Prize Orations of the Intercollegiate Peace Association
by Intercollegiate Peace Association
1  2  3     Next Part
Home - Random Browse


Passages in italics are surrounded by underscores.

The word "amoeba" uses oe ligature in the original on page 94.

For consistency, a period has been added at the end of the word "Editor" in some footnotes where it was missing.

The following misprints have been corrected: "spendid" corrected to "splendid" (page 78) "stumblingblock" corrected to "stumbling block" (page 90) "can can" corrected to "can" (page 140)

Other than corrections listed above, printer's inconsistencies in spelling, punctuation, hyphenation and ligature usage have been retained.







PAGE FOREWORD vii By CHARLES F. THWING, President of the Association






THE HOPE OF PEACE 65 By STANLEY H. HOWE, Albion College, Michigan







NATIONAL HONOR AND PEACE 129 By LOUIS BROIDO, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania






These orations are selected from hundreds of similar addresses spoken in recent years by hundreds of students in American colleges. I believe it is not too bold to say that they represent the highest level of undergraduate thinking and speaking. They are worthy interpreters of the cause of peace, but they are, as well, noble illustrations of the type of intellectual and moral culture of American students. Whoever reads them will, I believe, become more optimistic, not only over the early fulfillment of the dreams of peace among nations, but also over the intellectual and ethical condition of academic life.

For the simple truth is that the cause of peace makes an appeal of peculiar force to the undergraduate. It appeals to his imagination. This imagination is at once historic and prophetic. War makes an appeal to the historic imagination of the student. His study of Greek and Roman history has been devoted too largely to the wars that these peoples waged. Marathon, Salamis, Carthage, are names altogether too familiar and significant. By contrast he sees what this history, which is written in blood, might have become. If the millions of men slain had been permitted to live, and if the uncounted treasure spent had been economically used, the results in the history of civilization would have been far richer and nobler. He notes, too, does this student, that if the last decades of the eighteenth century and the first decades of the nineteenth had been free from wars in Europe, humanity would now have attained a far higher level of physical and intellectual strength. The historic imagination of the student pictures, as his reason interprets, such conditions. His prophetic imagination likewise exercises its creative function. The student sees nations to-day dwelling in armed truces and moving to and fro as a soldiery actual or possible. He realizes that war puts up what civilization puts down, and puts down what civilization elevates. He reads the lamented Robertson's great lecture on the poetry of war, but he knows also, as Robertson intimates, that "peace is blessed; peace arises out of charity." The poetry of peace is more entrancing than the poetry of carnage. To this primary element in the mind of the undergraduate—the imagination—our great cause therefore makes an appeal of peculiar earnestness.

To the reason of the college man, also, the cause of peace makes a peculiar appeal through its simple logic. War is most illogical. It breaks the law of the proper interpretation of causality. When two nations of adjacent territory cannot agree over a boundary line, why should settlement be made in terms of physical force? When two nations fail to see eye to eye in adjusting the questions of certain fishing rights, why should they incarnadine the seas in seeking for the truth to be applied in settlement? In civil disputes, why, asks the student, should rifles be employed to discover truth and right? War is an intellectual anachronism, a breach of logic. Of course, one may reply, humanity is not logical in its reasoning any more than it is exact in its observing. Of course it is not; but the college is set to cast out the rule of no-reason and to bring in the reign of reason. Peace furnishes a motive and a method of such advancement. Peace is logic for the individual and for the nation.

The illogical character of war is also made evident by the contrast between the college man as a thinker and war itself. The college man who thinks sees truth broadly; war interprets life narrowly, at the point of the bayonet. The college man who thinks sees truth deeply; war makes its primary appeal to the superficial love of glory, of pomp, and of circumstance. The college man who thinks sees truth in its highest relations; war is hell. The college man who thinks sees truth in long ranges and in far-off horizons; war is emotional, and the warrior flings the years into the hours. The college man who thinks, thinks accurately, with logic, with reason; war does not think—it strikes. "Strike," the college man may also say, "but hear!" he cries; "yes, think." If the college can make the student think, it has created the greatest force for making the world and the age a world and an age of peace.

It is plain enough, too, that the economic side of war makes a tremendous appeal to the student. The cost of the battleship Indiana was practically $6,000,000; the total value of grounds and buildings of the colleges and universities in Indiana is slightly more than $7,000,000, and the productive funds are $4,000,000. The total cost of the battleship Oregon was more than $6,500,000; the total value of grounds and buildings of the universities and colleges of Oregon is less than $2,000,000, and the productive funds amount to hardly more than $2,000,000. The cost of the battleship Iowa was nearly $6,000,000, and the productive funds of all the colleges and universities of the state are only $5,000,000. The battleship Kentucky cost $5,000,000; in the colleges of that state the total amount of productive funds is only $2,000,000, and the total value of grounds and buildings, $3,000,000. The battleship Alabama cost more than $4,500,000, and the entire property, real and personal, of all the universities and colleges in that state is less than $4,000,000. The cost of the battleship Wisconsin was more than $4,500,000; the whole value of all grounds and buildings of the colleges and universities of the state is only slightly more than $7,000,000. The battleship Maine cost more than $5,000,000, and the entire value in grounds, buildings, and productive funds of the colleges and universities of that state is little more than $5,000,000.

The value of the buildings of five hundred colleges and universities in this country was estimated in a recent year at $262,000,000, and the productive funds at $357,000,000. Leaving out those now in course of construction, the total cost of the battleships and armored cruisers of the United States named after individual states is $325,000,000.

The cost of maintaining these battleships during the fiscal year of 1910, though many were in commission but a small part of the year, amounted to no less than $33,000,000. The amount which all the colleges and universities in this country received in tuition fees in 1911 was only $20,000,000; and the entire income received both from fees and productive funds was only about $34,000,000. In other words, when one takes into account the depreciation of the battleship or armored cruiser, the entire cost of the thirty-eight battleships for a single year is greater than the administration of the entire American system of higher education.

Is it not painfully manifest that the cost of war constitutes a mighty argument for the economic mind of the student?

Moreover, I am inclined to believe that the very difficulties belonging to the triumph of our great cause constitute ground for its closer relationship to the college man. The college man wishes, as well as needs, a hard job. The easy task, the rosy opportunity, makes no appeal. He is like Garibaldi's soldiers, who, when the choice was once offered them by the commander to surrender to ease and safety, chose hardship and peril. The Boxer revolution in China was followed by hundreds of applications from college men and women to be sent forth to China to take the place of the martyrs. The difficulties in the progress of the great cause are of every sort and condition. Industrial narrowness and commercial greed, military and political ambitions, sectional zeal, national jealousy, the sensitiveness of each nation in matters of national honor, the glamour of the good and the beautiful under the sentiment of patriotism, the historic honor attending death for one's country, the ease of creating war scares among the people, the looseness of the organization of the higher forces of the world—all these conditions and more pile up into a Pelion on Ossa as a part of the difficulties standing in the progress of our great movement. But such difficulties inspire rather than deter. The student says, "I will; therefore I can." He also says, "I can; therefore I will." He knows that the forces fighting for him are more than those that fight against him, strong as these are. Man in his noblest relationships, the songs of the poet (the best interpreter, from Homer and Virgil to the "Winepress" of Alfred Noyes), the torture, the pains, the sufferings, the woes, the vision of the prophet of a loving and perfect humanity, the reason of logic—all these and more are to him inspirations, and strengthen him in his great quest. He is a knight of the Holy Grail that is filled from the river of the water of life.

Perhaps, furthermore, the cause makes its most impressive appeal to the collegian in its internationalism, or interpatriotism. This internationalism addresses itself to his own international appreciation. The collegian is a patriot. He is a patriot not only against a foreign country but often against certain parts of his own country—loyal to the interests which he believes a section of his own nation properly represents. The German students have fought for their Fatherland; they have also fought for the liberal sentiments of their own land against reactionary movements, as in 1848. In the American Civil War no brighter record is to be found than is embodied in the tablets in Memorial Hall, Cambridge, or in Memorial Hall, Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina. But the collegian possesses the international sense, and possesses it more and more deeply with each passing decade. His is the international mind, interpreting phenomena in terms of common justice. His is the international heart, feeling the universal joys and sorrows, woes and exultations. His is the international will, seeking to do good to all men. His is the international conscience, weighing right and duty in the scales of divine humanity. Whatever interpretation he gives to the sayings of Paul that God made all nations of men to dwell on the face of the earth and has fixed the bounds of their habitation,—whether he stops with the words "the face of the earth" or whether he goes on to interpret the limitations of their residence,—it is nevertheless true that his mind, his heart, his will, and his conscience do go out toward all nations in their endeavor to realize their highest racial and interracial peace. No man is a foreigner to him.

I have, I trust, said enough to intimate that these orations arise out of a natural and normal condition of the student mind and heart. They also, in subject as well as in origin, bear a special message of cheer and hopefulness to all who have a good will toward the collegian and toward the great cause for which we all are laboring.





