The League of Nations : reasons why the United States should join other nations to bring universal peace and avoid the wickedness and expense of war

Front matter

I

J

Reasons Why the United States Should Join Other Nations to Bring Universal Peace and Avoid the Wickedness and Expense of War

Preface

It has been said that no one reads a preface. While this is an exaggeration, it is true that many readers pay no atten¬ tion to the introduction. Part of this indifference may be ascribed to the writers. In many cases a careful reading of the preface fails to give any idea as to whether the writer is familiar with his subject or is merely waiting something which he hopes to sell. The author should have a proper regard for the dictates of modesty, but the reader has a right to know whether the writer understands his subject, is conscientious in what he says, and has the public good as well as his own in view.

The present writer does not feel that he is boasting when he says that he has been a member of a peace society for many years and has taken a conscientious part in its proceedings. He is opposed to war as the greatest evil that afflicts the world, always wrong on one side, and very often on both sides. He had a book published some years ago, one chapter of which was devoted to war. Peace advocates pronounced it a strong and truthful arraignment of war, while those who believe in force thought it a bitter and unwarranted attack on military men I mention this to show that I am not a novice who was first op¬ posed to war when the League of Nations was offered to the world.

Within the memory of the writer hopes have been raised more than once among peace advocates that the world was coming to its senses and that the scripture which says that swords shall be beaten into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks was about to be fulfilled. Every movement that looked like peace has been strangled by the military of some nation, and but for the propaganda carried on in every so-called civilized nation for war under the guise of fear, and in the name of patriotism, the world would long ago have been on a peace basis.

The last great movement for universal peace resulted from the misery, bloodshed, debt, general depravity and hopelessness caused by the last great war, which would have ended war for¬ ever had it not been for the preparation that still goes on under the guise of self defense. The vast destruction of life, property and morals brought many to their senses who were indifferent, and the feeling that war is too cruel and expensive to live longer is perhaps too strong to be overcome. For the first time a ma¬ jority of foreign nations have been forced to the conclusion that they must depend on peace rather than war if they are to exist. The women are against it and the churches, led by their min¬ isters, have come to believe that religion and war are not com¬ patible and they must cease war if the church is to live and grow. That those who profit by money or what has been glory are engaged in a country-wide propaganda to keep war alive, hideous as it is, is evident to all who keep informed of current events.

Like all who are earnest in the peace movement, I am in favor of anything and everything that will aid in putting the world on a peace basis. I am for the disarmament of nations, for the World Court, for declaring war an outlaw, for Mr. Bok’s prize of $100,000, for the educational movement to abolish war, started by the educators of the world, and for the League of Nations. I am especially for the League for several reasons, some of which I shall give. I am for the League—

1. Because it is the plan of the world as shown by the treaties of more than fifty nations.

2. Because it is the strongest movement looking toward uni¬ versal peace and includes several methods.

3. Because it already has a court before which all inter¬ national grievances may be brought for peaceable, just and eco¬ nomical settlement.

4. Because the best and ablest men and women think a League of Nations is the only thing to prevent wars and put the world on a peace basis.

5. Because all other agencies and methods that have been tried for centuries have failed to prevent war, though the best men and women of the world united in the effort.

6. Because all nations have the same rights and should be members of a common league, and not leave a few on the out¬ side to be a source of danger to those who are members.

7. Because it is universally admitted that humanity is a higher and better term than patriotism. While patriotism is a praiseworthy feeling to be encouraged, it should never be used to the detriment of humanity. Right and wrong, truth and falsehood are the same in all countries. The League of Nations, like the church, stands for humanity.

8. The United States should be a member of the League because we claim to be a peaceable nation; because our late President said that war is abhorrent to the world; because we should set a worthy example and prove by our actions that we are for peace; because we took an active part in the World War to show that we wanted the right to prevail and w*e are under the same obligation to take part in peace; because the League passed both houses of Congress and was strongly favored by the best men and women of the country; because we are needed by the League and it will not function properly without us.

In offering this book to the public the writer claims no superior knowledge of the subjects discussed. He may have some advantages for information denied the average reader, and has perhaps spent more time in considering the subject than can be given by some who may be equally interested. About one-third of this book is devoted to giving the opinions of men and women, eminent not only in their own localities, but many of them known throughout the world. This will add greatly to the value of the book, as the opinions of many are better than that of one on any subject. Those who want to know the chief rea¬ sons why the United States should become a member of the League of Nations will do well to read this book.

If this book is thought to be inconsistent in referring to Mr. Harding as President it should be remembered that some of it was written while he lived and was not changed.

ANDREW J. PALM.

Meadville, Pa., February, 1924.

CHAPTER I. Self Interest Should Suggest the League

"War is one of the most ferocious and futile of human follies. It never decides who is right but only which is the stronger.” _ —John Hay.

“We all of us agree, and a very large part of the world agrees, that there ought to be an end to war; that it is brutal, wasteful and stupid. We have been talking about it for a great many years. The volume of sound has swelled and grown into a great chorus of universal ac¬ claim for the principles of peace with justice.”

—Elihu Root.

My object in giving these quotations is two-fold. They show that war is foolish, wicked and useless so far as justice is con¬ cerned, and that the world wants it abolished. In addition both men were prominent members of the party that has opposed the League of Nations. Mr. Hay, by common consent, was one of the ablest men the country has produced. He excelled as an editor, a statesman and an author, and his opinion of war is that of every one who has given the subject a moment’s thought. Mr. Root is regarded as one of the ablest attorneys of the world, apd has been called to fill many places of responsibility by his party and was mainly instrumental in establishing the Hague Court. He used the quotation given in a speech when chairman of the Carnegie Peace Foundation.

It has been said that no one is allowed to choose his duties, implying that they are forced upon us, and that we are the instruments by which they are to be performed or neglected.

There is no doubt that St. Paul, who has been called “the great teacher,” spoke the truth 2000 years ago when he said that no* man liveth to himself, and it is just as true that no nation can live in isolation and selfishness and prosper. The greater the number affected and the more important the good to be done, the greater is our responsibility to act in accordance with intelligent judgment.

Every citizen owes it to himself and to the world to have an intelligent opinion on the League of Nations, a subject that con¬ cerns every thinking human being now on earth or who may come hereafter. As has been said by at least two men who were thought to have the learning, ability and integrity to fit them for the highest judicial position in the United States, this is by far the most important question the American people were ever called to consider, and is above all questions of political partisan¬ ship.

The author presents nothing new when he says that peace is better than war, for this is regarded as self-evident by all right-minded readers. Even the veriest war lord knows that the world should get along without the evils of war, but it takes time for the majority to get rid of the impression that neces¬ sity compels us to accept an admitted evil because it is old, rather than something new which judgment tells us is far better. We have both money and ambition to overcome, two great evils when they are put to evil use. They have been used as curses of the world in all ages, and they must accept the responsibility for war’s extending so far into civilization.

Imaginary fear of those who should be helpful friends, rather than armed foes, is made the excuse for large military appropriations, which, in turn, inflame the war-like passions of other nations and make war rather than peace the basis on which the world acts. Repetition is said to enforce truth and by re¬ peating the truth again and again the majority may finally come to feel that it should be adopted and war relegated to the un¬ worthy dead of a more barbarous age.

The best paid general will readily admit that peace is better than war, that war is unchristian, but he claims that peace with¬ out war is impossible. The world wants peace but is obliged to accept war, for, as the military men say, wars have always existed and always will exist. They seem to forget that exactly the same thing was said of slavery and duelling which were thought to be permanently fastened on society because they had always been a part of it, but their abolition was easy When the people decided they should go. There is a far better reason why Christians should stop cutting one another’s throats than there was for abolishing duelling.

No matter what nations may be engaged in it, war is a stranger to every dictate of humanity. The President, in his speech to the Washington Conference, expressed the thought that wars should grow less cruel as we become more highly civil¬ ized, though he admits that they grow worse. The sixty-two page pamphlet detailing the horrible German outrages, signed by seven prominent Englishmen, the declaration of the English soldiers that running the Boers through with spears was excel¬ lent fun, which they called pig sticking; the excoriation of the American general, Jake Smith, in Congress, for extreme cruelty to Filipino soldiers and for his order to kill all over ten in a certain district on the ground that “nits make lice,’’ ought to convince the most optimistic reader that General Sherman was right when he declared in burning Atlanta that “ war is cruelty and cannot be refined,” or his better known saying that war “is hell.” Neither is war any better if carried on by those who call themselves the followers of the lowly Nazarene.

