Part 2

A war of airplanes, poison gas, and hate――a baby killers’ war――the women conscripted and exterminated with the men――a city wiped out at a time――America’s cities almost as vulnerable as Europe’s, now that airships and submarines carry planes――such a war would surely be the twilight of the white civilization. We should perish as other civilizations in the brief span of human history have perished before us.

Consequently, while war is threatening from every quarter, preparedness for war offers no hope to any nation――not even the hope of victory. Increasing preparedness can only hasten the “general doom.” Our sole hope of survival lies in preparing adequately and intelligently for peace.

HISTORY HAS SHOWN A SUCCESSFUL WAY OUT

The way out of the perilous chaos into which godless and stupid policies have brought the world is a way that has proved uniformly successful. It has been tried so far in cities, states, and nations. It worked in the Maine township where I grew up, and it works equally well on a national scale in every civilized land on which the sun shines. It is now universally practised――except between nations.

MACHINERY PLUS PUBLIC OPINION

We call it, roughly speaking, the substitution of law for war. To express it more accurately, our present task is to build machinery adequate to settle all disputes that might cause war, and to build behind that machinery a sound world opinion capable of bearing very heavy strains.

Machinery unsupported by public opinion is dead. On the other hand, public opinion without machinery through which to function is helpless.

These are the two main tasks. At the same time, armaments must be reduced by international conferences, war must be outlawed, and goodwill must be cultivated. The development of goodwill should be begun in the schools.

THE MACHINERY ESSENTIAL

In Maine we had both a court and a town meeting to keep us out of war. The court dealt with our legal disputes and the town meeting with the rest. Both were supported by public opinion. The strength of this opinion made the work of our one policeman light. The system worked.

In California in ’49, men relied on pistols for justice and security. It did not work. Thugs could shoot as straight as honest men. So in California they shifted from the war system to the law system and were able before long to forbid the carrying of pistols. Obviously, this change of method was wrought without changing human nature.

The progress of civilization has been characterized by just such an extension of the reign of law. One step remains to be taken. Since it works everywhere else, we should enthrone law between nations. As I see it, the essential institutions necessary are those with which New Englanders are familiar――a court for the world’s legal disputes and a town meeting for the rest.

THE WORLD COURT

A court of justice has long been recognized by American statesmen as the cornerstone of world peace. It is clear to anyone who thinks that some provision must be made for the settlement of legal disputes. The Hague Tribunal is not a court of law, but a court of arbitration, and therefore cannot perform the tasks now under our consideration.

The Permanent Court of International Justice, popularly called the World Court, is the kind of court required. It has been accepted by 47 nations. It, too, meets at The Hague. It is largely the creation of American genius. Elihu Root is its father. It is the practically universal judgment of the peace forces of America that our first step towards peace should be to join the existing World Court and with the Hughes reservations. The Hughes reservations protect us from inadvertently joining the League before we are ready. We accept this limitation. We will proceed one step at a time.

No substitute plan receives any support whatever, and for excellent reasons. This specific proposal has the endorsement of President Coolidge and of both the Republican and Democratic platforms. I regard joining the World Court with the Hughes reservations as this winter’s job (1924–1925). The Senate has had the measure before it in committee nearly two years. Meanwhile the world drifts towards war. It is reasonable to demand speedy action. We must all work to secure it through our Senators.

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS WITH RESERVATIONS

As a court can deal only with legal disputes, and as the most dangerous disputes named above are political and economic rather than legal, it is clear that the World Court alone will not end war. A town meeting of the world under some name is as necessary as the court. This fact is generally recognized and the idea of a League of Nations is nearly everywhere accepted.

The existing League of Nations I used to oppose on the ground that it seemed to me to be so tied up with the Versailles Treaty that it was more likely to cause war than to prevent it. I believe still that its coercive features are impracticable. I have come to the conviction, however, that America should now consider joining the League of Nations with such reservations on Articles X and XVI as will relieve us from every legal and moral obligation to go to war or to undertake any coercive economic measures that might lead to war. We should also be protected by reservation from any possible construction of obligation under the Versailles Treaty. I may add that my observation is that the genuine opposition to the League in this country is in reality opposition to the commitments indicated in these reservations.

Although the League is still in its formative period, it is, I believe, firmly established. Fifty-five out of 64 eligible nations belong to it. Turkey and Germany will probably join within twelve months. Then only Russia, the United States, Mexico and four small nations of those now eligible will remain outside.

Important decisions are being made by the League. America should have a part in making all such decisions, because they inevitably affect our future. The world is now a community, and the welfare of each nation is closely wrapped up with the decisions of the rest.

The League fortunately was not made a political issue of the recent presidential campaign. Secretary Hughes for one took pains to say that he regarded our foreign relations as not an issue. Party politics should stop at the 3-mile limit. Secretary Hughes was also careful to say with reference to the League that it was against the “commitments” of the Covenant that he believed America had declared herself. I believe that we should join the League of Nations on the conditions stated and that we should do so during the present Administration. It is surely becoming increasingly difficult for us to stay outside.

THE OUTLAWRY OF WAR

With court and town meeting established, I believe that the effective outlawry of war is possible. War cannot be outlawed if this is proposed as a device to preserve the present division of territory in Europe. War cannot be outlawed for the protection of injustice or oppression anywhere. Such political chicanery in the outlawry of war would in the end meet with a fearful punishment.

The outlawry of war can succeed permanently, I think, only when accompanied by a general willingness on the part of nations to be just and by such an appreciation of others’ problems as will lead to a friendly spirit of “give and take.” Such jealous nationalism as has historically ruled our Senate is incompatible with it. “Vital interests” and “the national honor” cannot be made exceptions for private treatment, neither can “domestic” questions that are not exclusively domestic, as the American delegation justly urged at the recent opium convention.

The honest outlawry of war demands a higher development of the will to peace and justice than has been observed among great nations in the past. This is why it is the third rather than the first step to be taken. Yet, until aggressive war has been branded as a crime, and until the aggressor has been defined, the prevention of war will be haphazard, and the growth of an effective world opinion against war will be slow and uncertain.

The Geneva Protocol for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes has been ratified by 16 nations including France. It deserves study side by side with the Borah Resolution. Personally I believe that “sanctions” which are to become effective automatically are impracticable. I cannot imagine England seizing our property or blockading us because our Senate refused to accept a League decision.

Wise men make no threats, knowing that they may not want to carry them out and that perhaps to do so would be injustice and folly. Events have justified the founders of our Republic in giving the Supreme Court no force but public opinion to support its decisions as between states. The system has limped at times, but it has always worked better than attempted coercion would have done.