On our return from Venice to Harmannsdorf we stopped for a few days in Vienna.

On the very first evening we met at the Hotel Meissl a few members of the Reichsrat who were friends of ours, and, still under the influence of our exciting experiences, I told them the whole story of the founding of the Venetian Peace Society through a member of the Italian chamber. I also told them about the Interparliamentary League which had been formed in Paris in the year 1888, had met in London the year before, and was to have its rendezvous in Rome this year.

The gentlemen listened with interest but with very skeptical faces. As to joining, none of them had any idea of it.

At Harmannsdorf we industriously resumed our work. My husband wrote his Caucasian story “Shamyl,” and I also sketched the plan of a new novel, Vor dem Gewitter (“Before the Storm”). What was meant was the political and social storm whose clouds are rolling up in all quarters. Literary work did not keep me from busying myself with the peace cause so dear to me, for I kept up a steady correspondence with Hodgson Pratt, Moscheles, Frédéric Passy, and others.

I received word from Pandolfi that he, encouraged by his success in Venice, was now zealously at work in the Roman chamber, enlisting as large a committee as possible for the Interparliamentary Conference. He was having brilliant success; three hundred senators and deputies enrolled themselves. Now he was especially concerned to have parliamentary committees formed in Germany and Austria also, in order to send representatives to the conference in Rome, the date of which was set for November. He urged me, in case I had any connections with Austrian parliamentarians, to assist in the matter. That was at the beginning of June. What difficulties and what delays preceded the formation of an Austrian group, will be apparent from a bunch of letters which I have preserved from that time. The writers were people with whom I had communicated in the matter first personally (we went to Vienna for that purpose) and then by correspondence.

From Baron Kübeck, whose name I found in the London Peace Association and who therefore seemed to me most fitted to further the cause, I received a very explicit answer, which is interesting especially by its excursions into the domain of foreign politics as they were understood in the year 1891 in our political circles.

First of all I beg your kind indulgence for my long delay in answering your friendly communication. The highly interesting inclosure I return with thanks, having taken a copy from the address circular (which should perhaps be sent also to Smolka and Trautmannsdorf?).

My now somewhat overcrowded affairs, and especially my attempts to sound some of my more prominent colleagues, are responsible for this delay.

Taking all together, I believe that I find among the great men of our party very little agreement with our—your—great ideas; that is to say, in theory they may assent, but hardly as regards working to bring them over into practical life.

Hofrat Beer regards it as inopportune and impossible to go to Rome as a representative of the parliamentarians; Professor Suess is a kind of war man himself in spite of his peace-breathing utterances;^[31] Bärnreither considers public talk about the matter as premature, and so it goes. The proposition receives most assent, and, as it seems to me, practical appreciation, among a few cultured Poles—why? because they, having a tinge of cosmopolitanism, do not take that parochial standpoint which unfortunately plays the principal part among our German deputies.

I think I have also a strong inclination to sail in the cosmopolitan channel; which has stamped me with a certain foreignness in the circles with which I am in closest political harmony, and yet—wrongly. But never mind—to business!

The opinion of the Poles with whom I have talked agrees with mine that the present condition of chauvinistic hatred of Germany in France, and likewise the danger threatening us on the side of Russia, cause the Triple—or rather Double—Alliance, with its foundation of exorbitant military preparation, to be a defensive necessity, a guaranty of peace, even in the eyes of the populaces concerned. There is much truth in this too, since the French of to-day are not to be capacitated, and Russia is only looking for a chance to conquer the rest of Europe and British India by a sudden attack at an unexpected moment—which, considering her supply of half-savage, battle-tried, and pugnacious men, may easily be realized some day when Russia’s shortcomings shall be exceeded by those of Europe; so probably nothing remains but to wait for the ultimate undoing of this perpetual Gordian knot, whether through the arduous work of a peaceful partition or through the horrors of war.

