QUESTIONS 
 OF THE DAY 
 
 John F* Ooacher 
 Number 
 
 I. THE MORAL PREREQUISITES OF 
 A LEAGUE OF NATIONS 
 
 By Felix Adler 
 
 In this Series there are two other addresses by the same author : 
 n. “The P unishm ent of Individuals and of Peoples”; 
 m. “National Self-Determination and its Limits”; 
 which will be mailed, on receipt of ten cents each, by 
 
 THE AMERICAN ETHICAL UNION 
 
 2 West 64th Street, New York City 
 
 February, 1919. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2016 
 
 https://archive.org/details/moralprerequisitOOadle 
 
J©lm F. Gottoher 
 
 Nxunber. — 
 
 THE MORAL PREREQUISITES OF A LEAGUE OF 
 NATIONS* 
 
 By FELIX ADLER 
 
 Of the moral conditions on which depends anything like a suc- 
 cessful formation of a League of Nations, the first I would men- 
 tion is truthfulness, and more particularly the truthful presenta- 
 tion to our minds of the actual fitness in temper and development 
 of the peoples that have to be considered as potential members of 
 such a league. Among the phantoms that follow in the train of 
 war like Diirer’s Apocalyptic riders on their gaunt steeds — 
 Famine, Plague, and Rev'olution — is Falsehood with her leering 
 face. Nothing is more shocking to innocent moral sense, nothing 
 has caused more suppressed indignation, than the systematic 
 employment of falsehood in this war. Deliberate misstatement 
 is the most unmistakable species of untruth. Withholding a 
 knowledge of the facts, with a view of lulling the public into a 
 false state of security, is another species. Suppressing certain 
 material facts, emphasizing and distorting others, with a view of 
 creating a false impression, is another species. In certain noto- 
 rious instances these methods have been employed with evil in- 
 tent by the military^ caste, in its desperate struggle to prolong its 
 domination. But similar methods have also been used with good 
 intent on the other side, for the purpose of exciting the will to 
 carry on the war, and of concentrating antagonism to the foe. 
 
 The censorship and the officially influenced press have been the 
 chief agents entrusted with the performance of this function. 
 
 It is profoundly and almost desperately felt by many that even 
 in normal times some of the leading organs of publicity, not alone 
 from self interest but even in the pursuit of disinterested objects, 
 are channels for the dissemination of actual or constructive 
 unveracity. There seems to be a distrust of the ability of the 
 public to digest the truth and to form its judgment on the basis 
 of an exact presentation of all the facts. In the recent epidemic 
 there was a general complaint that in the poorer quarters many 
 
 * An address given before the New York Society for Ethical Culture Sun- 
 day, November 17, 1918. 
 
 I 
 
of the people could not be prevailed on to open their windows. 
 \\ hen shall we be willing to open the windows of the mind 
 threatened as it is with suffocation by the vicious germs of false- 
 hood and to let the fresh air of truth blow through our senses? 
 
 Of course, the more outrageous forms of falsehood, like direct 
 misstatement or the suppression or garbling of facts, are easily 
 detected. But there is another species of fictitiousness which may 
 be blameless and pure in purpose, but is nevertheless exceedingly 
 perilous. It is the arbitrary projection of one's ideals upon 
 people and conditions, the representation to oneself and others 
 that things actually are what one desires them to be. 
 
 Now it is this kind of “idealistic” falsehood that we must be 
 on our guard against in discussing the League of Nations. The 
 peril is manifest in the phrase “free peoples,” which is being used 
 so commonly now. It is said that the free peoples of the earth 
 are to form the new league and establish the new government. 
 Now the word “free” may be used in two significations, and it is 
 of vital importance that these two significations should be dis- 
 criminated. In the one sense a free people is a people so informed 
 with the spirit of independence as to be intolerant of a foreign 
 yoke, a people that has the energy to shake off a yoke of that kind 
 when it has been imposed. The word “free” in the other signi- 
 fication means capable of self-government: a people that knows 
 its own mind and will, and is capable of enforcing its will in the 
 sphere of politics. 
 
