grand symphony of life. The very men who fight the battles of the idealist and make their dreams possible realities incur the wrath and displeasure of these righteous ones. They flatter themselves that the contests for supremacy have been inconsequential, that right and justice would have triumphed without armed champions, and that no credit whatever is due those who laid down their lives for righteousness' sake. Pushed to its logical conclusion, this prejudice against the use of force in the maintenance of peace would do away with the policeman; but how long do you suppose the gentlefolk of our great cities would continue to live in enjoyment of their happy homes, were there no uniformed guardians of the peace? And how long do you think peace would reign on earth today were there no armies and navies to make aggression and injustice unprofit-/ able and unattractive?

Scribner's Magazine. 51: 186-91. February, 1912.

Insurance of Peace. John McAuley Palmer.

It has been suggested within the past few years that an international court resembling the United States Supreme Court could settle all international disputes without resort to war. It is argued that whereas the Supreme Court is the judicial arbiter between the forty-six States of our Federal Union, it furnishes a model for an international court capable of adjusting the differences between the forty-six nations of the earth. It is insisted that the organization of such a court would end war by making it unnecessary. There can be no doubt that such a court would make in many ways for international peace, but there is a very serious doubt whether it would put an end to war. A mere consideration of the history of the Supreme Court of the United States will tend to confirm this doubt. There can be no doubt of the success of that august tribunal in other respects, but in the only opportunity ever given it to prevent a war, its failure was complete. It should not be forgotten that the American people appealed from the Dred Scott

decision to Gettysburg and Appomattox. Before the war, lawyers and politicians might quibble as to whether our country was a nation or a voluntary association. After the war it was settled forever, that our country is an indissoluble nation.

This most pertinent historical instance must raise some doubt as to whether the elemental forces in human nature can always be controlled from the wool-sack. It would seem that there might be conflicts of human interest and human passion so vast and so complicated that they cannot be expressed in terms of formal jurisprudence. Indeed, the assumption that the cause of a war can be reduced to an adjudicable dispute will rarely bear the test of historical examination. The fallacy seems to lie in the assumption that the parties to a war seek or desire justice. Historically, this is almost never true. Each party simply wants to impose its will upon the other party. Nature unerringly decides these conflicts in favor of the strongest, and it is questionable whether a human contrivance for insuring the survival or the supremacy of the weakest instead of the strongest would be a good thing for the world even if nature could be induced to tolerate it.

Perhaps the American people should have accepted the Dred Scott decision. It was handed down by the tribunal endowed by the Constitution with final authority in the interpretation of constitutional questions. Had the people accepted the decision there would have been no war. But they did not accept it. Certain insurgents like Abraham Lincoln did not hesitate to denounce the decision and the court that pronounced it and announced their determination to change both by political means. A majority of the people ultimately sided with Mr. Lincoln and clothed him with political power. The result was secession, which was nothing more nor less than a formal and deliberate appeal to the court of war.

It is therefore an indisputable fact that the Supreme Court of the United States could not and did not prevent the war between the States. And yet the problem of judicial prevention of war was presented here in its simplest form. The parties at interest were of the same tongue and race, their political tra

ditions were derived from the same source, their legal institutions were of the same character, their religious and ethical conceptions were identical. There was a complete agreement between all parties as to the authority and composition of the court. The tribunal was supported by a co-ordinate legislature and executive, and behind its decisions were all of the powerful sanctions of regularly organized government. And yet it failed.

Is it reasonable to expect that a complex international tribunal, with none of these favorable conditions to aid it, could be relied upon to do what its simpler prototype failed to do? The idea of an international court of justice is a noble one, it will become an institution of beneficent import to mankind, it will further the undoubted evolutionary tendency toward world peace, but its organization will not put an abrupt end to war.

For war is Nature's court of last resort, the ultimate phase of politics. It is the final expression of that struggle for existence to which all living beings are committed. It is Nature's law that the weak must give place to the strong and the scientific observer will recognize that this biological principle governs as rigorously in the affairs of men and aggregations of men as it does in the relations of the lower animals. We may find fault with Nature's code of ethics if we will, but we know that she always decides in favor of the strongest competitor whether it be a nation, a man, or a new stag in the herd.

As the unoccupied reaches of the earth's surface grow smaller, the competition between nations and races must inevitably increase in intensity, and war power which is the ultimate form of competitive capacity must exercise even greater influence in the future than it has in the past. This is true because with the advance of civilization, the increase of population and the absorption of waste places, the boundaries between national spheres of influence have lost their vagueness and flexibility and are becoming definite and tense. A few years ago there were vast "no man's lands" to attract national enterprise' along lines of least resistance. To-day, however, the earth is pre-empted and in the near future only the strong can grow

and the growth of the strong will necessarily be at the expense of the weak. But the issue between the strong and the weak will be determined not by numbers, nor by wealth, nor by culture, nor by creed, but by effective and available war power. It does not follow from this condition that wars will be more frequent. On the contrary, the development of the war power of the more enlightened nations is the best guarantee of peace, just as the neglect of war power by any state invites encroachments upon its territories and spheres of influence, defiance of its policies and curtailment of its national aspirations.

Open Court. 27: 548-58. September, 1913.

International Complications. Paul Carus.

At the bottom of all the complications between two or more governments, such as the United States has had of late with the Japanese in California and with England on account of the tolls of the Panama Canal, there lies the great question of war, viz., the power to wage war, the financial ability and readiness to carry on a war and the courage to risk a war; and it seems desirable to clear up the situation once for all by showing that on this foundation ultimately rest all international relations, mutual respect, every consideration of rights, and the confidence in the ability to accomplish anything or to stand for something.

This life is a struggle and there are always clashing interests. There is no justice in abstracto, but justice is generally a compromise between two rights, or perhaps more correctly between two colliding claims. Wherever justice is so obvious that there is no doubt about it, it is a matter of course and need not be discussed, but such cases are exceptions-if they exist at all. The power to enforce a right, either by sheer strength or through the machinery of courts or other public institutions, is part of the fight itself, and weakness is tantamount to rightlessness.

There is no legal status between the lion and the lamb, but there is one between the lion and the shepherd. The shepherd owns the lamb; he has reared it and defends it, and the lion's right to it is based upon his power to take it away from the human owner. Lions and other animals of prey are outlaws, because they will persist in taking what they can find without being able to establish a truce, viz., a condition of peace permanent or temporary. If the lion could make a contract with the shepherd to be satisfied with a definite share without continuing to wage war on human society, he would be entitled to the share accorded to him by treaty. However, since this is impossible there is a state of eternal warfare which can terminate only in the extinction of one or the other party. In former ages whole territories had to be given up to beasts of prey; in our day the rule of man has been strengthened to such an extent that the extinction of the tiger and the wolf is near at hand.

We see that everywhere power is the basis of right, and even where republics have developed from monarchies the course of events has been through revolutions. The United States had to fight for its independence, and liberty is ultimately founded on the power to keep out usurpers and unwelcome intruders. Take away that power of the people and any republic will be in the situation of the lamb in the paws of the lion.

We cannot change the constitution of the world, and so long as the world stands the ultimate basis of all right will remain the power to enforce it. Let the sheep become ever so learned in law and demonstrate to the satisfaction of all the wise men gathered from all the most civilized countries of the world that it has a right not to be eaten by the lion, the lamb's right will surely meet merely with Platonic considerations and remain unheeded so long as it is unable to fight and defend itself.

Only a century ago, an adventurer from Corsica set himself up as emperor, and placed his yoke upon the necks of the legitimate princes of the world. He could enforce his rule and so his empire became established for the time being and was