The World Crisis and the Outlook

LIEUT.-COLONEL GEORGE A. DREW, President, introduced the speaker.

RABBI BRICKNER: I am getting to be almost a perennial in your midst. My frequent comings back ought to be an omen of something, and perhaps it may he an omen of the fact that the good times, too, may be coming back (Laughter); at least we hope so together.

The other day I heard the dispute between three men, representing different professions, as to the question "Which is the oldest profession in the world?". The dispute was between a surgeon, an engineer, and a politician. The surgeon said that he believed that his profession was the oldest, and for proof went back to the story of Genesis. He said that when God made woman he made her out of the rib of Adam, and certainly that required a surgical operation, hence his profession was the oldest.

The engineer said that he could go even farther back, because man was the last of the acts of creation, and before that God had planned the world and built a cosmos out of chaos, and the planning and the building of the world out of chaos into cosmos necessitated the engineer, and hence he thought his profession was even older than that of the surgeon.

But the politician pooh-poohed both of them, and he said: "You said the world was made from chaos into cosmos, but the question is who made the original chaos". (Applause; laughter.) And it is with a great deal of the original question with which we are dealing this afternoon.

The entire world is in a state of flux. It is upset in its attempt to devise a new common denominator by which to divide the products of man's labour. The world seems today convulsed in an intensive effort to find a method of properly distributing the things nature yields and man produces. Here we are facing the paradox of a period of famine amidst plenty. 1 think in all the annals of human history this is the first time that any generation of man has been confronted with that dilemma. Up to now, our problem consisted in getting rid of the surplus population, because the food supply did not keep pace with the growing population, and you may remember Malthus' solution of that problem and through the development of modern science and its application to new features, through the balancing of birth over death, in most of the countries of the world, we are confronted with the dilemma today of a world that produces more than its people consume. Verily the whole world, and particularly we on this Continent, seem to have been converted into a nation of Midases; anything we touched had a tendency to turn to gold, and now, especially in the country from which I come, across the line we seem to have almost three-fifths of the world's gold in our treasury and yet we seem to be starving in the midst of its glitter.

We are in the midst, therefore, of a very intensified knowledge, which we face inevitably by the failure of a worn-out system of the past to fit in with present conditions. It is clear that through modem means of communication, of exchange, and of transportation, the whole world today, more than ever before, is now one of economic co-relationship. We are all in the same boat, and when the financial and economic seas rather disturb that, we are all bound to feel the rocking of the boat, even though the world may have put some of us in a favourite seat in that boat.

I do not believe myself that the extreme gravity of the world's crises can be exaggerated. The conservativeminded people amongst us say, "Never mind, it is no worse today than it was after the Napoleonic wars; we got over that, or at least the generation of that day got over that, and to a higher upland, and why not we?". They said "We came through other crises unscathed, into greater prosperity".

I have a feeling, my friends, which I do not think all of you will share with me, but I believe that these conservative-minded people who keep reminding themselves of this cyclical theory of life are our worst enemies.

I want to quote just a line from a letter which Governor Norman of the Bank of England sent to Governor Morais of the Bank of France, in which he said:

"Unless drastic measures are taken to save it, the capitalistic system throughout the civilized world will be wrecked within a year. I should like this prediction to be filed for future reference."

Remember, gentlemen, this is no radical speaker; Governor Norman of the Bank of England is a man of great and to some extent conservative parts; a warning like that needs to be heeded. Sir Arthur Salter, another great Englishman, for many years the head of the Economic Section, of the League of Nations, in referring to the international situation in the last quarterly issue of the "Yale Review" wrote: "This is a grave and indeed a terrific prospect; the foundations of the systems under which we have grown up are threatening many of the institutions which for the main part are economical and political structures which must he destroyed or profoundly modified."

A great paralysis which we seem unable to diminish has taken hold of our machine installations, the machine which 150 years ago created the first industrial revolutions in the world, and now finds itself in the position of destroying that which it initially created. We are passing through what I believe to he the second industrial revolution. Fifteen nations in the last year, involving more than one quarter of the world's population. have been forced off the gold standard; ten countries have defaulted their internal obligations; revolution and disorder have affected nearly one-half of the world's population, and the whole future seems uncertain.

