moment this strong expression of American opinion had great weight. Though disarmament was not definitely arranged for, a Permanent International Tribunal, as the necessary first step towards it, was agreed upon by the delegates. They also arranged for commissions of inquiry and methods of mediation and conciliation between the signatory powers.

Their achievement was the greatest of the kind in human history. The delegates, who had assembled with misgivings, like those at our Constitutional Convention in 1787, parted in confidence and hope.

The Hague Court was opened in April, 1901. A fine mansion was purchased for it-to be used until the Peace Palace provided by Mr. Carnegie is opened—and a permanent secretary installed. It has now a board of one hundred and thirty judges from the countries that ratified the Conventions. These judges remain at home until selected to try a case. Recourse to the Hague Court is optional until nations pledge themselves by arbitration treaties to use it. Several jurists have repeatedly been asked to serve at The Hague, and thus have in a peculiar sense become international judges.

The Hague provision for Commissions of Inquiry prevented strife between England and Russia when the Russian admiral in the North Sea fired on an English fishing fleet as he was on his way to meet Admiral Togo. An international commission of admirals which met in Paris allayed English fury, and Russia paid the widows and orphans more than $300,000 for her blunder. The Hague provision for mediation was used by President Roosevelt when he invited Russia and Japan to send commissioners to settle their war at Portsmouth, N.H.-one of the most romantic achievements of modern history.

The Second Hague Conference

In June, 1907, the Second Hague Conference, the call for which had been delayed by the Russo-Japanese war and the Pan-American Conference, convened with 256 delegates from forty-four nations, representing practically the power and wealth of the world. Hon. Joseph H. Choate headed the American delegation and presented a plea for a Court of Arbitral Justice at The Hague, to supplement (and not abolish) the pres

ent Arbitration Tribunal. This was agreed upon. . . . The Porter-Drago doctrine arranged for the peaceful settlement of difficulties arising from non-payment of contractual debts. Germany, which had been an obstacle to progress in 1899, led to the establishment of a Prize Court, to adjust ownership of captures in war. This marks the first real concession of the absolute right of sovereignty, and is a very important precedent. The Conference was practically unanimous in endorsing the principle of obligatory arbitration. Among provisions agreed to for lessening the injustice of war was that forbidding bombardment of unfortified places.

Peace Congresses

The first International Peace Congress was planned in Boston and held in London in 1843. Of its three hundred delegates, thirty were from the United States. The second received its impulse from Elihu Burritt, and was held in Brussels in 1848. The third, in Paris, in 1849, had an attendance of two thousand, and was presided over by Victor Hugo. The fourth was in Frankfort in 1850, and the fifth in London in 1851. Burritt was an active promoter of all of these last.

The Peace Congresses were revived in 1889, and have been held in London, Rome, Berne, Chicago, Antwerp, Buda-Pesth, Hamburg, Paris, Glasgow, Monaco, Rouen, Boston, Lucerne, Milan, Munich, London, Stockholm, and Geneva. Since the meeting in 1903, most European nations have signed arbitration treaties pledging reference to The Hague Court, and France and England, unfriendly to each other for centuries, have quietly settled by diplomacy a half-dozen matters any one of which in former days might have led to war. The mere fact of a World Court being ready to hear disputes causes many a case to be peaceably settled out of court.

The International Peace Congress of 1904 met in Boston in October, and was opened by Secretary Hay. It was by far the largest International Peace Congress ever held, and was followed by great meetings in many American cities.

National Peace Congresses in addition to the international have been held in England, Germany, France, and the United States. The first National American Peace Congress was held

in New York City from April 14-17, 1907, to arouse public sentiment regarding the points to be considered at the second Hague Conference. Secretary Root addressed it, and many thousands of persons attended it. The Second Congress was in Chicago in 1909. The Third National Peace Congress in 1911, at Baltimore, was opened by President Taft. For the first time since Peace Congresses began, the head of a great nation honored it by his presence.

Two National Arbitration Conferences have been held in this country, in Washington, in 1896 and 1904.

The Annual Mohonk Arbitration Conferences since 1895, to which Mr. Albert K. Smiley annually invited hundreds of judges, college presidents, captains of industry, etc., have had great influence.

