^ / 
 
 "The War in Europe'' 
 
 A 
 
 AND ITS LESSONS 
 ^= FOR US ^= 
 
 AN ADDRESS BY 
 
 WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 
 NOVEMBER 1, 1915 
 
^ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 r 
 / 
 
S74 5 
 
 THE WAR IN EUROPE 
 
 AND ITS LESSONS FOR US 
 
 Address delivered by William Jennings Bryan at Johnstown, 
 Pa., November 1, 1915. This address presents the line of argu- 
 ment which he has, during the past four months, followed in 
 lu'ging peace and opposing preparedness. 
 
 Mr. Chairman: I appreciate the opportunity which this 
 occasion affords to present to the people of Johnstown a 
 subject which is in their minds and on my heart. I am 
 grateful, too, for the gracious words which have been employed 
 in presenting me to you. If you feel, as I do, that the Chair- 
 man has been more than generous, please remember that one 
 in public life must be over-praised by his friends in order to 
 make up for the unjust criticism which he receives from his 
 enemies. 
 
 While I have found receptive audiences all over the country, 
 there is no community in which I would expect a more sym- 
 pathetic hearing than in this, because the distinguished gentle- 
 man who represents you in Congress views the subject from 
 the same standpoint that I do. Whenever a new question 
 arises upon which the people have not expressed themselves, 
 it is important that each individual should make known his 
 views in order that public opinion may represent the voters 
 generally and not a portion of the people only. The country 
 would be fortunate if all of our public men were as candid 
 and as courageous in taking a position as Congressman Bailey, 
 who honors you as he is honored by you. 
 
 In order that you may follow me the more easily, I shall 
 outline in advance the address which I am to deliver to you. 
 It naturally divides itself into three parts: first, the war as 
 it is and its injury to neutrals ; second, the false philosophy 
 out of which the war has grown and the natural results of 
 that false philosophy ; and, third, the way out, or the road 
 to permanent peace. The subject is presented with a view to 
 emphasizing the lessons which this country can draw from the 
 conflict beyond the ocean. 
 
 No matter by what standard you measure this war, it is 
 without precedent or parallel. I will not call it the greatest 
 war in history, for the word great implies something more 
 than bigness. When we speak of a great institution or a 
 great movement, we have in mind something more than mere 
 size. There have been, I think, greater wars than this, but 
 none that approached it in bigness. It is the biggest war 
 ever known if we measure it by the population of the nations 
 at war — never before have so many people lived in belliger- 
 
ent nations. It is also tlie Ijiggest war of which history tells 
 if we measure it by the number of enlisted men who face 
 each other upon its .many battle fields. The estimates run 
 from twenty-one to thirty-one millions. Eather than risk ex- 
 aggeration, let us take the lowest estimate ; it is sufficient 
 to make the war impressive. In fact, the number is so great 
 that the mind can scarcely comprehend it. Let me translate 
 it into everyday language by comparing it with our voting 
 population. We have never cast as many as twenty-one mil- 
 lion votes at an election. That means that if all in every 
 State who have on a single day exercised the right of suff- 
 rage could be gathered together in one place, the concourse, 
 vast as it would be, would fall several millions short of the 
 number now actually engaged in fighting. 
 
 ]\[ore than two million have been wounded thus far. If on any 
 part of the globe one hundred thousand persons were swept to 
 death by pestilence, or flood, or famine, the world would stand 
 appalled; and yet, in a little more than a year, more than 
 twenty times one hundred thousand have been summoned to 
 meet their God, and everyone owes his death to the deliber- 
 ate intent and act of a t'ellowman. More than five million 
 have been wounded — this will give you some idea of the awful 
 toll that this awful war is exacting in life and suffering. 
 
 If we measure the war by the destructiveness of the imple- 
 ments employed, nothing so horiible has ever been known 
 l^efore. They used to be content to use the earth's surface 
 for the maneuvers of war, but now they have taken posses- 
 sion of the air, and thunder bolts more deadly than the 
 thunder-bolts of Jove fall as if from the clouds on unsus- 
 pecting people. And they have taken possession of the 
 ocean's depths as well, and death dealing torpedoes rise from 
 out the dai-kness to multiply the perils of the sea. They 
 have substituted a long range rifle for a short range rifle, a 
 big mouthed gun for a little mouthed gun, a dreadnought 
 for a battle ship, and a super-dreadnought for a dreadnought, 
 to which they have added the submarine. And they now 
 pour liquid fire on battle lines and suffocate soldiers in the 
 trenches with poisonous gases. Inventive genius has been 
 exhausted to find new ways ])y wliich man can kill Ins fellow- 
 man ! 
 
 And the nations which are at war are not l)arl)arous na- 
 tions—they are among the most civilized of the earth ; neither 
 are they heathen nations — they are among the Christian na- 
 tions of the globe. They all worship the same God ; and 
 most of them approach that God through the same mediator. 
 They offer their supplications to a common Heavenly Father 
 and then rise up to take each other's lives. / 
 
 It would be bad enough if the penalties of this war fell 
 only upon the guilty ; Imt a vast majority of the men who die 
 and of the women who weep have had neither part nor voice in 
 
determining whetlier there should be peace or war. It would 
 be bad enough if the burdens of this war fell only upon the 
 nations participating in it, but like a mighty flood this war 
 has inundated the world, and neutral nations as well as 
 belligerent nations are suffering. 
 
 The Latin-speaking Eepublics are kept busy night and day 
 trying to preserve neutrality ; they maintain an extensive patrol 
 over the three mile strip along their coasts to keep big nations 
 from violating their neutrality by fighting within their terri- 
 torial limits. And all the neutral nations are bearing burdens 
 of taxation which would not be necessary but for the war; they 
 are compelled to resort to new and unusual methods for the 
 collecting of revenue because the war has put their fiscal systems 
 out of joint. 
 
 The trade of the world is deranged and our nation, the 
 greatest of the neutral nations and the one with the largest 
 foreign commerce, is suffering more than any of the others. 
 When the war began we were using the ships of other nations 
 largely for the carrying of our merchandise, when, all at once, 
 the very nations whose ships we employed became involved in 
 war, and then one side drove the ships of the other side into 
 our harbors and compelled them to intern there, and, accord- 
 ing to International Law, there these ships must remain 
 during the war, idle and useless, while we suffer for lack of 
 ships. And the nations that drove these merchantmen from 
 the seas are not under any obligation, according to Interna- 
 tional Law, to supply vessels to take the place of the ones of 
 which they have deprived us. On the contrary, they are at 
 liberty to withdraw their own vessels for use in the transport 
 service, and to some extent they have done so, still further 
 crippling the carrying trade of the ocean. Because of lack of 
 ships and because of the increased risks of the sea it has some- 
 times cost seven times as much to send a bale of cotton across 
 the ocean as it cost in normal times. When on the Pacific 
 Coast a few weeks ago, I learned that it then cost nearly three 
 times as much to transport a bushel of wheat to Europe as it 
 cost in time of peace. These are some of the burdens which 
 neutral nations are bearing; and, in addition to these, all of 
 them are in danger of being drawn into this war although 
 none of them desire to take part in it. 
 
