Colonel House, President Wilson’s personal representative, who spent some time in the principal capitals of Europe in the endeavor to ascertain whether there was any tangible peace sentiment which could be utilized by the United States as a basis of mediation, has apparently convinced the President that any movement in that direction would be useless at present. Col. House came in touch with the leading soldiers and statesmen of the various belligerent nations, and he found that no nation was ready to accept any peace terms that the enemy would be likely to offer. One important phase of public sentiment in Germany, as stated by Col. House is the idea that Germany’s most important interests lie in colonial expansion and the incidental development of over-seas commerce, rather than in territorial expansion in Europe itself. To this end Germany, it is believed, will demand as a condition of peace the freedom of the seas—that is, the recognition of the principle that the property, except contraband, of all private owners shall be exempt from seizure on the high seas in time of war. This is a principle for which the United States has always contended. There is no reason why private property on the seas should not be exempt from seizure the same as is private property on the land. Germany’s ambition for colonial expansion may be of vital interest to the United States if that ambition takes the direction of colonial expansion on any part of the American continents. It may be that when peace comes to be arranged our Monroe Doctrine will be subject to closer examination than it ever has been before, and if any disposition is shown by the contracting powers to contravene it, it will be up to the people and government of this country to decide whether they will let down the bars or firmly maintain it. And if we are to maintain it, the question of our physical power to do so will have to be considered.
PIRATICAL PERSECUTION OF BIG BUSINESS HALTED
The decision of the Federal Court in the suit brought for the dissolution of the United States Steel Corporation holds out some hope to business men that the persecution of big business in this country merely because it is big, is to cease. The case has to go to the Supreme Court of the United States, but the decision of this tribunal in the Cash Register Company case leads to the reasonable inference that it will uphold the decision of the lower court in the Steel Corporation case. The essence of the Cash Register decision is that the mere ability to commit the crime of combination in restraint of trade is not equivalent to the commission of the crime. The Cash Register Company, by reason of its bigness, could, had it been so inclined, put smaller concerns out of business by unfair competition; but the evidence adduced failed to prove that it had done so. The lower court gave it a clean bill of health, and the Supreme Court tacitly approved the verdict of the lower court. The government lawyers denounced the Cash Register Company in unmeasured terms virtually on the ground that its size made it a menace to competition, but the courts refused to hold it guilty because it possessed power which it did not exercise.
Nothing could show up in a clearer light the folly of the Government’s persecution of big business. To dissolve a corporation, or to penalize it, simply because it possesses the power to commit an offense which it does not commit, would be equivalent to ordering the arms of a stalwart citizen cut off lest he use his fists to pound some weaker citizen to a jelly. The attitude of this administration towards business, if we judge it by some of the prosecutions for which it stands responsible, is that success in business is an evidence of an evil disposition and a menace to all other business. If the Federal Courts have successfully called a halt upon this piratical attitude towards the country’s industry and commerce, the people of the country have reason to thank God for the Federal Courts.
ONE ESSENTIAL FACTOR OF A PEACE LEAGUE
Any grouping of powers in a League of Peace which leaves Germany out of the account must fail. There is no doubt that peace in Europe could be brought about quickly if Germany would offer moderate terms. For so far as the war has proceeded Germany is actually the victor. If peace were declared now on the basis of the status quo, Germany would be in possession of foreign soil which would vastly increase her resources and her prestige, and would have an army in being and stores of ammunition surpassing that of all the other belligerents combined. If Germany would enter into a League of Peace with the other great powers to compel the peace of the world, there would be no doubt of the ability of such a league to keep any and all nations from war; but with Germany left out, her veto upon any plan of compulsory peace would be sufficient to wreck it. We are only stating the situation as it stands to-day. What changes in it the future will make we cannot predict. It is evident that Germany’s power cannot be materially crippled except by a long war. If the Allies can hold her in check and continue to hold the seas, that may bring about German exhaustion of which there are no signs at present. Such a prolongation of the war will also bring about the exhaustion of the other nations, so that their people will be ready for a just international arrangement to insure universal peace. But even then Germany will be a power to be reckoned with, and any League of Peace or International Bund that aims to be effective will have to include the great Germanic peoples.
THE REALPOLITIKER AND THE IDEALPOLITIKER
Mr. David Jayne Hill, former American Ambassador to Germany, says, in a recent magazine article, that there are two antagonistic schools of thought regarding the application of moral principles to international affairs: First, the Realpolitiker, who hold that international rights have no other basis than superior strength—in brief, that Might makes Right. Second, the Idealpolitiker, who desire to place the entire international system upon the basis of strictly moral conceptions.
It is generally recognized by publicists that as a matter of fact there is at present no enforceable international law. There are certain rules for the conduct of war set up, but no means of enforcing them. And as for the matter of declaring war, there is absolutely no recognized restraint. One nation may declare war against another for revenge, for conquest, for subjugation, or for the purpose of restraining and crippling its trade. In short, international law as it exists to-day is nothing more than a system of ethics or public opinion. Public opinion often makes its influence felt in a nation, and may become enacted into enforceable laws. But there is no means of enforcing ethics as between nations, and any nation which feels itself strong enough to do so, may defy world opinion.
An international tribunal for Judicial Settlement, which we might call a World Supreme Court, established by the consent and coöperation of the great powers, could gradually erect a body of international law that would be both ideal and real. This is the only way in which international law will ever come to have any actual, positive, binding force.