ran the headline: 'Roosevelt Shot by Socialist.' This the 'Telegram' never retracted.

"It would not be too much to say that American capitalist newspapers sent Eugene V. Debs to jail in 1893 and made him into a Socialist. And now, in 1919, when he is sent to jail again, they help to keep him there! On the day that he is sent to prison, they spread wide an interview to the effect that he will call a general strike of labor to get himself out of jail; and this interview is quoted by the Attorney-General as reason for refusing amnesty to Debs. But Debs gave no such interview. He denied it as soon as he saw it, but of course you did not see the denial, unless you are a reader of the Socialist papers. (Page 328.)

"The United States Government is deporting Hindu revolutionists to be executed by the British Government when they reach India. Prof. Richard Gottheil of Columbia University writes to the 'New York Times' denying that this is so. Robert Morss Lovett, editor of 'The Dial,' writes to the 'Times,' citing case after case, upon British official authority, and the 'Times' refuses to print Mr. Lovett's letter! A friend of mine writes to Prof. Gottheil about it and he answers that he wishes the 'Times' would print Mr. Lovett's letter, because he believes in fair play. But the 'Times' does not believe in fair play.""

When the New York Herald published two fictitious interviews regarding Upton Sinclair, he started libel suits and collected $2,500. (Page 189.)

The newspapers do not always use their power for the best ends. Senator Owen said: "Through this agency the people of Germany, France and Russia were taught to hate each other."

In 1855, Richard Cobden held the London Times responsible for the Crimean War: "If it can now be shown how greatly it is responsible for the expedition which every rational man now in his heart condemns, it will much impair the force of its war advocacy in future."

In 1898, Frederic Remington cabled to the New York Journal from Cuba: "Everything is quiet. There is no trouble here. There will be no war. I wish to return." The reply he received from his editor read: "Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war."

The New York Evening Post, on August 1, 1924, stated: "Our own war with Spain seemed to be waged by and for the newspapers."

When the Smithsonian Museum issued, in February, 1925, an attack upon the Ontario experiment in the public control of hydro-electric power, the press devoted considerable attention editorially and otherwise to the report, but when Sir Adam Beck, in behalf of the Ontario Commission, refuted the charges and sent copies to the papers, almost all of them disregarded the correction. They would not publish the facts concerning the saving to Canadians from public ownership.

When the financial pages report "Labor conditions are better," they mean better for the employers-labor can be hired for lower wages.

The impression is gained from the press that combinations of capital are attacked by our laws while labor organizations are favored. Actually, capital may combine more freely than labor. For instance, Judge Gary told the stockholders of the U. S. Steel Corporation that their property was worth a billion dollars more than when the combination was made, in addition to dividends on watered stock, whereas he has refused to deal with organized labor.

WAR BREEDS INJUSTICE

War as practiced in our time is an attempt to settle disputes between States by resort to organized violence. Its instruments are armed military forces operating on land, sea and air; its means are the systematic destruction of life and property; its end is the unrestrained imposition of the will of the victor upon the vanquished.*

The status of war today presents a paradox unparallelled in history.

On the one hand, war stands condemned by the wellnigh universal judgment of mankind. At the best, it is regarded as a necessary or unavoidable evil, like a cataclysm of nature; at the worst, as a moral abomination, like murder. It is a mad release of animal passion from which man collectively has not yet escaped, or to which on occasion he reverts. In either case, it has no place within man's true or better life. From the standpoint alike of ethics and religion, war is wrong. Nothing can be said in its justification, little in extenuation of its processes.**

Even from the crassly practical point of view, there is nothing to be said for war. It wastes everything man has saved; it ruins everything he has builded. Its outward havoc is equalled only by its inward demoralization. Whatever little good it may achieve is incidental to the enormous evil it consummates. And today, when war has suddenly become so universally and completely destructive, its certain doom of civilization overbears every other consideration. Man must now get rid of war, or else war will speedily get rid of him!

