The proposal is not in the least utopian, if by utopian we understand something that is theoretically desirable but impossible. What I propose is221 a working and realizable Utopia. My proposal is that the efficient civilized7 nations—those that are efficient in war as well as in peace—shall join in a world league for the peace of righteousness. This means that they shall by solemn covenant8 agree as to their respective rights which shall not be questioned; that they shall agree that all other questions arising between them shall be submitted to a court of arbitration9; and that they shall also agree—and here comes the vital and essential point of the whole system—to act with the combined military strength of all of them against any recalcitrant10 nation, against any nation which transgresses11 at the expense of any other nation the rights which it is agreed shall not be questioned, or which on arbitrable matters refuses to submit to the decree of the arbitral court.
In its essence this plan means that there shall be a great international treaty for the peace of righteousness; that this treaty shall explicitly12 secure to each nation and except from the operations of any international tribunal such matters as its territorial13 integrity, honor, and vital interest, and shall guarantee it in the possession of these rights; that this treaty shall therefore by its own terms explicitly provide against making foolish promises which cannot and ought not to be kept; that this treaty shall be observed with absolute222 good faith—for it is worse than useless to enter into treaties until their observance in good faith is efficiently14 secured. Finally, and most important, this treaty shall put force back of righteousness, shall provide a method of securing by the exercise of force the observance of solemn international obligations. This is to be accomplished15 by all the powers covenanting16 to put their whole strength back of the fulfilment of the treaty obligations, including the decrees of the court established under and in accordance with the treaty.
This proposal, therefore, meets the well-found objections against the foolish and mischievous17 all-inclusive arbitration treaties recently negotiated by Mr. Bryan under the direction of President Wilson. These treaties, like the all-inclusive arbitration treaties which President Taft started to negotiate, explicitly include as arbitrable, or as proper subjects for action by joint18 commissions, questions of honor and of vital national interest. No such provision should be made. No such provision is made as among private individuals in any civilized community. No man is required to “arbitrate” a slap in the face or an insult to his wife; no man is expected to “arbitrate” with a burglar or a highwayman. If in private life one individual takes action which immediately jeopardizes20 the life or limb or even the bodily well-being22 and the comfort of another, the wronged party223 does not have to go into any arbitration with the wrong-doer. On the contrary, the policeman or constable23 or sheriff immediately and summarily arrests the wrong-doer. The subsequent trial is not in the nature of arbitration at all. It is in the nature of a criminal proceeding24. The wronged man is merely a witness and not necessarily an essential witness. For example, if, in the streets of New York, one man assaults another or steals his watch, and a policeman is not near by, the wronged man is not only justified26 in knocking down the assailant or thief, but fails in his duty if he does not so act. If a policeman is near by, the policeman promptly27 arrests the wrong-doer. The magistrate28 does not arbitrate the question of property rights in the watch nor anything about the assault. He satisfies himself as to the facts and delivers judgment29 against the offender30.
A covenant between the United States and any other power to arbitrate all questions, including those involving national honor and interest, neither could nor ought to be kept. Such a covenant will be harmless only if no such questions ever arise. Now, all the worth of promises made in the abstract lies in the way in which they are fulfilled in the concrete. The Wilson-Bryan arbitration treaties are to be tested in this manner. The theory is, of course, that these treaties are to be made with all nations, and this is correct, because224 it would be a far graver thing to refuse to make them with some nations than to refuse to enter into them with any nation at all. The proposal is, in effect, and disregarding verbiage31, that all questions shall be arbitrated or settled by the action of a joint commission—questions really vital to us would, as a matter of fact, be settled adversely32 to us pending33 such action. There are many such questions which in the concrete we would certainly not arbitrate. I mention one, only as an example. Do Messrs. Wilson and Bryan, or do they not, mean to arbitrate, if Japan should so desire, the question whether Japanese laborers34 are to be allowed to come in unlimited36 numbers to these shores? If they do mean this, let them explicitly state that fact—merely as an illustration—to the Senate committee, so that the Senate committee shall understand what it is doing when it ratifies37 these treaties. If they do not mean this, then let them promptly withdraw all the treaties so as not to expose us to the charge of hypocrisy38, of making believe to do what we have no intention of doing, and of making promises which we have no intention of keeping. I have mentioned one issue only; but there are scores of other issues which I could mention which this government would under no circumstances agree to arbitrate.
In the same way, we must explicitly recognize225 that all the peace congresses and the like that have been held of recent years have done no good whatever to the cause of world peace. All their addresses and resolutions about arbitration and disarmament and such matters have been on the whole slightly worse than useless. Disregarding the Hague conventions, it is the literal fact that none of the peace congresses that have been held for the last fifteen or twenty years—to speak only of those of which I myself know the workings—have accomplished the smallest particle of good. In so far as they have influenced free, liberty-loving, and self-respecting nations not to take measures for their own defense39 they have been positively40 mischievous. In no respect have they achieved anything worth achieving; and the present world war proves this beyond the possibility of serious question.
The Hague conventions stand by themselves. They have accomplished a certain amount—although only a small amount—of actual good. This was in so far as they furnished means by which nations which did not wish to quarrel were able to settle international disputes not involving their deepest interests. Questions between nations continually arise which are not of first-class importance; which, for instance, refer to some illegal act by or against a fishing schooner41, to some difficulty concerning contracts, to some226 question of the interpretation43 of a minor44 clause in a treaty, or to the sporadic45 action of some hot-headed or panic-struck official. In these cases, where neither nation wishes to go to war, the Hague court has furnished an easy method for the settlement of the dispute without war. This does not mark a very great advance; but it is an advance, and was worth making.
The fact that it is the only advance that the Hague court has accomplished makes the hysterical46 outbursts formerly47 indulged in by the ultrapacificists concerning it seem in retrospect48 exceedingly foolish. While I had never shared the hopes of these ultrapacificists, I had hoped for more substantial good than has actually come from the Hague conventions. This was because I accept promises as meaning something. The ultrapacificists, whether from timidity, from weakness, or from sheer folly, seem wholly unable to understand that the fulfilment of a promise has anything to do with making the promise. The most striking example that could possibly be furnished has been furnished by Belgium. Under my direction as President, the United States signed the Hague conventions. All the nations engaged in the present war signed these conventions, although one or two of the nations qualified49 their acceptance, or withheld50 their signatures to certain articles.227 This, however, did not in the least relieve the signatory powers from the duty to guarantee one another in the enjoyment51 of the rights supposed to be secured by the conventions. To make this guarantee worth anything, it was, of course, necessary actively52 to enforce it against any power breaking the convention or acting53 against its clear purpose. To make it really effective it should be enforced as quickly against non-signatory as against signatory powers; for to give a power free permission to do wrong if it did not sign would put a premium54 on non-signing, so far as big, aggressive powers are concerned.
I authorized55 the signature of the United States to these conventions. They forbid the violation56 of neutral territory, and, of course, the subjugation57 of unoffending neutral nations, as Belgium has been subjugated58. They forbid such destruction as that inflicted59 on Louvain, Dinant, and other towns in Belgium, the burning of their priceless public libraries and wonderful halls and churches, and the destruction of cathedrals such as that at Rheims. They forbid the infliction60 of heavy pecuniary61 penalties and the taking of severe punitive62 measures at the expense of civilian63 populations. They forbid the bombardment—of course including the dropping of bombs from aeroplanes—of unfortified cities and of cities228 whose defenses were not at the moment attacked. They forbid such actions as have been committed against various cities, Belgian, French, and English, not for military reason but for the purpose of terrorizing the civilian population by killing64 and wounding men, women, and children who were non-combatants. All of these offenses65 have been committed by Germany. I took the action I did in directing these conventions to be signed on the theory and with the belief that the United States intended to live up to its obligations, and that our people understood that living up to solemn obligations, like any other serious performance of duty, means willingness to make effort and to incur66 risk. If I had for one moment supposed that signing these Hague conventions meant literally67 nothing whatever beyond the expression of a pious68 wish which any power was at liberty to disregard with impunity69, in accordance with the dictation of self-interest, I would certainly not have permitted the United States to be a party to such a mischievous farce70. President Wilson and Secretary Bryan, however, take the view that when the United States assumes obligations in order to secure small and unoffending neutral nations or non-combatants generally against hideous71 wrong, its action is not predicated on any intention to make the guarantee effective. They take the view that when229 we are asked to redeem72 in the concrete, promises we made in the abstract, our duty is to disregard our obligations and to preserve ignoble73 peace for ourselves by regarding with cold-blooded and timid indifference74 the most frightful75 ravages76 of war committed at the expense of a peaceful and unoffending country. This is the cult42 of cowardice77. That Messrs. Wilson and Bryan profess78 it and put it in action would be of small consequence if only they themselves were concerned. The importance of their action is that it commits the United States.