 ( When you understand International Law^ as now interpreted 
 ahd^ upplied, you will feel as I do, that International Law 
 seems to have been written for the benefit of nations at war 
 rather than for the benefit of nations at peace, f I am hoping 
 that, when this war is over, we shall he able tV secure such 
 changes as may be necessary to write International Law upon 
 the theory that peace, and not war, is the normal relation be- 
 tween nations — amendments which will make the rule read, 
 not as it seems to now: namely, that nations at peace may at- 
 tend to their own business so long as thev do not interfere 
 
6 
 
 with the hght ; but will provide that nations that do fight 
 must not disturl) the peace, the commerce, or the prosperity 
 of the nations that prefer to substitute reason for force in the 
 settlement of their international differences. \ 
 
 I have called attention to the outstanding features of this 
 war that you might comprehend its magnitude; and I have 
 mentioned some of the injuries suffered by neutrals that you 
 might understand how earnestly the neutral nations long for 
 the return of peace, but I can not conclude this part of my 
 address without impressing upon your minds two facts which 
 it is necessary for us to keep in mind. If all the newspapers 
 had obeyed the President and ohserved neutrality his tasks 
 would not have been so delicate and the people would have 
 been better informed. But while most of the newspapers have 
 tried to he neutral, we have had two unneutral groups — the 
 pro-ally group and the pro-German group. The pro-ally group 
 has emphasized our disputes with Germany, and the pro-Ger- 
 man group has emphasized our disputes with Great Britain. 
 We have had disputes with both ; we have protested to Ger- 
 many against the use she has made of submarines, and to 
 Great Britain against interference with our trade with neutrals. 
 If you will read the notes which our Government has sent, 
 you will find that our rights, as we understand those rights, 
 have been violated, not by one side only, but by both sides, 
 and that injuries have come to us from both sides. 
 
 This is the first fact which we must keep in mind, and the 
 second is related to it ; namely, that while both sides have injured 
 us, neither side has desired to do so. The injuries Avhich 
 Me have suffered have not been intended against us. liut have 
 been incidental to the injury which each has intended against 
 the other. They are like two men shooting at each other in 
 the street, who are too much interested in killing each other 
 to pay any attention to the bystanders who get the stray bullets 
 from both sides. In order to deal patiently with the problems 
 pre-ented by this war it is necessary that we should under- 
 stand both of these facts — I repeat the statement of them — 
 namely, that both sides have injured us. but that neither side 
 desired to do so. It would be unfortunate enough for us to 
 go to war with a nation that hated us and wanted war with 
 us ; God forl)i(l that we shall ever compel a nation to gt^ to 
 war with tis if it is not an enemy and does not want war with 
 the Ignited States. 
 
 And now allow me to ask you to consider the false philosophy 
 out of which this war has grown and the natural results of 
 that false philosophy. Before speaking of the real cause, it 
 is worth while to note that some of the caiises which have 
 produced war in the past are not responsible for this war. 
 There have been race wars in history — wars that have been 
 tlie outgrowth of race prejudices which have sometimes ex- 
 tended through centuries. But this is not a race war ; the 
 
races are all mixed up in this war. Saxon and Slav are allies; 
 Latin and Frank are allies; Teuton and Turk are allies. And 
 now, since Bulgaria has entered the war, Slav is fighting Slav, 
 and it is not yet known whether the Greek, if he enters the 
 war, will side with Turk or Eoman. The races are inexplicably 
 mixed. 
 
 xA.nd it is not a religious war. There have been religious 
 wars, although we can not understand how a war could arise 
 over a religious difference. We have learned to believe that 
 the right to worship God according to the dictates of one's 
 conscience is an inalienable right, and it would never occur 
 to us that a man woidd kill another in order to prove that 
 his religion is better than the other man's religion. According 
 to our theory, if a man desires to prove the superiority of his 
 religion, he lives it, for we do not count a religion as worthy 
 of the name if it does not manifest itself in the life. There 
 have, however, been religious wars, but this is not one of 
 them. On the Bosphorus the crescent and the cross float above 
 the same legions ; a Protestant Emperor of Germany is the ally 
 of a Catholic E-mperor of Austria; and you will find fight- 
 ing in the same army corps representatives of three great 
 branches of the Christian church, Catholics, members of the 
 Church of England and members of the Greek church. The 
 religions are as badly mixed in this war as the races. 
 
 And it is not a family war. There have been family wars — 
 wars that have had their origin in family feuds or in family 
 greed, but in this war the families are mixed. Tlie Emperor 
 of Germany, the King of England, and the Czar of Russia 
 are cousins, members of one Royal family, although you would 
 never suspect from the way they treat each other that they 
 are closely related by ties of blood. 
 
 And there was no cause of war apparent on the surface. 
 Within a month of the beginning of the war the rulers who 
 are now fighting each other were visiting each other ; they 
 were being hospitably received and royally entertained. When 
 one of them had a birthday, the others all joined in wishing 
 him many happy returns of the day. It would be a libel 
 upon the rulers now at war to say that they knew that a cause 
 existed adequate to produce such a war. For had they known 
 of the existence of such a cause, it would have been their 
 duty to their subjects to lay aside social festivities and the 
 exchange of compliments that they might join together and 
 remove the cause of war. But without a race cause, a religious 
 cause, a family cause, or any cause visible to the public, this 
 war began, and such a war as history has never known ! There 
 must be a cause and it must be a human cause, for no one 
 who loves God would ever blame Him for this inhuman war. 
 It behooves us to find the cause, that, knowing the cause, we 
 may, by avoiding it, avoid the consequences. 
 
 I have tried to find the cause of this war, and, if my analysis 
 
of the situation is correct, the cause is to be found in a false 
 philosophy — in the doctrine that "might makes right." This 
 doctrine was formerly proclaimed quite publicly; now it is no 
 longer openly proclaimed, but it is sometimes practiced when 
 the temptation is sufficient. Before you become excited — while 
 you can yet reason, I appeal to you to set the seal of your 
 condemnation against this brutal, barbarous doctrine that 
 "might makes right." And that you may see more clearly the 
 importance of reaching a conclusion and proclaiming it, I 
 call your attention to the fact that there is but one code of 
 morals known among men and that is the code that regulates 
 individual life. If this code of morals is not to be applied 
 to nations, then there is no moral code which can be invoked 
 for the regulation of international affairs. 
 
