The American Peace Society urges upon the American Government, and upon all civilized nations, the following principles as the hopeful bases of a governed world. It may be said that these principles and proposals have the approval of the highest authorities on international law, of the Supreme Court of the United States, and of practically every accredited peace society and constructive peaceworker in America. I. THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NATIONS Whereas the municipal law of civilized nations recognizes and protects the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to the pursuit of happiness as added by the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America, the right to legal equality, the right to property, and the right to the enjoyment of the aforesaid rights; and Whereas these fundamental rights, thus universally recognized, create a duty on the part of the peoples of all nations to observe them; and Whereas according to the political philosophy of the Declaration of Independence of the United States, and the universal practice of the American Republics, nations or governments are regarded as created by the people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are instituted among men to promote their safety and happiness and to secure to the people the enjoyment of their fundamental rights; and Whereas the nation is a moral or juristic person, the creature of law, and subordinate to law as is the natural person in political society; and Whereas we deem that these fundamental rights can be stated in terms of international law and applied to the relations of the members of the society of nations, one with another, just as they have been applied in the relations of the citizens or subjects of the States forming the society of nations; and Whereas these fundamental rights of national jurisprudence, namely, the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to the pursuit of happiness, the right to equality before the law, the right to property, and the right to the observance thereof are, when stated in terms of international law, the right of the nation to exist and to protect and to conserve its existence; the right of independence and the freedom to develop itself without interference or control from other nations; the right of equality in law and before law; the right to territory within defined boundaries and to exclusive jurisdiction therein; and the right to the observance of these fundamental rights; and Whereas the rights and the duties of nations are, by virtue of membership in the society thereof, to be exercised and performed in accordance with the exigencies of their mutual interdependence expressed in the preamble to the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes of the First and Second Hague Peace Conferences, recognizing the solidarity which unites the members of the society of civilized nations; it should therefore be universally maintained by the nations and peoples of the world, that: I. Every nation has the right to exist, and to protect and to conserve its existence; but this right neither implies the right nor justifies the act of the State to protect itself or to conserve its existence by the commission of unlawful acts against innocent and unoffending States. II. Every nation has the right to independence in the sense that, it has a right to the pursuit of happiness and is free to develop itself without interference or control from other States, provided that in so doing it does not interfere with or violate the rights of other States. III. Every nation is in law and before law the equal of every other nation belonging to the society of nations, and all nations have the right to claim and, according to the Declaration of Independence of the United States, "to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them." IV. Every nation has the right to territory within defined boundaries and to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over its territory, and all persons whether native or foreign found therein. V. Every nation entitled to a right by the law of nations is entitled to have that right respected and protected by all other nations, for right and duty are correlative, and the right of one is the duty of all to observe. VI. International law is at one and the same time both national and international: national in the sense that it is the law of the land and applicable as such to the decision of all questions involving its principles; international in the sense that it is the law of the society of nations and applicable as such to all questions between and among the members of the society of nations involving its principles. II. AN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM FOR PEACE Concerning international organization, adopted by the American Peace Society, January 22, 1917, and by the American Institute of International Law, at its second session, in the city of Habana, January 23, 1917. I. The call of a Third Hague Conference to which every country belonging to the society of nations shall be invited and in whose proceedings every such country shall participate. II. A stated meeting of the Hague Peace Conference which, thus meeting at regular, stated periods, will become a recommending if not a law-making body. III. An agreement of the States forming the society of nations concerning the call and procedure of the Conference, by which that institution shall become not only internationalized, but in which no nation shall take as of right a preponderating part. IV. The appointment of a committee, to meet at regular intervals between the conferences, charged with the duty of procuring the ratification of the conventions and declarations and of calling attention