ForewordI 
onference of dependent or oppressed nationalities—the very title indicates that it is unnecessary to dwell upon the wrongs suffered by the Bohemian (Czech) and Slovak peoples under the Austrian and Magyar régimes. 
The world is beginning at last to realize that the German minority in Austria, during the past four decades with the active support of Berlin and always actively supported by the Hapsburg dynasty, for generations has been seeking to throttle the legitimate aspirations of non-German nationalities. The myth of Magyar chivalry and Magyar fairness is finally being dispelled. The world now understands that Hungary is governed by an Asiatic oligarchy of Magyar nobility, under whose régime the Slovaks have suffered, and are even now undergoing, a veritable martyrdom. For the purposes of my remarks knowledge of these facts may and must be taken for granted. The condition of dependent or oppressed nationalities presents a problem which no country, least of all the United States, can afford to ignore, not merely as a matter of abstract justice and righteousness, but in its own interest. The causes of the present war are manifold, but no one will gainsay that one of the contributing factors to its outbreak was the failure properly to solve and adjust the mutual relations of European nationalities, large and small. The war shall have been fought in vain if it does not lead to a solution of these problems. Failure to solve them aright will keep alive sparks from which will be kindled in no distant future another devastating conflagration. The President of the United States in a recent speech declared this to be the last war during which this country could remain neutral. The purpose of this conference is said to be the formulation of public opinion on these questions. If we are to be successful in our aim, we must first define at least the fundamental principle, or principles, upon which we may all agree. This foundation for future discussion undoubtedly is what has become known as the principle of nationality, or, in other words, the principle that each nation, no matter how small, numerically speaking, has the right to govern itself according to its own lights and without outside interference. The value of little nations is only now beginning to be truly appreciated. “The little nations, with their own languages, their own literatures, their glory in their own history, were never more alive, never more important, than they are to-day in this conflict of gigantic Empires,” correctly declared Mr. Lloyd George in a recent speech. The world undoubtedly has already lost very much because of the oppression of small nationalities. Scandinavian contributions to culture—not Kultur!—and to civilization are very substantial. They were made possible largely because the Scandinavians as nations have enjoyed an untrammelled development. A nation fighting for its existence could have hardly given to the world an Ibsen or a Björnson. The value of Czech literature is still little known. Many a masterpiece has been penned in the musical language of this nation living in the heart of Europe. But what would have been the fruits of Czech industry and Czech genius had not the nation been compelled for centuries to struggle for mere existence? No thoughtful man or woman, no normal human being, believes in the doctrine of supermen evolved in Germany—we may not care to go so far as to call it a German doctrine. No one will subscribe to the doctrine of super-nations. The right of small nations to exist, even in the light of purely utilitarian reasons, as important factors in the onward march of the human race, needs no elaborate vindication. The expression “principle of nationality” stands, therefore, for an important force in the scheme of human affairs. But to speak of the principle of nationundoubtality is to indulge in generalities. What you undoubtedly expect, and what should be done here clearly and without equivocation, is that the spokesmen of the various nationalities represented here apply the principle of nationality to specific facts; that they come with a definite programme, at least in outline, in so far as the nation they represent is concerned. This conference has a constructive mission and unless this is fulfilled, it will have been held in vain and our hopes of influencing American public opinion along the right lines will dissolve in a fog of mere words, futile criticisms, and glittering generalities.
