S

OMETIMES the difficulty in securing action among members of any organization is the question, What shall I do to be of service? What can I do? In reality it all consists in doing. the first thing that comes to hand-and something will always come to hand to those who are alert.

Recently Sir Edward Grey urged the British Secretary of State of Foreign Affairs, in reply to an inquiry regarding his views as to the prospect of peace, urged a world unity-and said:

"I believe the best work neutrals can do for the moment is to work up opinion for such an agreement between nations as will prevent a war like this from happening again.

"If nations had been united in such an agreement and prompt and resolute to insist in July, 1914, that the dispute must be referred to conference or to The Hague and that the Belgian Treaty must be observed, there would have been no war."

Upon seeing this letter in the New York Sun, it occurred to a director in the New York State Branch of the League, Col. John D. Brooks, that he would write Sir Edward, informing him of the work of the New York State Branch in its efforts to assist in establishing a World Court, and he said, “I am prompted to send you some facts to let you know that our people are organ

Introductory note.-The nations of Europe claim that it is necessary to continue the war until their enemies are defeated to assure permanent peace in the future. Permanent peace does not seem certain at all by the defeat of either side, nor does defeat of either side seem possible, except at an indefensible sacrifice of life. Permanent peace seems only possible by the establishment of a World Court and a world executive power. To induce the nations of Europe to stop the war, I propose that plans for the establishment of a World Court be submitted to them. This article contains arguments for that purpose.

P

*

EACE treaties and optional arbitration give no sure promise

that wars will not occur in the future when serious disputes arise between nations. Preparation for war and a balance of power have not proved effective in keeping peace: on the other hand, to persuade the nations to disarm is impossible. Peace between individuals can only be kept by some form of government. Peace between nations, likewise, seems only attainable by some form of international government. INTERNA

TIONAL GOVERNMENT is only another name for a World Court with power to expound international law and enforce its decrees.

Many people regard the preservation of the union of the United States worth the sacrifice of the tremendous number of lives that occurred during the Civil War. Many people regard the consolidation of the German prov

inces to a united Germany, which was effected by "blood and iron," as something very desirable. Yet, these same people seem to regard with disfavor the consolidation of the nations of the world. Many people regard with aversion that their nation should join an international government. They think of that as something which would require their nation to relinquish its independence and sovereignty. World Court advocates think of an international government as a combination of the nations earthly life better; to cooperate to to coöperate to make abolish wars and settle disputes peaceably. The nations joining to estab-! lish a World Court shall, of course, i keep their own form of government and regulate their internal affairs according to their own methods. The international authorities should, however, control the seas and the international trade routes like the Suez and Panama canals. The powers of an international government should be restricted to regulating trade and setThe tling disputes between nations. nations of the world cannot be induced to enter into such a close combination< as the states of the Union or the prov- ! inches of Germany; and such a close union would not be desirable because of the great differences in the governments of the various nations (which it would not be the purpose of the inter

national government to alter) and the nationality and race differences. To bind the nations to such limited independence as the states of the Union are bound together by the Constitution is neither possible nor desirable.

A few students of world-problems, who regard an international government as a desirable and effective means of securing peace, believe that a combination of the nations can only be brought about after several terrible world wars after which the different nations will establish their rights in such a combination. We World Court advocates believe in a sane and humane way of doing things; we believe a combination of nations (limited at first, to the nations most advanced in civilization) and the establishment of a World Court could be effected in a civilized way by the nations sending delegates to a conference to make agreements. It is safe to assume that the requirements of the nations in regard to trade, immigration and extension of territory cannot differ very much; and if the nations are willing to put the same restrictions on themselves that they demand of other nations and to give the same liberties to other nations that they demand for

themselves, then the nations can surely find a basis of agreement. Agreements can, of course, only be arrived at on the basis of the Golden Rule and a certain amount of good-will.

In the past nations have grown in size largely through conquest and annexation of territory. Consolidation has been effected largely by "blood and iron." The Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente were effected by peaceful agreements to secure protection against an opponent or to secure a balance of power. Such alliances are only stable as long as the interests of the nations concerned run together. To make a combination of nations binding they should own property, territory and armaments of war in common.

To form a world combination by peaceful agreements and thus end war is the only way worthy of nations composed of human beings that consider themselves civilized. A precedent is found in the combination of the thirteen American Colonies to form the United States. The strongest incentive for the American Colonies to combine was to secure peace among themselves and to secure protection against the aggression of European powers. The main inducement to cause the nations to combine is to secure protection against the common enemy of the life and happiness of mankind, the enemy which leads the people into a whirlpool of destruction and deathMars. Other inducements and advantages are, the limitation of armaments; the control of the seas and the trade routes by the nations jointly; the securing of justice to the people of all nations, etc.

