Carnegie Trusts Wilson For Peace.

New York Times 100 years ago today, May 2, 1913:
Challenged at St. Louis Congress, He Asks All Who Don't Fear Japan to Stand.
ALL BUT QUESTIONER RISE
Ironmaster Predicts That Present Administration Will Achieve Results.
    ST. LOUIS, May 1.— Andrew Carnegie was the leading figure at the fourth American Peace Congress, which began a three-day session here, and made the chief speech in the morning, expressing confidence in President Wilson's desire to promote international peace.
    While he was speaking some one in the audience interrupted with: "How about Japan?"
    "Well," replied Mr. Carnegie, "Japan has 19 battleships and we have 33, and more coming."
    The questioner admitted this, but said: "Right now we are in mortal terror."
    Then Mr. Carnegie appealed to the audience.
    "Let every one who is not afraid of Japan stand up." said Mr. Carnegie.
    Practically the entire audience, which filled the large hall, where the sessions are being held, stood up.
    Mr. Carnegie then turned to his questioner, saying:
    "Nobody is in mortal terror but you." Mr. Carnegie told the peace congress why he believed the nations soon would reach the goal of peace, and by what road they would travel. He described the cost of war and warlike preparation, and explained his confidence that the United States never need fear foreign invasion. President Wilson and his administration, he predicted, would gain immortal glory by dealing successfully with the question of world peace.
    The goal, said Mr. Carnegie, was almost attained. He continued:
    "If a man wishes to select the safest life possible, the one freest from all danger of violent death, let him enter our army and navy. There is not a workman attending machinery or erecting buildings, nor a railway train employe or a policeman — the soldier of civilization, whose duty is never to attack but always to protect — not one but runs far greater risk of sudden injury or death than the soldier or marine of our country does to-day. There is little danger of any of these ever seeing war, thank God! They will only have to parade."
    The speaker pictured a possible foreign invasion as follows :

    British authorities consider it might be possible for an enemy to land as many as 170,000 men upon their island in three weeks, and they believe they have provided a force sufficient to deal with this number. We could cope with seven times this number of invaders, if we could only induce them to accept our invitation to march far enough inland and partake of our hospitality until they were rested and gave us notice they were ready to begin operations. We would probably conquer without firing a shot. Thousands might decide to stay in the great West and work and save until they could buy a farm. We might turn invaders into citizens.
    I believe in the League of Peace idea, the formation of an international police, never for aggression, always for protection, if needed, of the peace of the civilized world. This requires only the agreement of a few of the leading nations. Recently six of these — Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, and America — combined their forces in China under command of a German General for a specific purpose, which was successfully accomplished.
    Three or four leading peace nations combined, constituting, as they would, an overwhelming force, unbroken peace would almost certainly be insured, for to break it would be folly. If ever it were broken, however, it would be well before resorting to force for the peace-preserving nations to first proclaim non-intercourse with the offender, no loans, no exchange of products, no military or naval supplies — above all, no mails — this would serve as a solemn warning and probably prove effective; but if not, then as a last resort force should be used. This plan seems the easiest and speediest mode of attaining international peace.

    Speaking of the failure of the peace treaty with Great Britain and France, Mr. Carnegie said:

    Why this treaty failed to receive the support of the Senate need not be here dwelt upon. Suffice it to say the fault was not altogether that of the Senate — sometimes a blunder is said to be worse than a crime. Well, some one blundered. Looking backward, the error is now clearly seen, and we venture to predict that the present Administration will deal successfully with this vital question.
    Benjamin F. Trueblood, Secretary of the American Peace Society, spoke on "The Present Demands of the Peace Movement."
    "We must urge," he said, "that all controversies not susceptible of adjustment by direct negotiation be submitted to the court of arbitration at The Hague or to other tribunals, which it may be found advisable to create.
    "We have heard too much about 'National honor' and 'vital interests' and hair-splitting distinctions between justifiable and non-justifiable disputes. Are we not trying to conceal a hankering after war and pillage every time we use one of those vague and indefinable terms? There are no unarbitral controversies in our day between nations whose independence is mutually recognized."

Moral Obligation in Canal Tolls.
    In an address to-night before the congress former Vice President Charles W. Fairbanks said:
    "The United States is under a moral obligation to admit the ships of other nations to the Panama Canal on the same terms on which it admits American vessels. I do not believe," he continued. "that we should put Great Britain to the trouble of resorting to an arbitral tribunal to determine a question that has no basis either in fact or in good conscience."

Some Oppose Disarmament.
    A symposium on disarmament, which was a feature of to-night's session of the American Peace Congress, which opened a three-day meeting to-day, took an unexpected turn when two delegates raised an issue with speakers on the platform and asserted that their theory of disarmament was impracticable.
    Andrew B. Humphrey, General Secretary of the American Peace and Arbitration League, and Henry A. Dadmun, Secretary of the Army and Navy League, were the delegates who opposed the general sense of the meeting.
    Mr. Humphrey said he represented a society standing for an armament consistent with existing conditions and sufficient to preserve peace. The soldier does not cause war, but is called to settle it, he said.
    Mr. Dadmun said disarmament did not prevent the War of 1812 or 1861, when the navy was practically dismantled.
    "There is no telling how soon the United States will have to go to war in the interests of humanity," he continued. "It was my good fortune to attend the last conference at The Hague. It was the weight of our navy that gave weight to our words at that conference. A display of force makes it unnecessary to use force."