 If I were an artist, I would carry with me a canvas and 
 reproduce upon it one of MeCutcheon's recent cartoons. He 
 represents war and anarchy by two brutal looking human 
 figures. Across the breast of war he has written "might is 
 right," and across the breast of anarchy the words "dynamite 
 is right." I challenge you to draw a line between the two 
 doctrines. The nation that takes the position that it is at 
 liberty to seize whatever it has the power to seize, and to 
 hold whatever it has the strength to hold ; the nation that 
 plants itself upon the doctrine that might makes right, has 
 no system of logic with which to address itself to citizen or 
 subject who, as against his neighbor or as against his govern- 
 ment, invokes the kindred doctrine that dynamite is right. 
 
 If you will take your Bibles and turn back to the story of 
 Naboth's vineyard, you will find that Ahab violated three 
 commandments in order to secure a little piece of land. The 
 commandments read, "Thou shalt not covet;" "Thou shalt 
 not steal;" and "Thou shalt not kill,'' and these command- 
 ments are not only without limitation, but they are not sub- 
 ject to limitation. 
 
 Take for instance the commandment against covetousness. 
 After specifying certain things that must not be coveted, the 
 commandment concludes with the clause "or anything. that is 
 thy neighl)or's." If this has any meaning, it covers every- 
 thing. There is no process of reasoning by which we can 
 retain that commandment and make it binding \ipon the con- 
 science of the individual if we hold sinless the nation that 
 covets the territory of another nation. And yet the coveting 
 of territory has been the fruitful cause of war. 
 
 And so with the commandment against steal iiiii. It does 
 not read "thou shalt not steal on a small scale;" it simply 
 says "thou shalt not st6al." And yet I am not telling you 
 anything new when I tell you that as a rule — not always, but 
 as a rule — it is safer even in this country for a man to steal 
 a largo sum than a small sum. If he steals a small sum he 
 is just a common, vulgar thief and nobody has any respect for 
 
9 
 
 him; if he has any friends they are careful not to allow the 
 fact to be known. If, however, he steals a large sum, he has 
 two advantages over the petty thief. In the first place, if he 
 steals enough, he can employ the ablest lawyers, and his 
 lawyers can usually — not always, but usually — keep him out 
 on bail until he dies a natural death while they discuss techni- 
 calities in all the courts of the land. And he has a second 
 advantage ; if he steals a large sum, he can always find enough 
 people to furnish him social companionship who will be so 
 amazed at his genius that they will never mention his rascality 
 in his presence. If we find it so difficult to visit the same in- 
 dignation upon grand larceny that we do upon petty larceny 
 we must not be surprised if, when one nation steals a large 
 amount from another nation, there are some who regard it 
 as an act of patriotism. 
 
 And the commandment against killing does not read 
 that vou must not kill unless a large number join with 
 you. ^ On the contrary, the Bible plainly declares that 
 "though hand join in hand, they shall not be unpunished." 
 And it does not say that if you do kill, you should be 
 gentle about it and use the most approved methods. On the 
 contrary, there is no intimation anywhere that the moral 
 character of the act can be changed by the method employed in 
 putting an end to a human life. It is just a plain, blunt "thou 
 shall not kill," and yet as we read history we are compelled to 
 admit that it has been easier for governments to hang one 
 man for killing one man than to punish killing by whole- 
 sale. And many poets have felt impelled to express them- 
 selves much in the language employed by the author of Gray's 
 Elegy who speaks of those who "wade through slaughter to a 
 throne, and shut the gates of mercy on mankind." 
 
 I have called attention to these commandments for the pur- 
 pose of emphasizing the fact that if we adopt the doctrine 
 that "might makes right" we must be prepared to repudiate 
 all of the moral code upon which we rely for the protection 
 of individual life and the guarantee of private property. 
 
 The nations that adopt the doctrine that "might makes 
 right" are quite sure to act upon the maxim "like cures like," 
 the foundation upon which the law of retaliation is built. The 
 logic of the law of retaliation is like this: If your enemy is 
 cruel, cure him of his cruelty by being more cruel than he; 
 if your enemy is inhuman, instead of attempting to lift him 
 out of his inhumanity by the power of a good example, be 
 more inhuman than he. Nations that enter a war on the 
 theory that "might makes right" are soon in a neck and 
 neck race for the bottomless pit, each nation justifying its 
 own cruelty and inhumanity by the cruelty and inhumanity 
 of its enemy. 
 
 I have purposely applied this false philosophy to those far 
 awav before applying it at home because I have learned by 
 
10 
 
 experience that it is easier to persuade people to endorse a 
 proposition when applied to others than when applied to 
 themselves. But if I may assume that you have followed me 
 and that we are now in agreement, I am now prepared to 
 apply this false philosophy to a matter with which we are 
 compelled to deal whether we desire to do so or not. The issue 
 is upon us and can not be avoided. 
 
 There was a time when some believed that war was a moral 
 tonic — when some actually thought that unless people were 
 kept up to fighting \ntc\i they would degenerate. That seems 
 absurd to us, for we know that, if war were necessary to 
 man's moral development, it would not be left to accident or 
 chance. If war were a necessary thing, we would plan for it 
 as we plan for other things which we consider necessary. We 
 know that food is necessary for the body and therefore we 
 provide that the body shall receive food at stated intervals, 
 the intervals being adjusted to the body's needs. And so, be- 
 cause we believe the mind in need of education we provide 
 for terms of school. If we believed war to be necessary we 
 would call in experts and ascertain just how long a man could 
 go without killing some one and yet maintain a high standard 
 of civilization, and then we would provide for wars at such 
 regular intervals as, in our opinion, would insure man's 
 progress, and the time between wars would then be like the 
 time between school terms — a time when we could rest and 
 relax and get ready for another war. This we would do if 
 we regarded war as necessary. But, however war may have 
 been considered by some in the past, the world now believes 
 war to be not only unnecessary and undesirable but a calamity. 
 
 If there are any who doul^t this I am prepared to furnish 
 recently secured testimony. When this war began the Presi- 
 dent offered mediation and the rulers of the nations then in- 
 volved immediately answered and their answers were so much 
 alike that one answer might have served for all. What did 
 they say? ' Each ruler said in substance: "I am not guilty; I 
 did not desire this war; I am not to blame for this war; some 
 one else began it." They all with one accord denied respon- 
 sibility. The world is to be congratulated that we have reached 
 a time when no ruler in a civilized land dares to admit that 
 he caused this war or even desired it — -this is a long step in 
 advance. It is not necessary, therefore, to waste any time in 
 an effort to prove that war is a curse. That may now be taken 
 for granted, and we are atNliberty to devote all of our energies 
 to the prevention of war. 
 
