THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AS FACTORS IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS, WITH ESPECIAL REFERENCE TO FAR EASTERN PROBLEMS

BY

JEREMIAH W. JENKS, PH.D., LL.D.

RESEARCH PROFESSOR OF GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, AND DIRECTOR OF DIVISION OF ORIENTAL COMMERCE AND POLITICS, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY

(Note.—This address was delivered on November 4, 1921, before the Conference on Limitation of Armaments and Far Eastern Questions began its work. It is now published some months after the Conference was held. Readers who are familiar with the work of the Conference will be interested in noting how far the Governments concerned followed the principles laid down in the address. Most will probably agree that no other important international conference dealing with questions of this type has come so near following the principles of Jesus’ teachings here laid down as did the Conference at Washington. Certainly it will be of interest to those who read the address to compare its principles with those followed by the conferees.)

I. Introduction

No other political event of the past year has awakened so great interest and hope as the calling by President Harding of the Conference on Limitation of Armaments and Far-Eastern Questions. The greatest statesmen of Europe, America, and the Far East have avowed their belief in the supreme significance to world civilization and political and industrial progress of such a conference, and the sincerity of their statements is proved by the caliber of their representatives.

Secretary Hughes has expressed the desire that leading Christian bodies in the United States be active in presenting their views to the public and to the members of the conference, in the hope that thereby the influence of a powerful public opinion may be exerted along the noblest lines. It seems peculiarly fitting, therefore, and in full accord with the spirit of the Bross Foundation, that an attempt be made to search out the bearings which the teachings of the founder of the Christian religion may have upon the solution of these most important political problems. Moreover, if we are to be just and helpful, his teachings must be analyzed and treated not as religion and therefore sacred, but as psychology and political or social science, as are those of Aristotle or Kant or Herbert Spencer.

Any careful student of the New Testament recognizes at once that however deep Jesus laid the philosophical foundation of his life-work in human nature, his teachings dealt directly with the day-by-day practical activities of the individuals with whom he talked. His direct appeals to his hearers were so to change their outlook upon life as to make of them new creatures. They were to do their life-work in a new and better way, and the final outcome of this changed, wiser, and loftier mental and spiritual attitude on the part of great masses of people was to be a new type of society, a better world which he designated the Kingdom of God.

II. Jesus’ Fundamental Teachings

Through the years of his ministry Jesus met and discussed the issues of life and society with many thousands of people. We have the records giving an account of his sayings in many specific cases and of the marvellously illuminating illustrations of his principles of living contained in his parables. Moreover, the account of his life and his dealings with his contemporaries—friends, critics, and persecutors—illustrates better, perhaps, even than his teachings his fundamental principles of living. A careful analysis of the various topics which he discussed and of the accounts of his acts will show that there were a few principles which are absolutely basic, and which are of such a nature that as they entered the consciousness of men they changed their lives; and in consequence, in the course of the centuries that have followed, they have wrought a very considerable transformation in society.

Our international problems to-day, both economic and political, have to do primarily with men’s motives and purposes. If men and nations can attain the right spirit toward one another and toward their own duties, the most difficult problems are well on the way toward solution. It is worth while then to analyze with care the principles of living of this greatest moulder of human motive.

III. Truth

The first of these principles to be enumerated is “Truth,” taking the word in its most comprehensive sense.

In the light of our modern social studies every one must concede that truth is the greatest social virtue, and a lie the greatest social sin. It may well have been the case in barbarous times that fear was the binding force that held society together and that caused its different members to function; but there can be no doubt that in modern society, both economic and political, confidence is the chief essential factor to any effective functioning. It is a commonplace among business men that modern business rests upon credit, and that credit depends absolutely upon the confidence that men will live up to their contracts, and that a man’s word, however given, must be kept literally and rigidly. Trickery and deception may win temporary gains, but no great permanent business can be built except on the basis of fair dealing. Good measure and the qualities represented by strict accuracy in the maintenance of standards are all required if a business is to succeed. Even advertising is now conducted with strict regard for truth. In politics, too, as well as in business, truth pays in the long run, as even the diplomats are beginning to concede. Truth, too, means seeing straight as well as talking straight.

There is perhaps no more striking characteristic of Jesus’ mental attitude toward truth than his clarity of vision, the keenness of his insight into the real meanings of things. He did not believe in “cleansing the outside of the cup or of the platter and leaving the inside untouched.” He did not think that a courteous manner and fair promises revealed the character of a man. “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.” He did not believe in long prayers that recite the virtues of the petitioners. God looks into the heart as Jesus did and sees the man as he is.

Moreover, in his interpretation of the law he was not content with the mere word. He must understand the purpose and significance of the law. Life and life’s activities were with him not matters of form; they were matters of purpose and intent. When criticised for violation of the law regarding the Sabbath Day, he recognized to the full the sanctity of the day, but claimed that the purpose and not the form of the deed determined its sanctity. “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.” If the purpose of one’s acts is the uplift of humanity or the bringing of comfort to a suffering soul, the deed is good, the Sabbath is not broken. These traits of Jesus show clarity of mental vision and mental integrity, the ultimate essence of truth. He does not necessarily condemn the moral integrity of those who keep the letter of the law in good faith, not seeing its spirit; but he does say that they do not know the truth.

Aside from this, however, no other sin of humanity seems so to arouse his righteous indignation as does wilful misrepresentation, conscious hypocrisy. “When ye pray, ye shall not be as hypocrites: for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have received their reward” (Matt. 6:5).

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye tithe mint and anise and cummin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law, justice, and mercy, and faith: but these ye ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone.... Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but inwardly ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity” (Matt. 23:23, 27, 28).

Jesus recognized also how imperative is the need of a clear statement of thought and opinion, if one is to deal honorably and successfully with others. Not only does he condemn profanity in the taking of oaths, but he goes still farther than that. “Let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay; and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one” (Matt. 5:37). Throughout his teachings we see how direct and clear are his own statements, so that it is impossible, if one considers those to whom he was speaking and the circumstances under which his words were uttered, to misunderstand his meaning.

