the creation of a League of Peace, to be backed by an international military and naval force.

The first objection is that the plans ignore the lesson that the decrees of the United States Supreme Court against individual States are executed, notwithstanding the fact that the court has no power of enforcement.

Another is, that the plans overlook the necessity for first establishing an International Legislature and an International Court, out of which such an international police must develop, if it develops at all, and that the supposed necessity for an international police may and probably will be found to be unjustified when once an International Legislature and an International Court are really established.

Our Federal Constitution, adds the Advocate of Peace, provides (Art. I, sec. 8) that the Congress shall "declare war," "raise and support armies," and that the Congress shall have the power to provide for calling forth the militia to repel invasions. The same Constitution further provides (Art. III, sec. 3) that "treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to our enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Further (Art. IV, sec. 4), "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion." Again (Art. II, sec 2), "The President of the United States shall have power, by and with the consent of the Senate, to make treaties, providing two-thirds. of the Senators present concur." Before any treaty or series of treaties could be negotiated providing for an international police, transferring the power to declare war to other and possibly hostile nations, it would be necessary to modify all of these articles of our United States Constitution.

The plans assume that the United States Senate can be prevailed upon to accept a scheme which will materially curtail its constitutional prerogatives, subordinate the Congress of the United States to a league

unknown to and inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, and change both in fact and in theory the form and substance of the Republic of the Fathers.

The advocates of an international police as a means of restricting wars do not seem to know, at least they ignore, that, though the proposal is very old, it has never been seriously or popularly received. Without going back to the Greek "Councils," it is a fact that Dante proposed a world federation, backed by force, in his "Convito" early in the fourteenth century. The Grand Design of Henry IV embodied the same principle in 1601. A few years later Hugo Grotius suggested the importance of "certain congresses of Christian powers, in which the controversies among some of them may be decided by others who are not interested, and in which measures may be taken to compel the parties to accept peace upon equitable terms." In 1693 William Penn's plan for the peace of Europe allowed for an international force. Saint Pierre and Rosseau had a similar plan in the early eighteenth century. Lord Liverpool's foreign secretary, Robert Stewart, better known as Viscount Castlereagh, went to the Congress of Vienna, 1814-1815, for the purpose of establishing an armed concert of Europe. Cardinal Fleury, Prime Minister to Louis XV of France, when presented with the scheme proposed by Saint Pierre, pleasantly remarked that the document should have a preliminary article providing for the education of missionaries "to dispose the hearts of the Princes of Europe to submit to such a diet." This discriminating suggestion of the Prime Minister suggests to-day a genuine objection to the plan for an international police.

The Advocate of Peace avers that it never has recommended and does not now recommend any immediate disarmament for this country, and that it has maintained, and still continues to maintain, that the substitute for war which will abolish war must take the form of an International Legislature and International Judiciary.

C

IVILIZED warfare is a contradiction in terms. We must choose between Christ, representing the moralizing force of ideas, and Napoleon, the exponent of imperialism and militarism. The two great influences in the world at this time are those expressed by the principles of Jesus Christ and Napoleon Bonaparte― the former representing the power of overcoming evil with good, and the latter the power of overcoming evil with evil. One stands for love, humility, and self-denial, as expressed in the life of yoke-fellowship with himself. The other stands for hate, pride, and avarice, as expressed in the militarism. of these times. For militarism, as an appeal to brute force, is in its very nature barbar

It is a remnant of those savage days when, because primitive men had not yet learned to reason, the only way to settle questions was by physical combat.

We recognize clearly enough in private life the crudity of the system, and we no longer make the decisions of our law-courts depend upon the outcome of a bodily contest, nor the vindication of our honor upon our willingness to fight a duel. But it is only among compatriots that the world. admits the principles of rational justice, and only within the narrow limits of the nation has it become even partially socialized and Christianized. In the conduct of nations toward each other the same old barbaric idea of dominating, of getting a "place in the sun" by physical force, though violating the equally valid rights of others to existence still prevails among European countries. The Christian dream of a socialized worldstate, governed by the universal laws of justice, and working together for the advancement of civilization, is shattered by the spectacle of rival nations in arms against one another. For militarism, dividing the world into enemies and allies, and denying the brotherhood of man and the sanctity of human life, is a distinctly anti-social

influence, and the growth of civilization is largely the growth of the feeling of social interdependence. On a larger scale, militarism is the same spirit of the old feudal barons who glutted their private ambitions and avarice by endeavoring to crush their rivals.