But still there can and must be endeavor after that which can prepare for the final victory of arbitration, and under this head come economic questions: customs unions, the facilitation of rail and water transportation by unified tariffs, reciprocity of the credit system and of the circulating medium, and so on. This will at least be now attempted between Germany and Austro-Hungary, and will probably be extended to Switzerland, Belgium, Italy, and some of the Balkan states. The aim of these agreements is doubtless, among other things, to make the burden of military preparations more endurable, and that is something.

Furthermore, an effort should be made to diminish the horrors of war, especially to put some limitation on the use of explosives^[32] so as to bring the destruction of property—to say nothing of human life—not utterly out of proportion to the military purpose to be attained (vide the bombardment of Alexandria by Admiral Seymour, etc.).

This is the aim of the Polish gentlemen, one of whom, Koslowski, is my fellow member in the Cobden Club of London and was also present at the last Peace Congress. The second Pole would be Sopowski, who has studied the Oriental question as very few have, and has written very interestingly on it; finally, Szepanowski, whose long residence in England has made him a genuine thorough-going cosmopolitan.

As regards arbitration, you will admit, most gracious Baroness, that in a great political question arising, for example, between France and Germany or between Russia and Austria, and affecting their very existence, it will doubtless be impossible to find a power which could undertake the office of arbitration, or to which it would be intrusted. Perhaps the Pope? Yes, the idea would be quite worthy of the Supreme Head of the Church, but will Protestant Germany or schismatic Russia ever acquiesce in such an award? I doubt it. Yes, in minor territorial questions (Luxemburg, Samoa, the Carolines, etc.) submissiveness to an arbitrator who occupies a suitable neutral position is possible and probable; but in such world-affecting questions as those I have mentioned, probably not so soon, probably not in the first thousand years.

This I desired to lay before you, most gracious Baroness. You know how much I admire and appreciate you and your noble activities, and would so gladly share in them as your faithful follower; but our contemporaries will not heartily coöperate, and this must be taken into consideration. But the modus to be provisionally adopted, as I have permitted myself above to indicate it, bids fair to be successful in securing many present advantages; and to this I should like to draw your attention.

P.S. In Berlin, so far as my knowledge goes, Dr. Barth would be our man; I will write him.

Permit me to lay at your feet my discourse on British India.

The Socialist deputy Pernerstorfer:

I would willingly, at least for myself personally, obey your friendly summons to go to Rome for the Peace Conference. But this is quite out of the question for me, since such a journey, especially at the present moment, exceeds my pecuniary ability; all the more as I should have to take it not alone but accompanied by my wife. So what remains possible toward meeting your desires is that I should help along the propaganda for the Conference among the members of the Austrian House of Deputies. Now you do mention some names, and I have not the least doubt that the men you name are warm friends of the efforts toward peace. Yet this friendship is certainly nothing but a highly Platonic one, which does not go further than pathetic assurances and sentimental phrases. You clearly have a far too favorable opinion of the Austrian Parliament; the thoughts that govern this house are of a purely practical, and often a very selfish, nature. Ideal endeavors are here regarded as ideological, and moral indignation is not taken seriously. It would be a tempting theme for a writer of creative power to hold up a mirror to the world in a political novel. The detestable picture would be seen of a class brutality such as had never before come to light in such a degree.

So I cannot do anything in this second direction either. It is possible, no doubt, to induce a few members of the Austrian Parliament to take a trip to Rome, on which occasion they would have also to take part in the Peace Conference; but do you really regard that as any gain and as especially desirable?

I would not let this opportunity pass, highly honored lady, without thanking you from the bottom of my heart for the great gratification which you have given to me, as well as to so many, many others, by your splendid book Die Waffen nieder. For those who, like myself, are in public life, such a book is more than an enjoyment; it is a great consolation and means an uplift and a new stimulus.

Here follow two more letters from deputies:

First of all allow me to thank you most heartily for your exceedingly delightful favor. Baron Kübeck had already spoken to me of your noble endeavors, with which I too am in the most cordial sympathy.

