網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版
[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed]

led to the sale, Lord Aberdeen's action is a significant and valuable example for men of wealth in both countries to follow. If we are to meet successfully the great peril to civilization threatened by the Bolshevist movement, those who possess both intelligence and wealth must co-operate in a movement for a better distribution of both intelligence and wealth—of intelligence by a system of free education, including industrial education, and of wealth by just such measures as are being taken in connection with and really as a part of the sale of so large a portion of the Aberdeen estate. If the leveling which is sure to take place in the present reconstruction period is directed by the higher and better elements in society, it will be a leveling up; if it is not so directed, it will be under the control of the unscrupulous and the unintelligent, as it is now in Russia, and it will be a leveling down.

FIUME AND THE LEAGUE

OF NATIONS

RESIDENT WILSON startled the

world by a statement given out on April 23 respecting the controversy between Jugoslavia and Italy, a statement which, with apparently good reason, has been regarded as in effect an ultimatum.

In this statement he presents the arguments in support of the claims of Jugoslavia, but not the arguments in support of the claims of Italy; and he assumes the right to decide the question at issue between these two peoples. That issue was briefly defined in The Outlook for January 15. We define it more fully on another page, and give to our readers the arguments used by the advocates both of Italy and of Jugoslavia.

A far more important issue to the world has, however, been raised by President Wilson's action.

A League of Nations, however ingeniously framed, would be of little use if any nation could at any time issue an ultimatum which the other nations must accept or see the League dissolved; and it would be of no use if any representative of a nation, acting on his own authority and without consultation with his own government, could issue such an ultimatum. This is what President Wilson has done. The Council of Four has not accepted his view of the question whether the city of Fiume should be put under Croatian or Italian control. The American people are not well informed on this question. The discussions which have taken place in the Council have not been reported to them. Their knowledge on the subject is derived from vague, unauthorized, and often contradictory rumors. No pains have been taken to give accurate information even

to our Senators and Representatives. And the President, without consulting with them, and without reporting the arguments against his position, without even reporting the facts on which action must be based, has notified the Powers that no other view than his can America regard as consistent with the principles for which she has fought and upon which only she can consent to make peace. "The compulsion is upon her to square every decision she takes a part in with those principles. She can do nothing else."

This document Italy evidently, the other Powers apparently, have taken as America's ultimatum. Possibly Italy may modify her claims in the Adriatic rather than risk the withdrawal of America from the Feace Conference; but an agreement, even should one be obtained by a surrender of what her people evidently regard as a just and necessary claim, upon such a demand coming from what is probably now the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the globe does not augur well for future international peace by amicable diplomacy or judicial arbitration.

Jugoslavia as a state does not yet exist. It is a nation in the womb. What its boundary lines are to be, and what its international status, are yet to be determined. If it is impossible to settle by conciliation or compromise, or, conciliation and compromise failing, by arbitration, the question what shall be the boundaries of an unborn state whose very existence depends upon the will of the World Powers, and whose protection depends on the good will of its neighbors, there is no question which can be so settled. If one Power may enforce its own judgment upon so complicated and difficult a problem as that which is presented by what is miscalled the Fiume question, the democmiscalled the Fiume question, the democracy of nations is still hardly so much as a hope, hardly more than a dream.

It is affirmed and it is denied that the President's statement had before its issuance the approval of Clemenceau and Lloyd George, and the affirmative report and the denial are apparently of equal authority. The President's statement is interpreted by some as an address to the people of Italy over the heads of its official representatives, by others as an explanation to the people of America of their representative's action; but there is nothing in the document itself to indicate to whom the President addressed it. If he hoped by his appeal to win the sympathies of the Italian people for the settlement which he proposes, he must by this time have abandoned his hope. The union of Italy in support of the Italian claims as formulated by its representatives in Paris appears to be substantially unanimous.

Though the Italian Premier has left

Paris to report to his constituents at home, Italy has not withdrawn from the Conference. At this writing we are not without hope that wiser counsels may yet prevail and that some compromise may be found that will allay the irritation which the prolongation of this dispute has excited in both peoples. It is of the utmost importance to the whole civilized world, not only that Italy and Jugoslavia, but that the Latin and the Slavic races, should be true and loyal friends in defending civilization against the perils which formerly threatened from the autocracy of the kings and which now threaten from the dictatorship of the mob.

[blocks in formation]

It does not owe him food and clothing and shelter. It may supply him those necessities as incidental means to an end, but not as part of its debt to him.

It does not owe him expressions of sympathy and affection. It may have sympathy for him, and even affection; but whatever feelings it has are the natural product of its humane spirit, not a part of its debt.