Elaborate technical arguments have been made to justify79 this timid and selfish abandonment of duty, this timid and selfish failure to work for the world peace of righteousness, by President Wilson and Secretary Bryan. No sincere believer in disinterested80 and self-sacrificing work for peace can justify it; and work for peace will never be worth much unless accompanied by courage, effort, and self-sacrifice. Yet those very apostles of pacificism who, when they can do so with safety, scream loudest for peace, have made themselves objects of contemptuous derision by keeping silence in this crisis, or even by praising Mr. Wilson and Mr. Bryan for having thus abandoned the cause of peace. They are supported by the men who insist that all that we are concerned with is escaping even the smallest risk that might follow230 upon the performance of duty to any one except ourselves. This last is not a very exalted81 plea. It is, however, defensible. But if, as a nation, we intend to act in accordance with it, we must never promise to do anything for any one else.
The technical arguments as to the Hague conventions not requiring us to act will at once be brushed aside by any man who honestly and in good faith faces the situation. Either the Hague conventions meant something or else they meant nothing. If, in the event of their violation, none of the signatory powers were even to protest, then of course they meant nothing; and it was an act of unspeakable silliness to enter into them. If, on the other hand, they meant anything whatsoever82, it was the duty of the United States, as the most powerful, or at least the richest and most populous83, neutral nation, to take action for upholding them when their violation brought such appalling84 disaster to Belgium. There is no escape from this alternative.
The first essential to working out successfully any scheme whatever for world peace is to understand that nothing can be accomplished unless the powers entering into the agreement act in precisely85 the reverse way from that in which President Wilson and Secretary Bryan have acted as regards the Hague conventions and the all-inclusive arbitration treaties during the past six231 months. The prime fact to consider in securing any peace agreement worth entering into, or that will have any except a mischievous effect, is that the nations entering into the agreement shall make no promises that ought not to be made, that they shall in good faith live up to the promises that are made, and that they shall put their whole strength unitedly back of these promises against any nation which refuses to carry out the agreement, or which, if it has not made the agreement, nevertheless violates the principles which the agreement enforces. In other words, international agreements intended to produce peace must proceed much along the lines of the Hague conventions; but a power signing them, as the United States signed the Hague conventions, must do so with the intention in good faith to see that they are carried out, and to use force to accomplish this, if necessary.
To violate these conventions, to violate neutrality treaties, as Germany has done in the case of Belgium, is a dreadful wrong. It represents the gravest kind of international wrong-doing. But it is really not quite so contemptible86, it does not show such short-sighted and timid inefficiency87, and, above all, such selfish indifference to the cause of permanent and righteous peace as has been shown by us of the United States (thanks to President Wilson and Secretary Bryan)232 in refusing to fulfil our solemn obligations by taking whatever action was necessary in order to clear our skirts from the guilt88 of tame acquiescence89 in a wrong which we had solemnly undertaken to oppose.
It has been a matter of very real regret to me to have to speak in the way I have felt obliged to speak as to German wrong-doing in Belgium, because so many of my friends, not only Germans, but Americans of German birth and even Americans of German descent, have felt aggrieved90 at my position. As regards my friends, the Americans of German birth or descent, I can only say that they are in honor bound to regard all international matters solely91 from the standpoint of the interest of the United States, and of the demands of a lofty international morality. I recognize no divided allegiance in American citizenship92. As regards Germany, my stand is for the real interest of the mass of the German people. If the German people as a whole would only look at it rightly, they would see that my position is predicated upon the assumption that we ought to act as unhesitatingly in favor of Germany if Germany were wronged as in favor of Belgium when Belgium is wronged.
There are in Germany a certain number of Germans who adopt the Treitschke and Bernhardi view of Germany’s destiny and of international233 morality generally. These men are fundamentally exactly as hostile to America as to all other foreign powers. They look down with contempt upon Americans as well as upon all other foreigners. They regard it as their right to subdue93 these inferior beings. They acknowledge toward them no duty, in the sense that duty is understood between equals. I call the attention of my fellow Americans of German origin who wish this country to act toward Belgium, not in accordance with American traditions, interests, and ideals, but in accordance with the pro-German sympathies of certain citizens of German descent, to the statement of Treitschke that “to civilization at large the [Americanizing] of the German-Americans means a heavy loss. Among Germans there can no longer be any question that the civilization of mankind suffers every time a German is transformed into a Yankee.”
I do not for one moment believe that the men who follow Treitschke in his hatred94 of and contempt for all non-Germans, and Bernhardi in his contempt for international morality, are a majority of the German people or even a very large minority. I think that the great majority of the Germans, who have approved Germany’s action toward Belgium, have been influenced by the feeling that it was a vital necessity in order to save Germany from destruction and subjugation by234 France and Russia, perhaps assisted by England. Fear of national destruction will prompt men to do almost anything, and the proper remedy for outsiders to work for is the removal of the fear. If Germany were absolutely freed from danger of aggression95 on her eastern and western frontiers, I believe that German public sentiment would refuse to sanction such acts as those against Belgium. The only effective way to free it from this fear is to have outside nations like the United States in good faith undertake the obligation to defend Germany’s honor and territorial integrity, if attacked, exactly as they would defend the honor and territorial integrity of Belgium, or of France, Russia, Japan, or England, or any other well-behaved, civilized power, if attacked.
This can only be achieved by some such world league of peace as that which I advocate. Most important of all, it can only be achieved by the willingness and ability of great, free powers to put might back of right, to make their protest against wrong-doing effective by, if necessary, punishing the wrong-doer. It is this fact which makes the clamor of the pacificists for “peace, peace,” without any regard to righteousness, so abhorrent96 to all right-thinking people. There are multitudes of professional pacificists in the United States, and of well-meaning but ill-informed persons who sympathize with them from ignorance.235 There are not a few astute97 persons, bankers of foreign birth, and others, who wish to take sinister98 advantage of the folly of these persons, in the interest of Germany. All of these men clamor for immediate19 peace. They wish the United States to take action for immediate peace or for a truce99, under conditions designed to leave Belgium with her wrongs unredressed and in the possession of Germany. They strive to bring about a peace which would contain within itself the elements of frightful future disaster, by making no effective provision to prevent the repetition of such wrong-doing as has been inflicted upon Belgium. All of the men advocating such action, including the professional pacificists, the big business men largely of foreign birth, and the well-meaning but feeble-minded creatures among their allies, and including especially all those who from sheer timidity or weakness shrink from duty, occupy a thoroughly101 base and improper102 position. The peace advocates of this stamp stand on an exact par21 with men who, if there was an epidemic103 of lawlessness in New York, should come together to demand the immediate cessation of all activity by the police, and should propose to substitute for it a request that the highwaymen, white slavers, black-handers, and burglars cease their activities for the moment on condition of retaining undisturbed possession of the ill-gotten spoils they236 had already acquired. The only effective friend of peace in a big city is the man who makes the police force thoroughly efficient, who tries to remove the causes of crime, but who unhesitatingly insists upon the punishment of criminals. Pacificists who believe that all use of force in international matters can be abolished will do well to remember that the only efficient police forces are those whose members are scrupulously104 careful not to commit acts of violence when it is possible to avoid them, but who are willing and able, when the occasion arises, to subdue the worst kind of wrong-doers by means of the only argument that wrong-doers respect, namely, successful force. What is thus true in private life is similarly true in international affairs.