If peace is not better than war, our religion is a mistake and we do violence to our faith when we speak of it as founded on the teaching of the Prince of Peace. If peace is better than war—if it is a vital part of our religion and no true religion can exist without it—there is but one thing that should prevent our having it, and that is that it is impossible. Before we can say it is impossible we must give it a fair trial, something it has never had and never will have as long as more propaganda is carried on for war than for peace.

It matters but little how strong a man may be for peace, if he is appointed Secretary of the Navy or of War he usually becomes more or less warlike and favors large appropriations for his department. Men in these positions are dealing princi¬ pally with admirals or generals who know far more about war than the man at the head of their department. The men with whom the Secretary has to deal know practically only of war and talk but little else and their example is contagious. As a rule the Secretary takes the word of the man who assumes to know all about it, and if told that the government needs a few dreadnaughts to make an adequate navy, or a few thousand soldiers, or a few hundred airplanes to form an adequate army, the Secretary goes before the congressional committee and rec¬ ommends what the warriors advocate.

The President, as head of the army and navy has a host of generals, admirals and rear admirals, the war college, the Secre¬ taries of the Army and Navy, the navy board, the war board and the jingoes in Congress and out telling him how weak and un¬ prepared we are, until he comes to believe it. It is perhaps not strange that he sometimes forgets his religion, his duty and his peace principles and yields to their importunities. He should not forget that there are others aside from the handful that have been after him; he should recollect that neither in time of peace nor war have the army and navy been anything near adequate in the opinion of military men.

Man is a selfish creature, and one would think his self-interest would lead him to favor peace instead of war, even if his love of humanity was not sufficient reason for such a choice. The average man is a timid being as well as selfish, scenting danger where there is none, and he is slow to change his mind. The man of war, through generations of effort, has so impressed many men of their danger that they think with the German Kaiser that we must have an adequate army and navy to save us from those who may be better than ourselves. The cry now is that we are in danger of war from those who are sick of it and have agreed that hereafter they will settle international dis¬ putes by a civil court constituted for the purpose.

Individual habits are hard to break, but w'hen the govern¬ ment gets into a way of doing things the way is likely to last long after the need has disappeared. For example, Walter H. Page, who was Ambassador to England under President Wilson, says that during Defoe ’s time, two hundred years ago, a pot of herbs was put on every court desk in England to keep the plague away. This would be strange enough even in Defoe’s time, but when Mr. Page says that a pot of herbs is still kept on the desk of every court room in England we begin to see that the human being is slow to change even for what is cheaper and more sensible.

Mr. Page also mentions the Bank of England as showing Merrie England’s aversion to making changes. Many years ago an attempt was made to rob the Bank and a detachment of soldiers was ordered to stand watch at night. Though the Bank has been moved twice and is now housed in a building that would stand a siege, Mr. Page says that a guard in the same colored uniform as that which originally stood watch is kept every night.

I could match it with stories showing that Americans are nearly as much inclined to let things go as they have been going.

Nearly every member of the American House of Lords once took snuff. It was one man’s duty to see that the snuff boxes were properly cleaned and filled every morning when the Senate was in session. This was kept up until comparatively recently. Though the number of snuff takers gradually diminished until but one was left, the boxes were religiously kept in order for the entire number.

An illustration of the inclination of the English-speaking people to stick to the old because it is old is the Metric system of measurements. Though originated by the English inventor, James Watt, in 1786, and is as much simpler than the systems in use as dimes and dollars is simpler than pounds and pence, it is said that England and the United States are the only civil¬ ized nations that have not adopted it.

