Philippine Government, 60 Philippine Information Society, 12 Philippine War Degradation, George Kennan in The Outlook, 82 Plea for a Peaceable Spirit, 156 Plymouth Rock, Poem, Elizabeth Sampson Hoyt, 123 Present Position of the Peace Movement, The, Benjamin F. President McKinley's Latest Utterances, Editorial, 213 Professional Warriors, 140 Progress of Arbitration the Past Century, Robert Treat Paine, 27 Progress During the Year, Editorial, 229 Sumner's Enthusiasm, 173 Supreme Court, The Decision of, Editorial, 134 Swiss Federal Council, Decision in Franco-Brazilian Dispute, 11 Swiss Peace Societies, 60 Tariff Troubles with Russia, 138 Tenth International Peace Congress, 137, 172; Notes on, 198; To the Victors and the Defeated, Poem, Edwin Arnold Brenholtz, 19 Transatlantic Society of America, 12 Transferring Conscience, 237 Triple Alliance, The, E. T. Moneta, 146 Troy Press, The, 234 Trueblood, Benjamin F., 12, 35, 61, 118, 119, 165, 176, 178, 183, 198, 202, 204, 220 Twain, Mark, 12, 99 Twentieth Century for Peace, The, Editorial, 1 Twenty-second of February, 57 Two Emperors Making Up, Editorial, 195 Uncle Sam's New Army, Rev. James H. McLaren, 186 United States World Politics, 76 Unity, 177, 221 Universal Alliance, 93 Universal Demonstration of Women for Peace, 127 Universal Peace Union, 158 Venezuela and Colombia, 200 War, Air and Water, 116 War as a Cause of Crime, 53 War From Christian Point of View, Rer. L. Henry Schwab, 13 War and Conscience, 175 War and Disease, 97 War Kills the Human Soul, 56, 78 War Looting at Home, 54 War, Missions and Christian Methods, Mary S. Robinson, 125 War Morality, Editorial, 90; 70 War Wreck, The, Poem, Asenath Carver Coolidge, 159 W. C. T. U., Connected with Universal Peace Alliance, 60; Peace Work of, 220; Petition on Liquor and Firearms, 9 Welsh, Herbert, 6, 20, 36 West Point, 57 What Shall We Do With Jesus? Editorial, 232 Which? Poem, J. A. Edgerton, 239 White, Andrew D., 144 Woman's Home Companion, 69, 105 Women's Universal Peace Alliance, Appeal to Women of All VOL. LXIII. BOSTON, JANUARY, 1901. The Twentieth Century for Peace. where, dueling was well nigh universal, pacific methods of settling controversies between nations almost unthought of, and he would have been mocked as the absurdest of dreamers who had dared to pro- phesy that at the end of the nineteenth century a permanent international arbitration court would have The past century has been more remarkable in no other direction than in the development of arbitration as a means of adjusting controversies between nations. It was some years after the century opened before the subject began to be thought of or talked of seriously. But having once been put forward, the idea took ternational politics. The first decade of the past century saw no disputes settled by arbitration. The third saw only four. But the last decade saw sixty- three. It was in this last decade that the permanent arbitration court movement, after sixty years of struggle, came to its full strength. The matter of such a court had been much discussed between 1815 and 1850. But during these years, and for many subsequent ones, men talked only of what ought to be. At the close of the century they talked of what must be, and the thing was done. The change in men's opinions has of course been equally marked. For no such great accomplishment as the permanent court comes out of unwilling minds. This court is not the only evidence of the change of opinion. Official representatives of all the South American states, none of which participated in the Hague Conference, have recently at Madrid gone beyond the Hague Convention and declared, with only one dissenting voice, in favor of treaties of obligatory arbitration. Many other evidences exist of the transformation of public sentiment during the century in regard to war, which have often been noted in our columns, but which we cannot now re- peat. It is ground for the greatest encouragement that the new century opens with this improved pub- bad and shameful wars on hand, with militarism Will the twentieth century bring peace, universal Not only so, but we feel sure that civilized humanity will not much longer tolerate the overgrown, ruinous armaments which have come up out of past conditions of social and international injustice and crime, and are to-day the terror of the world. A great upheaval of popular condemnation of them is sure to come in one way or another before long. With their overthrow will come a wider, more radical and more consistent disapproval of war in every form than has yet been seen. The twentieth century, we cannot help believing, will see these great and glorious things accomplished, and the world far along toward the reign of unbroken peace and loving, active fellowship, about which the great and good of many centuries have dreamed and prophesied. We wish we could see it all. We shall not. But our little day shall at least be filled with the best effort of which