like legislatures between nations.

If conferences had been in vogue and one had been held concerning the dispute between Austria and Serbia, very probably there would not have been any war, because, if for no other reason, the diplomats would have seen that it might lead to a general war in Europe, and as no nation cared to take that responsibility the diplomatic procedure would doubtless have been modified. Thus the conference over the Morocco question killed it as a cause of war.

This and other practical examples of government between nations show that the great success, convenience, and benefit to all nations encourage the further development of international organizations. The difficulties and dangers predicted have not come to pass. International administration has come in the cases of railroads, ships, and automobiles. An elaborate international government has come (through treaties) in public health and epidemics, and international notification of the presence of disease has been made obligatory.

SOVEREIGNTY CHANGES ACCORDING TO THE DEMOGRAPHIC LAW OF INTERDEPENDENCE OF NATIONS.

The old idea of the independence of the State, mingled with that of sovereignty, prestige, and honor, and exaggerated by false patriotism, although limited more and more by conditions of civilization, is one of the main obstacles to the development of international organization and government.

The habit of holding conferences or congresses would get the people to expect international government and insist on it, and any country would hesitate long before refusing to agree to a conference.

The idea that sovereignty is destroyed because a nation is not absolutely independent belongs to the old régime, when many modern means of communication did not exist. In those days of comparative isolation there was reason for much independence, but now countries are so closely connected, as we have seen, that their independence and sovereignty are necessarily limited, while their interdependence has increased to such an extent that what benefits or injures one benefits or injures the other. Thus it is to the advantage of each State to give up some of its sovereignty, just as it is for the individual to give up some of his freedom to the community for privileges much greater than the loss of his so-called independence. It is well known how the States of our Union have gradually yielded more and more of their sovereignty to the Federal Government. Thus sovereignty decreases according to our law of the interdependence of States.

CAUSE OF WAR NOT NECESSARILY ECONOMIC.

It is frequently asserted that after all the main cause of most wars is rivalry in trade and commercial friction; in short, it is economic. But it is a curious fact that commerce and industry are the most insistent on international rules or law to reduce all friction to a minimum, for peaceful trading is a general benefit to all concerned.

It might be stated in this connection that in historical and political as well as physical science there is no one cause of anything, but a chain of causes; for the more we study the world, the closer we find it related; nothing is nor can be really alone. When we single out a cause we mean the predominant one, and which is the strongest link in the chain of causes becomes a matter of opinion, owing to our limited knowledge of international psychology.

Commercial systems of the world have brought nations closer together, but political relations have remained much the same; that is, the advances in diplomacy have been very few in comparison with the growth of economic relations which makes for peace rather than war.

NO INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENT; NO LASTING PEACE.

That the lack of international government means international anarchy may be illustrated by some recent events. Owing to the struggle of Serbia for expansion, Austria feared the seizure of its own territory and loss of some of its population, and so refused to accept mediation, because the Hapsburg monarchy being reported declining, she must counteract this impression by showing vigorous action. The success of Austria would be regarded by Russia as a threat to herself, but a defeat of Austria by Russia would be a defeat for Germany, and a German defeat for Russia and France would be regarded as a defeat for England. Thus the lack of any international government or organization made cooperation for peace almost, if not quite, impossible. England might have said to herself, among other reasons, "If I stay out of the war, Germany may overrun France and Belgium, resulting in a union of the French and German Navies, but we are an island, and it would not do to risk the danger of such a combination."

Frontier questions have perhaps been the main cause of more wars in history than anything else. But in the course of events such questions have come to be settled without resort to force, which is a change from national to international government.

NATIONALISM MAY CONFLICT WITH THE PEOPLES' INTEREST.

Another nationalistic anachronism is the geographical standard in governmental matters. But intercommunications are so many and so close that geographical relations have few reasons to be considered. Individual and racial interests are less geographical and more sociological. But governmental matters have not developed near so fast as sociological conditions.

Nationalism more often represents the interests of the few rather than the many. Unfortunately it is easy to bolster up a narrow and selfish nationalism by appeal to the patriotism of the masses who fail to understand the conditions and support the interests of a few against their own vital interests. While anarchy between nations (nationalism) makes future wars probable, anarchy within nations can be easily stopped by doing justice to the masses.

WAR WORST METHOD OF SETTLING DIFFICULTIES.

An egotistical, selfish, and narrow nationalism, the basis of international anarchy, has been demonstrated a partial, if not complete, failure by the condition in which Europe is to-day. War, though only one of many methods for settling difficulties between nations, has, nevertheless, been the main one. There is a strong desire among the people to substitute some other method.

Generally a nation has two things to consider—one is what it wants; the other whether it can enforce its wants. This is the usual nationalistic dilemma, but our demographic law of the interdependence of nations assumes that each country will respect the other countries and be willing to consider their wishes at least in vital matters.

Where the differences between two nations have threatened the peace of Europe it has been felt that such a matter was more than a national question; in fact, passed over into the international realm, and so conferences have been called which to a certain extent recognized the principle of interdependence and have enforced its decisions by blockade if not by more warlike means. If a nation adopt the methods of force, it is appealing to international anarchy, which causes nations to break international law much more readily than otherwise. In fact, military necessity knows no law.

It may seem odd that conferences are so often called for war instead of for peace. But it is necessity that often rules; the wheel in the machine is not examined until it is out of order, human beings were never studied scientifically until they became lunatics or criminals. So peace seems to have been little thought of until danger of war appeared. Peace is like good health, we do not know its value until we lose it.

SECRET DIPLOMACY INSIDIOUS.

All treaties between nations should be published in order to make the diplomacy of intrigue and deception impossible or at least most difficult to carry into effect. Secret diplomacy enables those who want war to bring something to light suddenly and cause excitement and fear among the