What is advocated by the League of Nations is the most valuable public thing ever offered to man, and though it is free, some hesitate to accept it. All that is expected of any one is to think. One of our most noted reformers says that the hardest part of any reform is to get men to think. If men will think earnestly and conscientiously they will arrive at pretty nearly the same conclusion, especially if they have the same interest, and everyone has the same interest in the peace of the world for it concerns the men, women and children of every country.

The United States is the only great country that does not belong to the League of Nations. Though we boast of being a nation of peace, culture and religion, though we are infinitely better prepared by location, tradition, reputation and resources than any other to take the lead among the nations for the world’s peace, yet we lag behind and allow others to outstrip us in the greatest cause that nations were x ever called to settle. It is a shame and disgrace that our rulers, who ought to lead public

SELF INTEREST SHOULD SUGGEST THE LEAGUE II sentiment in every good cause, should act in what concerns us and the whole world, only as they are forced by public opinion. Other nations have the impression, which they have doubtless acquired from our conduct, that we consider ourselves too good, or too great, or too proud to join them in an attempt to do away with war and the preparation for it.

The good men and women of the world are more in favor of freedom from war than they ever were before; they are now more fully convinced that the League of Nations is the only thing that will put an end to war. They see that now is the time to act when the desire for peace burns in hearts all over the world. The sentiment for peace is so strong that the war lords in Congress and out can no longer fool the rank and file by ap¬ propriating big sums to the army and navy in time of peace, and then set up the war scare as an excuse for their action as they have been doing for centuries. Over three hundred and twenty-five millions to the navy, and as much to the army, at a time when not a war cloud the size of a man’s hand is in sight, is more than the people will stand, if they have any power to think. All they need is to think—to think that this enormous sum, most of which might have been saved, is to be a burden on us and our children after us. With nearly all the nations on earth saying they want no more war, with Germany no longer a bugbear to frighten the timid, there is no longer any reason, if there ever was one, for keeping the military in the saddle.

The time has come for plain speaking, when those who be¬ lieve in peace will take the first and best opportunity to secure it. They are fully convinced that it will never come by taking the advice of those who talk for peace and prepare for war. We would be in bloody war now only for the reason that there is no nation so foolish as to engage with us in a brutal contest.

Our military men do not want us to remain long without some excuse for war, thinking that we will become what we profess to be, a nation that practices what it preaches.

In the court of brute force the victor is judge and jury and fixes the verdict to please himself, no matter how unjust. When two individuals disagree no one needs to be told that neither should be allowed to fix the terms of settlement. When two eorporations differ as to what is right, it would be considered preposterous to allow either to fix the verdict. When two na¬ tions disagree there is infinitely more reason why a tribunal of distinguished men from other nations should fix the award than in the case of two corporations. It is comparatively easy for either a corporation or a nation to agree to the decision Of an impartial judge, but a condition most likely to result in war when the disagreement occurs between nations. The rulers of one nation, through self interest or some other reason, insist that they are right and the others wrong. Unless somebody backs down, or some power intervenes, the result is war.

The folly, uncertainty and expense of war settlements have been demonstrated so often that any nation would better swal¬ low some of its pride and accept almost any verdict in a court of justice. Five years have elapsed since the greatest war in all history closed and a final settlement has not yet been made, nor does any one know when it will be made. France suffered severely, spending more ifi four years of war than she had spent for peaceable government in a century, to say nothing of her loss in men, and her moral loss which was beyond estimation. France claims that Germany could pay, if she would, and is attempting to collect by the threat of military force, which is a most ex¬ pensive way of getting money, expensive alike both for the payer and payee. Germany claims that she has paid nearly $11,000,- 000,000, while France insists that she has not received one-third of this amount. An American firm has made what is perhaps as fair a statement as can be made of the situation, and finds that Germany has paid $5,188,000,000 in money, goods and property of different kinds. This firm after a long, careful and impartial investigation says that Germany cannot pay more at present, and *wbether she can in the future depends on circumstances over which she has no control. The full report may be regarded as the fairest and most complete statement made of the unpleasant situation. It needs no proof to say that the civilized world is suffering from the situation between France and Germany.