No man can venture to state the exact details that should be followed in securing such a world league for the peace of righteousness. But, not to leave the matter nebulous, I submit the following plan. It would prove entirely105 workable, if nations entered into it with good faith, and if they treated their obligations under it in the spirit in which the United States treated its obligations as regarded the independence of Cuba, giving good government to the Philippines, and building the Panama Canal; the same spirit in which England acted when the neutrality of Belgium was violated.
237 All the civilized powers which are able and willing to furnish and to use force, when force is required to back up righteousness—and only the civilized powers who possess virile106 manliness107 of character and the willingness to accept risk and labor35 when necessary to the performance of duty are entitled to be considered in this matter—should join to create an international tribunal and to provide rules in accordance with which that tribunal should act. These rules would have to accept the status quo at some given period; for the endeavor to redress100 all historical wrongs would throw us back into chaos108. They would lay down the rule that the territorial integrity of each nation was inviolate109; that it was to be guaranteed absolutely its sovereign rights in certain particulars, including, for instance, the right to decide the terms on which immigrants should be admitted to its borders for purposes of residence, citizenship, or business; in short, all its rights in matters affecting its honor and vital interest. Each nation should be guaranteed against having any of these specified110 rights infringed111 upon. They would not be made arbitrable, any more than an individual’s right to life and limb is made arbitrable; they would be mutually guaranteed. All other matters that could arise between these nations should be settled by the international court. The judges should act not as238 national representatives, but purely113 as judges, and in any given case it would probably be well to choose them by lot, excluding, of course, the representatives of the powers whose interests were concerned. Then, and most important, the nations should severally guarantee to use their entire military force, if necessary, against any nation which defied the decrees of the tribunal or which violated any of the rights which in the rules it was expressly stipulated114 should be reserved to the several nations, the rights to their territorial integrity and the like. Under such conditions—to make matters concrete—Belgium would be safe from any attack such as that made by Germany, and Germany would be relieved from the haunting fear its people now have lest the Russians and the French, backed by other nations, smash the empire and its people.
In addition to the contracting powers, a certain number of outside nations should be named as entitled to the benefits of the court. These nations should be chosen from those which are as civilized and well-behaved as the great contracting nations, but which, for some reason or other, are unwilling115 or unable to guarantee to help execute the decrees of the court by force. They would have no right to take part in the nomination116 of judges, for no people are entitled to do anything toward establishing a court unless they239 are able and willing to face the risk, labor, and self-sacrifice necessary in order to put police power behind the court. But they would be treated with exact justice; and in the event of any one of the great contracting powers having trouble with one of them, they would be entitled to go into court, have a decision rendered, and see the decision supported, precisely as in the case of a dispute between any two of the great contracting powers themselves.
No power should be admitted into the first circle, that of the contracting powers, unless it is civilized, well-behaved, and able to do its part in enforcing the decrees of the court. China, for instance, could not be admitted, nor could Turkey, although for different reasons, whereas such nations as Germany, France, England, Italy, Russia, the United States, Japan, Brazil, the Argentine, Chile, Uruguay, Switzerland, Holland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Belgium would all be entitled to go in. If China continues to behave as well as it has during the last few years it might soon go into the second line of powers which would be entitled to the benefits of the court, although not entitled to send judges to it. Mexico would, of course, not be entitled to admission at present into either circle. At present every European power with the exception of Turkey would be so entitled; but sixty years240 ago the kingdom of Naples, for instance, would not have been entitled to come in, and there are various South American communities which at the present time would not be entitled to come in; and, of course, this would at present be true of most independent Asiatic states and of all independent African states. The council should have power to exclude any nation which completely fell from civilization, as Mexico, partly with the able assistance of President Wilson’s administration, has fallen during the past few years. There are various South and Central American states which have never been entitled to the consideration as civilized, orderly, self-respecting powers which would entitle them to be treated on terms of equality in the fashion indicated. As regards these disorderly and weak outsiders, it might well be that after a while some method would be devised to deal with them by common agreement of the civilized powers; but until this was devised and put into execution they would have to be left as at present.
