such as the Methodist Episcopal church, the Friends, the Congregationalists, the Presbyterians, the Protestant Episcopal church, the Lutherans, and various other denominations, the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, the World Alliance for International Peace, and many others. That means something.

Second, I note other organizations making for peace. Take the bulletins of the National Council for the Prevention of War, that fellowship uniting some seventy-five other organizations into one great movement for peace, among them the Fellowship of Reconciliation. These are significant. Again, take the movement in the world outside America making for peace, for conciliation, for international understanding and cooperation. Take the proposed disarmament of brave little Denmark, to reduce its army to a police force, to destroy its forts and fortresses, and no longer to have a minister of war and navy, but only a minister of peace. Take the movement under Gandhi in India. Take the various movements inaugurated by the missionary societies in this country in order to make the 18,000 missionaries sent from America, the 28,000 sent from other Christian countries of the world, the 600,000 bible students in the mission schools in the various lands of Asia and Africa, one vast international agency for peace, an agency of good will and mutual understanding.

Third, take the great agencies making for peace in still other parts of the world. In Germany today there are many organizations whose sole object is peace. It has not all been made public yet-it is still in part confidential—but Germany is proposing, first, to be the first great nation to follow Switzerland in denouncing war and taking a stand forever against it; second, though they believe it unjust, to accept the western boundaries laid down by the Treaty of Versailles and to count Alsace-Lorraine a closed issue and lost to them forever; third, to apply for entrance into the League of Nations, to refer all justiciable questions to a world court, and to make provision that non-justiciable questions go to boards of arbitration.

Fourth, I would call your attention to the World Court and League of Nations, and to the great movement for the outlawry of war. I mention these two movements together, which at first thought might seem antagonistic. I believe it will be with the loss of all vision.and of all statesmanship if we in this country allow ourselves to be bitterly divided and to bring the country to disgrace over this issue of the World Court, as we have permitted it to be over the issue of the League of Nations. We must have a vision of statesmanship, a vision of tolerance, a vision of sympathy and understanding, in order to work together so that our forces for peace shall not be defeated. On the one hand there is a large majority out for the World Court and ultimately for the League of Nations; on the other hand is a powerful minority out for the outlawry of war. All of us are in favor of the abolition of war, but I appeal to you social workers to join the small but powerful minority group who look upon outlawry as the panacea to solve this problem. It is a small but powerful group which cannot be ignored. It stands for three things: first, let the nations get together to outlaw

war as piracy and slavery have been outlawed; second, let them agree to codify international law, based not upon war, but upon peace. The bulk of international law now seems to take war for granted. Let the first article be that all war is outlawed. Third, the World Court with plenary jurisdiction is to be looked upon with alarm if based upon the antagonisms of the last war, but with favor if divorced from the present rules of war. I was recently at the most hopeful conference I have attended in many years, where this powerful minority representing outlawry and the larger majority standing for the World Court and the League of Nations were trying to see if they could not find common ground and finally come to a common mind. We felt if we could combine the great passion for idealism and the splendid personnel of this minority group with the plan for immediate entrance into the World Court it would be a great thing. If this plan goes through it will mean something like this. Let America propose in good faith, in the Senate on December 17, immediately to enter the World Court; but let America enter it upon a basis not of war but of peace; let America hold the right to withdraw if the nations are unwilling to outlaw war or to codify international law on the basis of peace. This would mean that we would not stand aloof, but go into it wholeheartedly and in earnest. It would mean that all the nations would have to discuss the outlawry of war within the next two years. I believe it would lift the whole question to a higher plane.

At Geneva, as I studied the situation, I was impressed with the growth of the League of Nations during the preceding year. I found fifty-five great nations supporting it, practically seven-eighths of the civilized world-all the great nations except Russia, Germany, and the United States. I found that already they had averted six wars, had made powerfully for disarmament, for there are a half million less men under arms today than there were a year ago, and that they were helping economically in Europe with tremendous effect.

Take the World Court. Why should we not go into it? It was indorsed by President Harding, by Secretary Hughes, by President Coolidge; indorsed by the leaders of both parties that were unsuccessful in the last election, and supposedly by the Republican Party also; indorsed by the leading institutions of the entire country-by the United States Chamber of Commerce, the American Bar Association, the Federation of Women's Clubs, the American Federation of Labor. The House of Representatives voted more than ten to one in favor of it last March. Even the vote of the Senate lacked only seven votes of a twothirds majority. Can it be that a little bit of an opposing group can, by their own tactics, after two year's delay already, continue to defeat the issue until the whole country is as sick of the World Court as it has become of the League of Nations, and thus render the Republican party devoid of influence among the forces for peace? Can we not find a common ground? Can we not outlaw war and join a world court and try to make it do what it ought to do? I do not claim that the League of Nations is perfect. It is no more perfect than was our feeble Continental Congress, when thirteen jealous colonies got together and tried

to frame a constitution. That was far from perfect, but it was the best we had, and we made it work. Let us make the best of what we have got and take the next practical step looking toward the higher ideal of the ultimate outlawry of war. We must organize our forces for peace. I believe we are either peacemakers or warmakers. This very body of social workers represents very great forces across the length and breadth of this country.

[For the second part of Mr. Eddy's address, see The Abolition of War, by Sherwood Eddy.]

THE STATE AND HUMAN WELFARE

Hon. William E. Sweet, ex-Governor of Colorado, Denver

It is a matter of great regret that Governor Smith of New York could not be present to discuss the subject of "The State and Human Welfare." Without question, he is one of the best-informed chief executives in the country on this subject. He has been eminently successful in persuading the legislature of his state to grant large appropriations for welfare work, and his long administration has been notable for the social legislation which he has initiated.

