proper desire to ascertain to what extent there is accord and the state of mind of each party to the controversy. It is an essential condition of intercourse that representations made by one government to another or the publication of the details of negotiations must rest upon the express or implied consent of both parties. Any government that refuses to recognize this basis of intercourse would find its opportunities for suitable adjustment of controversies seriously impaired and its influence and prestige greatly diminished.

Moreover, the maintenance of international good-will during negotiations is of vital importance. While it is assumed that democracies are peace-loving, it cannot be forgotten that the activities of democracies frequently make it difficult to arrive at a good understanding. The press in each country, in large measure, is likely to voice extreme demands and to resist accommodations. Often the pseudo-patriotic spirit is developed, most probably in the interest of local politics, and efforts are made to prevent settlements by inflammatory appeals to passion in one or more of the countries concerned. It is most desirable that such endeavors should not be facilitated by information of mere proposals, arguments and tentative positions; by disclosures which at the best, pending the efforts at adjustment, can but afford glimpses of the situation. At least we may appreciate the fact that peoples cannot deal directly with peoples; that there must be agents of negotiation; and that when these are selected as wisely as may be practicable, there must be a reasonable freedom to enable them to secure results. They cannot adequately perform their task under a fire of criticism or successfully conduct negotiations which are practically taken out of their hands and directed by a clamorous public.

With all these considerations, it remains true that there should be no secrecy for its own sake; that general policies should be made clear; that particular aims should be appropriately disclosed; that there should be public announcement of all proceedings to the extent consistent with the essential requirements of negotiation; and that nothing should ever be done by our diplomatic agents which so far as its actual character is concerned could not be publicly proclaimed and justified as being free from artifice and deception and in full accord with American principles.

The attitude of the public toward foreign relations is almost as important as the securing of adequate information; that is, there should be a suitable appreciation of the objectives of diplomatic effort. There is, of course, the fundamental matter of national security, and the instinct of self-preservation causes a quick response to any appeal on this score. Indeed, the danger is not that the people will become indifferent to the essential conditions of their security, or will lack information as to any policy or procedure which actually threatens it, but that the endeavor will be made to frustrate peaceful settlements which are eminently judicious, and which really promote the safety of the country, upon the ground that in some indirect way they will diminish the opportunities for protection. We have had recent illustration

of this. The need for enlightenment, in this aspect of the matter, is with respect to what really makes for national security.

However, in emphasizing the importance of public appreciation of the aims of our diplomacy, I do not mean to imply that there is any great lack of understanding or of support of our historic policies or of the economic interests, the protection of which has become more and more the object of diplomatic effort. It is rather my desire to emphasize the importance of peace as the object of diplomacy, and the necessity of intelligent opinion, not merely as to the desirability of peace as an abstract conception, but with respect to the conditions that are essential to the maintenance of peace. With these conditions public opinion should be deeply concerned. Attention has been directed to formal institutions, to international agreements relating to the maintenance of peace. But the fundamental fact is that, however well-devised, these will be of little worth in the absence of that state of international feeling which will promote amicable cooperation and permit the removal of the causes of discord.

It must be remembered that only a small portion of the controversial matters of great consequence, which are now engaging the attention of foreign offices, admit the application of juridical standards. They are matters demanding not legal decisions but adjustments by mutual consent. It is not simply the dispositions of old controversies that are needed, but understandings with respect to new situations and novel enterprises. In this world of intimate relations, you are likely to have either hostility or cooperation. There is no artificial method by which adjustments can be reached in the absence of a sincere desire for accord, and the cultivation of the spirit of mutual friendliness is thus the primary consideration. Without it, even the most direct contacts and the flexible arrangements of Conferences will be of no avail.

The nation that can most easily settle its differences and promote its interests, the nation that can look most hopefully for a recognition of its claims, is the nation that by its reasonable and friendły disposition, its poise and sense of justice, inspires confidence and wins esteem. Here we touch the point where the authority of sound public opinion is most necessary. It must frown upon the constant efforts to create suspicion, distrust and hatred. There can be no assurance of peace, and few of the necessary and just settlements which make for peace, in a world of hate. It should be recognized that what is more necessary than formulas is a new sense of civic responsibility in matters of international concern. The chief enemies of peace are those who constantly indulge in the abuse of foreign peoples and their governments, who asperse their motives and visit them with ridicule and insult. We resent attacks upon American character and motives when they come from abroad and we should remember that other peoples are quite as sensitive as ourselves. Intercommunication is so easy that domestic discussions of foreign affairs are not confined within the three-mile limit but are immediately published abroad

as indicative not of the sentiment of particular individuals, who may be of little relative consequence, but as indicating the sentiments of our people. It is in this way that peoples become separated by a mutual distrust, even while their responsible agents of government are endeavoring to bring about beneficial settlements and mutual confidence. The public-spirited and wellinformed American, the intelligent patriot, will approach all discussions of foreign affairs with the full understanding that every reckless attack upon foreign peoples and governments reacts upon his country's prestige, impairs its influence, and to some degree threatens its peace. The principal difficulty at this time in our conduct of foreign affairs is not with method, or organization, or aims, but with the untruthful, prejudiced and inflammatory discussions in which some of our citizens and certain portions of the press permit themselves to indulge.