To induce the people to form an international government and a World Court is a large and difficult task-a task like building a Panama Canal and the procedure must be analogical. First careful plans must be drawn, then the plans should be supported opinions and views are looked upon as and advocated by public men whose authoritative. The press, of course, is a main factor in helping the movement. In the United States the plan for a world organization should finally recive the support of the President and of Congress The United States could most effectively take precedence in this movement.

In attempting to establish an international national government the following reasoning deserves consideration. The combination should, at first, be limited. to the United States and the chief civilized nations of Europe to secure good and able men as leaders to formulate the international laws. Also if all the nations of the world would be invited, it would be very difficult or probably

impossible to come to agreements. The United States, England and Germany should first come to agree ments on preliminary points as to the plan or organization and then invite France, Austro-Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden and Belgium to join. These nations (excepting the three smallest ones) are powerful military nations. Peace can be attained and

kept only when the nations and the men of good-will hold the balance of power. If the civilized nations named rule the earth according to just principles, the International Government will be stable; if unjust, we may expect revolts. After the International Government is established all the nations of the world shall be invited to join.

Representation in the International Government should be proportional to the literate males of voting age, as suggested by Roger W. Babson in his book, "The Future of World Peace." This would make representation roughly in proportion to the military strength of each nation. If a nation can secure as much by representation as by military force, it will not be inclined to resort to such force. The United States, England and Germany

should have an equal number of re resentatives to make the plan acceptable to these three nations.

The combination of nations can be made binding and mutual confidence established by the nations owning property, territory and armaments in common. This common possession should be entirely under the control of

the International Government.

Το

this common possession should belong the international trade routes like the Suez and Panama canals. The United States, England and Germany should consign to the International Government possessions of equal value and the smaller nations, in proportion to representation.

The task of peace advocates is to plan and propose a system of international government acceptable to the people and the governing classes of the various nations, but which will be, at the same time, based on just and equitable principles.

World organization must surely come in the future, and we hope that the time will come soon when we will have an equitable international gov ernment which will enhance the progress and well-being of mankind.

T

HE WORLD COURT has been received. The declaration of its mission in establishing principles that when put into actual operation will do away with wars and secure peace upon the basis of justice to all nations has been considered and

I want to extend my appreciation to the founders of The World's Court League and the WORLD COURT maga zine of the comprehensible scope of the work that they have undertake for the improvement of conditions that are now degrading the human race

I feel that it will be of interest to the readers of THE WORLD COURT and especially the founders of The World's Court League, to know that the sentiment that has burst forth from the depths of their consciousness has also broken the bonds of restraint in the extreme opposite corner of the United States at about the same time that The World's Court League was organized.

It must be remembered that two years ago, at the time the work that I am to speak of, which was undertaken in San Diego, California, the concrete sentiments expressed by The World's Court League and by many writers in magazines and papers of to-day regarding better international laws, an international court, and an international agreement to enforce a compliance with international law, were not thought possible by the general public. So to all intents and purposes the fact of the organization of The World's Court League or any other body of men having as its object the principles for which The World's Court League stands for, were at that time, August 10, 1914, unknown to the writer, so the methods taken to establish an efficient code_of international laws, an international court, and the concerted action of nations to enforce the law, were undertaken as if such organizations did not exist, or even were contemplated.

The work, which I shall describe later, has resulted in sending a petition signed by over one thousand people, to Congress, asking the Senate and House of Representatives to consider at their next session (which is the session now ended) to consider the advisability of inviting every nation to cooperate with the United States in an effort to establish an efficient and satisfactory code of international laws by four-fifths of the nations that may join in the work; to establish a court to decide international cases according

to the proposed international law; and to arrange for the enforcement of the laws that may be established by fourfifths majority of the nations participating in the undertaking.

The petition also requests Congress. to consider the advisability of asking each nation to appoint a commission. of five to ascertain from their respective governments if a new international governing power would meet with their approval, and if an approval is secured, each nation should instruct their respective commissions, on the principles that they desire, to have incorporated into a constitution for a new world governing power.

The petition also suggests the independent work of each national commission until a majority of the commissions so formed are ready to meet at a general conference of national commissions for the purpose of adopting a constitution for a world governing power.

It is also suggested in the petition. that after a meeting of the general conference of the commissions, each government should ratify each article that has been agreed upon by a fourfifths majority at the general conference of commissions, and all such articles when approved by four-fifths of all nations represented at the general conference shall be incorporated into a constitution for a world governing power.

I wanted to test the plan and correct such defects as might develop under the test, so I laid the matter before fifty of San Diego's leading men, among them were members and exmembers of the national and state legislatures, judges, attorneys, politicians, men of extensive business experience and a professor of international law from one of the eastern colleges. I requested each to criticize freely, or commend any part of the work proposed. I was greatly surprised to find that every man approved of the gen