Origin. In the autumn of 1904 President Noah E. Byers of Goshen College, Goshen, Indiana, a Mennonite college, invited to a conference representatives of all the colleges in Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Ohio that are conducted by those religious denominations that advocate nonresistance as one of their essential religious principles. Such bodies are the Mennonites, the Dunkards, and the Quakers. In the spring of 1905 a more specific invitation was sent out, with the result that a conference was held at Goshen College, June 22-23, 1905. This date is important, since the call of President Byers for such a conference was the first active step ever taken to interest the college world, and particularly undergraduates, in the great movement for world peace founded upon the idea of human brotherhood. While the conference did not take place until a month after President Gilman had suggested to the Lake Mohonk Conference, in May, 1905, that it should extend its peace work to the colleges and universities, yet the call for the conference was several months prior to the action of the Mohonk Conference.

Eight institutions were represented at this conference—Goshen, Earlham, Central Mennonite, Ashland, Wilmington, Juniata, and Penn colleges and Friends' University. No definite plan of work had been mapped out, but a simple organization was effected, and arrangements were made for a second conference at Earlham College (Society of Friends). Professor Elbert Russell of Earlham College was elected president, and upon him devolved most of the work of arranging for the second conference, which was held April 13-14, 1906. For this conference no denominational lines were drawn, it being felt that all colleges and universities should be interested in this important work. Hence invitations were sent to all institutions of higher learning in both Indiana and Ohio. Eight institutions were represented: Indiana, three—Earlham and Goshen colleges and Indiana University; Ohio, five—Antioch, Denison, Miami, Wilmington, and Central Mennonite. This representation was small, considering the importance of the conference and the excellent program that had been arranged for by Professor Russell. But notwithstanding the small number of institutions represented, the conference was a marked success, made so very largely by the many excellent addresses—among others, those of Edwin D. Mead, Benjamin F. Trueblood, Professor Ernst Richard of Columbia University, and Honorable William Dudley Foulke.

On the last day of the conference the delegates from the different colleges met and perfected a permanent organization, which it was agreed should be called the Intercollegiate Peace Association. Thus, after a year of preliminary work, the Intercollegiate Peace Association came into definite and permanent existence on April 14, 1906. At this meeting Dean William P. Rogers of the Cincinnati Law School was elected president, and Professor Elbert Russell, secretary and treasurer. The president and the secretary, President Noah E. Byers of Goshen College, and Professor Stephen F. Weston of Antioch College constituted the executive committee. The writer has remained on the executive committee from the beginning, as either an elected or an ex-officio member.

Two methods of propaganda were adopted: intercollegiate oratorical contests, and public addresses on peace questions before the student body and faculties of colleges and universities. It was also agreed that the work should begin with Ohio and Indiana and gradually extend to other states. Although no definite plan was formulated until a year later, at the meeting at Cincinnati, it was understood from the outset that it should be the aim gradually to extend the field of work, so that ultimately most of the institutions of higher learning in practically all of the states should be embraced within the organization and participate in the contests.

Purpose. The purpose of the association has been quite definitely set forth in my "Historical Sketch"[1] and in my report for 1912. From these the following statement is very largely borrowed. The fundamental purpose of the Intercollegiate Peace Association is to instill into the minds and hearts of the young men of our colleges and universities the principle that the highest ideals of justice and righteousness should govern the conduct of men in all their international affairs quite as much as in purely individual and social matters, and that, therefore, the true aim of all international dealings should be to settle differences, of whatever nature, by peaceful methods through an appeal to the noblest human instincts and the highest ideals of life, rather than by the arbitrament of the sword through an appeal to the lower passions; and, further, both on humanitarian and economic grounds, to arouse in the youth of to-day an appreciation of the importance of a peaceful settlement of international disputes, and to inculcate a spirit antagonistic to the inhuman waste of life and the reckless waste of wealth in needless warfare.

[1] Printed in Antioch College Bulletin, Vol. VII, No. 1, December, 1910.

This appeal to the idealism of youth is founded upon the psychological fact that it is the ideals of life that determine the conduct of life. It is ideals that rule the world; hence the importance of right ideals based upon a comprehensive understanding of the real nature and deepest implications of human fellowship. The alleged impracticability is not in the ideal but in the difficulty of making the ideal such a dominant part of our being that it shall consistently direct our activities under every circumstance. One of the essential conditions of human progress is the conviction that such ideals are vital to the highest attainments and that these should be the aim of all our strivings. Unfortunately such a standard of life is far from being realized. Policy rules largely in the world of practical life; either high ideals are considered impracticable, or there is no attempt to enforce consistency between belief and practice.

Mindful of the further fact that the ideals and habits of thought and action that prevail in mature life are those that are formed in youth, the Intercollegiate Peace Association turns to the young manhood of the undergraduate for its field of operations. The aim is to give such a firm mold to the ideals of the undergraduate that they shall for all time shape his activities to the end of righteous conduct in all international dealings. In particular, the aim is to cultivate in the young men of our colleges and universities such sentiments and standards of conduct as will insure their devotion to the furtherance of international peace through arbitration and other methods of pacific settlement rather than by battleships—standards of conduct based upon the fundamental truth that conflicts between men, and therefore principles of right and justice, can be rightly settled only through the mediation of mind, and that every effort to settle them by force is not only illogical, a psychological impossibility, but is the way of the brute, not the way of man, whose nature touches the divine. All the more important must this work with the undergraduate be considered when we reflect that it is the young men in our colleges and universities to-day who will mold the public opinion and the national and international policy of the next generation; for it is such young men as these that will control the pulpit and the press, the legislation and the diplomacy of the future. It is this fact that gives such peculiar importance to the work of the Intercollegiate Peace Association. To quote from the report of the secretary for 1912:

"Other peace societies are laboring to create a public sentiment to-day in favor of international peace, through arbitration of all international differences. This is very essential. But the Intercollegiate Peace Association is founded upon the belief that the cause of peace will not triumph in a day, and that it is therefore of the utmost importance that right ideals be rooted into the minds of those who will give expression to the public opinion of the future. In brief, it is building more for the future than for the immediate present. The millennium of peace will not come until the ideals of a Christian civilization take deeper root in the minds and hearts of those who are the leaders of thought and action. One of the crying sins of to-day is that professions of righteous living in accordance with Christian ethical ideals are not taken seriously. Note the disgraceful policy that has been pursued with regard to Turkey by the nations of Europe that profess to be disciples of the Prince of Peace. Hence it is of the utmost importance that those who are to become the future translators of ideals into action shall be imbued with right principles of life and of human relations. To this end it is sought to cultivate the right sentiment against war, and for international peace, among the undergraduates of our colleges; for what the undergraduate thinks about and reads about to-day will very largely determine his future principles and his conduct, and it is he who is destined to mold the ideals, shape the policies, and determine the actions of the people of to-morrow."

Methods and Results. To carry out these purposes two things are essential: an awakened interest in the cause of peace, and some definite and effective method for molding sentiments and habits of thought that will persist with such vitality that they will give shape to future conduct and activities. To arouse an interest in the subject, on the part of both professors and students, it was believed at the outset that public addresses would be effective, and it was hoped that the association would be able to inaugurate a course of such addresses in our colleges and universities. It was, however, soon found that to finance such a course would require more money than we could hope to command for some time to come. In consequence, very little has been done along this line further than to arrange for occasional addresses and to encourage chapel talks. It is this field of work that the Lake Mohonk Conference voted to adopt at the suggestion of Dr. Gilman. The conference also found it difficult to carry out the plan, and our association was invited to assume the whole of this work—a request we would gladly have accepted, but which we were compelled to decline for want of funds. It is a very important field of work and could be made very effective toward realizing the ultimate goal of the Intercollegiate Peace Association, for its effect would undoubtedly be the enlistment of a much larger number of the students in the oratorical contests, which must be our chief reliance for getting international peace ideas to take a vital root in the undergraduate mind. If we cannot secure the necessary funds for carrying on this important work, it is hoped that some other peace society will do it for us, for such addresses could be made a most effective complement to our work.

Being compelled to abandon the public addresses for want of money, we have concentrated most of our efforts upon the intercollegiate oratorical contests as perhaps the most effective method for carrying out the purpose of the association. The contests are bound to arouse an interest in the subject, while the preparation of orations is sure to ingrain thoughts, sentiments, and convictions that will be indelible in the character of the young men who participate in the contests. While the contests are oratorical in their nature, their primary purpose is not the cultivation of oratory. Oratory is simply used as a means to an end—the cultivation of right ideas of justice and righteousness between nations. That such a result will accrue is assured both in psychological principles and in experience. Every student who produces a well-prepared oration in bound to make the thoughts and sentiments expressed a part of his being. The oration would not be effective if it were otherwise. The writer has heard scores of these orations, and he is convinced of the sincerity and earnestness of the orators. Moreover, letters written to him by those who have won prizes, attesting their interest in and their devotion to the cause, by reason of their participation in the contests, give ample evidence that the contests are bearing fruit. Nor can one read the orations in this volume without being convinced of their sincerity.

