeen possible hitherto" — some arrangement to which Germany couldbe a party, by which she could be assured that no aggressive or hostilepolicy would be pursued against her or her allies "by France, Russia, andourselves, jointly or separately." Oh, the pity that Utopia had notseemed nearer a little while before; that this despatch should havewaited for " this present crisis, so much more acute than any that Europehas gone through for generations." What a tragedy that it should have48 THE UNIVERSITY RECORDbeen received by a chancellor who heard it without comment "becauseHis Excellency was so taken up with the news of the Russian measuresalong the frontier."That despatch has not yet been answered. The German Chancellorasked for and received a copy as a memorandum, as "he would like toreflect on it before giving an answer." He has had much time and muchoccasion to reflect. That despatch will be unanswered at the close of thewar. The future of mankind depends upon the spirit in which its discussion is resumed, and upon the conditions which then exist. Afterthis present conflict, so much more destructive and appalling than any thatEurope has gone through, why should not the United States hold opena road that will at least lead toward Utopia by adopting the suggestionson which the members of the national Chamber of Commerce are nowvoting — by having in existence the beginning of a League to EnforcePeace by agreements then already made between the United States andsome of the neutral nations of South America and Europe ? Si vis pacem,para pacem. If we wish peace let us prepare for peace.THE BOARD OF TRUSTEESBy J. SPENCER DICKERSON, SecretaryAPPOINTMENTSIn addition to reappointments the following appointments of officersof instruction have been made during the Autumn Quarter:Benjamin Warren Brown, Instructor in the Department of Sociology,from October i, 191 5.Charles Truman Gray, Research Instructor in the Department ofEducation, from October 1, 1915. Mr. Gray is on leave of absence fromthe University of Texas; he is also an appointee of the General Education Board.Wilbur L. Beauchamp, Instructor in Chemistry, University HighSchool, from October 1, 191 5.Nell C. Curtis, Instructor in the Elementary School, from October 1,1915-Cora C. Colburn, Director of University Commons, from October 1,RETIREMENTIn accordance with the statutes, Professor Charles Chandler, whowas appointed, January 29, 1892, as Professor in the Department ofLatin, was retired, at his request, January 1, 191 6.LEAVE OF ABSENCELeave of absence has been granted Edwin F. Hirsch, Instructor inPathology, from January 1, 1916, until October 1, 1916. Mr. Hirschwill act as interne in the Presbyterian Hospital, Chicago.RESIGNATIONSThe following resignations have been accepted:Miss Winifred Pearce, Associate in the Department of PhysicalCulture and Athletics, effective October 1, 191 5.Miss Irene Warren, of the Library Staff of the School of Education,effective December 1, 1915.James R. Young, Instructor in the Department of Education (whoaccepts an associate professorship in the University of Nevada), effectiveSeptember 1, 191 5.Charles J. Pieper, Instructor in Chemistry in the University HighSchool, effective October 1, 1915.49So THE UNIVERSITY RECORDGeorge A. Dorsey, Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology, effective November i, 191 5.H. Gideon Wells has resigned as Assistant Dean of Medical Students, effective January 1, 1916.COLLECTION OF CHINESE COINSRev. Jacob Speicher, editorial secretary of the China Baptist Publication Society, Canton, China, has presented to the University a rarecollection of ancient Chinese coins, which are now deposited in HaskellOriental Museum. Chinese coins, medals, and amulets to the number of844, arranged in historical sequence, are supplemented by coins of Annamand Korea, with a few from the old regime of Japan. Altogether 1,068specimens are included.QUARTER-CENTENNIAL CELEBRATIONAt the meeting of the Board of Trustees, held November 16, 1915,the following report on the celebration of the twenty-fifth anniversaryof the University was adopted:The committee appointed April 24, 19 14, "to prepare for the proper commemoration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the foundation of the University, includingalso in its duties the consideration of the date to be observed and other matters pertaining to the celebration of the event," reports as follows:The Board of Trustees by vote on July 13, 19 15, decided, in conformity to thedates of previous celebrations, to adopt the year 19 16 as that to be observed.It is recommended:1. The scope of the celebration:a) That the celebration shall be primarily a home affair for the University itself,its alumni, for the city of Chicago, and for higher educational institutions in Chicagoand Illinois.b) That there shall be special guests