 The spirit of freedom as synonymous with independence is 
 latent in almost every human tribe. None but the most menial, 
 the most abject, in whom long continued servility has extinguished 
 the spark of human self-respect, are without the desire for inde- 
 pendence. Even when it cannot effectuate itself it glows be- 
 neath the surface. The wildest races resent alien domination. 
 The Arabs of the desert are free in spirit like the wind that blows 
 over their sands. Lord Cromer in his book on imperialism points 
 out that India is restive under English dominion, that Algiers is 
 inwardly discontented under French rule. He takes pains to 
 dispel the legend that the Russians have conciliated the tribes of 
 Central Asia. Everywhere, he intimates, the spirit of the subject 
 races can be held down only forcibly — and as an imperialist he 
 believes in coercion. To speak then of the League of Nations as 
 
 2 
 
one formed by the “free” peoples of the earth in the sense of 
 those who are unwilling to be subject to coercion, is to conjure up 
 the very spirits of turbulence and expect them to come together 
 in a covenant of order. 
 
 On the other hand, if a free people is a people capable of self- 
 government, how many of the peoples at present will even meas- 
 urably answer to this description? The most advanced are 
 England, America and France. But if self-government means 
 enacting the real will of the people, even these countries are 
 balked in expressing their will, by the interposition of party 
 machinery, by secret diplomacy and the like. Still they are the 
 most advanced. Germany is only entering upon the path of 
 political self-rule; Russia is in chaos; the Balkan peoples are in a 
 state of turmoil. If the actual possession of freedom by the “ free 
 peoples” who are to constitute it is the condition of the formation 
 of a league, then the whole project is hopeless from the start. 
 
 In my view the league should be conceived not as a body which 
 presupposes the freedom of its members, but as an instrumentality 
 for their education into freedom. It can fulfill a large and gen- 
 erous purpose through the example of those nations which are 
 more advanced, although they too need further development. 
 It can further fulfill its purpose by requiring in all states the neces- 
 sary preconditions of self-government, such as a universal system 
 of compulsory education; and still further and in a more deep- 
 reaching way, by training the members of the league to a con- 
 siderate appreciation of the needs and interests of their neighbor 
 nations and by inculcating the habit of measuring the rightfulness 
 of one’s own ends and interests by the effect which their satisfac- 
 tion would have upon the interests of others. The really free 
 people is that one in which the rightfulness of the claims of one’s 
 own group is judged by the effect of their satisfaction on other 
 groups. And this habit, if acquired by the nations participating 
 in the league, will also react favorably upon the solution of the 
 manacing domestic problems that exist within each people. 
 
 There is no royal road to the ideal state of things. There is no 
 short-cut that will realize democracy in the world through the 
 mere fact of casting off yokes. Democracy, in any genuine 
 sense of the word, will be the fruit of gradual and difficult endeav- 
 ors. Instead of founding the league on the false assumption that 
 
 3 
 
those who enter into it are already the free peoples of the world, 
 we should regard it as a means of educating the peoples that 
 belong to it unto freedom. 
 
 In discussing the moral prerequisites of a League of Nations I 
 wish to avoid as far as possible the consideration of technical 
 details. But certain practical difficulties are so obvious and so 
 portentous that I cannot altogether avoid reference to them. 
 Especially misleading is the prerequisite that the league shall be 
 a league of justice, that the peace consummated shall be a peace 
 of justice. It might be better to say a piece rather than a peace of 
 justice. An editorial in one of our metropolitan newspapers a few 
 days ago contained the statement that at the Peace Conference 
 the map of Europe would be redrawn in such a way that justice 
 would be done to all the nations of the world — a statement appall- 
 ing in its ignorance! For how can anyone not deluded by catch- 
 words expect that by one curt and immediate decision justice 
 shall be done to the great variety of peoples and peoplets that are 
 thronging to the peace table? How, without superhuman wis- 
 dom to guide, can the accumulated wrongs of centuries, and their 
 rankling after-effects, be wiped out? The wrong done in 1871 is 
 only one. There is the wrong done to Poland over a century 
 ago; the wrong done to the Lithuanians, the Ukranians many 
 centuries ago; the wrong done to the Jews two thousand years ago. 
 Somehow all these ancient wrongs that have slumbered long are 
 starting up into new life. But the Syrians in this city held a 
 meeting recently protesting against the reconstruction of a Jew- 
 ish state, on the ground that the majority of the inhabitants of 
 Palestine, being non-Jews, ought not to be subjected to the un- 
 democratic principle of a rule of the minority, and objecting to 
 the promoted immigration of Zionists from all parts of the world 
 into the country inhabited at present by a majority of Arabs. 
 How will it be possible to adjudicate on the principle of exact 
 justice all such conflicting claims, the claims, too, of Italy and 
 Greece in Albania, of the Croatians, the Roumanians, the Czecho- 
 slovaks and the others? Some kind of compromise will no doubt 
 have to be reached. But any compromise that can be proposed 
 will leave many of those affected by it discontented. And will it 
 appear, can it appear, justice in their eyes? 
 
 The greatest peril of all has been already pointed out by many 
 
 4 
 
who object to the league. It is that the league may be used to 
 sanction the status quo, the state of things which will exist at the 
 conclusion of the Peace Conference (or at the formation of the 
 league) with all the elements of unfairness that will inevitably re- 
 main unexpurgated, and that thereafter those who seek relief in 
 more equitable arrangements will find the whole deterrent force 
 of the league used against them. They will have to come with 
 their complaints before a tribunal in which those who profit by 
 existing arrangements have the major influence and power. The 
 decision will go against them, and if they rebel they will be 
 treated as disturbers of the peace. On the other hand, if, in the 
 case of a serious controversy, the decision should go against the 
 most powerful members or member of the league, the weaker 
 members will be impotent to enforce the decision. 
 
 How far from imaginary this supposition is may be illustrated 
 by a crucial instance which has been brought forw'ard by Mr. 
 Brailsford in his admirable book on A League of Nations. Brails- 
 ford is thoroughly English in feeling, but he is also one of those 
 rare minds that are able to divest themselves to a singular degree 
 of national prejudices. In discussing the question of the freedom 
 of the seas, he admits that “ Britannia rules the waves,” and will 
 insist on ruling the waves; in other words, that the superiority of 
 the British fleet to any one or possibly to any two of the largest 
 fleets of her neighbors will be maintained. England, to secure her 
 food supply and maintain her scattered Empire, will maintain 
 her naval supremacy. If disarmament is proposed, the disarma- 
 ment must be such as to leave the relative superiority, the propor- 
 tion of naval strength, the same. At the beginning of the war 
 the British fleet was already the mightiest on the water. Since 
 then it has trebled its tonnage. It is the most formidable weapon 
 that human ingenuity has forged. It was the British fleet that 
 put the iron ring of the blockade around Germany. It was the 
 British fleet that swept the seas of enemy craft. It is the British 
 fleet that has starved the Central Powers into submission . Dwell- 
 ing on these facts it is not hard to realize the difficulty of con- 
 structing on the basis of justice a partnership between a number 
 of peoples quite inferior in power, especially in sea-power and in 
 money power, and one or two peoples of gigantic power. 
 
 The British Empire extends over half the globe. If, as has 
 
 5 
 
been proposed by some writers, the League of Nations virtually 
 takes the form of the alliance of America with this power, the 
 might of the Anglo-Saxons will be so overwhelming that other 
 stocks and races will be able to live only on sufferance. How 
 can they meet these giant nations on the level? How could 
 economic pressure be successfully exerted if in any case the major- 
 ity of the international court should find against Great Britain? 
 The answer usually given is that an international fleet shall 
 police the seas, and assure the safety of her food supply to Eng- 
 land, — an international fleet doing police duty on all the waters 
 of the world. But would not the quota of England in such a fleet 
 have to be superior to the quota of other contributing nations in 
 order to give her security and the sense of security? What then 
 remains save the hope and belief that England will use her supe- 
 rior power conscientiously? Brailsford himself presents or 
 quotes this solution somewhat diffidently but he has no other. 
 And it is no solution because, as Lincoln said, there is no class that 
 is good enough to be entrusted with the guardianship of other 
 classes; and there is no nation that is so unselfish as to be safely 
 allowed to have at its mercy the destinies of other nations. Nay, 
 granted that a people is wholly and purely disinterested in inten- 
 tion, no human beings can so far escape the unconscious influence 
 of egotism as not to see the interests of the world in the light of 
 their own interests. 
 
