for the German people to decide. All agree that no satisfactory peace can be made with an irresponsible autocratic government, and if the German people wish to be accorded equal rights in the new order of things that will follow this war, they must devise some system of constitutional control over the conduct of foreign affairs. Practically all of the prominent allied statesmen stand committed to the idea of a league of nations for the maintenance of law and international peace. The League to Enforce Peace, which has branches in all the allied countries, has done a great work in popularizing this idea. It is probably too early to determine the scope or the constitution of such a league. The platform of the League to Enforce Peace probably does not go far enough, for it still recognizes the right of any sovereign nation to go to war, merely stipulating that war shall not be waged until the matters in controversy shall have been submitted to a council of conciliation for hearing, consideration, and recommendation. Why should we recognize the right of a nation to wage war? In times past, when different peoples lived in economic isolation, it was possible for two or more nations to engage in a war without materially disturbing the life of other nations, but under modern conditions it is impossible to localize a conflict, and a war involving any of the great world powers seriously threatens the peace of all. The right of a state to wage war is based on the doctrine of national sovereignty, a nineteenth-century outgrowth of the old doctrine of the divine right of kings. If the state is sovereign and absolute, and its will is law, then the state can do no wrong, and there can be no international restraints upon its action. Under the German theory of national sovereignty there can be no such thing as international law. The constitutional theories of the Englishspeaking peoples, on the other hand, lend themselves readily to the development of a system of international law. Both the British Empire and the United States embody the federal principle in their organization. The so-called British Empire is in reality a commonwealth of nations. The overseas dominions, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, enjoy a full measure of autonomy, and each has an individuality of its own more marked even than that of our American states. Our government is based on a federation of states-union in great things, autonomy in minor things. If we can live under a national constitution that limits the powers of government, State and Federal, why can we not live under an international constitution or code that limits the powers of nations? The political institutions of the English-speaking peoples afford a far more promising basis for the organization of an international state than the union of the modern Hun and the unspeakable Turk. If the victory of the Allies is decisive, then the United States, England, France, Italy, Japan, and, we hope, eventually a democratic Russia can form a union that will be able to preserve the peace of the world. Germany and Austria could be admitted only when they should adopt responsible governments pledged to the fulfilment of their international obligations and the observance of international law. President Wilson's influence has by no means been limited to the formulation of issues and the statement of war aims. It has been effective in other ways. There is little doubt that his insistence on a unified command caused General Foch to be placed in control of the entire western front. The President's determination to stand by Russia has put a stop to the suggestions of those who, resenting Russia's desertion of the allied cause, were willing to accept an inconclusive peace based on the sacrifice of Russian territory and independence. America has a great opportunity ahead of her to serve mankind if she will but remain true to her best ideals. When the peace conference gathers the United States will be in a position to shape the destinies of the world, not by reason of her military strength or of her economic resources and wealth, but because, as President Wilson has said, "We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make. We are but one of the champions of the rights of mankind. We shall be satisfied when those rights have been made as secure as the faith and the freedom of the nation can make them." THE END |