invited to give addresses or read papers of ascientific character.2. Departmental gatherings:That departmental gatherings, including especially Doctors of Philosophy,should be planned. Addresses from distinguished guests may be arranged in thisconnection.3. Speakers:a) That at least one address be given by some person of eminent national distinction.b) That there be at least three addresses representing the college, and graduateand professional schools of the University, these to be devoted to an interpretationof the life and purposes of the University of Chicago at the end of the quarter-century.4. Special guests:a) That the Founder of the University, Mr. and Mrs. John D. Rockefeller, Jr.,and Mr. and Mrs. F. T. Gates be especially invited by the Board of Trustees and aresolution of the Board be adopted to that effect.THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 51c) That the governor of the state of Illinois, the mayor of Chicago, and such othercivic authorities in the city and state be invited as may be deemed proper by a specialcommittee on invitation to be appointed.6. Alumni and students:a) That one day of the celebration be set aside and be devoted to an alumnicelebration under the direction of the Alumni Council and that special effort be madeby the University to interest as many of the alumni as possible.b) That the question of a pageant by alumni and students be referred to theAlumni Council and the Undergraduate Council for report to the Board of Trustees.c) That the question of further exercises for and by the students be referred to theUndergraduate Council for report to the Board.d) That the President of the Alumni Council, or his appointee, and the Council'sChairman for Alumni Day be especially invited to attend all functions of the celebration.7. Publications:a) That the history of the University, now in preparation by Dr. T. W. Good-speed, be published.b) That a catalogue of matriculants be published, the exact extent of the catalogueto be hereafter determined.c) That there be issued a comprehensive bibliography of the contributions toscience and literature of all members of the Faculty and Doctors of Philosophy ofthe University and a list of the publications of the University Press.d) That a commemorative volume relating to the celebration be published.e) That an effort be made to obtain a subsidy fund for book publications.8. Dedication:That the dedication of Ida Noyes Hall be one feature of the celebration.9. Exhibits:That exhibits of the work of all departments, including especially publicationsby members of the faculty and by graduates, be prepared.10. University dinner:That there be a dinner for the University and special guests.n. Time of the celebration:That the celebration cover five days, from Friday, June 9, to and includingTuesday, June 13, Convocation Day.12. The fiftieth anniversary of the Divinity School:a) That the fiftieth celebration be regarded as the share of the Divinity School inthe general quarter-centennial celebration of the University.b) That two sessions be given to the reading of papers dealing with the scientificand the practical aspects of the Divinity School. An effort will be made in thesetwo sessions to show the share of the Divinity School in the development of theologicalscholarship and of the extension of religion and morality into social, missionary, andeducational fields.c) That the speakers at these sessions be Doctors or former students of theDivinity School.d) That the program of one general afternoon or evening session of the quarter-centennial be assigned to the Divinity School, at which there shall be a historicaladdress and another dealing with the present situation of religion.e) That an alumni dinner or luncheon of the Divinity School be held.52 THE UNIVERSITY RECORDg) That an effort be made as far as possible to bring back living alumni of thefirst class who graduated in the original seminary, one of whom should give a historicalsketch of the beginning of the seminary.h) That a special effort be made to bring back all those who have received a degreefrom the institution.i) That an exhibition be made of the publications of the members of the DivinitySchool and its Doctors.j) That an effort be made to obtain a building for theological instruction.13. Funds:Any and all items in the report involving any expenditure are to be again submitted to the Board with an estimate of the expense likely to be incurred in connectiontherewith, and no liability shall be incurred without the previous approval and sanctionof the Board.At the meeting of the Board of Trustees, held December 14, 191 5,it was voted:To appoint a General Committee of Arrangements to have charge of the celebration, such committee to consist of thirty-five members, of which six members shall beappointed by the President of the Board, sixteen members