Part 20

Thus wrote to Lafayette, on the 15th of August, 1786, that "citizen of the great republic of humanity," George Washington.[260]

That practical results have been secured is certain; that better ones are in store, if we act wisely, is no less certain. Mankind longs for less troubled days, and moves toward this not inaccessible goal. Such is the truth; and we may feel confident that, according to the oft-quoted word of dying Wyclif, "Truth shall conquer."

A POSTSCRIPT

A few years after this address had been delivered threatening clouds began to gather. Germany, who had prevented, at the first conference of The Hague, anything being done toward a limitation of armaments as proposed by Russia,[261] suddenly, in full peace, when other nations were inclined to think that they were rather too much armed than not enough, passed a law increasing, in a prodigious degree, her military forces.

On this move of hers, on what peace-loving democracies ought to do in the presence of such an unexpected event, on the future of the peace and arbitration ideas, after such a blow, the former president of the French delegation at The Hague, Mr. Léon Bourgeois, wrote in May, 1913, little more than a year before the present war, a noteworthy letter,[262] in which we read:

"One fact strikes us most painfully and might at first disturb our minds. The bills presently submitted to the Reichstag are going to increase in a formidable manner the armaments of Germany, and to necessitate on the part of France an extraordinary effort, and sacrifices to which we must manfully and promptly consent....

"No one more than myself deplores that folly of armaments to which Europe is yielding, and I do not forget that it was I who, in 1899, at the first Hague Conference, drew up and defended the resolution in favor of a limitation of the military load weighing on the world. But I do not forget either what I said before the Senate, in 1907, after the second conference: 'As for us, confirmed partisans of arbitration and peace, _disarmament is a consequence, not a preparation_. For disarmament to be possible, one must first feel that one's right is secure. The security of right is what must be organized first of all. Behind that rampart alone, nations will be able to lay down their arms....

"Let us be pacific, but let us be strong. And let us know how to wait. The very excess of the load weighing on Europe will originate, sooner than is sometimes believed, that irresistible movement of opinion which will cause a policy of wisdom, mutual respect, and real security, to become an unavoidable necessity."

The chief factor will be public opinion. Present events will, one may hope, have served to educate public opinion throughout the world.

FOOTNOTES:

[252] The text of this address is reproduced exactly as it was delivered, December 17, 1910, only a few notes and references being added.

[253] On this he is very insistent. He speaks of "cette disposition à la pitié que l'égalité inspire." According to him, "les passions guerrières deviendront plus rares et moins vives, à mesure que les conditions seront plus égales," and elsewhere: "Lorsque le principe de l'égalité ne se développe pas seulement chez une nation, mais en même temps chez plusieurs peuples voisins ... ils conçoivent pour la paix un même amour ... et finissent par considérer la guerre comme une calamité presque aussi grande pour le vainqueur que pour le vaincu." But this goal has not yet been reached, and in the meantime, "quel que soit le goût que ces nations aient pour la paix, il faut bien qu'elles se tiennent prêtes à repousser la guerre ou, en d'autres termes, qu'elles aient une armée." _Démocratie en Amérique_, 14th ed., 1865, III, 444, 445, 473, 474.

[254] _Les six livres de la République de Jean Bodin, Angevin_, Paris, 1576; innumerable editions, so great was the success. The work is expressly written in opposition to that of Machiavelli, "this procurer of tyrants." Kings may be a necessity, yet the thing of the state is not theirs, but is the common property of the citizens, _res publica_. No one on board the ship can play the part of an onlooker, especially in stormy weather; all on board must bestir themselves and bring such help as they can: "Depuis que l'orage impétueux a tourmenté le vaisseau de nostre République avec telle violence que le Patron mesme et les pilotes sont comme las et recreus (worn out) d'un travail continuel, il faut bien que les passagers y prestent la main, qui aux voiles, qui aux cordages, qui à l'ancre, et ceux à qui la force manquera, qu'ils donnent quelque bon advertissement, ou qu'ils présentent leurs voeux et prières à Celuy qui peut commander aux vents et appaiser les tempestes, puisque tous ensemble courent un mesme danger." (Preface, to the magistrate and poet, the friend of Ronsard, Guy du Faur de Pibrac.) For Bodin, peace is the ideal; yet "war must be waged to repel violence, in case of necessity.... The frontier of a well-ordered republic is justice, and not the point of the lance." ("La frontière d'une république bien ordonnée est la justice ... et non pas la pointe de la lance.") Such is the ideal, but since it has not been reached yet, the keeping up of a permanent military force is a necessity, "and to bestow on it a third of the revenue is not too much," especially when you have warlike neighbors, which is the case of "peoples living in fertile and temperate regions, like France." Bk. V, chap. 5.

[255] _De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri III_, Paris, 1625.

[256] _Projet pour rendre la paix perpétuelle en Europe_, 1713-17, 3 vols. The abbé dreamed of a league of all governments in favor of peace; any of them breaking the pledge, to be attacked by the others. Differences between states should be arbitrated. A French predecessor of the abbé had been Emeric Crucé, whose _Nouveau Cynée ou Discours d'Estat représentant les occasions et moyens d'establir une paix générale et la liberté du commerce par tout le monde_, was published in Paris, 1623 (modern edition, with an English translation by T.W. Balch, Philadelphia, 1909). Crucé was in favor of the establishment at Venice of a Supreme Court of Arbitration, in which every sovereign would have had his representative: "If any one rebelled against the decree of so notable a company, he would receive the disgrace of all other princes, who would find means to bring him to reason" (Balch's ed., p. 104)--a plan which, in fact, is still under discussion.

In connection with the works of these theorists should be read, _e.g._, Alberico Gentili's _De Jure Belli_, 1588-98.

[257] First (and only) treaty of alliance, 1778; first treaty of amity and commerce, 1778; first consular convention, 1788; first treaty for the aggrandizement of the territory of the United States, 1803. The only example lacking, and for good reasons, is that of a treaty of peace following a war.

[258] "Thoughe they do daylie practise and exercise themselves in the discipline of warre, and not onelie the men but also the women upon certen appointed daies, lest they should be to seke (_inhabiles_ in the Latin) in the feate of armes, if nede should require, yet they never go to battell, but either in defence of their owne countrey, or to drive out of their frendes lande the enemies that have invaded it, or by their power to deliver from the yocke and bondage of tirannye some people, that be therewith oppressed. Which thing they do of meere pitie and compassion." Ralph Robinson's translation, 1st ed., 1551; ed. Arber, p. 132.

[259] Most of them much less. In this, however, as in so many other respects, the present war, declared by Germany against Russia, August 1, 1914 (five days before Austria could be persuaded to act likewise), against France the 3d, against Belgium the 4th, which was tantamount to declaring it on England too, is an exception.

[260] In connection with Washington's views, those of Franklin concerning amicable relations between great countries may appropriately be quoted. He wrote from Passy, on October 16, 1783, to his friend David Hartley, one of the British plenipotentiaries for the peace: "What would you think of a proposition, if I sh'd make it of a family compact between England, France, and America? America would be as happy as the Sabine girls if she could be the means of uniting in perpetual peace her father and her husband. What repeated follies are those repeated wars! You do not want to conquer and govern one another. Why, then, should you continually be employed in injuring and destroying one another? How many excellent things might have been done to promote the internal welfare of each country; what bridges, roads, canals, and other public works and institutions tending to the common felicity, might have been made and established with the money and men foolishly spent during the last seven centuries by our mad wars in doing one another mischief!" _Works_, ed. Smythe, IX, 107.

[261] "Notwithstanding the support given to the Russian proposition by France, one of the most martial of the nations, and by various other governments, the objections voiced by the German delegates were too serious to be overcome." John W. Foster, _Arbitration and The Hague Court_, Boston, 1904, p. 32.

[262] Text, _e.g._, in the _Temps_, May 12, 1913.

* * * * *

TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES

The spellings "Bastile" and "Bastille", "beforementioned" and "before-mentioned", "Fraunces'" and "Fraunces's", "ibid." and "Ibid.", "Potowmac" and "Potomac" appear in this text.

The following alterations have been made to the text:

p. 17: "it is their _interest_" amended to "it is in their _interest_".

p. 127: double quotation marks added before "Taxation".

p. 142: double quotation marks added before and after "I was".

p. 201: period replaced by comma after "what any man durst".

p. 235: "dominant trait in in" amended to "dominant trait in".

p. 240: "philanthrophy" amended to "philanthropy".

p. 245: "a devil of fool" amended to "a devil of a fool".

p. 250: "postcript" amended to "postscript"; also comma deleted after "Ternant".

p. 314: "W. Washington" amended to "G. Washington".

On p. 253 "represent for you" should perhaps be "represent you" but has been left unchanged.