Indeed, the reason why we do not have intercollegiate debates instead of contests in oratory is because of the psychological truth, amply justified by experience, that the student who prepares for the negative side of a peace question would tend to have his thoughts permanently fixed along the lines of the advocates of great armaments. It is not that the student should not know the arguments opposing the ideas of the advocates of peace by arbitration. We would not cultivate bigotry even in a good cause. We would have him know the facts, as indeed he must before he can present any arguments for peace that would have any significance. But an acquaintance with the opposing arguments is quite a different thing, in its effect upon the thought of the student, from making that thought his own and publicly defending it.

Other results may be mentioned. While the cultivation of oratory is not a function of the Intercollegiate Peace Association, it does foster oratory as a valuable if not an indispensable instrument for effecting its own end. In fact, the oratorical contests are something more than agencies for interesting undergraduates in the peace movement. The cultivation of the art of expression and of public speaking, now very generally provided for in college and university curriculums, is of especial significance to the work of this association. For it is not alone of importance that the graduate who leaves his alma mater should be indoctrinated with a message of peace for the world; that his message may be effective, he must also have attained some proficiency in the art of clear and forceful diction and in the art of delivering his message in a pleasing and convincing manner. Therefore, it is not without reason that our contests are for the most part under the immediate direction of the department of English, or of whatever departments have charge of the public speaking in the various colleges and universities.

A further factor in these contests is their cultural value, both moral and intellectual. They necessarily cultivate the highest ethical conceptions, historical and political knowledge, and careful and logical thinking. To quote from the secretary's report for 1912: "The work of the Intercollegiate Peace Association is a great force for righteousness between nation and nation, and so between man and man, and therefore may be considered as supplementary to the more strictly moral and intellectual culture in our institutions of higher learning. The ethical value is not the only value of the contests. In the preparation of orations the undergraduate necessarily informs himself of historical conditions, of the economic and social effects of war, of the legal and constitutional principles involved, and of the problems, difficulties, and principles concerned with international relations. It is this early beginning of an intelligent understanding of the problems involved, together with the right moral insight, that must count for future effectiveness in shaping international policies and practices." Finally, while these contests have chiefly in mind the shaping of the public opinion of coming generations, they are by no means a negligible factor in their influence upon the public opinion of to-day. The contests—local, state, and interstate—are heard by many hundreds of people every year, and in many cases by persons who would otherwise seldom come in contact with peace sentiments. The permeating influence in college circles extends beyond those who participate in the contests. The influence of any single contest may indeed be small, but so too is the influence of any one peace conference or congress. The task of molding public opinion along the lines of any human uplift is always slow, and only gradually do the influences of this character permeate and take possession of the social mind; but every influence leaves its impression. It is only by persistent activities and cumulative effects that the social mind can be aroused to a full consciousness of any great moral issue, and still more true is this when that moral issue is of national or international importance. The many peace societies, the Intercollegiate Peace Association among them, are just such persistent activities, which, by gradually producing cumulative effects, will ultimately reap their reward. But more perhaps than other peace societies does the Intercollegiate Peace Association concern itself with the social mind and the social conscience of the future.

The Contests. The first oratorical contest was held at the University of Cincinnati, May 17, 1907. Arrangements were made for the participation of only Ohio and Indiana colleges. State contests were not held, but fourteen orations were submitted from as many different institutions, nine from Ohio and five from Indiana. The writers of eight of these were selected by judges on thought and composition to take part in the speaking contest. Four were from Ohio and four from Indiana. Indiana won both the first and the second prize. The first prize was won by Paul Smith of DePauw University with the subject, "The Conflict of War and Peace." The second prize went to Lawrence B. Smelser of Earlham College, whose subject was "The Solving Principles of Federation."

The second contest was held at DePauw University, May 15, 1908. Carrying out the plan adopted at the meeting at Cincinnati, the contestants were selected by means of State contests, and an invitation was extended to the colleges and universities of Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin to participate in the contest. Wisconsin did not respond, but contests were held in Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois. By special arrangement Juniata College was allowed to represent Pennsylvania without a state contest. Glenn P. Wishard of Northwestern University won the first prize; subject, "The United States and Universal Peace." The second prize was won by H. P. Lenartz of Notre Dame University; subject, "America and the World's Peace."

The third Interstate contest took place at The University of Chicago, May 4, 1909, in connection with the Second National Peace Congress. Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin were represented, all having held State contests. Levi T. Pennington of Earlham College won the first prize; subject, "The Evolution of World Peace." The second prize went to Harold P. Flint of Illinois Wesleyan University; subject, "America the Exemplar of Peace."

The fourth annual contest was held at the University of Michigan, May 13, 1910. There were six contestants, Pennsylvania having come regularly into the association. Arthur F. Young of Western Reserve University won the first prize; subject, "The Waste of War—The Wealth of Peace." The second prize went to Glenn N. Merry of Northwestern University; subject, "A Nation's Opportunity."

The fifth annual contest was held at Johns Hopkins University, May 5, 1911, in connection with the Third National Peace Congress. There were seven contestants, Maryland being represented for the first time. The first prize was won by Stanley H. Howe, Albion College, Michigan, and the second prize by Wayne Walker Calhoun, Illinois Wesleyan University. Mr. Howe's subject was "The Hope of Peace," and Mr. Calhoun's, "War and the Man." This contest was one of the most successful that had been held up to that time. It was greeted by one of the largest audiences that had attended any of the sessions of the Peace Congress, and the comparison of the orations, in both thought and delivery, with the speeches given in the congress, was very favorable to the young orators. A general enthusiasm was evoked for the contests. Yet there was much fear that this contest might prove to be the last, there being no assurance ahead for adequate funds to carry on the work. It was decided, however, not to give up without further trial, a decision well justified by subsequent developments.

Assistance being secured from the Carnegie peace fund, eleven states held contests in 1912. In addition to the seven that participated in the contest at Baltimore, four additional states were added—New York, North Carolina, Iowa, and Nebraska. With so many states, it became necessary for the first time to divide them into groups. Two groups were formed, an Eastern and a Western. The Western Group, of five states, held its contest at Monmouth College, Illinois, April 26, and the Eastern Group, of six states, at Allegheny College, Pennsylvania, May 3. No prizes were given at either of these contests, but an arrangement was made with the Lake Mohonk Conference by which the ranking orator in each contest should meet and contest for first and second place at Mohonk Lake at the time of the Lake Mohonk Conference. The contest at Mohonk was held May 16, the contestants being Percival V. Blanshard of the University of Michigan, who represented the Western Group, and Russell Weisman of Western Reserve University, who represented the Eastern Group. The title of Mr. Blanshard's oration was "The Roosevelt Theory of War," and that of Mr. Weisman's, "National Honor and Vital Interests." The Misses Seabury gave a first prize of $75 and a second prize of $50. The judges awarded the first prize to Mr. Blanshard and the second prize to Mr. Weisman. So great, however, was the interest of the guests at Mohonk Lake, and so nearly equal in merit were the orations, that a gentleman present gave an additional $25 to Mr. Weisman to make the prizes equal, and Mr. Joshua Bailey of Philadelphia gave each of the contestants an additional $50.

Five additional states—Maine, Massachusetts, Texas, Missouri, and South Dakota—participated in the contests of 1913, making sixteen states holding contests. Of these states three groups were formed, an Eastern, a Central, and a Western. The Central Group held its contest at Goshen College, Indiana, April 25; the Western Group at St. Louis, May 1, as part of the program of the Fourth American Peace Congress; and the Eastern Group at Lafayette College, Pennsylvania, May 13. The same arrangements were made as in the preceding year—that the contestant holding the highest rank in each group should meet in a final contest at Mohonk Lake. No prizes were given, except that the Business Men's League of St. Louis gave a prize of $100 for the contest at St. Louis. The contest at Mohonk was held May 15, and three prizes were given by the Misses Seabury—$100, $75, and $50. Paul B. Blanshard of the University of Michigan, a twin brother of the Mr. Blanchard who won the first prize in 1912, represented the Central Group and won the first prize with the subject, "The Evolution of Patriotism." Calvert Magruder, St. John's College, Annapolis, Maryland, represented the Eastern Group and won the second prize. His subject was "Certain Phases of the Peace Movement." Vernon M. Welsh, Knox College, Illinois, represented the Western Group and won the third prize. His subject was "The Assurance of Peace."

