*North American Review. 202:517-26. O. '15. Mastery of the World. B. A. Fiske.

Outlook. 107:1011-5. Ag. 22, '14. Foreign Policy of the United States. Theodore Roosevelt.

Outlook. 109:950. Ap. 28, '15. Peace that Is no Peace.

Outlook. 110:409-13. Je. 23, '15. National Security and International Peace.

Seven Seas. 1:13-4. Ag. '15. War and Peace. Richard Wainwright.

World's Work. 29:538-43. Mr. '15. Do Wars Really Cost Anything? T. H. Price.

ORGANIZATIONS

The following societies send reports and pamphlets free or on receipt of postage:

American Association for International Conciliation, 407 W. 117th St., N. Y.

American Defense Society, 303 5th Av., N._Y.

American League to Limit Armaments, Room 509, 43 Cedar St., N. Y.

American Peace and Arbitration League, 31 Nassau St., N. Y. American Peace Society, 612-14 Colorado Bldg., Washington, D. C. American School Peace League, 405 Marlborough St., Boston. American Society for the Judicial Settlement of International Disputes, Tunstall Smith, Asst. Sec'y, The Preston, Baltimore, Md. Anti-Enlistment League, Jessie W. Hughan, Sec'y, 61 Quincy St., Brooklyn.

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2 Jackson Pl.,
Washington, D. C.

Chicago Peace Society, 30 N. Lasalle St., Chicago.
Church Peace Union, 70 5th Av., N. Y.

Collegiate Anti-Militarism League, Sub. Sta. 84, N. Y.

Fellowship of Reconciliation, 17 Red Lion Sq., London, S. W. (American branch, 125 E. 27th st., N. Y.)

International Peace Forum, 18 E. 41st St., N. Y.

Lake Mohonk Conference on International Arbitration,

Lake, N. Y.

Mohonk

League to Enforce Peace, W. H. Short, Sec'y, 507 5th Av., N. Y. Massachusetts Peace Society, 31 Beacon St, Boston.

National Anti-Armaments Association, Mr. L. H. Wood, Sec'y, 43 Cedar St., N. Y..

National Security League, H. L. West, Sec'y, 31 Pine St., N. Y. Navy League of the U. S., Southern Bldg., Washington, D. C. New York Peace Society, 507 5th Ave., N. Y.

Union of Democratic Control, 37 Norfolk St., Strand, London, W. C. Women's Peace Party, 1105 16th St., Washington, D. C.

World Peace Foundation, 40 Mt. Vernon St., Boston. (formerly International School of Peace).

AFFIRMATIVE DISCUSSION

War: An Inquiry into its Causes, etc.

Jonathan Dymond.

"But War," says Erasmus, "does more harm to the morals of men than even to their property and persons." If, indeed, it depraves our morals more than it injures our persons and deducts from our property, how enormous must its mischiefs be!

I do not know whether the greater sum of moral evil resulting from war is suffered by those who are immediately engaged in it, or by the public. The mischief is most extensive upon the community, but upon the profession it is most intense. No one pretends to applaud the morals of an army, and as for its religion, few think of it at all. The fact is too notorious to be insisted upon, that thousands who had filled their stations in life with propriety, and been virtuous from principle, have lost by a military life, both the practice and the regard of morality.

Does any man ask, What occasions depravity in military life? I answer in the words of Robert Hall, "War reverses, with respect to its objects, all the rules of morality. It is nothing less than a temporary repeal of all the principles of virtue. It is a system out of which almost all the virtues are excluded, and in which nearly all the vices are incorporated." And it requires no sagacity to discover that those who are engaged in a practice which reverses all the rules of morality, which repeals all the principles of virtue, and in which nearly all the vices are incorporated, cannot, without the intervention of a miracle, retain their minds and morals undepraved.

Look; for illustration, to the familiarity with the plunder of property and the slaughter of mankind which war induces. He who plunders the citizen of another nation without remorse or reflection, and bears away the spoil with triumph, will inevitably lose something of his principles of probity. He who is familiar with slaughter, who has himself often perpetrated it, and who exults in the perpetration, will not regain undepraved the principles of virtue. His moral feelings are blunted; his moral vision is obscured; his principles are shaken; an inroad is made upon their integrity, and it is an inroad that makes after inroads more easy.

