Newspaper Page Text
: i
The Maintenance of Peace
V. L. Nash, Infai
The following address was de
livered before the Woodrow Wil
son Chapter «>f the Service Star
Legion and at their request is
beinp published.
THE MAINTENANCE OF PEACE
(By Lieut. V. L. Nash, D. O. L.) .
The subject of my talk is The
Maintenance of Pence. The first I
point I wish to bring out is that I do i
not use this expression synonym
ous with the coming of the Millenium. ^
1 u e it in .-in entirely different l
sens** as will presently appear.
The second proposition that I wish j
oldish
thei
Kinds
the
political
j.;, m all countries of unstable q
.•rr.m nt is that the might of the (i
minority does make right. In aU a
such countries great political que?- 1
tions are settled directly by the us.- 1*
of arms, as for instance in Mexico, j A
The fundamental principle of go
errim nt in Anglo-Saxon countries
that the might of the majority makes ti
right. (We all subscribe to this doc- A
trine an assert it every time that we a
go to the ballot-box. It is amusing j*
to hear men whose happiness, peace, u
and contentment in life rest upon, e,
the sacredness of the rights of mn-. h:
jorities madly exclaiming against the • h
idea that might makes right. Whit t
they really mean to condemn is th:
idea that the might of the minority
makes right. If they would be a lit-
on was settled by force when
r Cleveland stamped his foot
erved an ultimatum on Great
that she
lettle the
is! thr.
ake this distinctioi
ithin the British Empire, and
ordir
think of them. The intematio
war.-' take place between states or
ions. The World War. the Rui
Japanese War, the Spanish-Amerir
the Mexican War of 1846. and th** assert, in its most odious form, the
War of 1812 were of this type, principle that the might of the min-
St range a* it may appear today after ority make* right,
the events of the World War, more . |n the United States, as I have said
blood and treasure nre spent in Civil before, we have in the ballot a mor-
Wars. in every epoch of history than a l equivalent of war for the aettlc-
.dary question by arbitration,
ration was : reed upon Great
:iin by what amounted to a
it of War. To say that arbitra-
n averted War is very misleading,
great advocate of international
per men about two years ago
ether arbitration had ever prevent-
war and he had to admit that it,
• not yet done so; but he still had J
>■< that it might do so ut some I
«• in .he future.
it is well to note at this point.!
t both legal and political ques- *
ns arise between nations as they;
>re careful in their use of iang- i, ( ,th arise within national boundan* ■
av would all agree with them. I purely legal questions are never
r,* are always in every country r< . a l cau *» D f War, tho, of cour.-t*.'
isive minority parties which can they may be put forward as .a [>r - j
expect to secure a majority ofj text to cover political question.-'
the polls and which ;*lace j which are the real causes of war. j
• legal question between nn-'
may be and arc, settled by j
Likewise ex’ ensivc conquests wf
Alexander the Great were made
po^iblc by the fact that his father,
Philip of Macedon, conquered Athens
and destroyed her sea power. The
conclusion which I wish to bring out
by these ancient examples is that the
liberties of the free nations can
really be in danger only when the
strongest military power in the
world becomes also the strongest
naval power. If Carthage had been
the strongest military p-jwer in the
days when she was the strongest
naval power, she would have con
quered the ancient world, as Rome
conquered it. It is believed
that if Hannibal had had command
of the sea, he would have conquered
Rome and subjugated the other inde
pendent nation* of the Mediterranean
World.
The first objective in a war be
tween two nations separated the
sea; for the side that obtains such
coalitions i- to gain control of the
sea: for hte fide that obtains such
control secures immunity from invas
ion from its sea fronts and, at the
pow
ivade the
the dire<
rily | force. Russia has fallen into the
nal hai ' of such a party. The I. W. W.,
nn- the Rolisheviki, the militant Socialist
iso- and all who attempt to bring about
■an. political action by the general strike
crnatinnal
ed the World War. our
and our ]os- of life in
to the cost of money
.ur civil war. All of the
*mmended to abolish and
•d conflict refer only to
nal i
No
•-all
wars, except of c<»urs *, goad gave
ment. but it often fails. I wot
like to nil your attention to l
fart that the preamble of the con!
tution of the United States make
very clear distinction of the duty
the i
oral
the
ter of civil and international war-.