from the faculties of theUniversity, five from the Alumni Council, and two from students now in residence atthe University, together with the President and Secretary of the Board of Trustees,the President of the University, the Secretary to the President of the University, andthe President and Secretary of the Alumni Council, ex-officio; that the General Committee shall have power to appoint subcommittees, including, if desired, persons notmembers of the General Committee, but that the General Committee shall includein its Finance Subcommittee only the six members of the Board to be designated bythe President; that no financial liabilities for expenditures in connection with thecelebration shall be incurred unless the same have been, in each case, previouslyauthorized by such Finance Subcommittee, which said committee shall be empoweredto make expenditures only in accordance with previous appropriation made thereforby the Board.In accordance with the foregoing action the following have beenappointed as the Committee of Arrangements on the Quarter-CentennialCelebration:Ex-officio:The President of the Board of Trustees, Martin A. Ryerson.The President of the University, Harry Pratt Judson.The President of the Alumni Council, Albert W. Sherer.The Secretary of the Board of Trustees, J. Spencer Dickerson.The Secretary to the President of the University, David A. Robertson.The Secretary of the Alumni Council, John F. Moulds.From the Board of Trustees: E. B. Felsenthal, H. G. Grey, C. L. Hutchinson,R. L. Scott, Willard A. Smith, H. H. Swift.From the Faculty: J. R. Angell, J. H. Breasted, E. D. Burton, J. M. Coulter,S. W. Cutting, Mrs. Edith F. Flint, J. P. Hall, C. H. Judd, G.J. Laing, ShailerMathews, R. D. Salisbury, F. W. Shepardson, Marion Talbot, A. A. Stagg, JuliusStieglitz, J. H. Tufts.From the Alumni: Arthur E. Bestor, W. Scott Bond, Scott Brown, H. E. Slaught,Helen T. Sunny.Students in residence: James Oliver Murdock, Leslie M. Parker.THE QUARTER-CENTENNIALPreparations for the Quarter-Centennial celebration of the University of Chicago are officially mentioned by the Secretary of the Boardof Trustees in his report printed in this issue of the University Record.Since the formulation of that official statement there have been severalinteresting developments.Subsequent to the determination of the dates for the Universitycelebration, announcement was made of the meeting of the Republicanand Progressive national conventions in Chicago, June 7. The conflictof dates was thoroughly discussed by the Quarter-Centennial ExecutiveCommittee. After considering the advantages and disadvantages ofthe original program and certain other possible arrangements of dates,the Executive Committee submitted to the members of the GeneralCommittee a proposal to hold the University celebration from FridayJune 2, to Tuesday, June 6. The members of the General Committeehave approved these proposed dates.The members of the Committee of Arrangements have been assignedduties on sub-committees as follows:Executive Committee: President Harry Pratt Judson, Mr. James R. Angell, Mr.Harold H. Swift, Mr. Arthur E. Bestor, Mr. Ernest D. Burton, Mr. James ParkerHall, Mr. Francis W. Shepardson, Mr. David A. Robertson.Finance Committee: Mr. Eli B. Felsenthal, Mr. Howard G. Grey, Mr. CharlesL. Hutchinson, Mr. Martin A. Ryerson, Mr. Robert L. Scott, Mr. Williard A. Smith,Mr. Harold H. Swift.Invitations: President Harry Pratt Judson, Mr. Eli B. Felsenthal, Mr. CharlesL. Hutchinson, Miss Marion Talbot, Mr. James H. Tufts.Reception Committee: Mr. James H. Breasted, Mrs. Edith Foster Flint, Mr.David A. Robertson, Mr. Robert L. Scott.Committee on University Dinner: Mr. Rollin D. Salisbury, Mr. Francis W. Shepardson, Mr. Willard A. Smith.Committee on Departmental Conferences: Mr. John M. Coulter, Mr. Starr WillardCutting, Mr. Herbert E. Slaught.Committee on Exhibits: Mr. Ernest D. Burton, Mr. J. Spencer Dickerson, Mr.James O. Murdock.Committee on the Divinity School: Mr. Shailer Mathews, Mr. Howard G. Grey.Committee on the Dedication of Ida Noyes Hall: Miss Marion Talbot, Mrs. EdithFoster Flint, Miss Helen T. Sunny.Committee on Bibliography: Mr. Julius Stieglitz, Mr. Charles H. Judd, Mr.Gordon J. Laing.Committee on Catalogue of Matriculants: Mr. John F. Moulds, Mr. Julius Stieglitz.5354 THE UNIVERSITY RECORDCommittee on Subsidy Fund: Mr. Gordon J. Laing, Mr. James H. Breasted.Committee on Athletics: Mr. Amos Alonzo Stagg, Mr. Scott Brown.Alumni Committee: Mr. Arthur E. Bestor, Mr. Scott Brown, Mr. John F. Moulds,Mr. Albert W. Sherer, Mr. Herbert E. Slaught, Miss Helen T. Sunny.Student Committee: Mr. James O. Murdock, Mr. Leslie Parker.It is understood that each of the foregoing committees has power toincrease its number. The Committee on the Dedication of Ida NoyesHall, for instance, of which Miss Talbot is chairman, has