Author 
 
 V 
 
 t • 
 
 -< **s 
 
 Title 
 
 CIas$.4^.J„.7.£ 
 Book ..-I.-MI 
 
 n 
 
 Imprint. 
 
 16—47372-1 OPO 
 
THE DUTY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 J 
 
 TT r^ 
 
 N P 
 
 r^ T T 
 
 w 
 
 m 
 
 
 PHI BETA KAPPA ADDRESS, 
 
 Delivered at the University of Kansas, 
 
 JUNE 8, 1896. 
 
 BY 
 
 FRANK HEYWOOD HODDER, 
 ' Professok of American History. 
 
 Reprinted from the Kansas University Quarterly 
 BY Kansas Alpha of Phi Beta Kappa. 
 
 JOURNAL PRESS, 
 
 LAWRENCE, KANSAS, 
 1896. 
 
iS^r4 
 
The Duty of the Scholar in Politics. 
 
 l:V FRANK HEVVVOOn HODDKK. 
 
 [I'lii Beta Kappa Address, delivered at the Univorsity i)f Kansas. .)uiu< S. Htlti 1 
 
 The duty of the scholar in politics has been the subject of so 
 many addresses upon occasions of this character that it is difficult 
 to say anything new respecting it. It is, however, suggested both 
 by the occasion and by the direction of my own studies. Mr. 
 Disraeli is reported to have once replied to an opponent in Par- 
 liament: "The honorable gentleman has said things both true 
 and new but the things true are not new and the things new are 
 not true." It is, after all, the things true which are not new that 
 are important. Especially is this the case with respect to duty, 
 whatever its direction. It rarely happens that we do not know our 
 duty but often that, knowing it, we fail in the .doing. 
 
 By the scholar, in this connection, I do not mean the specialist 
 but rather the man of education and independence, the man who 
 is well informed upon all important topics c^f current interest and 
 who does his own thinking respecting them. This definition does 
 not include ail graduates of colleges and universities and it does 
 include many who never had the advantage of college training. 
 The duty in politics of the man of education and independence is 
 then the subject. The greater the education, the greater the 
 influence he may exert and the greater the obligation to exert it. 
 Especially great is the obligation in the case of the young men 
 and young women educated at the expense of the state. Upon 
 them rests the duty of using their influence for its welfare. 
 
 But I do not intend to range at large over the whole subject. 1 
 propose instead to emphasize one particular duty — namely the 
 duty of the scholar to use his influence for the maintenance of 
 international peace. The discussion of this particular duty is 
 especially appropriate to the occasion by reason of the fact that it 
 is totally disconnected from all questions of party politics. It is a 
 duty pre-eminently of the scholar as a man governed by reason, 
 
rather than by passion and prejudice. Recent events seem to 
 present certain dangers to our national peace, which I shall consider 
 in order. They are: 
 
 1st, misconstruction of the Monroe doctrine; 
 
 2d, a rising war spirit among the people; and 
 
 3d, enormous expenditures for war purposes. 
 
 First, the Monroe doctrine. I venture the assertion that the recent 
 unwarranted construction of that doctrine is contrary to the teach- 
 ing of the founders of the republic, a perversion of the true meaning 
 of the original declaration, an encroachment upon the rights of 
 foreign states and a menace to our peace and safety. 
 
 It is contrary to the teaching of the founders which was non- 
 interference with the affairs of foreign nations and peace and 
 friendship with all mankind. Three men may be called pre- 
 eminently the founders of the republic. They were Washington, 
 Madison and Hamilton, to whom more than to any others were 
 due respectively the success of the revolution, the framing of the 
 constitution and the establishment of government. The combined 
 wisdom of these men was embodied in the farewell address issued 
 by Washington upon his retirement from the presidency, a worthy 
 guide to the American people for all time. In that address we find 
 this advice:* 
 
 " Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate 
 peace and harmony with all It will be worthy of a free, enlight- 
 ened and, at no distant period, great nation, to give to mankind 
 the magnanimous and too novel example of a people guided by an 
 
 exalted justice and benevolence The experiment, at least, is 
 
 recommended by every sentiment that ennobles human nature." 
 
 ' ' The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is to 
 
 have with them as little political connection as possible Europe 
 
 has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote 
 relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, 
 
 the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns Our 
 
 detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a 
 
 different course Wh}^ forego the advantages of so peculiar a 
 
 situation? Why quit one's own to stand on foreign ground? Why 
 entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambi- 
 tion, rivalry, interest, humor, or caprice?" 
 
 *See " Statesman's Manual " for (|uotations from ['residential messages and address- 
 es. Richardson's "Messages and Papers of the Presidents," now publishing by the 
 Government, will sui)ersede the earlier collection. 
 
All parties at that time agreed in counseling peace.* Jefferson, 
 the father of democracy, expressed the same sentiment. In an 
 official letter in 1793, while Secretary of State, he said: 
 
 " We love and value peace; we know its blessings from experi- 
 ence. We abhor the follies of war and are not untried in its 
 distresses and calamities. Not meddling with the affairs of other 
 nations, we hope that our distance will leave us free in the example 
 and indulgence of peace with the world." 
 
 Again in writing Monroe in 1823, advising the issue of this very 
 declaration, he said: 
 
 "I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never 
 to take an active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political 
 interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, 
 their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forces 
 and principles of government are all foreign to us. They are 
 nations of eternal war. All their energies are expended in the 
 destruction of the labor, property and lives of their people. On 
 our part never had a people so favorable a chance of trying the 
 opposite system, of peace and fraternity with all mankind and a 
 direction of all our means and faculties to the purposes of improve- 
 ment instead of destruction." 
 
 And Monroe in the very message, now made the excuse for so 
 much warlike demonstration, took pains to repeat this doctrine of 
 non-intervention: 
 
 •'In the wars of European powers, in matters relating to them- 
 selves we have never taken part nor does it comport with our 
 policy to do so . . . .With the existing colonies or dependencies of 
 any European power we have not interfered and shall not inter- 
 fere Our policy with regard to Europe is not to interfere with 
 
 the internal concerns of any of its powers." 
 
 Statements of this character were frequently repeated by later 
 statesmen. Van Buren in official letters, while Secretary of State, 
 within five years of the issue of the Monroe declaration, said: 
 
 "It is the ancient and well settled policy of this government not 
 to interfere with the internal concerns of any foreign country." 
 
 " An invariable and strict neutrality and an entire abstinence 
 from all interference with the concerns of other nations are cardinal 
 traits of the foreign policy of this government. The obligator)- 
 character of this policy is regarded with a degree of reverence and 
 submission but little if anything short of that which is entertained 
 for the Constitution itself." 
 
 *See Whartou's " l)it?est of Interiiatioiiul Law." Vol. 1. sects. 4.5 and .>T. for oplnious 
 cited above. 
 
