BOOKS.
MR. BECK'S NEW BOOK.'
Tars volume is a sequel to Mr. Beck's well-known The Evidence in the Case, and it will be received by British readers with as much gratitude as that first defence of the Allies' cause by the distinguished American jurist. The argument of the first book was that every nation is under an obligation to justify its acts before the general conscience of man- kind. If that doctrine be applied to the United States, it disposes for practical purposes of the notion that a people can live in comfortable isolation and still keep their soul alive in the world as it is to-day. "It is a great error and a narrowness of the mind," as Bacon said, " to think that nations have nothing to do one with another except there be either an union in sovereignty, or a conjunction in pacts or leagues; there are other bonds of society and implicit confederations." Mr. Beck's conclusion was that his country was partly but definitely responsible for any declension from the former standards of humane custom and international good faith which might result from the present war. It was her duty to protest when wrong was done to the whole community of mankind, and if necessary to take up arms for the right. Ho illus- trated his theme by remarkably apposite quotations, which wereplainly the fruits of wide and discriminating reading, and we find that same gift of happy quotation in the book before us.
The first chapter, "The Distress of Nations," deals with the familiar evil of war, and discusses possible remedies and their limitations. "The Submarine Controversy " explains the restraints upon savage warfare --which the conscience of the world has graduallyovolved, but which are
• The War and Bunwaity: a Farther Discussion of the Ethic, of the World 1Var and the Altitude Wed Dias? of the United Stelae. BY acted Bi- Beek, of the NO* Yeti( ler. louden; G. P. l'uteam'a floes. [he. net]
being brutally ignored by Germany. The German argument of necessity of course begs the whole question, merely assuming that where German interests are concerned oon.science does not count. " The Case of Edith Caiell " is an earnest and powerful assertion of the rights of non- combatants. Incidentally Mr. Beck shows that even according to the harsh German law Miss Cavell was irregularly condemned. " The Foreign Policy of George Washington " considers one of the reasons alleged for the failure of the United States to intervene in a more practical way earlier in the wan It is true, as Mr. Bock says, that Washington enjoined his countrymen to " cultivate peace and harmony" with other nations, but it was only when ho had first admonished thorn to " observe good faith and justice." Justice was never regarded by Washington as a mere negation ; in his conception it was a positive, affirmative force which entailed active duties as well as passive rights. " Where there is No Vision " analyses the historical and temperamental causes of American neutrality. In " America and the Allies" Mr. Beck takes up his pen on behalf of his country, and, for all the hard things he has to say throughout the book about President Wilson, he shows hero that foreign critics erred in accusing the American people of " complete indifference to the moral aspects of the war." " The Vision of Franca " extols as a model the spirit in which France has met the present crisis of her fate.
in; an intense lover of peace, Mr. Beck cannot bring himself to believe that peace would be secured—at least not with the essential of equal justice for all—by a League of Peace. He fears that the conscience of mankind (" conscience " is the test which he applies to every problem) is not sufficiently developed for a League of Peace to be an instill- ment of fairness. He remembers how old the idea is and of how little Tabor it has been to the world. Argos and Lacedaemon had a fifty- year Treaty of Arbitration. William Penn was actually a believer in the very proposal which- is so popular in America now—the idea of enforcing peace. In his Essay toward the Present and Future l'eace of Europe that great apostle of peace wrote that tho judgment of an International Court of Arbitration ought to bo made " so binding that if any Government offers its case for decision, and does not then abide by it, the other Governments, parties to the tribunal, shall compel it." Mr. Beck says :- " Under the theory of the proposed league of peace, it would have been the duty of every party to the league to join with England, France, and Russia in supporting the claims of Servia and resisting the arrogant demands of Austria and Germany. Theoretically this is admirable and in the instance cited would undoubtedly have prevented the titanic war. If oven England and the United States had promptly joined with France and Russia in demanding that Austria should arbitrate her remaining question with Servia, the world to-day would not be wit- neseing a very deluge of blood. And yet if nations, which were far detached from Servia and had little interest in Austro-Servian grievances as such, had attempted to implicate their several peoples in a war, whose superficial origin was so remote, they would have found con- siderable difficulty under present conditions of thought in securing the necessary support of their peoples. The world is, I fear, some ages behind such recognition of joint responsibility. If, however, this sense of common responsibility can be developed in civilization ; if every nation shall feel that it must bear its share of the burden of preserving a just and durable peace, then war might be prevented in roost contro- versies, for there is no nation, however great in power, that would challenge in physical conflict all the other powers of civilization. Indeed, if such co-operative effort could ever be secured, the coercion by armies and navies might not bs necessary, for the league of nations could probably compel the offending nation to maintain peace with equal effectiveness by an economic( boycott. No nation would wish to make war, if all the loading nations should desist from commercial and social intercourse with such nation. With the conscience of mankind developed to the point of common responsibility, disarmament is not a dream, but until then it is for the pacific states a dangerous mirage. A further weakness of the League of Peace lies in the limitations of human nature ; for I fear that if it were ever formed, it would share the fate of every government, which while theoretically wilted, is yet divided into political groups which may contend against each other not on ethical but material lines. No government has yet been able to make all men think alike ; and as they do not and their standards of morality vary in character, and their vital interests are divergent, a tendency necessarily results to break into groups of kindred thoughts or interests. I fear, therefore, that any league of peace, if it were seriously attempted after the conclusion of this war, would one day share the fate of its great predecessor, the Holy Alliance, which was founded at the end of the Napoleonic) wars. I appreciate that the fatal defect of the Holy Alliance was that its principal purpose was to strangle democra cy and that it thus warred against the freedom of civilization."