I want to raise this question in the minds of thinking people. May it not be that we are at the end of one era in history and at the beginning of another? May it not be that, in this generation, the word "finis" is being written to that conception which characterized the 18th and 19th centuries, and may we not he at the beginning of the new and different era of human history?

I have a feeling that the future historians will record the year 1914, which marked the beginning of the world war, in the same way as did the historians record the date of the fall of Rome. Not alone is our whole economic system in collapse-invisible collapse-in every other domain of human thought and activity are there revolutionary forces at work. I say advisedly "revolutionary forces."

In the field of religion, the older Orthodoxies are crumbling. In the field of morals, the old standards seem to be going; we are not quite sure where. In Government, democracy is giving rise to fascism and to communism. Just study the sort of world in which we live and ask yourselves whether it does not show all of the symptoms of a civilization passing out, and a new different kind of world coining to take its place?

Let me this afternoon make a hasty review of the world picture as it strikes the pivotal countries of the world. In the United States of America, over 8,000,000 people are unemployed; private philanthrophy is breaking down. To meet the situation covering the coming spring it will require something over $700,000,000, and all the community chests in the United States put together cannot collect $100,000,000. It means that in the United States, the Governments, Federal, State and Municipal, are faced with the problem of extending what would he called in England a "dole". Unemployment insurance has already been enacted in the State of Wisconsin, and 1 believe is on the way to being enacted throughout the various states of the Union. We are learning across the line that the United States of America is not and cannot be self-contained as a nation, despite its 122,000,000 people. How can it he self-contained when more than onehalf of the cotton, one-third of the copper and tobacco, one-fifth of the wheat and flour, one-eighth of the refined oil, one-quarter of the agricultural machinery, and onetenth of automobiles over there were exported in 1929? How can a country be completely selfcontained and an isolationist in the face of those facts? How can the producers of those commodities hope to prosper without the restoration of the foreign markets (Hear, hear.); and how can the foreign markets pay in gold dollars for American exports if the Americans will neither lend gold dollars abroad, nor buy the foreign goods (Hear, hear.) (Applause); how can gold dollars be loaned to them while the world is in upheaval, and yet if the producers of those basic commodities are not prosperous; if their producers cannot hope to have a profitable domestic market for their goods, how can normal conditions be restored ?

In the United States of America some of us are realising that we are on the verge of a national campaign to elect a new president, and the choice lies before us of becoming either isolationists and self-contained, or to become internationally-minded.

In the first event we would have to he prepared to write off through deflation a considerable part of our capital investment which has been built up to take care of this enormous production. We would have to further alter the occupations of millions of our citizens. We have too many farmers for one thing, if we are to be an isolated people, who during the process of adjustments would suffer intensely.

The other alternative is to adjust America to a commercial and political policy toward the restoration and stabilization of world economics. In other words, to go into the world picture even deeper than the United States has been in it before. Recently Senator Borah advocated that we should liquidate the whole economic structure, amounting to something like fifteen billions of dollars, and get out of the picture completely. There is a considerable feeling, however, against internationalists across the line. That feeling expresses itself as it did in the decision of Congress not to continue the moratorium after next July; it expressed itself in high tariffs, in the order to completely shut out immigration, with the feeling "Let us get out momentarily; it is none of our business-let us get out and be clear!' I am afraid that may he a popular slogan, that it captures the fancy of Main Street and Babbitry, but sooner or later our fellow citizens have to learn that that sort of preachment is demagogic and ruinous (Hear, hear.) (Applause.)

We are now a nation which must hold itself responsible for the economic and political stability of mankind.

