countries and to the co-operation of all for the restoration of normal production.

CONFERENCES OR LEAGUES

ISTORY DEMONSTRATES no fact more clearly than

and indispensable conditions for the realization of an efficacious effort are capable of being defined in general terms as follows:

"(1) The nations cannot claim the right to dictate to each other the principles according to which they must organize within their frontiers, their régime of property, their economy, and their government. It is the right of each country to choose for itself the system which it prefers.

"(2) Nevertheless, it is not possible to place foreign capital in order to help a country, unless the foreigners who provide the capital have a certitude that their property and their rights will be respected and that the fruits of their enterprise will be assured.

"(3) This feeling of security cannot be re-established unless nations or their governments desiring to obtain foreign credits freely engage (a) To recognize all public debts and obligations which have been contracted, or will be contracted or guaranteed by States, municipalities, or other public organizations, and to recognize also obligations to restore or, in case of default, to indemnify all foreign interests for loss or damage which has been caused by the confiscation or sequestration of property; (b) to establish legal and juristic punishment and assure the impartial execution of all commercial or other contracts.

"(4) The nations ought to have available convenient means of exchange; in general, financial and monetary conditions ought to exist which offer sufficient guarantees.

"(5) All nations ought to engage to abstain from all propaganda which is subversive of the political system established in other countries.

"(6) All nations ought to take a common engagement to abstain from all aggression on their neighbors. "If, with a view to assuring the necessary conditions for the development of the commerce of Russia, the Russian Government claims official recognition, the allied governments cannot accord this recognition unless the Russian Government accepts the preceding conditions."

Two lines of postscript are added, that the conference would be held in Italy and that the United States will be invited to participate.

Conferences are in the air. Farmer and labor organizations, scientific bodies, economists, educationists, religionists, statesmen, are in conferences here and around the globe. The world is turning from arrangements predicated upon force to agreements buttressed upon good will. The effort is to escape from such things as the Holy Alliance. Men everywhere are coming to realize that there can be no peace between the nations founded upon a victorious military organization.

Surely the United States is continuing once more its rôle as a world power in the realm of international policy. The ideas and ideals of the makers of America, the smoke of battles clearing away, are coming again unto their own.

in the direction of conferences of delegates duly chosen and accredited by the nations concerned. The great international achievements have always come about by the means of such conferences. It is thus that treaties are made. Out of international conferences has sprung all that we have in the nature of co-operation between the republics of the Western Hemisphere. It is the way international business was accomplished at Philadelphia in 1787, at Vienna in 1815, at Berlin in 1878, at The Hague in 1899 and 1907, at Niagara Falls in 1914, at Paris in 1918. It is the hope of Washington in 19211922.

The method is simple and acceptable to all the powers. In the case of controversy, the interested nations appoint delegates, give to them their instructions, and send them to a common meeting place. These delegates, acting under their instructions, discuss the issues involved, come to a meeting of minds as far as possible, and report their conclusions to their respective governments. The governments consider the recommendations, and if they prove acceptable they are ratified. When ratified, the recommendations become laws for the nations ratifying. This is the course which history has shown through the many years to be acceptable and efficacious. No other method has been found to be either acceptable or efficacious.

The reason for the success of this method is simple. It is founded on the fact that neither men nor nations are willing to obey, at least for any length of time, the commands or directions of men. No one will obey a man for very long. There seems to be but one thing that men generally will agree to obey, and agree further to do everything in their power to get other men to obey; that is law. When, by direct action or through their representatives, men or nations set up rules of conduct, and agree to them, they obey them. If a man or a nation runs foul of the law, disobeys it, defies it, or abrogates it, the other parties to the law array themselves against him; the hand of every man is against him. Men insist that laws which they themselves have adopted shall be obeyed.

This is probably civilization's greatest achievement. The best criterion of the moral standards of a people is their system of laws. The uniting force of societypreserving personal security, the family, life, liberty, happiness, and the common weal-is law. Where law accomplishes these great benefits best, there society reaches its highest levels, and there the greatest number of human beings attain unto their choicest hopes. In many ways the conference now meeting in Washington is but another practical expression of this abiding

Every attempt to ignore this fundamental thing in human relationship has met defeat. The reason why America is not in the League of Nations is primarily that many in America conceived that organization to be an attempt to set up a government not of laws, but of men. Such undoubtedly was the plan of its founders. The outspoken purpose was to create an international organization of nine men dominated by five, which group of men of the great powers would have the power to dictate the foreign policies, at least of the small nations. Until the League of Nations can overcome this impression, it cannot count upon the co-operation of the United States; indeed, in our opinion, it cannot function in any manner commensurate with its high purposes.

There is something in the very words indicating the differences between covenant or league on the one hand and conference on the other. Ecclesiastically, covenant is a solemn compact between members of a church to maintain something, such as its faith, discipline, and the like. In history, covenant is connected with reformation and defense. In law, a covenant is a contract under seal. With the passing of years it will probably be increasingly agreed that the Covenant of the League of Nations adopted in Paris was a concrete, if fundamentally mistaken, expression of the noble ideal of a governed world. Following the attempt to set up the League of Nations, the future will witness an increasing attempt on the part of the nations to substitute reason for power and right for might.

Undoubtedly the meetings of the Council of the League and of the Assembly at Geneva, bringing representatives of various nationalities together around a common table, will play its part toward the fuller realization of the equality of States before the law. It will bring home to men increasingly the meaning of Paul's philosophy, that we are members one of another. America knows or apprehends these things. America knows that the will to end war is an international will, requiring an international medium for its orderly and effective expression. But America knows, further, that there is a difference between league or covenant on the one hand and conference on the other. The difference in name is a difference in substance. Leagues and covenants are Calvinistic; they are sanctions of force, of mandataries, of imperial grabs, of domination. League comes from an ancient word meaning to bind, a word that is given to us not only in league, but in ligature.

Conference, interestingly enough, harks back to two ancient words meaning to bear with. The Methodists employ the word in connection with their stated meetings for the consideration of ecclesiastical matters. The

associations.

The Conference at Washington will succeed only so far as it functions as a free association of free peoples in voluntary conference for the promotion of their mutual weal. It is in conference that correlative rights and duties are revealed and balanced. In a conference such as this in Washington there must be no grabbing of any Shantung, of any Korea, of any China. There must be no demanding of indemnities at the point of a pistol. There must be no carving of empires into new and warring elements. There must be no impositions of will by means of force in any Danzig, Saar Basin, or so-called Mandataries of the seven seas. There must be no balancing of power on the points of bayonets. There must be no piddling with plebiscites in any Upper Silesia. Quixotism, Pollyannaism, serve a purpose; but international achievement, mixing brains and history with its good will, must come to its own again here in the Conference at Washington. If not, the Washington Conference will fail.

If Japan signs on the dotted line because told that she must, it would be as well or better that she sign not at all. If France be relegated to the position of a secondrate power, treated as such, and criticised for resenting such patronizing airs, it would have been better had she never been invited to this conference. If the United States and Great Britain insist upon dictating to other nations weaker in lungs and legs, it would have been better had the Conference never been born.

So many of the hopes of forward-looking peoples rest upon this Washington Conference that, true it is, might and threats, dictation and coercion, covenants and leagues, must all be eliminated. Only in the spirit of conference, bearing with, mutuality under law, can this Washington gathering add its little to the slow upbuilding of that international justice which alone can overthrow wrongs and forfend the wastes of war.

F

OUR CRITICISM OF FRANCE

RANCE, our first and only ally, is once more treading the winepress alone. She is belabored from nearly every hand. Some one arises in the American Congress to propose that she be asked to pay her billions of indebtedness. She is advised to muster out her armies and to haul her fleet up on the beach. She is accused of chauvinism and imperialism. She is accused of a greedy haute finance and of unwillingness to co-operate with other nations. Such are a few of the criticisms hurled with some savagery against the nation which has suffered most because of the World War.

How quickly we change, and how soon we seem to forget. The France of 1922 has not changed from the

France of 1914. Nations, especially nations homogeneous as is France, do not change over night. The French spirit has not changed. French economic life has suffered. The economic resources of France were all but destroyed by the war. The problem of reconstruction involves the commercial and social life of the nation. Over 1,300,000 of her youth have been killed and half that number permanently wounded. The war has brought material losses of approximately $12,000,000,000 gold. Whereas the French debt was $7,000,000,000, it is now $60,000,000,000. The $4,000,000,000 of loans in Russia are bringing no interest and may never be paid. The condition is similar in the case of another billion dollars loaned in various quarters of the Balkans. The depreciated franc has all but paralyzed the former international life of France. There is a deficit in the ordinary and extraordinary budgets for the current year of approximately one billion francs. The devastated areas which before the war produced one-fifth of the income from taxation have not as yet sufficiently recovered to be taxed. Based upon the per capita revenue, France is now taxed 19 per cent as against Germany's 12 per cent and the 8 per cent in the United States.

We judge it must be difficult for the French people to understand why, in the light of these facts, she should become the butt of so much criticism. If she is not to receive from Germany the sums agreed upon in the Treaty of Versailles, she cannot feel any injustice in her demand that Germany shall reconstruct her ruined industrial plants and put them at least as they were in 1914. The French people think with their brains. They know that they are face to face with a defeated enemy with a larger population than their own. They know that their country has been invaded five times since 1789. They long for peace. But they do not propose to put their heads willingly beneath the foot of a German revanche. The French people wish two things: They wish to feel secure along the Rhine, and they wish their ruined industries to be replaced. In the light of the fact that France stood between Germany and the rest of the world through five dreadful years, these demands do not seem unreasonable.

And yet the criticism goes on. Lord Curzon rises in his place to "warn" France against what he calls her "policy of isolation," when the one thing that France is aiming to achieve is co-operation.

When we think upon France, we may feel sure that when she acts as a nation the probabilities are that she is acting with care and foresight. Even the problem of her stationary population seems in fair way of solution. It is encouraging to be told that France has now twice as many marriages annually as were recorded before the There are now over 40,000 more births annually than in 1913, while there has been a marked decrease in

war.

the annual number of deaths. She is producing as much wheat now as in 1913, the average yield per acre exceeding that of any other period in her history. During the first half of 1921 her exports exceeded her imports by nearly four million francs. French colonizing skill continues to be successful in Algeria, Indo-China, and French Morocco, no Irish, Egyptian, or India problems arising in any of these quarters.

We do not share M. Briand's fears of German aggression. As a matter of military technique Germany will not be able to attack France for a long time. But dispassionate observers cannot fail, under the circumstances, to understand the French psychology. In the light of the last eight years of French history, we can afford to be very patient with the people of France.

U

THE IRISH FREE STATE

NDER date of January 7, 1922, the Dail Eireann, which, being interpreted, means Irish Conference, accepted the treaty, the text of which appeared in ADvoCATE OF PEACE for December. Thus, the oldest and most serious of Britain's quarrels seems about to be composed. In the language of the Manchester Guardian, "The impossible has happened." The Irish Free State is born. It is to have the rank in the British Commonwealth of the Dominion of Canada, with a parliament and executive, and with a governor-general appointed by Britain to represent the Crown. Members of the parliament of the Irish Free State pay their allegiance to the Irish Free State and pledge faithfulness to the King. Citizenship in Ireland carries with it citizenship in Great Britain. Ireland thus becomes one of the members of the British Commonwealth of States along with the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, and the union of South Africa. She accepts her share of debt and pension liabilities. The naval defense of Ireland remains with Britain, with the option, however, that after five years Ireland may share in her own coast defense. The defense army in Ireland must be proportioned to Great Britain's as Ireland's population bears to the population of Great Britain. Irish and British ports are to be open to the vessels of each. Whether or not Ulster is to come within the new State is for Ulster to decide. If Ulster enters she will retain her parliament and government; but in matters in which the Irish Free State has powers not possessed by the Ulster government these powers may, under certain safeguards, be exercised by the Irish Free State in northern Ireland. If Ulster refuses, a commission will determine her boundary. Ireland is not independent. She now becomes a self-governing member of the British Empire. She will be a member of the Imperial Conference.

Secretary Hughes won his fight for the 5-5-3 ratio in capital ships as between the United States, Great Britain, and Japan, which was pending when the December issue of the ADVOCATE OF PEACE went to press. As forecast in that issue, however, the capital-ship tonnage of each of these three nations was slightly increased. That was due to agreement to allow Japan to keep the Mutsu, which would have been scrapped under the original Hughes specifications, and to consequent proportionate adjustments of American and British tonnage.

Negotiations on this question were consummated on December 15, when the following was issued by the Subcommittee on Naval Limitation:

The Japanese Government has found special difficulty with respect to the Mutsu, as that is their newest ship. In order to retain the Mutsu, Japan has proposed to scrap the Settsu, one of her older ships, which, under the American proposal, was to have been retained. This would leave the number of Japan's capital ships the same-that is, 10-as under the American proposal. The retention of the Mutsu by Japan in place of the Settsu makes a difference in net tonnage of 13,600 tons, making the total tonnage of Japan's capital ships 313,300 tons as against 299,700 tons under the original American proposal.

CHANGES IN SHIPS

While the difference in tonnage is small, there would be considerable difference in efficiency, as the retention of the Mutsu would give to Japan two (2) post-Jutland ships of the latest design.