 But just when it has liocome ])ossible to unite in an effort 
 to prevent war we find a radical difference of o])inion as to 
 how war can be prevented. A propaganda is being actively 
 carried on which has for its object the establishment of the 
 doctrine that the only way to preserve peace is to get ready 
 for war. The exponents of this theory admit that war is a 
 
11 
 
 horrible thing and that it slionkl be avoided, but they contend 
 that the only way to prevent war is to organize, arm and 
 drill, and then stand, rifle in hand and finger on hair-trigger 
 — and preserve the peace. I never expected to hear this theory 
 advanced after the present war began. At each session of 
 Congress, during the past fifteen or twenty years, we have 
 heard some advocating this doctrine and insisting on more 
 battleships and a larg'er army, but their interest could gen- 
 erallv be traced to their business connections — they were 
 anxious to furnish the preparedness themselves and therefore 
 advocates of the theory. But when this war broke out I 
 thought that at least one good would come out of it, namely, 
 that no one would hereafter stand before an intelligent audience 
 and argue that preparedness would prevent w^ar. If war could 
 be prevented by preparedness, there would be no war in 'Europe 
 toda}^, for they have spent a generation getting ready for this 
 war." They had the kindling all ready; all they needed was a 
 match, ^tlien the war broke out those best prepared went 
 in first and others followed as they could prepare, and I be- 
 lieve that, if we had been as well prepared as some now ask 
 us to be, we would be in the war today shouting for blood as 
 lustily as any of them. 
 
 This is so serious a matter and it is so vitally important 
 that we should follow the course best calculated to prevent 
 war that I beg you to listen while I present the reasons which 
 lead me to believe that the preparedness which they now pro- 
 pose would not only not prevent war, but would actually 
 provoke wax — that with the things that necessarily accompany 
 it preparedness would inevitably lead us into the wars- 
 against which they ask us to prepare. In the first place we 
 can not have a period of preparedness without submitting our- 
 selves to the leadership of those who believe in the doctrine 
 that peace rests upon fear ; that we can only preserve the peace 
 by making people afraid of us. This is the folly of the ages 
 ■ — the very theory that has led Europe into this present con- 
 flict. And more, if we are to be driven to preparedness by 
 the scares that are now being worked up, we must follow the 
 leadership, not of those who advocate moderate preparedness, 
 but of those who insist upon extreme preparedness.^; If we 
 must prepare a little because we are told that one nation may 
 attack us, we must prepare more if another group of Jingoes 
 warns us against an attack joined in by several nations, and 
 we must go to the very limit if a third group pictures an 
 attack in which the world will combine against us. There is 
 no limit to the amount oi preparation that we shall need if 
 we are to provide against every imaginary danger and every 
 possible contingency. 
 
 The real cjuestion which we have to decide is, What 
 shall be our standard of honor? Shall it be the Euro- 
 pean standard — which is the duelist's standard — or shall it 
 
12 
 
 be a standard in keeping with our aspirations and achieve- 
 ments? The advocates of extreme preparedness are at- 
 tempting to fasten upon this country the duelist's standard of 
 honor and we know what that standard is because we liad it 
 in this country a iiundred years ago. When that standard 
 was supported by public sentiment men were compelled to 
 fight duels even when they did not believe in the practice; 
 they were branded as cowards if they declined. The case of 
 Alexander Hamilton is an illustration in point. While I pre- 
 fer the ideas of Jefferson to the ideas of Hamilton, I recog- 
 nize, as all must, that Hamilton was one of the heroic figures 
 of the revolutionary days. He fought a duel and fell, and 
 the last thing he did before he left home for the fatal field 
 was to prepare a statement which he left to posterity, saying 
 that he- did not believe in the practice, but that he felt it neces- 
 sary to conform to the custom in order to be useful in crises 
 which he thought he saw approaching. The duelist standard 
 of honor was this: If a man had a wife and she needed him, 
 he had no right to think of his wife; if he had children and 
 they needed him, he had no right to think of his children; if 
 his country needed him, he had no right to think of his country. 
 The only thing he could think of was that he must kill somebody 
 or be killed by some])ody. According to the duelist's standard 
 of honor, it was more honorable for a man to throw his wife 
 and children upon the care of a community than to allow what 
 he called an insult to go unchallenged. It required moral 
 courage on the part of many to effect the change which has 
 been wrought on this subject, but the change has come and 
 we not only have a law against dueling in every State in the 
 Union, but we now call the man a coward who sends the chal- 
 lenge, not the man who declines it. 
 
 About fifty years ago a prominent statesman of Georgia re- 
 ceived a challenge from another statesman of that State. Had 
 the challenge been received a century ago instead of a half 
 century the one who received it would hardly have dared to 
 decline. But a change was taking place and the challenge 
 was declined in an answer that has become a part of history. 
 The challenged party said: "No. I have a family to take 
 care of and a soul to save and, as you have neither, we would 
 not fight on equal terms. Therefore, I will not fight." No 
 nation is challenging us; no nation is trying to draw us into 
 war with itself. But if, in a moment of excitement, one of 
 the madmen of Europe were to challenge us, I think we would 
 be justified in answering in the spirit of the answer of that 
 Georgia statesman : "No. We ' have the welfare of a 
 hundred millions of people to guard and priceless ideals to 
 preserve, and we will not get down and wallow with you in 
 the mire of hunifin l^lond. just to conform to a false standard 
 of honor."" 
 
 Do not allow vourselves to be deceived or misled as to the 
 
13 
 
 real issue. The question is not whether this nation would de- 
 fend itself if attacked. We have a potential power of defense 
 such as no other nation has toda}^ — such as no other nation 
 has ever had, and other nations know it. There is no danger 
 that an attack would not be resisted, and we would not depend 
 npon the jingoes. They would be too busy making army con- 
 tracts and loaning money at high rates of interest to reach 
 the front. If we ever have a. war, we will depend, as in the 
 past, upon those who work when the country needs workers 
 and fight only when the country needs fighters. ^ ' 
 
 The question, I repeat, is not whether we would be willing 
 or able to defend ourselves if attacked. The real question is 
 whether we shall adopt the European standard of honor and 
 build oixr hope of safety upon preparations which can not be 
 made without substituting for the peaceful spirit of our people 
 the spirit of the militaiist and the swagger of the bully. The 
 spirit that leads nations to put their faith in physical force 
 is the spirit that leads people into war. It is the spirit that 
 expresses itself in threats and revels in the ultimatum. 
 
 If you would know what the dangers of preparedness will 
 be if preparedness becomes a national policy and is admin- 
 istered by those who are leading in this crusade, just imagine 
 what the situation would be today with so many opportunities 
 to get into trouble, if we had in the White House a jingo with 
 the duelist's standard of honor and anxious for a fight. We 
 have reason to be grateful that we have as President a man 
 who loves peace and is trying to find a peaceful solution of 
 all the problems that confront us. 
 
