Points Way To Peace.

New York Times 100 years ago today, October 20, 1912:
Nationalize the War Supply Industries, Suggests J. P. de Souza Dantas.
To the Editor of The New York Times:
    It seems natural to make an appeal to the broadminded public opinion of the great Republic of North America; the whole world for some time, and especially since the general arbitration treaties with Great Britain, is observing and applauding the splendid movement of that admirable nation toward universal peace so much so that it is not only just but highly advisable to have recourse to her assistance as the initiator of all reforms of this order.
    The measure that I am about to propose may appear at first sight extraordinary, if not extravagant, but it occurs to me to suggest in its favor that if our purpose is to achieve the abolition of war which for the most part the world desires, we must inevitably eliminate by degrees the factors that excite it, or bring it about.
    The illustrious French Deputy, M. Jaures, was right when he affirmed recently in the Chamber that " among the active forces which are working for peace, capitalism must be included"; but we must not forget that a very powerful detachment of capitalism is working continuously and perseveringly, while the opposition only puts itself forward to block v the way of the first when conflict seems imminent; perhaps, even to the influence of the party of capitalism, favoring war may be due to the "curious reversal of roles" of which the eminent historian and sociologist, M. G. Ferrero, recently spoke in an official article, wherein he states that what one actually sees in Europe is "that the Kings and Governments have become peace lovers; but the people are become warlike."
    Now, what is the capitalistic force that projects itself toward war, and what is the best way to suppress its influence?
    It is evident that the enormously rich industry of armaments and engines of war is the disturbing element to which I have alluded, and toward this industry the measure I shall propose is directed.
    As long as we maintain under the control of private industry these colossal enterprises in which Germany, England, Austria, the United States, France, and Italy are engaged in the construction of engines of war, we can never prevent the subterranean war current, if one so term it, that I have just indicated.
    Are we not encouraging it at this hour by our interest in aerial flights?
    Heaven forbid that I should disparage in any way the wonderful élan of daring and intrepidity with which in our day the rash effort to conquer the air is being renewed; but it is worthy of note that those who are industrially engaged in this effort, observing that the development of aeronautics as the current mode of communication, or even for the general purposes of sport, has missed fire, are now throwing themselves enthusiastically into the exploitation of new appliances for locomotion in war, and have brought about the organization of a new branch of the service in modern armies. I do not know, so I will not dispute its value as a new instrument of warfare, but I merely state that within a year France and Germany have increased tenfold at least their allowance for aviation, which means the creation of an element the more for the furtherance of war.
    For several years the Governments of some of the greatest powers have been considering the possibility of an international agreement for the limitation of armaments; nothing, however, has been accomplished, and why?
    I believe I am not far from the truth in declaring that the principal obstacle to the negotiations has been the opposition of the great manufacturers of engines of war.
    It appears, then, indubitable that the great war industries maintain by agreement between one country and another, by suggestions to Governments, by the agitation of the press, a state of mind, an undercurrent of war agitation, whose influence has been most pernicious upon the progress and development of the peace movement. This situation should not continue.
    Under these conditions a great reform seems necessary, and to accomplish this I propose the nationalization of war industries, and State monopoly of all enterprises dealing with the construction of armaments and engines of war.
    The reform that I suggest will only be possible through an international agreement, but if the United States would take the lead in negotiating a treaty between the six or seven great countries in which the war industries flourish, with a view to creating such a State monopoly, I believe that the first and most important step toward universal peace would have been made. These powers once interested, the others would soon join them, and perhaps for their war appropriations, instead of starting manufacturing establishments of this sort of their own, would become the customers of one or others of the countries already manufacturing, according to their reasons for special preference.
    Then, once a limitation was agreed upon between the great powers, the idea that a world war is imminent might well be set aside.
    It will be said that such an official monopoly will result in a condemnation of the war industry, developed as it has been by strenuous effort, and by the fostering of inventive genius and initiative but even so, what would be the objection to impeding or depleting an industry already marked for destruction?
    I understand and am afraid of the enormous practical difficulties of the measure in question, but Í must explain that I do not ask that this reform be put into execution by the use of drastic methods in the commercial and industrial economy of these great centres of activity, which should be protected rather from sudden and ill-judged attacks.
    The great establishments for war construction were instituted and developed in good faith, and to satisfy a normal need of the greatest importance; they are honorable in purpose, and should not be looked upon with antipathy. I think however that a method of expropriation through the simple payment of the capital that they represent would be, as far as they are concerned, perfectly just and equitable, since they have no inherent right to an allowance for possible orders in the future.
    I can already hear the paladins of pure and sane economic doctrines stigmatizing the reform I have suggested, in the name of industrial and commercial liberty and the limitation of the functions of the State. Without entering, however, for the present into this extended discussion, let me point out that when the Postmaster General of the United States puts forward the idea of nationalisation of the telegraph system, when some countries propose, and others adopt State monopoly of insurance, when, to sum up, Federal control as a whole extends its field of action everywhere under many different forms, it would surely not be logical that a measure with such possibilities and so great social value should be discouraged by arguments of this nature.
    This, Mr. Editor, is the idea that I offer, modestly and apprehensively, to the consideration of the American conscience, which will decide its fate according to the favor or disfavor with which it is received by the authoritative organs of public opinion in this great, and powerful republic of the United States.
        J. P. DE SOUZA DANTAS,
        First Secretary of the Brazilian legation in Paris.