As you know, Governor Smith is a Democrat. I am of the same political faith, and I like to believe that a keen interest in the state's relation to human welfare characterizes the Democratic party. However, no party is possessed of all the virtues. President Roosevelt, on one occasion, was speaking in the rock-ribbed Republican state of Maine. During his address he arraigned the Democratic party quite severely. There are a few Democrats left in Maine, and one of them happened to be in the audience. He arose and told Mr. Roosevelt that he was a Democrat, that his father had been a Democrat, and his grandfather before him. "I suppose," said the President, "that if your father had been a horse thief, and your grandfather had been one, you would have been a horse thief too?" "No," the man replied, "I would have been a Republican."

The National Conference of Social Work is just entering upon its second half-century of life. No one can read your program without being impressed with the vast scope of your work. It touches every phase of city and country life. Social service has become so widespread in this country that in the single state of Massachusetts it is carried on by over one thousand private corporations which expend more than $33,000,000 a year. It serves 355 cities and towns, and the commonwealth, through its different departments of public welfare, has supervision over 80,000 persons.

The average citizen thinks of the functions of government as limited to the maintenance of an army and navy, dispensing justice through the courts, and preserving law and order, coining money, and regulating the currency, conducting the postal service, imposing duties on imports, and many similar activities.

There are a multitude of ways in which the government should advance human welfare and improve our economic and social life. People of social vision must use their efforts to mold public opinion in order that the government may function to this end.

Our educational system, more than any other department of government, clearly illustrates the principle of the obligation of the state to advance human welfare. There was a time when all schools in this country were private, and education was confined to those who could pay for it. Indeed, it was not until 1867 that New York state had a complete free school system. In the beginning, the state assumed responsibility for the child only in its primary years. Then came the development of the high school, and finally the great state university for higher learning. Today education is as much the province of government in this country as handling the mails or telling us what kind of weather we may possibly have tomorrow. America would not diminish in the slightest degree the emphasis placed on public education, for it is the bulwark of our democratic system of government. The public school is primarily a social institution, and education is a social process.

The fact that the state accepts such a large responsibility for education does not result in the privately endowed colleges and universities diminishing either in number or efficiency. Both educational agencies progress together. In the same way, private organizations for social service work hand in hand with state agencies doing similar work.

The responsibility of the state for human welfare has been greatly emphasized in recent years by the exercise of the police power of the state. From the very beginning of our national history the courts have refused to define explicitly "police power," but have placed it upon the broad basis of public necessity. The recent awakening of the social consciousness has led the states to a more frequent use of this power. The affirmation of this principle by the Supreme Court of the United States makes it possible for the state to extend its power in the field of human welfare far beyond any limits of which we have heretofore dreamed.

Individual interests were the first to be recognized legally, because individuals existed before the state, but as groups were formed and civilization evolved into the complex relations which now exist, the public interest became paramount. Under the police power of the state certain lines of business have been declared to be vested with a public interest, and may not be conducted in a manner detrimental or injurious to society. The state has the power to regulate and control any business coming in this category. It must not, however, be the function of government to stifle individual initiative or progress, but rather to strike a just balance between private and public interest.

President Coolidge recently aroused the ire of certain private interests by declaring that rent regulation and control was highly desirable in the District of Columbia. And this, be it remembered, in peace times. The epithet of

"socialist" was immediately hurled against our conservative, New England President, but President Coolidge was applying the principle that the business of housing was clothed with a public interest, and therefore could be regulated. The most important law involving the police power of the state which has not stood the test of the courts is the minimum wage law for women, involving an act of Congress applicable to the District of Columbia. The district court of appeals divided four to four on the constitutionality of the act. When it came before the United States Supreme Court, the court divided five to three against the law. Had Judge Brandeis, who had heretofore been of counsel, taken part in this decision, the court would have been divided five to four.

The states of Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, and Arkansas had all passed similar laws, and the supreme courts of those states had approved their legality, in some instances by unanimous decisions. Summarizing the vote outside of the Supreme Court, we have twenty-nine judges thinking that compulsory wage legislation for women was valid, as against four judges thinking the contrary. Lester F. Ward, the eminent sociologist, summed up the principle of the police power of the state as follows:

The state is the organ of social consciousness, and must ever seek to obey the will of society. Whatever society demands, it must, and always will, endeavor to supply. If it fails at first, it will continue to try until success at last crowns its efforts. If it is ignorant, it will educate itself, if in no other way, by the method of trial and error. Higher and higher types of statesmanship will follow the advancing intelligence of mankind, until one by one the difficult social problems will be solved. It is useless to maintain that the functions of government are necessarily limited to the few that have thus far been undertaken. The only limit is that of the good of society, and as long as there is any additional way in which that object can be secured through governmental action, such action will be taken.

The relative value of voluntary and state agencies for the promotion of human welfare will always be an interesting subject for discussion. It will be admitted, however, that these two agencies should be most closely related. Undoubtedly there are some lines of social work, including experimentation and research, which the state cannot enter upon because it is impossible to secure adequate appropriations. The public is eager for results, especially in welfare work. The state seems to be willing to carry on experimentation in science and agriculture, but when it comes to experimentation in welfare work at public expense, our state legislatures draw the line. Private agencies are far more elastic in their organizations and more capable of initiation and enterprise than state agencies.

President Norton, in his address last Wednesday, said: "Organized social work is an essential supplement to the elemental political and economic philosophy upon which the American commonwealth rests." The self-determination of the individual with opportunity for the free expression of his personality and powers, together with a social order which shall guarantee to him the full product of his toil, we recognize as elementally American. That government