 I ask you next to remember that it is an expensive thing 
 to prepare for wars that ought never to come. It cost us 
 $15,000,000 to build the last battleship launched, and that 
 was only one- tenth' of the amount spent on the navy that 
 year. You might think, from the manner in which the jingoes 
 belittle our army and navy, that we are at present spending 
 nothing on preparedness. But we are, as a matter of fact, 
 spending now two hundred and fifty millions of dollars an- 
 nually, getting ready for war. We are spending more than 
 one hundred and forty-seven millions on the navy and over one 
 hundred million on. the army; and how much are we spend- 
 ing on agriculture? The Departiuent of Agriculture, which 
 looks after the interests of the largest single group in this, 
 the largest agricultural country in the world — the Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture which plants experimental stations 
 throughout our land and sends representatives throughout the 
 world to gather information for the farmer's benefit — this 
 department receives an appropriation of twenty-three millions 
 a year. We are, in other words, spending more than ten times 
 as much getting ready for war as we are spending on the 
 Department of Agriculture. And yet the jingoes are not 
 satisfied. They say that we must now turn over a new leaf; 
 that we must get readv in earnest. 
 
14 
 
 There are two organizations in this conntrv wliich, together 
 claiming a monoijoly of the patriotism of the nation, liave 
 taken upon themselves the task of getting the conntry ready 
 for war. The Security League thinks that we should spend 
 three hundred millions a year on the navy and one hundred 
 and fifty millions a year on the army — two hundred millions 
 more than we are now spending, or nearly douhle the present 
 appropriations. The Navy League is older, had more ciphers 
 at its disposal and had the advantage of making its bid after 
 the other bid had been made. It insists that we ought to 
 appropriate five hundred millions for -the navy and have an 
 army of a million men. Its program could not be carried out 
 for seven hundred and fifty millions a year — three times the 
 present appropriation, or an increase of five hundred millions 
 a year. 
 
 To show you what a burden this would cast upon our- tax- 
 payers let us assume that the appropriations for the army 
 and navy will be kept at what they are now — about two hun- 
 dred and fifty millions a year — and inquire what we could do 
 with this proposed increase of five hundred millions a year — - 
 five billions in ten years — if we spent it for things beneficial. 
 I was in California last summer and learned from a commis- 
 sioner of highways of the work they are doing in the build- 
 ing of hard roads. They are spending eighteen millions of 
 dollars and their plans contemplate two highways running 
 from the Oregon line to the Mexican line — one down the 
 Pacific Coast and the other down the great central valleys 
 of the State. These two highways are to be connected at the 
 county seats; a splendid system. The commissioner told me 
 that it had been found by experiment that a farmer can haul four 
 times as much with the same team on a hard road as he 
 can haul on a dirt road, and he can haul it any day in the 
 year and any hour in the day, and he does not have to con- 
 sult the weather bureau when he hitches up his team. They 
 are also building hard roads in Oregon. The road between 
 Ashland and Medford has already reduced the cost of carry- 
 ing freight between the two points 50 per cent. The rail- 
 roads charge 16 cents per 100; the auto trucks haul for 8 
 cents and in addition have eliminated drayage charges at both 
 ends of the line. 
 
 They are building hard roads in the State of Washing- 
 ton; the road between Seattle and Tacoma is near enough 
 completion to enable auto buses to compete successfully with 
 the steam railways and the electric lines. 
 
 I have made a calculation to see how much hard road could 
 be l)uilt for five l)illions — the five hundred million increase 
 would aggregate that sum in ten years. From information 
 furnished by the Department of Agriculture I find that the 
 average cost of a macadam road 16 feet wide and 6 inches 
 thick is a little over $6,000 a mile. That there may be no 
 
15 
 
 doubt about the estimate being sufficient let us arbitrarily 
 raise it to $8,333.33 Vs per mile, which will enable us to make 
 the computation in round numbers. If we count the distance 
 from ocean to ocean at 3,000 miles and the distance from 
 north to south at 1,200 miles, we can with five billions of 
 dollars build enough macadam road, three miles for $25,000, 
 to make 100 highways from the Atlantic to the Pacific, put- 
 ting them twelve miles apart, and highways north and south 
 twelve miles apart, so that when the five billions were spent 
 the country would be gridironed with macadam roads twelve 
 miles apart east and west, north and south, and no American 
 citizen would then live more than six miles froni a hard road 
 that would take him anywhere in the United States. 
 
 If the jingoes insist that we are in danger of attack, let us 
 propose that we get ready by building roads; it Avill greatly 
 increase our defeiisive power if we are "able to quickly nfolfilize 
 our army and rapidly transport it to the point threatened. 
 And there is an advantage about this kind of preparedness; 
 if, after we have prepared ourselves, the war does not come,' 
 we shall be able to make good use of the preparation in the work 
 of production. If, however, we divert the money from useful 
 channels and spend it all on battleships and arms and ammu- 
 nition, we shall have wasted our money if the war does not 
 come; and if it does come, the chances are that before it 
 comes changes in methods of warfare will very much reduce 
 the value of the preparation in which we have invested. 
 
 But as some may be more interested in having the volume 
 of loanable money increased than in having good roads I 
 present another calculation. The total capital and surplus 
 of all the banks of the United States— national, State and 
 private— aggregate a little less than four billions of dollars; 
 with five billions we could duplicate every bank, double the 
 loanable bank capital and surplus of the nation and have a 
 billion dollars left with which to celebrate prosperity. 
 
 The taxpayers of the country will not be willing to bear 
 the burdens necessary for the proposed preparation unless they 
 are convinced that some nation is about to attack us. The 
 jmgoes understand this and they are, therefore, bearing false 
 witness against other nations. They tell us to beware of 
 Japan on tlie west, and if that does not frighten us they pick 
 out some nation in Europe and accuse it of having designs 
 against us; and if that does not frighten us they say: "Be- 
 ware of the fate of Belgium!" How any normal mind can 
 thmk of Belgium and the United States at the same time 
 passes understanding. Belgium has seven millions and a half 
 of people while we have a hundred millions. Would not an 
 ordinary mind, working smoothly and without excitement, be 
 able to see the difference between seven and a half and a 
 hundred? And there is a still greater difference. Belgium 
 IS separated from the countries roundabout by an imagma^ry 
 
16 
 
 bouudarv line, while we have the Pacific Ocean on one side 
 and the Atlantic Ocean on the other. If any one is unable 
 to see the difference between an imaginary line and an ocean, 
 let him learn what difficulty the nations have had in moving 
 armies across narrow channels and then he will understand the 
 protection of the x4.tlantic Ocean. 
 
