. Ttrr' -g i-w ?" y
The Commoner
'AUGUST, 1916
u
theso treaties with us Great Britain, Prance
Italy and Russia. Great Britain and Franca
signed on the 15th day of September, 1U4, ft
month and a half after the war began, and Rus
sia signed on the first of October, two montha
after the war began. Italy signed before the
war commenced. Three belligerent nations
Germany, Austria and Belgium have endorsed
the principle but have not yet signed treaties.
Germany was the sixteenth nation to formally
endorse the principle embodied in these trea
ties. My contention is this, that if this plan
was good enough to offer to all the world and
we have never withdrawn the offer if It waa
good enough to be embodied in the treaties we
have made, and to be endorsed in principle by
the other nations that have not yet signed trea
ties, it is good enough to use with any nation
before we go to war with that nation.
If we use the treaty plan and it fails to bring
a peaceful settlement, or if we fail to use tho
treaty plan and reach a time when we must de
cide either to go into this war or to postpone
final settlement of the dispute until the war is
over; if wo are compelled to chooso between
these two alternatives, I believe it will be the
part of wisdom TO POSTPONE FINAL SETTLlS
MENT OF THE DISPUTE UNTIL AFTER THIS
WAR IS OVER. In suggesting this I am simply
applying to international affairs a principle that
is applied in our courts every day. Our courts
postpone hearings in the interest of justice, and"
i 'by postponing the final settlement of a dis
pute until this war is over, we can secure a setr
tlement without war, I think it is worth post
poning. The only difficulty we have had in re
gard to any dispute with either side has been
the fear of the EFFECT OF THE SETTLEMENT
ON THIS WAR. When this war is over, that
difficulty will be removed and I think the
chances are many to one that we can reach a
settlement without a resort to arms.
But there is another contingency which
should be considered. Suppose it were impos
sible or were believed to be impossible to se
cure a settlement" after the war without a war;
suppose the question were simply this, that wo
must haye, a-war to settle the dispute and that
the only thing wo had to decide was whether
we would have Jt now, while this war is on, or
after this war is over. If we were compelled to
choose between those two alternatives, I believe
it would bo the part of wisdom to have our war
after this war is over. Why? In the firs.t place,
we would still have on our side the POSSIBIL
ITY of a peaceful settlement after the war was
over. Second, we would be free to act as me
diator and help to bring this war to a close be
fore we entered our war; and, third, if we have
to have a war, it will be our war with the sin
gle nation with which we have the dispute and
we can have something to say about when to go
into it and when to come out and the terms of
the settlement; but if we go into this war, it
is not our war, it is everybody's war; if we go
into it, we can not come out till the others do
and while there we must fight for the things
they fight for, and God forbid that this nation
shall ever entangle itself in the quarrels of the
old world or put an American army and an
American navy at the command of a European
monarch to be used in settling his quarrels with
other European monarchs. The. first point,
therefore, that I ask you to consider is this, that
we shall not go into this war. I shall not at
tempt to present all the reasons, I shall simply
present three and those very briefly.
The first is that we can not go into this war
without imposing a very heavy burden upon
many generations yet unborn. If we go into
this war, we can not go in in a stingy way or as
a miserly nation. If it is manly to go in, it
will be manly to play u man's part and be prod
igal with men and money. If we judge the pos
sibilities in regard to our expenses by what has
already occurred in Europe, we must know that
we can not possibly take part in this war with
out" contracting an enormous war debt. In less
than two years the countries now at war have
added to the war debts of the world a sum about
equal to all the war debts that had come down
from all the wars of history until this time.
In the second place no man" can tell how
many men it would cost us. If wo go into it,
what will be our quota? One hundred thousand
men? it would bo more likely to be half a mil
lion or a million. If I know the sentiment of
the American people, they are not willing to
make this sacrifice in either blood or money for
any cause that has arisen in our disputes, with
either side thus far.