Christ, impersonating the unifying force of ideas, seeks to substitute for this earthly empire, based on the unstable foundations of force, a world-state, bound together by common ideals and a sense of a common humanity. It is no mere coincidence that the rapid expansion of the Christian church began shortly after the reign of Nero. For, in spite of his crimes and persecutions, Nero unwittingly paved the way for Christianity by joining forces with the growing intellectual spirit of Oriental culture against the old Roman spirit of militarism. And it was, in part, due to the increasing strength of this spiritual empire, which regarded the supremacy of Rome as a matter of indifference, and which advocated the principles of peace and brotherhood, that the empire of the Cæsars fell. Far from being one of the great calamities of history, it was merely the inevitable issue of the struggle between the brutalizing spirit of militarism and the growing intellectualism, which refused to submit to the dominance of force.

Just so, at present, militarism is not in harmony with an age saturated with the ideas of freedom and democracy. There is nothing in common between an autocratic military discipline, which makes unreflecting machines of men, and a system of free government, which permits the spontaneous development of the individual. Then, too, in its ideal of conquest and supremacy, it runs directly contrary to the principle of equal rights for all. The whole creed of democracy-life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness-is opposed to that of militarism-death, subjection, and the pursuit. of ambition. Democracy, fraternity,

equality, equity, these are the principles of Christ. Free institutions, self-government, and brotherhood can attain their highest development under his leadership. This age-long struggle between the humanizing force of moral idealism and the brutality of military compulsion, the struggle between the religion of Christ and the religion of Napoleon, perhaps has never been so desperate and bitter as at present. At times it seems as though the world had relapsed into savagery. There is one gleam of encouragement, however, in the increasing realization of the horror and folly of such wholesale carnage. We hear very little now about the "glory" of it all. The most hopeful condition of Europe to-day, is that no one of the warring nations is willing to take the responsibility of this war, but each is apologizing for its part and seeking to throw the blame on another. If war were right, all would be clamoring for the credit of the war. Instead, all are ashamed of it.

In a letter received a few days ago, by the editor of THE WORLD COURT from a gentleman who has spent most of his time for the past two years in Mexico or near the Mexican border, and who is brought into daily contact with people from all sections of that distracted country, he says: "The stories of unusual suffering for food in Mexico are absolutely false, save it may be in respect to some few localities at times cut off from communication with the agricultural country by military operations. I cannot understand why Carranza is not recognized by the Washington administration. He dominates the situation almost completely. Why is it that the Administration is always against the strongest power in Mexico? The alternative now is to support Villa, who is practically down and out. That will mean another long period of civil war for Mexico, in which the women, children and non-combatants will suffer the most. With a little support and encouragement now, Carranza would soon establish a government."

This agrees with statements made by John Kenneth Turner, author and newspaper correspondent, recently published in

the New York Sun. Turner declares that the Red Cross reports, published broadcast, of suffering and starvation are false and that there is no more hunger, comparatively, to be found in Mexico, than in any large American city. There has been difficulty, not surprising in war-time, in obtaining prompt and adequate transportation of food and other necessities to different localities. "This difficulty," adds Turner, "has been met and handled by the Carranza authorities, and there has been no time when the Carranza government was not in perfect control of the food situation within the territory over which it possessed jurisdiction and was not using every effort to maintain order and relieve known suffering.

"There is no question that great numbers of Mexicans are hungry. That was the normal condition under President Diaz. The hunger of the millions caused the revolution. To-day luxuries are harder to get, but common food is more plentiful.

"With all the fighting, there are great areas of peace. The constitutional party is in control of entire states where there is no fighting, where business is transacted as in normal times, where the courts are open, where life and property are as secure as in Kansas or New York. The insecurity is found only in those regions where the opposing forces are contending for ultimate supremacy. Armed intervention in Mexico by this country would be one of the worst crimes ever committed by a government."

It is time to make the Administration at Washington understand that the peaceful and law-abiding people of the United States are utterly opposed to armed intervention by the United States in Mexico. At the worst, the situation is not as bad as when Villa and Carranza were fighting Huerta. President Wilson did not intervene with an armed force then, except to seize Vera Cruz. If it was his purpose to intervene, that was the proper and most advantageous base for him to work from, but he abandoned it just at a time to turn the scale in favor of Carranza as against Villa. Carranza has improved the opportunity to the extent of practically extinguishing Villa as a possible leader of a successful revolution. It does not appear that President Wilson has any

notion of recognizing Villa, but the idea seems to be to set up a President who has no army at his back and who has not demonstrated the possession of any vital power of leadership. It is not surprising that Carranza should decline to surrender the leadership he has won to a nondescript set up by foreign governments, a man whose failure to identify himself with any of the factions would presumably be evidence of his lack of qualities of leadership. When a country is afflicted with civil war it requires a strong man to pacify it. Carranza is just now, by process of elimination, the strongest man in sight. No man can rule Mexico in

its present disturbed state without a strong military force at his back, and Carranza has the largest and best organized army of any of the leaders. It would seem to us to be the better policy for the United States to recognize him and hold him responsible for the safety of American lives and property and for the enforcement of order in Mexico, than to try to set up a man who would be entirely dependent upon outside military force for any effective assertion of his authority. "No armed intervention in Mexico!" is undoubtedly the prayer of the vast majority of the American people at this time.

