« AnteriorContinuar »
man's “ Man with the Hoe" is a true picture of the worker under the reign of
War weapons from the galley to the modern dreadnaught, from the bow and arrow to the repeating ritle, have all tended to increase the war spirit, rather than to retard it.
The economic forces of the world which depend upon peace for their best development are working day and night silently perhaps — but none the less effectively, against war. And with such agitation as this meeting and other conferences, great progress is being made.
While we keep ourselves clean, our honor is safe; and I can see no sense in the claim that matters involving the honor of nations cannot be arbitrated.
When industrial conditions are such that man can secure a proper standard of living by reasonable labor, the spirit of covetousness, that underlies war, will die; and wars will be at an end.
Henry Wade Rogers, dean of the Yale Law School, took the gavel as the president of the Congress at the meeting at two o'clock p. m. in the House of Representatives at the Connecticut capitol. Dean Rogers' address was characteristically clear and convincing. He believes that peace congresses are gradually but surely educating the people away from war and toward the settlement of international disputes by reason rather than force. He denies emphatically that war is necessary for the development of a nation's highest qualities, and finds his greatest hope in an international court which shall function as a substitute for war.
Interest in the congress was shown by leading men of various fields. Letters were received from President Taft, Secretary Knox, Secretary Dickinson, Mr. Bryan, and Mr. Gompers. Ambassador Bryce wrote two letters, one upon the general problem of peace and another appropriate to the recent death of England's king. Jackson H. Ralston proved the fallacy in the old argument for vital interest and national honor. Reverend 0. P. Gifford submitted a three-plank peace platform as follows: “No strife between brothers, no profit from war, tax paid only to rightcousness and peace.” President Thomas of Middlebury College contended that religion is the dynamic of a successful world peace movement.
At the session Wednesday afternoon Honorable Simeon E. Baldwin, ex-Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, delivered an address entitled, “ International Law as a Factor in the Establishment of Peace. Later in the afternoon of the same day, at the annual public meeting of the American Peace Society, General John W. Foster, exSecretary of State, notwithstanding a threatened serious tonsilitis, delivered as the annual address, “War not Inevitable. Illustrations from the History of our Country.” Mr. Foster's conclusion was as follows:
The review which I have made has shown that all the foreign wars in which we have engaged were brought on by our own precipitate action, that they were not inevitable, and that they might have been avoided by the exercise of prudence and conciliation. It also shows that it has been possible for us to live in peace with our nearest neighbor, with which we have the most extensive and intimate relations, the most perplexing and troublesome questions. Our history also shows that during our whole life as an independent nation, no country has shown towards us a spirit of aggression or a disposition to invade our territory. If such is the case, is it not time that every true patriot, every lover of his country and of its fair fame in the world, every friend of humanity, should strive to curb the spirit of aggression and military glory among our people and seek to create an earnest sentiment against all war?
We repeat that the New England Arbitration and Peace Congress succeeded in presenting a dignified contribution to the literature of international peace.
MR. ROOSEVELT'S NOBEL ADDRESS ON INTERNATIONAL PEACE
Mr. Roosevelt's appearance at Christiania, Norway, was a notable occasion and the address he delivered on May 5, 1910, as recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, was a notable address. His views are not in themselves novel: they are the views of his enlightened fellow-countrymen expressed countless times both in public and private by those who believe that the old order of things is changing, that the peace of the future should be based upon justice and righteousness, not upon force and selfinterest, and that steps should be taken to provide instrumentalities for the changed conditions and to accelerate their progress. Instances are, however, rare of men in official and commanding position who have the courage to express such views, and their expression by such persons gives them a currency and an influence which they would not otherwise possess. We know that peace is desirable if it be just; that arbitration is an admirable method of settling the right of a controversy and that treaties of arbitration are the means of securing the arbitration of future as well as past controversies; that a permanent international tribunal is, if not absolutely necessary, nevertheless highly desirable, and that reason and its, maybe, self-preservation suggest, indeed require a limit to the increase of land and naval armaments. But we are confirmed in our beliefs and justified in our exertions when a man of Mr. Roosevelt's experience and standing not only proclaims our views, but proposes that they be put into effect and operation by international agreement.
