modern times its decree has been more
often right than wrong, because the great spirit of public sentiment
when once aroused has not only furnished money and men for the right,
but it has thoroughly imbued the hearts of its soldiers with a
determination and a bravery that have done much to place the victory
where it properly belonged. But what a sacrifice of human life and
treasure. I do not want to be understood as claiming that all the wars
of history were wrong or could have been avoided. Some of them were
carried on for liberty, some were waged for mercy and some were fought
for humanity. The soldier, not only of our own land, but of other
countries as well, is entitled to all the consideration and all the
honor and glory that humanity can give or bestow. I am however
proclaiming against the conditions existing in modern civilized times
that make war not only sometimes necessary, but at any time possible.

But the question recurs again--what is a practical way to solve the
difficulty? Who shall take the first step? Who can take the first step
with the assurance that beneficial results will follow? What nation
to-day occupies such a unique position in civilization that it can step
out into the open and say to all the civilized world--"We are willing to
submit to peaceful arbitration every international dispute, every
international controversy not only of the present but of the future as
well." What nation in assuming this position can command not only the
respect and belief of other nations in the integrity and the honesty of
its purpose, but can also receive the respect and approval of humanity's
peace loving sentiment, that will go far towards impelling the balance
of the civilized world to accept the proffered hand of universal
brotherhood!

If we study the history of European nations, we will find a trace at
least of jealousy between them that has come down from the days of
barbarism. In ancient times the king, who was then supposed to possess,
and is still suspicioned to have, some attributes of Divinity, ruled
only over such territory as he was able to hold in subjection. He broke
no law of nations if, without notice, cause or provocation, he made war
upon his neighbor in an attempt to conquer and subdue additional
territory. He violated no principle of government if in carrying out his
purpose he resorted to trickery, chicanery, and dishonesty. The result
was that every ruler was suspicious of every other rul