For many years the war feeling between these two nations has been at the breaking point, and both should have learned long ago that force never pays financially, morally nor any other way. There is more sympathy for Germany than there would otherwise have been had any nation set a proper example, but England, France, the United States, Italy and all the countries that make any pretensions, were vying with Germany in the mat¬ ter of armies and navies. They all insisted on an adequate army and navy, and adequate in a military man’s mind means second to none. If France, Germany and all the other nations would get rid of their men of war, the peace men would have no trouble in arriving at a sensible settlement.

The contest affects many more than France and Germany. As the two nations did not fight the contest alone, so all inter¬ ested should have a voice in the settlement. The newspapers naturally take sides, some for France and others for Germany, but it should be clear to any reasonable man that neither should say what the other shall do. While Germany made war for a very flimsy excuse and ought to pay for what she destroyed as far as possible, yet we should not expect any nation, Whether defeated or victorious to perform impossibilities, nor should we permit one nation to say what another shall or shall not do. The only kind of a verdict any individual or nation can conscientious¬ ly sanction is one rendered by an international court having justice for all in view. There is much good sense in what Josephus Daniels, Secretary of the Navy under President Wilson, says in the Raleigh News and Observer, when he declares:

“I am for a new reparations commission, upon which the United States should have a voting member and not merely an observer, to give a thorough examination of Germany's offer and make careful analysis of it and point out what would be accom¬ plished by its acceptance and wherein it should be amended.

“The thirty billion gold marks is equivalent to something like seven billion dollars, or three billions less than the minimum of the amount of reparations President Wilson thought Germany was able to pay in 1919. This is not a matter solely for Germany on the one side and France and Belgium on the other. It con¬ cerns all the nations that were engaged in the World War. If the nations to pay and the nations to receive can not agree, the other nations should offer their good offices to adjust the differences with guarantees that would give lasting European peace. That is more important than a few billion marks more or less/'

The fight between France and Germany, which has lasted many months, is the most serious trouble in the world today. It is but the natural result of a war feeling between the two nations of many years standing, so long that the oldest inhabi¬ tant cannot remember when it began. As a result both nations have exhausted their resources in being prepared to meet the other in battle array whenever the war lords might decide that glory or the acquisition of money or territory demanded a war. The most active jingo will hardly claim that the bad situation in Europe, especially between France and Germany, is not due to war. Will he not further acknowledge that no such conditions were ever made by peace ? Would not both France and Germany have been infinitely better off if they had accepted the advice of the Prophet Isaiah made more than twenty-five centuries ago, and beaten their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks and learned war no more?

It is questionable whether both countries are not bankrupt, -whether either can pay its national debts. A writer who has been a banker and a member of a university faculty is on record as saying that France in 1914 owed more than the United States, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Roumania, Serbia, Norway and Sweden combined, though less in size than Texas. According to the same authority France owed twice as much per capita as Great Britain, five times as much as Turkey, six times as much as Russia, ten times as much as Germany, and fifteen times as much as the United States. France, on what seems to be reliable authority, is this year spending about 45,000,000,000 francs and raising about 22,000,000,000, and yet has the largest army of any civilized country on the globe.

All the gold in Germany would pay the interest on the reparations demanded but one week. All she can hope to pay must be in goods, as all national debts £.re paid, but would the United States or England, or any other country, see its own industries demoralized to take art undue proportion of German goods ? These are some of the results of war. Who will say that peace is not desirable, and a League of Nations not necessary?

Chapter II

Why We Are Not a Member of the League.

“He that may hinder mischief and yet permits it is an accessory.” —Freeman.

Most men do not realize to what extent they are controlled by the political party to which they are said to belong and to which most of them do belong body and soul. If the old political parties would change platforms the adherents of the respective parties would reason themselves into thinking that a great change had taken place and imagine it their duty to stick to the party name regardless of the principles advocated. As has been well said, a platform is to get in on rather than to ride on. Though it is clearly shown at the close of this chapter that the people were overwhelmingly for the League of Nations, it was defeated because of partisan politics, the people standing for a name instead of a reality which they really wanted and had been advocating for years. Though it has been more than one hundred and twenty-five years since Alexander Hamilton used the following languaage, truer words have never been spoken: