As Loeb remarked to me to-day, some time soon I shall have to spank some little international brigand, and then all the well-meaning idiots will turn and shriek that this is inconsistent with what I did at the Peace Conference, whereas in reality it will be exactly in line with it." To one of my political opponents, Mr.Schurz, who wrote me congratulating me upon the outcome at Portsmouth, and suggesting that the time was opportune for a move towards disarmament, I answered in a letter setting forth views which I thought sound then, and think sound now.

The letter ran as follows: OYSTER BAY, N.Y., September 8, 1905.
My dear Mr.Schurz: I thank you for your congratulations.

As to what you say about disarmament--which I suppose is the rough equivalent of "the gradual diminution of the oppressive burdens imposed upon the world by armed peace"-- I am not clear either as to what can be done or what ought to be done.

If I had been known as one of the conventional type of peace advocates I could have done nothing whatever in bringing about peace now, I would be powerless in the future to accomplish anything, and I would not have been able to help confer the boons upon Cuba, the Philippines, Porto Rico and Panama, brought about by our action therein.
If the Japanese had not armed during the last twenty years, this would indeed be a sorrowful century for Japan.

If this country had not fought the Spanish War; if we had failed to take the action we did about Panama; all mankind would have been the loser.