we are capable, that those who come after us may know nothing of the curse and shame of Commemorative Meetings. In view of the considerations advanced in the foregoing article, the American Peace Society, which has now been doing its work for seventy-three years, has not thought it right to let the opening of the century pass by without some special notice of the peace work done during the past century, the remarkable transformation of public sentiment which has taken place, and what has practically been accomplished in the employment of arbitration, instead of war, in the settlement of international disputes. The Society was one of the first agencies to propose the adoption of pacific means in the adjustment of controversies between nations, and more than sixty years ago, as it has done ever since, it vigorously maintained both the desirability and practicability of the establishment of a permanent international tribunal of arbitration. It has been decided, therefore, by the Directors to devote the 16th of the present month (January) to meetings commemorative of what has been accomplished, and to promote deeper and wider interest in the cause for the twentieth century. The meetings will be held in Lorimer Hall, Tremont Temple, Boston, at 12 o'clock noon and at 8 o'clock in the even ing. All the members of the Society and the friends of the cause of peace and goodwill within reach of Boston are earnestly urged to attend and to help make the day Wednesday, the 16th inst.-one of strong and wide-reaching influence in the further advancement of arbitration and international peace. The names of the speakers secured for the meetings give assurance that they will be most interesting and instructive. They are Robert Treat Paine, Dr. Edward Everett Hale, Mrs. Mary A. Livermore, William Lloyd Garrison, Herbert Welsh of Philadelphia, Ernest Howard Crosby of New York, Edward Atkinson, John Willis Baer, and Benjamin F. Trueblood. The subjects, as nearly as they can now be formulated, will be: The Accomplishments in Arbitration and Growth of Peace Sentiment the past Century; The Hague Court of Arbitration and What it may be expected to Accomplish; Women's Work for International Peace; the Fundamental Principles of Peace Work; Obstacles to International Arbitration; The Passing of the Soldier; The Demand of Commerce for Peace, and the Interest of Young Men and Young Women in International Brotherhood. A full stenographic report of the addresses will be given in the February number of the ADVOCATE OF PEACE. If any of our friends wish to purchase extra copies for distribution in their neighborhoods, they will please let us know at once how many they desire in order that a sufficient number may be printed to supply all demands. The Permanent International Court of Arbitration. The President's Message to Congress on the 4th of December contained the following two paragraphs on the organization of the permanent court of arbitration: "It is with satisfaction that I am able to announce the formal notification at The Hague on September 4 of the deposit of ratifications of the convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes by sixteen powers; namely, the United States, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Italy, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Siam, Spain, Sweden and Norway, and the Netherlands. Japan has also since ratified the convention. "The administrative council of the permanent court of arbitration has been organized, and has adopted rules of order and a constitution for the international arbitration bureau. In accordance with Article 23 of the convention, providing for the appointment by each signatory power of persons of known competency in questions of international law as arbitrators, I have appointed as members of this court the Hon. Benjamin Harrison of Indiana, ex-President of the United States; the Hon. Melville W. Fuller of Illinois, Chief Justice of the United States; the Hon. John W. Griggs of New Jersey, Attorney-General of the United States; and the Hon. George Gray of Delaware, a judge of the circuit court of the United States." Information from other countries shows that the governments consider the constitution of the permanent court of arbitration a matter of the very highest importance, and only men of the first rank are being appointed members. We have already mentioned in a previous issue the names of the men chosen by the Russian and the Dutch governments. On the 7th of December it was announced from London that the Queen had appointed as the British members of the court Lord Pauncefote, ambassador at Washington; Sir Edward Malet, late British ambassador to Germany; Right Hon. Sir Edward Fry, a former lord justice of the high Court of Appeal; and Prof. John Westlake, professor of international law at Cambridge University. On the same date it was made public that the Austrian government had named as its members in the court Count Von