Now, let me turn to Great Britain. It began the year with an experiment in protective tariffs after many generations of free trade. There is not any question but that the policy was adopted as an emergency measure, and I hope it will only remain emergent. (Applause.) In the interests of self -protection-and perhaps there was something of a retaliatory spirit involved-as I understand it, my friends, the tariffs are merely a matter of balancing exports and imports. Tariffs are fences which shut more out than they shut in. (Applause.) (Hear, hear.) We stand in need today of more international reconcilation and good will; we need to bring more than ever before the peoples of the world together, (Hear, hear); and the rearing of tariff walls by the countries of the world, one against the other, is the best way to break down whatever good will exists in the world today (Applause.) It is the wrong thing. It is wrong morally, and I believe it is wrong economically.

What are we doing? Economics is no respecter of barriers and boundary lines. There must be a free exchange of the goods of the world; the nations of the world have begun to he specialists in the products of agriculture and manufactured goods. They need each other for free exchange.. When England, following the lead of the other countries, set up a protectionist tariff policy, it did something which I think it will regret, because it will lead to reducing foreign buying of English goods after the first spell of inflated buying has passed. There will he a let-down to the buying, and the amputation of further industry. Under this policy, and if she continues it, she may find herself in a position to stabilize her pound sterling if she wishes to avoid further deficits, and the rise of prices will be a further handicap in that respect.

It seems to me in the economic demands, that the world is crying, firstly, for a humanization of the economic processes of life. I like that phrase "humanization" better than the phrase "socialization", because the latter seems to conjure up the bogie of Marx and Socialism, and what I am thinking about is that not any particular economic system is really a cure for our complex economic ills. Rather, 1 am thinking of the paralysis of those great moral principles which dictate that in a world where we can produce so abundantly, men shall build houses and they shall live in them, then shall plant the vinyards, and they shall sit under them and not that they shall build and others shall live in them, not that they shall plant, and others shall reap of the harvest. (Applause.)

Gentlemen, the time has come when the great prophetic principles must he put into economics. The amazing thing to me, as I look at the people of the world, is the patience of the poor (hear, hear.) How long, how long, oh Lord, will these people remain patient? As President Butler put it: "Midgets are in the seats of the Mighty". The business leaders of the world, and of this continent in particular, seem to be caught up in a fantastic philosophy; they seem to feel that certain forces are working themselves out, over which they have no control. As a religious teacher, I refuse to bow to that conception of life. I have a feeling that is as deep as a God-given conviction, and 1 hope that there is in the human race sufficient intelligence to pull the world out of the sordidness into which we have dragged it, not as an act of God, but as the result of the stupidity and the greed of mankind. (Applause.)

In a practical way I think the time has come when nations of the world should convene an international convention to formulate all tariffs. Now, I know that every country holds its sovereignty dear; every country objects to having somebody else decide for it what it shall do, but in a world where all the people are in the same boat, no individual in that boat can bore a hole under his feet without filling the whole boat. (Applause.) So it seems to me that what we need is a great education for the business man, and in public things is where he needs it most. We need to eliminate the discriminatory tariffs; we need to remove conditions so that there can be a free and equal trade between all nations; we need also to stabilize in some way the dollar or the pound so that every man may use it as his own local yardstick in measuring the value of the dollar and pound.

Of course, we know we need the criterion in regard to relativities; we have no foot rule, but let us forget metaphysics for a moment and get down and put our feet on the ground, and I think in that process of stabilizing the dollar or the pound, the English-speaking people of the world have a great contribution to make. (Applause.)

I turn now, my friends, to France. The attitude of the people of France in the world today and toward the world is exactly like the attitude which Germany adopted after 1870. After 1870, Germany put forth all her efforts to maintain the status quo established by the Treaty of Berlin; France is today doing everything in her power to insist that what was created by the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 must be upheld.

The Treaty of Versailles in 1919 gave France supremacy over Eastern Europe; it humiliated and broke Germany, and made France the great Imperial Power of the world today. Recently, in a declaration in Parliament, Premier Laval said that these three propositions had to be upheld-this was just prior to his going to Genevafirst, there must be the intricate and full payment of reparations; secondly, that peace treaties were sacred in Europe, and that no disarmament could take place until the nations of the world enter into a security pact to preserve inviolate the peace treaties.

Now the French plan at Geneva is amusing. On the face of it, it seems like a great confession. France has suggested that the League of Nations be removed, and France's interest in the League of Nations is only so far as the League of Nations will help to maintain the status quo in Europe.