 We can not single out a nation and begin to prepare against 
 it without cliltivating unfriendliness toward that nation, and 
 we can not make hatred a national policy for a generation 
 without having our people anxious to fight as soon as they 
 are ready to fight. If the nations at war had spent in the 
 cultivation of friendship but a small percentage of the amount 
 they have spent iiL. stirring up hatred, there would be no war 
 in Europe today./ We should not transplant upon American 
 soil this tree of katred unless we 'are prepared to eat of the 
 fruits of the tree, for it has been bearing its bloody fruit 
 throughout the years. / 
 
 The third reason which I ask you to consider is this. The 
 I^reparedness which we are now asked to make is against na- 
 tions which are not preparing to fight us. But suppose we 
 get ready to fight them; will they not prepare against us? 
 If they can scare us when they are not prepared, will we not 
 scare them when we do prepare? And then will not their 
 preparation compel us to prepare more, and will we not scare 
 them again and they us again, and we them again, until bank- 
 ruptcy overtakes us all? This is no new thing. The people 
 who profit by furnishing preparedness have been playing the 
 nations of Europe against each other for a generation. Every 
 battleship that is built in one country is made the excuse for 
 building more battleships in other countries. Let me illustrate 
 the plan of the battleship builder. Suppose three farmers 
 lived around a little lake and a battleship builder wanted to 
 increase his business — how would he go at it? He would go to 
 the first farmer and say : "You are helpless. If your two 
 neighbors were to combine against you, they could overcome 
 you; your lack of preparedness is an invitation to them. Let 
 me build you a l)attleship and anchor it here by your land. 
 Then they will see that you are prepared and they will be afraid 
 of you and peace will be preserved." He would then go to the 
 second farmer and say : "Do you see that battleship over there ? 
 Do you know what that is for? That is for you. Are you will- 
 ing to invite attack by being defenseless? Let me l)uild you 
 two battleships and then he will see that you are prepared 
 and will be afraid of you and peace will be preserved." He 
 would then go to the third farmer and say: "Either one of 
 your neighbors is more tlian a match for you alone; togetlier 
 they can annihilate you. Your only safety lies in the build- 
 ing of three battleships. Then when they see you are ready 
 they will be afraid of you and the peace of the lake will be 
 preserved." By this time he would be able to go back to the 
 
17 
 
 first man and say: "Your little battleship is out of date. It 
 IS a provocation instead of a protection. Unless you are will- 
 ing to build more ships you had better sink that one. It shows 
 that you want to fight and everybody knows you can not fight. 
 You must have four battleships of the latest pattern in order 
 to prevent war by being prepared for it." And so on and so 
 on. This is what they have been doing in Europe. Is it 
 possible that they can entice us into this mad rivalry ? 
 
 If we are urged to depart from the traditions of the past 
 and to enter upon a new policy, there are two answers which 
 can be made, either of them sufficient. First, if we ever intend 
 to change our policy, the change must not be made while this 
 war lasts. If we change now, it will be a confession that we 
 have been wrong and that Europe has been right, and if we 
 make this confession, we shall not onlv be powerless to assist 
 the belligerent countries by a good example, but we shall, by 
 imitation, encourage them in the course which has drawn them 
 into this unprecedented conflict. If we are ever to chancre our 
 policy, now of all times is not the time. ° 
 
 We must consider also our influence on Latin America. If 
 we adopt this new policy and turn our energies from the arts of 
 peace to preparation for war, will not our neighboring republics 
 be urged to follow our example? Can we afford to take the 
 responsibility of retarding their progress bv encouraging them 
 to divert their money from needed improvements, to expendi- 
 tures which are not only unnecessar}', but a menace to the 
 Iriendly relations which now exist between them ? There is no 
 excuse for the present outburst of war spirit— it is not only 
 without excuse, but contains infinite possibilities for harm. 
 
 Second, there never has been a time in fiftv vears when we 
 were m less danger than now. Xo nation has anv thought 
 of waging war against us and our preparedness is mcreasmtr 
 relatively more rapidly than ever before. If the warrin^r na° 
 tions keep on killing each other as thev are killing each ''other 
 now, burning up property as they are burning it up now, and 
 mortgaging the future as they are mortgaging it now, they 
 will not have left enough able-bodied men, enough monev or 
 enough credit to threaten a nation like this. Xo, there is no 
 excuse for the attempt which is now being made to lash the 
 country into a fright over possible wars. Let us do what we 
 can to stop the war in Europe; humanitv, as well as our own 
 security, demands it. But if we can not stop the war there— 
 If the dogs of war must fight— we should at least keep hvdro- 
 phobia out of this country while the war lasts. 
 
 And now let us consider the wav out or the road to perma- 
 nent peace. And before taking up the real wav out let us 
 lor a moment look at some of the wavs that do not lead out 
 .Some talk of annihilation and argue that the war mu«t »o 
 on until one side completely effaces the other. Annihilation 
 IS a big word and the annihilation of a nation a verv difficult 
 
18 
 
 task. Long before they are in sight of anniliihition they 
 will be so sick of bloodshed that they will stop. There 
 are already signs of sickness now. They have been strik- 
 ing in the coal mines on one side and in the gun factories 
 on the other. On one side they have been protesting against 
 threatened conscription and on the other against the doctrine 
 of conquest. No, they will not carry the war to the point of 
 annihilation, and if they did it would be a crime against civili- 
 zation. If they do not know each other, we know them all, 
 for their children have come among us and have helped to 
 make this country what it is. We know that these belligerent 
 nations have reached their present positions through struggles 
 that have lasted for centuries and that each one has a price- 
 less contribution to make to the future of the worLl. God 
 might have made all the flowers of one color and with a single 
 fragrance, but the world would not have been as attractive 
 had he done so. And so God might have made all the nations 
 with one history and a single language, but I believe that the 
 world is l)etter for their rivalries and their competitions; they 
 together constitute one resplendent political bouquet. 
 
 Some think that if the war does not go on until annihilation 
 takes place it must at least go on until one side is so com- 
 pletely triumphant that it can dictate the terms of peace, 
 compel the acceptance of those terms, and thereafter main- 
 tain the peace of Europe by the sword. But when we con- 
 sider the immense masses of men on either side this thought 
 is almost as idle as the thought of annihilation, and it will 
 not brighten the future if as result of this war one nation or 
 group of nations emerges from the conflict master on land or sea. 
 
 If there is one lesson which history teaches more clearly than 
 any other it is that 'nations which aspire to mere physical su- 
 prenuicy have no hope off immortality ; the fact that they put their 
 faith in force is proof that they have in them the seeds of death. 
 The ])athway of human progress is lined with the wrecks of 
 empires which, when at the zenith of their power, thought them- 
 selves invincible. 
 
 What the world needs is not a despot to fix the terms upon 
 which the rest shall live; its great need is that these nations 
 shall 1)0 brought together in a spirit of friendship and 
 fellowship that they may cooperate in working out the destiny 
 of Europe. If this nation has any influence, that influence 
 must be exerted to bring the warring nations together and not 
 to encourage them in the false hope that a i)ciinaiient ])eace 
 can be built on force or fear.' 
 