Schoelborn, Dr. Lammasch, and from Hungary Count Albert Apponyi and Dr. Szalagyi, former minister of justice. Dr. Lammasch is a professor of high standing in the University of Vienna, and Count Apponyi has been for some time a prominent worker in the Interparliamentary Peace Union. The government of Denmark has chosen, as its representative in the tribunal, Dr. Matzen, professor of law at the University of Copenhagen. Whether Denmark will choose other members is not stated. Dr. Bingner, president of the German high court, Herr von Frantzius, councilor of the foreign office and of the high court, and Professor von Bar of the University of Goettingen have been appointed to the court by the German government. These are all men of the first rank in German juridic circles. France has chosen men of equal eminence, viz., Léon Bourgeois, president of the French Commission to the Hague Conference, one of the most eminent of living French statesmen, Mr. d'Estournelles de Constant, also a delegate to the Hague Conference, a member of the French Chamber of Deputies, Professor Renault, of the Law Faculty of Paris, who was likewise a member of the Hague Conference, and Mr. Delaboulaye.. Further announcements we have not seen at the present writing. The appointments already made render it clear that the governments which took part in the Hague Conference take the matter with entire seriousness, and mean to make the court of arbitration a body worthy of the highest confidence of the world. It will not be many months until word will be flashed along the wires and cables that some controversy between two nations, perhaps the Alaskan boundary dispute or the question of Chinese indemnity, has been carried up to the bar of this court, and the august tribunal, with less noise than it takes to make a single Maxim gun, will have begun its majestic and mighty course. However inauspicious may be the commencement of the twentieth century in some respects, it is certainly a source of the greatest encouragement that it opens with the establishment of this high court of nations, manned with the best juridic talent of the time, whose existence and work, it is perfectly judicious to say, will in time change the entire spirit and course of international affairs and deliver us from the chaos and anarchy which now prevail to such an unfortunate extent between the nations. Mahanism. Captain A. T. Mahan's position on the subject of war, while not altogether unique, is put forth with enough of his individuality in it to entitle it to be called by his name. Briefly characterized, it is a repounded by him with a grace and elegance of fined, abstract, idealized gospel of force. It is exdiction, free from all that is coarse and materialistic in expression, touched at times with a lulling obscurity of phraseology, -sufficient to deceive the very elect among peacemakers. What does he teach? With him all arguments lead to the necessity, the sacredness of force. War he considers remedial, and hence its instruments, like those of the surgeon, must be of the highest perfection. There are times when all other means are of no avail, when righteousness and human good can be advanced only by the rifle and the Long Tom. In the redemption of the world, so far as this depends on states, force is not only the last argument, but an instrument to be kept always polished and ready. He fears too much arbitration. No nation must bind itself to obligatory arbitration, for that would prevent it at times from being judge in its own cause, and from employing the sacred trust of force which God has put into its hands to be used absolutely according to its own judgment. In a number of recent articles Captain Mahan has set forth these views. At the close of the Hague Conference in 1899, he wrote for the North American Review a long article the main purpose of which was, not to advocate reduction of armaments, or even arbitration of international differences, as one might have expected from a member of that Conference, but to exalt the virtues of force, to plead for its retention as a sacred trust, and to prevent arbitration from going too far. On the breaking out and development of the Chinese troubles another article comes from his pen, published in the last November North American Review. In spite of many excellent utterances in regard to the proper treatment of China, this article runs straight to the goal which is always before his eyes. Present Asiatic conditions, he pleads, demand a larger and more efficient United States navy. Without this, the nation cannot fulfill the duty in international affairs assigned to it by a beneficent Providence. The fight for the commerce of the Eastern Asiatic regions is on, and we shall be left out in the cold, empty-handed and helpless, unless we have an adequate navy with which to maintain our position in the fray of greed. More recently still, before the Episcopal Church Congress at Providence, Captain Mahan has further