ecipitancy, to reach results considered
desirable, is evidenced by the wish to _impose_ arbitration, to
prevent recourse to war, by a general pledge previously made. Both
frames of mind receive expression in the words of speakers, among whom
a leading characteristic is lack of measuredness and of proportion.
Thus an eminent citizen is reported to have said: "There is no more
occasion for two nations to go to war than for two men to settle their
difficulties with clubs." Singularly enough, this point of view
assumes to represent peculiarly Christian teaching, willingly ignorant
of the truth that Christianity, while it will not force the conscience
by other than spiritual weapons, as "compulsory" arbitration might,
distinctly recognizes the sword as the resister and remedier of evil
in the sphere "of this world."

Arbitration's great opportunity has come in the advancing moral
standards of states, whereby the disposition to deliberate wrong-doing
has diminished, and consequently the occasions for redressing wrong by
force the less frequent to arise. In view of recent events however,
and very especially of notorious, high-handed oppression, initiated
since the calling of the Peace Conference, and resolutely continued
during its sessions in defiance of the public opinion--the
conviction--of the world at large, it is premature to assume that such
occasions belong wholly to the past. Much less can it be assumed that
there will be no further instances of a community believing,
conscientiously and entirely, that honor and duty require of it a
certain course, which another community with equal integrity may hold
to be inconsistent with the rights and obligations of its own members.
It is quite possible, especially to one who has recently visited
Holland, to conceive that Great Britain and the Boers are alike
satisfied of the substantial justice of their respective claims. It is
permissible most earnestly to hope that, in disputes between sovereign
states, arbitration may find a way to reconcile peace with fidelity to
conscience, in the case of both; but if the conviction of conscience
remains unshaken, war is better than disobedience,--better than
acquiescence in recognized wrong. The great danger of undiscriminating
advocacy of arbitration, which threatens even the cause it seeks to
maintain, is that it may lead men to tamper with equity, to compromise
with unrighteousness, soothing their conscience with the belief that
war is