data as to the real nature of man, and especially of "crowds" of men, and their actual conduct in the past.

This brief consideration of the trend of people up to the present time seems to show that, due to the nature of man himself, especially to the nature of large "crowds" of men, the direction in which nations have been moving hitherto has not been towards securing the blessings of peace, but rather towards increasing the methods, instruments and areas of war.

Our whole theory of government and our laws of business and everyday life are founded on the belief that men are the same today as they were yesterday and that they will be the same tomorrow. The whole science of psychology is based on the observed and recorded actions of the human organism under the influence of certain external stimuli or forces, and starts from the assumption that this organism has definite and permanent characteristics. If this is not so-if the behavior of men in the past has not been governed by actual laws which will also govern their behavior in the future; then our laws of government are built on error, and the teachings of psychology are foolish.

Therefore, the line of action that the entire human race has followed during the centuries of the past is a good index -or at least the best index that we have to its line of action during the centuries of the future.

Now men have been on this earth for many years; and history and psychology teach us that in their intercourse with each other, their conduct has been caused by a combination of many forces, among which are certain powerful forces that tend to create strife. The strongest by far of these forces is the ego in man himself, a quality divinely implanted which makes a man in a measure self-protecting. This ego prompts a man not only to seek pleasure and avoid trouble for himself, but also to gain superiority, and, if possible, the mastery over his fellow men. Men being placed in life in close juxtaposition to each other, the struggles of each man to advance his own interests produce rivalries, jealousies, and conflicts.

Similarly with nations. Nations have been composed for the

most part of people having an heredity more or less common to them all, so that they are bound together as great clans. From this it has resulted that nations have been jealous of each other and have combatted each other. They have been doing this since history began, and are doing it as much as

ever now.

In fact, mankind have been in existence for so many centuries, and their physical, moral, mental and spiritual characteristics were so evidently implanted in them by the Almighty, that it seems difficult to see how anyone, except the Almighty himself, can change these characteristics and their resulting conduct.

We seem forced to the conclusion that the world will move in the future in the same direction as in the past; that nations will become larger and larger and fewer and fewer, the immediate instrument of international changes being war; and that certain nations will become very powerful and nearly dominate the earth in turn, as Persia, Greece, Rome and Great Britain have done-and as some other country may do.

Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, a certain law of decadence seems to have prevailed, because of which every nation, after acquiring great power, has in turn succumbed to the enervating effects which seem inseparable from it, and become the victim of some newer nation, that has made strenuous preparations for long years, in secret, and finally pounced upon her as a lion on its prey.

Were it not for this tendency to decadence, we should expect that the nations of the earth would ultimately be divided into two great nations, and that these would contend for the mastery in a world-wide struggle.

But if the present rate of invention and development continues, improvements in the mechanic arts will probably cause such increase in the power of weapons of destruction, and in the swiftness and sureness of transportation and communication, that some monster of efficiency will have time to acquire world mastery before her period of decadence sets in.

In this event, wars will be of a magnitude besides which

the present struggle will seem pygmy; and will rage over the surface of the earth, for the gaining and retaining of the mastery of the world.

Annals of the American Academy. 60: 197-212. July, 1915.

Force and Peace. Henry Cabot Lodge

No one has suggested, not even the most ardent advocates of peace, that the police of our cities should be abolished on the theory that an organization of armed men whose duty it is to maintain order, even if they are compelled often to wound and sometimes to kill for that purpose, are by their mere existence an incitement to crime and violence. If order, peace and civilization in a town, city or state, rest, as they do rest in the last analysis, upon force, upon what does the peace of a nation depend? It must depend, and it can only depend, upon the ability of the nation to maintain and defend its own peace at home and abroad.

The people who urge the disarmament of one nation in an armed world confuse armament and preparation with the actual power upon which peace depends. They take the manifestation for the cause. Armament is merely the instrument by which the force of the community is manifested and made effective, just as the policeman is the manifestation of the force of the municipal community upon which local order rests. The fact that armies and navies are used in war does not make them the cause of war, any more than maintaining a fire in a grate to prevent the dwellers in the house from suffering from cold warrants the abolition of fire because where fire gets beyond control it is a destructive agent. Alexander the Great was bent on conquest and he created the best army in the world at that time, not to preserve the peace of Macedonia but for the purpose of conquering other nations, to which purpose he applied his instrument. The wars which followed were not due to the Macedonian phalanx but to Alexander. The good or the evil of national armament depends not on its existence or its size, but upon the purpose for which it is created and maintained. Great military and naval forces created for purposes of conquest are

used in the war which the desire of conquest causes. They do not in themselves cause war. Armies and navies organized to maintain peace serve the ends of peace because there is no such incentive to war as a rich, undefended and helpless country, which by its condition invites aggression. The grave objections to overwhelming and exhausting armaments are economic. A general reduction of armaments is not only desirable but is something to be sought for with the utmost earnestness. But for one nation to disarm and leave itself defenseless in an armed world is a direct incentive and invitation to war. The danger to the peace of the world then lies not in armament, which is a manifestation, but in the purposes for which the armament was created. A knife is frequently dangerous to human life, but there would be no sense in abolishing knives because the danger depends solely on the purpose or passion of the individual in whose hand the knife is and not upon the fact that the knife exists. The peace of a nation depends in the last resort, like domestic order, upon the force of the community and upon the ability of the community to maintain peace, assuming that the nation lives up to its obligations, seeks no conquest, and wishes only to be able to repel aggression and invasion. If a nation fulfills strictly all its international obligations and seeks no conquest and has no desire to wrong any other nation, great or small, the danger of war can come only through the aggression of others, and that aggression will not be made if it is known that the peace-loving nation is able and ready to repel it. The first step then toward the maintenance of peace is for each nation to maintain its peace with the rest of the world by its own honorable and right conduct and by such organization and preparation as will enable it to defend its peace.

Century. 89: 503-11. February, 1915.

Peace and Disarmament. W. Morgan Shuster

The term "disarmament" is apt to be used vaguely to represent anything from the mere cessation of naval construction and

army-increase programs to that purely idealistic condition when banners would be furled, standing armies be dispersed to their homes, and war vessels be transformed into commercial craft, or remain, dismantled, as interesting relics of a benighted past. The latter state is manifestly so impossible to expect, at least within many decades, that it may be promptly dismissed from consideration. To mention only a few of the material objections: there are millions of men who are substantially unfitted by education, experience, or temperament for any other profession than that of arms, on land or at sea. Society, industry, and commerce have long since adjusted themselves to their existence as a major police force, and to attempt to thrust them suddenly into peaceful pursuits would create no little disturbance. Professional fighters could not be expected to take quietly to mere idleness, even on pay, nor would they be content to be regarded as mere pensioned-off appendages of a baser social state.

Then the preparation of all nations for war, even during periods of peace, has created vast industries, official and private, largely dependent upon the existing armies and navies being maintained and even increased. Enormous amounts of capital are invested in such plants, and hundreds of thousands of workmen would be thrown out of employment, should general disarmament be suddenly attempted. The expression "general disarmament" is used because, manifestly, no nation or nations will begin it unless all do.

In a hundred ways, of which only one or two examples have just been cited, the constant possibility of war and its consequence, preparation for war, have become so interwoven with the world's entire social and economic fabrics as to render any radical departure from present conditions highly improbable.

Enough has been said, then, to indicate that by "disarmament," among serious advocates of the plan, must be meant a state more nearly approaching the one first mentioned; that is, virtually a limitation of armaments on some basis acceptable at least to the leading nations of the world. But if this be what is contemplated, the plan is already doomed to failure,