Both the League of Nations and President Coolidge have given expression to the universal desire to reduce the burden of armaments in the interest of economy and world peace. Armaments, speaking generally, express a nation’s fears or the ambitions of its controlling classes. Reduction of armaments will follow increasing world security and still more extensively an increasing sense of security, which is a very different matter. We are used to our armaments as we are used to locking our doors at night. Neither actually gives security, although we have been brought up to think both do. I have shown above that armaments cannot give security from another world war, and that is the only security that would be worth having. Increase of armaments increases the general sense of insecurity. Therefore, while waiting for another conference on the limitation of armaments, we should not hold “defense days” nor competitively multiply our cruisers, submarines, and other arms. President Coolidge is right in “standing pat” on the vast sum of $550,000,000 as enough for war preparation for the year 1926. On the other hand, drastic reduction of armaments, except by international agreement, is psychologically impracticable for us in the present state of things. Hence another conference for the reduction and limitation of land, sea, and air forces is necessary. To be fruitful, it must include all nations. France cannot disarm unless Russia does. Although it might seem that Washington would in some respects offer the best atmosphere for such a conference, it must be remembered that France has not yet ratified some of the important treaties adopted here three years ago (1921). Delegates achieve nothing permanent if they go beyond public sentiment at home. Consequently, as the League of Nations is considering such a conference, I believe it might be well for it to meet in Geneva. There would, perhaps, be greater probability that its decisions would be accepted by the powers represented. NO SALVATION IN MACHINERY Machinery will not save the world. It is dead by itself. When legislation gets too far ahead of public opinion, we have trouble in enforcing our laws. Similarly the weakness of the League of Nations has been mainly the weakness of the public opinion behind the League. It will be remembered that the League was set up at a time when to a considerable degree the world was skeptical of its practicability. Press opinion in France scoffed at “Wilson’s ideology.” Lloyd George exacted payment for his support. Our Senate rejected the League through the efforts of a determined minority of doubters. Puny and unwelcome, it lived by the faith of a few men until Italy last year, by defying it, proved to the small nations its vital worth.