'STpriJfWOTirWWifrt
The Commoner
il
VOL'. 15, NO. 7
K
So
Krs
i
'crii offer mediation, jointly or severally. It'fs
! not ari act of hostility, but an act of friendship;
i The Hagtie Convention, to which all the govern
ments are parties, expressly declares that the
offer of mediation shall not be considered an
unfriendly act. The duty of offering mediation
may seem to rest primarily upon the United -States,
the largest of the neutral nations and
tho one most intimately bound by ties of 'blood
to all the belligerents. The United States djd
make an offer immediately after the war began,
but. whv not aeain and nrrain and acaln. until
our offer or SOME OTHER OFFER is accepted?
, Why not stand at the door and knock, as we
, would at the door of a friend if we felt that the
friend was in need and that we could render a
'service?
But our action or failure to act need not deter
any other neutral country from acting. This is not
'a time to stand on ceremony; if any other country
! for any reason no matter what that reason may
be is in a better position than we to tender its
good offices, it should not delay for a moment.
It is for the belligerents to decide which offer,
if any, they will accept. I am sure they will
not complain if, following the prompting of our
hearts, wo beseech them to let us help them
back to the paths of peace.
Will they object on the ground that they will
not consent to any peace until they have assur
ances that It will be a PERMANENT peace?
That suggestion has been made I think both
sides have expressed a desire that the peace,
when secured, shall be permanent but who
can give a pledge as to the future? If fear that
the peace may not be permanent is given as the
reason for refusal it is not a sufficient reason.
While no one can stand surety for what may
come, it is not difficult to adopt measures which
will give far greater assurance of permanent
peace, than the world has ever known before.
Second. The treaty in which they join should
provide for INVESTIGATION by a permanent
International commission of EVERY DISPUTE
that . may arise, no matter what its char-,
acter or nature. The United States has already
made thirty treaties embodying this principle
and these thirty treaties link our country to
nearly three-quarters of all the inhabitants of
the world. We have such a treaty in force be
tween the United States and four of the coun
tries now at ,war Great Britain, France, Russia
and Italy. The principle of this treaty has been
accepted by three other belligerents Germany,
'Austria and Belgium although treaties with
tHe.se nations have not yet been negotiated.
TftiSSE ,'SEVEN WARRING NATIONS HAVE
ENDORSED THE PRINCIPLE EMBODIED IN
THESE' TREATIES, NAMELY, THAT THERE
SriXtL BE NO DECLARATION OF WAR OR
' COMMENCEMENT OF HOSTILITIES UNTIL
THE? SUBJECT IN DISPUTE HAS BEEN IN
VESTIGATED BY AN INTERNATIONAL COM
MISSION. Why can they not apply the prin
ciple' as between themselves? What cause of war
is,ro'f such magnitude that nations can afford to
cqjnmence shooting at each other before the
caus.e, is inystgiated? A treaty such as those
which now protect the peace of the United States
would give a year's time for investigation and
report, and who doubts that a year's time would
be, sufficient to reach an amicable solution of
almost every difficulty? Does anyone suppose
that the present war would have been begun
if; a year's time had been taken to investigate the
dispute between Austria and Servia? It will be
remembered that Servia had only TWENTY
FOUR hours in which to reply and it will also
be remembered that during this brief time Jhe
rulers of the old world endeavored to And a
m'eans of preventing war. If they had only had
some machinery which the could have employed
I to. avert war, how gladly would they have availed
(themselves of it! The machinery provided by
treaty can be resorted to with honor yes, with
honor no matter how high a sense of honor the
1 nation has. The trouble has been that while the
nations were abundantly provided with MACHIN-
xuxvi jtuxv. juiNi-uvjAiiNvr vv.tt.xv, inoy pussessea
no machinery for the promotion of peace. A
gear's thneVjlows passion to subside and reason
to resume its sway it allows man to act when
he is calm instead of having to act when he is
angry: When a man is angry he swdggers
around and talks about what he can do, and
he often overestimates his strehgth; when he is
calm he considers what he OUGHT to do. When
he ia angry he hears the rumbling of earth
quakes and the sweep of the hurricane When
he is calm 'he listens to the still small voice of
conscience.