As I have long been in touch with the English Committee—and also have the pleasure of personal intimacy with Rugg. Bonghi—I am fairly well au courant with the condition of things. Besides, it has always intensely interested me to follow the course of cases in which the principle of arbitration has come to be applied in international controversies.

Certainly it cannot be denied that progress in this matter takes place with infinite slowness; hence, to begin with, it is peculiarly difficult, at least in our circles, to enlist adherents for a cause which to-day seems still Utopian. The counter argument, in the words “Russia, France,” is not to be got rid of.

We must, therefore, begin by realizing that to-day there can be attained at best nothing more than perhaps to have a small number of deputies show an inclination toward an expression of sympathy, and, in addition, toward inducing one of their number to go to Rome.

Baron Kübeck and I will not fail to try for this. You will understand that of course I shall not fail to confer with Baron Pirquet and Pernerstorfer, and likewise with Count Coronini.

In case I have any favorable news to send, I shall take pleasure in reporting it, since personal contact with you, Frau Baronin, even if it be only by letter, can only be very delightful to me.

Dr. Wilhelm Exner, president of the Technological Trade Museum and section chief, wrote:

Your friendly lines of the twenty-sixth instant cause me some embarrassment, as does any disproportionately great reward which one yet neither can nor would decline. I am much surprised to find any value attached to the fact when a politician who as such plays so unimportant a part joins himself to those who declare for an idea the justification of which cannot be gainsaid by any one. I made my avowal to the last Peace Congress held in London; what does that signify in comparison with your brilliant literary propaganda?!!!

I am going to send your letter to an autograph collector, who is a friend of mine, the Princess Pauline Metternich, if you will allow me.

It is my intention to go to Rome, if my parliamentary duties permit of it, and I look forward to obtaining one great personal advantage thereby—your acquaintance. If my genial colleagues Pirquet and Kübeck also go to Rome, the days there are likely to be splendid. This prospect is almost too fine to hope for realization.

For the present, allow me, honored Baroness, to express to you my sincerest and warmest thanks for your letter, and to put myself with the greatest pleasure at the service of that endeavor for which your pen is proving to be such a valuable factor.

With especial esteem, respect, and devotion, most gracious Baroness,

To this correspondence belong also the two following letters from the Marquis Pandolfi in Rome.

I have to inform you that the deputies of Germany have replied, accepting all our propositions and promising to visit us. Only they wish the Conference to be postponed till the beginning of November.

So then all countries have heeded the appeal with the exception of the parliaments of Vienna and Budapest. These must be labored with, and you can do that better than I, with the assistance of a friend in the Reichsrat.

I am sending you the copy of a letter which I have addressed to the Germans; it may serve you as a pattern of what you will want to write to your friends, of course with such changes as are requisite.

Finally, I beg you to give me the names of the presiding officers of both houses in Vienna and Budapest. I am sending you under separate cover the constitution of our Committee, and later, as soon as it is printed, you will receive the full list of our Parliamentary Committee,—more than three hundred members.

Best regards to your husband, etc.

I have come to Stra for some days. As soon as I return to town you will get:

The first circular, which we have sent to all our deputies and senators;

The second circular, which we dispatched a few days ago.

Baron Kübeck will have to do just as I did if he wants to make a success of it:

1. In order to form the first nucleus of deputies he must personally tackle the most active and best-known members, one at a time, and request their signatures to a declaration by which they concur in the formation of a Parliamentary Committee.

2. When this first nucleus is formed (thirty or forty are enough) hold a first meeting and appoint a provisory board.

3. Then the board will send out invitations to all the deputies, explaining the purposes of the organization, and, above all, the first purpose—to designate a number of such deputies as are willing to come to Rome.

4. After that, for all further steps, to communicate with me.

5. As soon as the committee is formed and the board appointed you must let me know their names, and thereupon a letter will be sent to the gentlemen in the name of the whole Italian Committee, asking them to come to Rome. They will receive the formal invitations and programmes later.

