nd thither, occupying new regions and
thus developing new tribes and ultimately a diversity of "races," all
idea of community of interests, as between race and race, must have been
absolutely banished. It was the obvious and patent fact that each race
was more or less at rivalry, in disharmony, with all the others. In the
hard struggle for subsistence, the expansion of one race meant the
downfall of another. So far as any principle of "greatest good" remained
in evidence, it applied solely to the members of one's own community, or
even to one's particular phratry or gens.

Barbaric man, thanks to his conquest of animal and vegetable nature, was
able to extend the size of the unified community, and hence to develop
through diverse and intricate channels the application of the principle
of "greatest good" out of which the idea of right and wrong was
elaborated. But quite as little as the savage did he think of extending
the application of the principle beyond the bounds of his own race. The
laws with which he gave expression to his ethical conceptions applied,
of necessity, to his own people alone. The gods with which his
imagination peopled the world were local in habitat, devoted to the
interests of his race only, and at enmity with the gods of rival
peoples. As between nation and nation, the only principle of ethics that
ever occurred to him was that might makes right. Civilized man for a
long time advanced but slowly upon this view of international morality.
No Egyptian or Babylonian or Hebrew or Greek or Roman ever hesitated to
attack a weaker nation on the ground that it would be wrong to do so.
And few indeed are the instances in which even a modern nation has
judged an international question on any other basis than that of
self-interest. It was not till towards the close of the 19th century
that an International Peace Conference gave tangible witness that the
idea of fellowship of nations was finding recognition; and in the same
recent period history has recorded the first instance of a powerful
nation vanquishing a weaker one without attempting to exact at least an
"indemnifying" tribute.

But the citizen of the future, if the auguries of the present prove
true, will be able to apply principles of right and wrong without
reference to national boundaries. He will understand that the interests
of the entire human family are, in the last analysis, common interests.
The census through which he attempts to estimate "