Mr. Beck's own suggestion is that the most promising line of action is not to be too ambitious in the hope that this imperfect world can be morally federated in a single act of international statecraft, but to begin by forming a large and powerful group of nations concerned in the preservation of peace. He suggests that the nucleus of the new peace-loving group would be formed by an entente cordiale between Britain, France, and the United States. There would be no question of " entangling alliances "—hateful to Americans. He is convinced that the gentle bonds of an entente would be the best method of holding peace-loving nations together in their policy. Our readers may remem- ber that this proposal corresponds with that of Professor L T. Hob- house, who greatly prefers the idea of making use of the existing groups to the idea of including all and sundry nations in an ill-assorted League. As the group which declared its interest in permanent peace grew in repute and influence fresh nations would wish to S ntoire to It. Ultimately even Germany might apply for admission.
just as France, in different circumstances, applied for admiration to the Holy Alliance.
Now that the submarine controversy has taken a wholly new turn and has driven Mr. Wilson to the very verge of war, we should think it unfair to go over the whole ground which Mr. Beck surveys in his strong condemnation of Mr. Wilson's " timidity " and caution. Mr. Beck will never be satisfied unless the United States makes it a matter of conscience to demand on principle the safety of all non-combatants in merchant vessels, not merely neutrals, and certainly not only American non-combatants, who were the only class mentioned by Mr. Wilson in the later stages of the unsettled Lusitania' controversy. The wording of the proposed ' Lusitania' settlement when it was last heard of implied that the killing of belligerent non-combatants was justifiable. Germany offered to admit that the attack on the Lusitania' was " unjustifiable so far as it involved the loss of neutral lives." Upon this Mr. Beck remarks with great juridical force :- " Had this qualified disavowal been accepted by America, it would have compromised the justice of its cause and modified the existing law of humanity. If the attack on the Lusitania wore only unjustifiable ' so far as it involved the loss of neutral lives,' then the implication is not unreasonable that it was justifiable so far as it destroyed the lives of non-combatants of belligerent nations. It is true that it does not expressly say so, but the ' disavowal,' which the United States had insistently demanded for nearly a year, was a fuller recognition of a wrong, and to the extent that a wrong was not admitted it was by implication justified by this attempted ' accord and satisfaction.' This distinction was indefensible either on grounds of humanity or of international law. If Germany had a right without visit or search to attack the Lusitania because it was an English vessel and was believed to be carrying con- traband, and had a right to destroy English non-combatants, then that right could not be impaired by the accidental presence on the Lusitania of American citizens. No American would contend that the army of the Crown Prince was prevented from bombarding Verdun if some American citizens were accidentally in the beleaguered city."
Discussing the morality of reprisals, Mr. Beck says that reprisals must be " equivalent in degree, if not in kind," to the deeds against which they are directed, and in any case must not override the funda- mental principles of humanity. The German argument that submariee warfare is a " reprisal " against the British policy of starvation is of course ridiculous. When the Germans were starving Paris in 1870 they would not have admitted that the French would bo justified in shooting Germans living in Paris as a " reprisaL"
Finally, let us give two instances of Mr. Beck's art of quotation. The words of Juarez, the Spanish jurist, are now to us, but they are obviously very pertinent to Mr. Beck's general doctrine. Juarez, who " flour- ished " before Grotius, the so-called father of international law, said :- " The foundation of the law of Nations lies in this, that the human race, though divided into various peoples and kingdoms, has always a certain unity, which is not merely the unity of species, but is also political and moral ; as is shown by the natural precept of mutual love and pity, which extends to all peoples, however foreign they may be to one another, and whatever may be their character or constitution. From which it follows that although any state, whether a republic or a kingdom, may be a community complete in itself, it is nevertheless a member of that whole, which constitutes the human race ; for such a community is never so completely self-sufficing but that it requires some mutual help and intercourse with others, sometimes for the sako of some benefit to bo obtained, but sometimes too, from the moral necessity and craving, which are apparent from the very habits of mankind."
Then, in writing of the ineffaceable impression produced by the execution of Miss Cavell, Mr. Beck argues that this memory will live when the memory of far greater episodes has become dim, and ho suddenly quotes with great effect Lamartine's words on Napoleon's murder of the last Prince of the House of Condd :—
"A cold curiosity carries the visitor to the battlefields of Marengo, Austerlitz, Wagrain, Leipsio, Waterloo • ho wanders over them with dry eyes, but one is shown at a corner of the wall near the foundations of Vincennes, at the bottom of a ditch, a spot covered with nettles and weeds. He says, ' There it is I' He utters a cry and carries away with him undying pity for the victim and an implacable resentment against the assassin. This resentment is vengeance for the past and a lesson for the future. Let the ambitious, whether soldiers, tribunes, or kings, remember that if they have hirelings to do their will, and flatterers to eXCU86 them while they reign, there yet comes afterward a human conscience to judge them and pity to hate them. The murderer- has but one hour ; the victim has eternity."
Previous page