In the meantime I will inform you that at the last conference in London thirty-six members of foreign parliaments were appointed to make preparations for the third conference. Among these thirty-six members Austria is represented by Count Wilczek and Cavaliere Bolesta von Koslowski, and Hungary by Count Apponyi and Dr. Viktor Hagara. I have sent to each of these four gentlemen a circular, of which you shall receive a copy as soon as I get to Rome; but thus far not one of the gentlemen has replied, so far as I am aware, and this is not encouraging.

Altogether this committee of thirty-six has turned out badly, and I think the matter must be otherwise arranged in future.

The best way is for Parliamentary Committees to be formed in each country in the manner that I have explained above.

The Interparliamentary Group in Austria was formed—formed through the zeal, born of real conviction, of one of the deputies to whom at my suggestion Baron Kübeck (himself not wholly convinced, as his letter shows) had addressed himself: Peter, Baron Pirquet. He remained for years at the head of the group, represented it with talent and tact at all the subsequent conferences, and his crowning act was the organization of the Interparliamentary Conference at Vienna in the year 1903. After the group was formed, delegates for Rome were appointed, among them Dr. Russ and Baron Pirquet, and thus the participation of Austria in the third Interparliamentary Conference was assured.

But how was it with the Peace Congress,—that is, the congress of the private peace society, which was to meet in Rome at the same time,—would Austria be unrepresented in that? Of course, since no peace association existed in Austria. This thought gave me no rest. It must surely be possible to gather adherents for the idea. The result of my excogitations was an appeal which I sent to the Neue Freie Presse on the first of September, 1891, without much hope that the paper would publish it. Great were my joy and amazement when on the third of September, on opening the sheet, I discovered my article in a prominent place, with a footnote by the editor saying that “no one can have a better right to speak on the question proposed than the author of Die Waffen nieder.”

By way of introduction the article told of the approaching congress in Rome, the assured participation of the Austrian parliamentarians, and the need of forming also a private association whose delegates should take part in the congress at Rome. Then it went on:

This is the way affairs stand: Armies millions strong—divided into two camps clashing their arms—are awaiting only a signal to spring at each other; but in the mutual trembling dread at the immeasurable horror of the threatening outbreak may be found some security for its delay.

But postponement is not suppression. The so-called “blessings” of peace which the system of armed dread endeavors to maintain are guaranteed to us only from year to year, are always represented only as lasting, “it is to be hoped,” for a while yet. Of the abolition of war, of a total suppression of the principle of force, the powers that are leagued in an armed fraternity for “the maintenance of peace” will not hear a word. To them war is sacred, ineradicable, and men must not dream of doing away with it; but it is also, in view of the dimensions which a coming conflagration will develop into, dreadful to them, inexcusable before their own consciences, so it must not be begun.

But what an unnatural thing that is which must not stop nor begin, not be denied nor affirmed! An eternal preparation for that which is to be avoided by the preparation, at the same time an avoidance of that which by the avoidance is prepared! This monstrous contradiction is thus explained: that creation of historical antiquity which they are still trying to preserve—“merry” war that shifts jurisdictions, bestows power, and claims only a fraction of the population—has in the course of time, through the development of civilization, become a moral and physical impossibility.

Morally impossible because men have lost something of their savagery and disregard of life; physically impossible because the accessions to our technology of destruction during the past twenty years would make of the next campaign a thing that would be something quite new and different, no longer to be designated by the name of war. If one should prepare a bath for long hours, heat the water, heat it until it boiled and ran over, then could what happened to any one who should at last get into the tub, or rather fall in, still be called a “bath”? A few years more of such “maintenance” of peace, of such inventions of machines for murder,—electric mines, ekrasit-loaded aërial torpedoes,—and on the day when war is declared all the Dual, Triple, and Quadruple alliances will be blown to shivers.

Those who have the slow-match in their hands luckily take notice of this. They know that with such a supply of powder the consequences would be terrible if they should carelessly or even wantonly set it afire. So in order to increase this beneficent carefulness the supply of powder is constantly increased. Would it not be simpler, voluntarily and unanimously to take away the slow-matches? in other words, disarm? Establish an international reign of law—fuse into one group the separate groups which constantly swear to each other that if attacked by some other group they will fight shoulder to shoulder—found the alliance of the civilized states of Europe?

The various alliances now stand face to face as equals in power and dignity. What is to hinder their making what they now set as their aim—peace—the foundation of their existence? What hinders it? the law of inertia on the one hand, and on the other hand the fomented national hatred, the flurry constantly kept up by the noisiest party—the war party—in every land.

The noisiest to be sure—but yet at the same time the smallest. A little body of chauvinists here and there. In Russia a group of Panslavists—the Tsar desires peace; in France a group of revenge-seekers—the government desires peace; among us and in Germany a few militarists—both the emperors desire peace. To say nothing of the people; they yearn for peace and have a right to it. The shouts of martial comradeship which are uttered here and there on the occasion of various welcomes to fleets, and which may so easily be interpreted as the expression of a desire for war on the part of the peoples, ought no longer to be so misunderstood: have we really not yet learned that there is nothing more epidemic than hurrahs and vivas? that these shouts must always, on behalf of every cause, rend the air as soon as the first signal is given—by a natural necessity, like the rolling of thunder after the flash of lightning?

Small then, that is certain, is the number of those that still desire a state of war. Still smaller the number of those that acknowledge this desire aloud and proclaim it in their own name. On the other hand, infinitely great are the masses who yearn for peace, not peace prolonged in fear and trembling but peace securely guaranteed. Among these, however, the number is again very small who believe in the possibility of fulfillment for their wish, and who have combined to proclaim aloud their purpose and to make for this goal with united effort. He who waves the white flag has millions behind him, but these millions are still dumb.

The article then went on to tell of the beginnings that had already been made in other countries, and ended with a request that people would send in letters of adhesion, with the purpose of having the supporters unite in a league which might send its representatives to the congress in Rome.

It had surprised me that the Presse so willingly printed my appeal; I was still more surprised at the response which it awakened in the public. Hundreds of letters (they will be found among my possessions when I die) poured in on me from Vienna and from the provinces and from all classes of society. Enthusiastic concurrence, joyous offers of coöperation, also promises of pecuniary assistance. A rich manufacturer of Bohemia, Prosper Piette was his name, inclosed in his simply registered letter a thousand-florin note to be expended at will in the service of the cause; I sent the offering to Rome by the next mail, to the committee for the organization of the congress.

Out of the letters I selected a few which were especially adapted to inspire confidence, and entered into personal communication with the writers of them so as to form, with them and with their help, a provisory committee that should call a first meeting. Doctor Kunwald the lawyer, one of the first who had sent in their names in response to my article, and whose letter was among the most enthusiastic, gave me efficient help in this matter. An invitation was extended to all authors of letters of adhesion living in Vienna to meet together on a certain day at a certain place for the purpose of holding a constituent assembly. Accompanied by Doctor Kunwald I repaired to the designated hall. My husband had been ill with bronchial catarrh for several days, and could not come from Harmannsdorf to Vienna. The meeting was pretty well attended. The chairmanship was conferred upon me as having sent out the original summons; but, since I was too inexperienced to perform the duties of the office in parliamentary manner, I authorized Dr. Kunwald to preside in my name. Those present listened to the reading of that article of the constitution of the English Peace Association which says:

Each of these national sections, however great the number of their members may be, is constituted through the simple fact that all are agreed to work for the common end.

Even an assembly held in a private house, without any appeal to the public, may be regarded as the nucleus of such a section. It is sufficient to nominate a secretary and to vote to meet at least once a month, in order to keep in touch with the progress of the union and to devise means for propaganda.

As soon as a section is recognized by the Central Committee in London, it belongs to the Association.

