The spokesmen of Russian democracy have passionately denounced Imperialism and conquests as a policy unworthy of free men. They have declared themselves in favor of a highminded and thoroughly democratic policy. They have summed up their peace program in the brief phrase: "No Annexations and No Indemnities," and they have proclaimed to the world that they will not allow the Allies to drag them into a policy of conquest and spoliation. The demands of the Russian Socialists have been taken up with enthusiasm by a number of the more advanced Socialists of Western Europe, by men who have hitherto done their utmost to impede the war. Many Socialists in Russia and in the West, especially those of the more advanced kind, are sceptics, free-thinkers, rationalists, materialists, positivists, agnostics, or even declared atheists. Nevertheless, these men who have hitherto distinguished themselves by their irreligious and anti-religious views have in many cases gone so far as to demand a settlement without annexation and without indemnities on religious grounds, on grounds of Christian morality. Their claims have been strongly supported by many deeply religious men, clergymen and others, who consider the problem of peace as if it were not a problem of practical statesmanship, but merely one of theology and sentiment. One should not under-estimate the strength of the strange alliance between Socialists and men of religion. The demand for a settlement without annexations and indemnities on religious grounds has become so loud and so insistent, especially in Russia, that it will be well to treat it with the greatest seriousness. This has been done in the following pages, which are addressed in par

ticular to these two classes of men in Western Europe and in Russia.

The question whether Germany and her allies, if defeated, should be compelled, or should not be compelled, to compensate the nations which they have wantonly attacked and barbarously ill-treated may be considered either from the point of view of expediency and policy, or from that of morality. The advocates of a peace without annexations and without indemnities rely, as a rule, on the moral argument. They appeal to sentiment, to idealism. Let us then consider the question of compensation in territory or in money, or in both, first from the moral and then from the practical point of view.

European morality is based partly upon the teachings of the Bible, partly upon the feelings innate in men. Christian morality is largely Jewish morality. Christian ethics are based upon the Jewish doctrines. The Old and the New Testaments combined form an indissoluble whole. If we wish to understand fully the Christian idea of morality we must trace it to its Jewish source. The distinguishing characteristic of Judaism is that it strove to replace a system of unrestricted might by a system of law and order based upon morality. The code of the Old Testament demands that punishment should not be meted out arbitrarily, but in accordance with justice and fairness. The Deity represents morality, rewards the just, and chastises the evil-doers. The judge, like the priest, is at the same time the protector of society and the representative of God.

Careful study of the Old Testament will reveal the fact that the Hebrews punished deliberate murder always with death, while involuntary or acci

dental murder was punished merely with banishment. Cities of refuge were appointed where men who had committed manslaughter could find safety from their pursuers, while men who had committed murder had to be delivered up from sanctuary. A murderer could not redeem his life by money. He was dragged away even from the altar if he had taken refuge there.

The main principle of Old Testament law was not forgiveness, but retaliation in accordance with the dictates of justice. In Genesis, Chapter IX, we read: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Chapter XXI of Exodus states the case for retaliation in greater detail. We read in it:

He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed: If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. . . . If an ox gore a man or a woman that they die; then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

Chapter XXIV of Leviticus states:

And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast. And if a man cause a

blemish in his neighbor; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it; and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.

Chapter XIX of Deuteronomy states with regard to the cities of refuge where men who had killed involuntarily or accidentally could find shelter:

But if any man hate his neighbor, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he dies, and fleeth into one of these cities; then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee.

Thou shalt not remove thy neighbors' landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it.

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and judges, which shall be in those days; and the judges shall make diligent inquisition; and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and had testified falsely against his brother; then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother; so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil

among you.

And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Chapter XXXV of Numbers enjoins:

Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses; but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die. Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death; but he shall be surely put to death.

Chapter XXII of Exodus lays down:

If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.

The extracts from the Old Testament given show clearly that the ancient Jews in dealing with crime were animated by the principles which prevail today. The Old Testament enjoins that criminals should be punished according to their deserts, severely, but not barbarously. They should not be treated revengefully and arbitrarily, but they should suffer as nearly as possible as much as their victims. Justice was, as a rule, to be done by an equality of suffering. At the same time punishments were to act as a deterrent, and were shaped to some extent in accordance with social requirements. It will be noticed that theft of a sheep, which until recently was punished with hanging in England, was expiated by a fine of four sheep while theft of cattle led to a fivefold fine. The more severe punishment for cattle-stealing was no doubt due to the fact that cattle were more necessary than sheep because of their milk.

The Old Testament enjoins as a religious duty that crime should be adequately, but not barbarously, punished, and that, as in modern juris

prudence, every care should be taken to prevent a miscarriage of justice. That may be seen from the strictness and caution demanded with regard to witnesses. The spirit of Old Testament law is particularly apparent from the way in which a strictly impartial administration of justice was demanded as a high religious duty. We read in Chapter XXIII of Exodus:

Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause. Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not; for I will not justify the wicked. And thou shalt take no gift; for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous. Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger.

In Chapter XIX of Leviticus it is enjoined:

Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor.

In Chapters I and XVI of Deuteronomy we read:

Ye

Hear the causes between your brethren and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall fear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's.

Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes; and they shall judge the people with just judgment. Thou shalt not wrest judgment, thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise and pervert the words of the righteous. That which is altogether just shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

The quotations given make it obvious that both in punishing crime and investigating it modern methods and Old Testament methods are practically identical. The spirit of Hebrew jurisprudence was obviously extremely modern.

It may be argued that the strict punishment of crime, though in accordance with Old Testament law, is not in accordance with the spirit of Christianity which teaches love and forgiveness. At first sight that contention would seem to be correct. We read in Chapter V of St. Matthew:

Ye hath heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

In Chapter VI of St. Luke we read:

Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that

smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

Apparently the law of Christ annuls the law of Moses. That view is widely held, but is scarcely correct, for the Christian doctrine that one should love and forgive one's enemies is to be found in the Old Testament as well. In Chapter XIX of Leviticus it is stated:

Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart; thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the Lord.

Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth. Lest the Lord see it, and it displease him, and he turn away his wrath from him. . . .

Say not, I will do so to him as he hath done to me: I will render to the man according to his work. . . .

If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the Lord shall reward thee.

Chapter XXIII of Exodus enjoins:

If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.

The gospel of love and forgiveness, the very words "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," are to be found in the Old Testament, whence Christ drew His inspiration. However, we find the contradictory principles of retaliation and forgiveness not only in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament as well. Chapter XIII

of the Revelation of St. John tells us:

He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity; he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword.

Christ Himself us has told in Chapter X of St. Matthew: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword." And in Chapter XXV of St. Matthew we read: "All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

We find both in the Old and in the New Testaments two distinct and apparently irreconcilable doctrines: the doctrine of strict punishment and the doctrine of love and forgiveness. We