Nevertheless, there seems to be equal evidence that he saw the need of suiting his words to the occasion and to the people with whom he was dealing, in order to secure the best effect for what he was saying. “If thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican” (Matt. 18:15-17).

Observe the skill with which Jesus dealt with his questioners when they attempted to corner him in argument. When the chief priests and elders asked him by what authority he did those things, he responded by saying: “I also will ask you one question, which if ye tell me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven or from men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why then did ye not believe him? But if we shall say, From men; we fear the multitude; for all hold John as a prophet” (Matt. 21:23-26).

When the Pharisees inquire whether it is “lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar or not,” he shows them their Roman coins with the image and superscription of Cæsar and replies, “Render therefore unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21).

With all of his insistence upon absolute uprightness and truth-telling and plainness of speech, we find no hint of a lack of courtesy or kindness, or of diplomacy in the best modern American sense of that much-abused word. The direct, truth-telling, open diplomacy that is imperative upon a democratic government like the United States, where it is impossible to have secret treaties or for any great length of time even confidential understandings between nations that are not public in their character, is quite in accord with the teachings of Jesus; whereas the secret treaties such as those that led to grave misunderstanding on the part of the United States when it entered the Great War are directly contrary to the spirit and practice of Jesus’ teachings. It is not sufficient to call such practice of a secret diplomacy “discreet,” which would be proper; but often, as in the cases mentioned, where vital interests of others are involved, such treaties lead to direct deception, and, in consequence, to injurious practices. Indeed, it is often because of the unjust nature of such treaties that the attempt is made to keep them secret.

In the farewell visit with his disciples just before his betrayal, Jesus showed them how throughout the period of their discipleship he had been gradually teaching them as they were able to understand. He had not taught them all his life principles to begin with, because they were not yet ready to receive all of the truth. And even in this last discourse, when he was rehearsing for the disciples the nature of his relations with them and their relations with the world, he still gave them to understand that only as they became equipped to receive the truth could all the truth be given them. “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth....” (John 16:12, 13).

In his final words to them he expressed his conviction that he had already so put his principles of life and action into the minds of men that through their gradual fruition in the future there would be given unto us a new earth, a new society, and he concluded: “These things have I spoken unto you, that in me ye may have peace. In the world ye have tribulation: but be of good cheer: I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). His task had been completed. He was confident that his principles in time would conquer and give the world peace.

IV. The Worth of the Common Man: Individual Responsibility

The greatest single contribution that Jesus made to social and political science was his insistence upon the worth of the common man. That is practically a declaration of the moral equality of all mature individuals, rich and poor, bond or free, a declaration of their duty to make their own decisions on questions of right and wrong, and in consequence the recognition of the responsibility which each must bear for the conduct of his own life.

This was a new philosophy that Jesus brought into the world. No one of the great teachers among the Greek philosophers had dreamed of such a doctrine. In the Republic of Plato and in the writings of Aristotle we find, indeed, a type of republican form of government, but in that government the rulers are to be the intellectual aristocrats, the philosophers, while the great mass of the common people are to be subservient. Among the ancient Hebrews, even in the days of the kingdom, there was more than an inkling of a democracy. The common man had many rights which were protected by the law, but he had relatively few responsibilities. If he obeyed the law as that law was given him by the priests, he was doing right. The responsibility did not rest upon him to interpret the law. And in the days when Jesus lived, the priests and the commentators prescribed in minute detail the application of the law to life: the clothing which should be worn, the food that should be eaten, the work that should be done on the Sabbath—all the minute forms of religious ceremonial were matters of prescription which the common man need not think about. He was to do as he was told. How revolutionary, then, was this doctrine that Jesus taught of the infinite worth of the individual human soul!

“Behold the birds of the heaven, that they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not ye of much more value than they?” (Matt. 6:26).

And again: “If God doth so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?” (Matt. 6:30).

“Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father: but the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore; ye are of more value than many sparrows” (Matt. 10:29-31).

But with this doctrine of individual worth is combined, of necessity, the principle of individual responsibility. Each man is to decide for himself what his life shall be, and his punishment or reward at the hands of God, that is, the development or degradation of his own character and soul are dependent upon his determining decision.

“Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break through and steal: but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth consume, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: for where thy treasure is, there will thy heart be also.... No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Matt. 6:19-21, 24).

“Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:19).

Then again: “What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?” And it is his individual decision that determines.

This development through the bearing of responsibility demands, of course, independence of judgment. We have already noted how in his own life, in interpreting the ancient laws and in determining his course of action, Jesus held himself independent of the decisions or interpretations of the laws as given by others. He must think out by the light of his own reason, independently, his course of action. He likewise expected his disciples, as he sent them on their mission, to judge and determine their own actions.

But if I demand from others the right to think independently and to determine my own line of action, it is, of course, imperative upon me to grant that same right of independent action to my fellow men. I ought not to insist upon my right to bear my own responsibilities without being tolerant of the rights of others; and Jesus nowhere in his teachings or life shows any lack of tolerance. Perhaps the most striking incident of this trait of character is found in the broad-minded way in which he dealt with the woman taken in adultery. With ironical scorn for her hypocritical accusers he said: “Let him that is without sin among you first cast a stone.” And then he gives a judgment as merciful as it is just. “Neither do I condemn thee; go and sin no more.” So long as repentance and determination for right living in the future is secured, forgiveness can be granted. There must be no prejudice about formal rules or customs.

In his scornful condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees, he always placed the emphasis not upon any difference of opinion, but upon their hypocrisy and cruelty. A difference of opinion need not be condemned, but hypocrisy, falsity in mind and heart, is worthy of the utmost contempt and punishment.