If it needs to he that the League should he armed for that purpose, then France is willing that they should be armed.

France is not interested in the League of Nations, is not interested in the United States of Europe herself. Mr. Briand has advocated that, provided France can be the head of the United States of Europe. That is an entirely different proposition.

Mr. Simon, the English representative, gave an excellent answer to France's proposal at Geneva. You are familiar with it. France is today the disturber of the world's peace. Her theory is that Germany must be kept weak. The French say that the rule of life is always to want to be first, and France says quite naturally why not that? They say: "If we do not lead, someone will lead". France has never said to Europe, "Nobody shall be dominated, but all should co-operate". She always prates about peace, but always the sort of peace which maintains her hegemony over Europe. France will never feel secure until she is on the Rhine from the mouth of Flanders to the border in Switzerland, and as long as that continues there is no way for disarmament, and there is no hope for peace in Europe.

Now, let me turn to Germany.

The great menace which looms like a spectre over and above A of Europe is Adolf Hitler. Let us examine Hitler for a moment. He is no leader; has no personality of any magnitude, and Hitler and Hitlerism are expressed in the despair and disillusionment that bankrupt all of Germany and her people; those people, stolid and patient folk, who have borne the bit between their teeth for thirteen long years, and who can bear it no longer. (Hear, hear.) The alternatives, my friends in a country where a third of the people who are employed earn about $25.00 a month in our money, and who have about 8,000,000 unemployed in that country of 65,000,000--the alternatives in Germany, unless some miracle occurs, a miracle which will bring back everything stabilized to that country-as I say, the alternatives are Fascism or Communism.

Now, there are many people who say when Hitler gets into power, as he will; he can get into power any time he likes after this year-he controls over 50 per cent. of the voters in Germany-when Hitler gets into power, my friends, something will happen not only to Germany but to all of Europe. For one thing, let me suggest this; some of you think, "Well, it will go in the direction of Fascism; Italy did, and it was not so bad", But I want to remind you that what Hitler may do to Germany, or be to Germany what Korensky was to Russia. It took a Lenin to destroy the rule of Korensky. It may take a Lenin to destroy the works of Hitler and when that happens then there is danger ahead for ali of Europe. If Hitler gets into power, the first thing that I believe he will do will be to try and smash the Communists of Germany. There are 5,000,000 or more Communists in Germany; there are more Communists in Germany than there are in Russia. If Hitler goes after the Communists he will have to reckon with Moscow and the Russian Army, which has intimated that it will not look dispassionately upon any such move on Hitler's part. Moscow, in that event, will throw a bridge of steel across Poland, and march into Germany to defend the German Communists, and then the French will find themselves marching alongside of their enemy, Hitler. Central Europe would be devastated, and a conflict of that magnitude cannot be localized. It would be like a brush fire, gigantic armies would begin to march over the frontier, and it would flare up again, and Russia would try to regain Bessarabia from Poland; Poland would again have the frontier, and all the minority forces smouldering in Europe would awaken and Europe would have the greatest war it ever experienced.

It may interest you farther to learn that Hitler and his agents are in communication with the extreme nationalists of all countries, including France. Nationalism is the beast which is eating at the heart of Europe today. In this contact, Hitler and his party are endeavouring to build up a coalition between the Nationalist forces in all the countries of Europe, for the purpose of creating a Nationalist internationale, to combat the Red Internationale of Moscow, and the next war in Europe will be a war against Communism.

Hitler has not taken power yet, and if Hitler will wait until after next March to take power, it will be because the lines have not been completely drawn between Nationalistic Europe under Hitler's leadership.

My friends, the picture is menacing.