The third objection is, that we would forfeit
an opportunity that never came to any other
ratio before, since time begaa. We are the
greatest of the neutral nattoms; we are the na
tion to which the world Is looking to act as me
diator when tho time for mediation comes. If
we go into this war, no matter what the cause,
no matter what the excuse, mo miatter what the
pretext, wo step down from that high position
and turn over to some other nation this un
precedented opportunity.
And more than that, we are next-of-kin to all
the nations that aro at war. Thoy aro blood
of our blood; they aro bone of our bono; not a
soldier boy falls on any battlefield over yonder
but what the wail of sorrow in his home finds
an echo at some American firesido, and these
people have a right to expect that we will re
main the friend of all, and in God's good timo
play the part of friend.
Some nation must lift tho world out of the
black night of war into tho light of that day
when peace can bo made enduring by being built
on lovo and brotherhood, and I crave that hon
or for our nation; more glorious than any page
of history that has yet been written will bo that
page that will record our nation's claim to the
promise made to the peacemakers.
This is tho day for which the ages havo been
waiting. For 1900 years the gospel of the Princo
of Peace has been making its majestic march
around the world and the philosophy of the
Sermon on tho Mount has become more and
more the rule of daily life. All that remains is
that this moral code shall be lifted from tho
level of the individual and made real in the law
of nations; and this, I believe, is the task that
God in His providence has reserved for tho
American people. And now how much time
have I left?
The Chairman: Well, I have followed you and
not the timo.
Mr. Bryan: Thank you a very gracious re
joinder. Let mo say just a word about the false phil
osophy, as I regard it, that some aBk this country
to adopt. We have in this country a propaganda
for what they call preparedness. It ought not
to be called preparedness; it is unfortunate that
a word with such a distinguished lineage and
such high character should bo dragged down to
so base a use. It does not accurately describe
it, because there are two kinds of preparedness,
and those who ask you to adopt ONE kind havo
no right to Insist upon monopolizing the mean
ing of that word. The question is how best to
prepare against war. My objection to the plan
which Is suggested and described by that word
preparedness, a3 it is used by the friends of large
appropriations, is that it will not prevent war
but will provoke war, and in proof of this, I
point to the fact that the war In Euxopo was
preceded by a period of preparation such as the
world never knew before. If preparedness would
prevent war, there would be no war In Europe,
for they had spent money lavishly preparing.
One side prepared on land and tho other side on
sea. Why did the side that prepared on land
not prepare on sea? Because it thought prep
aration on land was more effective. And why
did the side that prepared on sea not prepare on
land? Because it thought preparation on sea
was more effective. Each thought it was pre
pared, and when the war began, those best pre
pared went in first; after them others followed
as they could prepare, and if we had been as
well prepared as some now ask us to be, we
would, I believe, be in the war today, shouting
for blood as lustily as any of them.
This false philosophy that has brought Eu
rope into this war will, in my Judgment, bring
into war any nation that adopts it. Europe has
built its hope of peace upon a false foundation,
upon the foundation of force and fear; the only
hope of peace that these European nations have
had rested in the belief that each could terrorize
tho other into peace.
It Is a false philosphy; if you want to see how
false it is, try it on a neighborhood. The big
Questions between nations are settled by the
very same rules that we apply to neighborhoods.
I will show you what this philosophy is, and
then you can judge whether It can be expected
to bring anything else except war.
