To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

One of the most interesting things about the recent communications in opposition to your fine stand on summer military camps is the complete unanimity with which they miss the point. Each one starts with the assumption that war is inevitable and then proceeds to argue the need of national defence. Undoubtedly many pacifists would agree to the conclusion once they were convinced of the premise.

As nearly as I can gather, the militarists' arguments in support of that premise are somewhat as follows: Man has always fought; therefore he will always continue to fight. It is true that the world is advancing, but--look at Europe. (Here the pacifists may be pardoned for a reference to the United States and Canada). All law and order, all national and international equilibrium, are ultimately based upon arms, proceeds Mr. Militarist. One enthusiastic "Amateur Soldier" even suggests that government is merely a matter of brute force. Others are frequently heard to say that though perhaps force is not always the most reasonable or satisfactory arbiter of international disputes, yet is it the only ultimate one. Arbitrations and treaties are all very well, but some questions must be fought out to be settled finally. (Perhaps here again he would point to Europe--as an example of a "final settlement").

All of this has a certain air of manly, or brute, valor, with a generous admixture of "Might makes right." But needless to say, most of us believe that government is not based solely on force, and that there is another arbiter than arms which is far more potent, not only to settle disputes, but to keep them settled. Perhaps it may be called, by way of ellipsis, public opinion. Even war has its rules. If force is to decide the matter, why not fight it out, by fair means or foul, till the weaker side cries for mercy? If resort to arms is the only ultimate solution for international problems, why hesitate to appeal thereto? Why, for instance, do all the nations of Europe seek to justify themselves before each other and the world by claiming to be waging a purely defensive war? If the opinion of the world can compel men to fight according to rule, to murder and pillage like Christian gentlemen, why can it not compel them to settle their differences according to reason and with-out fighting? He is blind indeed to modern thought who seeks to argue from the world of a century and more ago to the world of today. And he must be wilfully blind who would deny the existence of an ever-growing instrument of progress and civilization in the form of an international public opinion strong enough to settle all disputes, except those between nations armed to the teeth "in the hope of peace"--and in the expectation of war.

The answer of the militarist doubtless is that he is quite ready to give up armaments as soon as the other nations do, but till then let us protect ourselves. And it is just there that the pacifist of today, and especially of the United States, has an opportunity unequalled in all history to serve the cause of civilization. When the present war is over the belligerents will be in a state of exhaustion from which they cannot recover in less than a generation at least. Men and women throughout the entire civilized world will have endured and seen suffering such as no former war has produced. If ever there was a time ripe for federations of nations, diminutions of national armament, international police forces, increased control of international relations, and so on, certainly now is that time. As the one great nation which will not be exhausted and embittered by the combat, the United States has a most important and essential part to play in the coming readjustment. Is it idle to think that the hardest and yet the most necessary lesson which must be taught will be mutual trust and co-operation among nations? And need it be suggested that example is ever a better teacher than precept? Let us by all means keep ourselves in a position to counsel peace and good will, without having others feel that we are meantime training our young men to fight against--them. And let us not waste our youth in a training which we pray never to have to use, when we might be spending it in learning and spreading lessons of peace. Then, when the time comes for us to talk to the world of plans for perpetual peace, if we fail to accomplish our high aims, at least we shall have given ourselves every opportunity for success. And then, if we do fail, while Europe is rearing new sons to fight her coming battles, there will be time enough for us to prepare to defend ourselves against them.  J. GARFIELD 3L.