New-York tribune., 1919-07-06
Defining Anarchy for Henry Ford

in the system Of national law that
set up one nation from another to
the extent that they do not have
any legal ideas. This is the main
idea by President Wilson in q legal
sense, for the development Of in-
ternational law particularly, that
you must have a common body OF
legal ideas, expressed in national
law. That does not mean that ma
tions should be done away with, but
you cannot have a common fund Of
legal ideas unless you have q COM
mon fund Of ideas with reference
to rights and duties Of mankind in
a world brotherhood. In that sense
the world brotherhood does not in.
terfere with the existence Of M.
tions, but rather to forge the ex-
istence of nations. Not only should
the system Of international laws be
developed, but it should represent.
if possible, the ideas that are COM
mon to all mankind. The belief Of
Mr.. Ford that 'one factory, one
nation, one city is not, | think, the
belief Of Mr.. Wilson.
as it not fundamental Christian
doctrine, as stated by st. Paul,
that to the Christian there Is no
national line whatever" asked Mr..
Lucking.
Quoting Scripture
est. Paul was not speaking
about matters Of state" was
Reeves's answer. "He was speaking
about matters Of religion"
II call your attention to this: For
az many Of you as have been bap-
tized, there is neither Jew nor
Greek, there is neither bond nor
free, neither male nor female, for
you are all one In Jesus Christ
Now the Jews and Gentiles were
opposed to each other, were they
not?"
Opposed to each other were dif-
ferent nationalities, not different re-
ligions. In Christianity those dif.
ferences were to fall apart. He says:
Neither male nor female He
doesn't mean by. that that in Chris
tianity the sexes were to be sbel.
ished. He means that In Christianity
there is no difference as TO sex; no
difference between bond or free; Jew
or Gentle. He is speaking about ~
ligion and not about the state"
"Was Ralph Waldo Emerson "A
anarchist"
"No. He was q transcendentalist.
There is nothing anarchistic in HE
writing that it is the ignorant and
childish part Of mankind that is the
fighting part, and that If you have
nation Of men who have risen TO the
height of moral cultivation that they
will not declare war, nor carry arms,
you have a nation Of ben,factors,
great and able men. Let men know
more of the nation-you shall not
find them defenceless. However, had
he written that article between the
years 1861 and 1865 I should have
said it was decidedly anarchistic."
"But suppose it had been written
ty an Englishman looking on during
the civil war;"
1T would depend on whether there
was imminent danger Of England be-
coming embroiled in the war;"
Mr.. Reeves was asked II Quskers,
who preach against war and refuse
to carry arms were Christians or
anarchists. His answer was that
they were Christians, but that he had
never heard Of their extending their
propaganda outside their own sect,
end declared that he knew Of no
anarchist who believes in war be-
tween nations, but that many Of
them believed in class war.
Then came Benjamin Franklin,
end Mr.. Reeves was asked if he be-
lieved him an anarchist because Of
his saying that there never wss .
good war or a bad peace. The fol.,
lowing dialogue covers this phase Of
the debate:
Q.-Was Benjamin Franklin a.
anarchist?
A.-No.
Q.-The wisest man Of his time.
wasn't he?
And Benjamin Franklin
Ale was considered to be Q
wise mani
Q.-Did he say, There never was
. good war, or q bad peace?
Al believe 80.
Q.-Do you believe that doctrinef
Al do not. The answer came