es to be knocked down in order that he may have a due
appreciation of individual rights and community amenities, so among
nations a similar lesson is sometimes necessary in order that it or its
leaders may learn that there are certain things that do not pay, and,
moreover, will not be allowed by the community of nations.

Making might alone the basis of national policy and action, or making it
the basis of settlement in international settlements, but arouses and
intensifies hatred and the spirit of revenge. So in connection with this
great world crisis--after it all then comes the great problem of
reorganisation and rehabilitation, and unless there comes about an
international concord strong and definite enough to prevent a recurrence
of what has been, it would almost seem that restoration were futile; for
things will be restored only in time to be destroyed again.

No amount of armament we know now will prevent war. It can be prevented
only by a definite concord of the nations brought finally to realise the
futility of war. To deny the possibility of a World League and a World
Court is to deny the ability of men to govern themselves. The history of
the American Republic in its demonstration of the power and the genius
of federation should disprove the truth of this. Here we have a nation
composed of forty-eight sovereign states and with the most heterogeneous
accumulation of people that ever came together in one country, let alone
one nation, and great numbers of them from those nations that for
upwards of a thousand years have been periodically springing at one
another's throats. Enlightened self-government has done it. The real
spirit and temper of democracy has done it. But it must be the
preservation of the real spirit of democracy and constant vigilance that
must preserve it.

Prejudice, suspicion, hatred on the part of individuals or on the part
of the people of one nation against the people of another nation, have
never yet advanced the welfare of any individual or any nation and never
can. The world war is but the direct result of the type of peace that
preceded it. The militarist argument reduced to its lowest terms amounts
merely to this: "For two nations to keep peace each must be stronger
than the other."

Representative men of other countries do not resent our part in pressing
this matter and in taking the leadership in it. But even if they did
they would have no just right to. There is, however, a very