"We, the people of the United
States," says the preamble, “in order
to form a more perfect union, estab
lish justice, insure domestic tran
quility. provide for the common de
fense. promote the general welfare,
and secure the blessing of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity do ordain
and establish this constitution for the
United State* of America."
I have decided to talk to you up
on the maintenance of international
pence rather than the maintenance of
domestic peace; bu‘. much light may
He thrown upon the international
peace problem by a study of the prin
ciples involved in the maintenance of
domestic pence. Darwin found that
he could explain many of the pheno
mena of naturtl selection as Nature
applies it to wild species by man’s se
lection as applied to domestic species.
In the same way we may learn the
basic principles of the maintenance
of international peace by n study of
our problems of domestic peace. If
would like to point out right here,
that if international wars should ever
he eliminated by the establishment
of a -ingle government over nil the
races of mankind, the problem of
domestic peace would still remain;
and we would undoubtedly find that
the maintenance of domestic peace
throughout the world would be a
much more difficult question thnn
our present mixed problem of main
taining domestic peace it home and
international peace with our warlike
neighbors. The romans found this to
he true when they established a single
government over all the civilized
races of antiquity.
The point which I wish to estab
lish is that political questions within
states and between states are settled
by war or by .a inoral equivalent of
war. In all well governed countries
the ballot is now the moral equival
ent of war. We settle domestic poli
tical questions by means of votes.
From the decision of the ballot there
is only one appeal and that is to the
bullet. In his first inaugural ad
dress Thomas Jefferson laid down as
one of the otttonti.il principles of our
govern ment—‘ ‘absolute acquiescence
in the decisions of the majority, the
vital principle of republics, from
which there is no appeal but to force,
the vital principle and immediate par-
despotism." The might
ijori
*of justice can reverse the decision
of the ballot box. Courts may be
called upon to render the decisions in
the process of counting the ballots;
but when the decision of the majority
is once determined, no court can set
It aside.
To do so at the behest of a milit
ant minority would be to acqukae in
the dictum that the might of minori
ty makes right. The accepted princi-
men' of domestic political qustions;
and th- uhc of force comes in only
to prevent extreme radicals from im
posing their will upon the nation. We
rdhere to the principle that the might
of the majority makc.s right. (I wish
to point out here that our primary
duty a- soldiers of the greatest re
public of al ltimes is to uphold the
decisions of the ballot-box.)
The fourth point which I wish to
bring out is that our courts can never
settle u political question. The Su
preme Court of the United States'
from the time of Chief Justice Mar
shall has said over and over again
that political questions can no’ be
settled by that court; and has point
ed out the fact that political ques
tions are nettled by the President and
Congress. We must, however, make
a sharp distinction between political
and legal questions. Our courts
settle legal questions, they interpret
and apply the laws; they do not nuke
the laws. The making of the laws
is always a political question. The
framers of the constitution took par
ticular pains to confer the power of
settling political questions upon the
Congress and the President of the
U. S. who are, directly or indirectly,
elected by the votes »f the people.
The framers were particularly anx
ious that political questions should
not arise between the states of the
Union; and such questions ordinurily
do not arise between the states. When
they do as in 1861'. the Supreme
Court has no remedy. The disputes
between the States which arc settled
by the Supreme Court inv« Ive pure
ly legal questions; and these are
easily decided by the court.
The fifth point which I wish to
establish is thit there is no simple
moral equivalent of war for the
) settlement of political questions be
tween states. Man has been search-
j ing for this thing throughout historic
j times, ami undoubtedly far hack in
j pre-history. The relations of nations
not actually in a state of war are
courts, sometimes by the
one nation and sometimes by the
courts of another and some times by
arbitration. They are the so-called
justiciable questions which we have
heard so much about. They are
constantly arising and constantly be
ing settled without the* general pub
lic in most cases ever being aware
of the fact.
