New-York tribune., 1907-06-28
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
FEASIBLE DISARMAMENT.
Limit the Purposes for Which
armed Forces May Be Used.
= the Editor Of The Tribune.

To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: The Hague conference hesitates to discuss
the limitation of ornaments. That question
however, is and has been subject of discussion
by thoughtful men for years, in diplomatic in
terviews, in national cabinets. in public meet
ings and conferences and in the public press
This widespread and unofficial discussion has
not been useless. 1t seems to have led at least
to a logical and practical conclusion. That is,
that no method of numerical reduction can at
present be devised. The needs of governments
are as widely different as their characters and
conditions No rule of percentage proportion
can be found that would be equally applicable
to all.
What then? Are we to give up the limitation
of armaments as a mere "irdescent dream of
oversanguine peacemakers? Not at all. There
is a way that is feasible 1t is 10 limit not the
numbers of a nations army but the purposes
for which that army may be used. That plan
is entirely compatible with our present system
Of international law. 1t needs no new dspensa-
ton. In fact, il has already begun IN practice
Any two or more nations may agree, as some
have already agreed, that for a period Of three
to five years they will not use their troops to
invade one another. At the expiration of that
term. If the agreement has proved satisfactory
It can be renewed for long as they please
Each is thus assured against invasion by the
neighbor most dreaded The powers Of Europe
maintain great armies to defend themselves
could feel safe against invasion by France or
Germany, If France and Germany could feel
safe against invasion by each other. reduction
of their armaments would be easy. Modern
statesmen are finding this out Hence their
dual alliances. triple alliances. Anglo French al
liances and the like Though these are called
alliances" they are not alliances for military
enterprise. but merely for mutual protection
peace and safety. If all the powers represented
at The Hague should Join in such n treaty or
oil or5 fba buS Of cyDc
the map Of Europe" Every European house,
hold could sleep without fear of the invader
and every commercial enterprise could go on
without interruption. Yet there would be no
impairment OF any nations honor indepen
dence. Each would be free to keep up just what
armament ii chose to have, and to use II in
maintaining public order, in defence against
insuTrection, in protection of foreign colonies
and dependencies, and even for foreign expan-
sion in distant lands. No government would feel
obliged to waste money on needless troops
within it's own borders
There IS already a fine illustration In Europe.
a mutual consent or custom has now grown to
have the force of unwrtten treaty. It is
that none of the powers shall invade Switzer-
land as it is certain she VIII not invade any of
them. IF Switzerland has a dispute with any
neighboring nation IL is settled by peaceful
means. If that nation is aggrieved she makes
amends. If she is aggrieved she always gets
justice. Yet she retains all her independence and
keeps Just what army she needs and more
1t would he too much to expect that all the
powers at The Hague Will agree not to invade
one another's soil, even for three years. Yet
they all realize that they well off In statu
quo, and that the steadily growing intercourse
and commerce between them make It every
year more unwise to attempt to disturb the
peace Of Europe"
In the United States have reduced our
armies to dimensions that 70 European observers
seem quite inadequate Yet we have troops
enough we do not expect 10 invade Canada
or Mexico, to be invaded by them. and we are
toeraby that states Will invade
another Our friends abroad have learned
some things from experiences Perhaps
they might with advantage take a leaf from our
experience IN the matter OF reducing armies.
The proposition submitted by General Porter
on behalf of the United States at the Hague
conference Is in entire accordance with the
principle OF limiting not the strength OF arma-
ments but the uses to which such armaments
may be applied.
FREDERICK w. SEWARD.
Montrose- e-on-t the Hudson. June 26. 1907.