Such

"PEACE is in the heart of all civilized men." were the words which, some years ago, greeted the delegates at the openeing of the International Peace Conference. We have no account of how these words were received; but, being a body of men devoted to the cause of peace, they were doubtless enthusiastically approved. While it may be true that all civilized men have ever been hopeful of peace; it seems quite as true that they have always been apprehensive of war. Men may cry, "Peace, Peace," when there is no peace. It must be confessed that war has been a prominent factor in the world's history; and that it has required far more wisdom and skill to prevent the conflict of nations, than to promote such conflicts. Certainly, the most valued victories of the human mind have been in the domain of peace, and not in that of war.

It may, perhaps, seem an idle pretense to presume that anything new can be said upon a question that has so severely taxed the thought of philanthropists and statesmen as that relating to the possibility of a permanent peace. It may not, however, be wholly unprofitable for us to survey the different points of view from which this question has been and may be considered. Such a comparison of views may help

us to see the relative value of the various methods of approach to this world problem.

§ 1. ETHICAL APPEALS TO THE PACIFIC SENTIMENTS The first and perhaps most usual mode of approaching this problem is based upon sentimental appeals to the finer instincts of human nature. The efficiency of this method is supposed to be in direct ratio to the vividness with which the horrors of war can be portrayed. Pacific homilies, inspired with the exalted spirit of the golden rule, are pronounced in unqualified condemnation of military establishments and all those physical agencies which nations are accustomed to adopt for the protection of what they regard as their moral and legal rights. "We know," recently wrote the President of the Universal Peace Union, "we know the horrors, the bankruptcy, the cruelty, the wickedness, the inexpediency of war and the military system, and we know the blessings of peace." And this writer proceeds with more or less reason, to impeach the nations of the earth for "upholding military academies, organizing their men into armies, spending their substance in fortifications and battle-ships, coveting their neighbor's territory, sailing over seas and laying claim to lands far beyond their homes, and cowering with military power the weak, the defenceless and less favored."

War seems to be regarded by this class of writers. as merely the outcome of the more brutal passions of men, the assuaging of which will lead to the pacific result desired. The remedy for war and the conditions of universal peace proposed by such advocates are chiefly ethical and educational-"self-control, peace within ourselves, less of selfishness, the doing

to others as we would be done by, no whipping of children, no warlike playthings, no war stories, no military drills, no boys' brigades, a love superior to any man's hate, respect for human life upon the scaffold as well as upon the battle field, the stopping of appropriations for battle ships and fortifications. Emperors and kings and others in power will realize in time that all these things make for the prosperity and happiness of the people, for the people then will be employed in following after those things which make for peace."

These statements may be regarded as typical of a considerable body of peace literature, which seems to proceed upon the theory that war can be abolished by a process of earnest exhortation. It must be admitted that the motives which prompt this kind of literature are pure and lofty; and do not always merit the ridicule which they sometimes receive at the hands of worldly-minded publicists. It is true that sentiments often determine the course of conduct; and a strong pacific impulse on the part of the people has often, no doubt, acted as a restraint upon an aggressive policy on the part of the government. Moral exhortations are by no means to be discouraged; but it must still be a question, how far in our present international system, they can furnish any sufficient guarantee for the protection of the sovereign rights of states, or any redress for injuries actually received or threatened.

The efficiency of such appeals to the pacific sentiments will, however, be seen to be greatly overestimated, when we consider the existence of other sentiments as deeply seated in human nature and quite as powerful in the determination of opinion and con

duct. The horrors of war, when abstractly considered and pictured to the imagination are repellant in the extreme; but when associated with the preservation of a nation's honor, they become objects of a certain kind of admiration, and their endurance is often viewed as evincing the noblest spirit of devotion and sacrifice. A human body pierced with hostile spears is a pitiful sight to behold; but when the body is that of Arnold of Winkelreid in the battle of Sempach, the sense of pain disappears in admiring the prowess of a patriotic soldier. The deadly charge at Balaklava, the bloody angle at Spottsylvania, and the victorious sacrifice at Belleau Wood, become transformed from an object of horror into a picture of heroism when it becomes set in a nation's history. The fact that the horrors of war are thus often neutralized by the heroic sentiments with which they are sometimes viewed, furnishes, of course, no justification for war; it simply shows that mere appeals to the pacific sentiments will be comparatively weak so long as sacrifice and suffering are considered as inevitable incidents in the protection of a nation's life.

The real difficulty which lurks in the purely sentimental method of dealing with the question of peace and war, consists in the fact that in the intense anxiety to obtain peace there is furnished no satisfactory substitute for war. Peace, however desirable it may appear to its advocates, cannot in the nature of things be perpetual as long as society seems unable to accomplish in a peaceful way those ends which are now accomplished only by war. To appreciate the force of this statement it is necessary to consider the legitimate place which war has occupied in the international system.

Every nation, as an organized aggregate of human beings, possesses those fundamental rights with which human beings themselves are endowed, namely, the right of existence, the right of honor, and the right of property. It is evident that rights can be secure only when guaranteed by an authority which has the power to protect them against infringement. In the absence of any higher authority than that of the nation itself, each nation must be the judge and enforcer of its own rights. To secure its rights from infringement its force must be organized and made efficient. Armies must be maintained and navies must be built; and, as a last resort, these must be actually employed to protect the nation from injury and to punish the wrong doer. War may thus be the employment of force for the protection of rights. It is the ultimate remedy for a wrong committed or threatened; and in the absence of any other remedy it is difficult to see why it is not a necessary and legitimate exercise of sanctioning power.

With all due respect, therefore, to the sentimental or purely ethical advocates of peace and with all due respect to their laudable efforts to mitigate the horrors and excesses of war, it seems the height of folly to talk of perpetual peace while the rights of nations are indefinitely determined or inadequately guaranteed.

§ 2. IDEAL PROJECTS FOR AN INTERNATIONAL STATE

But all the advocates of peace have not relied upon mere appeals to sentiment. Among the most interesting speculations of modern times are the attempts to formulate schemes of perpetual peace based upon some kind of international organization, so constructed