Mr. Seward in 1863, at the very time he was protesting against 
 the French occupation of Mexico, the only violation of the true 
 Monroe doctrine ever attempted, wrote Mr. Adams: 
 
 "In regard to our foreign relations, the conviction has univer- 
 sally obtained that our true national policy is one of self reliance 
 and self conduct in our domestic affairs, with absoluic non-iiiicr- 
 ft'rnicc with those of other countries. " 
 
 Again in 1866 Mr. Seward* in advising against interference in 
 behalf of Chili said: 
 
 "If there is any one characteristic of the United States which 
 is more marked than any other, it is that they have from the time 
 of Washington adhered to the principle of non-intervention and 
 have perseveringly declined to seek or contract entangling alli- 
 ances, even witJi the most friendly states.'" 
 
 Quotations of this character might be multiplied indefinitely hut 
 enough have been given to prove that the teaching of the founders 
 from Washington to Monroe and John Quincy Adams was non- 
 intervention and peace. Their authorit}' cannot rightfully be 
 invoked in support of any other policy. 
 
 Recent construction of the Monroe doctrine is a perversion of the 
 true meaning of the original declaration. I venture this assertion 
 without fear of contradiction by any special student of international 
 law or of our political history. The Monroe doctrine consists of 
 two parts corresponding to the two causes which occasioned its 
 issue. John Quincy Adams wrote the first part, Jefferson the 
 second, and Monroe embodied both in his^annual messages for 1823 
 and 24. Adams, Jefferson and Monroe may therefore properly be 
 considered its joint authors. t 
 
 The first part respects colonization. America is not subject to 
 future European colonization. In 1821 the Czar Alexander of 
 Russia issued a proclamation claiming the western coast of North 
 America as far south as the 51st parallel. That territory was then 
 claimed both by Great Britain and the United States. The procla- 
 mation of the Czar was accepted by both as evidence of an inten- 
 tion to establish a Russian colony in America. It is difficult for us 
 to-day to reproduce in imagination the situation of the United 
 States at that time. Our territory then as now extended from the 
 Atlantic to the Pacific but that portion between the Alleghanies 
 and the Mississippi was still sparsely settled and the vast expanse 
 between the Mississippi and the Pacific, with the exception of 
 
 *" Works." Vol. .5. pp. 444-5. 
 
 +It is well known that INIadison was consulted and advised the issue of the declara- 
 tion. He, however, merely seconded Jetferson's suggestions. 
 
Louisiana, Arkansas and Missouri, was absolutely unoccupied and 
 almost unexplored. The territory of Mexico subsequently acquired 
 by us was in the same condition. It would not then have been 
 difficult tor Russia to have planted a colony either in or near this 
 territory, upon the plea that it was unoccupied. To guard against 
 this danger President Monroe, acting upon the advice of Adams, 
 issued this declaration: 
 
 " The American continents, by the free and independent condi- 
 tion which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not 
 to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any Europe- 
 an powers With their existing colonies or dependencies we 
 
 have not interfered and shall not interfere." 
 
 There was not the slightest intention of assuming a protectorate 
 over other American states for the purpose of guarding their terri- 
 tory from European colonization. That such was the case is 
 absolutely proved by the language used by Mr. Adams two years 
 later in a special message to the Senate on the subject of a Con- 
 gress of American states. 
 
 " An agreement," he said, "between the parties represented at 
 the meeting that each will guard, by its own means, against the 
 establishment of any future European colony within its borders, 
 may be found advisable. This was announced to the world, more 
 than two years ago, by my predecessor, as a principle resulting 
 from the emancipation of both the American continents." 
 This statement Mr. Schouler* observes is remarkable as an expo- 
 sition of the Monroe doctrine from the pen of the one most com- 
 petent to make it, that is from the pen of the one who originally 
 wrote it — in effect that European exclusion from this hemisphere 
 was to be the work not of the United States, acting as tlie champion 
 of the two Americas, but of each American republic as the pro- 
 tector of its own rights. Mr. Webster speaking at the same time 
 expressed the same opinion, t 
 
 "It was highly desirable to us," he said, "that new states 
 sliould settle it as a part of their policy not to allow colonization 
 within their respective territories. We did not need their aid to 
 assist us in maintaining such a course for ourselves, but we had an 
 interest in their assertion and support of the principle as applied 
 to their own territories." 
 
 The Russian claim was immediately abandoned in treaties with 
 both Great Britain and the United Stater. Since that time there 
 
 *•• History of the Tnited States.'' Vol. 3, p. 3(52. 
 +•• Works," Vol. 3, pp. SOO'iOT. 
 
has not been the faintest suggestion of an intention on the part of any 
 European power to establish any new colony upon either of the 
 American continents. The rapid growth of American populations 
 has practically resulted in the actual occupation of every part of 
 both continents. An occasion then for an application of this part 
 of the Monroe doctrine has not presented itself and cannot present 
 itself. 
 
 The second part of Monroe's declaration respects intervention. 
 It consists of two distinct propositions. European interference 
 with American states for the purpose of subverting their govern- 
 ments cannot be permitted and the extension to America of the 
 European political system cannot be permitted. At the close of 
 the Napoleonic wars in 1815 Russia, Austria and Prussia united in 
 the so-called Holy Alliance. Their avowed object was the main- 
 tenance of the Christian religion. Their real purpose was the 
 preservation of their political system of absolute monarchy, based 
 upon the divine right of kings, by a pledge of mutual assistance in 
 case of popular insurrection. The treaty between them was 
 offered for signature to every power in Europe except the Sultan 
 and the Pope. All acceded to it except Great Britain whose 
 foreign minister replied that the principles of the Alliance were 
 inconsistent with those of the British constitution. In 1821 the 
 allies sent an Austrian army into Italy in order to prevent the 
 adoption of a free constitution in Naples. And in 1823 they sent 
 a French army into Spain to suppress popular insurrection there, 
 and re-establish the despotism of Ferdinand VII. It was then 
 proposed that the allies call a congress to arrange for the subjuga- 
 tion of Spain's revolted colonies in America and the re-establish- 
 ment of Spanish authority over them. Information of this design 
 reached the United States through Great Britain. In opposition 
 to it Monroe, acting on the advice of Jefferson, issued the second 
 part of his famous declaration: 
 
 "With the governments who have declared their independence we 
 could not view any interposition by any European power in any 
 other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition 
 
 toward the United States The political system of the allied 
 
 powers is essentially different from that of America We should 
 
 consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to anv 
 portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. 
 .... It is impossible that the allies should extend their political 
 system to any portion of either continent without endangering our 
 peace and happiness . . . It is equally impossible, therefore, that we 
 
— 7— 
 
 sliould behold such interposition in any form with indifference." 
 In other words, European states could not be permitted to over- 
 throw any American government for the purpose of establishing 
 upon its ruins an absolute monarchy based upon the divine right 
 of kings. There was not a word respecting intervention for any 
 other purpose. 
 