developed his ideas, this time from the Christian point of view. He takes the position, seemingly with all candor, that war is proved to be right because its supporters are many of them professed Christians, while some of its extreme opponents at the present time are atheists and agnostics, like John Morley, Frederick Harrison and Herbert Spencer, who, one would think, are only the stones crying out because the church has let the world stop its mouth. War, he argues, though an evil like amputation, is not evil, that is, not morally wrong. Only when used for an unjust object is it wicked. In itself it is morally characterless. War, again, is righteous because, as he holds, it is a remedy for greater evils- moral evils. In such cases it is an unrighteous thing to abstain from war. In this Providence address he again exhibits his distrust of obligatory arbitration, because, forsooth, in the present complex relations of peoples it is impossible to get impartial arbitrators! He illustrates by the South African War and the Hayes-Tilden presidential contest. In the latter case he virtually says, if the illustration means anything, that it would have been better for the two great parties to fight out the contest on the bloody field than to submit the case to so prejudiced a tribunal; in the former, that the horrible struggle which is desolating South Africa is more likely to secure justice than any solution which would probably have been rendered by arbitrators voluntarily selected by both sides from "the whole world which seethed with bias"! Mr. Mahan supports his contention that our Lord permitted and even authorized the use of force,— that employment of force which constitutes war,by the case of the driving out of the sacrilegious Jews from the temple, and by the exhortation on one occasion to sell the coat and buy a sword ocurrences the evident symbolical character of which is too evident to need argument. More hard-pressed still for arguments must one be who supports his thesis, as Captain Mahan does, by Christ's saying: "If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight," etc. According to his interpreta tion, developed in the Providence speech, Christians in their religious life and work must be forgiving, non-resistant and swordless, but in the performance of their duties as citizens of the state they may arm themselves, fight and slaughter their fellowmen on occasion! He does not attempt to tell us where the Kingdom of God ends in a man's life and the kingdom of this world begins, in which another set of principles and sentiments govern him. This division of Christian life into two spheres, one religious, the other secular, governed by different and contradictory principles and sentiments, has done more to discredit Christianity than any other bit of religious sophistry. It has been the hot-bed of Christian hypocrites, and one of the chief causes of scepticism. The errors of Mahanism are many and grievous. We can only formulate them in a few general state ments. It is contrary at every point to the whole life, spirit and instruction of Jesus. Only by the most casuistic use of a few scattered sayings of the Master, whose natural import is exactly the other way, can any support for war be wrung from his teachings. One has only to lay any war in its concrete reality alongside the New Testament to see the utter incompatibility of the two. It abstracts war from all its coarse and hideous realism. Captain Mahan, in his refined idealization of force, ignores almost entirely the concrete horrors of war, the filthiness, hate, uncontrollable fury, moral degradation, brutalization, lying, etc., without which, in greater or less degree, war never takes place. He talks about the use of force in war as one might speak of the employment of a crowbar, derrick, pulley, elevator or locomotive, where force, as in a thousand other ways, is used beneficently and righteously. The chief factor in war is not the material force employed, but the men who use it and the sentiments and feelings with which they fight, the anger, vindictiveness and fury with which they shoot, stab and tear in pieces others made in their own likeness. There is no Mahanian idealism in the hell of battle, where mad, raging men do each other to horrible deaths. Mahanism is, therefore, totally wrong in treating war as a characterless instrument, acquiring its righteousness or wickedness from the purpose for which it is used. If there is anything into the face of which one may look and intuitively pronounce it evil, it is war. It is not a matter to be judged at all by its motives and ends; it must be judged by what it is in itself. Mahanism is the baldest assertion that the end justifies the means, however brutal and fiendish. Again, when analyzed to the bottom, Mahanism is nothing more or less than refined barbarism. If the principle that a nation ought to refuse to commit itself to obligatory arbitration and reserve the right |