share.

One generation after another has freely offered its manhood to carry the borders of liberty from one ocean to the other and to preserve its principles and benefits to the future.

Today that heritage represents all that life at its best has to offer mankind-life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness amid surroundings overflowing with opportunity for each.

In their self-appointed task, our forefathers labored not for their day alone, but for the future. According to their light, they took the needful steps to secure the fruits of their labors as a trust and to guarantee its transmittal to their posterity.

But times have changed and the security of yesterday is the weakness of today. Progress has remodeled the earth geographically, politically, and economically. Modern invention has reduced oceans to millponds. Modern civilization has made us next-door neighbors to the rest of the world. Modern conditions have brought us into competition with the uttermost parts of the earth and, in consequence, have exposed us to all of the evils that follow in the train of such competition.

In a word, the world of our forefathers is not the world of today. The circumstances

that confronted them are not the circumstances that confront us. Measures sufficient for their day are futile for ours. What was insurance for them is not insurance for us. The business they built has grown. The corner grocery of yesterday is the department store of today—with no added insurance.

What are we to do about it? What does common sense and a decent regard for our duty dictate?

What do the guardians of a trust usually do in such cases?

Do they hesitate, temporize, or turn their faces stubbornly from facts?

No. They look facts squarely in the face. They take no chances. They leave no stone unturned to safeguard their trust. With a full appreciation of their responsibilities and to the limit of human foresight, they hedge their trust about with every measure of safety that experience and wisdom can conceive and the law afford.

How about the trust we hold? What measures are we taking to secure it for today or for tomorrow?

We have just emerged from an experience that should have opened our eyes to dangers that threaten our trust. In that experience

we were fortunate in that we escaped with the minimum penalty for our neglect. But we paid heavily; we are still paying; and the generations to come will fall heir to our unpaid debt. In the meantime, the world is still alive with dangers equally menacing.

By saddling the next generation with part of the consequences of our neglect, we have already impaired the value of the trust we hold. By continuing to neglect the evils that menace our trust, we run the risk of wholly depriving its rightful heirs of its benefits.

What is more, we are deliberately transmitting to the next generation a philosophy of neglect. We cannot expect from our children a greater measure of wisdom than we ourselves display to them.

Summed up, we have impaired their heritage; we are deliberately imperilling its existence; we afford them an example of ostrich-like evasion and neglect of a sacred. duty—and we hypnotize ourselves into believing that we are doing the right thing by them.

There is only one way in which the integrity of our trust may be guaranteed. It is the way in which the trust was established, the way in which it has been preserved, the

way of men who see their duties clearly and meet them fearlessly.

If this trust was worth fighting for in the beginning, it is worth fighting for today, tomorrow, or a hundred years hence. That is the lesson that we should transmit to our children and impress upon them as we impress upon them the principles of righteous living.

Nor should we stop with teaching them their duty. We owe it to them to teach them how to do their duty and to give them a living example of how it should be done.

Preparation in which every able-bodied man is trained to do his part in guarding our trust is the only convincing example we can give them. The responsibility for this preparation rests upon our shoulders. If we shirk it, we are unfaithful to our trust, unworthy of our sires, unworthy of the respect of our children.

The guardianship of this trust is a business proposition. Sentiment and theory have no place in its discharge. Let the pacifist theorize and the sentimentalist dream, but let us keep to our business and to a sense of our responsibilities.

The U. S. Should Not Lead in Disarmament

A

Because!

By Major General Robert L. Bullard, U. S. Army

RMAMENT, I take it, means the provision of arms of all kinds. and training in their use, whether in the Army or in the Navy. By disarmament, also, I shall mean not only complete disarmament, but also any limitation or reduction of armament, because these in the end amount to disarmament.

The query in our subject, "shall the United States take the lead in disarmament?" is of course made to our people, our Nation. We don't need to ask the others. We know what their answer will be a gleeful "Go to it."

The United States should not lead in disarmament because we have already tried setting that example; we have been giving that lead in all our history, and found nobody following suiteverybody else reniging. In this we have been warmly, not to say enthusiastically, approved by the nations; but when we have said, "You too," they have regularly answered, "What, me! I can't." And then they have shown. how they can't. England can't because she, doesn't raise her food at home.

France can't on account of Germany. Germany can't on account of Russia. Russia can't on account of the rest of the world. Greece can't on account of the Turks. The Turks can't on account of-and so on to the end.

Dis

its mask was knocked off in the struggle, we recognized and cursed pacifism as our worst and most insidious enemy. Do we want it back?

The United States should not lead in disarmament because it will make us dependent for defense upon some other nation. During the war Great Britain had to establish a naval protectorate over us while we were trying to get ready to get into the war. A protectorate-that's what it was, nothing else. However kind and considerate, do we want it back?

We should not lead in disarmament because it would make us nationally undignified and hysterical in any case of danger. Recall the hysteria in the Spanish-American war, when our whole Atlantic coast was crying out, each port, for all the protection of almost the entire Army and Navy that we were able to muster. Disarmament, the cocksurest thing in peace, becomes the most hysterical on any threat of war.

We should not lead in disarmament because, to our citizen already little accustomed to thinking of caring for his country in possible war, it would be tantamount to saying, "Cut it out altogether." And he would, because on the other hand we are dunning into his ears all the time the urgency, the ab

arm and you do it like weeping-alone, solute necessity, of exercising against

in this world.

The United States should not lead in disarmament because it makes us pacifists. During the World War, when

his fellow citizen, his neighbor, and his brother-not any foreign enemy-oh, no, there is no such-that "eternal vigilance which is the price of liberty."