If there is to be less reticence in diplomacy, there must be, if not a greater reticence, at least a keener sense of responsibility in the discussion of international questions. Open diplomacy and blatant and injudicious utterances will not go well together. The corrective can only be found in that state of the public mind which will unsparingly condemn and ostracize those who by their base imputations imperil our friendly relations with other nations.

An intelligent attitude toward foreign affairs will also take account of the essential instrumentalities of intercourse and of the importance of making these as efficient as possible. The many millions of our people cannot conduct their foreign relations, and the inescapable conditions to which I have adverted make it necessary that our people should have at their command the most expert diplomatic organization. I shall not at this time review, as I have had the privilege of doing recently, the requirements of our diplomatic and consular service. I merely wish again to emphasize the point that intelligent opinion will demand that there should be an opportunity for career in this service which will draw to it as many as may be needed of the best of the educated young manhood of the country. This is not in the interest of the development of a caste; it is in the interest of the American people and public opinion should demand it.

It is apparent that this attitude of the public mind, this instructed public opinion, cannot be had save as it is produced by the conscious endeavor and constant influence of men and women who have had the special advantages of higher education. It is the interaction of the influences of the university on the one hand and of the many schools of experience on the other, that produces that clear, practical and intelligent view of affairs which we call the dominant American opinion. With respect to matters the importance of which is not immediately or generally perceived, where special study and instruction are needed, it is especially the example and influence of those who have had the advantage of college or university training that is imperatively needed.

It is not my purpose to dwell upon ideals in American education further

than to say that they may be open to the criticism of being too individualistic. It goes without saying that a young American should be able to make a living and should have every opportunity for vocational and technical training. There is no question, of course, but that it is this training of the individual which makes for the enrichment of society. And I am one of those who believe that the cultivation of the spirit, that one may have life more abundantly, is quite as important as the equipment which will enable one to secure the primary necessities of food and shelter or the means of a comfortable existence.

But along with the appropriate consideration of individual needs, there should go a more definite appreciation of the necessity of meeting the demands of training for citizenship. This implies adequate knowledge of our institutions, of their development and actual working. It means more than this in a world of new intimacies and perplexities. It means adequate knowledge of other peoples, and for this purpose there is nothing to take the place of the humanities, of the study of literature and history. When I speak of the study of history, I do not mean a superficial review, but the earnest endeavor to understand the life of peoples, their problems and aspirations. Nor is it simply or chiefly the history of a distant past that it is now most important to know. It is recent history that is of first importance, with sufficient acquaintance with the past to understand the happenings and the developments which have taken place in our own time. In our many years of schooling how difficult it is to give to our young men and women the knowledge that is worth while, which through a just and clear discernment will properly relate them to the duties and opportunities of their generation!

There are those who view the dislocations caused by the war, the present widespread impoverishment, the assaults and too frequent triumphs of unreason, the controversies over superficialities and the ignoring of the causes of distress and instability, with a feeling of hopelessness. But this is not the end of the world; rather it is the beginning of a new era, a formative period when it is the highest privilege to live and perform one's part. We need young men and women who are profound students of these developments, who are ready not only to grapple with the problems of our domestic life but who understand the origin and course of international difficulties and controversies and thus are able to take an intelligent and helpful part in forming a sound public opinion which will control America's conduct of foreign affairs. Above all we need the spirit of reasonableness which men and women of good sense and culture may bring to public discussion,-that calm judgment which proceeds from wide knowledge and keen insight.

Power and opportunity are yours. They are not confided to impersonal institutions. What will you do with them? Our ultimate security and the assurance of our progress will not be found in constitutions or statutes or treaties or conferences, important as these may be, but in the self-respect that will not permit abasement; in the national pride and just self-interest

that will not tolerate interference with independence; in the spirit of helpfulness which seeks not alliances but honorable cooperation; in the love of justice which will not permit abuse of power and which scorns to profit by unjust accusation; in the insistence upon the processes of reason by which alone we can avoid the mistakes of prejudice; in the detestation of the demagogue and all his works, the most dangerous enemy of the republic; and in the sympathy with the weak and oppressed and in the dominant sentiment of human brotherhood through which we shall be able to reconcile our national aspirations with the full performance of our duty to humanity.