M

America and the Conference

R. HUGHES has described himself, as Secretary of State, as a lawyer who is doing his best for his client. The client is the United States. It follows, then, that the call to the powers to join in the impending conference at Washington is Mr. Hughes's lawyerlike mind presenting a bill of particulars of what the American people want. His incisive analysis of their case is, that they want "limitation of armaments and a solution of the Pacific and. Far Eastern problems." The coördinate conjunction "and" is the most significant word in the quotation. The American people want both things, because they know that they cannot have the first without the second. Patrick Henry thundered against those who "cry peace, peace, when there is no peace." Americans are quite aware that the present conditions in Asia are rank with the seeds of war. And American common sense to-day quietly rejects the idea of throwing away weapons until the causes of war are removed. But American common sense also demands that our delegates be statesmen enough to remove those seeds of war, not only that armaments may be reduced but so that we need not fight in the Pacific in this generation.

How Much Do We Love Peace?

HE American attitude toward war has been so frequently misunderstood that it seems worth while to attempt a definition of it, both that we ourselves may more clearly see our way through the Washington Conference and that our visitors may not waste time by proceeding upon a mistaken idea of our psychology.

American history suggests that the American people have no ineradicable aversion to war. The list of our belligerencies is fairly long: the French and Indian wars, the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, and the World War. Since we first undertook to be an independent nation, about one tenth of our time and nine tenths of our national expenditure have been spent in waging war.

It is the habit of our orators, statesmen.and others, to reiterate that we are a peaceloving people, but the "militaristic" French with the Napoleonic wars, the Crimean War, the war of Italian independence, 1870, and 1914

have done little if any more fighting in 150 years than have we, and we are happily situated from three to six thousand miles from the chief centres of warlike infection. Are we then peace-loving? Unquestionably we are, but likewise, much like other peoples, quite easily led into war. That is the reason that it is necessary for us as well as other people to make such arrangements as we can and put such restraints upon ourselves as seem wise in order to prevent justifiable causes for our belligerency from arising. Every American citizen may prayerfully hope that our representatives at the coming conference will face their task with skill, foresight, and that generosity that breeds friends, and the full understanding that wise leadership will be more fruitful of peace than a dependence on our peace-loving characteristics.

T

How Much Do We Hate War?

HE American people hate war far less. than they love peace. Hate is hardly the word, for hate implies fear of the thing hated. It is more correct to say that we detest war. It offends our practical sense. There are so many less violent ways of getting results. We have often reluctantly realized that nothing but a club would make the stupid 'other fellow" see the light of reason and then we have forthrightly used a club, but always with an exasperated feeling that he ought to have had more sense.

We detest war because, except as a weapon to defend peace, it is the weapon of bullies. And American literature, which accurately reflects American feeling, is full of stories whose chief point is the discomfiture of a bully by some quiet fellow who put up with his noise and arrogance for a while and then suddenly landed the decisive blow that restored peace and comfort to the scene. Our whole "Wild West" literature, so enormously popular, is based on this feeling. Nine out of ten of these stories end with the death of the "bad man" or the "gun fighter" at the hands of some determined citizen who is bound to have peace if he has to kill somebody to get it.

It is significant, too, of American psychology, that whereas the citizen of this country who carries a weapon on his person to his place of business is considered silly, the man who does not keep one in his home is pretty generally considered careless. This attitude about expresses the American psychology re

garding armament. The nation that tries to do business with the help of fire-arms has badly mistaken ideas about business and also about the character of its neighbors. But the nation that has a proper affection for its home is welcome to keep as much of an arsenal as it needs to defend it. And if America feels that it needs the biggest gun in the world for that purpose, it will have no hesitation about buying it and keeping it ready and using it. The question is, do we need the biggest gun?

The first suggestion that America have the biggest navy in the world came from President Wilson in 1916. It was a logical threat against Great Britain to make her accept his freedom of the seas doctrine. That doctrine has since disappeared, but the plea for the greatest navy remains. It is, of course, our right to build a navy as large as we can afford, which is larger than any other nation can afford. Whether we need it to defend ourselves is questionable. Our 1916 programme set the pace for naval rivalry after the war. It is fitting, therefore, that we should call the conference to limit naval competition. As we are the least vulnerable from a naval point of view, and by far the most self contained and powerful of the three naval powers, we ought to be able to excel them in trustfulness and generosity at the coming conference.

The World's Work's Twentieth

W

Anniversary

ITH this issue, the WORLD'S WORK enters upon its twenty-first year of publication. It may be serviceable, as the magazine enters its third decade, to review briefly, not the history of its past, but the principles upon which it has been edited.

The WORLD'S WORK was founded by the late Walter H. Page, and until he left his desk to become America's Ambassador at the Court of St. James's, the magazine reflected his personality. It expressed primarily his profound belief in democracy. That word was oftenest on his lips and always in his thoughts. He believed that the world was intended for the welfare of all the people in it, and he strove mightily with tongue and pen to encourage every man and to forward every cause that was working toward the betterment of human life, and especially toward the extension of the

fruits of human progress to the greatest possible number of people. Education was a passion with him-it meant the opening of the gates of opportunity to an ever widening circle of men. Improved agriculture, good roads, better sanitation, public health-he worked for these because they made more people happy. He fought for good government-and to him good government meant government that enlisted the most people in its activities and that considered the greatest good of the greatest number.

He fought for things-rarely against things. Positive programmes, concrete achievements, forward-looking enterprises, hopeful signs of progress, were phrases that flowed from his pen because they reflected his own buoyant faith and energetic practice.

Since he left the WORLD'S WORK the events which determine the progress of democracy have been deeply colored by the World War. More attention has been focussed upon foreign affairs, more upon American politics and American economics as they have reacted to the pressure of changed conditions. But the essential ideal of the magazine remains what it was from the beginning an interpretation (not merely a record) of events that are shaping the progress of America, and an advocacy of those men and measures that are working for democracy.

F

The Foreign Born

IGURES recently compiled from the census of 1920 give 13,700,000 as the number of foreign born white residents of the United States. In view of the discovery that the melting pot does not really fuse our alien elements into the parent American stock, the detailed figures of the foreign born are worthy of thoughtful study. It will perhaps surprise most people to realize that the largest stream of immigration to this country still flows from the British Empire. Nearly onefourth of the foreign born are of British birth, Ireland leading with 1,000,000, followed by England and Canada with 800,000 each; the whole British contribution being approximately 3 millions.

The next largest body of foreign born are Germans, numbering 1,680,000. There are almost as many Italians, 1,607,000; and almost as many Russians (1,398,000) and Poles (1,139,000).