T

HE citizen of a republic owes to the State a duty greater than that which a subject owes to his Sovereign. In a monarchy, obedience is the key note of the subject's relation-in a republic, it is not merely obedience to the will of the majority expressed in the laws, but there is in addition a co-partnership relation.

In a monarchy the average business man, knowing there is a certain set of men of capacity, respectability and prominence who will manage the public affairs in a satisfactory manner, may pursue his business and pleasures without fear and can, if he wish, say that he need not bother about mixing in politics. But in this republic if he says that, or acts it, he closes his eyes to the fact that it is hard to find such a class of men, and that by his neglecting to assist in the administration he is leaving the government in the hands of adventurers who have no absorbing business, no feeling of responsibility or regard for the laws of God or man.

How long can a republic be expected to endure when its laws are made and admin

istered by the inefficient or unworthy members of the State?

The ten

One reason why the inefficient are suffered to exercise so great a power in our affairs is that office is not made attractive to those best qualified to serve. ure of office is short; the pecuniary remuneration is small; there is but a modicum of honor or respect awarded by the public to its servants. Hence the small incentive for men who are efficient and successful in private life to accept public office.

Lawyers find at hand an illustration of this in the matter of our State judiciary. Do we find, have we at any time found in this state that the bench has habitually attracted to itself, as candidates, very many of the most successful and able members of the bar? No, Why? Because the inducements offered are short tenure of office, just long enough to break up an active lawyer's practice; moderate pay, less than the successful lawyer is expected to earn; uncertainty as to the result of the next election; campaign assessments and expenses to cut into the modest salary; and at times harsh

and uncharitable criticism with rarely any public expression of respect.

For years, efforts have been made by those desiring to improve the standard of judicial efficiency to suggest a correction of these defects, by offering larger compensation, a longer tenure of office and by the putting aside, as far as possible, political consideration. As if in mockery of these efforts, we have obtained the new "reform" of the direct primary. This has made it all political, has increased the campaign expenses by giving two elections in place of one, and has enabled the incompetent and self-seeking candidate to take a chance in the lottery of the primary where the average voter has to select from a mass of names, most of which are alike to fortune and to fame unknown.

What is the reward of public service? What is the reward of duty performed? The real or greatest reward is internal it cometh not from outside. Nevertheless it is apparent that public service should be as attractive as it is possible to make it, and not leave poor human nature, with its normal desire for material reward, to look to conscience alone for recompense.

The well meaning citizen who struggles against this tendency of our country to discourage its best talent from engaging in public work, is disheartened by observing a stolid indifference, yea, even a disinclination among business men to expend even a little time and effort in public duty. What's every man's business is no man's business. Not infrequently has a father advised his son to keep out of politics because "it's low and dirty." The son might reply it's low and dirty because his father and his father's friends never pay any attention to it.

Can a good government be the reward of a people whose better portion abstain from active participation in it?

What is the minimum effort which duty requires a business man to make? Attendance at local or ward meetings of his party and urging his neighbors to do likewise. If he does that, he will be taking a hand in local government, and it will soon

follow that he will consider it a personal disgrace for his ward to have an undesirable man in the City Council. Shortly he will be found using his influence to get a competent man to sit in the Legislature. Is this too much to ask of a business man? The exercise of these modest efforts for public welfare will stimulate his interest in all public questions; but it is of far greater importance that he direct his attention to local affairs, because our cities are the worst in the world and they pollute the whole commonwealth. If a state is habitually misgoverned in the lower strata how can we expect the upper to be sound and safe.

You and your class are leaders of public opinion-if you create a public awakening of the necessity for general activity in the unattractive local politics you may regenerate your community, and perhaps the nation.

Ferrero, in his Roman History, at the conclusion of the first volume, speaking of the causes of the downfall of the Republic, states that it was directly due to the indifference of the men of business, the men of education, the men of affairs to mingling in public matters and who "allowed the elective institution of the State to sink into the hands of the ambitious dilettanti and grasping adventurers who disputed for the suffrages, and controlled the organizations of the Roman proletariat.”

"As in Europe and the United States at the present time," says the historian, "the great bulk of the upper and middle classes took but a languid interest in public affairs; they preferred to spend their time upon commerce and agriculture, study or pleasure, and were unwilling to take part in political conflicts or accept official responsibilities, to suffer the hardships of military service or even the inconvenience of voting."

And Cæsar, whom he compared with a modern Socialistic leader, or rather with a Tammany Boss, came as "the last phase in a transformation which had long been taking place."

What is the test of a good government? Is it not found in protection to the individual in person and property? In comparison with this basic obligation of the state