No person who bears responsibility can safely make decisions without proper study of his problems and preparation for his work. Jesus’ life and teachings exemplify this principle completely. So much emphasis has been placed by many Christian teachers and writers upon the divine nature of Jesus that many assume that there was given him all knowledge and wisdom in some superhuman way entirely different from that by which ordinary human beings attain their knowledge and bases of judgment. Such persons apparently overlook the fact that if that were true Jesus could not have been tempted in all points as we are. From the evidence given in the New Testament, Jesus, when a boy of twelve years of age, showed a remarkable precocity and mental grasp of the deep problems of life in his discussions with the wise men in the Temple. Nevertheless, he did not venture upon teaching in any formal way and making public his convictions regarding life and society until he was some thirty years of age. Moreover, there was a progressive development in his views and plans for the redemption of humanity. During his period of preparation, he made himself master of the Hebraic law and the writings of the leading commentators upon it. Evidently, also, while he was working at his trade of carpenter, and presumably also as master carpenter and contractor and citizen, he had been studying and reflecting most deeply upon the traits of human nature as manifested in the people whom he met and those with whom he had come in contact through his work and studies. When he began his public ministry, he had at his command the most profound knowledge of human motive and of human nature possessed by any of the great teachers of history. While he left us no formal analytical discussion on psychology, and probably never made one, as did Aristotle or Immanuel Kant or William James, none of them had more completely understood the ways in which human hearts and minds are to be touched and convinced so as to change their entire nature. It is not too much to say that as regards the practical working knowledge of human nature and the way in which it is to be influenced and changed, Jesus Christ is the greatest social psychologist of history. He had made himself such by long and patient study during a period of from eighteen to twenty years of preparation.

V. Love: Welfare of Humanity: Golden Rule

The third great principle laid down by Jesus for the conduct of life is love: devotion to the welfare of others.

This principle had been enunciated by all of the great religious teachers, but never before had it been so emphasized as by Jesus. The Buddha had taught kindness and mercy, and among the Buddhists even to-day it is not uncommon for people to make gifts to the community, such as bridges or rest houses by the wayside, or public buildings, in order “to acquire merit.” Likewise Confucius and the Hebrew lawgivers teach mercy and kindness and devotion to the welfare of the community. Nowhere, however, in all literature have we quite the same range of touching human sympathy as is expressed in the parable of the Good Samaritan, or quite the same direct guide to human action as in the Golden Rule. Most Christian teachers, indeed, have spoken of this principle of love as the cardinal principle of Jesus’ teachings, often as if it were almost the sole principle of social import; whereas, far-reaching as it is, the principle was not so new in social science as that of individual responsibility.

The social value of this principle is most clearly demonstrated by recognizing the fact that Jesus apparently made the welfare of humanity the basis of his ethical teachings, his test of right and wrong. And that is perhaps, on the whole, the best test that can be applied to individual or social action to-day. Much has been said by Christian teachers, and by the teachers of other religions, of the Law of God; and the test of what is right and wrong has seemed to be either some specific commands, such as, for example, the Ten Commandments of the Hebraic law, or other pronouncement of priestly doctrine; but Jesus, in his interpretation of the ancient law, sought for a fundamental principle which was to be applied to individual human action by the individual himself. In his declaration, “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath,” in his parable of the Good Samaritan, in his condemnation of the Pharisees for their hard-heartedness, in his enunciation, indeed, of the Golden Rule itself, we find various ways in which the truth that whatever tends to benefit humanity is right and whatever tends to injure humanity is wrong is made the basis of judgment.

This principle of Jesus would generally, I believe, be accepted for the basis of individual action. Of course, customs, habits, laws have so passed judgment upon most of our every-day acts that we do not need to stop to argue with ourselves the question as to whether stealing or killing other human beings or bearing false witness are for the benefit of humanity or for its detriment. We know it, we feel it; custom has made it instinctive; and yet our laws make very clear the distinction between murder and the execution of the death sentence or killing in self-defense; and the basis of the distinction is, of course, the welfare of the community.

Many writers, however, especially perhaps some of the leading German jurists, have drawn a sharp distinction between personal ethics and governmental ethics, arguing that though it may be wrong for an individual to lie, it is entirely proper for a government to deceive, if by so doing its own immediate welfare can be promoted. Along the same line is argued the justification for wars, seizure of territory of weaker peoples, and other acts of government that throughout all history have been assumed to be right, or passed over with little condemnation.

On this point again there can be no question that this broad principle, the promotion of the welfare of humanity at large, comes the nearest of any test of right and wrong that has been, probably that can be, discovered. This makes no distinction between underlying principles of governmental ethics, personal ethics, international ethics. The differences, whatever they may be, lie in the different influences that are brought to bear by the acts of an individual in his private and in his governmental capacities. It is, however, not difficult ordinarily to make the distinction.

Whatever the varying conditions may have been that guided governmental actions in the upward progress of civilization, the best test, perhaps, of national morality and of a higher civilization is that as time goes on the principles which should guide individual action in a society shall more and more become the rules by which governmental action within the society and also in international relations shall be guided. The higher civilizations, in their dealings with one another, and especially in their dealings with weaker peoples, should base their actions more and more upon truth, development of the individual through responsibility, the Golden Rule.

VI. These Principles of Action Produce Democratic Government

If we review hastily these principles of personal action which are really the summary of the most important of Jesus’ social teachings, we note that in enunciating these principles Jesus laid the foundations of democracy. He dealt the death-blow to imperialism, even to a benevolent despotism. When the mature individuals in a community deal truthfully and frankly with one another, when they feel a keen sense of individual responsibility for their actions, judging those actions with independence of spirit, with tolerance for the same independent judgment on the part of others, with the consciousness that they must study and prepare themselves for the bearing of their responsibilities, and when they also feel that they must devote themselves with all that they have and all that they are to the promotion of the welfare of the community at large, we have the ideal democracy. Is not this true? I have asked many thoughtful students of government whether or not these principles are the fundamental principles of popular self-government, and whether any other principles besides these are needed to be brought into play in order to give us popular self-government of the best type; and so far I have found no one who denied these to be the principles of democracy or who had anything to add to these principles. If, then, these are the principles of Christianity, if these are the complete summary of Jesus’ fundamental teachings, is it not the fact that Jesus, although not dealing directly with government, is nevertheless the founder of democracy, of self-government? It is certainly true that before his day the various attempts that had been made toward the establishment of republics or of democratic governments did not recognize the worth of the common man. In all of the earlier attempts that had been made there was a substantial equality of rights among the so-called better classes in the community; but the great masses of the serving classes, of the working classes, if not slaves were at least not supposed to bear the responsibilities of guiding the affairs of the community. Even in Great Britain, until after the great reform acts of the middle of the last century, there was no real democracy.