Suppose nearby you have two farmers living
side by side, good farmers, well-meaning farm
ers who wanted to be friends, and suppose they
tried to maintain peace on the European plan,
how would they go at it? One would go to the
nearest town and buy the best gun he could find,
and then he would put a notiee in the paper
saying that ho loved his neighbor and that he
had no thought of trespassing upon his neigh
bor's rights; but that he was determined to do
fend his own rights and protect his honor at any
cost that he had secured the best gun in tie
market and that if his neighbojejateriered wit
him, ho would shoot him. Tain suppose ts
neighbor went to town tho next day and got hia
a better gun and, with the same frankness,
consulted tho newspaper and put in a similar
notice explaining that ho loved peace as well as
his neighbor did but that ho was just as deter
mined to defend his own rights and protect his
honor and that he. had a bettor gun than his
noighbor and that, if his neighbor crossed his
lino, ho would kill him. And supposo then the
first man, when ho read that notico, went te
town and got two guns and advertised that fact
In tho paper, and the second man, whon he reae
it, went to town and got threo guns, and so on
each alternately buying guns. What would be
tho result? Every undertaker in that vicinity
would go out and becoino personally acquainted
with tho two meu, because ho would know there
would bo at least one funeral in that neighbor
hood. That is tho European plan. Ono country
gets a battleship and announces that It can blow
any othor battleship out of tho water; then a
rival nation gets a dreadndnght that can sink
tho battleship; then the first nation gets a super
dread naught; then thoy go to tho dictionary and
look for proflxea for tho namcB of their battle
ships as thoy build them larger and larger; and
they make guns larger and larger and thoy equip
armies larger and larger, all tho time talking
about how much they lovo peace and all the
while boasting that thoy are ready for a fight.
Go back to tho time when they commenced
to pass lawB against tho carrying of concealod
weapons and you can get all tho material yos
want for a speech on preparedness, because the
arguments made in favor of carrying revolvors
can bo put into tho speeches made today in favor
or preparedness, without changing a word. Did
you ever hear of a man who wanted to carry a
revolver to be aggressive? No, it was Just to
protect his rights and defend his honor, especial
ly his honor, but they found by oxperienco that
tho man who curried a revolver generally car
ried with it a disposition to use it on slight
provocation and a disposition to provoke its use
by others. For the promotion of peace, every
state in this union has abolished preparedness
on the part of individuals becauso it did not pre
serve peace. It provoked trouble, and unless we
can convince oursolves there is a moral philos
ophy applicable to nations that is Just the oppo
site of tho moral philosophy applied to individ
uals, wo must conclude that, as tho pistol-toting
man is a menace to the peace of a community,
so tho pistol-toting nation Is a menace to the
peace of tho world.
That is my view of this philosophy and I re
mind you that tho concessions that the Presi
dent has made are not to bo taken as the meas
ure of this preparedness program, neither are
the concessions made by congress. When yo
discuss preparedness as a program, you must
take the program that is presented by the mil
itary and naval experts; namely, two billions to
get ready with and a billion and more than fifty
millions to keep ready with. That is four times
what we are now spending.
Our military and naval experts tell us that we
must now add to what we are already spending
on the army and navy, to get ready for imaginary
wars, a sum equal to tho entire amount that we
spend for tho education of all the children of
this country.
This is the program and it Is only intended te
get us ready to compete with tho navies -and
armies of the world AS THEY NOW ARE. But
do we not know that, the moment we start out
to thus vastly Increase our preparedness, the
other nations must enlarge their preparations
becauso wo do? And then we must increase ours
becauso they do. If they can scare us when they
are not preparing to fight us, can we not scare
them when we do prepare? And if we scare theas
and make them prepare, will not that scare us
some more and make us prepare more; ana"
won't we scare them again, and they us again
and we them again, etc? Where is the end ex
cept bankruptcy? Tho plan they now propose
is a plan that would enormously add to the taxes
of the country and would, in my judgment, make
this natlonv menace to the peace of the world
The question we have to decide Is whether we
shall adopt the false philosophy that has led the
whole world into war, or whether we shall Im
prove this supreme opportunity to appeal to the
world to adopt a different philosophy. Never im
1900 years have the Christian people of the
world had such an opportunity as they hare to
day. Nineteen hnudred years ago Christ ani
Pilate stood face to face. Pilate represented
force; Christ represented love. Force triumphed;
they nailed Christ to the tree and those who
(Continued on Pago 13)