I was now commissioned to draw up a new circular inviting to the definitive formation of an association, and to induce influential personages to join in signing this circular as preliminary committee. I undertook this labor, and on the eighteenth of October all the journals printed the following appeal, with full headings:

The International Peace and Arbitration Association (headquarters in London; president, Hodgson Pratt; vice presidents, the Duke of Westminster, Cardinal Manning, the Marquis of Ripon, the Bishop of London, etc.), whose various branches, established in almost every country in Europe, are to be represented at the next Congress (Rome, November 9, 1891), has now among the rest, by action taken at a preliminary meeting of sympathizers held on the twenty-ninth of September, an Austrian section.

But in order that this section may be able effectively to perform the duties devolving on it in this country, in order that it may be in a condition to spread and grow strong, it has determined to organize itself as a regular and legal society, whose constitution is then to be submitted to the proper authorities for acceptance.

The Association is not to be political, for its object—“the furtherance of the principle of a durable peace among the nations”—is purely humanitarian. If, in the last analysis, it is incumbent upon this tendency to exert some influence on the course of politics in general, this is only what is common to all humanitarian and civilizing efforts; for all such are characterized by aiming at the amelioration and progress of human society, and thus influence the development of social conditions in all directions. We are concerning ourselves only with one thing,—the recognition and promulgation of the simple principle that

human society—whether as individuals or as groups of individuals, called nations—has to seek the foundation of its true welfare in unity, not in separation; in mutual cöoperation, not in mutual enmity.

Moreover, connection with the society presupposes the conviction that war is a fearful evil, but by no means an unavoidable evil; that in the intercourse of civilized nations the status of force should, and may, be replaced by the status of law.

So one who joins the general Peace Association, or any of its branches, does not have to start with any political programme; on the contrary, the advocacy of any such programme is excluded from the debates of the meetings by the constitution. In the community of purpose is to be found the reason why the hosts of the friends of peace may be drawn from all ranks and all parties; hence it is, too, that in the lists of members of the various peace societies the names of Whigs and Tories, of socialists and aristocrats, of freethinkers and church dignitaries, stand together.

If service in the army were not in limine a bar to all participation in public associations, even active soldiers might become members; for they are not there to defend war, but to defend their country in case war breaks out. They have just as much human right to desire the disappearance of this calamity as the physician has to desire the disappearance of epidemics. A universally known and honored person has given to this view the following noble and courageous expression, in a letter in which he offers his name for membership:

“... Although upon the breaking out of any war in which Germany was involved (I am a colonel à la suite in the Prussian army; I was retired in 1875 as a semi-invalid) I should immediately present myself for reinstatement in the army, yet I am in no sense fond of war; on the contrary, I regard war as a terrible calamity, even for the victor. I have taken part in two campaigns, not as one of a large staff but with the troops, and have thus had enough—more than enough—of opportunity to know from my own observation and experience the whole unnamable wretchedness which every war brings in its train. Joyfully, therefore, do I accept your invitation, and will most gladly strive to further, to the extent of my powers, the large-hearted, noble, and—may God grant it—also beneficent undertaking which you have started.

The first, the only purpose which we have in view is the intimation of our own desire for peace and the creation of a sufficiently educated public opinion.

The practical methods to be used in our activities for this purpose consist in the dissemination of printed matter, circulars, and declarations; the insertion of articles in the daily press, the delivery of public addresses, the familiarization of people with the literature of the subject, and, upon sufficient occasion, the publication of pamphlets or books; the sending of delegates to meetings and congresses; constant communication with the allied societies, and unremitting care to keep up to date the knowledge of the condition and progress of the general movement.

To the constituent assembly—to which all who have sent in their adhesion, or shall send it in, will receive invitations; it will be called together in the second half of this month—is reserved the acceptance of the proposed constitution, the election of the permanent board of management, and the appointment of the delegates which the Austrian Peace Society now in process of formation wishes to send to Rome.