Of course, grave difficulties would be encountered in devising such a plan and in administering it afterward117, and no human being can guarantee that it would absolutely succeed. But I believe that it could be made to work and that it would mark a very great improvement over what obtains now. At this moment there is hell in241 Belgium and hell in Mexico; and the ultrapacificists in this country have their full share of the responsibility for this hell. They are not primary factors in producing it. They lack the virile power to be primary factors in producing anything, good or evil, that needs daring and endurance. But they are secondary factors; for the man who tamely acquiesces118 in wrong-doing is a secondary factor in producing that wrong-doing. Most certainly the proposed plan would be dependent upon reasonable good faith for its successful working, but this is only to say what is also true of every human institution. Under the proposed plan there would be a strong likelihood of bettering world conditions. If it is a Utopia, it is a Utopia of a very practical kind.
Such a plan is as yet in the realm of mere25 speculation119. At present the essential thing for each self-respecting, liberty-loving nation to do is to put itself in position to defend its own rights. Recently President Wilson, in his message to Congress, has announced that we are in no danger and will not be in any danger; and ex-President Taft has stated that the awakening120 of interest in our defenses indicates “mild hysteria.” Such utterances121 show fatuous122 indifference to the teachings of history. They represent precisely the attitude which a century ago led to the burning of Washington by a small expeditionary hostile force, and to such paralyzing disaster in war as almost to242 bring about the break-up of the union. In his message President Wilson justifies123 a refusal to build up our navy by asking—as if we were discussing a question of pure metaphysics—“When will the experts tell us just what kind of ships we should construct—and when will they be right for ten years together? Who shall tell us now what sort of navy to build?” and actually adds, after posing and leaving unanswered these questions: “I turn away from the subject. It is not new. There is no need to discuss it.” Lovers of Dickens who turn to the second paragraph of chapter XI of “Our Mutual112 Friend” will find this attitude of President Wilson toward preparedness interestingly paralleled by the attitude Mr. Podsnap took in “getting rid of disagreeables” by the use of the phrases, “I don’t want to know about them! I refuse to discuss them! I don’t admit them!” thus “clearing the world of its most difficult problems by sweeping124 them behind him. For they affronted125 him.” If during the last ten years England’s attitude toward preparedness for war and the upbuilding of her navy had been determined126 by statesmanship such as is set forth127 in these utterances of President Wilson, the island would now be trampled128 into bloody129 mire130, as Belgium has been trampled. If Germany had followed such advice—or rather no advice-during the last ten years, she would now have been wholly unable so much as to assert her rights anywhere.
243 Let us immediately make our navy thoroughly efficient; and this can only be done by reversing the policy that President Wilson has followed for twenty-two months. Recently Secretary Daniels has said, as quoted by the press, that he intends to provide for the safety of both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts by dividing our war fleet between the two oceans. Such division of the fleet, having in view the disaster which exactly similar action brought on Russia ten years ago, would be literally a crime against the nation. Neither our foreign affairs nor our naval131 affairs can be satisfactorily managed when the President is willing to put in their respective departments gentlemen like Messrs. Bryan and Daniels. President Wilson would not have ventured to make either of these men head of the Treasury132 Department, because he would thereby133 have offended the concrete interests of American business men. But as Secretary of State and Secretary of the Navy the harm they do is to the country as a whole. No concrete interest is immediately affected134; and, as it is only our own common welfare in the future, only the welfare of our children, only the honor and interest of the United States through the generations that are concerned, it is deemed safe to disregard this welfare and to take chances with our national honor and interest.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
celebrated
|
|
| adj.有名的，声誉卓著的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
heartily
|
|
| adv.衷心地，诚恳地，十分，很 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
adoption
|
|
| n.采用，采纳，通过；收养 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
contestants
|
|
| n.竞争者，参赛者( contestant的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
folly
|
|
