nation, and a fifth to be selected by agreement of the two contracting nations.

Fourthly, for a year's time for investigation and report, during which the parties are not to declare war, or resort to hostilities.

Fifthly, for the reservation by each of the nations of the right to decide for itself, at the conclusion of investigation, what action it will take.

The resemblance between this plan and the plan intended for labor troubles is, as Mr. Bryan says, very apparent. The two most important features are identical; the investigation of all disputes and the reservation of the right to act independently-the second, in Mr. Bryan's opinion, being necessary to the acceptance of the first.

The great trouble with treaties of arbitration has been and is that they leave exceptions-questions of honor, questions of independence, vital interest, and interests of the third parties. It is, however, impossible, as Mr. Bryan himself admits, to eliminate these exceptions, in the present state of public opinion, and his plan is intended to close the gap, as it were, and to leave undiscussed no dispute which may indeed become the cause of war but which should not result in war during the year allowed for investigation and report.

It is also obvious that the plan resembles that proposed for labor disputes, inasmuch as the commission is permanent and each party is allowed to select from among its citizens a member of the commission.

After sufficient time had elapsed for the diplomatic representatives to communicate with their respective countries, Mr. Bryan took up with each country the negotiation of a separate treaty along the line proposed. No attempt was made to enforce the use of any particular phraseology. On the contrary, the nations were assured that the United States stood ready to consider any changes in detail that might be suggested, as Mr. Bryan's desire was to embody in conventional form the provisions necessary to secure the submission of all disputes to investigation before resort to force.

The first treaty was signed with Salvador on the 7th of August, 1913, and thereafter treaties with Guatemala, Panama, Honduras, and Nicaragua in the order named. These treaties, it may be added, contained a provision that the parties should not change their military or naval programmes during the period of investigation, but this clause, objected to by the European nations, was struck out of the five treaties by the

Senate at the time of their ratification, so that the treaties are as a series and as a whole practically uniform.

The Netherlands was appropriately the first of the European nations to sign one of these treaties with the United States.

Only one nation, Mr. Bryan says, objected to any vital principle, and that nation finally yielded its objection to the all-inclusive character of the treaty.

On July 24, 1914, Brazil, Argentina and Chile signed simultaneously. On September 15, 1914, France, Great Britain, Spain, and China likewise signed simultaneously, thus in one day bringing, as Mr. Bryan is accustomed to say, something like nine hundred millions of people under the influence of these treaties which their negotiator believes will tend to make war a remote possibility between the contracting parties. These four treaties, Mr. Bryan adds, had been practically agreed upon for some time, but the contracting nations waited on one another, wishing to sign at the same time. The delay in this instance was apparently due to the desire and the present policy of Great Britain to submit drafts of proposed agreements to its self-governing dominions, in whose favor the treaty contained a clause permitting the withdrawal of the Imperial and the substitution of a Colonial Commissioner chosen by the colony affected.

The treaty with Russia was signed on October 1, 1914. AustriaHungary, Belgium and Germany endorsed the plan, Mr. Bryan assures us, but they did not enter into treaties embodying it, although, to quote Mr. Bryan's exact language on this point, "the same earnest effort was put forth to negotiate treaties with them which was employed in securing treaties with the other nations, and the plan was offered to all nations alike without regard to population, extent of territory, or relative influence."

From an examination of the list it will be noticed, as Mr. Bryan stated to the undersigned: "that nearly all of the nations of large influence are included and the nations which have not endorsed the principle have, as a rule, been restrained by circumstances which readily explain their failure to give endorsement. For instance, Mexico has not until very recently had a government recognized by the United States. Between us and Japan there is an unsettled dispute relating to the California alien laws, and Colombia, the only country in South America which has not signed the treaty, failed to do so because another treaty awaited ratification by the United States."

The principal arguments in favor of Mr. Bryan's plan, are, to quote his exact language instead of paraphrasing it:

First, that it gives time for passion to subside and for reason to resume her sway-a time for cooling off. European diplomats have asserted that a week's time for consideration would have prevented the present war. Our plan gives fifty-two weeks.

Second, it gives time for separation of questions of honor from questions of fact, inasmuch as the line between these two kinds of questions is apt to be obscured in times of excitement.

Third, it gives time for the peace forces of the world to operate. While the treaties do not make war impossible they make it a remote possibility. Nations are not apt to go to war after a year's time spent in investigation of the facts by an international tribunal. The nations have had machinery for war-they could go to war in a week-but strange to say, they had no machinery for the adjustment of disputes which defied diplomatic settlement. They were compelled to rely upon good offices or mediation with nothing to prevent acts of hostilities before either could be offered. The peace treaty plan furnishes the machinery, and it can be invoked as soon as diplomacy fails. The time may come when all questions, without exception, will be submitted to arbitration; until that time, the treaty providing for investigation in all cases is the best insurance we have against war.1

Taking Mr. Bryan's account of the nature, purpose and scope of the treaties, officially called, "Treaties for the Advancement of Peace," as accurate, as indeed Mr. Bryan must be regarded as the primary source of authority in such matters, we are now prepared to consider the texts of the treaties which he negotiated to give effect to his views. They are thirty in number. The first five were quite naturally concluded with American countries, of which Salvador was the first to sign, and these countries were willing to go farther than the European countries in which a step in advance is the subject of much discussion and is only taken with extreme caution. The first European treaty was, as previously stated, appropriately concluded with the Netherlands, which country has been for some years the very pivot and center of an enlightened and reasonable peace movement, and since the meeting of the two Conferences at The Hague and the location in that city of the Peace Palace, due to the munificence of an American citizen, Mr.

1 Letter of Mr. Bryan to J. B. Scott, September 30, 1917.

Andrew Carnegie, to house the Permanent Court of Arbitration and a library for its use, The Hague may with considerable propriety be called the very center and capital of internationalism.

Let us therefore compare the treaties with Salvador and the Netherlands and then pass to a consideration of the other treaties which Mr. Bryan was fortunate enough to negotiate with the remaining American and European countries, and with China and Persia.

But before doing so, it is advisable to state that treaties embodying Mr. Bryan's plan were concluded with the following countries, arranged according to the dates of signature which are given in each instance:

Of these treaties, thirty in number, the Senate of the United States has advised and consented to the ratification of the following twentyeight, arranged in the order of such approval:

Of these twenty-eight, ratifications have been exchanged with the following countries, arranged according to the date of such exchange: