The cardinal principle of political philosophy has been formulated as “politique d'abord”—politics comes first. This is true in the sense that whatever other advantages a country has, it will not be able to enjoy them in peace and security, unless its political order is firmly established. However, “politique d' abord” has little meaning unless we realize that we must also say “gouvernement d'abord”—government comes first. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, was so much aware of this fact that, in his incomparably clear analysis of the problem of political organization, he, in the end, simply quoted Solomon: “Where there is no government, the people shall fall.” In this age of individualism we sometimes forget this simple fact, but history abounds with illustrations, both ancient and modern, of its abiding truth.

For Thought and art and even for politics in the United States, the publication of this Peguy book is one of the important events of the past three decades. It is nearly thirty years since Charles Péguy fell, leading his men, in the first battle of the Marne. Yet, so fatas I am aware, no attempt has been made before to translate into English any substantial portion of the extensive work he managed to write and to print, through his own little publishing house in Paris, during a short life of forty-one years. A powerful poet, a moving and profoundly original prose writer, an intellectual and moral force of the highest rank, Péguy's place is already secure as one of less thana score of the world's leading men of letters of the last half century. The only other writers of his generation in France who have as sure a place as he in the history of French literature are threeartists of a very different kind: Proust, Gide, and Valéry.

Modern financial history records two fundamental changes in the concept of taxation. While, from the 16th to the 18th century, tax collection was considered as an expedient in times of emergency and even an abuse which as soon as possible should be replaced by income derived from public property, particularly domains, and by voluntary contributions, common opinion has gradually acquiesced in its permanent character. Current taxation is the inseparable twin of the modern State. This is as true for socialist as for capitalist countries. It is significant that even Soviet Russia, in spite of her vigorous collectivization, had to admit that the government could be more easily financed by current compulsory contributions than by the yield of public enterprises. After a brief diversion into the Utopian tax-free stage during the years 1920 and 1921, she regretfully returned, under the auspices of the New Economic Policy (NEP), to a broad scheme of direct and indirect taxation. Moreover, the recent suggestion of a follower of Mr. Keynes that taxation be stripped of its traditional function since the raising of revenue “can be brought about so much more easily by printing the money.” seems not to have made any deep impression on public opinion. Except for times of emergency and wars, governments are condemned for borrowing a large proportion of their needs.

Ideologically, this war could be termed “post-war war.” When it began, political thought was still concerned with the problems which we inherited from the other catastrophe. After the beginning of hostilities the political intellectuals began to busy themselves almost exclusively with the problems of the coming peace, alas, so far away. According to the peace-planners nothing is more important than the formation of post-war blue-prints. Some people even go so far as to assert that the very outcome of this struggle depends largely upon the proclamation of attractive peace aims (or war aims). That side is going to win, it is held, which offers the most seductive plan for a brave new world, formulated so as to be comprehensible to the simplest minds. The most curious part of all this is that nobody has been able hitherto to formulate the ideal war aims. Those war aims which have been proclaimed so far could not even arouse the enthusiasm of their own sponsors. They all taste like brackish water and all of them can be traced back at least to the time of the Enlightenment. The most rabid among the peace-planners now begin to realize that those aims or slogans, which up to a short time ago still made an impression upon the masses, have lost their appeal. This is a difficulty which Mr. Laski wants to overcome by finding “another word”. Without denying that the fertile minds of people like Laski certainly can find other words, it can be doubted whether they will be able to find a more convincing formula than Johann Nestroy's: “It is much better to be wealthy and happy than to be poor and sick”.

Analysis of current phrases as they apply to social problems yields unexpected results. In the modern scene language is carefully gauged to convey impressions and assumptions quite as well as obvious meanings. We are all aware of this phenomenon in the political world, in the domain of campaign oratory, and in the field of organized propaganda. But certain areas have not been so much explored, and the question of race relations, a field that from the Catholic side has been largely neglected, happens to be particularly well-stocked with just this type of expression.

World peace, the greatest natural good mankind can possess, is a universal global responsibility. In its attainment all peoples, nations and states should share. Sacrifice, generosity and good will are its vital concomitants.

A necessary and urgent requirement for guaranteeing the ordered tranquility of mankind is the creation of a sound, reliable, and effective peace program. To this must be coupled such practical, juridical, international institutions as are necessary to ensure the application of the program to the realities of the present world crisis. This constitutes for peoples and states their major ethical obligation.