Third. "While the period of investigation pro
vided ' for in our treaties will go far toward' pre
venting war, still even a year's deliberation does
nbt give complete protection. In order to secure
the Investigation of all questions without ex
ception, it was necessary to reserve to the con
tracting parties liberty of action at the con
clusion of the investigation. War is thus re
duced from a probability to a mere possibility,
and this is an immeasurable advance; but the
assurance of permanent peace can not be" given
until the desire for war is eradicated from the
human heart. Compulsory periods of investiga
tion supply the machinery by which nations can
maintain peacewlth honor IF THEY SO I3ESIRE,
but the final work of the advocates of peace
is educational it is the cultivation of the spirit
of brotherhood condensed into the command
ment, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
Is it impossible to imagine a civilization in which
greatness will be measured by servide and in
which the rivalry will be a rivalry in doing good?
No one doubts that the lot of each member of
society would be infinitely better under such
conditions; why not strive to bring about such
conditions? Is it visionary to hope and labor
for this end? "Where there is no vision the peo
ple perish." It is a "death grapple in the dark
ness twixt old systems and the Word." The old
system has been broken down; it can let loose
the furies, but it can not bind them; it is im
potent to save. The question is not whether
the Word will triumph that is certain but
when? And after what sufferings?
Thomas Carlyle, his voice rising clear and
strong above the babble of mammon, asked, in
the closing chapters of his French Revolution:
"Hast thou considered how Thought is strong
er than Artillery-parks, and (were it fifty years
after death and martyrdom, or were it two thou
sand years) writes and unwrites Acts of Parlia
ment, removes mountains; models the world likfe
soft clay? Also how the beginning of all
Thought, worth the name, Is Love."
The truth which he uttered is still truth, and,
no matter who uttered it, the thought is the
thought of Him who spake as never man spake;
who was described in prophecy as The Prince of
Peace; whose coming was greeted with the song
of "Peace on Earth; Good Will to Men," and
whose teachings, when applied, will usher in the
enduring peace of an universal brotherhood.
W. J. BRYAN.
1
LABOR'S INTEREST
IN PEACE
(Extract from speech delivered by William
Jennings Bryan at a peace meeting held at Car
negie hall, New York, June 19,' 1915, under the
auspices of organized labor.
I could find no more favorable auspices under
which to begin the work which I feel it my duty
to perform, namely, to aid in the crystallizing of
the sentiment in favor of peace in support of
the president in his efforts to reach an amicable
settlement of all differences that may, during the
war, arise between this country and belligerent
powers.
The auspices are favorable because no portion
of our community is more deeply interested in
the prevention of war than that element known
as the labor element, an honorable appellation
which implies a compliment to, rather than1 a
reflection upon, those to whom it is applied.