 As the result of the war the Anglo-Saxon people are prepond- 
 erant. Russia, the habitual enemy of England, is for the time 
 being helpless. The Central Powers are defeated. France and 
 Italy have been greatly weakened, and will in important respects 
 be dependent on England and the United States. The Latin 
 nations do not compare in population or in resources with the 
 people that own the richest territories of the globe. If the League 
 of Nations is to be employed in order to make this state of things 
 definitive, the attempt will breed disaster. The hegemony of any 
 one race and the tutelage of others is not in the interest either of 
 the sovereign race or its w'ards. And in the long run the dream 
 of Anglo-Saxon world supremacy is not feasible. Russia, with 
 her 180,000,000 and her untapped riches, will recover. The 
 Central Powers in time will find themselves. The East will not 
 always remain dependent. The child nations will grow up. The 
 
 6 
 
league should foster this evolution, not try to prevent or hamper 
 it. The kind of justice it dispenses should be flexible, not hard 
 and fast. The understandings must be such as to be subject to 
 revision. The legitimate desire and need for expansion must be 
 gratified, not strangled. The late comers must not find them- 
 selves excluded from the table, and bidden to feed on the leavings. 
 
 The new fellowship, if it is to answer its purpose at all, must be 
 such as to assist the freedom of its members, and not be based on 
 the false assumption that they who have shaken off autocracy are 
 already free. It must recognize that it can only at present make 
 the bare beginnings of doing justice; it must be a flexible instru- 
 ment for more and more largely doing justice as time goes by. 
 These are two main contentions that I have to advance against 
 the current notion of the league. 
 
 And now let us ask what can positively be accomplished, the 
 situation being what it is, — for the idea of the new fellowship of 
 peoples is too precious, too much an object of aspiration and 
 longing among the war-scourged millions to be lightly set aside 
 or to be relinquished because of the obstacles, heavy as they are, 
 that stand in the way of the full realization of what it may some 
 day come to mean. A beginning can be made; something — and 
 that not a little — can be done at once. .And here I urge the prime 
 importance of an international legislature as against a mere court 
 of arbitration. .A parliament of nations should be elected by the 
 different national parliaments, with representation from the 
 laboring class and all other important groups in each people. 
 If there is to be democracy, then we must have a law-making 
 body, because democracy is distinguished from other forms of 
 government mainly by the fact that law-making is in the hands of 
 the representatives of the people. Judges may be found in a 
 monarchy as impartial and incorruptible as in a democracy. .A 
 bureaucracy may be found in a monarchy as honest and efficient. 
 as in a democracy. If Germany to-day is to pass out of the 
 storms that assail her, it will be to her trained bureaucracy that 
 the result will be due. But a legislature enacting the will of the 
 people according to the judgment of the people is the prerogative 
 of any people that deserves in any degree the name of freedom. 
 An international legislative body, therefore, is essential if the gov- 
 ernment of the society of nations is to be on the democratic plan. 
 
