of letting our own patriotism lead us into like misconduct.  Above all, we must refuse to let it lead us into the lust of conquest; we must respect the rights and liberties of other peoples, keep strictly to our treaty obligations, honor less the patriots who have inflamed national hatreds and led us to battle against other peoples than those who have wrought for their country’s righteousness and true honor, and let it be our pride to stand for international comity and good will.  A question that may properly be discussed here is whether it is permissible to shift patriotism from one country to another.  Such a change of loyalty is, in times of war, called treason, and naturally evokes the resentment of the deserted side.  Even as impartial judges, we are properly suspicious of such action, as denoting a vacillating nature, devoid of the true spirit of loyalty, or as indicative of a selfishness that follows its own personal advantage.  And so far as that suspicion is well founded, we must condemn the traitor.  But certainly, if a man experiences a sincere change of conviction, he should not be required to continue to serve the side that he now feels to be in the wrong; every man must be free to follow his conscience, even if it leads him to disavow his own earlier allegiance.  Suppose Benedict Arnold to have developed a sincere conviction that the American revolutionists were in the wrong, and that the true welfare of both America and Britain lay in their continued union.  In such a case he must, as a conscientious man, have transferred his allegiance to the Tory side.  So a man who has been a worker for the saloon interests, who should become convinced of the anti-social influence of the liquor trade, would do right to come over to the anti- saloon side and work against his former associates.  The really difficult question lies rather here:  may such a man use for the advantage of the cause he now serves the knowledge he gained, the secrets entrusted to him, the power he won, as a worker for the opposite cause?  If Benedict Arnold was a sincere convert to the British cause, did he do right in trying to deliver West Point into their hands?  Or are we right in execrating him for his attempted breach of trust?  May the former saloon-worker use his inside knowledge of the saloon men’s plans, and his familiarity with the business, to help the cause to which he has transferred his allegiance?  The two cases may be closely parallel; but each will probably be decided by most people according to the side upon which they stand.  An impartial judgment will, perhaps, condemn all breaches of faith, all use of delegated power for ends contrary to those for which the power was delegated, including secrets deliberately entrusted, but will not condemn the use for the new cause of knowledge gained by the individual’s own observation, or influence won through the power of his own personality.

What have been the benefits of war?

War has not been an unmitigated evil.  In fairness we must note the following points: