Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

: 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