that in the affairs of nations the international point of view was necessarily paramount to the national, it was their policy to minimize, in every way, the place of international law. Instead they would set up a right of the strong to control, not, as many think, with brutal excesses, but restrained by a mystic realization of responsibility for the proper application of this force; but what the German mind would not admit was that any control should be placed on the exercise of this force by the voice of any majority. The strong individual, whether man or nation, was to hold a larger freedom in his action because of his superior qualities. The opponent of this point of view considers that its danger lies in the fact that there exists no guaranty that the physical force will be combined with the high moral qualities requisite for the effective control of its employment; since the possessor of physical power might not, perhaps, recognize or admit his own imperfections, but proceed to employ the force at his own will, society would be in imminent peril. To have met this very need has been the culminating triumph of efforts toward the establishing and perfecting of constitutional government. Germany, however, does not appreciate the results of all this human experience, and has refused to allow the society of nations to transfer into the domain of international law those parts of the world occasions for friction, and now and again for possible conflict. These new and better relations, based in the first instance upon business principles of give and take, matured into a settled temper of confidence and good-will. They were never in any sense or at any time, as I have frequently said in this hall, directed against other powers." (London Times, September 5, 1914.)

In spite of this difference of aim the British and German Governments had made real progress toward settling their differences and might have discovered the basis for a long peace if they could have passed this latest and most acute Balkan crisis. When Germany began building her great fleet in the late nineties, it was evident that England would strike very quickly if she intended aggression for a preventative war. Similarly, Germany had to strike in 1914 before Russia and France should become still stronger, or resign herself to accept coöperative action on the basis of the status quo. That would have meant the renunciation of all hopes of expansion by force of arms or threat of arms.

restrictions upon the exercise of the national will which, in municipal affairs, have grown up within the modern constitutional states. And so, at the Second Hague Conference, Baron Marschall von Bieberstein opposed the adoption of a general convention of obligatory arbitration, much to the disappointment of the great majority of the delegates there assembled. Furthermore, Germany refused to consider the possibility of limiting her armament by land or sea. Regarding the obligation to respect treaties, Germany has compromised; she has realized full well that any intercourse with her sister states was impossible on any other basis than the respect for treaties, so that, if we except the violation of Belgian neutrality, she has stood high in the faith with which she has observed her obligations. Nevertheless, the general tendency of Germany's action and the opinions expressed by German jurists has been to place the observance upon the grounds of more immediate interest; that is, policy, rather than upon the idea of a sacred obligation. The German system is being put to its own test of effectiveness on the high seas and on the plains of Europe. To me the German view seems an anachronism, and, taking into consideration all the aspects of the subject, the greatest error of mankind; nevertheless, I must admit as a general principle that, where great masses of men have been willing to lay down their lives for an ideal, the results have demonstrated that they were not wholly wrong.

If, as I say, there may be truth on either side, this great country of ours, with its many millions of German citizens and sympathizers, will not fail to have it fully presented; nor, when we remember the hold that liberal democratic doctrines have upon this country, and the part we have taken in international coöperation, the great development of internationalism among our citizens, and the aid our Government has given in maintenance of the principles of international law, will there be any danger that we shall

be led to give an undue place to the narrowing doctrine of nationalism as opposed to internationalism.

11. The results

Germany has clearly violated international law, and, if she does not succeed, even for the moment, in escaping punishment, the lesson will be as salutary as the example of Bismarck was deleterious. Meantime, the manner in which she has held the rest of Europe in check compels the admiration of all beholders. If Europe learns to realize the necessity of finding some means to organize an efficient bureaucracy without destroying the freedom of individual initiative, while Germany learns to take a more cosmopolitan and less nationally narrow point of view, the world may enter upon a new era of efficient government.

Should Germany be successful in carrying out the theories of her Government, and her people, after the war enthusiasm is past, continue to support the Government, which has put through its projects in disregard of its treaty obligations and of the peaceful existence of the individuals composing another nation, the student of events, seeking with impartial view, will have to admit that we are not yet ready for any great step forward; that it is too early to recognize the practical existence of the society of humanity as such, including all peoples. He will perceive that the high-water mark of achievement possible under present conditions is the perfected national state after the type of Germany, where the whole nation to a man unites with absolute devotion and training which indicates science and character. He may regret that the other states which have earlier achieved this national union and passed on, looking toward the next stage, have been doomed to disappointment. Just as for centuries the Germans who dreamed of a great national German state had to be content with a political grouping into smaller and less national units and endure all the inconveniences of such a condition, so must

we sink with despair to that lower level. He will, perhaps, discover, in such an event, that we rushed on with too much hope and idealism, and without a just sense of proportion.

The world will adjust itself to all the miseries of a patchwork of jealous and independent states and wait for the next step, until a broadened experience and a more uniform advance in civilization throughout the world have made it possible to build, on a firmer, saner foundation, a nobler edifice of human government.

But before we yield up our cherished ideals, we will strive, by force of arms if necessary, to meet the force which that marvelously perfected national state has thrown against the foundation of our international order. We will help to overthrow the projects of such a government and recognize none that will not live within the same community of common international ideals.

In the mean time, we are in the midst of a contest between the two great rival systems of thought - national and international which will be settled in a treaty of peace which is a compromise, as every treaty of peace has always been. In any great conflict neither side has all of the truth, and this new compromise may well be a nearer approximation to the facts of actual conditions, and constitute a better working basis of agreement, in accordance with which the nations of the world may dwell in more perfect peace.

Let us not forget that every ounce of strength that is put forth to defend and maintain the views we believe in will weigh in the balance when the discussion of the terms of peace shall come.