 7 
 
The functions of this body' will be, in the first place, to garner up 
 some of the moral results of this war, to issue a new set of moral 
 commandments and prohibitions, to forbid for all future time 
 certain enormities in the methods of warfare, such as the use of 
 poisonous gas and attack from the air on the unprotected civilian 
 population. Next, to extend regulation of the food supply of the 
 world in normal times (such as has come partly into use during 
 the last few years) in order to prevent the occurrence of famines, 
 instead of calling upon the civilized nations of the world, help- 
 lessly', aimlessly, when a famine occurs in every' few y'ears, taking 
 off millions of people in China, in India, to send help, help which 
 then often comes too late. In the same manner, the international 
 legislature will appoint a commission to take charge of health 
 protection for the world. At present, a plague starts somewhere 
 in Central Asia, and travels with fatal steps westward, enters 
 Spain, crosses the ocean, and lays low its thousands of victims in 
 this country. Instead of try'ing to quarantine, the international 
 legislature will make it its duty systematically to seek out the 
 places of origin of the pestilence, and quench it at its source, as 
 Colonel Waring tracked the y'ellow fever to its lair in Cuba and 
 slew it there. 
 
 The international legislature, besides promoting education 
 throughout the world, which is the basis of freedom, will have the 
 planetary outlook in all its procedures, and this itself will give it a 
 dignity and scope such as no parliament has ever had before. 
 Besides giving encouragement to strength wherever it shows it- 
 self, generously unbinding instead of churlishly' stifling the newly 
 arising forces in trade and industry' — -objects which are generally 
 recognized by' those who have written on the subject — ^the inter- 
 national legislature will have a unique opportunity and duty to 
 foster the evolution of the retarded or backward portions of the 
 human race. Perhaps eight hundred millions are comprised 
 under this head. And it is on the relations of the civilized to the 
 less civilized that the future of mankind will depend. The lands, 
 the trade opportunities of the less civilized have been the bone of 
 contention between the more civilized. The colonial rivalries of 
 the latter have had the major share in preparing the conditions 
 that led to this war. A change of policy and a change of heart in 
 respect to the peoples of Africa and Asia is the one greatest moral 
 
 8 
 
prerequisite for the success of the league. Yet the broadest 
 conception commonly entertained at present is that of the Open 
 Door, according to which instead of a crowd of merchants jostling 
 each other, and seeking to prevent each the others from enter- 
 ing the house where they intend to sell their goods, the door shall 
 be open to all. The Open Door conception is designed to be fair 
 to all who want to enter the house; it has no adequate element of 
 fairness towards the inmates. The broadest conception thus 
 far reached in the treatment of the natives is that the interests of 
 trade shall come first, and after them as much human considera- 
 tion as is consistent with trade. There must be a real change of 
 heart, a reversal of the order of ideas — such gain for the merchant 
 of the West as is consistent with the utmost human rights along 
 with the highest human development of the native populations. 
 
 The international legislature should take the planetary view. 
 The world is to be one household. The more civilized nations 
 are the adults. It is the part of the adults to foster the develop- 
 ment of the undeveloped. And the adult peoples, like the par- 
 ents in the family, will gain their own moral maturity in the very 
 act of benefiting the helpless and less mature, and drawing them 
 up toward higher levels. 
 
 In this way the conclave of the nations of the earth by their 
 representatives, in a body proceeding from and overarching all 
 the parliaments, will tend more and more to insure peace by 
 anticipating and forestalling the causes that lead to strife. The 
 idea of a League to Enforce Peace is altogether erroneous. Peace 
 depends upon a certain attitude of mind, and this cannot be 
 enforced from without. You cannot introduce the spirit of 
 righteousness into individuals or peoples with a club. You can- 
 not prevent the steam from generating by shutting the safety- 
 valve. And here I have a word to say in regard to the court or 
 Commission of Conciliation in the case of non-justiciable con- 
 troversies, which is provided for in all the projects for the league 
 that have come to my knowledge, and which I cannot but regard 
 as radically unfit to be the organ of justice in deciding a contro- 
 versy between people and people. It is proposed by sorrie that 
 the members of the Commission of Conciliation shall be selected 
 ad hoc for each single case as it arises. But to this it is objected 
 that the judges selected in this way, when the air is full of pas- 
 