 Monroe's warning was sufficient to induce the Holy Alliance to 
 abandon their plan of interfering in American affairs. Since that 
 time there has been but a single violation of this part of Monroe's 
 declaration. During our civil war the unscrupulous government of 
 Napoleon III invaded Mexico, overthrew her government and 
 established in its place an Empire, sustained by French arms. 
 Immediately upon the close of our war, Secretary Seward informed 
 France that her troops must be withdrawn. They were withdrawn 
 and the Empire fell. Since that time there has not been the 
 faintest suggestion of an intention upon the part of any European 
 power to interfere in the affairs of any American state for the 
 purpose of overthrowing its government and establishing monarchy 
 in its place. Constitutional government has been established in 
 every European state except Russia and the European political 
 system of which Monroe wrote has ceased to exist. An occasion, 
 therefore, for a second application of this part of the Monroe 
 doctrine has not presented itself. 
 
 Briefly stated the Monroe doctrine opposed new European colo- 
 nies, subjugation of American states by European powers and the 
 system of the Holy Alliance. New colonization has never been 
 attempted, subjugation has been tried once and failed utterly, the 
 system of the Holy Alliance has been dead for half a century. 
 Any statement that goes beyond these three points is unwarranted 
 by the original declaration. Monroe's declaration was a protest 
 against new colonies. It is now applied to colonies that antedate 
 our national existence. Monroe's declaration was a protest against 
 intervention. It is now made the basis for intervention. Monroe's 
 declaration was a protest against absolutism. It is now applied to a 
 government which, despite monarchical forms, is more thoroughly 
 democratic than our own. Such construction is a perversion of the 
 true meaning of the original declaration. 
 
 Let us now inquire into the origin of this misconstruction of the 
 Monroe doctrine. With the defeat of John Quincy Adams and the 
 election of Andrew Jackson in 1828, the era of statesman presidents 
 came to an end and an era of military favorites and politicians 
 began. At the same time we abandoned the founders' policy of 
 
peace and friendship with all mankind and assumed an attitude of 
 defiance toward foreign nations. Slavery wanted more territory 
 for its expansion and the South needed more slaves in order to 
 keep abreast of the rapidly growing North. Longing eyes were 
 turned toward Texas and its acquisition became the settled polic}' 
 of the slave power. Jackson first tried to buy Texas but Mexico 
 refused to sell. " To do so," Santa Anna replied, "would be to 
 sign the death warrant of my country, for the United States would 
 take one province after another until none remained." Jackson 
 then sent Houston to Texas, at that time the territory of a friendly 
 state with which we were at peace, with the understanding that he 
 should colonize it with American citizens, foment revolution and, 
 when a favorable opportunity presented itself, apply for admission 
 to the United States. This conspiracy required time for its devel- 
 opment but was carried out according to the program. The 
 revolution came, Texas declared her independence of Mexico and 
 applied for annexation to the United States. A treaty for the 
 purpose failing of ratification in the Senate, President Tyler secured 
 the passage of a joint resolution for the admission of Texas as a 
 State in the Union. 
 
 Such was the situation when Polk became President of the 
 United States on the 4th of March, 1H45. In his inaugural address 
 the new President said: 
 
 " I regard the question of annexation as belonging exclusively to 
 the United States and Texas. Foreign powers do not seem to ap- 
 preciate the true character of our government. Our union is a 
 confederation of independent states, whose policy is peace with 
 each other and all the world. To enlarge its limits, is to extend 
 the dominion of peace over additional territories and increasing 
 millions. " 
 
 In his first annual message to Congress, again referring to 
 Texas, he said: 
 
 "The United States cannot in silence permit any European 
 interference on the North American continent; and should any 
 such interference be attempted, will be ready to resist it at any 
 
 and all hazards The nations of America are equally sovereign 
 
 and independent with those of Europe. They possess the same 
 rights, independent of all foreign interposition, to make war, to 
 conclude peace and to regulate their internal affairs. The people 
 of the United States cannot, therefore, view with indifference 
 attempts of European powers to interfere with the independent 
 action of nations on this continent We must ever maintain the 
 
— 9— 
 
 principle that the people of this continent alone have the right to 
 decide their own destiny. Should any portion of them, constituting 
 an independent state, propose to unite themselves with our confed- 
 eracy, this will be a question for them and us to determine, without 
 any foreign interposition." 
 
 This is the new version of Monroe's declaration. Monroe had 
 protested against European interference for the purpose of destroy- 
 ing independent states and Polk extended the protest to any 
 interference whatever. 
 
 Within the month the annexation of Texas was completed. But 
 the South was not satisfied. She next coveted the rich soil of 
 California. Again Mexico was asked to sell. Again she refused 
 and Polk precipitated a war to compel her to do so. Mexico 
 was prostrated and compelled to part with California for fifteen 
 million dollars. This was Polk's way of extending the blessings 
 of peace over additional territories and increasing millions. 
 
 Before peace with Mexico had been ratified, a peculiar situation 
 presented itself in Yucatan. The white race in that peninsula were 
 engaged in a protracted struggle with the Indians. As the price of 
 assistance, they simultaneously offered the dominion and sovereign- 
 ty of their country to Great Britain, Spain and the United States. 
 In a special message, advising the occupation of Yucatan, President 
 Polk said: 
 
 "We could not consent to a transfer of this 'dominion and 
 sovereignty ' to either Spain or Great Britain or any other 
 European power. In the language of President Monroe. . . . ' the 
 American continents, by the free and independent condition which 
 they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be consid- 
 ered as subjects for future colonization by any European power.' 
 . . . .The present is deemed a proper occasion to reiterate and re- 
 affirm the principle avowed by Mr. Monroe and to state my 
 cordial concurrence in its wisdom and sound policy." 
 Here we have the new version of the first part of Monroe's 
 declaration. The protest against new European colonies is con- 
 strued to mean that no European power shall acquire territory 
 upon this continent in any way whatever. 
 
 Polk's two statements were glaringly inconsistent. The first 
 declared the right of the United States to acquire territory by the 
 free gift of an independent state, the second denied the right of 
 Europe to acquire territory in the same way. The first denied to 
 Europe the right of interposition; the second asserted it for the 
 United States. The first asserted that the nations of America were 
 
sovereign and independent and alone had the right to decide their 
 destiny; the second limited that right to a disposition conformable 
 to our interests — in short, they might do as they pleased as long 
 as they pleased to do as we pleased. In what mysterious way the 
 sovereignty of the United States was suddenly extended over the 
 entire continent was not explained. Nevertheless Polk's statement 
 gave the Monroe doctrine its final form: Europe shall not interfere 
 with American states and shall not acquire territory in America in 
 any way. The United States may interfere and may acquire terri- 
 tory whenever her interests demand it. This, I take it, is the form 
 in which the Monroe doctrine rests in the minds of the American 
 people to-day. 
 
