lead into it; There are few who tread its hot and dusty highway from end to end, but those few mold public opinion instead of following it. The public is no longer keenly interested in speeches in courts and legislative halls, but the personal influence of lawyers in every town and in counsel has never before been so great. And judgment is more important than speeches. Formerly when this country was about ninety per cent agricultural against about twenty-six per cent now, the center of intellectual activity was in Congress and the courts-guided by lawyers. Today we have great corporations, absorbing the talent of the countrycounseled and largely directed by lawyers; but more important than all this is the fact that the political guidance and leadership of America are in the hands of the legal profession.

The power of the American Bar is unorganized and unseen, but upon it depends the continuity of constitutional government and the perpetuity of the republic itself.1

CHAPTER XXVIII

COÖPERATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN

ENGLAND has always had a genius for using other nations for its ends. The United States has a genius for not being so used, the first example being "Citizen" Genêt of France in Washington's time. But the selfishness of aggrandizement and the selfishness of isolation must in some way be reconciled. Peace, progress, and civilization require it. The whole world is in ferment. Germany will never be content until it retakes Alsace Lorraine and reëstablishes German power. France has given hostages to fortune and must keep armed to the teeth. Russia is a plague spot. The Balkans flame up on the slightest provocation. Japan, having won two wars, was drifting to another when Château-Thierry and Belleau Wood caused her to hesitate and stop temporarily. England is the only friend America has in Europe, and England is none too good a friend. Naturally she parts with the primacy of the world reluctantly.1

Coöperating, America and Great Britain can stop war and compel the world to behave itself. But how? America is not willing to underwrite the British Empire by an offensive and defensive alliance, or either. England is jealous of American wealth and power. On the other hand, Bryce correctly says of England and the United States, "each nation had a genuine interest in the other's performances and a capacity for understanding the other which neither possessed as towards any other people. Each was secretly proud of the other, though neither would avow it."2 Henry Adams in his History of the United States said, speaking of the situation in 1812, "Not for the first time experience showed that any English minister whose policy

rested on jealousy of America must sooner or later come to ruin and disgrace." In 1898 Chamberlain proposed an AngloAmerican alliance. He said "What is our next duty? It is to establish and to maintain bonds of permanent amity with our kinsmen across the Atlantic. There is a powerful and generous nation. They speak our language. They are bred of our race. Their laws, their literature, their standpoint upon every question, are the same as ours. Their feeling, their interests in the cause of humanity, and the peaceful developments of the world are identical with ours. I don't know what the future has in store for us; I don't know what arrangements may be possible with us; but this I do know and feel, that the closer, the more cordial, the fuller, and the more definite these arrangements are, with the consent of both peoples, the better it will be for both and for the world." 2 There will never be another war between England and America. The two nations may quarrel and splutter but there will be no war. In fact, if either gets into serious trouble the other will help it. Sir Esme Howard, the British Ambassador to the United States, well said in Virginia on May 22, 1926, "It seems to me that the lessons to be learned from this period is that in the future, as in the past, the English-speaking races will continue, consciously sometimes as during the late war, unconsciously often as after 1783, to stand together and assist each other for the great purposes for which they supremely stand, government of the people, for the people, by the people; government of law and not of force; government of steady evolution towards the great purpose of government; the protection of life and liberty of the individual; the guaranty of the possession of his lawful property to each individual, and equal opportunity to all in the pursuit of happiness."

Arbitration and international courts for the world's troubles do not preserve peace, and there are some things which the nations are not willing to arbitrate. England very properly is suspicious of any infringement of its sea power or the laws gov

erning that power. America is suspicious of international courts made up by foreign nations. America favors arbitration, and although faring badly in recent times at the hands of foreign arbitrators, is still willing to arbitrate international differences. But that does not bring America and Great Britain any closer together. In fact, Gibbons says, "the attitude of the American Government and people toward arbitration presents facts which must be taken into consideration in determining what part the principle of arbitration should have in our foreign policy. We must admit that our past record is not brilliant and that we cannot in good faith urge upon other nations the practice of arbitration of international disputes as a means of avoiding war on the basis of our own record and demonstrated successes. We have neither preached arbitration consistently nor have we always practised when we did preach. We have never given arbitration a trial in a major dispute. We have never consented to automatic and obligatory arbitration of even limited categories of possible international difficulties. Above all, we cannot truthfully claim that the American people - and the Senate would be willing to submit to arbitration a question affecting 'the honor, the independence, or the vital interests' of the United States." 1

But there is a most effective mode of coöperation to avoid war. The power of the purse in these days is greater than the power of armies and navies. The cost of war has outrun improvements in equipment for war. Munitions, food supplies, and transportation during war rapidly plunge the richest nation into overwhelming debt. Whoso controls the purse controls the outbreak of war. Here is where coöperation is possible. If New York and London coöperate here, the checkmate on other nations will be felt throughout Europe and Asia. If New York and London will not loan when the American and British governments unite in disapproving a loan the effect will be electric. And with that disapproval will go by implication a moral disapproval more

effective still. Such coöperation requires no treaty, no statute, no obligation. It arises and grows by beneficent results.

Secondly, the "Concert of Europe," which for many years settled the differences arising in the Balkans and Turkey, furnishes the germ of an idea. That "Concert" consisted of representatives of the great European nations. It had power and was effective. America would not enter into just that kind of arrangement, because it might involve war, a power which under the American Constitution cannot and should not be delegated by Congress. But America could send delegates to a Joint Commission of America and Great Britain with power to investigate and report on any international outrage or aggression or dispute. In fact, Secretary of State Hughes in an address before the Canadian Bar Association, September 4, 1923, pointed out that such a joint commission already exists under the treaty of 1909 as to boundary questions between the United States and Canada, and that the plan might well be extended as between those two countries "not to decide but to inform, not to arbitrate but to investigate, to find the facts and to report to the governments of the states represented the effect of measures and where injury would lie. . . . We should do much to foster our friendly relations and to remove sources of misunderstanding and possible irritation, if we were to have a permanent body of our most distinguished citizens acting as a commission, with equal representation of both the United States and Canada, to which automatically there would be referred, for examination and report as to the facts, questions arising as to the bearing of action by either government upon the interests of the other, to the end that each reasonably protecting its own interests would be so advised that it would avoid action inflicting unnecessary injury upon its neighbor." 1 As to this Treaty ratified by the United States Senate in 1909 and the Canadian Parliament in 1911, President Falconer of the Toronto University says, "But the tenth article has even greater potential importance. The Senate of the United