Now, may I say a word about Russia. Russia is celebrating the end of the five-year plan; it is now announcing its second five-year plan, and I believe, despite everything which comes out of Russia and I do not want to minimize for a moment the great success which the first five-year plan has had, a success which was beyond even the expectations of those on the outside who have watched objectively-Russia suffered a real set-back in 1931. a setback which expresses itself in terms of the fullest import, a depression which expresses itself in terms of the fact that Russia cannot get credit in Europe to buy machinery. During the last year under Stalin there was inaugurated an unequal wage system, which is a terrible blow, a worse blow than the note was to Communistic principles, and he is now dealing liberally with the anti-communistic intellgencia. But the most important part is that the second five-years is five years to promote the leading light industries instead of the heavy industries of Russia. "Light industries" means to promote the manufacture of those things which the people could not dream of before, such as shoes, clothing and items of food. But the chief aim of the Communists was to set up within the next twenty years a system of machinery touching the heavy industries which would he able to compete with the rest of the world.

Unless Communistic Russia can build itself up industrially to compete with Western Industrialism, then it has not succeeded. Of course, it needed prosperity in capitalistic Europe and America to do that, because the more prosperous capitalistic Europe and America are, the more money Russia could borrow, the more machinery she could get, the better exchange of exports in terms of machinery, money and personnel, and in 25 years this great machine would have been created which would have been the Nemesis of Western capitalism. I am not siding one way or the other; 1 am simply describing, Gentlemen, and it is my thought that the Lord intervened in something which human ingenuity could not have fathomed.

Then came this great depression, and Russia found herself unable to borrow American money in Germany for her machinery. That was a peculiar paradox. We did not recognize Russia. We loaned money to Germany. Germany built recreation centres and swimming pools and all sorts of public buildings, and with the excess funds she did business with Russia, and quite naturally and normally, and for the interest of industry throughout Europe. But our American money was building up Russia, while America could not directly, with governmental sanction, do the work which her money was doing indirectly.

Unless, however, there is an adjustment of the economic situation in the world, something will happen in Europe. It will happen in this way: if the economic conditions should grow worse there will be the menace of the class war, and communism will spread over Europe, as a protest to capitalism, which fails to give men bread and work. Remember that Communism came to Russia on the plea that it would give three things, peace, bread and work. Unless we can give the people of the world bread and work and peace, human beings the world over are all alike.

As for the central European countries, my friends, they are absolutely on the verge of bankruptcy, and 1 would not be surprised, unless there is a restoration of credit to Austria and Hungary, that we may find in Austria a reversion to primitive barter within the next year.

I want to say now, because my time is limited to five minutes at the most--I want to say a word about the war debt reparations.

I do not know how many of you remember readingfor many of you read but do not remember everything you read-this book by a great Englishman, and oh, there are some keen English thinkers in the world today, if the world would only listen to them. I wonder how many remember reading Keyne's book on "The Economic Consequences of Peace", written, in 1919?

It is perhaps unnecessary for me to say that this man, thirteen or fourteen years ago, saw clearly and predicted what would happen, and how this man saw with the eye of a prophet! When you read this book, and re-read it, as 1 recommend you should--everyone-you will find Keynes seeing what everyone is beginning to see today. He said: "The extent of the Great War debt is a menace to financial stability everywhere. There is no European country"--he wrote in 1919--"in which reparations may not soon become an important political issue."

That is exactly what is happening in the world today. Keynes was a trained and skilled economist, and he foresaw this thing; he foresaw the imposition of the new principle such as was never invoked before to take away from the vanquished nation everything you could lay hands on. To say that nations can pay up reparations within two years is an impossible fiction.

What is the trouble across the line? My people in the United States do not realize that the Humpty Dumpties of reparation war debts have tumbled everywhere, and all the king's horses and all the king's men will never put reparations and war debts back on the fences again. (Applause.)