 Polk's misconstruction of the Monroe doctrine did not pass 
 unchallenged. Mr. Calhoun was at that time the only surviving 
 member of Monroe's cabinet. He was, therefore, of all men living 
 the best acquainted with the circumstances and discussions attend- 
 ing the issue of the declaration. His pro-slavery sympathies and 
 his own part in the annexation of Texas might have inclined him 
 to accept Polk's construction. Instead he declared in the Senate 
 that the case of Yucatan did not come within the Monroe declara- 
 tions; that they did not furnish the slightest support for it.* It 
 was not the extension of the European political system to this 
 continent, for that system had already ceased to exist. It was not 
 an interposition of an European power to oppress an American 
 government, because that power would come, not to oppress, but 
 to save. Even if England should assert her sovereignty over Yuca- 
 tan, it would not bring the case within the Monroe doctrine because 
 the tender of that sovereignty had voluntarily been made. It was 
 not colonization. That word had a specific meaning. It meant the 
 establishment by emigrants from a parent colony of a settlement in 
 territory either uninhabited or from which the inhabitants had 
 been partially or wholly expelled. The occupation of Yucatan 
 could not be construed to be colonization by any forced interpre- 
 tation. Yucatan might become a province or a possession of Great 
 Britain but not a colony. In conclusion he said: 
 
 "What the President has asserted in this case is not a principle 
 belonging to these declarations; it is a principle which, in his 
 misconception, he endeavors to engraft upon them but which has 
 an entirely different meaning and tendency .... It goes infinitely 
 and dangerously beyond Mr. Monroe's declaration. It puts it in 
 the power of other countries on this continent to make us a party 
 
 *Calhoun's "Works," Vol. 4, pp. 454-G(i. 
 
to all their wars If this broad interpretation be given to these 
 
 declarations. . . .our peace will ever be disturbed, the gates of our 
 Janus will ever stand open, wars will never cease." 
 
 Who, then, was the author of this so-called Monroe doctrine? It 
 was Polk, Polk the mendacious, as v. Hoist has called him, the 
 man who provoked a war of wanton conquest and based its 
 declaration upon a lie. It is Polk's doctrine and not Monroe's. 
 Not daring to sign his own name, he sought to give it authority by 
 attaching that of one of the founders of the republic. When and 
 why was it proclaimed? It was at the very time we were engaged 
 in the annexation of Texas and the conquest of Mexico, the two 
 acts in our national history of which we have least reason to be 
 proud. Then it was that Polk twisted a declaration intended for 
 the protection of free institutions into an excuse for the extension 
 of human slaver}-. Its origin and purpose condemn it. 
 
 The policy which had succeded in Texas and Mexico, Polk next 
 applied to Cuba. He first tried to buy Cuba but Spain replied 
 that rather than sell she would see the island sunk in the ocean. 
 Filibustering expeditions next tried to revolutionize Cuba, as 
 Houston had revolutionized Texas, but failed. We next threat- 
 ened Spain as Slidell had threatened Mexico. In the spirit of the 
 Polk doctrine, our ministers to Great Britain, France and Spain, 
 in the celebrated Ostend Manifesto* declared: 
 
 " After we have offered Spain a price for Cuba far beyond its 
 present value and this shall have been refused, it will be time to 
 consider the question 'does Cuba, in the possession of Spain, 
 seriously endanger our internal peace and the existence of our 
 cherished union.' Should this question be answered in the 
 affirmative, then, by every law, human and divine, we shall be 
 
 justified in wresting it from Spain if we possess the power We 
 
 should be recreant to our duty, be unworthy of our gallant fore- 
 fathers, and commit base treason against our posterity should we 
 permit Cuba. . . .seriously to endanger or actually to consume the 
 fair fabric of our Union." 
 
 But anti-slavery opinion in the North was setting strongly against 
 the slave power in its foreign as well as its domestic policy. The 
 first republican platform in 1856 resolved that ''the liighwayman's 
 plea that might makes right, embodied in the Ostend circular, was 
 in every respect unworthy of American diplomacy and would bring 
 shame and dishonor upon any government or people that gave it 
 their sanction." 
 
 *House Ex. Docs.. Vol. 10, No. !):i; :M Suss., :« Cong., pp. 1:^7-30. 
 
12 
 
 The civil war destroyed the slave power and the desire to acquire 
 territory for slave purposes. The doctrine devised by Polk in the 
 interest of slavery seemed to be dead. But now after nearly half 
 a century it is revived in the interest of foreign commerce. It 
 suggests an old epigram: 
 
 " To kill twice dead a rattlesnake, 
 
 And off his scaly skin to take, 
 
 And through his head to drive a stake. 
 
 And every bone within him break. 
 
 And of his flesh mincemeat to make. 
 
 To burn, to sear, to boil and bake, 
 
 Then in a heap the whole to rake. 
 
 And over it the besom shake 
 
 And sink it fathoms in the lake — 
 
 Whence after all, quite wide awake. 
 
 Comes back that very same old snake." 
 
 The Polk doctrine is an encroachment upon the rights of foreign 
 states. This fact is so clear that the wonder is that it does not 
 appeal to every one the moment it is stated. The explanation 
 perhaps is that frequent repetition secures its acceptance much as 
 we incline to believe a false report that is often repeated. The 
 first and most fundamental doctrine of international law asserts the 
 sovereignty, independence and equality of states. They are sover- 
 eign in the regulation of their internal affairs, independent of 
 interference in their relations with other states and equal in rights. 
 This is precisely the doctrine stated by John Quincy Adams,* 
 when urging the declaration in the cabinet meeting. 
 
 ''Considering the South Americans as independent nations," 
 he said, "they themselves and no other nations have the right to 
 dispose of their condition. We have no right to dispose of them, 
 either alone or in conjunction with other nations. Neither have 
 any other nations the right of disposing of them without their 
 consent." 
 
 From equality of rights results a corresponding equality of obli- 
 gations. The same rights belong to all — the same duties rest upon 
 all — the greatest as well as the smallest, the strongest as well as 
 the weakest. Strength confers no privileges and weakness grants 
 no exemptions. If the weak state injure the strong one, it must 
 make reparation. It is the duty of the strong state to seek it 
 peaceably, it is her right to secure it forcibly if necessary. 
 
 In 1854 the people of Greytown, Nicaragua, insulted the Ameri- 
 can minister and destro3'ed American property. The United 
 States sent a war-ship there and, failing to secure an indemnit}', bom- 
 
 *'■ Memoirs." Vol. 15, p. lOS. 
 
