Washington, October 18, 1933.

Talk of war and another 1914 crisis has done its share in adding to the scares and apprehensions which the economic world trembles over, but while statesmen issue notes in stirring phrases the fortunate truth is that money and credit are not as abundant as they were twenty years ago and the likelihood of armed conflict is therefore remote.

It was more of a domestic political move than a warning to Europe which Ambassador Norman Davis made in behalf of President Roosevelt. For unless the United States lends its moral influence toward the side of peace, confusion will continue in Europe. Having defined American policy as one of non-interference in the political controversies of Europe, the United States then finds herself in a strategically more favorable position to counsel with all the different elements in Europe's most complicated crisis.

The transparency of the American announcement that it will have nothing to do with Europe's affairs is of course evident the moment one reads the Kellogg-Briand treaties outlawing war which were solemnly signed by the United States government and ratified by the United States senate.

* * *

The truth is that war is not the next step nor would the use of military and naval power probably be sanctioned by any of the European countries even to prevent Germany from beginning to rearm. What may result from the Hitler defiance is a real test of the idea of economic boycott which was after all the central theme of the League of Nations covenant.

Unlike Japan, Germany will have violated a specific part of the Versailles Treaty if she goes ahead with her armament policies. The authors of the league covenant felt that some way better than bloodshed must be found to develop a sense of discipline to Europe. They believed that an economic boycott would bring a recalcitrant nation to terms faster than a threat of invasion. How long could Hitler last without provoking revolution if Germany were shut off from commercial intercourse as sharply as she was during the war? Many historians of the war felt that economic pressure really forced the surrender by Germany in 1918.

Would the United States join in such a boycott? The American Federation of Labor has already proclaimed a boycott against Hitlerism and while the provisions of the Kellogg Pact do not specify what measures shall be taken against an outlaw nation it cannot be forgotten that Ambassador Davis, speaking for the President of the United States at the outset of the Geneva Conference, indicated clearly that America would not side with the aggressor in any conflict.

* * *

What would constitute an act of aggression? The actual mobilization of armed forces or the setting up of a new army and navy by Germany in direct violation of her treaty pledge which required her to disarm.

But the allies who signed the treaty also promised to disarm. America has been trying in a tactful way to compel obedience by both sides. The moral influence of the United States in working out a peaceful settlement of the disarmament problem is all the greater because of what Hitler has done. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have been sincerely sponsoring every move looking toward disarmament in the world. It is inconceivable that at the very time when Europe is in acute need of disinterested counsel and conciliation that the United States should scuttle the ship. Hence the latest message issued by Ambassador Davis on instructions from Washington is misconstrued if it is held to mean anything but a simple statement of peaceful intention on the part of the United States. It was intended of course to reassure elements in the United States which feared a precipitate plunge into European politics. Having cleared the air of such extreme impressions, the road is clear to exert diplomatic pressure once more and ultimately also the realistic influence of economic boycott, both of which steps to be successful require whole-hearted cooperation between the United States and Europe