There is no reason why any citizen of this
country should desire war and I am sure that
the number of those who do actually desire it
is infinitesimally small. This class is made up
of those who have a pecuniary interest in war
and of those who regard war as a moral stimu
lant. Outside of the class actually desiring war
there is a somewhat larger, class whose mem
bers, while opposing war as a general proposi
sition and desiring peace in the . abstract, mag
nify international differences. They believe
that a nation's prestige requires it to constantly
reiterate its willingness and readiness to resort
to force. The great mass of our people, how
eve prefer the urie of reason to the use of force
in the settlement of international differences
and not only consider it honorable to agree to
peaceful means, when proposed for the settle
ment of disputes, but honorable to PROPOSE
a-resort to peaceful means. Instead of regarding
love of peace as a weakness they regard it as
manly and praiseworthy. The voice of this
peace-loving mass is not always heard it is
sometimes drowned in the noisy clamor of that
portion of the press which represents the special
interests. ,
. Of - all t the- advocates of '.peace, none. have a
deeper interest in its preservation than the la
boring man. He not only has no pecuniary in
terest in.wari hut he recognizes that war is hurt
ful to him, -no matter from what standpoint it
is viewed. It deranges business ana that is apt
to subject the laboring man to idleness; it in
creases taxes and the poor man pays more than
his share of the taxes. Then, too, he may be
called upon to offer himself as a defender in
arms; 4nfact the laboring men are most likely
to respond to the first call. They are an import
ant part of that great army of producers who
not only create the nation's wealth in time of
peace, but, who also fight the nation's battles in
time of war. The families of the laboring men,
too, suffer more from war than the families of
the rich, for the soldier who is buried in an un
known grave seldom leaves an estate to safe
guard his widow and his children; and it must
be remembered that, on the average, he leaves
more children than the rich man. It is natural,
therefore, that a peace movement should begin
with the laboring men and it is to be expected
that organised rather than unorganized labor
will take the lead, because organized labor has
its machinery for propaganda already existing
and in operation.
It is natural, also, that labor should favor the
government ownership and operation of the
manufacturing plants upon which the nation
must rely for its weapons of defense and for the
ammunition required. This reform would not
only contribute to the government's independ
ence, but it would rid the country of the men
ace of a sordid private interest which sails un
der false flags and, professing a superior patriot
ism, preaches the gospel of "preparedness for
war" because it sees in this policy the prospect
of securing rich government contracts. Recent
investigations have shown that nearly all of the
leading nations have suffered from the organized
conspiracies of these conscienceless exploiters.
Those who work in the cause of peace will
find it necessary to combat the forces of militar
ism as well as to do educational work in behalf
of the principles upon which the hope of perma
nent peace rests, and I deem this an opportune
tjme and place to invite you to enter a protest
against two organizations which are already
asking the support of the public. Both of these
organizations are officered and manned by men
of great respectability.
One of these organizations has for its object
a large increase in the army and navy. It has
set for itself the task of providing for the na
tional security, and it is bnsily engaged in min
imizing the force and effectiveness of our army
and navy in order to furnish arguments in fa
vor of the enlargement of both. Ex-President
Roosevelt is the most potential factor in this
group and it is quite natural that, on account of
his prominence, his great ability and his extreme
views, he should direct the general policy of the
organization. He, speaks with all the force of
conviction, and discredits not , only the intelli
gence, but even the motives, of those whom he
contemptuously describes as pacificists and ad
vocates of "peace at any price." He more than
intimates that they are physical cowards and
that their attitude on international questions is
due to fear of bodily injury. It is not necessary
to answer Mr, Roosevelt upon the low plane
upon which he pitches' the controversy. It is en
tirely possible to credit him with the purest mo
tives and the sincerest patriotism, and yet res
olutely oppose the methods which he would em
ploy for the safeguarding of the country. If a
fireman insisted upon pouring 'oil upon a fire he
might be separated from the service as a matter
of precaution, and yet he might possibly escape
criminal punishment on the ground that he was
so anxious to have a part in the fire that he did
not take time to inquire as to the inflammable
character of the liquid used. So, Mr. Roosevelt
might be excluded for the list of the nation's ad
visers on all matters relating to peace or war on
the ground that he is so anxious tb get into any
contest that involves blood-letting that he can not
be trusted to deal with any phase of the subject.
The preparedness which he advocates would pro
voke war instead of preventing it and the
hatreds which it would arouse would destroy oar
nation's moral influence.
Mr. Roosevelt's plan is to make this nation
a rival of the powers of the old world in military
and naval preparation, and, since the only way
of measuring preparedness is to compare our
preparedness with the preparedness of other
countries, his plan would involve an indefinite
increase in the expenditure of money, in tne
construction of ships and in the enlistment or
men, ttf be continued so long as dther nations
continue to increase. ' The preparedness tnat
xnn li