announced thefollowing membership:Miss Zonia Baber, Miss Katharine Blunt, Miss Sophonisba P. Breckinridge, MissLillian Sophia Cushman, Miss Gertrude Dudley, Mrs. Edith Foster Flint, Miss CoraM. Gettys, Miss Antoinette Hollister, Miss Helen Johnston, Miss Florence V. Lamb,Miss Euphrosyne E. Langley, Miss Mary J. Lanier, Miss Gillie A. Larew, MissKatherine H. Llewellyn, Miss Margaret V. Monroe, Miss Mary Prince, Miss RuthProsser, Miss Myra Reynolds, Miss Helen T. Sunny, Miss Marion Talbot, Miss AliceTemple, Miss Ethel M. Terry, Miss Elizabeth Wallace, Miss Agnes R. Wayman, Dr.Josephine E. Young.Honorary members: Mrs. Harry Pratt Judson, Mrs. Martin A. Ryerson.Advisory Committee of Alumnae. — Miss Elizabeth Faulkner (1885), Mrs. Antoinette Gary Shipley (1893), Mrs. Maud Radford Warren (1894), Miss Charlotte H.Foye (1895), Mrs. Agnes Cook Gale (1896), Mrs. Edith Capps Shambaugh (1897),Mrs. Dernis Butler Gorrell (1898), Miss Josephine T. Allin (1899), Mrs. Davida HarperEaton (1900), Mrs. Ruth Hardy Griswold (1901), Mrs. Ethel Ramick McDowell(1902), Mrs. Martha Landers Thompson (i903),|Miss Shirley Farr (1904), Miss HelenA. Freeman (1905), Miss Marie Ortmayer (1906), Mrs. Grace Williamson Willett(1907), Mrs. Phebe Bell Terry (1908), Miss Mary E. Courtenay (1909), Mrs. MaryGude Coleman (19 10), Mrs. Geraldine Brown Gilkey (191 1), Miss Margaret V.Sullivan (1912), Miss Martha Green (1913), Miss Blanche A. Mason (1914), MissIrene Tufts (1915), Miss Emma G. Dickerson (1916), Mrs. Jessie Heckman Hirschell(1910), president of the Chicago Alumnae Club.Other committees are at work and a complete list will be publishedin the next number of the Record.EVENTS: PAST AND FUTURETHE NINETY-SEVENTH CONVOCATIONHon. Walter L. Fisher, LL.D., formerly Secretary of the Interior, was theConvocation orator on December 21,1915. His subject was: "Preparationsfor Peace."The Award of Honors included theelection of twenty-five students to membership in Sigma Xi, and three studentsto membership in the Beta of IllinoisChapter of Phi Beta Kappa.Degrees and titles were conferred asfollows: The Colleges: the title of Associate, 87; the Certificate of the Collegeof Education, 3; the degree of Bachelorof Arts, 1; the degree of Bachelor ofPhilosophy, 29; the degree of Bachelorof Science, 12. The Divinity School:the degree of Master of Arts, 1; thedegree of Doctor of Philosophy, 1.The Law School: the degree of Doctorof Law, 6. The Graduate Schools of Arts,Literature, and Science: the degree ofMaster of Arts, 6; the degree of Masterof Science, 4; the degree of Doctor ofPhilosophy, 6. The total number ofdegrees conferred (not including titlesand certificates) was 66.The Convocation Reception was heldin Hutchinson Hall on the evening ofDecember 20. President and Mrs. Judson, the Convocation orator, Mr. WalterL. Fisher, and Mrs. Fisher were in thereceiving line.The Convocation Prayer Service washeld at 10:30 a.m. in the Reynolds ClubTheater on Sunday, December 19, andthe Convocation Religious Service at11:00 a.m. in Leon Mandel AssemblyHall. The Convocation sermon waspreached by Rev. John Timothy Stone,D.D., pastor of the Fourth PresbyterianChurch, Chicago.THE NINETY-EIGHTH CONVOCATIONAt the Ninety-eighth Convocation to beheld in Leon Mandel Assembly HallTuesday, March 21, 19 16, the addresswill be by J. Laurence Laughlin, Ph.D.,Professor and Head of the Departmentof Political Economy since 1892. Thesubject will be: "Economic Liberty." The Convocation preacher, March 19,19 16, will be Rev. Professor GeraldBirney Smith.GENERAL ITEMSThe statement made by Owen Wister inhis recently published book, The Pentecostof Calamity, that "the University of Chicago stopped the mouth of a Belgian professor who was going to present Belgium'scase," has been so widely discussed in university circles and is so unfair to theinstitution concerned that ProfessorJames R. Angell, Dean of the Facultiesat the University of Chicago, sent thefollowing protest to the London Times:The University of ChicagoTo the editor of the u London Times":In his recently published book entitledThe Pentecost of Calamity, on p. 135, Mr.Owen Wister puts into the mouth ofFrench and Belgian emissaries thewords, "the University of Chicagostopped the mouth of a Belgian professorwho was going to present Belgium's case."This statement has been given such widepublicity in the British and Canadianpublications, and it is so wholly unfounded in fact, that it seems desirable toenter protest against its further circulation. The author has written to Mr.Wister asking for an explanation and hashad no acknowledgment of his letter.Others of his colleagues have been morefortunate in securing some reply fromMr. Wister's secretary, but no adequateexplanation, much less any retraction.Needless to say, under the organizationcommon to American institutions ofhigher learning the University as