OUR ARBITRATION TREATIES1

The Hague Court began operation in 1901, and since that time has had on its docket 17 cases, of which 15 have been decided. Its operation previous to the Second Hague Conference in 1907 demonstrated that while it was sound in principle and timely in appearance, it was inadequate because it was not what it purported to be, a "permanent court of arbitration." For the court established at The Hague was merely a panel of judges from which arbitrators might conveniently be chosen by litigant nations. The next logical step in advance was taken by the United States. Secretary of State Root saw the cogency of the arguments for a court consisting of permanent judges, and in his instructions to the American delegates to the Second Hague Conference he discussed the problem involved and gave this positive direction:

It should be _your_effort to bring about in the Second Conference a development of The Hague Tribunal into a permanent tribunal composed of judges who are judicial officers and nothing else, who are paid adequate salaries, who have no other occupation, and who will devote their entire time to the trial and decision of international causes by judicial methods and under a sense of judicial responsibility.

The American delegates loyally carried out the desire of their Government. Before the conference was over, they had

1 From "A League of Nations." Vol. I. p. 30-8. October, 1917.

enlisted the co-operation of Great Britain and Germany for their plan, which was complete, except for a method of successfully apportioning 15 judges among 44 states. But the American delegates succeeded in having the principle indorsed in the Final Act of the conference, to which was appended the entire project, minus details respecting the composition of the court. Though the conventions signed by the conference required ratification by the powers to become binding, the Final Act did not; so that while the project failed of immediate realization, the wish expressed in the Final Act committed 44 states of the civilized world to the advisability of such a court in these words:

The conference calls the attention of the signatory powers to the advisability of adopting the annexed draft convention for the creation of a Court of Arbitral Justice, and of bringing it into force as soon as an agreement has been reached respecting the selection of the judges and the constitu tion of the court. 1

With the idea of a league of peace backed by regulated force already prominently launched by a former President of the United States, there was formed in New York at almost the time when Mr. Roosevelt was speaking at Kristiania an organization called the World Federation League. This organization proved to be short-lived; but it was instrumental in having Congress consider and pass a joint resolution providing for a commission to study the preservation of peace and the establishment of a combined force for its maintenance. This resolution, which was approved by President Taft on June 25, 1910, is of peculiar significance because it is believed to be the first attempt on the part of any legislature to initiate an organization of the nations of the world, with or without the element of force. The joint resolution as passed reads:

[No. 43.] JOINT RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE APPOINTMENT OF A COMMISSION IN RELATION TO UNIVERSAL PEACE.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That a commission of five members be appointed by the President of the United States to consider the expediency of utilizing existing international agencies for the purpose of limiting the armaments of the nations of the world by international agreement, and of constituting the combined navies of the world an international force for the preservation of universal peace, and to consider and report upon any other means to diminish the expenditures of government for

1 Scott, Texts of the Peace Conference at The Hague 1899 and 1907, 138-139.

military purposes and to lessen the probabilities of war: Provided, That the total expense authorized by this Joint Resolution shall not exceed the sum of ten thousand dollars and that the said commission shall be required to make final report within two years from the date of the passage of this resolution.

Approved June 25, 1910.1

The idea was in advance of its time, even though it correctly expressed the aspirations of the American Congress and the American people. When the Government inquired of other states as to their attitude on the matter and the Department of State examined the world situation with a view to realizing the purpose intended, it was found that action was not possible. There is only one official statement respecting the matter in American public records, but that is clear and accurately reflects the situation at the time. President Taft in his annual message of December 6, 1910, wrote:

I have not as yet made appointments to this commission because I have invited and am awaiting the expression of foreign governments as to their willingness to co-operate with us in the appointment of similar commissions or representatives who would meet with our commissioners and by joint action seek to make their work effective.2

Foreign governments evidently discouraged the American initiative.

Two weeks lacking a day after the publication of this message, President Taft proved how thoroughly he had the cause of pacific settlement at heart by consenting to address the annual meeting of the American Society for Judicial Settlement of International Disputes at its annual banquet. Not only did he lend to the ideal for which the society stood the prestige of his position, but he thrilled his hearers, and the world next day through the newspapers, by suggesting, responsibly, for the first time on behalf of a great power, that the arbitral settlement of every issue between states, whether or not involving honor or vital interest, might be attempted. In his address, he made an assertion which was immediately taken up as indicating a new American policy. His words were:

If now we can negotiate and put through a positive agreement with some great nation to abide the adjudication of an international arbitral court in every issue which can not be settled by negotiation, no matter

1 Statutes at Large, 36. Part I, 885.

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1910, ix.