Growth. The growth of the Intercollegiate Peace Association, like that of most social movements, was slow in the first few years of its existence, but with the gradual accretion of new states it has gained in momentum, and is to-day increasing with such rapidity that only the lack of financial support will prevent it from embracing in its contests within another two years practically every state in the Union. Starting with two states at the Earlham Conference in 1906 and the first contest in 1907, it added three states in 1908, one in 1910, and one in 1911, making seven states participating in the contests of 1911. Four more states were added for the contests of 1912, and five additional ones for the contests of 1913 (nine states in two years), making sixteen states in all. Since the contest in May, 1913, eight states have been added for the contests of 1914, while the work of organization is being carried on in several other states. By 1915 at least thirty states will be holding contests if money can be secured for properly financing them. Four groups are now definitely organized: an Eastern, a Central, a Western, and a Southern. A Pacific Group is in process of being organized. Thus, in seven years from the first contest we have become a national association, extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from the Lakes to the Gulf.

Prizes and Finances. In order to encourage the young men to enter the contests, the plan of offering prizes was adopted at the outset. The national association made itself responsible for the state prizes, leaving the local institutions to provide for such local prizes as they could arrange for. In some places such prizes are given, being provided for in different ways, and in some places no local prizes are given. At first only $50 and $25 were given for the two state prizes, but after the second year it was made a definite policy of the association to make the first state prize $75 and the second prize $50. With rare exceptions, in the case of the second prize, this policy is now maintained. In New York, however, there is a first prize of $200 and a second prize of $100, given by Mrs. Elmer Black. For the past two or three years the national association has made itself responsible for the first prize only, leaving the states to look after the second prize, though the secretary also looks after many of the second prizes. No prizes are regularly given in the group contests, but it is hoped that a plan may be evolved for giving one prize, as the expenses of the winning contestant are large. At the national contest at Mohonk Lake, prizes are given to each contestant. In 1914 these prizes will probably range from $40 to $100.

The prize money has come from various sources. In 1908 Mr. Carnegie gave $1000, and in 1909 he gave $700. The Misses Seabury, of New Bedford, Massachusetts, gave $500 a year from the first. They gave $750 in 1913 and will give $1000 for prizes in 1914. In Illinois La Verne W. Noyes has annually given the first prize of $75 and Harlow N. Higginbotham the second prize of $50. In Michigan R. E. Olds gave the first prize until 1913, and J. H. Moores the second prize until 1914. In Ohio Samuel Mather and J. G. Schmidlapp furnish the prizes for 1914. In New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Maryland the prizes are given by individuals at the instigation of peace societies. In some states the second prize is given by some individual or through a collection from a number of individuals. The balance of the prizes are paid out of the subvention of $1200 that has been allowed for the past three years out of the Carnegie endowment fund. In 1913 the prizes amounted to $2400. In 1914 they approximate $3400, apart from any local prizes that may be given.

The annual subvention of $1200 from the Carnegie peace fund is wholly inadequate to meet the growing needs of this association. Since this subvention was first granted, the number of states has been more than doubled, and it takes about $600 a year to run the secretary's office. Unless more money is secured from some source, the association will be unable to grow beyond its present limits.

Officers and Organization. The organization of the Intercollegiate Peace Association has been a gradual development, and has undergone modifications to meet the changing conditions due to the considerable enlargement of the territory embraced within its sphere of activity, chief of which has been the practical impossibility of getting representatives to a national meeting from such a large extent of territory. At first there were a president, secretary, and treasurer, and an executive committee, with the college presidents of Ohio and Indiana as vice presidents. At the meeting at DePauw University, in 1908, it was decided to create state committees, that should have charge of the work in their respective states. As the states grew in numbers the plan of having vice presidents was abandoned. In 1911 the chairmen of the state committees were made members of an advisory council, and in 1913 the executive committee was reorganized so that there should be one member from each group of states in addition to the president and secretary. When the organization is fully matured the elected members of the executive committee will be a self-perpetuating body, only one or two going out of office in any one year, reelection being permitted. The executive committee will elect the president, executive secretary, and treasurer, and the president and the executive secretary will appoint the members of the advisory council, who will be ex-officio chairmen of the state committees. The officers up to date have been as follows:

Presidents: Dean William P. Rogers, Cincinnati Law School, 1906-1907; Professor George W. Knight, Ohio State University, 1907-1908; Professor Elbert Russell, Earlham College, 1908-1910; Dean William P. Rogers, 1910-1911; President Charles F. Thwing, Western Reserve University, 1911-.

Secretaries: Professor Elbert Russell, 1906-1908; Mr. George Fulk, Cerro Gordo, Illinois, 1908-1911; Professor Stephen F. Weston, Antioch College, 1911-.

Treasurers: Professor Elbert Russell, 1906-1908; Professor Stephen F. Weston, 1908-.

Orations. In the seven years in which the contests have been held, about twelve hundred orations have been written, a little more than one half of these in the past two years. The number written in 1914 will not fall far short of five hundred. For some time we have desired to publish a volume of the prize orations, and within the past few years there has been considerable demand for such a volume, as many would-be contestants are anxious to see what they will have to measure up to in order to win. Outsiders interested in the contests have also desired such a publication. The present collection was therefore projected, and the World Peace Foundation willingly undertook to issue it as one of the books in its International Library.

The ten orations that have been selected for this volume out of the twelve hundred have all won the first prize in interstate contests. The first five are the first prize orations in the national contests of the first five years before the group contests were organized, and were selected by a series of local, state, and interstate contests out of about five hundred and fifty orations delivered. The last five, selected by a series of contests out of about six hundred and fifty, are the first prize orations of the group contests of the past two years. They were delivered in the national contests at Mohonk Lake at the time of the Lake Mohonk Conferences. The fact that many of the second prize orations, and indeed a number of the others, were given first place by some of the judges is indicative of the general high character of all the orations, so that the ten selected orations are very fairly typical of the thought and sentiment of the whole twelve hundred. It is therefore believed that the publication of these orations will be of great value not only as a stimulus to prospective contestants but as a convincing proof of the quality of the work that the undergraduate students of the country are doing in the contests. They are evidence that these contests call out a high grade of intellectual and moral culture, showing as they do keen and clear thinking and high moral ideals.

There is included as an appendix to these orations the Pugsley prize oration of 1913, by Bryant Smith, a senior in Guilford College, North Carolina, a sample of the prize essays annually submitted for the Pugsley prize of $100 offered through the Lake Mohonk Conference by Chester DeWitt Pugsley of Yonkers, New York. The essay is also fittingly printed in this volume because Mr. Smith represented the state of North Carolina in the Eastern Group contest of the Intercollegiate Peace Association in 1912, while still another reason for including it is the hope that others who have taken part in the oratorical contests, and who are thereby excluded from entering those contests again, may be encouraged to try for the Pugsley prize.

Subjects of Orations. In view of the fact that so many orations have been written on peace subjects, it is worthy of note that the topics have seldom been duplicated, and that when the same topic has been twice used, the handling of it has been so different that little duplication has been noticeable. Each oration well represents the originality and the individuality of the writer or orator. Duplication is shown in the quotations, and it is therefore suggested that quotations be sparingly used.

Not the least interesting feature of the orations is the combination of idealism and practicality, which they reveal in the minds of the contestants. Truly, these young men "have hitched their wagon to a star," the star of universal good will.

To show the wide range of subjects chosen, and therefore the scope and many-sidedness of the peace question, the following list of titles already used is given here. They are also given as suggestions to future writers of orations, for there is no objection to choosing subjects previously used. Even if there is some duplication of thought, it makes little difference, since the contests are seldom held twice in the same place. Included in the list are some titles that show variations in the way of stating the same thing, and these variations should be suggestive to future writers of orations.


America the Exemplar of Peace America and the World's Peace America's Mission in the Peace Movement America's Mission to Mankind America's Obligation The Arbiter of the World Arbitration versus War The Challenge of Thor The Conflict of War and Peace A Congress of Nations The Cost of Militarism The Cost of Peace The Crucial Parallelism The Dawn of Peace The Dawn of Universal Peace Democracy and Peace Diplomacy and Peace Disillusionment The Dominant Ideal The End; and the Means The Evolution of a Higher Patriotism The Evolution of Justice The Evolution of Law The Evolution of National Greatness as a World Peacemaker The Evolution of World Peace The Fallacy of the Economics of War The Federation of the World Forces of War and Peace The Foundations From Chaos to Harmony From History's Pages—Peace Fruits of War and Fruits of Peace Government and International Peace The Growing Sentiment The Growth of the Peace Movement Honor Satisfied The Ideal of the Century Idealism and the Peace Movement Immigration and Peace The Inefficiency of War Instead of War—What? International Arbitration International Justice and World Peace International Peace International Peace and the Prince of Peace Justice and Peace Justice by War or Peace The Keynote of the Twentieth Century The Lasting Wound The Law of Peace The Message of the Andes Military Selection and its Effect on National Life Modern Battlefields A Nation's Opportunity The New Anglo-Saxon The New Brotherhood The New Corner Stone The New Era The New Nobility The New Patriotism The Next Step The Panama Canal The Passing of War The Pathway to Peace Patriotism and Peace Peace and Armaments Peace and the Evolution of Conscience Peace and the Fortification of the Panama Canal Peace and Public Opinion Peace Inevitable Peace is our Passion Peace on Earth Peace, our Great Ideal The Philosophy of Universal Peace Physical and Psychical Aspects of War A Plea for International Peace A Plea for Peace Popular Fallacies about War Popular Government and Peace Popular Sentiment and Purer Citizenship: The Right Road to Peace The Power of International Tolerance The Prince of Peace Progress toward Justice The Proposed Court of Arbitral Justice The Rationality of Peace The Real Power The Redemption of Patriotism The Regaining of the World's Lost Legacy Right or Might The Significance of the Hague Conferences The Rightful Ruler A Simple Method of Forwarding Universal Peace The Solving Principles of Federation Sovereignty in Arbitration Statesmanship versus Battleship Thor or Christ Ungrateful America The United States and Universal Peace The United States of the World Universal Peace and the Brotherhood of Man The Unnecessary Evil A Vision of a Conquest War and Christianity War—The Demoralizer War and its Elimination War and the Laboring Man War and the Man War for Profit War—Universal Brotherhood—Peace The Warrior's Protest against War The Waste of War—The Wealth of Peace The Way of Peace What, from Vengeance? World Federation The World Organization

Acknowledgments. The Intercollegiate Peace Association is greatly indebted to many state and city peace societies for cooperation and assistance. They have materially strengthened our work and made possible the enlargement of the field of our activities. To their secretaries we are deeply indebted. The fullest cooperation of the peace societies, each assisting and supplementing the work of others wherever possible, will bring the most fruitful and the most speedy results, and the fact that we have received such cooperation indicates a full appreciation of the value of the work being done in these contests. We wish also to express our gratitude to the many individual contributors of prizes, especially to the Misses Seabury, for their interest, encouragement, and generosity, because without their assistance our association could not have survived. To the Misses Seabury we are also under obligation for lending their rights over the texts of orations for this publication. For the subvention from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace we thank the American Peace Society, through whose agency it comes to us. For the publication of this volume we are deeply grateful to the World Peace Foundation, without whose cooperation the book could not have been published. To Edwin D. Mead and Denys P. Myers the editor owes his sincere thanks for suggestions and corrections of the manuscript. We trust that the volume will be amply justified by the good that it will do.

STEPHEN F. WESTON Executive Secretary


The Contests of 1914. This volume was projected to be published before the Lake Mohonk Conference in May, but it was decided to include the five orations given in the national contest of 1914, and so make the volume complete for the year of issue. The last five orations, then, are the winning ones in the group contests of 1914, contesting for place in the national contest at Mohonk Lake, May 16, 1914. They are the picked orations of over four hundred and fifty prepared in one hundred and twenty colleges and universities, representing twenty-two states. The fifteen orations in the volume are the winning orations out of more than sixteen hundred and fifty written by the student body of the country in the past eight years.

In 1914 six additional states took part in the contests, making twenty-two organized into five groups. The Pacific coast and Southern groups were added during the year to the three groups organized in 1913. Three of the groups held their contests on May 1—the North Atlantic at the College of the City of New York, the Central at Western Reserve University, and the Western at Des Moines College. The Southern Group held its contest at Vanderbilt University on May 10. On the Pacific coast only Oregon was ready, and the winner of her state contest was permitted to represent the group in the national contest. Utah and California are planning to enter the contests of 1915. Virginia, West Virginia, and South Carolina are organizing, and a sixth group will then be formed—the South Atlantic Group.

S. F. W.


By PAUL SMITH, DePauw University, Greencastle, Indiana

First Prize Oration in the National Contest held at the University of Cincinnati, May 17, 1907


The past ages have witnessed a long conflict between two opposing principles—the principle of might and the principle of right. The first instituted the duel between equals and condemned the impotent to slavery; the second ordained the courts of civil justice and signed the Emancipation Proclamation. The principle of might licensed despotism and degraded the many in the service of the few; the principle of right proclaimed democracy and consecrated the few to the service of the many. Thus in the realm of the individual and of the state the diviner conception has won its triumphs, and to-day force is tolerated only as it serves the cause of justice. But in the larger international sphere the advocates of might prolong the ancient cry for war; the disciples of right protest in a gentler demand for peace.

The partisans of war urge four capital reasons in behalf of their principle: personal glory, moral education, class interest, and national egoism.

We have as a heritage of our military past, not a sense of the grim tragedy of war, but traditions which award the highest meed of personal glory to the warrior. The roster of the world's heroes contains two classes of names—great soldiers and great altruists. Poet and orator and populace unite to do honor to him who was not afraid to fight and to die for his home, his king, his liberty, his country, his convictions. Bravery has ever won its laurel crown, for an instinct within us applauds physical courage and aggressiveness. And the gilded uniform and clanking sword, the drumbeat and the bugle call, the camp fire and the "far-flung battle line," stand as the most dramatic expressions of a deep sentiment, primitive and thrilling.

Akin to this martial hero worship is the argument that success in war gives training for the higher contests of peace. Out of the war of 1776 the nation took George Washington for President; out of the Mexican War, Zachary Taylor; out of the Civil War, General Grant; out of the Spanish War, Theodore Roosevelt. The badge of the Grand Army of the Republic is a certificate of merit. The cross of the Legion of Honor opens the door to social and political and business prosperity. Battle is regarded as a supreme test of sturdy manhood, and the harsh discipline of the camp as education for the finer arts of the council. War creates a heroism which later devotes itself to spiritual ends.

Moreover, say the advocates, the interests of class require force for their conservation. The hereditary nobility of Europe was founded by military process for military purposes, and, with the passing of war, loses its warrant for existence. On the other hand, it is claimed that the under classes may come into the enjoyment of their inalienable rights, common to all humanity, only by means of the sword. Witness the peasantry of Russia! Even in America so great a prophet as Henry Ward Beecher foresaw a tragic day when the bivouac of capital would be set against the camp of labor. And lesser seers are not lacking who freely predict, even for our democratic land, a desperate rebellion of a proletariat of poverty against an aristocracy of wealth.

Finally, the demands of national egoism are urged in behalf of war. For example, Japan needs new territory for her growing millions and must assume the conqueror's role. Or France goes mad with the lust of empire and goes forth untamed until the day of Waterloo. Or Great Britain must have new markets; and, falsely reasoning that trade follows the flag, and the flag follows the bayonet, she seizes a realm upon which the sun may never set. Or the interests of white men and yellow men, of black men or red men, clash; and then the cannon must be the final test, might must make right, and the strongest must survive. The greed of territorial aggrandizement, the spirit of national adventure, the longing for commercial supremacy, the honor of a country, the pride of racial achievement—each is urged to justify the necessity for bloodshed and carnage. Such are the arguments of the advocates of war.

To balance these, the advocates of peace plead four greater considerations: against personal glory, the economic cost of militarism; against the moral education of war, the higher heroism of peace; against class interests, the sanctity of human life; and against national egoism, the deeper spirit of national altruism.

A single modern battleship costs more than the combined value of the property and endowment of all the colleges of a certain great state. Two thirds of the money passing through the treasury of the Republic goes to the support of the military system. Computing two hundred dollars a year as the average loss to society occasioned by the withdrawal of each soldier and sailor from productive toil, and adding this sum to the war budgets of the nations for the past fifty years, we obtain a total of billions, beyond the reach of all imagination. The money which armies, navies, wars, and pensions have cost the world in fifty years would have installed in China a system of education equal to that of the United States; would have transformed the arid deserts of India into a modern Eden by irrigation; would have laid railways from Cape Town to the remotest corner of Africa; would have dug the Panama Canal; and, in addition, would have sent a translation of the Bible, of Shakespeare, Homer, Goethe, and Dante to every family on the globe. In a word, the wealth spent on wars in the last half century would have transformed life for a majority of human beings. The stoppage of this waste will shorten the hours of labor, reduce pauperism, elevate the peasantry of Europe, lighten taxation, and work an economic revolution.

The argument for moral education mistakes national gratitude to warriors for tribute to the training of the camp. But grant that war develops the combative qualities, the argument forgets a darker moral phase. It forgets the moral wrecks which are the sad products of war; it forgets the effect of the loss of the refining influence of womanhood upon the soldier; it forgets the debasement of sinking men to the physical type of life. And the argument assumes that peace has no "equivalent for war," declared by a famous educator to be the greatest need of the age. Courage and endurance are as necessary in social reforms as in carnal battle. To wrestle against principalities and powers and rulers of the world-darkness calls forth the maximum powers of manhood. Wendell Phillips stands in the ranks of heroes as high as Philip Sheridan. The moral loss from war transcends the moral gain.

Yet war levies toll more tragic than any toll of dollars, more appalling than any moral cost. A famous painting reveals the world's conquerors, Xerxes, Caesar, Alexander, Napoleon, and a lesser host, mounted proudly on battle steeds, caparisoned with gorgeous trappings; but the field through which they march is paved with naked, mutilated corpses, the ghastly price of glory. The trenches at Port Arthur were filled level-full with the bodies of self-sacrificed martyrs, and upon this gruesome slope the final charges were made. Stripped of all sentiment, war is organized and wholesale murder, a savage and awful paradox which proclaims the shallowness of civilization. Said General Sherman: "Only those who have never heard a shot, only those who have never heard the shrieks of the wounded nor the groans of the dying, can cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation." God grant the world may soon heed the Voice, sounding down from the solemnity of Sinai, laying the divine command upon each man and each nation: "Thou shalt not kill!"

There yet remains the ethical argument for peace. Will any one say that the supreme duty of altruism is binding upon men as individuals, and not binding upon the same men acting conjointly as a nation? When the people and the statesmen of one nation are able to put themselves in the places of the statesmen and of the people of another nation; when there is a common will to do international justice rather than to despise the weaker country; when not selfish interest alone, but the greatest good of the greatest number, becomes the driving impulse of humanity; when the thrill of fraternity crosses geographical lines and pauses not on the shores of the seas—then war will be impossible, the energies of the world will turn to the constructive arts, and from the midst of contentment unshadowed by hunger, from prosperity unmenaced by want, in the peaceful spirit of the Christ, the world will sing:

"The crest and crowning of all good, life's final star is brotherhood; For it will bring again to Earth her long-lost Poesy and Mirth; Will send new light on every face, a kingly power upon the race. And till it come, we men are slaves, and travel downward to dust of graves. Come, clear the way, then, clear the way: blind creeds and kings have had their day. Break the dead branches from the path: our hope is in the aftermath. Our hope is in heroic men, star-led to build the world again. To this Event the ages ran: Make way for Brotherhood—make way for man."

All great reforms have begun with "star-led" men and have moved from individuals to groups and from groups to the nation. In every distinct advance of the race prophetic persons have anticipated the trend of the ages and have adopted new codes for themselves; the higher morality has spread by agitation to include a larger group, and finally it has become the policy of the nation. Thus slavery went, and political equality came.

And thus war must go and peace must come. First, we find protest against the killing of individuals by individuals. The duel fell into disrepute and at last was forbidden by law. The carrying of weapons became unfashionable and at length was made a crime. With the growth of the moral sense, mutual trust took the place of armed neutrality. The present situation is ready for the larger application of these principles. The argument which abolished the carrying of weapons must frown upon excessive national armaments. As the individual duel was superseded by personal arbitration, so the national duel must be superseded by national arbitration. The reason that maintains the civil court for the settlement of individuals' disputes calls for a higher court for the settlement of national disputes. Not alone among men, not alone within states, but among the nations, right, not might, must rule; not force, but justice; and written as the world's supreme mandate, as the highest human law from which there may be no appeal, must be the unshaken law of national righteousness.

Tennyson's words were accounted a poet's fancy when he wrote:

Till the war drum throbs no longer, and the battle-flags are furl'd In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world.

Yet the present year[1] will witness the fulfillment of that prophecy. Disarmament and arbitration will be considered this summer, not by agitators, not by theorists, nor yet prophetically by poets; but in June, at the invitation of our own President,[2] an actual international conference will assemble, a Parliament of the World, composed of official representatives of every nation of the globe. Thus we see the foregleams of an approaching day. The time is not far distant when war will glide into the grim shadows of a scarce-remembered past, when battles will pass into the oblivion of forgotten horrors. Then will society realize its dreams of a kingdom of heaven upon earth, where the barbaric lure of fighting will be lost; where no class lines may exist save those freely acknowledged by a common justice; where national egoism maintains no armies for conquest and no navies for aggrandizement; where economic resources are devoted, not to mutual physical destruction, but to splendid spiritual enlargement; where "every nation that shall lift again its hand against a brother, on its forehead will wear forevermore the curse of Cain"; and where, in the realization of a vast, racial brotherhood, is fulfilled the prophetic angel's song, "Peace on earth, good-will to men." Ruskin, the modern bard of peace, has sung:

Put off, put off your mail, ye kings, and beat your brands to dust— A surer grasp your hands must know, your hearts a better trust; Nay, bend aback the lance's point, and break the helmet bar— A noise is in the morning winds, but not the noise of war! Among the grassy mountain paths the glittering troops increase— They come, they come!—how fair their feet,—they come that publish peace.

[1] The Hague Conference of 1907 is referred to.

[2] By the courtesy of President Roosevelt the official call for the Second Hague Conference was issued by the Emperor of Russia. Forty-four nations were represented.—Editor.


By GLENN PORTER WISHARD, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois

First Prize Oration in the National Contest held at DePauw University, Greencastle, Indiana, May 15, 1908


Political and religious reforms move slowly. We change our beliefs and at the same time hold fast to old customs. Farsighted public opinion has declared war to be unchristian; sound statesmanship has stamped it as unjust; the march of events has, in a majority of cases, proved it to be unnecessary—and yet we continue to build mammoth engines of destruction as if war were inevitable. Truly, the millennium is not at hand, nor is war a thing of the past; but whereas war was once the rule, now it is the exception. This is an age of peace; controversies once decided by force are now settled by arbitration. Europe, once the scene of continuous bloodshed, has not been plundered by conquering armies for more than a generation, while the United States has enjoyed a century of peace marred by only five years of foreign war. The four notable conflicts of the last decade have been between great and small powers, and have been confined to the outposts of civilization; while during the same period more than one hundred disputes have been settled by peaceful means. The willingness to arbitrate has been manifest; the means have been provided; the Permanent International Court, established by the Hague Conference in 1899, actually lives, and has already adjudicated four important controversies.[1] But arbitration, you say, will never succeed because the decisions cannot be enforced. You forget that already some two hundred and fifty disputes have been settled by this method, and in not one instance has the losing power refused to abide by the decision.

[1] From October 14, 1902, the date of the first decision, up to the end of 1913, the Permanent Court has rendered thirteen decisions settling international differences.—Editor.

Yesterday the man who advocated universal peace was called a dreamer; to-day throughout the world organized public opinion demands the abolition of war. Yesterday we erected statues to those who died for their country; to-day we eulogize those who live for humanity. Yesterday we bowed our heads to the god of war; to-day we lift our hands to the Prince of Peace.

I do not mean to say that we have entered the Utopian age, for the present international situation is a peculiar one, since we are at the same time blessed with peace and cursed with militarism. This is not an age of war, yet we are burdened by great and ever-increasing armaments; the mad race for naval supremacy continues, while the relative strength of the powers remains practically the same; the intense and useless rivalry of the nations goes on until, according to the great Russian economist, Jean de Bloch, it means "slow destruction in time of peace by swift destruction in the event of war." In Europe to-day millions are being robbed of the necessaries of life, millions more are suffering the pangs of abject poverty in order to support this so-called "armed peace." Note the condition in our own country. Last year we expended on our army, navy, and pensions sixty-seven per cent of our total receipts. Think of it! In a time of profound peace more than two thirds of our entire expenditures are charged to the account of war.

We do not advocate radical, Utopian measures; we do not propose immediate disarmament; but we do maintain that when England, Germany, France, and the United States each appropriates from thirty to forty per cent of their total expenditures in preparation for war in an age of peace, the time has come for the unprejudiced consideration of the present international situation. Why do the great powers build so many battleships? President Roosevelt, Representative Hobson, and others would have us believe that England, Germany, and France are actually preparing for war, while the United States is building these engines of destruction for the purpose of securing peace. But what right have we to assume that our navy is for the purpose of preserving peace, while the navies of the European powers are for the purpose of making war? Is not such an assumption an insult to our neighbors? As a matter of fact, England builds new battleships because Germany does, Germany increases her navy because France does, while the United States builds new dreadnoughts because other nations pursue that policy. Call it by whatever honey-coated name you will, the fact, remains that it is military rivalry of the most barbarous type, a rivalry as useless as it is oppressive, a rivalry prompted by jealousy and distrust where there should be friendship and mutual confidence. There is riot one of the powers but that would welcome relief from the bondage of militarism; the demand for the limitation of armaments is almost universal. Believing that to decry war and praise peace without offering some plan by which the present situation may be changed is superficial, we hasten to propose something practicable.

How, then, shall we put an end to this useless rivalry of the nations? At present a general agreement of the great powers on the limitations of military establishments seems impossible. It remains for some powerful nation to prove to the world that the great armaments are not necessary to continued peace, with honor and justice. Some nation must take the first step.[2] Why not the United States? The nations of Europe are surrounded by powerful enemies, while the United States is three thousand miles from any conceivable foe. They are potentially weak, while our resources are unlimited. They have inherited imperialism; we have inherited democracy. Their society is permeated with militarism; ours is built on peace and liberty. Our strategic position is unequaled, our resources are unlimited, our foreign policy is peaceful, our patriotism is unconquerable. In view of these facts, I ask you, What nation has the greatest responsibility for peace? Are not we Americans the people chosen to lift the burden of militarism from off the backs of our downtrodden brother?

[2] The widely heralded proposal in 1913 for a naval holiday by all the great powers is the first move in this direction.—Editor.

Now what are we doing to meet this responsibility? On the one hand, we are performing a great work for peace. Many of our statesmen, business men, and laborers, united in a common cause, are exerting a tremendous influence in behalf of arbitration and disarmament. On the other hand, we are spending more on our military establishment than any other world power;[3] we are building more battleships than any other nation;[4] we are no longer trusting our neighbors; we are warning them to beware of our mailed fist; and we are thereby declaring to the world that we have lost our faith in the power of justice and are now trusting to the force of arms.

[3] The orator is comparing the cost of the United States army, navy, and pensions upkeep with the military establishments of other powers.—Editor.

[4] Since naval rivalry in its acute form has centered between Great Britain and Germany, European naval building programs have exceeded those of the United States.—Editor.

And why this paradoxical situation? Why do we at the same time prepare for war and work for peace? It is simply because many of our statesmen honestly believe that the best way to preserve peace is to prepare for war. It is true that a certain amount of strength tends to command respect, and for that reason a navy sufficient for self-defense is warranted. Such a navy we now have. Why should it be enlarged? Naval enthusiasts would have us prepare, not for the probable but for the possible. Seize every questionable act of our neighbors, they say, magnify it a thousand times, publish it in letters of flame throughout the land, and make every American citizen believe that the great powers are prepared to destroy us at any moment. Having educated the people up to a sense of threatened annihilation, they burden them with taxes, build artificial volcanoes dedicated to peace, parade them up and down the high seas, and defy the world to attack us. Then, they say, we shall have peace. Is this reasonable? As sure as thought leads to action, so preparation for war leads to war. This argument that the United States, since she is a peace-loving nation, should have the largest navy in the world in order to preserve peace is illogical and without foundation. By what divine right does the United States assume the role of preserving the world's peace at the cannon's mouth? Since when has it been true that might makes right, and that peace can be secured only by acting the part of a bully? It is unjust, it is unpatriotic, it is unstatesmanlike, for men to argue that the United States should browbeat the world into submission; that she should build so many battleships that the nations of the Eastern hemisphere will be afraid to oppose the ironclad dragon of the Western Hemisphere. Peace purchased at the price of brute force is unworthy of the name. Surely the United States cannot afford to be guilty of such an injustice. If we wish to be free; if we wish to remain a true republic; if we purpose to continue our mighty work for humanity, we must limit our preparations for war. The best way to preserve peace is to think peace, to believe in peace, and to work for peace.

The extent to which the great powers will go in order to secure enthusiasm for their military establishments is almost beyond comprehension. Each nation has its great military rendezvous, its grand naval parades, its magnificent display of gorgeous military uniforms, its wave of colors, blare of trumpets, and bursts of martial music. The United States is now sending her navy around the world—for the purpose of training the seamen?—certainly, but also that the youth of our land may be intoxicated by the apparent glory of it all, and thus enlist for service; that the American citizens may be aroused to greater enthusiasm by this magnificent display of the implements of legalized murder, and thus be willing to build more floating arsenals rather than irrigate arid lands, develop internal waterways, build hospitals, schools, and colleges.

The trouble with such exhibitions is, that it displays only the bright side of militarism. If in place of the Russian battleships they should display the starving masses of dejected and despised beings who pay for those battleships; if in place of the gay German uniforms they should exhibit the rags of the disheartened peasants who pay for those uniforms; if in place of the grand parade they should produce masses of wounded men and rivers of blood; if in place of the stirring martial music they should produce the writhing agonies and awful groans of dying men; if in place of sham war they should produce actual war,—their exhibitions would make militarism unbearable.

Again, we are told that we have suddenly become a world power, and that we must prepare to exercise a new diplomacy under new conditions. We must increase our navy, they say, to enforce this new diplomacy. We must prepare to fight in behalf of the Monroe Doctrine. But why, I ask, cannot this new diplomacy be enforced as American diplomacy has always been enforced? We promulgated the Monroe Doctrine without a navy; we have maintained it for over eighty years without the show of force. If our new diplomacy is right, it is as strong as the world's respect for righteousness; if it is wrong, a hundred battleships cannot enforce it.

We have become a world power, and therefore we have a world-wide responsibility, and that responsibility is to establish justice, not force; to build colleges, not battleships; to enthrone love, not hate; to insure peace, not war. Our mission is to strike the chains from the ankles of war-burdened humanity. Our duty is to proclaim in the name of the Most High our faith in the power of justice as opposed to the force of arms. May it be said of us that we found the world burdened with militarism, but left it blessed with peace; that we found liberty among the strong alone, but left it the birthright of the weak; that we found humanity a mass of struggling individuals, but left it a united brotherhood. May it be said of us that we found peace purchased by suffering, but left it as free as air; that we found peace bruised and stained with militarism, but left it ruling the world through love and liberty. May it be said of us that we fulfilled our mission as a world power; that we were brave enough and strong enough to lead the world into the path of universal peace.


By LEVI T. PENNINGTON, Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

First Prize Oration in the National Contest held at The University of Chicago, May 4, 1909


In the progress of the world the dream of yesterday becomes the confident hope of to-day and the realized fact of to-morrow. As old systems fail to meet new conditions and new ideals, they are discarded; and into the limbo of worse than useless things is passing the system of human sacrifice to the Moloch of international warfare. For centuries world peace has been the dream of the poet, the philanthropist, the statesman, and the Christian. That dream is becoming a confident hope. This generation should see it an accomplished fact.

There was a time when individual prowess determined the issue of every difference. Might made right, so it was thought, and the winner in any controversy was he who had the heaviest club, the strongest arm, or the thickest skull. Man's interrelationships multiplied as humanity advanced; with each new relation came new causes for quarrel, and for a time advancing civilization brought but increase in murders and assassinations.

We know the process by which personal combat ceased; how the duel replaced murder and ambush and assassination; how courts of law replaced the duel. The dreamer saw the day when personal combat should be no more; the man of mind refuted all the arguments in favor of the duel of men; the constructive statesman of that early day instituted courts of law and equity. Men who had a difference insisted that it was their quarrel and they alone could settle it; but reason saw that two combatants inflamed by passion are least fitted of all men to see where justice lies. Many held that where honor is involved, no one can adjust the difficulty but those most directly concerned; but reason saw that a man's honor cannot be vindicated by killing his enemy or being killed by him. Men said, "If personal combat is abolished, courage and strength will perish from the earth." But reason saw that personal combat in a selfish cause does not bring out the highest type of courage; and that there are opportunities enough for the exercise of the highest and best moral and physical courage to keep valor alive forever. It was finally urged that there would be no power to enforce the decree if personal differences were left to the adjudication of others; but reason said, "That power will come with the need for it." And so courts of law and equity arose, based on the need of humanity; laws were passed defining rights and limiting aggression; and when one man wronged another, that wrong was settled in court by the power of the whole people and not in personal combat with the bludgeon or the knife.

For similar reasons wars between states and tribes have ceased; and face to face with the inevitable logic of past progress stands the world to-day. Though humanity has been slow to see it, the truth has begun to dawn in the hearts of men—that international wars are no more to be justified than civil strife, tribal warfare, or personal combat. Gradually the omnipotent power of right is overcoming the inertia of humanity, and the world is moving. One by one the awful truths concerning war are forcing themselves upon the consciousness and the conscience of men. The mighty power of fact is beating down the opposition to world peace.

Men have begun to realize the terrible cost, the unbelievable wastefulness of actual war, and the preparation for possible war. When we read that the armed peace of Europe the past thirty-seven years has cost $111,000,000,000, nearly as much as the aggregate value of all the resources of the United States, the richest nation on earth, the figures are so appalling that mortal mind cannot conceive them, and they lose their force. When we remember that two thirds of the national revenues of the United States are spent on wars past or prospective, the matter comes closer home. When we realize that the cost of a single battleship exceeds the value of all the grounds and buildings of all the colleges and universities in Illinois, the figures have more meaning to us. And when we reflect that the cost of a single shot from one of the great guns of that battleship would build a home for an American family, a comfortable home costing $1700, the common man realizes that the richest nation on earth cannot afford to go to war nor prepare for war.

But mere money is one of the cheapest things in all the world. The price of war never can be paid in gold. Not in national treasuries can you see the payment of that price, where smug, well-groomed politicians sign bonds and bills of credit. If you would see the payment of that price of war, you must go to the place of war. With all your senses open, step upon the battlefield. Smell the smoke of burning powder, the reek of charging horses, the breath of fresh, red, human blood. Feel the warmth of that blood as you seek to stanch the wound in the breast of one of the world's bravest, dying for he knows not what. Hear the screams of the shells, the booming roar of the cannonade, the clash of the onslaught, the shrieks of the wounded, the groans of the dying, the last gasp of him whose life has reached its end. Such is the infernal music of war. See the victim of the conflict reel in the saddle and fall headlong. Cast your eyes on the mangled forms of godlike men, fallen in the midst of fullest life. Come in the night after the battle and look upon the ghastly faces upturned in the moonlight. Gaze on the windrows of the dead, Mars's awful harvest, that impoverishes all and enriches none, and you know something of the cost of war.