This is one aspect of the paradox above referred to. On the other hand is the fact that war, thus morally condemned, is at the same time legally recognized. Like marriage, religion, or the state, war is an institution regulated, protected, and vindicated by the laws of nations. Such international law as we have, in other words, establishes war as the accepted method of settling disputes when all other methods, such as negotiation, conciliation, and arbitration, have failed. It sets up war, as the United States Constitution sets up the Supreme Court, as the tribunal of last resort!

•See Sherwood Eddy and Kirby Page's "The Abolition of War," Chapter II, page 26. **See Bertrand Russell's "Justice in War Time," page 20; also G. F. Nicolal's "The Biology of War," chapter XI, page 379.

This international law regulates war; i.e., lays down the conditions under which it may be properly conducted. It defines how war may be declared, what weapons may be used, what cruelties must be proscribed, by what armistice arrangements and treaty agreements it may be ended. This international law also safeguards war; i.e., protects it from interference. When two nations, for example, go to war, all other nations not concerned in the quarrel must declare their neutrality. They must get out of the way, in other words, so that the field may be clear for the belligerents. The prime function of international law is thus to set up an arena in which nations may fight out their differences, and establish the rules and regulations under which the conflict shall be conducted. Whenever a nation, for reasons satisfactory to itself, however selfish, makes up its mind to go to war, international law affirms that it has a right thus to disturb the peace and order of the world, and must be protected in this right. "Why didn't the Allies punish the Kaiser after the late war?" asks Senator Borah, offering a specific instance of this fact. "It was simply because he had committed no crime," continues the Senator, in answer to his inquiry. "There never was such a crime as starting a war. If today another war should envelop the world, the person responsible for it would be guilty of no criminal

act."*

Such is the paradox of modern war!-an institution morally condemned but legally approved! Despite the conscience of the race, our international society is a war society-a world organized, directed and maintained to ends of war and not of peace. Peace is itself but an interval between wars-a period when war is in a suspended state of animation, so to speak. For our armaments, our diplomacy, our alliances and balances of power, what are they all but just so many latent expressions of belligerent energy destined sooner or later to burst forth into action?

It is this paradox which constitutes the crux of our present problem. Such a contradiction between moral judgment and legal status must be resolved if war is ever to be abolished. The organization of man's social life, in other words, must be brought into accord with his reason and his conscience. War, like other vast evils which have preceded it-infanticide, chattel slavery, piracy, duelling-must be outlawed. Upon this next step waits,

• See New York "Times," May 19, 1925, page 4.

and must ever wait, all other requisite measures of reform. When war has been banned as a crime as well as condemned as an evil, it will then be possible on the one hand to end the psychological causes of war by education and the economic and political causes by drastic social reconstruction, and on the other hand to provide and sustain that common law, that common system of judicial settlement of disputes under this law, that common transport control, that common guarantee of disarmament and mutual defense, that common recognition of world wide brotherhood, upon which the achievement of ultimate and permanent peace depends.

JOHN HAYNES HOLMES.

With the exception of a few militarists who insist that war keeps a nation virile, everyone considers war one of the chief defects in modern civilization.

The losses include the death and crippling of the strongest young men in each country, the death and poverty of millions of civilians, the creation of hate and fear between peoples, tax burdens upon several generations, moral losses from the destructive spirit, the deceptive war propaganda of governments and the enactment of laws abridging freedom of expression. As ex-Premier Nitti of Italy said, "The losses in human life and property, great as they are, are small evils compared to the undermining of morals and the lowering of standards of culture and civilization."

The World War failed to end war. The desire for revenge and restitution remains.

See "War: Its Causes, Consequences and Cure," by Kirby Page.

The working class sees the futility of war so far as its own welfare is concerned. The acquisition of territory by the victor and the destruction of the trade and military prowess of the enemy bring no noticeable advantage to the worker. And the chance of victory is only one out of three, for the result of armed conflict may be a draw or defeat. A combination of powers may destroy the greatest military machine for the maintenance of which the people have been taxed for a generation.

War as a cause of discontent among the working classes is increasing. There is a growing impression that the powerful interests in each country utilize military operations to subdue