The Farmington times. (Farmington, St. Francois County, Mo.) 1905-1926, 1922-02-17

cry so long as war itself remains le-
gal. Besides, the last war certainly
demonstrated the futility of relying on
"rules of humanized warfare"
8. The farcical exhibition at Yer
sailles of the attempt to indict the
Kaiser for the "crime" of starting the
war emphasizes this point. There
never was law against war upon
which to base such an indictment. And
strange to say, the nations, thwarted
by the this terrible defect in interna-
tional law, did not adopt convention,
enact law or take any steps at Ver-
sailles to make war crime and thus
lay the foundation for the indictment
Of the next Kaiser"
TO- The reduction of ornaments is
most valuable as an economic remedy
and splendid step in the right direc
ton. The people rightly demand and
will have it. But that does not lay
the axe to the root. Suppose all
countries should reduce their arma-
ments to what they were say in 1870
or in 1850 or in 1800--was the world
not cursed with war then? Indeed,
the United States had very small ar
maments in 1917 but had the intrin-
sic power to create large ones by 1918.
The logic of disarmament, according
to General Hugh S. Johnson, in Sc
ries of brilliant articles in the New
York World, is as follows: FINALLY it
must be recognized that no possible
project of disarmament can create a
condition of equilibrium as between
week and powerful nations. A dis
proportionate condition would remain
if all nations would completely dis
arm just as it would remain if all
would arm to the limit of their re-
source. The justification of this is in
part the principle that a giant with
sword is little, if any more danger
Gus to a Lilliputian than q giant with
club"
We want not fewer wars but no
wars; not less destructive wars but
no wars at all. Limitation of arma-
ments is not enough. In the crisp
words of President Harding, the cry
ing need is: LESS Of armament and
none of war"
II. The closest historical analogy
to war is the duel, "duellum" and
"bellum" both originally meaning war;
The duel had its origin in Germany
and now survives to some extent
there and in France and Italy. In
England and in this country it passed
muster for centuries, remaining law
full because of the "honor" element
which it was supposed to uphold. 1t
was as late as 1850 before the duel
was pronounced murder in the last of
our states and thus outlawed. The
practice of duelling is now extinct be-
cause it is plain murder under our
laws. Questions of "honor" were as
fallacious as they were bountiful in
the institution of duelling and as they
are still in the institution of war.
Man has not become a mollycoddle
because he cannot resent every sup
posed affront to his "honor" by a
sword thrust or a bullet. We have no.
bly, abolished the institutions of duel
ling and slavery; why not abolish the
institution of war?
II. In creating q real international
court, the subtle and mischievous dis
tinction between justiciable (triable)
and nom justiciable mot triable) con-
troversies must not be permitted to
defeat it's jurisdiction. If it lies in the
power of nation itself to say that
cause is -justiciable and that
therefore, the court cannot take ju-
risdiction over it, all judicial power
crumbles. 1t is not only easy for
chancellors or premiers to give dis
pute a on-justiciable turn but, as a
matter of fact, practically all the
wars in the past hundred and fifty
years have started from non-justicia-
BILE causes. That was the case in the
late war. The word "non-j usticiable"
is but a new edit on of the old phrase
"pational honor and vital interests.
While it is true that a nations honor
and its vital interests should be safe
guarded, this exception is used not
to safeguard these things, but to JUS
tify and foftify war. The new code
must itself state what causes are
within the jurisdiction of the court
and what are not, and must now al
low an individual country to decide
the matter for the court. The pro-
posed plan covers this by excluding
from the jurisdiction of the court all
domest c and protective questions
like revenues, immigration, Monroe
Doctrine, etc. which shall be agreed
upon for all countries and enumerated
in the code. In this way the juris-
diction of the court over all purely
international disputes can be protect
ed and maintained.
IL. The proposition that the causes
of things must be first removed, e. @.
the causes of war, the causes of ar
mament, ETC., is fallacious and plays
into the hands of militarists. However
commendable it is to solve the prob
lens of evil and injustice in the
world great reforms cannot await
such slow ard indefinite processes.
Thus: suppose an attempt had been
made to remo-e the causes of duel
ling before outlawing it; would the
day before Judgment day have seen it
abolished? No. The causes of duel
ling were as various as human mo-
tiVes. The causes of war or of arma-
ment or of duelling Tor of disputes,
which are basic to the foregoing) will
be removed when the era of the broth
erhood of man is ushered in and not
before.
1t is claimed by some that the un-
DERIVING causes of war are existing
trade barriers and that if we remove
these we will eliminate war. Others
insist that religious and race hatreds