League of Powers Proper Solution.

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

In considering the organization of a system for establishing and maintaining world peace, we must refrain from over idealization; although we look to an ideal to which our proposed system aims to attain, our principal attention must be focused on the factors to be considered at the birth and during the infancy of our system.

It is generally admitted that the most nearly practical method of establishing and maintaining world peace in the present era would consist of the organization of a league to enforce peace-a league somewhat similar to the Holy Alliance of the 19th century, although it must be broader in scope and must not have its principles laid down by a Metternich. It is to be hoped that gradual disarmament would result from the continued life of this league, but it is obvious that the mere establishment of the system would by no means bring about immediate disarmament. Unappeased national distrust and jealousies would prevent it; and, in addition, the enforcing (or guaranteeing) of peace implies and necessitates the use of armed force against insurgent members of the league. At its inception, the league would necessarily consist of an association of armed nations. Each nation would enjoy an equal status with every other nation, but upon each would fall the duty of being liable to furnish an equal armed force, in proportion to its size and potential power, in case of necessity in upholding the principles of the league.

America is considering the proposal of an international league to be organized at the close of the great war; let us assume, for a moment, that America has decided to make this proposal. Will her proposal bear more weight with foreign powers because she is militarily weak? Foreign diplomats will construe our proposal as follows: "We do not want to fight, and besides, we are weak; let us have perpetual peace." And their construction will be correct, for although Mr. Wilson may desire world peace for its own sake, the American people, if it proposes world peace, will do so for the sake of American safety and American interests. It is not likely that America's proposal will be accepted if she says, in effect: "We propose a world league to enforce peace, every member of which pledges itself to forcibly prevent or punch any breach of the world's peace-but we ourselves cannot promise to furnish a first-class military organization on less than two years' notice." President Wilson's "peace between equals" is a proposal of peace based on equal rights; but equal rights, in the world today, require equal duties. In the establishment of a world league, the principle of "manhood suffrage, manhood service" must be applied to nations.

The question of universal military service is now before the nation; and with it the question whether the inauguration of universal service in America at this time will hinder the proposed movement toward world peace. Foreign nations would far more readily accept the American proposal if it were offered by a nation avowedly strong than if it were offered by a weak nation craving refuge from the fear of threatened war. Opponents of universal service may claim that America derives sufficient power from her voluntary system, but this claim would bear her little weight with foreign powers, the more important of which have discarded voluntary service as inefficient and unsuccessful. By adopting universal service we can not only add weight to a proposal of world peace if we decide to make one, but can also do our part toward insuring the maintenance of a peace league if it is established. A large and wealthy but weak nation in a league of that sort would endanger the existence of the system by its very appearance of impotence. The military strength of the United States, derived from universal service, would not weaken the movement toward world peace: nay, it would rather strengthen it by mending the weakness of an important link in the chain; and, in addition, the prestige which the United States would enjoy as a result of its power might be sorely needed to prevent the proposed world league from following the principles of the reactionary Holy Alliance.

The necessity for at least withholding from universal services until after the reorganization of Europe has been urged. How much better to adopt it now, while there may yet be time to take our place as equals of the other powers in that phase of national life which they most respect; so that when the reorganization of Europe does occur, the American people may, if it chooses, take an influential part in the establishment of world peace. The sincerity of America would seem far less real if it increased its military power to first-class standing after the organization of a world league, than if it were to do so now, when the less theoretical argument of the possible necessity of defence is more reasonable, in the eyes of foreign nations, than that of a possible entrance into world politics