Moreover, the chief difficulties in democracy arise from the fact that we do not have in the great mass of our citizens in any community by any means a universal acceptance of these principles of Jesus. Although these are the principles of the ideal democracy, not until these principles are accepted and acted upon by the great masses of individuals in the community shall we have a perfect democracy. To improve our governments, therefore, if we are to accept Jesus’ guidance in our actions, our efforts should be devoted primarily not so much to increasing the power of individuals in the community or to weakening the power of leaders, as to increasing, on the part of our individual citizens, the capacity for wise, independent self-judgment and bearing of responsibility through increase of knowledge and increase of the spirit of unselfishness.

This leads us naturally to a brief consideration of the principle of self-determination on the part of nations and peoples, which has been so much discussed since the Great War. Perhaps there has been no other watchword that has been more misused in its application to governments and peoples than that of self-determination, but if we note carefully the way in which Jesus applied these rules that have been enunciated, we shall find the key to a wise and just application of this principle of self-determination. What limitations did Jesus place upon the principle?

When he said, “Suffer the little children to come unto me; forbid them not; for to such belongeth the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:14, 15); and again (Mark 9:35-37), “If any man would be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all. And he took a little child, and set him in the midst of them: and taking him in his arms, he said unto them, Whosoever shall receive one of such little children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me”—he clearly had in mind the humility and receptivity of children, their eagerness to learn, and had no thought at all that they should decide for themselves what to do. He seems throughout his teachings quite in accord with the teachings of Paul in his epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, that children should obey their parents, and that it took mature men, measuring up to the spiritual stature of Christians, to decide their own beliefs and actions. It is, of course, recognized in the laws and customs, as well as in the good judgment of all peoples, that children are not yet persons in the legal sense of the word. The same principle applies to weak-minded individuals. One of the great problems of self-government is to determine at what age or at what stage of development people are to be considered competent to make decisions for themselves, and, in governmental matters, for other members of the community. In America we have assumed that at twenty-one years of age people may properly be asked to take that responsibility. In some other countries twenty-five years is assumed as the proper age. In most countries, before people are allowed to act as representatives to pass on the making of laws, a still more advanced age, and, in consequence, a greater degree of maturity, is required.

What is only good judgment and common sense as applied to children is also good judgment and common sense, and good Christianity, in accordance with the teachings of both Jesus and St. Paul, as applied to certain peoples where the majority are so untrained or incapable that they cannot judge. It is not at all a question of social status. The extreme radical change that Jesus made was in that field. Jesus taught that there were no people born better than others, or in a ruling class, who could remove responsibility from any individual for deciding his own beliefs and determining his own actions. On the other hand, there is no reason for thinking that Jesus in any particular fostered the doctrine that any individual or small group of whatever degree of immaturity of judgment should under all circumstances be allowed to determine their own acts or their own form of government, and especially to control their relations with other peoples.

A second limitation upon the privilege of self-determination is, of course, the rights and the welfare of others. While we are to decide our own actions in accordance with the spirit of Jesus, we should impose upon ourselves the limitation that we will not act contrary to the interests of others or contrary to the welfare of the community, and this same principle would properly apply in any democratic community or state. While it is right for them to seek their own development, people should avoid injury to other peoples or races, and resistance to such injury is justified. Jesus did not hesitate to denounce the Pharisees for their unjust treatment of others, nor to expel forcibly from the Temple those who were desecrating its precincts to the detriment of the faithful.

I have heard the parable of the Good Samaritan cited by extreme pacifists as an argument against all war, and have heard Jesus characterized as “The Great Pacifist.” In addition to the present parable, I have sometimes wished that he could have left us another in which he depicted the scene a little earlier, just at the time when the wayfarer was struggling in the hands of the robbers. The priest might well have shrunk from a contest. Pleading to himself that it would ill become one of his cloth to be involved in a wayside brawl, he would pass by on the other side. The Levite, too, arguing to his conscience that the victim was a stranger to whom he was under no obligation, and that, at any rate, the robbers were too many, would pass by on the other side. But the Good Samaritan, seeing only a neighbor—though a total stranger—in dire distress at the hands of scoundrels, would hurl himself like a bolt into the fray. And if, after deadly conflict, he too lay robbed, bleeding, and sore by his neighbor’s side, there would be no glimmer of regret in his heart; but as each helped the other to bind up his wounds, their hearts would rejoice that each had found a friend in a good fight for the right.

The main difficulty in the application of the principle of self-determination is, of course, the apparent conflict of interests and benefits that occurs at times. Judgment should be rendered as nearly as possible by a consensus of opinion of the least prejudiced and best informed and most unselfish, disinterested observers. It is in exactly this field that we look forward to an ultimate international court of nations to which such questions as are formally justiciable may be put, and to a council of nations that may discuss, determine, and formulate the opinions of the nations on questions that are political in their nature. We may look forward to a time when such a decision rendered by such a court or such a council will be practically self-enforcing through the public opinion of the world. In the meantime, however, it should be a matter for the consciences of the statesmen of all of the different nations to settle this question with the spirit of Jesus and in the light of experience. Most thoughtful people of the present day, if their interests are not immediately concerned, would concede that the welfare of humanity and the progressive development, not only materially but also intellectually and spiritually, of the most backward individuals and peoples would be furthered by limiting the extent to which they may determine their own actions, especially so far as they concern other peoples through international relations. Heretofore such questions have been decided by the nations that had the greater power to enforce their will. Cases could be selected where the nation from whom the right of self-determination has been taken was probably better able to judge wisely its own acts than the dominating power. On the other hand, probably far more instances could be cited where the limitation for a time of the self-determining power in international matters has been beneficial to humanity. The right principle and the Christian principle would seem to be that an effort should be made to develop the capacity for self-determination on the part of backward peoples, and to withhold the power of self-determination in matters which involve deeply the interests of others, until such self-determining capacity has been developed to a degree to make its use safe for other peoples and nations. Doubtless as a practical matter for some time to come it will be the will of the stronger power in individual instances that will settle this question of the degree of self-determination that shall be granted and its application; but eventually the world court or council which has been mentioned may determine such matters in default of agreement among the peoples immediately concerned.