But no court can settle a political
question which may arise between
two nations any more than our Su
preme Court can settle political ques-
tions which may arise between states
of the American Union. There is a
fixed unwillingness in the minds of
nu n against settling political ques
tions by judicial decisions. You do
not do it here in Georgia. You
never will do it. If your Supreme
Court settled the political questions
which arise within the state of Geor
gia, the judge# would become the
Georgia wiuld cease to have u re-
autocratic rulers of the state; and
publican form of government. Why
then, should we expect to be able to
settle the groat political questions
which arise between nations by a
means which we utterly reject for
the settlement of domestic political
We have seen that political ques
tions are the causes of international
wars. There is, as a matter of fact,
only one species of political questions
which brings on international wars.
The pretexts are many and belong to
many species: hut the causes are
few and belong to a single species.
The real causes of the international
wars of history have been th • desire
of conquests on one hand and the fear
of it on the other. I use the term
conquest in a very wide sense. In
1914 Germany and Austria went to
war to conquer a privileged posi
tion in the world. The nations which
rallied against them were prompted
for the most by the fear an aggrar.diz
ed Germany laying down laws for
the guidance of subject world. How
futile arbitration .bowed itself to be
in the presence of Germany
nation to overrun and conquer her
neighbors.
Up to this point I have been talk
ing to you about the political rela
tions of nations and I have tried t
establish the fact that political que*
tions between nation*-are settled by
form.
regulated by diplomacy; but diplo- [ discuss this interplay of f.
ly from the military and n
macy as we all kn
To tho*v who may regard this as a
horrid admission, I would call atten
tion to the fact that political ques
tions within national boundaries arc
settled by force, namely, by majority
In Anglo-Suxon countries we first
try to set lc political questions by the
ballot box. Force coincs into evi
dence and play, only in case that the
minority refuses to abide by the de
cision of the ballot-box. But in many
countries political questions are settl
ed by u direct appeal to arms. What
I want to bring out is this—that
while the machinery for settling
political questions between nations
is (Hfcrent from that use *.o settle
domestic political questions, both
rest upon the same basic foundation,
namely, force.
But someone will say: How about
arbitration? Cannot arbitration
settle In’e^nationul Political qiaes-
ti prevent wars? T
The question has been asked
since remote antiquity and the answ
er has always been NO. But some
will say; was not Cue danger of War
with Great Britain in Venezuela
averted by arbitartion? NO, is the
answer. The question between Great
Britain and the United States was
this; shall the boundary between
British Guiana and Venezuela be
settled by arbitration? The main
of ^
I desire to introduce this phase of
the subject by asking and trying
answer a question. The question
this: Why ha* not the modem world
fallen under the domination
single nation, as the ancient
came under the rule of the
Republic? The answer to this ques
tion will explain the real rca-on
sent two millions of'men to Fra
to fight again*: a country that
had always admired and consider?*
a good friend, and why we will, if
similar condition arise in the future,
do the same thing over and over
again. To answer the question I will
say that the modern world owes its
liberties to the fact that the strong
est military power has never been,
nt the same time, the strongest naval
power; or, putting it in the other
way, that the strongest naval power
has never been the strongest military
The ancient world fell under the
dominion of the Roman Republic
within sixty years after Rome, the
strongest military power in the world,
secured command of the sea. If
Carthage had been able to defeat the
Romans at sea, as England had been
able to defeat the Spanish. French,
and Germans in modem times, Rome
would have never been able to make
her world wide conquest*.