 All of the rulers of the nations at war tell us that they did 
 not want the war and did not cause it, but none of them tell 
 us how it can l)e brought to an end. Have not these neutral 
 nations, all of whom bear buulens though they are not to 
 blame, a right to know what it is that, being done, peace nuiy 
 be restored? For what are the nations fisihtinij — not in gen- 
 
19 
 
 eral terms but specifically? Is it territory that they want, 
 then how much and where is it located? Is it ])lood that they 
 demand, then how much more blood must l)e shed to avenge 
 the blood already shed? If they will not answer the neutral 
 nations, will thev not make answer to their own people? The 
 day will come when this accumulated sorrow will overflow — 
 wlien this pent-up anguish will find a voice — and then, if not 
 before, the rulers must answer that stern question which shakes 
 thrones and fixes the farthermost limits of arbitrary power: 
 ^'Why do we die ?" 
 . Europe has had machinery for war, but not for peace. The 
 nations of Europe could go to war in a minute. Init they 
 were not sufficiently supplied with machinery for the adjust- 
 ment of difficulties that defied diplomatic settlement. And 
 we can not be harsh in our criticism because, until recently, 
 this nation was almost as poorly supplied as the European 
 nations with the machinery for the preservation of peace. Until 
 within three years our best treaties were those known as the 
 "'Arbitration Treaties" and they had two serious defects. First, 
 they only ran five years and then died. And when one of these 
 treaties died it had to be renewed by the same formalities re- 
 quired for its negotiation. It had to be ratified by two-thirds 
 of the Senate, which meant that though the President might 
 desire to continue it and though a majority of the Senate 
 might desire to continue it, the extension of its life could be 
 prevented if a minority of the Senate, more than one-third, 
 objected. But a still more serious defect was found in the fact 
 that these treaties did not cover all questions— they excepted 
 questions of honor, questions of independence, vital interests 
 and intei-ests of third parties, the very questions out of which 
 Avars are apt to grow. ^Yhen a man is angry every question 
 is a question of honor, every interest a vital interest. Man 
 angry is a very difi'erent animal from man calm; when a man 
 is angry he swaggers about and talks about what he can do, 
 and he generally merestimatas it. When he is calm he thinks 
 about what he ought to do and listens to the voice of conscience. 
 We now have thirty treaties with nations representing three- 
 fourths of the world and these treaties cure the defects of which 
 I have spoken. ■ In the first place, instead of dying at the end 
 of five years they never die. They run on and on and on until 
 twelve months after one side or the other has asked that they 
 be discontinued. I believe that neither side will ever ask that 
 these treaties be discontinued. I have such faith in these 
 treaties that I believe that a thousand years from now the 
 name of Woodrow Wilson and my name will be linked together 
 in the capitals of the world and that these treaties will preserve 
 the peace of our nation by furnishing machinery by which 
 peace can be preserved with honor. 
 
 But what is more important than length of life, these 
 treaties contain no exceptions; they cover aU disputes of every 
 
30 
 
 kind and character. Each one of these thirty treaties pro- 
 vides that every dispute that defies diplomatic settlement, if 
 not by some other treaty submitted for final settlement, must 
 be submitted to an international commission for investigation 
 and report. Each one of these thirty treaties also provides 
 that the period of investigation may last a year, and each one 
 of these treaties further provides that during the period of 
 investigation neither side shall declare war or begin hostilities. 
 Here are three provisions, new to treaty-making, which re- 
 duce war between us and the contracting parties to a remote 
 possibility. 
 
 We do not contend that war is made impossible — I only 
 wish it were possible to make war impossible. But in order 
 to secure the investigation of all questions it was necessary 
 to reserve to each nation the right of independent action at 
 the conclusion of the investigation. If any one believes that 
 war may sometimes be necessary, let him find consolation in 
 the fact that every one of these treaties specifically reserves 
 the right of our nation to go to war. If any desire war, all 
 they have to do is to stir the people up to fever heat and keep 
 them there for a year; then if no other way out is found, the 
 nation is at liberty to fight its way out. And I so much be- 
 lieve in the right of the people to have what they want that 
 I admit the right of people to go to war if they really want 
 it. But I feel as a North Carolina Congressman expressed 
 himself, that if we are to have war it would be better for 
 the people to vote it upon themselves than to have others vote 
 it on them. If there is any question upon which there should 
 be a referendum vote, it is the question of peace or war which 
 may mean life or death to so many people. And if we have 
 a referendum vote on war, it will only be fair that the women 
 shall vote as well as the men, for women bear the larger por- 
 tion of the burden in time of war. I believe that the women 
 should vote on all questions, but if they vote on only one, it 
 ought to be at an election which decides the issue between 
 peace and war. 
 
 And I agree with the North Carolina Congressman in another 
 matter. He suggests that it would insure deliberation on the 
 part of the voters if the vote was taken with the understand- 
 ing that those who voted for war would enlist first; and that 
 those who voted against war would constitute a great reserve 
 army which would not be called into service until after all 
 those who voted for war had had a chance to show what they 
 could do. I like the idea and I venture to add another sug- 
 gestion. I am a journalist, among other things; whenever 
 any one asks me what I am, my answer is, a journalist. T am 
 proud of the profession, though not of all the members of it. 
 If we have war, I shall insist in the name of the journalists of the 
 country that tlie first battle line shall be made up of jingo 
 editors that they may have the glory of dying before any one 
 else is liurt. 
 
21 
 
 These thirty tieaties will, in my jiulgment, go far toward pre- 
 ' serving peace and I helieve that the principle ought to be 
 applied to all nations. If the plan is good enough to olfer to 
 all nations — and the offer has never been withdrawn; if the 
 plan is good enough to be entered into with nations represent- 
 ing one billion three hundred millions of people; if the plan 
 is good enough to- be endorsed in principle by Germany, Aus- 
 tria and Belgium, countries with which treaties of this kind 
 have not yet been negotiated — it is good enough to be used with 
 any country before we go to war with that country. 
 
 But I will go a step further; even if we use the treaty plan 
 and it fails to secure a settlement— or if we fail to use it and 
 reach a point where we must decide, either to go into this 
 war or to postpone final settlement of the dispute until this 
 war is over — if we must choose between these two alternatives, 
 I believe it would be the part of wisdom to postpone final 
 settlement until the war is over. First, because postponement 
 would make war unnecessary, and that would be a sufficient 
 reason for postponing it. We would have no difficulty in set- 
 tling any dispute which we now have or which may arise dur- 
 ing the war but for the fear of the efi'ect of the settlement 
 upon the war itself. 
 
 But even if a postponement did not prevent war, it would 
 be better to have our war after this war is over than during 
 this war, because it would then be our own war with the coun- 
 try with which we had our dispute and we could not only go 
 into the war at pleasure, but come out at will. But this war 
 is not our war — it is everybody's war — and if we go into it, 
 we can not come out without consulting others, and others 
 would determine also what we would fight for while we were 
 in — and God forbid that we shall ever tie ourselves to the 
 quarrels, rivalries and ambitions of the nations of Europe. 
 