suchcannot align itself on any issue of thekind represented by the present war.Meantime this institution was, so far asI am aware, one of the first Americanuniversities to invite to a seat on itsregular faculty a member of the facultyof the University of Louvain. Thegentleman, Professor Van der Essen, camein October and was present as a lecturerat the University throughout the entireacademic year of 19 14-1 5 . He bore himself with the greatest dignity and self-control and was certainly never interferedwith in any way by the University in5556 THE UNIVERSITY RECORDexpressing whatever views he choseregarding Belgium and its enemies.Moreover, the University has in thepresent year appointed Dr. GeorgesVan Biesbroeck, of the Royal Observatory of Belgium, to a professorship atYerkes Observatory, where he is atpresent at work. A course of thischaracter hardly justifies the implicationthat the University has been indifferentto the case of Belgium, much less that itsattitude has been one of hostility. So faras the writer can discover, the only remotejustification for Mr. Wister's statementmay reside in the objection expressed byProfessor Van der Essen himself to havingcertain extremists invited to presentthe Belgian case to the University ofChicago audiences. But it is to be reiterated that the University of Chicago on nooccasion has done anything to justify theassertion to which Mr. Wister is givingsuch undeserved publicity.James R. AngellDean of the Faculties of Arts,Literature, and ScienceProfessor Leon Van der Essen, of theUniversity of Louvain is now in Oxford,England, where he went at the conclusionof his lectures on Belgium at the University of Chicago. His attention havingbeen called to Dean AngelPs protest, aspublished in the London Times, ProfessorVan der Essen wrote the following letterto the editor:A Belgian in Chicago• To the editor of the " London Times":Sir: I have just read in the Times theprotest issued by Professor James R.Angell, of the University of Chicago,against the assertion of Mr. Owen Wisterthat "the University of Chicago stoppedthe mouth of a Belgian professor who wasgoing to present Belgium's case." As myname is given in that letter, I think it ismy duty to add some explanation to therighteous protest of Professor Angell.As I was the only Belgian professor whowas giving lectures at the University ofChicago in 19 14-15, one might imaginethat I myself complained to Mr. OwenWister about the fact that he alleges.Unfortunately, I do not know the sympathetic American friend of the Allies, Inever met him, and certainly nevercould have made in his presence any complaint of the kind. Moreover, I neverstated anything of that sort. I havealways told, and shall continue to tell, that the University of Chicago — withthe exception, of course, of some Germanprofessors — showed an unlimited sympathy to the Belgian cause and that theprofessors proved to be strong supportersof the Allies. This is the more striking,as Chicago is the center and meeting-place of all the German conspirators.All the time I was busy stating in manyclubs and before many audiences the"case" of Belgium I was never in theslightest way interfered with by theauthorities of the University. Manyprofessors expressed to me their sincerejoy at "seeing me rebuking the argumentsand forgeries of the German propagandists." Finally, before leaving, Iwas asked by the University of ChicagoPress to write, for the American public,a History of Belgium^ which is now readyto be circulated within a few weeks.Better proofs of the University's attitudecould hardly be given. Therefore Iwrote, with complete liberty of judgmentand action, the tribute which appearsin my article "The Sufferings of Belgiumand Public Opinion in America," contributed by me to the Book of Belgium'sGratitude, just published by Lane.I amYours very truly,Leon Van der EssenProfessor in Louvain University6 Winchester-Road, OxfordDecember 20Under the auspices of the Departmentof English four mediaeval and Renaissance plays will be presented February 25in Leon Mandel Assembly Hall. Thefirst play, Sponsus, a liturgical drama ofthe twelfth century, is under the directionof Dr. J. Lewis Browne, organist and choirmaster of St. Patrick's Church. TheSecond Sheperd's Play, will be in chargeof Associate Professor Percy HolmesBoynton. The third play, Nice Wanton,is under supervision of Associate Professor David Allan Robertson. Theclosing part of the program, under direction of Professor William D. MacClintock,will be an "Elizabethan Jig," with songparts and dancing. Special stage settingsand special costumes are to be designed,and the whole presentation is expectedto be historically and artistically notable.The general chairman is Associate Professor Charles Read Baskervill. Othermembers of the committee are Messrs.Lovett, Tolman, MacClintock, Linn,Boynton, Robertson.