to the conventions and declarations in order to insure their observance. V. An understanding upon certain fundamental principles of international law, as set forth in the Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Nations adopted by the American Institute of International Law on January 6, 1916, which are themselves based upon decisions of English courts and of the Supreme Court of the United States. VI. The creation of an international council of conciliation to consider, to discuss, and to report upon such questions of a non-justiciable character as may be submitted to such council by an agreement of the Powers for this purpose. VII. The employment of good offices, mediation, and friendly composition for the settlement of disputes of a nonjusticiable nature. VIII. The principle of arbitration in the settlement of disputes of a non-justiciable nature; also of disputes of a justiciable nature which should be decided by a court of justice, but which have, through delay or mismanagement, assumed such political importance that the nations prefer to submit them to arbiters of their own choice rather than to judges of a permanent judicial tribunal. IX. The negotiation of a convention creating a judicial union of the nations along the lines of the Universal Postal Union of 1906, to which all civilized nations and self-governing dominions are parties, pledging the good faith of the contracting parties to submit their justiciable disputesthat is to say, their differences involving law or equity-to a permanent court of this union, whose decisions will bind not only the litigating nations, but also all parties to its creation. X. The creation of an enlightened public opinion in behalf. of peaceable settlement in general, and in particular in behalf of the foregoing nine propositions, in order that, if agreed to, they may be put into practice and become effective, in response to the appeal to that greatest of sanctions, "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind." VOL. 83 ADVOCATE OF PEACE Edited by ARTHUR DEerin Call Assist. Editor, GEO. P. MORRIS APRIL, 1921 THE AMERICAN PEACE SOCIETY (1815-1828) Suite 612-614 Colorado Building, Washington, D. C. (Cable address, 'Ampax, Washington") PUBLISHED MONTHLY, EXCEPT SEPTEMBER Sent free to all members of the American Peace Society. Separate Subscription Price, $2.00 a year. Single copies, twenty cents each. Entered as Second-Class Matter, June 1, 1911, at the Post-Office at Washington, D. C., under the act of July 16, 1894. Acceptance for mailing at special rate of postage provided for in Section 1103, Act of October 3. 1917, authorized August 10, 1918. It being impracticable to express in these columns the divergent views of the thousands of members of the American Peace Society, full responsibility for the utterances of this magazine is assumed by the Editor. THIS SOCIETY RIENDS OF THIS SOCIETY will wish to know that its FRE call for $15,000 to meet the offer of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has met with a kindly and generous response. There remains a little. over $5,000 yet to be raised, and that within the next few weeks, before the amount can be completed. No. 4 THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE A VICTORY I N HIS MESSAGE, delivered personally to the extraordinary session of the 67th Congress, Tuesday, April 12, President Harding spoke to the world the hope and conscience of thinking America. It is common sense, a kind of sense that is never too common, to begin the job of reconstruction by putting our "own house in order." Surely our expenditures must be well within the limits of our national income, and our war debt "must be cared for in orderly funding and gradual liquidation." Our expenditure of $5,000,000,000 a year constitutes an "unbearable burden." In the absence of international agreements upon tariff regulations, we are even willing to accede, for the present, to the President's insistence upon "the policy of protection." A national budget system is a plain business demand. The unnatural restrictions upon trade must be removed, and so on down the list. In his reference to the attitude of the government toward our with the best in our social philosophy when he says, "We returned soldiers, the President reveals an acquaintance must strengthen rather than weaken the moral fiber of the beneficiaries, and humanize all efforts so that rehabilitation shall be attended by respiritualization.” Yes, "Congress ought to wipe the stain of barbaric lynching from the banners of a free and orderly repre HE ANNUAL MEETING of the Board of Directors of sentative democracy." All this is plain horse sense. Tthe American Peace Society will be held in Wash ington, Friday afternoon, May 27, at 3 o'clock. OT ONLY the members, but any friends of the American Peace Society, are urged to furnish the Editor with any information calculated to promote the cause of an international peace of justice. At no time throughout its century of effort has its program and policies been so openly advocated by men in positions of political authority as now. The opportunity for constructive effort is before the American Peace Society as never before. The organized intelligence and goodwill of men may now be expected to turn once more to the overthrow of the system that threatens and wrecks the hopes of the world. But every unit of energy is needed. But it is the President's conception of international relations that most concerns readers of the ADVOCATE OF PEACE. He has heard the call for reduced expenditure upon the military branch of our government; he "is in accord with the wish to eliminate the burden of heavy armament," and he is "ready to co-operate with other nations to approximate disarmament." He