The economy of war requires of every soldier an implicit submission to his superior; and this submission is required of every gradation of rank to that above it. This system

may be necessary to hostile operations, but I think it is unquestionably adverse to intellectual and moral excellence. The very nature of unconditional obedience implies the relinquishment of the use of the reasoning powers. Little more is required of the soldier than that he be obedient and brave. His obedience is that of an animal which is moved by a goad or a bit without judgment of its own; and his bravery is that of a mastiff that fights whatever mastiff others put before it. It is obvious that in such agency the intellect and the understanding have little part. Now I think that this is important. He who, with whatever motive resigns the direction of his conduct implicitly to another, surely cannot retain that erectness and independence of mind, that manly consciousness of mental freedom, which is one of the highest privileges of our nature. A British captain declares that "the tendency of strict discipline, such as prevails on board ships of war, where almost every act of a man's life is regulated by the orders of his superiors, is to weaken the faculty of independent thought."

But the intellectual effects of military subjection form but a small portion of its evils. The great mischief is, that it requires the relinquishment of our moral agency; that it requires us to do what is opposed to our consciences, and

what we know to be wrong. A soldier must obey, how criminal soever the command, and how criminal soever he knows it to be. It is certain that, of those who compose armies many commit actions which they believe to be wicked, and which they would not commit but for the obligations of military life. Although a soldier determinately believes that a war is unjust, although he is convinced that his particular part of the service is atrociously criminal, still he must proceed, he must prosecute the purposes of injustice or robbery, he must participate in the guilt, and. be himself a robber.

Such a resignation of our moral agency is not contended for, or tolerated, in any other circumstance of human life. War stands alone upon this pinnacle of depravity. She only, in the supremacy of crime, has told us that she has abolished even the obligation to be virtuous.

Yet I do not know whether the greatest moral evil of war is to be sought in its effects on the military character. Upon the community its effects are indeed less apparent, because they who are the secondary subjects of the immoral influence, are less intensely affected by it than the immediate agents of its diffusion. But whatever is deficient in the degree of evil, is probably more than compensated by its extent. The influence is like that of a continual and noxious vapour: we neither regard nor perceive it, but it secretly undermines the moral health.

Every one knows that vice is contagious. The depravity of one man has always a tendency to deprave his neighbors; and it therefore requires no unusual acuteness to discover that the prodigious mass of immorality and crime which is accumulated by a war, must have a powerful effect in demoralizing the public. But there is one circumstance connected with the injurious influence of war, which makes it peculiarly operative and malignant. It is, that we do not hate or fear the influence, and do not fortify ourselves against it. Other vicious influences insinuate themselves into our minds by stealth; but this we receive with open embrace.

Glory and patriotism, and bravery, and conquest, are bright and glittering things. Who, when he is looking delighted upon these things, is armed against the mischiefs which they may veil?

The evil is in its own nature of almost universal operation. During a war, a whole people becomes familiarized with the utmost excesses of enormity-with the utmost intensity of human wickedness, and they rejoice and exult in them so that there is probably not one man in a hundred who does not lose something of his Christian principles during a period of war.

Century. 53: 468-70. January, 1899.

Absurdity of War. E. L. Godkin.

Civilization has done a very curious thing. It has raised the business of killing enemies and destroying their property into a very honorable profession. Indeed, it has raised it in honor far above the other professions. The soldier who settles quarrels by stabbing, cutting, and rending stands higher in popular estimation than the judge and advocate who sit to decide quarrels peacably, by reason, on the human method. The animal method has the ascendancy. With the general public this is due largely to leaving what the soldier does out of sight, and considering simply to what he exposes himself. He is not looked on at all as a man who kills and wounds enemies and destroys property; who makes widows and orphans by the thousand; who tramples down crops, and burns villages, and brings ruin into thousands of lives: but as a man who exposes his life for others. In the popular imagination he does not kill for his country: he is killed for his country. The active part of his business is seldom present to the mind; the passive or suffering part is what is mainly present. It is chiefly through this impression, also, that war is elevated into an improver of character, or moral elevator of the whole community. This view could hardly be maintained if war were constantly thought of as a collection