| n.愚笨，愚蠢，蠢事，蠢行，傻话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
civilized
|
|
| a.有教养的，文雅的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
covenant
|
|
| n.盟约，契约；v.订盟约 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
arbitration
|
|
| n.调停，仲裁 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
recalcitrant
|
|
| adj.倔强的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
transgresses
|
|
| n.超越( transgress的名词复数 )；越过；违反；违背v.超越( transgress的第三人称单数 )；越过；违反；违背 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
explicitly
|
|
| ad.明确地，显然地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
territorial
|
|
| adj.领土的，领地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
efficiently
|
|
| adv.高效率地，有能力地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
accomplished
|
|
| adj.有才艺的；有造诣的；达到了的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
covenanting
|
|
| v.立约，立誓( covenant的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
17
mischievous
|
|
| adj.调皮的，恶作剧的，有害的，伤人的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
joint
|
|
| adj.联合的，共同的；n.关节，接合处；v.连接，贴合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
jeopardizes
|
|
| 危及，损害( jeopardize的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
par
|
|
| n.标准，票面价值，平均数量；adj.票面的，平常的，标准的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
well-being
|
|
| n.安康，安乐，幸福 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
constable
|
|
| n.(英国)警察，警官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
promptly
|
|
| adv.及时地，敏捷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
magistrate
|
|
| n.地方行政官，地方法官，治安官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
offender
|
|
| n.冒犯者，违反者，犯罪者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
verbiage
|
|
| n.冗词；冗长 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
adversely
|
|
| ad.有害地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
pending
|
|
| prep.直到，等待…期间；adj.待定的；迫近的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
laborers
|
|
| n.体力劳动者，工人( laborer的名词复数 )；（熟练工人的）辅助工 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
labor
|
|
| n.劳动，努力，工作，劳工；分娩；vi.劳动，努力，苦干；vt.详细分析；麻烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
unlimited
|
|
| adj.无限的，不受控制的，无条件的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
ratifies
|
|
| v.批准，签认（合约等）( ratify的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
hypocrisy
|
|
| n.伪善，虚伪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
defense
|
|
| n.防御，保卫；[pl.]防务工事；辩护，答辩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
positively
|
|
| adv.明确地，断然，坚决地；实在，确实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
schooner
|
|
| n.纵帆船 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
cult
|
|
| n.异教，邪教；时尚，狂热的崇拜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
interpretation
|
|
| n.解释，说明，描述；艺术处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
minor
|
|
| adj.较小(少)的，较次要的；n.辅修学科；vi.辅修 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
sporadic
|
|
| adj.偶尔发生的 [反]regular；分散的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
hysterical
|
|
| adj.情绪异常激动的，歇斯底里般的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
retrospect
|
|
| n.回顾，追溯；v.回顾，回想，追溯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
qualified
|
|
| adj.合格的，有资格的，胜任的，有限制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
withheld
|
|
| withhold过去式及过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
enjoyment
|
|
| n.乐趣；享有；享用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
actively
|
|
| adv.积极地，勤奋地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
premium
|
|
| n.加付款；赠品；adj.高级的；售价高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
authorized
|
|
| a.委任的，许可的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
violation
|
|
| n.违反(行为)，违背(行为)，侵犯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
subjugation
|
|
| n.镇压，平息，征服 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
subjugated
|
|
| v.征服，降伏( subjugate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
inflicted
|
|
| 把…强加给，使承受，遭受( inflict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
infliction
|
|
| n.（强加于人身的）痛苦，刑罚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
pecuniary
|
|
| adj.金钱的；金钱上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
punitive
|
|
| adj.惩罚的，刑罚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
civilian
|
|
| adj.平民的，民用的，民众的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
killing
|
|
| n.巨额利润；突然赚大钱，发大财 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
offenses
|
|
| n.进攻( offense的名词复数 )；（球队的）前锋；进攻方法；攻势 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
incur
|
|
| vt.招致，蒙受，遭遇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
literally
|
|
| adv.照字面意义，逐字地；确实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
pious
|
|
| adj.虔诚的；道貌岸然的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
impunity
|
|
| n.(惩罚、损失、伤害等的)免除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
farce
|
|
| n.闹剧，笑剧，滑稽戏；胡闹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
hideous
|
|