—13— 
 
 barded the town. Lord Palinerston, at that time prime minister 
 of England, in referring to the incident in Parliament, said: 
 
 "We may think that the attack was not justified by the cause 
 which was assigned. But we have no rigl:t to judge the motives 
 which actuated other states in vindicating wrongs which they sup- 
 posed they had sustained."* 
 
 In 1855 the United States became involved in a controversy with 
 Paraguay, in which justice appears to have been largely upon the 
 side of the weaker state. Reparation was demanded and refused. 
 Thereupon President Buchanan sent a fleet of nineteen vessels, 
 which forced an apology and the payment of an indemnity. 
 In i8go we threatened Venezuela with force in order to collect a 
 private claim and in 1892 we threatened Chili with war to secure an 
 apology for an injury. No European power interfered at any time 
 to protect the weaker state. 
 
 In 1894 the authorities at Bluefields, Nicaragua, insulted the 
 British consul there and a mob destroyed the consulate. Great 
 Britain demanded an indemnity of the Nicaraguan government and 
 proposed, in default of payment, to take possession of the port of 
 Corinto and collect the duties there until the amount claimed was re- 
 alized. Immediately the American press raised the cry of "Monroe 
 Doctrine" and in effect denied the right of Great Britain to resort to 
 the same measures of redress in her intercourse with independent 
 states which we had many times employed in similar cases. We 
 might have said as Lord Palmerston did of the Greytown bombard- 
 ment that we did not think the punishment was justified by the cause 
 assigned but we were bound to add as he did, that "we had no right 
 to judge the motives which actuated other states in vindicating 
 wrongs which they supposed they had sustained." To deny to 
 foreign nations the same modes of redress that wt' employ our- 
 selves is an encroachment upon their sovereignt)-, a violation of 
 their independence and a denial of their equality. 
 
 In 1 861 the United States was confronted with the most stupen- 
 dous insurrection ever organized. The rebellion began in South 
 Carolina in December of i85o. By the 8th of February, i86r, 
 seven states had seceded and organized an independent government 
 as complet^^ in all respects as was the Union government. Tlit y 
 were subsequently joined by four more states making eleven in all, 
 exactly one-third of tne total number at tliat time and including 
 nearly a third of the area and population of the Union. For five 
 months after the beginning of this rebellion no effort was made to 
 
 ♦Wharton's " Digest," Vol. -'. p. .)90. 
 
— 14— 
 
 check or suppress it. It was for a time even doubtful whether 
 such an attempt would be made at all. The first conflict of arms 
 took place in April. The President of the United States immedi- 
 ately called for seventy-five thousand volunteers and declared a 
 blockade of the seceded states. A war was immediately prepared, 
 the most regularly equipped, the most regularly conducted and 
 the greatest of modern times. In May and June European states 
 issued proclamations of neutrality, recognizing the fact of war and 
 the belligerency of the parties. We considered these proclama- 
 tions an unjustifiable interference in our internal affairs and an 
 evidence of great unfriendliness and made them for years the 
 subject of a claim for damages against a foreign state. 
 
 In the neighboring colony of a friendly state there has raged for 
 some time an irregular guerilla war. The government of the in- 
 surgents does not approach in completeness the government of the 
 Confederate states. It has not a tenth part of the equipment, of 
 the regularity, or of the prospect of success that the Confederates 
 had. And yet it is seriously proposed that we recognize these 
 insurgents as belligerents and advise Spain to grant them independ- 
 ence, on the ground that she can never conquer them. In what 
 temper would the Union government have received such advice in 
 1861? Interference in the affairs of foreign states, which we resent 
 when applied to ourselves, is an encroachment upon their sove- 
 reignty, a violation of their independence and a denial of their 
 equality. 
 
 According to well settled rules of international law, interference 
 in the affairs of independent states is justified in only two cases: 
 first, when demanded by self preservation and second, when necessa- 
 ry to prevent the commission by a government upon its subjects 
 of crimes repugnant to humanity. The protest of President Mon- 
 roe came well within the first case. It is difficult for us now to 
 realize the comparative weakness of the United States in 1823. 
 We had at that time a population of less than ten million people 
 sparsely settled over a wide area. Within ten years we had come 
 out of a war with a single European power badly beaten and glad 
 to make peace without mention of the causes of the contest. The 
 establishment by powerful European states of new colonies upon 
 our borders would have been a menace to our peace and safety. 
 The subjugation of South American states by an European alliance 
 acting in the interest of Spain would in principle have justified 
 the conquest of the United States by a similar alliance acting in 
 the interest of Great Britain. The circumstances justified the 
 protest. 
 
-15— 
 
 Very different are the recent cases. In no one of them is there 
 an}' menace to onr national existence. We have no right of inter- 
 ference, npon the same principle of law that an individual has no 
 standing in a controversy in which his rights are not involved. 
 The fact that states are located in the Western hemisphere gives 
 us no protectorate over them. Much of Europe is actually nearer 
 to us than many South American states and all of Europe is more 
 easily accessible than any of them. International law knows no 
 North, no South, no East, no West. The rights and duties of 
 states are the same everywhere. The assertion by the President 
 that an extension of the boundary of British Guiana is dangerous 
 to our peace and safety is an absolute absurdit}'. And yet, so far 
 as I am informed, only three newspapers in the United States had 
 the courage to say so. The only other protest came from a few- 
 college professors, who in the popular view, by reason of the special 
 study of particular questions, become thereby incapacitated for 
 forming intelligent opinions respecting them. These few protests 
 were met by crashing charges: their authors were dudes and 
 Anglomaniacs and turned up their trousers when it rained in Lon- 
 don. And now the government has come to the college professors 
 because no one else can read the documents upon which rests the 
 settlement of the questions involved. Two members of the Vene- 
 zuelan commission are college presidents and former professors of 
 history and the actual study of maps and manuscripts is being 
 carried on by Mr. Winsor, the librarian of Harvard, Professor 
 Burr of Cornell and Professor Jameson of Brown University. I 
 am bound to say that the moderation of Great Britain in view of 
 our repeated interference in her affairs is truly remarkable. I do 
 not believe that the Amurican people would for a moment brook a 
 similar interference by any European state in matters that con- 
 cern ourselves exclusively. 
 
 The case of Cuba affects us more nearly. We cannot but 
 sympathize with the insurgents, struggling for liberty and inde- 
 pendence, but we have no interest that justifies interference. The 
 interest of Great Britain in our civil war was far greater, for the 
 blockade closed her factories and caused widespread distress and 
 actual starvation. It is reported that the contest in Cuba is waged 
 with great cruelty, with the use of poisonous and explosive bullets, 
 with summary trials and barbarous executions, storming of hospitals 
 and massacre of non-combatants, but the evidence does not show 
 that the cruelty is much greater on one side than on the other. 
 " As for a state's having the vocation to go forth like Hercules,' 
 
— 16— 
 
 says President Woolsey,* "beating down wickedness, all over the 
 world, it is enough to say that sucli a principle, if carried out, 
 would destroy the independence of states, justify nations in taking 
 sides in regard to all national acts and lead to universal war." 
 
 A doctrine which claims a right to interfere in controversies 
 between other states or in their internal affairs, when our national 
 existence is in no way imperiled or even remotely involved, is a 
 violation of international law and an encroachment upon the rights 
 of foreign nations. 
 
 The Polk doctrine is a menace to our peace and safety. A state 
 that interferes in matters that do not concern her does so at her 
 peril. Especially dangerous are alliances with states so unstable 
 and changeable as those of Central and South America. Their 
 internal affairs are in a state of confusion. Under the forms of 
 republican institutions their governments are in fact a succession 
 of military dictatorships — despotisms tempered by revolution. 
 Within a period of forty years Mexico had nearly forty revolutions 
 and more than seventy presidents. The history of the other states 
 is very similar. So precarious are the lives of their statesmen that 
 a right of asylum in foreign legations is admitted in all of them 
 upon the ground that otherwise experienced men could not be 
 induced to engage in affairs of government.! They are continually 
 involved in wars with each other. Their wholesale repudiation of 
 their debts continually embroils them with Europe. The govern- 
 ment of to-da)^ may be overthrown to-morrow. They ask our 
 assistance only when involved in controversies with other states. 
 At other times they reject our advice and repel our advances. 
 Such protection is a thankless and fruitless task. Connection with 
 them may at any time render us responsible for acts that we cannot 
 control. Connection with one of them recently threatened a war 
 in which we h-ad no interest involved or principle at stake, a war 
 with a state to which we are bound by ties of common blood, com- 
 mon language, common literature and common histor}^, a war that 
 would have caused incalculable loss and misery, a war that would 
 have arrested the progress of the world for a decade and disgraced the 
 closing years of the centur3^ Let us take warning from experience 
 and renounce a policy fraught with so much danger to our peace 
 and safety. 
 
 The so-called Monroe doctrine is, therefore, contrary to the 
 teaching of the founders of the republic, a perversion of the true 
 
 ♦"International Law," titli ed., p. 19. 
 (Wharton's " Digest," Vol. 1, p. 693. 
 
— 17— 
 
 meaning of the original declaration, an encroachment upon the 
 rights of foreign nations and a menace to the peace and safety of 
 our own, and it is the duty of the scholar to impress these facts 
 upon the people through the press, in the pulpit and on the 
 platform. 
 
 I come now to the second danger that threatens our national 
 peace — the existence of a rising war spirit among the people. I 
 do not by any means believe that such a spirit has become general 
 but it has infected considerable numbers and unless checked may 
 at any time get the upper hand. I attribute this spirit in large 
 part to the influence of the younger men who arc rapidly gaining 
 control of public and private affairs. The older men have retained 
 control longer than usual by reason of the prominence and claims 
 that service in the civil war gave them. They are now passing 
 rapidly away and their places are being filled by the generation that 
 has grown to manhood since the war. This change is accompanied 
 by a rise of war spirit, much as the same spirit arose during the first 
 half of the century at the passing of the men of revolutionary 
 times. 
 
 One cause of this spirit is to be found in a desire to extend our 
 territory. In Europe in recent times there has been a revival of 
 activity in colonization, indicated by the occupation of the minor 
 islands of the Pacific and the conquests of England and Germany, 
 France and Italy in various parts of Africa. The principal motive 
 of this movement has been a desire to find an outlet for surplus 
 population without incurring the loss that emigration of that sur- 
 plus to the United States involves. The American people have 
 caught the infection without having the same reason for it. The 
 result is a revival of the doctrine that it is the manifest destiny of 
 the United States to acquire control of the whole continent. This 
 doctrine is illustrated by an anecdote told of a dinner given by the 
 Americans residing in Paris during the civil war. The first speaker 
 proposed the toast: " The United States, bounded on the North 
 by British America, on the South by the Gulf of Mexico, on the 
 East by the Atlantic and on the West by the Pacific Ocean." 
 "But," said the second speaker, "this is far too limited a view of 
 the subject. Why not look to the great and glorious future which 
 the manifest destiny of our race prescribes for us? Here's to the 
 United States, bounded on the North by the North Pole and on 
 the South by the South Pole, on the East by the rising and on the 
 West by the setting sun." "If we are going," said the third 
 speaker, "to leave the present and take our manifest destiny into 
 
account, why restrict ourselves within the narrow limits that have 
 just been assigned? I give you the United States, bounded on the 
 North by the Aurora Borealis, on the South by the precession of 
 the equinoxes, on the East by primeval chaos and on the West by 
 the Day of Judgment." 
 
 The revival of this spirit is indicated by the frequent recurrence 
 of articles in the magazines advocating the annexation of Canada, 
 by a very general desire not long since for the acquisition of the 
 Hawaiian Islands, by a strong feeling in some quarters at the pres- 
 ent time for the occupation of Cuba and by the demand sometimes 
 heard that we make the Isthmus canal our southern boundary. 
 Such exuberance and enthusiasm are natural to youth. The fact 
 seems scarcely to be considered that nearly every one of these 
 measures involves war. I do not mean to disparage the importance 
 of our vast extent of territory and of our boundless resources, a just 
 source of pride to every patriotic American. The annexation of 
 both Texas and California has been productive of incalculable good 
 to us and to the territory involved but that does not justify the mode 
 / and motive of their acquisition. We ought not to acquire more 
 A territory by war and conquest. We ought not to annex islands so 
 far removed from our present boundaries that a great and expensive 
 navy would be necessary for their defense, costing more than the 
 / value of their total product. And we ought not to acquire territory 
 of which the population is unfit to constitute a state in the Union. 
 I- Quality is more important than quantity; domestic peace more 
 valuable than foreign commerce. 
 
 A second cause of the war spirit is to be found in the existence 
 of deep seated prejudices against particular nations, prejudices un- 
 reasoning and unreasonable. The strongest of these prejudices is 
 directed against England. This is in part a survival of the passions 
 of the revolution. Aversion to England and partiality to France 
 .were potent factors in our domestic politics from the revolution to 
 the war of 1812. So strong indeed was their influence that a 
 foreign observer was led to remark that "he found in the United 
 States, many French and a few English but no Americans." 
 Rightly understood the revolution furnished little reason either for 
 hatred of England or gratitude to France. At least after the lapse 
 of a century and especially as we were victorious, we can afford to 
 be magnanimous. The English do not cherish the same resentment 
 against us. An Englishman once said to me: "We don't bear you 
 any grudge, you know, for beating us in the revolution. We are 
 proud of you. It is just what we would have done in your place." 
 
