Evening star., 1915-06-18
Argument for Mediation.

Argument MoQ1dL1Ou.
In his statement issued today Mr..
Bryan declares that mediation is the
means provided by international agree
ment through which the belligerent ma
tions can be brought into conference
He urges that neutral nations offer
mediation jointly or severally, and he
advocates a worldwide educational
movement to cultivate the spirit OF
brotherhood.
In discussing the reasons which have
so far prevented peace Mr.. Bryan says
Great nations cannot be extermi-
mated. Predictions made at the oegln-
ming of the war have not been fulfilled
The British did not destroy the Ger
man feet in a month; Germany did not
take Paris in two months, and the Rus
sian army did not eat Christmas din
ner in Berlin. But even if extermlna-
ton were possible it would be crime
against civilization which no nation
or group of nations could afford to com
nit"
Continuing. Mr.. Bryan says:
When can peace be restored! Any
time now If the participants are really
weary Of this war and ready for 1t to
end If any nation is not ready, let it's
ruler state in clear, distinct and definite
terms the conditions upon which 1t is
agreement Is not reached. blame for the
continuance of the war will be upon those
who mako unusual demands
Plan for Permanent Peace.
Mr.. Bryan's statement is as follows:
Having considered the war 1t is
and the injury which 1t does neutrals,
and then the origin of the war and the
causes which led up to it. We are now
ready to make inquiry as to the way
out, that is, the means by which hos
tilities can be brought to an end anq
permanent peace restored. To state ~
a sentence the propositions which z
shall proceed to elaborate, mediation
is the means, provided by international
agreement. through which the bellige-
rent nations can be brought into con-
ference: time for the investigation of
all disputes is the means by which
future wars can be averted and the
cultivation of international friendship
is the means by which the desire for
war can be rooted out. What are the
nations fighting about?
mo one seems to know, or If any
one does know he has not taken the
public into his confidence. We have
been told. in a general way, that the
| allies are fighting against 'militarism'
and in defense of popular govern
ment.' and that Germany is aghting in
the nations right to a place in the
SUM- But these generalities are SO
differently Interpreted as not to convey
dennlte IDEA. When the PRESIDENT
offered mediation at the very begin
ming of the struggle the answers
which he received from the various
rulers were so much alike that one
telegram might have served for all
The substance of each answer was:
did not want war and I am not to
blame for the war that now exists
But that was ten months ago; the ques-
thor1ty in the belligerent nations did
or did not want war then: we may
accept their answers as given in good
faith. but the important question is
may have been deemed. sufficient at
the time the answers were given. but
the real question Is, Do you want war
now? II not. why not say SO?
Months have dragged their bloody
length along-each more terrible than
the month beforehand yet the Grim
son line Of battle sways to and fro,
each movement marked by dreadful
while warriors die and widows weep
the sovereign rulers Of the warning
powers withhold the word that would
stop the war. No chief of state has
in authority has yet publicly declared
hts willingness to state the terms upon
which his nation is ready to negotiate
peace
Are not these dying men and these
Borrowing women entitled to know
definitely for what their nation is
lighting? Is it territory? Then how
much territory and where is it located?
Then how much more blood must be
spilled to make atonement for the
blood already shed? Some day ac-
cumulated suffering will reach its limit;
this war is causing. will find voice
Then, II not before, the rulers In the
war rome VIII pause to listen to the
ssern question; ha; WY bs. 90 we ,h,oas de" the
marks tho farthermost limits of arbi-
trary power.
Must Neutrals Bear Penaltiesp
And is not the outside world entitled
to know the price of peace? Must the
neutrals bear the penalties which war
necessarily visits upon them and yet
remain in Ignorance as to the issues at
stalker Their trade is Interrupted, their
citizens are drowned. they are the VIC
Tins OF stray bullets-have they no
right to know what it is that, being
dons, will draw down the curtain on
this dark trassdy? Has any nation a
purpose for continuing this war which
Il does not dare to state to the world,
or even to its own people?
Surely neither side thinks 1t can an
nihilate the other. Great nations cam
not be rminated-population can
not be wiped out by the sword The
combatants. even though the war may
have made them heartless, will shrink
from tho task of carrying this slaugh-
ter beyond the point necessary to win a
victory. And It must be remembered
that war plans often miscarry. Predic-
tions made at the beginning of the
war have not been fulfilled. The Brit
ish did not destroy the German fleet In
q month and Germany did not take
Paris in two months and tho Russian
army did not eat Christmas dinner in
Berlin.
But even II determination were possi-
ble II would be q crime against civiliza-
tion which no nation or group Of nations
could afford to commit. II 1t is vandalism
to destroy the finest specimens Of mans
workmanship. Is 1t not sacrilege to en-
gage in the wholesale destruction Of hu-
man beings-the supreme example OF
Gods handiwerk? We may find cases
Of seeming total depravity among indi-