The only question which now remains is how long it will take for the people in the United States and France -for the people of England seem to understand the difference-how long it will take for these people to comprehend that it is a more profitable arrangement for them to cancel and to liquidate the war debts, the intergovernmental war debts and the reparations, than it is to keep them; more profitable economically, for, when we wipe out those, then the United States will have the greatest markets of Europe it ever had. But, after all, what was the difference? We pay Germany and the other countries, and they buy our surplus. In 1918, we woke up and we stopped lending them further money, and they stopped buying from us, and we suffered from a depression. Is it not better to wipe it off and say "Yes, those will he wiped off, provided not a penny of that can go into the building of more war machinery. (Applause), instead of taking the position of being accused by the world of being the Shylock of the world, which is an unjust accusation, and as a citizen of the United States of America I resent that the world should think of our country in those terms. But we have put ourselves in the position where many vicious tongues can say those things about us. Has not the time come, however, for my country-and I state this across the line and say it continuously and feel it is fair to say it here that we should take the moral as well as the economic leadership in those things, and to stabilize world economics. It will be a long time before we can do those things across the line without shocking the sensibilities of the men on the street who have been taught by politicians that these things could not happen, but who, when we have educated them, will follow instead of leading.

The time has come for those who are in politics, for the great mass of citizens, to bow to the universities and the press and the other moulders of public opinion, and coerce the leadership which the world requires. (Applause.) I say to you, gentlemen, I think that time has come.

Now I am afraid there are two tremendous subjects which 1 have left untouched, first, the great question of Geneva. I want to say just a word with your indulgence.

The real problem behind Geneva is not a financial problem, although that, too, is important, for, after all, the world cannot in these days be carrying a five billion dollar annual load for armaments. It is just impossible. and economically unsound, despite all that the soothsayers and the pessimists are saying.

I want to think optimistically about Geneva, for I think before that Conference is over we will come out of it with some reduction in armament, with a lateral cut in armament, and it will be for economic reasons, because after all, if we cut the cost of armaments ten or twenty per cent., but leave the ratio, all the powers would be politically secure, as secure as they were before, and all the powers understand that, and the real issue is not that at all. Gentlemen, the real issue behind the Geneva Conference is the Treaty of Versailles. As long as the Treaty of Versailles stands there can be no disarmament, because the whole situation is political.

Europe is divided into two groups, those who stand pat on the Treaty of Versailles, and those who stand against it. So long as France will not regard and recognize Germany as an equal in Europe, so long as France will build up that gold and that manpower, and the armaments of a vassal state, a hegemony of Europe, to maintain its position, so long will there be a threat of war, and as long as there is a threat of war there will be the need of armament in Europe.

What we need-what France needs-to learn particularly is this; that if she refuses to disarm it is plain that sooner or later Germany will re-arm, and then France will not be able to prevent that, because the rest of the nations of Europe will not support her in preventing it.

If, however, France agrees to disarm effectively under international control, then the fear complex would be broken. But 1 say to you, that that means that England and the United States must be in Geneva, and with more than their tongues in their cheeks. (Hear, hear.) I think it is really a pity that Lord Robert Cecil did not go as a delegate of his country to Geneva. (Applause.) There is a man who has not his tongue in his cheek, but we have gone an with our tongues in our cheeks. We are talking about naval parity with Great Britain, and I was reminded of Norman Angel, the author of a great book in 1910, called "The Great Illusion", and you should read it, because he, too., saw prophetically the outbreak of the war, and he recommended to his people that to square the situation about naval parity it would be a good thing to trade a few of their dreadnaughts in the United States. There would be no need to build new navies in the United States, and there would he parity all around. (Laughter.) But we need to see that so long as France insists on formulating or putting security before cooperation and disarmaments, there can be no peace.

The United States is not going to sign on the dotted line to guarantee to France that in the event of an upset in Europe we are going over and maintain her frontiers and her hegemony. Neither is England going to sign on the dotted line a promise that she would come over, and France must not take the position of coming over and saying, "Until you sign on the dotted line we will build up the biggest army in Europe, and maintain the Treaty of Versailles".

The time has come for the world to understand the need of revising that whole treaty, and 1 am reminded of one member of the Cambridge Debating Team, whom I once heard in Toronto, who said with effectiveness: "The Treaty of Versailles was not a treaty to end war, but it was a treaty which ended our peace". (Hear, hear.)

And we have not yet awakened to that realization.