It does not owe him any effort to relieve him of the painful consequences of his crime. Some of those consequences are material, some are spiritual. They may involve loss of property. The community does not owe it to the criminal to make good any of that loss. They may involve the incurring of distrust on the part of his fellow-men. The community may put the criminal into the way of earning a renewal of faith in him; but it does not owe it to the criminal to try to re-establish that faith for him.

The first duty of the community is not to the criminal. It is protection of the law-abiding citizens from future crimes and reparation to the law-abiding citizens by the criminal for past crimes.

To the criminal, however, it has a duty also. It owes to him such a course of discipline that he and those who are in his frame of mind will acquire, if possi ble, first, a motive to make such restitution as is in his power; and, second, if possible, an adequate sense of his guilt and a resolve not to repeat his crimes in the future.

It is not vindictiveness on the part of the community that leads it to such a course of treatment for the criminal; it is, rather, an intelligent sense of justice, and of its own duty.

In the community of nations, Germany is in the position of the criminal. Undoubtedly Germany is suffering

from a lack of food and clothing and other necessities; but that fact does not make it a part of the debt of the civilized world to Germany to supply her with those needs. Possibly as a means to an end, and as the result of a laudable humane instinct, it may be desirable to send her food and other things. Even for criminals in prison the community provides food, clothing, and shelter, but only as a part of the course of discipline to which it subjects them. Elsewhere in this issue are two articles describing conditions in Germany. In one article the under-nourishment of a large part of the German population is ascribed to lack of sufficient food supplies; in the other it is attributed to conditions of transportation, and the unwillingness of multitudes of Germans to work. It is not vindictiveness to say that it is not the duty of the Allies to Germany to supply the shortage of food, or to improve the transportation, or to supply the lack of labor. The world does not owe Germany the necessities of life.

Undoubtedly there is misery in Ger.

many, as there is misery normally among criminals. But that fact does not make it a part of the debt of the world to express sympathy and affection for the Germans. The world may pity those who are suffering the evil effects of what they have done, but its feeling is the natural instinct, not a part of the world's debt or an essential in the fulfillment of the world's duty.

Undoubtedly Germany is suffering and will long suffer from the material and spiritual consequences of the crime she has perpetrated-loss of property, loss of the world's esteem. It is not vindictiveness to say that it is no part of the world's duty to make good that loss to Germany.

What the world owes to Germany is what the community owes to the criminal. But what the civilized world owes to Germany cannot be adequately considered apart from what the world owes the community of nations. The first duty is to the law-abiding and peace-loving nations-a duty to compel Germany to repair as far as she can do so the wrongs she has perpetrated, and to protect the rest of the world from the repetition of similar crimes. No spirit of pity or compassion for Germany or the German people should prevent the world from fulfilling this duty. Its duty to Germany as a criminal nation is such treatment as will, if possible, make the German people realize the crimes they have committed, realize the indignation of the civilized world against

them because of those crimes, come to a sense of their own guilt and shame, and so provide Germany with a motive strong enough to impel her to undertake all possible reparation for past crimes and

to recognize in all her future relations the rights of other peoples.

That is not a vindictive peace; it is the only possible just peace.

The French see this perhaps more clearly than any other people. That may be in part because they are where they have lasting proofs of the crime Germany committed; but it is also in part because the French, even in war and after war, think clearly and logically.

What ought to be done to Germany will not be altogether pleasant for the Germans. Those who do what ought to be done will not be wholly popular with the Germans. That makes no difference. It may involve trouble for the world and further expense. That is not decisive. Does the world owe it to Germany? If so, the debt ought to be paid.

CAN THE CHURCHES
GET TOGETHER?

Torces in the Nation is very desirable
THAT

HAT a union of all the Christian

is no longer doubted by any considerable number of thoughtful followers of Jesus Christ; but they differ respecting the method best adapted for this purpose. One group seeks to find a common creed upon which all can agree and a common organization in which all can unite. For this purpose, as heretofore reported in our columns, a number of Episcopal and Congregational clergymen have combined in a proposal to make such changes in the canons of the Episcopal Church that an Episcopal bishop can conscientiously give ordination to non-Episcopal clergymen, and non-Episcopal clergymen can conscientiously accept such ordination.

The other method proposes to leave the creeds, rituals, and ecclesiastical organizations of the various Churches unchanged, and to secure co-operation in Christian work without making any changes in or interfering with the liberty of the several Church organizations. The most striking and most promising phase of this method is that afforded by the Interchurch World Movement of North America.

What is proposed by this movement is not union but co-operation; not that any organization shall merge with any other organization or surrender any of its distinctive features, any of its liberties, any of its convictions, or even any of its prejudices. The movement simply proposes co-operation in procuring information respecting world needs and in obtaining funds for supplying those needs; but "each organization will maintain its own treasury and regulate its own affairs as heretofore."

to be held at Cleveland, Ohio, at this time-April 30-May 1-to promote this movement. Its specific objects are to interpret and strengthen the movement, to study the problems of the Christian Church, first, in our own Nation in the present era of reconstruction and social unrest; second, in its new world responsibility and opportunity; and, third, to seek out the best method of assembling and using effectively the Christian forces of America in the Christian service to which all followers of Jesus Christ are summoned at this time.

There are two reasons why Christian Co-operation appears to us a much more hopeful method than Church Union for securing efficiency in Christian work.

Historically the chief obstacles to the union of all Christians in Christian work have been compulsory creeds, compulsory rituals, and compulsory forms of church organization. That all men should think alike respecting the intellectual problems involved in religion is neither desirable nor possible. That they should all find the same symbols equally fitted to express the religious emotions of different temperaments is also neither possible nor desirable. And while it is conceivable that they might all agree upon one form of church government, it is certain that such an agreement, though it might give union, would not give liberty; and liberty and union are as desirable in the Church as in the Nation. Philosophy, therefore, would lead us to expect that Church Union would not be attained by the adop tion of the same creed, the same ritual, and the same form of organization.

And history confirms the conclusion to which philosophy points us. Calvinists. and Methodists, Episcopalians and Congregationalists, Baptists and Pedo-Baptists, have united in Christian work in the Y. M. C. A. and the Y. W. C. A., while they have retained their separate creeds, rituals, and church organizations; and the possibility of Christian co-operation has been still more emphasized by the Red Cross, in the work of which organization thousands have taken part who possessed the spirit of Christ though they did not call themselves Christians.

These grounds for hopefulness in the success of this Interchurch World Movement are still further confirmed by the fact that nearly forty Church organizations, representing nearly all the Protestant Evangelical denominations in the United States, have already taken favorable action concerning this movement for co-operation in Christian activity.

Any reader who desires further information concerning this movement can doubtless obtain it by writing to the Interchurch World Movement of North America, 111 Fifth Avenue, New York

An Interboard Conference was called City, inclosing stamp for reply.

HE controversy between the Italians and the Jugoslavs, in which President Wilson's espousal of the Jugoslavs' cause has brought the Peace Conference to the gravest crisis, has been simmering in Paris for many weeks. At one time the Jugoslavs proposed that the question be left to the decision of President Wilson; but the Italians declined the proposal, saying that to accept it would be an admission that the Peace Conference itself was incapable of deciding the very questions which it was called together to settle and an acknowledgment that the Entente Allies could not act together. Now, by the turn of events and by the issuance of his statement, the President is placed in the position of deciding the question as an unchosen arbitrator. To this controversy there are two parties, and in it are involved two questions.

The two parties are Italy and Jugoslavia. The two questions involved in the disposal, respectively, are Fiume, a port on the Adriatic, and the coast and coastal islands of Dalmatia, across the Adriatic from the eastern coast of Italy.

THE PARTIES TO THE CONTROVERSY

On both sides of the controversy are peoples who fought for the Allied cause; but on one side there are also peoples who belonged to one of the Central Empires, and some of them fought to the last against the Allies.

Italy entered the war in 1915 and occupied the larger part of the AustroHungarian forces, diverting them from attacks upon France, Russia, and Serbia. When Russia collapsed, great numbers of Austro-Hungarian troops, released from the eastern front, reinforced the armies attacking Italy. Though Italy is comparatively young as a modern state, she is old as a nation, for there has never been any question that for centuries the Italian people have had a common language, tradition, and culture.

Jugoslavia is composed or will be when organized-of three related peoples, all Slavs, but differing in history, religion, and traditions. Of these peoples, the Serbians were in the war from the first, resisting the encroachments of AustriaHungary. The other two peoples, Croats and Slovenes, were subject peoples under the Austro-Hungarian monarchy of the Hapsburgs. The people who are directly affected by this controversy are principally the Croats. They live chiefly in Croatia, which was a subordinate province of Hungary. These three southern Slav peoples (including those of Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Slovenia, and Croatia) have agreed to form a confederation. The Jugoslavs, therefore, are not yet a nation, but two of their constituent peoples form nations famed for their love of liberty, and some of the others have been in revolt against the tyranny by which they were oppressed. The Croats form one of these subject peoples, but they have had a considerable measure of autonomy as a part of Hungary.

Thus, on one side of the controversy is a young state, but an ancient nation; on the other side is a nascent confederacy which, though composed in part of old nations, has, as a whole, never been a nation, but is about to become a new

state.

