[Footnote 1:  Hibbert Journal, Oct. 1914, p. 77.]

Other utterances by public men, such as Mr. Roosevelt and our own Prime Minister, might be cited in the same sense; but Professor Murray’s has been chosen because he has had the courage to grasp the nettle.  In his words the true position is quite clearly set forth.  If Inter-State Law is to become a reality we must “be sure to go far enough.”  There is no half-way house between Law and no Law, between Government and no Government, between Responsibility and no Responsibility.  If the new Concert is to be effective it must be able to compel the submission of all “awkward problems” and causes of quarrel to its permanent Tribunal at the Hague or elsewhere; and it must be able to enforce the decision of its tribunal, employing for the purpose, if necessary, the armed forces of the signatory Powers as an international police.  “Out-voted minorities must accustom themselves to giving way.”  It is a bland and easy phrase; but it involves the whole question of world-government.  “Men must accustom themselves not to demand an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” the earliest law-givers might have said, when the State first intervened between individuals to make itself responsible for public order.  Peace between the Powers, as between individuals, is, no doubt, a habit to which cantankerous Powers “must accustom themselves.”  But they will be sure to do so if there is a Law, armed with the force to be their schoolmaster towards peaceable habits.  In other words, they will do so because they have surrendered one of the most vital elements in the independent life of a State—­the right of conducting its own policy—­to the jurisdiction of a higher Power.  An Inter-State Concert, with a Judiciary of its own and an Army and Navy under its own orders, is, in fact, not an Inter-State Concert at all; it is a new State:  it is, in fact, the World-State.  There is no middle course between Law and no Law:  and the essence of Statehood, as we have seen, is a Common Law.

Will this new State have the other attributes of Government—­a Common Legislature and a Common Executive—­as well as a Common Judiciary?  Let us go back to Professor Murray’s words.  He speaks of “outvoted minorities.”  Let us suppose the refractory country to be Great Britain, outvoted on some question relating to sea-power.  Of whom will the outvoted minority consist?  Of the British members on the “Common Council” of the Concert.  But the question at once arises, what are the credentials of these British members?  Whom do they represent?  To whom are they responsible?  If they are the representatives of the British people and responsible to the democracy which sent them, how can they be expected to “accustom themselves to giving way”—­perhaps to a majority composed of the representatives of undemocratic governments?  Their responsibility is, not to the Concert, but to their own Government and people.  They are not the minority members of a democratically-elected