Senator Borah's recent warning that a naval race will cause war states only half the problem, for the struggle for superiority in arms is a symptom of more fundamental animosities. It is true, as the Senator laments, that the impending renunciation of treaty restrictions gives the lie to the professions of pacifism which our diplomats bandy about, but those paper limitations, so readily abandoned, are rather a confession of intent to give battle than a statement of Christian generosity. The signatories, like mutually mistrustful urchins, concede one another a theoretically equal start, but tacitly confess the possibility of hostilities.

For pacifist and jingoist alike, the issue is not whether we are to erect temporal barriers, which aggressive nations have continually disregarded, in the way of war, but whether we truly desire war. In the case of Japan it is hard to visualize any peaceful release for her excessive population unless the other Pacific powers permit immigration. The comfortable American bourgeois regards preparations for a clash with righteous alarm, but it is his determination to maintain his standard of living against intruding economic elements which will precipitate a struggle.

A sentimental outcry against the exterior manifestations of international antagonism will accomplish nothing, and even a return to the principle of parity, which would require sweeping concessions from the U. S., would only postpone the trouble. While one potential aggressor darkens the future, peace is only a truce, and if we would prolong that interlude, it is necessary to accomplish more than a reduction of navies.