cousins in London and Brighton, the revolver and the bowie knife reigned where the sheriff and the vigilance committee fell short. And the sixteeninch gun and the submarine torpedo reign in Europe at present solely because there is no supernational sheriff or vigilance committee to adjust the disputes of nations."

Nor is the application of the principle of arbitration novel in international relations. Two Tribunals have been established to decide such controversies as arise from time to time between the United States and Canada; one to deal with such questions as boundary waters and the other with claims between the citizens of the two countries.

It will surprise many to know that no less than thirteen cases have been decided by The Hague Tribunal and that about two hundred arbitrations took place between 1815 and 1900.1 It will be said that these were relatively unimportant matters; that nations do not and will not submit questions of honor or vital interest. In the main, it

1 W. Evans Darby in a Supplement to his International Tribunals entitled Modern Pacific Settlements, lists 477 cases between 1794 and 1900. It is estimated that there have been about 200 since 1900 and that there were 82 or 83 before 1794, making a total of 960. Two hundred and nine arbitration treaties were in force in 1914 when the war broke out.

785253

is true that the questions referred to the International Tribunal for consideration (for without the "sanction" provided for in the League's programme an International Tribunal could do little more than consider matters voluntarily submitted) were of minor importance and did not involve in any way the prerogatives of sovereignty. But surely the Dogger Banks Fisheries case was a question of "honour." Those who know say that England, particularly London, was stirred with indignation and excitement as it seldom has been. The action of Admiral Rozhdestvensky, in firing on the trawlers, sinking the Crane, wounding six fishermen, and killing two, was described as "an unspeakable and unparalleled and cruel outrage.” The findings and indemnity (£65,000) of the International Commission of Inquiry was accepted and the dispute was at an end.1

The execution of the first proposal of the League would mean the setting-up of an International Judicial Tribunal to interpret existing treaties and to administer the existing international law. The Hon. William Howard Taft, President of the League to Enforce Peace, has pointed out that a

1 For a more detailed statement of the issues involved in this celebrated case see Appendix, page 303.

Court to administer international justice is not new. In an address delivered before the National Educational Association at Madison Square Garden, New York, on July 3d, 1916, he said, referring to this proposal, that "the proposal is practical and is justified by precedent. The Supreme Court of the United States, exercising the jurisdiction conferred on it by the Court, sits as a permanent international tribunal to decide issues between the States of the Union. From time to time questions arise between States not settled by the Federal Constitution or Federal statutes. Take the case of Kansas against Colorado, heard and decided by the Supreme Court. Kansas sued Colorado, complaining that Colorado was using for irrigation the Arkansas River running through both States, so as to deprive Kansas of its use. Congress had no power to control Colorado. The case was decided, not by a law of Congress, not by the law of Kansas, not by the law of Colorado, for the law of neither applied. It was decided by the principle of International Law. It was International Law alone that fixed the lines between the States and the Supreme Court enforced them." 1

The Wilson-Bryan treaties, accepted in principle 1 See also the first of the Taft-Bryan debates.

by thirty-three nations, signed by thirty nations and ratified by twenty nations up to this writing, are really an application of the idea of a Commission of Inquiry, concerning which we shall have somewhat to say in the following chapter. But because of the likeness, as well as the difference, between the central principle of all these treaties and the essential idea of the League to Enforce Peace (dilatory treatment) it seems desirable to quote the articles of one of these treaties at this point. Save for a few changes introduced into the treaties with the Netherlands and with Great Britain, all the treaties signed are identic, mutatis mutandis.

ARTICLE I. The high contracting parties agree that all disputes between them, of every nature whatsoever, which diplomacy shall fail to adjust, shall be submitted for investigation and report to an International Commission, to be constituted in the manner prescribed in the next succeeding Article; and they agree not to declare war or begin hostilities during such investigation and report.

ARTICLE II. The International Commission shall be composed of five members, to be appointed as follows: One member shall be chosen from

each country, by the Government thereof; one member shall be chosen by each Government from some third country; the fifth member shall be chosen by common agreement between the two Governments in equal proportion. The International Commission shall be appointed within four months after the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty; and vacancies shall be filled according to the manner of the original appointment.

ARTICLE III. In case the high contracting parties shall have failed to adjust a dispute by diplomatic methods, they shall at once refer it to the International Commission for investigation and report. The International Commission may, however, act upon its own initiative, and in such case it shall notify both Governments and request their co-operation in the investigation. The report of the International Commission shall be completed within one year after the date on which it shall declare its investigation to have begun, unless the high contracting parties shall extend the time by mutual agreement. The report shall be prepared in triplicate; one copy shall be presented to each Government, and the third retained by the Commission for its files. The high contracting parties reserve the right to act independently on the sub