VII. Problems of the Far East

With the preceding discussion of principles as manifested by the teachings of Jesus Christ, we may consider briefly their application to the problems of the Far East and the limitation of armaments.

The three countries most concerned are Great Britain, the United States, and Japan. Of these, the first two claim to be Christian, and should therefore be willing to follow the teachings of the Founder of their religion. The third claims that her aim is to take the best from the civilization of the other two, and, wherever possible, to improve it. If all of them are really sincere and a correct analysis has been made of Jesus’ teachings, they may well prove to be satisfactory bases for discussion and agreement. If the powers can agree, the conference will be a success.

All of the problems of the Far East, from the point of view of the United States, seem to be centred about Japan, her acquisitions of territory, her claims regarding her interests and rights, her attitude toward other nations and the proper methods of procedure; and, on the other hand, from the point of view of Japan, one might in like manner assert that the problems of the Far East seem to be centred about the United States, her acquisitions of territory, her claims regarding her interests and rights, her attitude toward other nations, and the proper methods of procedure.

It is frequently stated by those who are discussing the nature of the forthcoming conference that the great problem of the Far East is China, and minor problems are Siberia and the islands of the Pacific; while still others speak of immigration and racial equality as the most important problems to be discussed. It will readily be seen, from our point of view, that if we eliminate Japan as an active factor, the other problems would not be of so serious import for international discussion, especially in connection with the possible limitation of armaments; whereas from the point of view of Japan, if the United States were eliminated as an important factor, such discussions would be of minor import. She could take care of the difficulties herself. There seems to be a conflict of views mainly between Japan and the United States, with Great Britain and, to a less degree, the other nations invited as vitally interested umpires, whose voices will largely decide, and who wish not to offend either Japan or America.

A complete discussion of these vital problems would involve careful and sympathetic consideration of questions that differ widely in form and nature, yet may be greatly simplified by the application of these principles of Jesus to their solution. Such a study would involve a sketch of the political history of the Far East since the China-Japan War, with notice taken of earlier conflicts over China, giving motives and methods of aggressions of various nations with their results; the marvellous expansion of Japan in both territory and influence, with a judgment as to her real needs for territory and materials and consideration of satisfying these needs; and the present and probable effects upon the world of the continuation of her policies; a similar study of the acquisition of territory and extension of influence in the Far East of the United States, Great Britain, and the other nations, and the probable future effects of the continuation of their policies—all to be judged in the light of these principles of Jesus: truth; development of personality of individual human beings; the Golden Rule, care for the welfare of humanity as the test of right and wrong.

To-day I may only indicate the method and nature of such study, and let each follow out the thought to a conclusion.

1. Truth: While every care should be taken to be courteous and considerate and just to all, if Jesus’ principles are right the future policies of the nations must discourage militaristic methods of deceit and trickery, propaganda of falsehood, secret diplomacy that is misleading, and the employment of force or threats, except in war. This can best be done by taking action which shows that such methods do not succeed and will not be tolerated in international relations. An “open-door” policy freely entered into (and this has been repeatedly affirmed by all) must be kept by all, and, if necessary, enforced by joint action. Promises regarding territory and treaties entered into freely must be kept, while those extorted by force should be considered invalid.

2. The spread of democracy in the sane sense of the word must be recognized and encouraged. World history under the teachings of Jesus shows this trend, and the outcome of the World War makes it clear that imperialism cannot survive. All nations must recognize this fact, and kings and emperors must retain their thrones by becoming the leaders of their peoples, whom they will train to assume responsibility. The nations whose spirit and policies are most intelligently and most sincerely devoted to developing stable self-government among their peoples must extend their influence, and those with other views must change or their governments will in no long time perish. Again, it is practically certain that any policy that is at variance with this principle will certainly lead to war in the not distant future—not to peace. These facts should have influence in the conference in determining future policies.

3. The policy should be encouraged of promoting the welfare of weak and backward peoples, not by selfish exploitation, but by aiding them to fit themselves for the responsibilities of self-government in all ways practicable, while not encouraging a movement toward a weak independence that would endanger the peace of the world.

4. All these questions must be handled—if the teaching and practice of Jesus are to be followed—in the light of reason and common sense and the practicable. To attempt to reverse actions of generations ago, whatever our views as to their justice then, might well do more harm than good. The annexations of Hong Kong, Indo-China, the Philippine Islands, Corea, are questions that cannot and ought not to come before the Washington conference. The ways in which the different nations have administered those territories may well be factors in determining what further opportunities should be given to the nations concerned. On the other hand, questions of grave importance are still pending and others involving the same principles may well arise.

(a) All the nations represented at the conference have formally agreed to the open-door policy in China. If that policy has been violated by any of the powers, the facts should be clearly brought out and recognized. On the basis of these facts, measures should be taken to insure a strict observance of that policy in the future. Presumably international inspection by international commission, including, of course, China as a party, probably as chairman, or possibly international control, will be needed in certain particulars.

(b) The treaties between China and Japan in 1915 and 1918 (which China claims were obtained by threats and show of force against a friendly power in time of peace) have not been recognized by the United States as valid so far as they concern the rights of America or American citizens, or the territorial integrity or the sovereignty of China, or the principle of the “open door.” These treaties involve the extension of power and influence of Japan in Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, and Fukien province of China, as well as her official influence with the Chinese Government and the entire question of Shantung province and Japan’s hold on Kiao Chow. The United States Government as well as China have consistently refused to consider these questions closed. They should now be considered and settled in accordance with the principles laid down. The truth should be fully brought out and recognized; measures should be taken looking toward the best development of the peoples concerned, so as to fit them for self-government in due time. As fast as possible they should be given the responsibility of self-determination. If not ready now, steps should be taken to prevent them from oppression or loss of their territory, while they are encouraged to find their way.

(c) The welfare in the long run of the peoples concerned, the welfare of humanity through them, should be the test of right and wrong in making these decisions and working out these plans. In case of differing opinions, based not on self-interest but on sincere conviction, if the history of twenty centuries is to count, the opinion should prevail of those nations whose practices have followed most nearly the principles of Jesus.

The same tests may be applied to conditions in Siberia, to Yap, and the islands of the Pacific whose status has not yet been agreed to by all the powers, and to the other problems raised by conditions in China.

Two questions more raised by Japan at different times may be briefly touched upon: Oriental immigration into Western countries and the race problem. Can the New Testament help on these?

Japan claims that she is already overpopulated; that the countries to which her people wish to go object to their coming, and that the countries to which they might go (Formosa, their own northern islands, Hokkaido and Saghalien, Siberia, Manchuria) are not suited to them. The facts are naturally that they wish to go to countries whose standards of living are higher than theirs. Then they have the advantage in competition. But such advantage is at the expense of those countries, whose standards will be lowered. They do not wish to go to countries whose standards are lower than theirs. The advantage in competition would then be against them, as experience in Corea and Manchuria has shown, and they must lower their standards to succeed. That they are naturally unwilling to do. For the same reason they exclude Chinese and Corean laborers from Japan in actual practice. In my judgment they are wise in so doing.3

It is the common economic conflict of standards of living where the fittest, in the sense of the ones who will produce the most at the lowest rates, because they have diligence and thrift, and are willing to live on lower standards, survive, and those who insist upon higher standards must go. It is perfectly evident, and to my mind entirely proper and in strict accord with the spirit of the teachings of Jesus, that every effort should be made to maintain the higher standards to the utmost extent possible, and that the methods of competition that should be admitted in connection with the principles of expansion should be those which would further the welfare of the populations, including the opportunities for developing intellectually, and gradually exercising more and more of a capacity for a self-determination of policies. This would not exclude Japanese from Corea or Manchuria, if they will deal fairly with those peoples. On the other hand, the nations that object to the admission of the Japanese on the grounds that their coming in large numbers will lower their standards of living and introduce a type of civilization that on the whole they feel to be lower than their own, are not therefore unchristian, provided proper methods of exclusion are followed. Japan is likewise fully justified in adhering to her policy of excluding from her own territory those laborers, especially Chinese and Coreans, who, if allowed to come in large numbers, because of their lower standards of living, would lower the standards of living and the opportunity, in consequence, for cultural development of the Japanese people.

As the Japanese Government has insisted upon limiting the competition of some foreign corporations that were obtaining too much control of certain industries in Japan (such as the American Tobacco Company), and insisted upon rigid control of the foreign companies doing business there, so it seems fully justified for the Chinese and those sympathetic with them to object to the dominating control by the Japanese, at the expense of the natives and of foreign competitors, of the territory of Kiao Chow, of the administration of the South Manchurian Railway, if the charges of discrimination are true, and of the methods of administration of Corea. I am not raising now the question of the legal right in any of these cases, but of the Christian principle of improving the welfare of the masses of the peoples of the countries concerned through the opportunities for developing to the highest degree the individuals.

Going now to the question of what the Japanese can do to maintain their own standards and improve them, unless they are allowed to enter freely in large numbers the territories of those whose standards of living are higher, three suggestions may be made:

First, they may become, at home, as they have already shown their capacity to become, more of an industrial nation, in which case the increase in the density of the population would be an advantage in competition rather than a disadvantage, and in which—owing to the rapid improvement of industrial conditions—the standards of living could be improved rather than lowered. The best illustrations of the success of this policy are found in Great Britain and Germany, both of which improved very rapidly with an increasing density of population.

The second suggestion is that in the countries readily open to Japanese immigration, where the population is not so dense as in Japan, i.e., in certain parts of Corea and Manchuria, in Hokkaido, and in other countries that might be mentioned (other parts of China and Siberia), a similar policy might well be followed. This does not mean political control, which is not necessary, but Japanese immigration. If they will undertake economic and industrial development, there will be room for a large and increasing population.

A third suggestion has to do with the very rapid increase in the population of Japan, owing to the high birth-rate. It is well known that in countries where the standard of living is rapidly rising, the birth-rate rapidly falls. This is a normal consequence of the increased care for their children, their training and their education, on the part of parents, with their own improved standards of living and the desire to give to their children the best which is possible. If Japan improves her industrial standards, unless there are some special efforts made either through religious influence or governmental influence to the contrary, the birth-rate will normally decrease. A militaristic nation wishes a high birth-rate, an industrial nation gets a low rate. Already there has been discussed in Japan, by their most thoughtful citizens, the question of birth control and the inculcation of the knowledge regarding sane and proper methods of birth control among the more ignorant classes of the population. It is a question that may well be given thoughtful consideration not only in Japan but in other countries.

It is, however, urged frequently that the Japanese cannot expand industrially unless they are in a position to secure the raw materials for their industries that are not produced in Japan itself. This is the usual defense that is given for many of the aggressive acts of Japan in securing control of coal and iron mines in various parts of China. Other nations, such as France, Great Britain, the United States, have imported large quantities of the essentials for industrial development, such as the raw materials mentioned, and petroleum and food-supplies, without feeling the necessity of political control. For decades the population of Great Britain, it has been known, could not survive many months without the importation of large quantities of foodstuffs, while her cotton industry has been dependent upon the United States for its raw material for many decades. There would be no objection whatever to Japan importing coal and iron ore and other products from China in as large quantities as she needed in the ordinary course of business for the support of her industries; and if her policy were an industrial one rather than a politically imperialistic one, her industries would be as safe as are those of Great Britain. They would be much safer than during the last years, when their acts have produced the Chinese boycott.

From the viewpoint of the United States, the difficulty in the Japanese expansion has been the apparent insistence on the part of her friends that she must have for her protection a political control over raw materials while her competitors along certain lines are satisfied with industrial access to raw materials; and also her insistence upon forcing her people into competition where they would lower the standards of living of other nations when they might readily find plenty of opportunity for work at higher standards, though it would require capital, to the benefit of not only themselves but of the populations who would welcome them.