In order to meet this situation and to preserve the relative strength on the basis of the agreed ratio, it is agreed that the United States shall complete two (2) of the ships in course of construction-that is, the Colorado and the Washington-which are now about 90 per cent completed, and scrap two (2) of the older ships-that is, the North Dakota and the Delaware-which under the original proposal were to be retained. This would leave the United States with the same number of capital ships-that is, 18— as under the original proposal, with a tonnage of 525,850 tons, as against 500,650 tons, as originally proposed. Three (3) of the ships would be post-Jutland ships of the Maryland type.

As the British have no post-Jutland ships, except one Hood, the construction of which is only partly post-Jutland, it is agreed that, in order to maintain proper relative strength, the British Government may construct two (2) new ships not to exceed 35,000 legend tons each-that is, calculating the tonnage according to British standards of measurement or according to American calculations, the equivalent of 37,000 tons each. It is agreed that the British Government shall, on the completion of these two (2) new ships, scrap four (4) of their ships of the King George V type -that is, the Erin, King George V, Centurion, and Ajaxwhich were to have been retained under the original American proposal. This would leave the British capital ships in number 20, as against 22 under the American proposal. Taking the tonnage of the two (2) new ships according to American calculation, it would amount to 74,000 tons, and, the four ships scrapped having a tonnage of 96,400 tons, there would be a reduction in net tonnage of 22,400 tons, leaving the British tonnage of capital ships 582,050 instead of 604,450. This would give the British, as against the United States, an excess tonnage of 56,200 tons, which is deemed to be fair, in view of the age of the ships of the Royal Sovereign and the Queen Elizabeth types.

The maximum limitation for the tonnage of ships to be constructed in replacement is to be fixed at 35,000 legend tons-that is, according to British standards of measurement or according to American calculations, the equivalent of 37,000 tons-in order to give accommodation to these changes. The maximum tonnage of capital ships is fixed,

COMPARISON WITH ORIGINAL PLAN

Comparing this arrangement with the original American proposal, it will be observed that the United States is to scrap 30 ships as proposed, save that there will be scrapped 13 of the 15 ships under construction and 17 instead of 15 of the older ships.

The total tonnage of the American capital ships to be scrapped under the original proposal, including the tonnage of ships in construction if completed, was stated to be 845,740 tons. Under the present arrangement the tonnage of the 30 ships to be scrapped, taking that of the ships in construction if completed, would be 820,540 tons.

The number of the Japanese ships to be retained remains the same as under the original proposal. The total tonnage of the ships to be scrapped by Japan under the original American proposal, taking the tonnage of new ships when completed, was stated to be 448,923 tons. The total tonnage of the ships to be scrapped under the present arrangement is 435,328 tons.

Under the original proposal Great Britain was to scrap 19 capital ships (including certain predreadnaughts already scrapped), whereas under the present arrangement she will scrap 4 more, or a total of 23. The total tonnage of ships to be scrapped by Great Britain, including the tonnage of the 4 Hoods, to which the proposal referred as laid down, if completed, was stated to be 583,375 tons. The corresponding total of scrapped ships under the new arrangement will be 22,600 tons more, or 605,975 tons.

Under the American proposal, there were to be scrapped 66 capital fighting ships built and building, with a total tonnage (taking ships laid down as completed) of 1,878,043 tons. Under the present arrangement, on the same basis of calculation, there are to be scrapped 68 capital fighting ships, with a tonnage of 1,861,643 tons.

The naval holiday of 10 years with respect to capital ships, as originally proposed by the American Government, is to be maintained, except for the permission to construct ships as above stated.

This arrangement between the United States, Great Britain, and Japan is, so far as the number of ships to be retained and scrapped is concerned, dependent upon a suitable agreement with France and Italy as to their capital shipsa matter which is now in course of negotiation.

PACIFIC FORTIFICATIONS

In connection with this agreement upon the capital ship ratio between the three powers, a compact was made against further fortifications in the Pacific, excepting such territory as is treated as part of the home land of each nation. This compact was thus described in the Communique of December 15:

It is agreed that with respect to fortifications and naval bases in the Pacific region, including Hongkong, the status quo shall be maintained-that is, that there shall be no increase in these fortifications and naval bases, except that this restriction shall not apply to the Hawaiian Islands, Australia, New Zealand, and the islands composing Japan proper, or, of course, to the coasts of the United States and Canada, as to which the respective powers retain their entire freedom.

AGREEMENT PROVISIONAL

It will be noted that the agreement between the three powers was conditional upon a satisfactory arrangement being made with the other two powers in the naval conference France and Italy. Almost immediately trouble