And now, the last to which I wish to refer briefly is the SinoJapanese situation, which presents another interesting picture upon which I will say just a word, and then I will be through. Many people imagine that the war which is being carried on, it seems now to a finish, is a war for territorial aggrandizement. Nothing is really further from the truth, for, after all, China can afford to lose Manchuria and still be a great power and a great country. The Japanese are not a colonizing people; there are actually no more than a little over 200,000 real Japanese, not counting the Koreans, in Manchuria, coming in there in the past 25 years. The Japanese are not a colonizing people. They are seeking more territory for an over-populated country, and what japan is seeking is something entirely within her country. japan is seeking supremacy in the far East, seeking an economic hegemony over the far East. What japan wants is to draw a yellow line around the yellow races of the far East, to sit in control, the way France sits in control of Eastern Europe.

When you look at it from a Japanese point-of-view you see the thing a little more sympathetically. Here is japan; for 60 years they have been building up a machine, and they are today one of the great industrial competitors of Germany, of England, and of the United States in the World. Here is China, with 400,000,000 people, a great chaotic agricultural country. japan is the machine country. There is a natural affinity economically, therefore, between the two countries.

Furthermore, there is a racial and a sort of cultural relationship between the two people, and what japan is saying, not in so many words, but anyone who studies can understand, that what they want is to keep out of the far East the influences of the West. They want to get England and France and Italy and the United States and Germany and Russia out of the economic competition, and furthermore they want to create and maintain for japan a supremacy which will go to the point someday of leading the yellow races of the world, which once were the greatest leaders of mankind, back again into leadership. You must understand the long-range view of this thing. Once before the Japanese and the Chinese and the yellow races led. Then the supremacy moved from the East to the West, and as we look into the picture I ask myself, "May not destiny be moving in the direction of the East again"?

The Japanese are thinking not only in political terms but in economic terms, and they are thinking in terms of world supremacy (Hear, hear.)

Gentlemen, perhaps that should be said with bated breath, but it ought to be said, and we ought to face the long-range view of the world's situation.

What we should do in the meantime 1 think we are doing; I think it is an excellent thing, and though I happen to be one of those who do not believe in force, the situation has become so complex in the far East--and japan is no longer the "bad boy" of the League; she has become the "outlaw of the world"-(Applause), and under such circumstances, although I loathe the idea of ever using force in the far East, I think it is an excellent thing, as matters stand, to face the reality, and that there should be by France, England and the United States a display of force. (Applause.)

Without wanting in any sense to be eulogistic, or to appear too realistic in my views, I cannot think in terms of the principle that having been slapped on one cheek in this particular situation, the world needs to give the other. Before giving the other, I think japan ought to be spoken to and in terms which she understands, and in the presence of dreadnaughts-not the use of them, but the presence of dreadnaughts, which will be a great deterrent force to japan. Consequently, I believe that if conditions continue---and I do not seem to see them mitigatingEngland, France, Germany and the United States ought to withdraw her citizens and her nationalists from the scene of action into a protected neutral zone. (Applause.) I think we ought not to wait any longer.

I am afraid of some national of these countries getting in the way of a Japanese or Chinese bullet, and we all know how hysterical men can become when it involves the citizens of her own country in foreign lands, and in the tense conditions under which we are living, it may mean war. However, gentlemen, I am in favour as a last resort of the use of the economic boycott. (Applause.) That may mean, as some people say, something worse than war, but I am in favour of subsidizing dollars for human lives. Always before, the flag followed the dollar; now, let the dollar precede the flag as a substitute for men and women.

What is the outlook, my friends? Is there not hope for the world? We must find a way out of this famine in the midst of plenty. We must have humanized economics to take the place of our present economic system; we must have enthusiasm take the place of the aggressive nationalism with its excess of armaments, of tariffs, and so forth; the Treaty of Versailles must give way, and I believe there is enough human ingenuity in the world, if the whole of the race will lend itself, to find the way out. We are a generation in the wilderness, we have the choice, we can either die in the wilderness, as Spengler predicts we will, or we can find the way out to the Promised Land. 1 believe, I have hope, 1 have faith, that as we go into the new era mankind will find a way out, and that our children may grow up in a millennium of life which will give them an opportunity for life, for liberty, and for the pursuit of happiness.

I thank you sincerely for your attention. (Prolonged applause.)