After a few introductory paragraphs, and after stating that he speaks as a practical man, recommending to the nations at large policies which he advocated while President and which he would gladly see his own country adopt, Mr. Roosevelt spoke in full as follows:
The advance can be made along several lines. First of all, there can be treaties of arbitration. There are, of course, states so backward that a civilized community ought not to enter into an arbitration treaty with them, at least until we have gone much further than at present in securing some kind of international police action. But all really civilized communities should have effective arbitration treaties among themselves. I believe that these treaties can cover almost all questions liable to arise between such nations, if they are drawn with the explicit agreemeent that each contracting party will respect the other's territory and its absolute sovereignty within that territory, and the equally explicit agreement that (aside from the very rare cases where the nation's honor is vitally concerned) all other possible subjects of controversy will be submitted to arbitration. Such a treaty would insure peace unless one party deliberately violated it. Of course, as yet there is no adequate safeguard against such deliberate violation, but the establishment of a sufficient number of these treaties would go a long way towards creating a world opinion which would finally find expression in the provision of methods to forbid or punish any such violation.
Secondly, there is the further development of the Hague Tribunal, of the work of the conferences and courts at The Hague. It has been well said that the first Hague Conference framed a Magna Charta for the nations; it set before us an ideal which has already to some extent been realized, and towards the full realization of which we can all steadily strive. The second Conference made further progress; the third should do yet more. Meanwhile the American Government has more than once tentatively suggested methods for completing the Court of Arbitral Justice, constituted at the second Hague Conference, and for rendering it effective. It is earnestly to be hoped that the various Governments of Europe, working with those of America and of Asia, shall set themselves seriously to the task of devising some method which shall accomplish this result. If I may venture the suggestion, it would be well for the statesmen of the world, in planning for the erection of this world court, to study what has been done in the United States by the Supreme Court. I can not help thinking that the Constitution of the United States, notably in the establishment of the Supreme Court and in the methods adopted for securing peace and good relations among and between the different States, offers certain valuable analogies to what should be striven for in order to secure, through the Hague courts and conferences, a species of world federation for international peace and justice. There are, of course, fundamental differences between what the United States Constitution does and what we should even attempt at this time to secure at The Hague; but the methods adopted in the American Constitution to prevent hostilities between the States, and to secure the supremacy of the Federal Court in certain classes of cases, are well worth the study of those who seek at The Hague to obtain the same results on a world scale.
In the third place, something should be done as soon as possible to check the growth of armaments, especially naval armaments, by international agreement. No one power could or should act by itself; for it is eminently undesirable, from the standpoint of the peace of righteousness, that a power which really does believe in peace should place itself at the merey of some rival which may at bottom have no such belief and no intention of acting on it. But, granted sincerity of purpose, the great powers of the world should find no insurmountable difficulty in reaching an agreement which would put an end to the present costly and growing extravagance of expenditure on naval armaments. An agreement merely to limit the size of ships would have been very useful a few years ago, and would still be of use; but the agreement should go much further.
Finally, it would be a master stroke if those great powers honestly bent on peace would form a League of Peace, not only to keep the peace among themselves, but to prevent, by force if necessary, its being broken by others. The supreme difficulty in connection with developing the peace work of The Hague arises from the lack of any executive power, of any police power to enforce the decrees of the court. In any community of any size the authority of the courts rests upon actual or potential force; on the existence of a police, or on the knowledge that the able-bodied men of the country are both ready and willing to see that the decrees of judicial and legislative bodies are put into effect. In new and wild communities where there is violence, an honest man must protect himself; and until other means of securing his safety are devised, it is both foolish and wicked to persuade him to surrender his arms while the men who are dangerous to the community retain theirs. He should not renounce the right to protect himself by his own efforts until the community is so organized that it can effectively relieve the individual of the duty of putting down violence. So it is with nations. Each nation must keep well prepared to defend itself until the establishment of some form of international police power, competent and willing to prevent violence as between nations. As things are now, such power to command peace throughout the world could best be assured by some combination between those great nations which sincerely desire peace and have no thought themselves of committing aggressions. The combination might at first be only to secure peace within certain definite limits and certain definite conditions; but the ruler or stateman who should bring about such a combination would have earned his place in history for all time and his title to the gratitude of all mankind.
There is nothing inconsistent with these views in the careful and measured address which Mr. Roosevelt delivered a few days later on May 12, 1910, at the University of Berlin. It is true that he there spoke of the necessity of preparation for war, lest a nation become a prey to the unjust aggression of a powerful and well-equipped neighbor. But war is looked upon as an evil, and as a virtue in itself. “Unjust war is,” he says, “to be abhorred; but woe to the nation that does not make ready to hold its own in time of need against all who would harm it; and woe
thrice over to the nation in which the average man loses the fighting edge, loses the power to serve as a soldier is the day of need should arise."
But this same statement is immediately preceded by a tribute to the dreamers and philanthropists: “We must remember also,” he says, " that it is only by working along the lines laid down by the philanthropists, by the lovers of mankind, that we can be sure of lifting our civilization to a higher and more perfect plane of well-being than was ever attained by any preceding civilization."