FIUME

One of the two bones of contention between Italy and Jugoslavia is the city of Fiume. Situated near the northern end of the Adriatic, next to Istria (which is to be Italian without dispute), but surrounded by territory which is Croatian and serving as the principal port of Croatia, Fiume is in an anomalous position. Its history records the struggles of peoples in this ancient part of the civilized world. Apparently Roman in origin, during the Middle Ages it was held by during the Middle Ages it was held by various rulers. In the fifteenth century it came under the Hapsburg dynasty, but, as during all the preceding years, it retained its largely Italian character. In 1779 it was united to Hungary, with which it has remained with the exception of two brief periods in the nineteenth century. Once, for nine years, it was attached to Austria; and again, later, for nineteen years, it was ruled by the Croatians. It has always, however, been very independent in spirit; it has had its own statutes; it has had rights which the Hapsburgs acknowledged by receiving its homage separately; it has used officially the Italian language. When the Croats ruled it, they provided that 'the city of Fiume should have two seats in the Croatian Legislature; but the city's representatives refused to elect Deputies and left these seats perpetually unoccupied. Fiume much preferred her status in Hungary. When the war drew to an end. in October of last year, the Deputy of Fiume in the Hungarian Parliament protested against Fiume's going back to Croatia. The majority of the people of Fiume are undoubtedly Italian in sympathy, and it was at the request of Fiumians that Italian soldiers entered Fiume after the armistice; but the country round about Fiume, as well as the country which it serves as a commercial outlet, is non-Italian. Fiume is the chief port south of Trieste, and its commerce landward is with Croatia, Hungary, Rumania, Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Germany. The only standard-gauge railway connecting an Adriatic port with these countries is that which has its terminus at Fiume.

DALMATIA

What is known as Dalmatia consists of the coast and the coastal islands on the eastern shore of the Adriatic. It has a mixed population. Most of it is Slavic; but the population of many of the towns is largely, if not predominantly, Italian. The coast forms the greatest possible contrast with the western, the Italian, shore of the Adriatic. It is rocky, pierced by inlets and harbors, and masked by a line of islands stretching for a great part of its length. During the war the possession

of this coast by Austria-Hungary placed Italy under an enormous handicap. The Austrian fleet could maneuver and form behind the screen of islands and steam out at unexpected points to make an attack wherever the Italian fleet (which had no harbor between the extreme north and the extreme south) was most unprepared. Making these naval attacks in the early morning, the Austrians had the advantage of the sun at their backs. The Austrian submarines, under cover of darkness, could cross to the Italian shore and lie easily on the sandy bottom, concealed by the muddy waters brought down by the Italian rivers. Safe from observation by airplanes, these submarines could rise at any opportune moment, sink Italian shipping, and bombard the Italian coast. The currents of the Adriatic flow north along the Dalmatian coast, sweep to the westward, and then run south along the Italian coast to the Mediterranean. The Austrians could release mines wherever they chose, and the currents would carry them along the Italian coast; while mines released by the Italians would be simply carried out to sea. The possession of Dalmatia by a hostile country has therefore proved itself to be a terrible menace to Italy, for which she has paid a great price in men and treasure.

THE TWO PACTS

Concerning Fiume and Dalmatia there have been two international agreements. One of these is known as the Pact of London, the other as the Pact of Rome. The Pact of London is a treaty secretly contracted between Italy on one side and France and Great Britain on the other. According to this France and Great Britain agreed that if Italy entered the war a victorious peace would insure to her Gorizia and Istria, without Fiume, and a certain portion of the Dalmatian coast and a good many of the islands. (The shaded territory bounded by the heavy black line in the accompanying map indicates the lands which this treaty promised Italy.) The Pact of Rome is not, strictly speaking, an international treaty, but an informal agreement between Italy and the Jugoslavs. By this agreement both sides were supposed to have come to an understanding.

JUGOSLAV ARGUMENTS

In behalf of Jugoslavia the following arguments have been urged:

President Wilson's Fourteen Points have been accepted as the basis on which peace should be made. The President, who issued them, is the most authoritative interpreter of them, and he says that they mean that Italy cannot have Fiume or Dalmatia. Avowing these principles, America entered the war and was welcomed; on the basis of these principles President Wilson initiated peace and hostilities ended. By them, therefore, all the nations in the war are morally bound. Italy should recognize this and yield.