And yet we have seen but little. Could we but enter the wasted homes and see the broken hearts that war has made; could we go to the almshouses and soldiers' orphans' homes and see widows and children by the thousand suffering the doled-out charity of state or nation because war has robbed them of their rightful protectors; could we but realize the agony of the broken home, a thousandfold worse than the agony of the battlefield,—then might we know more of the real cost of war.

And still our idea would be inadequate, though we realized the full measure of every groan and heartache. Earth's most priceless treasures are still more intangible things, the treasures of justice and kindliness and love. In that higher realm the cost of war is most terrible and most deadly. The spirit of war in the soldier sets aside the moral law, makes human life seem valueless, human suffering a thing to be disregarded, human slaughter an honorable profession. The war spirit blinds the eye of the statesman, till wrong seems right, folly seems expediency, and the death of thousands seems preferable to the life and happiness of all under terms of peace not dictated by his own will. Justice is dethroned, and revenge takes up the iron scepter and lets fly the thunderbolt. The war spirit perverts the mind of the publicist, till the achievements of honorable peace sink into insignificance, and the press clamors for the war that means money to the publisher but death to innocent thousands who can have no possible interest in the conflict. The war spirit takes possession of the pulpit, and the minister called to preach the loving message of the Prince of Peace stirs up the spirit of contention and animosity, of hate and murder. Could we but draw aside the curtain and, back of the tinsel and gold braid, see the crime, the hate, the moral degradation that war always brings, never again would a friend of humanity ask for war.

But the eyes of the world are opening to the fact that the cost of war is far too high in money and in men, in suffering and sacrifice, and in those higher values of justice and kindliness and love. And as the thought once grew that personal differences might be settled without personal combat, so men are looking toward the settlement of international difficulties without recourse to the sword. They have seen that every argument against the duel of men applies with still greater force against the duel of nations. And the world has moved farther toward world peace in the past twenty-five years than in all the centuries of history that have preceded. World peace has become not the dream of the poet but the confident hope of the world, whose realization is the task whose accomplishment is set for the men of this generation.

One by one the obstacles to world peace are being broken down. Commerce has destroyed much of international prejudice. Community of interest has obviated many former causes of quarrel. The sophistical arguments of the friends of war are being answered by the logic of hard facts. Warfare has been ameliorated by international agreement. Vast reaches of territory have been neutralized. Unfortified cities are no longer to be bombarded in any country. Actual disarmament has taken place between the United States and Canada, between Chile and Argentina.[1] Norway and Sweden have separated peaceably. Bulgaria has achieved her independence without bloodshed. The Dogger Bank incident, which a century earlier would have plunged England and Russia into war, has been adjusted amicably. Two Hague Conferences have advanced tremendously the progress of international amity. Over eighty arbitration treaties are now in force. We already have a permanent high court of nations, to which are being referred questions that would once have resulted in war. And we are nearer than the dreamer of last century dared hope to "the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world."

[1] The famous "disarmament" between the Argentine Republic and Chile was brought about by a series of four documents of May 28, 1902, one of July 10, 1902, and one of January 9, 1903. A preliminary protocol declares the disposition of both countries "to remove all causes for trouble in their international relations." A general treaty of arbitration unlimited in scope was signed for a period of ten years. A convention bound each country to "desist from acquiring the vessels of war now building for them, and from henceforth making new acquisitions." Article II says that "the two governments bind themselves not to increase their naval armaments during a period of five years, without previous notice." As a result of arbitration resulting from this series of agreements the frontier was disarmed and remains free from military posts. New naval programs of both countries were formulated after the expiration of the period of abnegation, and dreadnoughts are now in course of construction.—Editor.

But not yet has the millennium dawned. In the face of all this progress, armies and navies are stronger and more burdensome than ever. The United States spends more on wars past and prospective than for all educational purposes, and England, France, Germany, Russia, groan under the burdens of the armed peace of Europe. Armed to the teeth, the nations of the world lie watching one another. The mind of the world is convinced that war is futile and terribly wasteful. The heart of the world is convinced that war is cruel and inexcusable. The conscience of the world has admitted that war is wrong and morally unjustifiable. And still the preparation for war goes on, and unless conditions are changed, war is inevitable. What is to be done? The world's will must be moved, and men must be led to do what they have already admitted is right and just and expedient.

As we have led in other days, so must America lead to-day. As the light of republican government and complete justice to the individual first saw full dawn in the United States, so the eyes of the world are turned toward us to see the dawn of world peace, and full justice to all the nations. It is ours to lead. The example of the United States will do more than a century of argument and conference. America should begin the disarmament that will eventually mean the triumph of world peace.

We have naught to fear. We are far distant from the storm centers of the world. We have no foes within that demand a large standing army, and there are no enemies without that are anxious to try conclusions with us on land or sea. Then away with war talk and war scares and "jingoism." In time of peace let us prepare for peace, that all the world may enjoy peace. American disarmament will be a tremendous stride toward the accomplishment of the world's desire—the cessation of international warfare; a great world's court, to settle all international differences; an international police force, to give effect to the decrees of this court; and the end of the burdens of armies and navies under which the whole world is groaning. Let heart and voice and pen, pulpit and press and platform, soldier and statesmen and private citizen, ask for peace, and not for war.

This is a part of the world's larger hope. Pessimists there are who say that human nature is belligerent, and that war will never be abolished. But international warfare has already seen the handwriting on the wall. Mars has been weighed in the balances and found wanting. The fruitless slaughter of the millions is not to be forever nor for long. Let us hasten the day when the rolling war drum will be hushed forever, the bugle note no longer call to carnage; when "nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Love shall take the place of Hate, and Justice sit on the throne instead of Greed. Some day in the not distant future the nations that have all these centuries bowed before the god of war shall own eternal allegiance to the Prince of Peace. And "of the increase of His government and of Peace there shall be no end."


By ARTHUR FORAKER YOUNG, Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio

First Prize Oration in the National Contest held at the University of Michigan, May 13, 1910


In the worship of Mars, Herodotus tells us, the ancient Scythian erected an old scimitar at the summit of a huge brush heap. To this, as a symbol of the great god of war, he offered not only the produce of the land but also human life in sacrifice. We shudder as we picture the priest standing over his victim, his hands wet with the blood of his fellow man. We cry out in horror as we think of the lives these peoples sacrificed. We call it an inhuman glorification of a pagan deity. We call it a ruthless waste of wealth and human life. These practices we pronounce to be the result of a popular delusion—a false sense of obligation to the spirit of war. Yet from the time the Scythian drew the blood of his victim in homage to the great war god, even down to our own day, the nations have paid homage to Mars.

Though we boast of our progress in civilization, history reveals the fact that we, too, have been the victims of the Scythian's delusion. Is it not a fact that one of the most terrible customs of savage men counts among its followers to-day all the nations of the earth? The subtlest skill of the scientist, the keenest intelligence of the statesman, vast stores of the world's resources, are devoted to maintaining great armies and navies, to inventing new means of attack or defense, to enlarging and making more deadly the enginery of war. What is our boast of civilization, while we tolerate this devotion of so many men and so much of wealth to war? Is this not a sacrifice essentially pagan in spirit? Are we not still paying unrighteous homage to Mars?

Why, then, we ask, do nations make provision for war the first necessity of national life? Behold Russia. A few years ago, in time of famine, spending millions of money for war equipment when millions of her own peasantry were slowly starving for the lack of one dollar's worth of food per month. What motive impelled Russia to this heathen conduct? It was solely that Germany, France, England, Japan, and the United States had great armies and navies against which starving Russia must be prepared to defend herself. What dire stress compels England to-day to perpetuate her program of naval supremacy when she is struggling in the throes of budget difficulties which seem all but unsolvable? What is it that compels Germany and France to tax themselves until they fairly stagger under the burden of military expenditures? Naught other than a suicidal lust for military power. Naught other than the infatuation of the dizzy, competitive war dance of mutual destruction—each nation blindly driven by all, and all by each.

We as Americans profess to find in the conduct of Russia, in the militarism of England and Germany and France, examples of militarism run rampant. How our hearts have warmed within us when we have thought of our own republic as the happy envied nation, free from the burden of militarism! Our farmer has gone singing about his work, apparently not having to carry on his back a soldier, as does the European peasant. Our mechanic has freely plied his trade without thought of supporting a sailor. Yet how can we say that the United States in buying battleships and erecting coast defenses, in arming her soldiers with Krag-Joergensens, has not been deprived of schools, colleges, and opportunities essential to happiness and prosperity? In a decade we have spent nearly a billion dollars on our navy alone. Yes, we have aped the military fashions of Europe and have set a new standard of military waste.

1  2  3     Next Part
Home - Random Browse