What immediately impresses one after a hasty reading of the peace treaty presented to Germany by the allied powers? The large majority exclaim: "Good, the Boche cannot ever threaten to upset the world again, and is getting back, in some measure, what he gave us." Others find in it cause for skepticism. They think that taking Germany's colonies, imposing heavy indemnities, and literally holding down the Hun on every side that he may never rise again, will cause a bitterness to prevail that can never be eradicated.

Both points of view are worthy of deep consideration, but on closer reading of the treaty, it becomes clear that the terms are just and wise. They do not violate the principle of self determination. The Allies can not be accused of wanton aggression; the distribution of territory is well-balanced, no country receiving any possession to which it has not a right. In the Sarre Valley question, it is interesting to remember that Dean Haskins, as head of the Rhine Boundary Commission, played a prominent part. The question has at last been settled in a way to repair the wrongs which French coal fields suffered at the hands of Germany. In solving another bone of contention by the Danzig outlet, we understand Professor Lord offered able suggestions. It is highly satisfactory, thus to find names of Harvard men intimately connected with the Treaty.

Above all, and what is of the utmost consequence to every nation, large and small, Germany has been so bereft of all military and naval power that, if the provisions of the Treaty are carried out--and the guarantees that they will be are adequate--the scourge of militarism can no longer hold away over the civilized world. With all the other great powers united in a League of Nations and Germany in a state of complete impotence, there is great cause to hope that armaments may be persistently reduced. With greater belief in a safe future, we may turn ourselves towards the problems of peace and progress.