| adj.丑陋的，可憎的，可怕的，恐怖的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
redeem
|
|
| v.买回，赎回，挽回，恢复，履行（诺言等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
ignoble
|
|
| adj.不光彩的，卑鄙的；可耻的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
indifference
|
|
| n.不感兴趣，不关心，冷淡，不在乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
frightful
|
|
| adj.可怕的；讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
ravages
|
|
| 劫掠后的残迹，破坏的结果，毁坏后的残迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
cowardice
|
|
| n.胆小，怯懦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
profess
|
|
| v.声称，冒称，以...为业，正式接受入教，表明信仰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
disinterested
|
|
| adj.不关心的，不感兴趣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
exalted
|
|
| adj.(地位等)高的，崇高的；尊贵的，高尚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
whatsoever
|
|
| adv.（用于否定句中以加强语气）任何；pron.无论什么 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
populous
|
|
| adj.人口稠密的，人口众多的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
appalling
|
|
| adj.骇人听闻的，令人震惊的，可怕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
contemptible
|
|
| adj.可鄙的，可轻视的，卑劣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
inefficiency
|
|
| n.无效率，无能；无效率事例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
guilt
|
|
| n.犯罪；内疚；过失，罪责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
acquiescence
|
|
| n.默许；顺从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
aggrieved
|
|
| adj.愤愤不平的，受委屈的；悲痛的；（在合法权利方面）受侵害的v.令委屈，令苦恼，侵害( aggrieve的过去式)；令委屈，令苦恼，侵害( aggrieve的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
solely
|
|
| adv.仅仅，唯一地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
citizenship
|
|
| n.市民权，公民权，国民的义务(身份) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
subdue
|
|
| vt.制服，使顺从，征服；抑制，克制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
hatred
|
|
| n.憎恶，憎恨，仇恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
aggression
|
|
| n.进攻，侵略，侵犯，侵害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
abhorrent
|
|
| adj.可恶的，可恨的，讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
astute
|
|
| adj.机敏的，精明的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
sinister
|
|
| adj.不吉利的，凶恶的，左边的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
truce
|
|
| n.休战，(争执，烦恼等的)缓和；v.以停战结束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
redress
|
|
| n.赔偿，救济，矫正；v.纠正，匡正，革除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
improper
|
|
| adj.不适当的，不合适的，不正确的，不合礼仪的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
epidemic
|
|
| n.流行病；盛行；adj.流行性的，流传极广的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
scrupulously
|
|
| adv.一丝不苟地；小心翼翼地，多顾虑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
virile
|
|
| adj.男性的；有男性生殖力的；有男子气概的；强有力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
manliness
|
|
| 刚毅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
chaos
|
|
| n.混乱，无秩序 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
inviolate
|
|
| adj.未亵渎的，未受侵犯的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
specified
|
|
| adj.特定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
infringed
|
|
| v.违反（规章等）( infringe的过去式和过去分词 )；侵犯（某人的权利）；侵害（某人的自由、权益等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
mutual
|
|
| adj.相互的，彼此的；共同的，共有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
stipulated
|
|
| vt.& vi.规定；约定adj.[法]合同规定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
unwilling
|
|
| adj.不情愿的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
nomination
|
|
| n.提名，任命，提名权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
afterward
|
|
| adv.后来；以后 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
acquiesces
|
|
| v.默认，默许( acquiesce的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
119
speculation
|
|
| n.思索，沉思；猜测；投机 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
awakening
|
|
| n.觉醒，醒悟 adj.觉醒中的；唤醒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
utterances
|
|
| n.发声( utterance的名词复数 )；说话方式；语调；言论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
fatuous
|
|
| adj.愚昧的；昏庸的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
justifies
|
|
| 证明…有理( justify的第三人称单数 )； 为…辩护； 对…作出解释； 为…辩解（或辩护） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
sweeping
|
|
| adj.范围广大的，一扫无遗的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
affronted
|
|
| adj.被侮辱的，被冒犯的v.勇敢地面对( affront的过去式和过去分词 )；相遇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
trampled
|
|
| 踩( trample的过去式和过去分词 )； 践踏； 无视； 侵犯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
bloody
|
|
| adj.非常的的；流血的；残忍的；adv.很；vt.血染 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
mire
|
|
| n.泥沼，泥泞；v.使...陷于泥泞，使...陷入困境 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
naval
|
|
| adj.海军的，军舰的，船的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
treasury
|
|
| n.宝库；国库，金库；文库 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
thereby
|
|
| adv.因此，从而 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
affected
|
|
| adj.不自然的，假装的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |