Hitherto the pacifists' quest of a basis for enduring peace, it must be admitted, has brought home nothing tangible--with the qualification, of course, that the subsidised pacifists have come in for the subsidy.

So that, after searching the recesses of their imagination, able-bodied pacifists whose loquacity has never been at fault hitherto have been brought to ask: "What Shall We Say ?" * * * * * Under these circumstances it will not be out of place to inquire into the nature of this peace about which swings this wide orbit of opinion and argument.

At the most, such an inquiry can be no more gratuitous and no more nugatory than the controversies that provoke it.

The intrinsic merits of peace at large, as against those of warlike enterprise, it should be said, do not here come in question.

That question lies in the domain of preconceived opinion, so that for the purposes of this inquiry it will have no significance except as a matter to be inquired into; the main point of the inquiry being the nature, causes and consequences of such a preconception favoring peace, and the circumstances that make for a contrary preconception in favor of war.
By and large, any breach of the peace in modern times is an official act and can be taken only on initiative of the governmental establishment, the State.