 And now bear with me for a moment while 1 present three 
 reasons why it is imperatively necessary that we shall not enter 
 this war. I shall not present these reasons, in the order of 
 their importance, rather in inverse order. First, no one can 
 tell what it would cost us in dollars to enter this war. It is 
 not like any other war and therefore estimates based upon 
 the past would be of little value. Let those who glibly talk 
 of war give us a guess as to what it would cost to take part 
 in this war and then give a guaranty that their guess is high 
 enough. Many predictions have been made in regard to this 
 war, but so far none have been verified. Would it cost one 
 billion? One of the jingo papers insisted a few weeks ago 
 that Congress should be called together immediately to vote 
 a credit of one billion dollars in anticipation of a possible 
 war. It would be more likely to cost us five billions or ten, 
 but even if it cost ten billions that would not be the greatest 
 objection to war. There are two other objections that are more 
 important. 
 
23 
 
 Tlie second objection is based upon tlie possible loss of life. 
 How many men would it cost us to take part in this war? A 
 hundred thousand? They have already killed over two mil- 
 lions; one hundred thousand would hardly be enough for our 
 quota in such a war. If we go into this war we can not go 
 in in a stingy way or as a miserly nation. If it is manly to 
 go in, it will be manly to play a man's part and be prodigal 
 in blood and money. 
 
 The danger of war with Germany now seems to be passed 
 and the country is relieved to have the American position in 
 the submarine controversy accepted. But while there was a 
 possibility of war- — while the question was acute — some of our 
 American papers were insisting that we ought to go to war 
 with Germany at any cost. I do not believe that our people 
 would be willing to send one hundred thousand brave Ameri- 
 cans to death because a little more than a hundred took ships 
 that they ought not to have taken into danger zones about 
 which they fully understood. It is not that our people did 
 not have a right to take those ships. Under international law 
 they did have a right to sail on those ships, but great interna- 
 tional questions can not be settled on naked legal rights. There 
 are duties as well as rights. Let me illustrate. Every young 
 man, when he becomes of age, has a legal right to leave his home 
 and make a career for himself. He is not compelled to consider 
 either the wishes or the needs of his parents. But, fortunately, 
 most of our young men put their duty to their parents above 
 their legal rights and inquire about the welfare of the old 
 folks before they leave home. 
 
 And so every American citizen has duties as well as rights. 
 Do you say that it is the duty of this Government to take its 
 army and follow an American citizen around the world and 
 protect his riglits? Tbat is only one side of the proposition. 
 The obligations of citizensliip are reciprocal. It is the duty 
 of the citizen to consider his country's safety and the welfare 
 of his fellowmen.- In time of war the Government can take 
 the son from his widowed mother and compel him to give his 
 life to help his country out of war. If, in time of war, the 
 Government can compel its citizens to die in order to bring the 
 war to an end, the Government can, in time of peace, say to its 
 citizens that they shall not, by taking unnecessary risks, drag 
 their country into war and compel this sacrifice of their country- 
 men. 
 
 In time of riot a mayor has authority to keep the people of 
 his town off of the streets until order is restored. Has not 
 the Government of a nation like ours as much authority as the 
 mayor of a city? When the world is in riot our Government 
 has, I believe, a right to say to its citizens: "You shall not 
 cm])arrass the Government in dealing with this question. You 
 shall not add to your nation's perils. You must keep out of 
 the danger zone until your Government restores order and 
 
23 
 
 compels respect for tb ^ rights of American citizens." But 
 suppose it cost us not^ one liundred thousand men but a half 
 million or a millior,. That is not the greatest objection to 
 the war. 
 
 Great as is th-'j first objection, based on the possible cost 
 in money, and "/greater still as is the second objection, based 
 upon the poss^'ble cost in blood, there is a still greater objec- 
 tion ; viz., that we can not become a belligerent and at the same 
 time remain neutral. 
 
 We stand at the head of the neutral nations; the world looks 
 to us to act as mediator when the time for mediation comes. 
 If, for any reason, no matter what that reason may be, we 
 ;nter this war, we must step down from our high position and 
 our^^ over to some other nation an opportunity such as never 
 ppme to any nation before and may never come again ! 
 
 Then, too, we are the next of kin to all the nations now 
 jt vvir; they are l^lood of our lilood and bone of our bone. 
 Not a" !^;>ldier boy falls on any battlefield over yonder but the 
 wail of sbix "w in his home finds an echo at some American 
 fireside, and thest, nations have a right to expect that we will 
 remain the friend of all, and be in position to play the part 
 of a friend when a friend can aid. 
 
 Some nation must lift the w.rld out of the black night 
 of war into the light of that day when an enduring peace can 
 be built on love and brotherhood, and I crave that honor for 
 this nation. More glorious than any page of history that 
 has yet been written will be the page that records our claim 
 to the promise made to the peacemakers. 
 
 This is the day for which the ages have been waiting. For 
 nineteen hundred years the gospel of the Prince of Peace has 
 been making its majestic march around the world, and dur- 
 ing these centuries the philosophy of the Sermon on the 
 Mount has become more and more the rule of daily life. 
 It only remains to lift that code of morals from the level 
 of the individual and make it real in the law of nations, 
 and ours is the nation best prepared to set the example. We 
 are less hampered by precedent than other nations and there- 
 fore more free to act. I appreciate the value of precedent — 
 what higher tribute can I pay it than to say that it is as uni- 
 versal as the law of gravitation and as necessary to stability? 
 And yet the law of gravitation controls only inanimate nature 
 — everything that lives is in constant combat with the law 
 of gravitation. The tiniest insect that creeps upon the ground 
 ■ wins a victory over it every time it moves; even the slender 
 blade of grass sings a song of triumph over this universal 
 law as it lifts itself up toward the svm. So every step in 
 human progress breaks the law of precedent. Precedent lives 
 in the past — it relies on memory ; because a thing never was, 
 precedent declares that it can never be. Progress walks by 
 faith and dares to try the things that ought to be. 
 
34 
 
 This, too, is the loading Christian \nation. We give more 
 money every year to carry the gospel toVthose who live under 
 other flags than any other nation now livnjg or that has lived. 
 The two reasons combine to fix the eyes of the world upon 
 us as the one nation which is at liberty to lead the way from 
 the blood-stained methods of the past out into the larger and 
 better day. 
 
 / We must not disappoint the hopes which our ideals and 
 achievements have excited. If I know the heart of the Ameri- 
 can people they are not willing that this supreme opportunity 
 shall pass by unimj)roved. No, the metropolitan press is not 
 the voice of the nation ; you can no more measure the sentir 
 ment of the peace-loving masses by the froth of the jiing 
 press than you can measure the ocean's silent depths by^tli 
 "s. foam upon its waves, )^ 
 
 .C 
 
 LIBRARY Of,,,g,^g|||||| 
 ''"'^"ofs 845 498 1 ^