enemy's territory, and opens for it
self and closes to the enemy the re
sources of the neutral world. He that
hath command of the sea fights with
the weight of the terrestial universe
behind him. When Rome bt-ame
th dominant naval power in the
Mediterranean she could .-olat" 'cr
weaker enemies, prevent them .*m
assisting one .another and conquer
them separately by means of her in
vincible army, which was superior as
a fighting force, to any other army
he Mediterranean world. If
Germany had defeated the British
fleet ut Jutland, she would noon havj
made a victorious peace. She would
have conquered and overrun all the
nations of Europe and Asiu, sparing
only those that became her subservi
ent allies; and the United States
would have stood opposed to Europe
and Asia united under the nation that
went to war for world empire. It
goes without saying that we would
have been at war with Germany be
fore she had completed her European
and Asiatic conquests; that we would
not have made peace with her. It is
believed that we would soon have had
the largest navy in the world and
that we would have occupied the same
position with regard :«> overgrown
Germany that England occupied with
regard to overgrown France from
1793 to 1815, or that Athens occupi
ed with regard to Persia for more
than a century after Salamis. The
United States can never stand placid
ly by and watch the strongest mili
tary power in Europe, become also
the strongest naval power. This was
threatened in 1916 and 1917 and was
the real cause of our entry into the
world war. Mr. Wilson and the con
gress of the United States understood
this point in 1916 and hence our
greatest naval program of that year,
most people think that we went to
war with Germany on account of the
submarine horrors. I want to tell
you that we went to war for a deep
er reason. We went to war because
our people sensed the danger that
would eome to us if Germany hecame
the dominant military and naval pow
er in Europe.
Some of you may ask what would
the effect be if the airplane becomes
as effective against ship* as the ad
vocates would load us to believe.
Granting that the airplane can van
quish ‘.he battleship, the sea will be
controlled by the air ship instead of
the water ship, and what I have said
in regard to the control of the sea
will Mtill remain true in its essential
detail*
This brings us up squarely to a
question of political geography. As
a nation we profess defense as oui
military policy in time of peace. I do
not mean to discuss the merits of this
policy*. I think we will all agree that
our non-aggressive attitude toward*
our felow-nations is part and parcel
of the highest wisdom. But when we
talk of defense do we ever ask our
selves the question: From whence
may danger come? Do we feel attack
from Canada, or Mexico or South
America, or Africa? Certainly we do
not. Danger may come to us from
two possible sources from Europe and
Eastern Aria. One lies across the
Atlantic nn*l the other aersos htc
Pacific. If any power threatens to
unite the teeming and warlike mil
lions of Europe under and efficient
and aggressive government, we sit up
and take notice. Presently we go to
war and we astonish the world by our
earnestness, by the seriousness of our
mental .attitude by the magnitude of
our preparations, and by our aptitude
for making war when it comes to the
pinch. Nevertheless w e profess in
difference to European affairs as our
settled policy. On the other hand we i
frankly admit that we are not indiff
erent to the possibilities of political
combinations in Asia which may be
dangerous to us. We have a settled
policy towards eastern Asia. We
call it the open door policy. It is
political in character, tho couched
in the language of commerce. Why
(CoatiaMd oa Ml* plovaa)
i wc arc 72 houxs old give us
How Many Will You Save? |
I F your itcwly-nrrivcd chicks could talk they would say:
“Do ml feed us until wc arc 72 hours old. We are
supplied wiCi lbv*d during this period by the remaining
part of the egg yolks which wc absorbed into our bodies just
before wc were hatched. When v
a feed which w : !l pro
vide life end growth
vitgw.irr.” Vhrre r.re
1592 hatcherier. which
cay, “Feed Purina.**
They know -.. hat it
takes to keep chicks
dive and grow ing. A
new shipment of Start-
cnalshcrc. Tcli us how
many bags you want.
L. D. SMITH
South Wayne Grocer
"VVouldYou
buy the same make
of car Again ?
87tS. % of Buick owners (prac
tically nine out of every ten)
answer “yes”—a greater degree
of owner loyalty than any other
leading make of car can claim.
Owners know car value! Drive a
Duick and experience the fullest
measure of motor car satisfaction
BUICK
EDANS $1195 to $1995 ' COUPES $1195 to $1830
SPORT MODELS $1195 to $1525
B prices /. •. b.nmt^Mick.,^Mtsmemt Un to M aAfcrf. Tim GM-A.C.
RALPH SIMMERSON
MILLEDGEVILLE. GEORGIA.
hdren
Cry for
MOTHER:- Fletcher'sCas-
toria is a pleasant, harmless
Substitute for Castor Oil, Pare-
® or * c » Teething Drops and Soothing Syrups, especially prepared
for Infants in arms and Children all ages.
Toawjid imitation*, ahrajrt look for the aignatm*of