Vienna, October 18, 1891

The preliminary committee:

A few days after the publication of this circular the definitive formation of the governmentally authorized Österreichische Friedensgesellschaft—Austrian Peace Society—took place in the Old Rathaus, with a membership of two thousand.

Enthusiastic addresses were made, and the delegates were appointed—six in number—who should represent the youngest peace union at the congress. The treasury of the society had already sufficient funds to enable it to pay traveling expenses.

Now we made our preparations for going to Rome. I also wrote to sundry distinguished personages at home and abroad, requesting letters of greeting and approval which I might lay before the congress.

Some of these, as well as of those that had already been sent spontaneously, I insert here; they belong to the history of the beginnings of the Austrian Peace Society:

Madame:

I was just reading your novel Die Waffen nieder, which Mr. Bulgakof had sent me, when I received your letter. I greatly appreciate your work, and the idea comes to me that the publication of your novel is a happy augury.

The abolition of slavery was preceded by the famous book of a woman, Mrs. Beecher Stowe; God grant that the abolition of war may follow upon yours. I do not believe that arbitration is an efficient means of abolishing war. I am just about finishing a treatise on this subject, in which I discuss the only means which in my opinion can render wars impossible. Nevertheless, all efforts dictated by a sincere love for humanity will bear fruit; and the congress at Rome, I am certain, will contribute much, just as that at London last year did, to popularize the idea of the flagrant contradiction in which Europe finds itself between the military status of the nations and the Christian and humanitarian principles which they profess.

Receive, Madame, the assurance of my sentiments of genuine esteem and sympathy.

Receive my sincere thanks for giving me too an occasion for announcing my whole-hearted indorsement of the lofty and magnificent work in which you are taking such a prominent part both in word and deed. I joyfully and unreservedly declare myself in accord with the objects of the International Peace and Arbitration Association. That these objects are attainable, that some day they will be attained, is my firm and heartfelt faith, just as I believe in the progress of humanity. And I could think of nothing that could occupy a human life more greatly and worthily than to cöoperate in bringing about this realization,—than to fight for assured peace. If in this battle you can make use of my assistance, highly honored lady, then command me utterly; your call will always find me willing and prepared. I shall never cease to exert myself in public and in private to have war recognized more and more widely as what it is,—as the saddest and most shameful relapse into barbarism, the most terrible crime against the genius of humanity.

Accept the expression of the hearty respect with which I shall always be

... You will not doubt that I am with you at heart, and that I have the warmest sympathy and approval for your efforts to disseminate ideas of peace, of reconciliation, of civilized forms of law, even in the relations of nation to nation.

Of course I know, as well as the doubter and scoffer who seems to himself so wise, that the Peace and Arbitration League can scarcely count on practical results at this moment or in the immediate future. But as a writer I believe in the might of the word, and its function in changing traditional views and spreading new and better ones. If I did not believe in this, I should long ago have broken my pen. So let us write and speak unweariedly against the horror of war. Semper aliquid haeret, and gradually we shall convert the governments and nations from barbarians to men!

... My most respectful greeting to all friends of peace! Only the brute in man can desire war. So let all the inciters and promoters of war be treated as brutes and put out of the decent society of civilized men. And, moreover, let any one who in the press eggs on war and speaks in favor of wholesale murder be brought before the courts as a common bravo and assassin.

... The last word in this fearful question of blood, to which the flower of the country is sacrificed, does not rest with the men at all, but with the mothers.

... I rejoice in that happy event, the newly formed Peace Society. This is a fresh encouragement to our endeavors, a new reason to hope for good results. To be sure there are still many prejudices to meet, and perhaps also enmities to overcome; but that is only one more reason for recognizing the necessity of having our efforts supported by an imposing number of representatives of all nations. It is time, it is high time, that genuinely universal demonstrations should—by encouraging the timid—call forth an uprising of the conscience of mankind, and that society should stand on its guard against the ruin, the misery, the crime, by which it is threatened.