believes "that a system of voluntary military training may offer to our young manhood advantages of physical development, discipline, and commitment to service and constitute the army reserve in return for the training." Then Mr. Harding proceeds to remove the "uncertainties respecting some phases of our foreign relationship." We now know that the United States is to have nothing to do with the so-called League of Nations. The President's language upon this point is so important, it needs to be read with care: "In the existing League of Nations, world-governing with its superpowers, this Republic will have no part. There can be no misinterpretation, and there will be no betrayal of the deliberate expression of the American people in the recent election, and, settled in our decision for ourselves, it is only fair to say to the world in general, and to our associates in war in particular, that the League covenant can have no sanction by us. "The aim to associate nations to prevent war, preserve peace, and promote civilization our people most cordially applauded. WE YEARNED FOR THIS NEW INSTRUMENT OF JUSTICE, but we can have no part in a committal to an agency of force in unknown contingencies; we can recognize no superauthority." Thus the President of the United States specifically vindicates the position taken by the ADVOCATE OF PEACE since we entered the war. No League to Enforce Peace is or can be in harmony with American institutions. The attempt in Paris to establish such a league, giving to it the duty and power of enforcing the terms of the war treaty of Versailles, has, so far as the United States is concerned, come to its appropriate end. The United States refuses to accept Mr. Wilson's League as "the enforcing agencies of the victors of the war." Mr. Harding speaks the language of the American Peace Society when he says, "International association for permanent peace must be conceived solely as an instrumentality of justice, unassociated with the passions of yesterday, and not so constituted as to attempt the dual functions of a political instrument of the conquerors and of an agency of peace. There can be no prosperity for the fundamental purposes sought to be achieved by any such association, so long as it is an organ of any particular treaty or committed to the achievement of the special aims of any nation or group of nations." Ever since the publication of William Ladd's essay, in 1840, there has been a growing belief in America-indeed, elsewhere in the world-that there must be international conferences in the interest of international law, and an international judiciary for the interpretation of that law. There lies the way of international peace. That has been the position of the American Peace Society for nearly a century. Naturally followers of our work will be encouraged, immeasurably heartened, to find America with a President standing unequivocally for "an association of nations, based upon the application of justice and right, binding us in conference and co-operation for the prevention of war," an association "conceived in peace and dedicated to peace." "In the national referendum to which I have adverted we pledge our efforts toward such association, and the pledge will be faithfully kept." Thus the supergoverning League of Nations is rejected and America's conception of an international co-operation defined. Another evidence of the President's right thinking is his recommendation in behalf of an early establishment of peace with the Central Powers of Europe. He recommends a declaratory resolution by Congress, with necessary "qualifications essential to protect all our rights," declaring the state of peace which all America craves. We cannot ignore the Treaty of Versailles, for under it various nations have assumed various obligations. The President is quite right, therefore, in proposing that we ratify such portions of the existing treaty which cover our rights and interests. The ADVOCATE OF PEACE has consistently assumed, since the signing of the Treaty, that the United States should ratify it with reservations and modifications, excluding the covenant and protecting our essential interests. The American. Government is at last pledged to that course, and we are on the way "to turn disappointment and delay into gratifying accomplishment." The establishment of peace between the United States and the Central Powers of Europe is to be accomplished without violating the rights or sensibilities of the nations with whom we were associated in the war. Thus, "the continuing life of nations and the development of civilization" may be pursued again with unity of effort, and this will be done by proving "anew our own capacity for co-operation in the co-ordination of powers contemplated in the Constitution." Surely now America may present a united front, as she goes forth "to the realization of our aspirations for nations associated for world helpfulness without world. government, for world stability on which humanity's hopes are founded." DEVELOPING OUR FOREIGN POLICY T HERE are three facts which Secretary Hughes is responsible for, which facts seem to indicate something of the direction which our foreign policy for the immediate future is to take. The first fact is that the present administration does not look with favor upon war between American republics. Our protest to Costa Rica and Panama evidently ended an incipient war in Central America; but it also served notice that the present administration will view with disfavor any similar attempt to settle international disputes in this hemisphere. The second fact is that the present administration has a definite conception of certain American obligations in Europe. We of America have not forgotten the purposes that led