had an opportunity to discuss their differences.16

We hear to-day very much about "the collapse of international law." If Germany had been successful in this war such a pessimistic view might be justified. But Germany has been beaten, overwhelmingly beaten. She has violated treaties and this time it has availed her naught. Before we discard as futile the development of international law through the text-writers, the conferences, the treaties, and the arbitrations of the last three hundred years, it is well to remember that almost the entire civilized world has combined to resist with arms the treaty-breaker. Indeed, it would scarcely be too much to say that the world turned against Germany primarily because she broke treaties. At the time Germany was preparing to renew her great drive in France, Ludendorff was quoted as follows:

I must say that in diplomacy and politics the coalition has beaten us. They put the world in arms against us with a skill which we neither understand nor know how to imitate. It has been brilliant.

16 See John Bassett Moore, Principles of American Diplomacy, pp. 329-337, for some account of these recent treaties and an analysis of the difficulties of securing international arbitration by the United States now as compared to the early days of our independence.

We must therefore speak in the only way they have left us by object lessons; all that language can do they made it do. They have left but one language to us-realities, realities, realities.17

What Ludendorff had failed to understand or imitate was clearly understood by Bismarck! In a speech on February 6, 1888, the Iron Chancellor declared, "If we attack, the whole weight of the imponderables, which weighs much heavier than material weights, will be on the side of the adversaries, whom we have attacked." 18 Was this not a recognition by Bismarck of international law? Ludendorff may have understood what he was pleased to call the "realities' and what Bismarck called "material weights"; but the things that Ludendorff left out of consideration were Bismarck's "imponderables." Ludendorff forgot those customary rules of conduct which the civilized States of the world had been slowly building for three hundred years.

The result of the great war, then, instead of making us despair of international law, should give us added reason for believing in it. The cynic may state that England went to war for trade, and that America joined the war for profit. No rational person, however, can now

17 See New York Times of July 4, 1918.

18 See Munroe Smith, Militarism and Statecraft, pp. 12, 129, 199-200.

accept such an explanation. We must never forget that the great wave of sentiment that kept those nations wholeheartedly in the war was due to a profound belief that the violation of Belgium, the sinking of the Lusitania, the murder of Captain Fryatt, were not only wrongs to the persons and States directly involved, but were international outrages which profoundly disturbed the whole basis of the communal life of civilized States and threatened the safety of the world. President Wilson, in his fourteenpoint speech, made the evacuation and restoration of Belgium of the first importance because of its bearing upon international law:

No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the nations in the laws which they have themselves set and determined for the government of their relations with one another. Without this healing act the whole structure and validity of international law is forever impaired.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

DAVID JAYNE HILL, A History of European Diplomacy.

DAVID JAYNE HILL, World Organization as Affected by the Nature of the Modern State.

W. G. F. PHILLIMORE, Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace.

JOHN BASSETT MOORE, The Principles of American Diplomacy.

JOHN BASSETT MOORE, History and Digest of International Arbitrations.

FREDERICK W. HOLLS, The Peace Conference at The Hague.

ANDREW D. WHITE, The First Hague Conference, reprinted by the World Peace Foundation. JOSEPH H. CHOATE, The Two Hague Conferences. A. PEARCE HIGGINS, The Hague Peace Conference and other International Conferences.

JAMES BROWN SCOTT, Reports to The Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907.

JAMES BROWN SCOTT, Hague Peace Conferences; American Instructions and Reports.

JAMES BROWN SCOTT, The Status of the International Court of Justice.

JAMES BROWN SCOTT, American Addresses at the Second Hague Conference.

JAMES BROWN SCOTT, The Hague Court Reports. WALTHER SCHÜCKING, The International Union of the Hague Conferences.

HANS WEHBERG, The Problem of an International Court of Justice.

THOMAS WILLING BALCH, A World Court in the Light of the United States Supreme Court. WILLIAM I. HULL, The Two Hague Conferences.

V

THE INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES WHICH HAVE BEEN FORCED UPON THE WORLD BY THE DEMANDS OF COMMERCE

R

OUSSEAU, in his essay entitled “A Lasting Peace Through the Federation of Europe," wrote as follows:

The nations of the other continents are too scattered for mutual intercourse; and they lack any other point of union such as Europe has enjoyed. There are other, and more special, causes for this difference. Europe is more evenly populated, more uniformly fertile; it is easier to pass from one part of her to another. The interests of her princes are united by ties of blood, by commerce, arts, and colonies. Communication is made easy by countless rivers winding from one country to another. An inbred love of change impels her inhabitants to constant travel, which frequently leads them to foreign lands. The invention of printing and the general love of letters have given them a basis of common knowledge and common intellectual pursuits. Finally, the number and smallness of her States, the cravings of luxury, and the large diversity of climates