the undisputed mastery of the seas, the Empire was all but allowed to fall to pieces; it has needed the challenge of Germany to draw it together in a strong group-consciousness. The tendency of federations has been to break up in the absence of any need for common defence against external enemies.

Those federations which have survived have done so because, as in the case of the United States, they have developed a common sentiment far stronger than any which may divide. their constituent States. They have survived, in short, because they have become nations. Looking upon the world as it is, it is difficult to believe that any such powerful cement of sentiment could be found to bind together even the civilized peoples, not to mention the half-civilized and the uncivilized.

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the most obvious model for a league of nations was the Holy Roman Empire. In 1806 the Empire came to an end; and in 1815 the Congress of Vienna refused to restore it. But meanwhile a new model had been set up beyond the ocean in the Federal Constitution of the United States of America, which was destined to impress the imagination of men as perhaps the nearest approximation as yet attained to the ideal of an inter-State union. Finally, the close of the Napoleonic wars saw not only the attempt of the Great Powers to govern Europe in concert in the interests of peace, but the establishment of the German Confederation.

So far, then, as the mere substructures of their systems are concerned, the various projects of peace have a basis in experience. Yet surely it is but a counsel of prudence to inquire, what lessons are to be derived from the record of less pretentious edifices erected on similar foundations.

The reorganization of the Imperial Government by the Emperor Maximilian I. in certain respects actually anticipated some of the features now suggested for an international system. Private war was forbidden, and jurisdiction over breaches of the public peace was given to the new Imperial Chamber, composed of trained jurists, who represented the Empire, and were appointed by and responsible to the Diet. The decisions of the Chamber were in the last resort to be enforced by the Imperial army, to which contingents were to be contributed by each of the circles into which the Empire was divided; it was to be set in motion, after the ban of the Empire had been proclaimed against the recalcitrant State, by the Emperor with the consent of the Diet.

It is germane to our purpose to note the reasons given by Leibnitz for the impotence of the Empire. It lacked a permanent executive council, a common treasury, a standing army -in short, the effective organs of a centralized State. In the absence of these it was impossible to compel the Estates to pay their contributions, and to collect their armed contingents. The deliberations of the Diet had degenerated into a solemn parade. As for the Imperial Chamber,

it had become the happy hunting ground of hungry jurists.

In its essential features the history of the German Confederation, established in 1815, is a repetition of that of the later developments of the Holy Roman Empire. The Confederation was, within its limits, of the nature of a league to enforce peace. Article LXIII of the Federal Act ran as follows:

"The Confederated Courts engage . . . not to make war against each other, on any pretext, nor to pursue their differences by force of arms; but to submit them to the Diet, which will attempt a mediation by means of a Commission. If this should not succeed, and a juridical sentence become necessary, recourse shall be had to a wellorganized Arbitral Court, to the decision of which the contending parties are to submit without appeal."

The question of the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal and of the Council of Conciliation is the most important which the framers of an international system have to face. The decisions of these bodies would carry enormous weight, even were they backed by no more than a moral sanction. Were they to be enforced by the collective power of the League, they would be acts of sovereign authority, and the organs of the League would constitute an international government in a true sense. The question of the measure of representation to be given to each of the constituent States in the governing organs of the League is of vital importance. Is this representation to be based on the actual size and power of the nations, or on the principle, consecrated by international law, of the equality of all sovereign States?

It will again be objected that all this argument drawn from a dead past is beside the mark; that the conditions have changed. The day of Kaisers and capitalists is over, and with the universal reign of Democracy will come also the sense of universal brotherhood and a peace securely based on the mutual love of nations. It seems an act of obstinate and ungracious skepticism to do anything to dash so far a hope by suggesting that it is founded less on facts than on phrases. But we may note that the language of the Russian revolutionists is precisely the same as that used by the French revolutionists during the earlier stages of the great Revolution. They, too, proclaimed the

brotherhood of man as their ideal; they, too, disclaimed the intention of making any conquests except for Liberty. And all this was but the prelude to twenty-five years of aggressive war: not for the benefit of humanity, but for the predominance of France and of French ideas. As for the modern democracy, in view of the fact that, inside the democratic States, powerfully organized popular groups have over and over again refused to subordinate their particular interests to the general good, even in the face of grave national danger, is it to be supposed that democratic State-groups would be any more willing than sovereign princes to submit to the supremacy of an international organization?

It may be supposed that on this question some light might be thrown by the experience of the United States, of which the constitution is that of a federation of sovereign States based on democratic principles. But the relations between the separate States and the Federal Government are such that in American consciousness the States no longer represent a plurality, but a unity, and this consciousness is so strong that it contentedly ignores the rules of grammar. Officially the United States is a nation.

Clearly we have here a process

which, within any measurable distance of time, could not take place in the case of any confederation of nations divided from each other by fundamental differences of tradition and sentiment. sentiment. It has been claimed that the United States has solved the race problem, so far at least as the European elements of her population are concerned; but it has been solved, or is in process of being solved, by a process of assimilation. Herein lies the essential difference between American federalism and federalism as alone it can develop in the British Empire. The task of the Americans has been to unite many commonwealths into one nation; that of the British is to unite many nations into one commonwealth.

The measure of success attained by the British Empire in the accomplishment of this task — and how great it is the present war has proved -seems in some degree to justify the hope of a world-order based on the same principle of cooperation between nations. It is not a federation: the groups of which it is composed are bound together mainly by а sense of common interests and devotion to a common ideal of liberty. And here, in their desire to fulfill these ideals, is the "general will" whose presence or absence makes possible or impossible the success of an international league.

To the Rulers of the Belligerent Peoples:

From the beginning of our Pontificate, in the midst of the horrors of the awful war let loose on Europe, we have had of all things three in mind: to maintain perfect impartiality toward all the belligerents, as becomes him who is the common father and loves all his children with equal affection, continually to endeavor to do them all as much good as possible, without exception of person, without distinction of nationality or religion, as is dictated to us by the universal law of charity as well as by the supreme spiritual charge with which we have been intrusted by Christ; finally, as also required by our mission of peace, to omit nothing, as far as it lay in our power, that could contribute to expedite the end of these calamities by endeavoring to bring the peoples and their rulers to more moderate resolutions, to the serene deliberation of peace, of a "just and lasting" peace.

Whoever has watched our endeavors in these three grievous years that have just elapsed could easily see that, while we remained ever true to our resolution of absolute impartiality and beneficent action, we never ceased to urge the belligerent peoples and Governments again to be brothers, although all that we did to reach this very noble goal was not made public.

About the end of the first year of the war we addressed to the contending nations the most earnest exhortations, and in addition pointed to the path that would lead to a stable peace honorable to all. Unfortunately, our appeal was not heeded, and the war was fiercely carried on for two years more, with all its horrors. It became even more cruel, and spread over land and sea, and even to the air, and desolation and death were seen to fall upon defenseless cities, peaceful villages, and their innocent people.

And now no one can imagine how much the general suffering would increase if other months or, still worse, other years were added to this sanguinary triennium. Is this civilized world to be turned into a field of death, and is Europe, so glorious and flourishing, to rush, as carried by a universal folly, to the abyss and take a hand in its own suicide?

In so distressing a situation, in the presence of so grave a menace, we, who have no personal political aim, who listen to the suggestions or interests of none of the belligerents, but are solely actuated by the sense of our supreme duty as the

common father of the faithful, by the solicitations of our children who implore our intervention and peace-bearing word, uttering the very voice of humanity and reason we again call for peace, and we renew a pressing appeal to those who have in their hands the destinies of the nations. But no longer confining ourselves to general terms, as we were led to do by circumstances in the past, we will now come to more concrete and practical proposals and invite the Governments of both belligerent peoples to arrive at an agreement on the following points, which seem to offer the base of a just and lasting peace, leaving it with them to make them more precise and complete.

First, the fundamental point must be that the material force of arms shall give way to the moral force of right, whence shall proceed a just agreement of all upon the simultaneous and reciprocal decrease of armaments, according to rules and guarantees to be established, in the necessary and sufficient measure for the maintenance of public order in. every State; then, taking the place of arms, the institution of arbitration, with its high pacifying function, according to rules to be drawn in concert and under sanctions to be determined against any State which would decline either to refer international questions to arbitration or to accept its awards.

When supremacy of right is thus established, let every obstacle to ways of communication of the peoples be removed by insuring, through rules to be also determined, the true freedom and community of the seas, which, on the one hand, would eliminate any causes of conflict, and, on the other hand, would open to all new sources of prosperity and progress.

As for the damages to be repaid and the cost of the war, we see no other way of solving the question than by setting up the general principle of entire and reciprocal conditions, which would be justified by the immense benefit to be derived from disarmament, all the more as one could not understand that such carnage could go on for more economic reasons. If certain particular reasons stand against this in certain cases, let them be weighed in justice and equity.

But these specific agreements, with the immense advantages that flow from them, are not possible unless territory now occupied is reciprocally restituted. Therefore, on the part of Germany, there should be total evacuation of Belgium, with guar

antees of its entire political, military, and economic independence toward any power whatever; evacuation also of the French territory; on the part of the other_belligerents, a similar restitution of the German colonies.

As regards territorial questions, as, for instance, those that are disputed by Italy and Austria, by Germany and France, there is reason to hope that, in consideration of the immense advantages of durable peace with disarmament, the contending parties will examine them in a conciliatory spirit, taking into account, as far as is just and possible, as we have said formerly, the aspirations of the population, and, if occasion arises, adjusting private interests to the general good of the great human society.

The same spirit of equity and justice must guide the examination of the other territorial and political questions, notably those relative to Armenia, the Balkan States, and the territories forming part of the old Kingdom of Poland, for which, in particular, its noble historical traditions and suffering, particularly undergone in the present war, must win, with justice, the sympathies of the nations.

These we believe are the main bases upon which must rest the future reorganization of the peoples. They are such as to make the recurrence of such conflicts impossible and open the way for the solution of the economic question, which is so

important for the future and the material welfare of all of the belligerent States. And so, in presenting them to you, who at this tragic hour judge the destinies of the belligerent nations, we indulge a gratifying hope, that they will be accepted and that we shall thus see an early termination of the terrible struggle, which has more and more the appearance of a useless massacre.

Everybody acknowledges, on the other hand, that on both sides the honor of arms is safe. Do not, then, turn a deaf ear to our prayer, accept the international invitation which we extend to you in the name of the Divine Redeemer, Prince of Peace. Bear in mind your very grave responsibility to God and man. On your decision depend the quiet and joy of numberless families, the lives of thousands of young men, the happiness, in a word, of the peoples, for whom it is your imperative duty to secure this boon.

May the Lord inspire you with decisions conformable to His very holy will. May Heaven grant that in winning the applause of your contemporaries you will also earn from the future generations the great title of pacificators.

As for us, closely united in prayer and penitence with all the faithful souls who yearn for peace, we implore for you the divine spirit, enlightenment, and guidance. Given at the Vatican, Aug. 1, 1917. BENEDICTUŠ P. M. XV.

WASHINGTON, D. C., Aug. 27, 1917.

TO HIS HOLINESS BENEDICTUS XV., POPE:

In acknowledgment of the communication of your Holiness to the belligerent peoples, dated Aug. 1, 1917, the President of the United States requests me to transmit the following reply:

Every heart that has not been blinded and hardened by this terrible war must be touched by this moving appeal of his Holiness the Pope, must feel the dignity and force of the humane and generous motives which prompted it, and must fervently wish that we might take the path of peace he so persuasively points out. But it would be

folly to take it if it does not in fact lead to the goal he proposes. Our response must be based upon the stern facts, and upon nothing else. It is not a mere cessation of arms he desires; it is a stable and enduring peace. This agony must not be gone through with again, and it must be a matter of very sober judgment what will insure us against it.

His Holiness in substance proposes that we return to the status quo ante bellum and that then there be a general condonation, disarmament, and a concert of nations based upon an acceptance of the principle of arbitration; that by a similar concert freedom of the seas be established; and that the territorial claims of France and Italy, the perplexing problems of the Balkan