— 19— 
 
 And I believe that this remark is characteristic of the feeling of the 
 English people. Prejudice against England was revived by the 
 events of our civil war. There was in truth far greater reason for 
 hatred of France, whose government on the one hand continually 
 urged Great Britain to interference and to a joint recognition of 
 Southern independence and on the other tried to turn our distracted 
 condition to her own advantage b}' establishing an empire in 
 Me.xico. The existence of what is called the Irish vote tends to 
 perpetuate this prejudice and enables politicians to make capital 
 by trading upon the passions of the people. Here again we can- 
 not do better than turn to the advice of Washington's farewell 
 address: 
 
 "Nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate 
 antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments 
 for others should be excluded and that in place of them, just and 
 
 amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated Antipath}' in 
 
 one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer 
 insult and injury, to la\' hold of slight causes of umbrage and to 
 be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of 
 dispute occur .... Hence frequent collisions and obstinate, enven- 
 omed and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will 
 and resentment, sometimes impels the government to war contrary 
 to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes 
 participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion 
 what reason would reject. At other times, it makes the animosity 
 of the people subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by 
 pride, ambition and other sinister and pernicious motives. The 
 peace often, sometimes even the liberty of nations, has been the 
 victim." 
 
 A third cause of the war spirit may be found in an extreme 
 sensitiveness and a disposition to resent anything that looks like 
 injury before the actual facts are known. The conduct of foreign 
 relations is undoubtedly a weak point in republican institutions. 
 Formerly they were considered the exclusive affair of government, 
 diplomatic correspondence was secret and time was allowed for 
 explanation or apology before definite action was threatened or 
 taken. Now all public questions are discussed in the forum of the 
 people and upon the first rumor of insult or injustice there arises a 
 demand for instant apology and a threat of war. Governments 
 like individuals dislike the appearance of yielding to pressure and 
 a premature resort to it diminishes the chances of accommodation. 
 The danger is that popular excitement may precipitate an unnec- 
 
essary conflict. Fortunately the government has proved more 
 moderate than the people and the danger so far has been avoided. 
 
 Nations have the rights of individuals and the same duties rest 
 upon them — among others the duty of moderation. 
 
 "It not infrequently happens, " says General Halleck,* "that 
 what is, at first, looked upon as an injury or an insult is found, upon 
 more deliberate examination, to be a mistake rather than an act of 
 malice or one designed to give offense. Moreover the injury may 
 result from the acts of inferior persons, which may not receive 
 the approbation of their own governments. A little moderation 
 and delay, in such cases, may bring to the offended party a just 
 satisfaction whereas rash and precipitate measures may often lead 
 to the shedding of innocent blood." 
 
 I would not abate one jot or tittle of our just rights but I would 
 counsel moderation, a postponement of judgment until all the 
 circumstances are known, an avoidance of irritating and insulting 
 charges, a resort to peaceful measures of redress and above all no 
 talk of war until it shall appear that war is necessary to save 
 national honor. "He that is slow to anger is better than the 
 mighty and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city." 
 
 The last and most important cause of the war spirit is to be 
 fovind in the fact that the new generation have never known the 
 horrors of war and are ignorant of its true character. 
 
 "Art and literature," says a recent writer on international law,"!" 
 " combine to help on the work of slaughter. Poets and painters 
 celebrate the ' pomp and circumstance of glorious war ' till people 
 come seriously to regard it as a thing of bands and banners, of 
 glittering uniforms and burnished steel, of deeds of heroic daring 
 and examples of lofty self-sacriiice. They forget tiie stern realities 
 of cold and hunger, wounds and death, the shattered limbs, the 
 fever thirst, the fiendish passions of cruelty and lust. They forget 
 the demoralization it causes among both victors and vanquished 
 and the widespread ruin that follows in its train. In the twenty- 
 five years betwen 1855 and 1880 over two million men died in wars 
 between civilized powers." 
 
 In our own civil war, upon the Union side alone, out of three 
 hundred and lift}' thousand dead, only sixty-seven thousand were 
 killed in battle. Two hundred thousand died of disease, forty- 
 three thousand died of wounds and forty thousand from accident, 
 murder, execution, starvation or abuse. Thirty thousand one hun- 
 
 *" International Law," 3cl ed., Vol. 1, p. 4(i:j. 
 
 ■fT. J. Lawrence, "Essays ou Modern Tnteriiationul Law," 3d ed.. pp. 342-4. 
 
dred and fifty-six Union soldiers died in Southern prisons and thirty 
 tliousand one hundred and fifty-two Confederate soldiers died in 
 Northern prisons, within four of the same number on both sides. 
 
 "Who can calculate," says the same writer, "the awful mass of 
 human misery that these fi<;ures represent?. . . .Comparatively few 
 of those that perish die upon the battle field. Thousands succumb 
 from sheer exhaustion, having endured for weeks, perhaps months, 
 the slow agony of failing strength, under the influence of privation 
 and over-exertion. Thousands die of disease, many of them for 
 want of the commonest comforts of the sick. Starvation demands 
 one host of victims, fever another, neglected wounds a third. 
 Vice of all kinds preys upon the soldiery and exacts its terrible toll 
 of moral and physical ruin. Even well appointed and victorious 
 armies melt away under the influence of sickness and fatigue unless 
 constantly reinforced. What then must be the case with a broken 
 or retreating army, an army separated from its supplies or cooped 
 up in a beleaguered fortress? Let the three hundred thousand 
 French soldiers, whose bones strewed the plains of Russia from 
 Moscow to the Niemen provide the answer. Read in the history 
 of a more recent period how a British army was destroyed by cold 
 and privation, in the trenches before Sebastopol, while transports 
 rocked idly in the harbor of Balaclava, almost within sight of the 
 starved men dying like flies for want of the comforts they contained. 
 Consult English papers for the condition of the hospitals at Plevna, 
 when the Russians entered the town and found the wounded with 
 broken and unset limbs twisted out of all human recognition. In 
 records such as these you will read the true history of war. No 
 one acquainted with them can deny that much remains to be done 
 to correct popular ideas and sentiments on the subject. There 
 must be a great change in the ordinary modes of thinking and 
 speaking of war before current opinion in regard to it conforms to 
 the standard of Christianit}." 
 
 It is not death alone that makes war terrible. Worse than dead 
 are the wrecks of men, maimed in body and shattered in mind, 
 who live afterward, a curse to themselves and a burden to tluir 
 friends. No account has }'et been taken of tlie suffering at home. 
 Think of the three hundred and fifty thousand dead in our last war on 
 the Northern side alone and then think of the thousands of mothers 
 left childless, the thousands of wives left husbandless, the thou- 
 sands of children left fatherless, the heart-burnings and heart-break- 
 ings it caused, and tlicii talk lightly and wantonly of war. 
 
"The real sorrows of war," says George Gary Eggleston,* in 
 speaking of the South, "fall most heavily upon the women. They 
 may not bear arms. They may not even share the triumphs which 
 compensate their brothers for toil and suffering and danger. They 
 must sit still and endure. The poverty which war brings to them 
 wears no cheerful face but sits down with them to empty tables and 
 pinches them sorely in solitude. After the victory the men who 
 have won it throw up their hats in glad huzza, while their wives 
 and daughters await in sorest agony of suspense the news which 
 may bring hopeless desolation to their hearts." 
 
