The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1917-01-22

nave SAID IN terms that could not be
mlSlnterpreted that it was no part of
the purpose thew had IN mind to crush
their antagonists. But the implica-
tons OF these assurances may not be
equally clear to all-may not be the
same on both sides of the water. l
think it will BE- serviceable if 1 attempt
to set forth what We understand them
to be.
They imply first of all that 1t must
be peace without victory. 1t is not
pleasant to say this. 1 beg that 1 may
be permitted to put my own interpre-
tation upon it and that it may be I'M
derstood that no other Interpretation
was in my thoughts. 1 am seeking
only to face realities and to face them
without soft concealments Victory
would mean peace forced upon the
loser, victor's terms imposed upon
the Vanquished. 1t would be adopted
IN humiliation, under duress at a toll
cradle sacrifice and would leave a
sung, a resentment, a bitter memory
upon which terms of peace would rest,
not permanently but only as upon
quicksand. Only a peace between
equals can last; only a peace the very
principle of which is equality and a
common participation in a common
benefit. The right state of mind, the
right feeling between nations is as nee
esary for lasting peace as is the
just settlement of vexed questions of
legiance
The equality of nations upon which
peace must be founded, if it is to last,
must be an equality of rights, the
guarantees exchanged must neither
recognize nor imply a difference be-
tween big nations and small, between
those that are powerful and those
That are weak. Right must be based
upon the common strength, not upon
the individual strength of the nations
upon whose consent peace will depend.
Equality of territory or of resources
there, of course, cannot be; nor any
other sort of equality not gained in
the ordinary peaceful and legitimate
development of the peoples them
selves. But no one asks or expects
anything more than an equality of
rights. Mankind is looking now for
freedom of life, not for equipoises of
power.
| And there is a deeper thing in
volved than even equality of right
among nations. No peace can last, or
| ought to fNst, which does not recog-
nize and accept the principle that gov
ernments derive all their just powers
from the consent of the governed and
that no right anywhere exists to hand
peoples about from sovereignty to
sovereignty as if they were property.
| l take it for granted, for instance, if
| may venture upon a single example,
that statesmen everywhere are agreed
that there should be united indie
pendent and autonomous Poland and
| that henceforth the inviolable security
of life, of worship and of Industrial
and social development should be
guaranteed to all peoples who have
lived hitherto under the power of
governments devoted to faith and
purpose hostile to their own.
Peace Would Be Upset.
Il speak of this not because of my
desire to exalt abstract political
| principle which always has been very
| dear to those who have sought to build
up liberty in America but for the same
reason that l have spoken of the other
| conditions of peace which seem to me
| clearly indispensable, because L wish
| frankly to uncover realities. Any
peace which does not recognize and
i accept this principle will inevita bly, be
| upset. 1t will not rest upon affections
or the convictions of mankind. The
ferment of spirit of whole populations
will fight subtly and constantly
against it and the world will sympa-
thize. The world can be at peace only
if it's life is stable and there can be
no stability where the will is in rebel
lion, where there is no tranquility OF
| spirit and a sense of justice and free
dom and right.
Paths of Sea Must Be Free.
every great people now struggling to-
wards a full development of its re-
sources and its powers should be as
Sured direct outlet to the great high
! ways of the sea- Where this cannot
be done by the ceSion of territory il
can no doubt be done by the neutrali-
zation of direct rights of way, under
| the general guarantee, which will as
sure the peace itself. With a right
comfy of arrangement no nation
need be shut away from free access
to the open paths of the worlds com
merce.
And the paths of the sea must
alike in law and in fact be free.
The freedom of the seas is the
sine qua non of peace, equality ahc
cooperation. No doubt a somewhat
radical reconsideration of many of the
rules of international practice hither-
to sought to be established may BIZ
necessary in order to make the sea:
indeed free and common IN practical
ly all circumstances for the use O
mankind, but the motive for -sucf
changes is convincing and compelling
There can be no trust or intimacy be
tween the peoples of the world with
out them. The free, constant, I'm
threatened intercourse of nations is al
essential part of the process of peac,
and of development. 1t need not b.
difficult to define or to secure the free
dom of the seas if the governments o
the world sincerely desire to come t,
an agreement concluding it.
Limitation of Armament.
1t is a problem closely connected
with the limitation of naval anna
mentS and the cooperation of the ma
vies of the world in keeping the seas
once free and safe And the question
of limiting naval ornaments opens tn,
, wider and perhaps more difficult ques
ton of the limitation of armies and O
all programs of military preparation
Difficult and delicate as these ques
| tons are, they must be faced with tn
utmost candor and decided in a spiri
of real accommodation if peace is t.
come with healing in it's wings ant