 9 
 
sion, are sure to be biased, and that an impartial tribunal cannot 
 be constructed in this manner. Hence it is proposed by others 
 that the members of the Commission of Conciliation should be 
 permanent, that they should hold regular sessions, and be with- 
 drawn from the agitations of the day, living in an atmosphere of 
 Olympian impartiality. Neither of these propositions is sound. 
 A people touched, or believing itself to be touched, in some vital 
 interest, will not recognize as just the decision of a biased tribunal, 
 and still less will it accept the verdict of men who are remote from 
 the urgent movements of the day, and who therefore cannot be 
 supposed to sympathize with or understand them. The very 
 notion of constructing a quasi-infallible tribunal, consisting of a 
 few persons, is a piece of that false idealism which I characterized 
 at the beginning of my address. We cannot find men of such 
 superhuman detachment, such freedom from the passion of their 
 fellow-nationals, such exalted, Olympian, impartiality. 
 
 I look therefore to the Parliament itself as the true resource in 
 this matter. Within the bosom of the Parliament the contro- 
 versies should be heard and adjusted. The Parliament itself, 
 and not some court or commission, should be the organ of con- 
 ciliation. The representatives of the two parties in dispute shall 
 stand up in the presence of the representatives of all the peoples 
 of the earth. They shall face each other in a public hearing, not 
 in a committee room, and under the pressure of the supreme desire 
 of the great conclave in the midst of which they stand, that the 
 peace shall not be broken and that right shall be done, they 
 must make good the rightfulness of their respective claims. 
 
 And here a new ethical principle of conciliation, may be ex- 
 pected to come into action. The method of conciliation at pres- 
 ent in use is not genuine conciliation at all. Each side, as in 
 labor controversies, appears before arbitrators or conciliators 
 prepared to insist on the rightfulness of its claims, — seeing only 
 the right on its own side. The opposite party as obstinately 
 insists on the right, or what it conceives to be the right on its side. 
 The result at best is a temporary truce which leads presently to 
 new outbreaks. The ethical principle of conciliation is exactly 
 the reverse. Each side shall be required as a preliminary to 
 confess the full measure of right acknowledged by it on the side 
 of its opponent, and then to prove that its own claims are con- 
 
 10 
 
sistent with those rights of its adversary which it has recognized. 
 Thus, in a labor dispute, if the employer begins by manifesting 
 his appreciation of whatever he must admit to be right in the 
 contentions of the workers as to hours, pay, and conditions, and 
 thus demonstrates his willingness to meet these just demands to 
 the utmost of his ability, he will thereby dispose his opponents 
 to relinquish their unfair and exaggerated claims, and to recog- 
 nize on their side what the employer can rightly lay claim to in 
 the management and control of his business. For fairness on 
 the one side breeds fairness on the other. Rights are mutual: 
 there is no right for one which has not a correlative right attrib- 
 utable to the other. And the same method and principle can be 
 applied to the larger controversies of peoples. Within the bosom 
 of the Parliament these controversies must be adjudicated.. The 
 supreme interest of all is that right shall be done, because without 
 right there is no peace. And right is tested by its compatibility 
 with the opponent’s right. I am under no illusions as to any 
 sudden transformation of human nature. A new habit must be 
 acquired of estimating what is just for oneself. But I believe 
 that the great Parliament which takes the planetary view is the 
 organ which will gradually educate the peoples in this new habit. 
 
 There is .the narrowly national point of view, the terrestrial 
 point of view, taking account of all the inhabitants of the earth, 
 and there is beyond this the cosmic or spiritual point of view. 
 This, religion will have to instil. The new conditions brought 
 about by the present conflict are favorable to the formation of a 
 new religious ideal. And this ideal itself will assist in forming 
 the new conditions. Greater even than freedom and justice is 
 love — in a sense vaster than that which is usually attributed to 
 the word, love between group and group, between people and 
 people, is the sublimest expression of spiritual relations. 
 