 I have heard men say that war would be a good thing, it would 
 raise prices and make trade brisk. Truly when such remarks can 
 be made, much remains to be done to correct popular ideas and 
 sentiments upon the subject of war. The duty to do this rests 
 upon those who know and feel the evil. It rests upon all alike, 
 teachers in the schools and professors in the colleges, writers for 
 the press and preachers in the churches, men of business on the 
 street and statesmen in the halls of legislation. Lord Derby has 
 said: " The greatest of England's interests is peace." Let us echo 
 the sentiment: The greatest American interest is peace. 
 
 I come now to the third danger that threatens our national peace 
 — enormous expenditure for war purposes. This expenditure, as 
 Dunning said of the influence of the crown, "has increased, is 
 increasing and ought to be diminished." The possession of great 
 force is a standing temptation to use it. 
 
 It has been common for great men to give accounts of their 
 early intellectual development and of books that have helped 
 them. I see no reason why it may not also be permitted 
 to small men to acknowledge their indebtedness to the influences 
 that have moulded their opinions. In the library of the school 
 where I received my training preparatory for college, there was a 
 copy of the "Speeches and Addresses of Gharles Sumner," which 
 I often used to read when supposed by my instructors to be study- 
 ing Latin or Algebra. The first speech in that collection made a 
 powerful impression upon my mind. It was entitled "The True 
 Grandeur of Nations," and defended the proposition that in our 
 age there can be no peace that is not honorable, and no war that 
 is not dishonorable. The oration was delivered on the fourth of 
 July, 1845, before the city corporation of Boston. Mr. Sumner 
 was himself a notable example of the scholar in politics — not 
 always right, to be sure, but always honest and honorable. This 
 speech was his first public appearance, the beginnh-ig of his public 
 *"A Rebel's Recollections," 3d ed , p. 58. 
 
—23— 
 
 career. I desire to quote the passage,* which, according to the 
 testimony of those present, made the strongest impression upon 
 his hearers: 
 
 "Within cannon range of this city stands an institution of learn- 
 ing which was one of the earliest cares of our forefathers. Favored 
 child in an age of trial and struggle — carefully nursed througli a 
 period of hardship and anxiety — sustained from its first foundation 
 by the paternal arm of the commonwealth, by a constant succession 
 of munificent bequests and by the prayers of good men— the 
 University of Cambridge now invites our homage as the most 
 ancient, most interesting and most important seat of learning in 
 
 the land It appears from the last "Report of the Treasurer, that 
 
 the whole available property of the University, the various accu- 
 mulations of more than two centuries of generosity, amounts to 
 $703,000." 
 
 "Change the scene and cast your eyes upon another object. 
 There now swings idly at her moorings in this harbor a ship of the 
 line, the Ohio, carrying ninety guns, finished as late as 1836 at an 
 expense of $835,000 — more than §130,000 beyond all the available 
 wealth of the richest and most ancient seat of learning in the land. 
 Choose ye, my fellow citizens of a Christian state, between the tw^o 
 caskets, — that w^herein is the loveliness of truth, or that which 
 contains the carrion death." 
 
 "Pursue the comparison still further. The expenditure of the 
 University during the last year amounted to $48,000. The cost of 
 the Ohio for one year of service, in salaries, wages and provisions 
 is $220,000, being §172,000 above the annual expenses of the 
 University and more than four times as much as those expenditures. 
 In oth^-r words, for the annual sum lavished upon a single ship of 
 the line, four institutions like Harvard University might be sup- 
 ported." 
 
 A similar comparison between the cost of a modern warship and 
 a modern University would be interesting, were the material at hand 
 for making it. The average cost in recent years of a large man-of-war, 
 without armament, has been over three million dollars. There have 
 recently been added to our navy six battle ships — the Indiana, the 
 Iowa, the Maine, the Massachusetts, the Oregon and the Texas, and 
 two armored cruisers — the Brooklyn and the New York. Their total 
 cost, making allowance for armament, is twenty-five million dollars. 
 This amount exceeds by ten million dollars the total income of the 
 four hundred and seventy-six colleges and universities in the United 
 States to-day and at the present rate would defray the current 
 
 ♦Sumner's " Woiks," Vol. I, pi). 80-:i. 
 
— 24— 
 
 expenses of the University of Kansas for a period of two hundred 
 and fifty years. And yet this twenty-five million is but a fraction 
 of the total expenditure for war purposes which during the last 
 five years has amounted to four hundred and twelve millions,* an 
 average of over eighty-two millions a year — and the present Con- 
 gress has surpassed all its predecessors in extravagance and 
 voted the largest appropriations ever made and ordered the largest 
 number of battle ships ever provided for at a single time — and all 
 this in a period of peace abroad and commercial depression at home, 
 with an enormous deficit in the national treasury and with wide- 
 spread distress every winter in all our large cities, that has required 
 for its relief an organization of charities hitherto unknown. Is it 
 not time to call a halt in this enormous waste of wealth? Is there 
 not some missionary work for educated men and women to do here 
 at home in the way of arousing and civilizing public opinion upon 
 this subject? " Let us," says General Walker,f "frown indignantly 
 upon every proposed measure, upon every representative vote, 
 upon every word of every man, whether in public or private speech, 
 which assumes or gives countenance to the assumption that this 
 people are to come under the curse of the war system or which 
 threatens our friendly relations with any power on earth. Sixt)^- 
 five millions, transcending in all the elements of industrial, of 
 financial and, if you please, of military strength, the combined 
 resources of any two of the greatest nations of the world, who 
 shall molest us or make us afraid, who shall be so insane as to 
 wantonly attack the greatest power on earth? Why then should 
 we enter upon that career of competitive armament into which 
 mutual jealousies and mutual fears have driven the nations of 
 Europe — a career which once entered upon, has no logical stopping 
 place short of complete exhaustion, impoverishment and financial 
 bankruptcy and which in its turn finds that it has earned nothing 
 but to be the object of universal dread and universal detestation? 
 .. . .Let it then be our pride as it is our privilege to remain the 
 great unarmed nation, as little fearing harm from any as desiring 
 to wrong any. Let us follow the paths of peaceful, happy industry, 
 developing the resources with which nature has so bounteously 
 endowed us, reserving our giant strength for those competitions 
 whose results are mutual benefits, and bestowing ;ipon schools and 
 colleges, libraries and museums, public parks and institutions of 
 beneficence that wealth which others waste on frontier fortresses 
 and floating castles." 
 
 *" Statistical Abstract of tlie UuitocI States," No. IS. p. -22. 
 
 +"The Growth of tlie Nation," an Address at Brown University, .Tunc 18tb, 1889, 
 printed in tlie Providence ".lournal." 
 
mm