us into the World War. Germany was responsible for that war and Germany is morally bound to make reparation so far as may be possible. The American people believed that in April, 1917. They believed it throughout the war. The present government of the United States has reaffirmed that faith and purpose of the American people. We believed then, we believe now, in the establishment of a sound basis on which can be built a firm and just peace under which the various nations of Europe can achieve once more economic independence and stability. In his memorandum to Dr. Walter Simons, German Foreign Minister, under date of April 4, Secretary Hughes uses precisely this language. Evidently the present administration feels no enmity for Germany. In the same note Mr. Hughes says: "This government believes that it recognizes in the memorandum of Dr. Simons a sincere desire on the part of the German Government to reopen negotiations with the Allies on a new basis, and hopes that such negotiations, once resumed, may lead to a prompt such negotiations, once resumed, may lead to a prompt settlement, which will at the same time satisfy the just claims of the Allies and permit Germany hopefully to renew its productive activities." The third fact is that the present administration evidently has more respect for the Hague conferences and the Permanent Court of Arbitration existing at The Hague than did the Wilson administration. This is evident from the fact that, under date of April 1, Secretary Hughes suggested to the Norwegian Government that Norway's claims against the United States for ships requisitioned during the war be submitted to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague. It appears that this note was sent to the Norwegian Minister, Mr. Bryn, now in Washington. Chairman Benson, of the Shipping Board, is authority for the explanation that the Shipping Board had made an allowance of $14,157,000 for a number of contracts for ships under construction in this country for Norwegians before the war. These ships were taken over by this government, however, during the war and completed. Norway expresses dissatisfaction with the amount, contending that allowance should be made for the speculative value of the contracts, due to the increased price of tonnage during The Shipping Board refused to accept this argument and referred the question to the State Departargument and referred the question to the State Department for adjustment. Minister Bryn made representation to Secretary Hughes, in reply to which Mr. Hughes tion to Secretary Hughes, in reply to which Mr. Hughes offered the suggestion that the matter be referred to The Hague Court. Thus we are encouraged to believe that the new administration not only remembers the work done at The Hague, but sympathizes with it and looks to it as a practical method of settling international disputes. the war. We may reasonably expect that the future of American foreign policy will evolve out of a past that is known and tried. The day of wildcatting in international relations is, we fondly believe, about to end. ORGANIZING FOR PEACE T OUGHT not to be necessary in these days to quote the I omarr not to be necessary a tivese days to the transcending nationality." Success in the development of individual States depends upon the development also of a world cosmopolitanism. While men generally will agree to this truth, there are two tendencies which obstruct its realization. One of these is the disposition to demand too much. Nearly a thousand years ago there was an attempt to stop feudal wars by a league to enforce peace, but the plan was objected to by Bishop Gerard of Cambrai as provocative more of universal perjury than universal peace, which proved to be the case. Alexander I of Russia urged the ceeded in embodying such a project in a secret article adoption of a league to enforce peace; indeed, he sucof the Treaty of St. Petersburg, signed by Great Britain and Russia, April 11, 1805. But while the project became the basis of the Holy Alliance ten years later, it was as a matter of fact too ambitious to be applied. The failure of Versailles resulted because of the attempt to accomplish the impossible. As W. Allison Phillips wrote in the Edinburgh Review, under date of April, 1917: "The only conceivable basis of an international juridical system is the status quo as defined in treaties; therefore a new league to enforce peace would, like the old Holy Alliance, be committed to stereotyped political systems, which though reasonably satisfactory at the outset, might not remain so." It is now clear to all that the attempt to end the war and to set up an international organization for peace at one and the same time was more ambitious than wise. We now know that Mr. Lansing favored the adoption by the Conference in Paris of a resolution embodying a series of declarations as to the creation, the nature, and the purposes of a League of Nations, which declarations could be included in the preliminary treaty of peace, accompanied by an article providing for the negotiation of a detailed plan, or else by an article providing for the summoning of a world congress in which all nations, neutrals as well as belligerents, would be represented and have a voice in the erents, would be represented and have a voice in the drafting of a convention establishing a League of Nations in accordance with the general principles declared in the preliminary treaty. He believed in the need for a speedy restoration of a state of peace. He favored, therefore, the postponement of the determination of the details of the organization of the League of Nations until the proposed League should be thoroughly considered. The attempt at one and the same time to end the war and to set up an international organization for peace was a mistake. It was a mistake primarily because the treaty of peace was a war measure, drafted by a war psychology. The establishment of an organization for international peace requires a peace psychology. The war, as we now know, should have been ended by the warriors unequivocally. The attempt to set up an international organization for peace should have been attempted by other men in another place and actuated by the single motive of promoting the cause of justice between nations. That men attempted the impossible is the cause of the tragedy and the failure. To attempt too much is the weakness of tyros. The tragedy and failure in Paris, due to the attempt to accomplish the impossible, and that by impossible means, appears in the continuance of the war between France and Germany, between Greece and Turkey, and elsewhere. The Russian situation has threatened civilization longer than would have been the case had the war been settled promptly in Paris, and that as a final step in the war. general suspicion of the justice of decisions which it might render, it seemed to me inexpedient to suggest that it should form the basis of a newly constituted judiciary, a suggestion which I should have made had I been dealing with any other than President Wilson." As we now know, Mr. Lansing was right and Mr. Wilson was wrong. While it is not necessary to attempt too much, it is important that we do not attempt too little. The duty of every friend of international peace is to exert all his influence in behalf of a conference of all the nations, for in that direction, and only in that direction, lies any hopeful organization for the peace of the world. "Yo YOUNG DEMOCRACY YOUNG DEMOCRACY" is an arresting phrase. Democracy that bids us hope must wear the rose of youth upon it. There is nothing to be gained even if we succeed in proving Pope to have been justified in his remark that, "In youth and beauty wisdom is but rare!" It has been a pleasure for us to receive from time to time the publication called "Young Democracy," advertised as "A Journal of the New Generation," published at 51 Greenwich Avenue, New York City. The fourth number of volume 2 is now before us. Its leading article deals with Russian students and the revolution, showing the part that students have taken in the revolutionary activities in Russia, an article by a young man who, while serving in the American forces on the Archangel front, was taken prisoner by the Bolshevik army. Finding that continental universities are often hotbeds of reform and revolution, the author is impressed unfavorably by the conservatism of American universities. He feels that now, when a new political and industrial era is clamoring to be born, progressive leadership is lacking in America and that what is needed is "reform and revolution," with roots among our undergraduates. Another article deals with the awakening undergraduates, "an inferior lot, sublimely unconscious of the great social problems of their times." And yet we are told that there seems to be an increasing interest among American college students in "the great social forces." The writer believes it to be hopeful that student self-government has taken a great impetus. The demand for courses in the social sciences is increas But if the disposition to attempt too much has operated to the postponement of peace, the disposition to attempt too little also postpones progress. The demands of France upon Germany are not enough. The demands of Great Britain upon India are not enough. The demands of the Bolsheviki are not enough. The demands of Greece in Asia Minor are not enough. The demands of Japan in China are not enough. The demands of the United States in Mexico are not enough. The demands of the so-called League of Nations are not enough. Mr. Ralston's demands, appearing elsewhere in this issue, are not enough. This may be said of the demands of the Pan American Union, of the Christian church, of party politics, and the United States Senate. All such persons must realize now that only through international organizations for peace, by which we mean a conference of all nations meeting in accordance with the principles of representative delegates adopting rules of action for the nations and submitting those rules for ratification by the various governments, all with the full understanding that such rules shall upon ratification become laws for the government of the nations which ratify, can world peace be advanced. No mere political organization of the few can be depended upon as an organization for peace. The only organization for world. peace must take the form of an international conference of all the nations to the end that legal principles may be set up, proclaimed, understood, and obeyed by the nations of the world. It is not men but laws that the nations will willingly accept, understand, and obey. These things are so patent and inviolable that we may ing. Groups within the colleges indicate the desire of reasonably expect, and that right early, to hear of conversations among the accredited representatives of governments looking toward the calling of a world conference. Only by such a procedure can the nations organize for peace. In Mr. Lansing's book entitled "The Peace Negotiations" are these words: "Knowing the contempt which Mr. Wilson felt for The Hague tribunal, and his the students themselves for more freedom and selfdirection in the search for social facts. There should be, the writer believes, an intercollegiate movement controlled by undergraduates functioning through some central body capable of sustaining student effort during successive college generations. Many of the students. want this. Many members of faculties approve it. |