OCR Text |
Show 328 329 words; it presupposes some knowledge of law and is. on the whole, so complicated as to battle, a common scliool education. And, what is worse, it is invisible: you cannot see or grasp it. From childhood on, man is constantly impressed with the splen- did paraphernalia of war. As children we, play with toy soldiers; in school we find war glorified in the text books we have to read; as youths we are taught that j'iatriotism requires our joining the militia, and as men our eyes are dazzled with shining uniforms and our ears are filled with martial music. \\'e see splendid monuments erected to ptrpetuate the memories of war. and, lest we forget, our great battleships, those monsters of the sea, are sent around the world so that the newspapers may be enabled to remind us of their existence ey My day for the period of a whole year. Against all these machinations which impress the minds of the people. through eyes and c; with the glory of militarism and war, the friends of world-widt- peace are at a great disad- vantage, for. as I have said before. the weapons they employ in their war upon war are invisible and the progress of their cause cannot be seen. Their weapon consists simply in an appeal to reason and their progress e. .ts only in the minds of men. But despite this: disadvantage, let me tell you contidentiallv that all the claptrap of militarism and war will avail nothing in the end as against the r ' tless force of our idea. i \Yhat then is our idea? Let me present it to you in a nut- shell. It is that our peace with foreign nations shall be secured in exactly the same manner as our domestic peace is secured, namely, by referring all controversies to the courts for settlement. This method of settling disputes has been enacted into law by every civilized nation in order to secure its peace at home. and consistent as to be untenable before the forum of either reason or morality. Let me point out to you some of those inconsistencies. lly authority of the nation's law you and I are forbidden to arm ourselves and to take the law in our own hands in case of a controvcrsy with a neighbor. In the interest of peace the law points to the courts as our only rightful recourse. Query: Do the nations themselves observe this rule of conduct laid down by their own law? No, they don't even think of it. They maintain armaments and no on building battleships and in case of a controversy they go to war and tight. (At least they have done it, and as yet we hav.‘ not got them where they will say, We won't do it again.) At home nations prohibit fights and the carrying of weapons in the interest of peace, but abroad they glorify preparedness to light and armaments as the only guarantee of peace. In other words, governments do not regard the obligation to keep the peace imposed on the citizen by the nation as bindingr upon the nation itself, and by prai.' g battleships as implements of peace they actually repudiate their own civil institutions. Peace between individuals is to be maintained by law; peace between nations, by force And what is the result of these contradictions? That the nation's peace, which our civilization safeguards as the most priceless boon at home, is in foreign affairs made a mere toy, a plaything in the hands of governments and rulers to be either cherished or broken at their arbitrary will. There are more inconsistencies. It is universally recognized that no man should be a judge in his own case. This is a plain dictate of justice which requires no explanation and it is enforced wherever human interests clash. Every nation on earth having a lawful government insists upon a strict observance of this rule we in with other nations, observe it? Not in the least. In international disputes each government presumes to be judge in its own case, and upon its decision, right or wrong, depends the happiness and lives of thousands of its citizens. How long, we may well ask, will the world's sense of justice stiffer governments to apply one code of ethics to their home afi'airs and another one to their foreign relations? In a dispute are governments any less inter- st that each nation should readily consent to, aye, strive, ., . .- , . n . for 5 mar international enactments in order to secure its peace abroad. Isthis plain enough? But you will see it still more plainly by raismg yourselves a little above the level to take a bird's eye View. of the world and watch the attitude of the nations towards their own citizens on the one hand and towards their sister nations on the other. You will observe at a glance that the nations are two-faced and that their position is so shockingl y in- within its own domain. But does the nation itself, in its dealings ested parties than individuals are in a quarrel, and should nations be any more permitted to judge their own case than individuals, i . mm" M anO~ |