One of these Fourteen Points is the

[blocks in formation]

to the treaty and yet also demand Fiume. If England and France are bound by this treaty, they are bound not to give her Fiume. If Fiume is vital to Italy, why did she leave Fiume out of the treaty? Some Italians claim that this ought to be added to her now in payment for the extra cost she incurred on account of the Kussian defection. That argument is grotesque, for it makes the Croatians pay for what the Russians failed to do. It may be that Fiume is a little more Italian in population than not, but the region of which Fiume is the economic capital is overwhelmingly Croatian. So the principle of self-determination applies as well as the principle of commercial rights.

[graphic]

The lands on the Adriatic bordering the Jugoslavic countries are shown above. The heavy black line indicates the frontier according to the London Pact (as explained in the accompanying article); and the shaded portions indicate the territories assigned to Italy

As to Dalmatia, the only plausible reason for giving it to Italy no longer holds. The Italians want it for reasons of selfdefense; but Italy no longer needs to provide for self-defense, because AustriaHungary, which threatened her, no longer exists; and, moreover, whatever defense she may need she can get through the League of Nations. In view of that fact, Dalmatia ought to go to Jugoslavia because its population is overwhelmingly Jugoslav. There are Italians in Dalmatia, it is true; but they are in the minority, and their interests or desires must be subordinated to those of the Jugoslav majority. In the downfall of Austria-Hungary, which has relieved Italy of her burden of fear and of her need for selfdefense, the Jugoslavs, by their disaffection and revolt, were the chief cause. Out of gratitude to them Italian's ought willingly to concede this territory. Moreover, even if the Italians are not willing to concede it, the Jugoslavs ought not to be deprived of it. Even if it be conceded that the Italian minority has put its stamp upon the civilization of Dalmatia, that is not conclusive; for if Italy tried in the immemorial past or over which to get all the territory which she once ruled her civilization has spread its influence, she would get the bigger part of Europe. Italy must be content with what she can reasonably claim by virtue of her real needs and the real rights of living populations.

interests of Italy as well as of Jugoslavia require that Italy's demand for Fiume and the Dalmatian coast be rejected. To this there are even Italians who will agree, for some Italians have expressed the hope that Italy would not do violence to her past by trampling on the rights of others.

disavowal of secret treaties. The London Pact was a secret treaty, and therefore is no longer valid. Moreover, it was not signed by many of the nations that took part in the war; indeed, it was not even known to them, and consequently any peace made by the agreement of all those who took part was quite independent of any such separate arrangement. Besides that change in belligerents there has been another change, namely, the breaking up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Pact of London was made on the understanding that the territory in question belonged to a hostile country; but since the breaking up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire these people in Dalmatia have joined the Allies and are to be in the League of Nations, and their territory must therefore not be treated as hostile territory.

ITALIAN ARGUMENTS

In behalf of Italy the following arguments have been urged:

To listen to the discussions about Fiume and Dalmatia one might imagine that the Allies had forgotten that for over three years Italy fought for their cause and Croatians fought against it. There may have been pro-Ally Croatians, but there were no Italians fighting against the Allies. Something is due to friends and partners, and, not the least, a measure of confidence.

As to Fiume, President Wilson's Fourteen Points apply because Fiume is the outlet for non-Italian nations. President Wilson has himself stated this in the following words: "Fiume must serve as the outlet of commerce, not of Italy, but of the land to the north and the northeast of that port, Hungary, Bohemia, Rumania, and the states of the new Jugoslav group. To assign Fiume to Italy would be to create the feeling that we have deliberately put the port upon which all those countries chiefly depend for access to the Mediterranean in the hands of a Power of which it did not form an integral part and whose sovereignty, if set up there, must inevitably seem foreign, not domestic or identified with the commercial and industrial life of the regions which the port must serve." Therefore, following Mr. Wilson's statement, it must be concluded that to concede Fiume to Italy would be to strangle, not only the Slav hinterland, but the countries lying behind it. And Italy recognized this herself, for she agreed in the Pact of London (which she now invokes) to let Fiume be Croatian. She cannot now demand adherence

As it is, Italy has got a great deal of territory out of the war, and she ought not to be seeking more. She ought to be content with what she has, and should be warned not to demand too much. If

this

1

peace settlement is to make peace secure, it must not leave heartburnings among the Jugoslavs such as the granting of Italy's demand would be sure to leave. Unfortunately, Italy has become imperialistic, and is seeking to do what she has never sought to do before-for the sake of adding territory to bring alien people unwillingly under her sovereignty. The best

Italy has no intention of applying to the Fourteen Points in her own case any other interpretation than that which has been applied in other cases. Those Fourteen Points were not put forward as President Wilson's personal views, but as a summary of the common view of all the Allies; and the Allies together and not any one man should interpret them and apply them.

One of the things for which the Allies

« 上一頁繼續 »