VIII. Racial Equality

These considerations bring up also, as the Japanese Government itself brought up at the Paris Peace Conference and frequently elsewhere, the questions of racial equality and the statement so frequently made that any discrimination between races, by immigration laws, for example, is unchristian.

It is highly important that we understand with the greatest clearness the spirit of the teachings of Jesus in connection with the question of race and race equality. At the beginning of Jesus’ ministry he apparently felt that his message was first and chiefly to the Jews. That was natural, and quite possibly it appeared the most expedient course for the rapid spread of his vital principles of living. There can be, however, no doubt, as shown for example in the parable of the Good Samaritan and in the spirit of his teachings throughout, that Jesus believed and taught that all individuals of whatever race were equally precious in the sight of God, and that all would be equally citizens in his kingdom if they possessed and manifested his spirit as shown in his life and teachings. It is no less clear, however, that with his marvellous insight into the realities of life, he recognized as accurately and completely as any thinker possibly can, the differences between classes, professions, sects, and races, and the influence of these differences upon social life. Samaritans, Pharisees, Sadducees, Jews, and Gentiles are recognized as different types, to be dealt with according to their differences in type. In other words, Jesus recognized social facts as they were and acted in accordance with those facts, so as best to improve the welfare of all. This is the spirit of his teachings. No sane, intelligent person denies the fact that the differences between Negroes, Japanese, Jews, Anglo-Saxons, Arabs, Chinese, Hindus, Hottentots, are very marked. No Christian doubts that any member of any of these races who knows and follows the teachings of Jesus is equally a Christian, and equally worthy and precious in the sight of God; and yet with their great differences in social and political customs and habits of living, it is equally clear that if the attempt were made for them all to mingle with each other in close association, even with the best intentions and the best Christian spirit, there would be brought about inevitably a great loss of effective energy, not to say great friction. When one considers still further that the racial differences are so great in many instances that there is an instinctive objection on the part of the different races toward the most intimate association of married life, with the consequent mingling of blood and mental and temperamental as well as physical traits, it is evident that from any effort to bring these races together into close personal association without cordial willingness on the part of both races so to associate, there is certain to arise, under present conditions at any rate, friction that will not promote but will seriously retard the welfare of both races concerned. If the situation is such that one dominates the other, creating a servile race, that is clearly contrary to the spirit of Jesus’ teachings, and the objection to such association, if the spirit of Christianity prevails, would be as great on the part of the dominating as of the servile race.

Promotion of the welfare of all the races is the spirit of Jesus’ teachings. It is idle as well as contrary to the teachings of Jesus to close one’s eyes to facts of race differences and of the practical effects of those race differences upon the associations between the races. When those facts are clearly seen, it is in accord with the spirit of Jesus’ teachings so to adjust those relations as to promote the welfare of all, not of any one race at the expense of the others. Where racial differences are so marked that association is not acceptable to both races, there is no equality of treatment in forcing them to associate or in permitting one to force itself upon the other. Equality of treatment will demand that each race or each nation shall be allowed to determine for itself what other races shall be admitted to close association.

It therefore seems that the Japanese, as well as the Americans and the Canadians, have been wise in controlling with great care the immigration of other races and the conditions under which business shall be done in their countries by the peoples of other races and countries. The equality of the races that should be demanded is the recognition of the equal right of all to determine for themselves without injuring the rights or welfare of others what method will best promote the interests of all and the equal personal respect in which each individual of a different race should be held for the personal qualities that he himself possesses and cultivates.

While there is doubtless much race prejudice, most of the pleas of the Japanese that their exclusion from certain countries because of their race is a declaration of a belief in their inferiority seems rather a special plea to arouse sympathy and feeling than a statement of fact. They are excluded (a) because their industrial standards of living are such that their admission in large numbers will tend to injure the welfare of the community industrially, and (b) because the difference in race is so marked that their coming in large numbers is likely to promote social friction, and thus to injure the community politically and socially. In many instances these effects might well be brought about because of the recognition of their superior industrial, mental, and political accomplishments in certain lines. They do well to control their own country so as to prevent injury to it. It is in accordance with the spirit of Jesus that the same principle of promoting the welfare of the community be followed in other countries.

In saying these things I wish not to be misunderstood. I believe that the greatest benefits can come from close associations between the nations, industrially and politically, from very frequent and close associations in the way of visiting and of travelling and of international co-operation, so that good traits, good qualities, noble attainments of each nation may be as widely spread as possible among the other nations. I believe also that the Christian spirit of recognition of these good qualities and of the individual excellencies of all nations should be recognized. The principles laid down are made merely to suggest the ways in which the Christian spirit of co-operation can best be attained by avoiding unnecessary friction wherever possible.

It is entirely possible that in the course of time, through the spread of international culture, there will be a gradual mingling of customs which will promote a much greater degree of association than now, but it is certainly not only unwise but it is unchristian to attempt to force association where friction is bound to be the inevitable result. It would seem as if the sensitiveness of nations would lead them rather to avoid making themselves the cause of friction than to insist upon creating it.

IX. Methods of Japan

The chief problem of the Pacific so far as Japan is concerned has been caused by the methods that the Japanese Government has followed in promoting what they believe with all sincerity to be their interests. I have no desire to blame the Japanese Government for its policies. Under the conditions, it seems to me that they have been normal. In 1916, before the United States entered the Great War, but after Japan had expelled the Germans from Shantung, seized control of that territory, forced upon China the twenty-one demands, and insisted under threat of war upon the acceptance of all of them but the fifth group, while holding that for future consideration, a leading Japanese statesman said to me that Japan saw in the Great War an opportunity for promoting her own interests. He advised the government to select the very best men to take advantage of that opportunity to make Japan as great a state as possible. It was a normal spirit for a Japanese patriot.

Another Japanese statesman of high standing at about the same time said to me that it was natural that the Japanese Government should be militaristic: her constitution had been modelled after that of Germany; her armies and the officers of her armies had been trained by Germans; her army was modelled after the German army; all of the great strides forward that had made her one of the great powers instead of a small nation had been won by armies (Corea, control over Manchuria, the victory over Russia, and her great influence in the councils of the nations); what more natural than that she should believe in militarism and in German methods! Yet he personally thought those methods should be stopped. One need not blame the Japanese statesmen for the policy which they followed, but it is our business in this discussion to question whether these methods are now in accord with the teachings of Jesus, and whether it is incumbent upon the rest of the world, especially the Christian world, to encourage the continuance of those methods or to put what obstacles it can in their way. I have just given the testimony of two leading Japanese statesmen, testimony given to me personally. Many instances could be cited in the writings of Japanese statesmen to the same effect, and no careful student of history of the last twenty years will deny the facts.

The conference at Washington, in its consideration of the problems of the Far East, should face facts in the bold clear-seeing spirit of Jesus. Japan secured the control of Corea by violation of treaties, deception of the rest of the world, and the employment of force. She cannot deny this now. I think the question of Corea should not be raised now, but it gives a basis for judgment. These same methods were followed in the extension of her control over Manchuria and in such measure of control as she has in Shantung and other parts of China. Japan’s government of Corea has doubtless in many respects been better than the government by the Corean monarchy, and this in spite of universal testimony that the Corean revolts of the last year have been largely caused by the cruelty and despotic methods of Japanese administrators. The annexation of Corea by Japan was assented to by all of the leading nations of the world really because the previous government had been so inefficient and corrupt that it was believed that the welfare of the nation would be promoted by the annexation. Some of the nations who had promised in their treaties to use their influence to protect Corea against aggression from outside, before acting should have investigated with greater care than they did both the conditions surrounding the annexation and the prospects for the future; but, however that may be, if the Japanese Government were now to administer Corea with the welfare of the Coreans in mind, with the purpose of enabling them to develop their own feeling of responsibility so that as rapidly as possible they might be granted, in their internal affairs at any rate, the principle of self-determination, most people would believe that whatever the past may have been, the present and the future would be as nearly as practicable in accordance with the spirit of Jesus’ teachings, and would readily assent. If, however, cruelty and coercion continue, the decision would be the opposite.

The other questions regarding the open door in Manchuria, Shantung, the Pacific islands, have not as yet been universally accepted as settled. They are questions still to be settled. The methods that have been followed for years, practically up to the present time, have been those of force and fraud in the countries themselves, and, so far as it was practicable, deception by means of propaganda in countries abroad. These statements are made, not with any bitterness or blame, but merely as facts necessary for judgment, based on overwhelming testimony of practically all foreigners who are in a position to know the facts and of the liberal Christian thinkers among the Japanese themselves.

Is it for the welfare, morally and spiritually, as well as industrially, of these countries and of the rest of the world, that these practices be permitted to continue, or would the Christian nations be following more clearly the teachings of Jesus if they were to insist that these methods should stop? The nations assembled in the conference at Washington will follow the teachings of Jesus if they give to Japan the opportunity to promote the welfare of her citizens along all lines that will tend to inculcate in them the spirit of the Christian teachings; and they are also the teachings of Confucius and the Buddha and other great teachers. We ought not to attempt to force Christianity upon Japan. That would be unwise, unjust, and unchristian. There should be encouraged among them not only mercy and justice, but also the spirit of individual thinking, individual self-determination, just as rapidly as they can be trained enough to accept that responsibility; and the welfare of the other peoples who have been under their influence can certainly best be promoted by the adoption of international policies enforced by the influence of the united nations that shall prevent fraud and force from triumphing, but shall secure to the peoples concerned and the nations interested full and free opportunities for a greater self-development.

X. Limitation of Armaments

If the spirit of Jesus characterizes the conference and if these principles should be accepted by all, the question of the limitation of armaments, speaking from the point of view of the United States, would be easy. It would be merely a question of proportion among small numbers. From the point of view of Japan, the question may well be asked whether the United States is willing to follow this same spirit. The reply to the question is to be found simply in the facing of the facts. Are the proposals of Secretary Hughes in this spirit? Has the United States attempted to seize unjustly or to oppress the native peoples in Cuba, in Porto Rico, in the Hawaiian Islands, in the Philippine Islands, in China, or elsewhere? The inefficient Cubans were given a start toward self-government, were set upon their feet industrially and were given the opportunity of self-determination as regards all matters in which they could not injure the rights or the welfare of others. Similar statements may be made with an equal degree of truth with reference to Porto Rico, the Hawaiian Islands, Philippine Islands, China. While doubtless many individual mistakes may have been made, the spirit of the administration in all these countries, by the universal testimony of those who know, including the Filipinos themselves, shows that the spirit has been in accord with the teachings of Jesus.

The Japanese claim they fear, and doubtless in many instances they sincerely do fear, that the United States is aggressively attempting to gain control of the Pacific. Any one conversant with the facts knows that it wishes simply the promotion of the welfare of the people concerned, including the welfare of its own citizens, by fair, peaceful, industrial methods, in accord with the spirit of self-determination of the peoples themselves just so rapidly as they are able to assume that power.

XI. Our Government in the Conference

What is the position that our government should take in the conference? While exercising all due courtesy and exhibiting every care possible for the feelings of those in attendance, it should still have the Christian courage to face the facts as they have been and as they are, and to insist upon it that all the nations present see those facts and, basing their actions upon those facts, adopt so far as possible the Christian methods that will promote the welfare of all the peoples of the Far East, including Japan, so far as these problems of the Conference are concerned. If this is done, it does not mean that Japan’s future or China’s future is endangered. It means that every militaristic policy must be abandoned, but that the industrial, social, and even political future of all the nations, including Japan, will be better secured than can be possible in any other way. It will mean that the welfare of the inhabitants of China, including Manchuria and Shantung, of Siberia and of the islands of the Pacific, will be promoted by encouraging in every way possible their industrial development, by protecting them if necessary by joint international influence against aggression from without, and so far as possible by encouraging within those countries policies which will secure order, peace, and the development of the individuals toward acquiring a capacity for self-government which they seem to have been attaining so far only to a most unsatisfactory degree.

Above all, the guiding spirit, with its clear-sightedness and rigid adherence to practical conditions as they are, should be the spirit of peace and righteousness.