The consequences of the tendencies just described are already observable in our public life. While unfortunately it is still true that the average character and qualifications of our political leaders, legislators and officeholders are by no means of the high standard required by the great economic and political interests of the country, yet I do not like the muckrakers’ sweeping denunciations of our public men as a class. I have had some opportunity in recent years to observe these public men, and what I have seen of them has given me the opinion that the majority of them are of unimpeachable integrity and that not a few of them possess uncommon ability. Certainly the vast interests of the United States demand that those intrusted with the duties of government should have political wisdom and business capacity of the highest kind,—undoubtedly much higher than we have yet attained on the average; but nothing whatever is gained by dishonest or even by undeserved criticism of men in public station. Disingenuous and purely political abuse of our legislators and public officers serves but to belittle the critics, to diminish the legitimate influence of the press which prints and circulates their diatribes, and, worse still, to deter many desirable men from entering the public service. Nothing could be more harmful to the Nation.
All this but emphasizes the fact that the ideal we should steadily pursue is to fill our Government, both on the legislative and on the administrative side, with men of the broadest practical experience and with the highest conceptions of the disinterested service and the honorable fulfilment of their duties required of them for the public good. The community derives little advantage from the mere gratification of the personal political ambitions of its public men. Politics, rightly conceived, cannot be regarded as primarily intended to afford a field for those whose motives, even if not illegitimate, are characterized more by a desire for self-advancement than by a sense of obligation to handle the Nation’s affairs in the soundest and most efficient way. What is needed first of all, is that the American people should be able to say with absolute assurance that its Congress and its National administrative departments (not to mention its State and municipal governmental agencies) are composed of such men that the principles of sound, efficient, economical and honorable business can be counted upon to prevail in the handling of all matters, notwithstanding all the extravagant proposals of loose thinking or self-seeking politicians of the lower type.
The people must make up their minds that they will have the responsible positions in the Government, legislative or administrative, occupied by men who have demonstrated their ability and success as enlightened business men. Already in the selection of political leaders our voters are beginning to call for men about whose personal integrity there is no doubt—men above the influence of the selfish and unscrupulous corporations, on the one hand, or the dictation of the so-called labor vote, on the other; men who have the courage of their convictions and who can be relied upon to give their support to legislative measures which best serve the interest of the general public, irrespective of all other considerations. This is an enormous gain for the country. But much more is necessary. The entire Government and the politics that determines what it shall be must be infused with the spirit of sound knowledge and aggressive efficiency which characterizes American business of the best type. The place of our business men in politics is to bring this about.
PEACE BY COMPULSION
SOME PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN THE PATH OF THE OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED LEAGUE OF PEACE—IT WOULD NECESSITATE A RADICAL CHANGE OF POLICY ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES
BY
JAMES BROWN SCOTT
[DIRECTOR OF THE CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR UNIVERSAL PEACE]
In regard to the proposition to employ force to compel international peace, it seems to me that the use of force cannot be safely entrusted to any nation or group of nations; that the United States would not consent to grant such a right to a power or group of powers; and that, therefore, we should not ask that we ourselves be allowed to use force in certain cases.
One can easily think of cases in which we would not consent to arbitrate. For instance, if Denmark should sell St. Thomas to Germany, or if Mexico should make a cession of Magdalena Bay to Japan, we would undoubtedly insist that the cession in either case was void, as contravening our policy, and, if the cessionaire refused to cancel the cession, we would prevent the occupation of the territories in question by force. We would not submit the question to an international tribunal, because under international law Denmark and Mexico would have the right to make such cessions. We could not or would not submit the question to a Council of Conciliation, because its recommendation would be against a policy which the people of the United States insist upon. If the foreign country insisted upon the cession and took possession, as it would have the legal right to do, war might result. There are other illustrations. I merely mention two which have figured from time to time in the press.
It may be well, however, to give a further sample or two. Suppose that Russia and Japan should fall out over their rights in Manchuria, and Russia or Japan should use force against the other. Would the United States be willing to use its land and naval forces against either one or the other of these two great powers? Or suppose that the demands which Japan might feel justified in making upon China, either now or during the course of the war, or indeed after its termination, should be of a kind which China could not accept without sacrificing its independence, and Japan should thereupon use force, although China offered to submit the question to arbitration, would the United States, as a party to the League of Peace, use its land and naval forces against Japan? Or would the United States be willing to become a party to a League which might have pledged its good faith to do so?