 I mean a kind of spiritual self-love — for bare altruism will never 
 be the tie that is needed. Individuals and peoples are bound to 
 love themselves. And if they are to love others passionately,, 
 enduringly, with constancy, with devotion to the point of sacri- 
 fice, it must be because they love in these others that which is 
 complementary, indispensable to themselves. So must a people 
 learn to love that in others which they themselves cannot afford 
 to miss. For we are so made by nature that each of us, individ- 
 
 II 
 
uals and peoples, have many needs, many intense and noble 
 longings which others, not we, have the faculty' to satisfy. So 
 do we depend on France for the things which France has added 
 to the spirited possessions of the human race, the charm, the 
 humanitarianism, the clarity of mind. Who can measure the 
 inexpressible calamity it would have been, not for France alone 
 but for mankind, if France had been crushed by the rude blow 
 of the militarist arm! And so we need England; and we shall 
 need Germany again when she has shaken off, as she bids fair 
 now to do, the nightmare that has rested on her for fifty years, 
 and that she has spread around her across Europe. We shall 
 not want to miss the new utterances of the soul of a people which 
 expressed itself in Beethoven’s music, in Goethe’s Faust and in 
 a hundred other ways. The singular beauty of the art of China, 
 also unique in its way, is a gift not only for China, but for the rest 
 of the nations. And so there are the untutored, slumbering 
 peoples of the earth, in whom the soul is just dawning, in whom 
 there are latent capacities of enriching the life and culture of the 
 world. These we need. The mutual need of these and such as 
 these is the bond that must bind the nations. The fellowship of 
 the nations must be founded on international truth, international 
 justice, and in the large sense in which I have used the term, on 
 international love. 
 
 12 
 
If you are interested to know more about the Ethical Move- 
 ment in America and the work of its local organizations, descrip- 
 tive literature will be sent to you without cost on application to 
 
 THE AMERICAN ETHICAL UNION 
 2 West 64th Street, New York City 
 
 On Sale at the Above Address, or Mailed at Prices Quoted, 
 the Following 
 
 BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS ON ETHICAL SUBJECTS 
 
 By Felix Adler. An Ethical Philosophy of Life, $3. The Religion of Duty, 
 50 cents. Moral Instruction of Children, $1.50. Life and Destiny, cloth, 25 
 cents. The World Crisis and Its Meaning, jSi. 50. Marriage and Divorce, 75 
 cents. The Spiritual Meaning of Marriage, 10 cents. The Vision of New 
 York as the Democratic Metropolis of the Future, 10 cents. The Punishment 
 of Children, 10 cents. The Protestant Reformation, 10 cents. 
 
 By William M. Salter. Moral Aspiration and Song (36 Hymns with Music), 
 25 cents. 
 
 By Walter L. Sheldon. Old Testament Bible Stories for the Young, ?I.I5. 
 Citizenship and the Duties of a Citizen, $1.15. The Life of Jesus for the 
 Young, new edition, $i .00. The Bible from the Standpoint of Modern Scholar- 
 ship, $1.00. A Sentiment in Verse for Every Day in the Year, 75 cents. A 
 Wisdom Gem for Every Morning and Evening in the Year, 75 cents. 
 
 By Alfred W. Martin. Great Religious Teachers of the East, $1.25. Foun- 
 dations for Faith in a Future Life, $1.50. The Life of Jesus in the Light of the 
 Higher Criticism, $1.50. The Dawn of Christianity, ^1.25. What Human 
 Life is For, 50 cents. Psychic Tendencies of To-day, $1.50. America’s Duty 
 and the Coming Internationalism, 25 cents. 
 
 By W illiam James. Is Life Worth Living, 10 cents. 
 
 By Horace J. Bridges. Criticisms of Life, $1.50. The Religion of Expe- 
 rience, $1.50. 
 
 By F. J. Gould. Children’s Book of Moral Lessons. Four Series, 75 cents 
 each. Stories for Moral Instruction, 75 cents. Brave Citizens, 75 cents. 
 
 By Percival Chubb. The Religion of Young America During the War — and 
 After, 10 cents. 
 
This Address is Reprinted from THE STANDARD, 
 to which Dr. Felix Adler is a Regular Contributor, 
 and which appears Monthly from October to May. 
 Fifteen Cents a Number. One Dollar a Year. 
 Published by The American Ethical Union, 2 West 
 64th Street, New York City. Sample Copies Free 
 on Application.