At the beginning of the year 1892, the plan, through the instrumentality of MM. Jules Simon, several times the French Premier, Frederic Passy, for many years the leader in France in the cause of international arbitration, and Dr. Charles Richet, was recommended by La Societe pour l'Arbitrage entre Nations, to the International Peace Congress held at Berne, that year, where it was presented (Bulletin du IV Congres de la Paix, pages 70 and 208).

Subsequent to the first Conference of The Hague, the plan was modified, so as to conform to the establishment of the Court, by the substitution of Tribunals of the Members, for the "Extraordinary Commissions," and presented at the International Peace Congress, held at Rouen, in 1903 (Bulletin du XII Congres Universel de la Paix, pages 113 and 260).

From Rouen, the writer addressed copies of the official circular setting forth the proposition and beginning (Quatre des Grandes Puissances, au moins) (Four of the Great Powers, at least) to a number of persons, including Andrew Carnegie; and the following year, Mr. Carnegie first showed an interest in the cause of international arbitration by sending to the Boston International Peace Congress a letter from which the following is an extract:

"Since we have at last in The Hague Tribunal a permanent High Court for the settlement of international disputes, more and more my thoughts turn upon the next possible and necessary step forward to an agreement by certain powers to prevent appeals to war by civilized nations.

"Suppose, for instance, that Britain, France, Germany and America, with such other minor States as would certainly join them, were to take that position,

prepared, if defied, to enforce peaceful settlement, the first offender (if there ever were one) being rigorously dealt with, war would at one fell swoop be banished from the earth. For such a result, surely the people of those four countries would be willing to risk much. The risk, however, would be trifling. A strong combination would efface it altogether. I think this one simple plan most likely to commend itself to the intelligent masses. A committee might be formed to consider this. If a body of prominent men of each nation agreed to unite in urging the co-operation of their respective countries in the movement, I think the idea would soon spread."

(The Advocate of Peace, for December, 1904, page 233.)

Encouraged by this, the writer at Mr. Carnegie's request, submitted to him a paper prepared for publication in which the isolation feature was thus set forth:

"To shut off intercourse between two nations in dispute, would accomplish but little; as it would probably injure the nation asking for it as much as the offending nation, and raise the opposition of the merchants of the demanding country to overpowering proportions; but a decree, by an organized body representing all of the nations, whereby the offending nation would be cut off from intercourse with all others until it should comply, would be so drastic a force, that no nation would ever allow itself to be placed in such a position.”

A copy was likewise sent to Mr. Justice Brewer and the appreciation of the idea can be seen by the use that they made of it. (See below, under "Indorsements.")

(The writer next suggested to Mr. Carnegie the desirability of inviting William T. Stead to America to aid the arbitration cause, which he did; and, in 1907, Mr. Stead appeared at the Carnegie Hall Congress and subsequently toured the country, inspired the people everywhere and started the formation of societies in all of the leading cities.)

In 1907, the writer arranged a number of these arguments, including those regarding the infeasibility of establishing courts with permanent judges, to be sent to the Delegations of the Several Nations at the Second Conference of The Hague and sent them (in a small blue book) only after obtaining the approval of the Department of State at Washington, as the American Delegation had begun to work for such an institution.. The result is mentioned further on; and, it is considered, fully sustains the position.

The impelling motive for such action was the belief, that time would only be wasted in the adoption of a system established on lines which, it was apparent from the outset, would lead but to disaster and only mislead Americans and all alike, in the belief that the matter had been definitely adjusted and that all could cease further efforts. Foremost along those lines was the introduction of a distinction in representation in a court having to do with matters of justice, based on the size of a nation, thereby opening the way in the society of nations for contentions analogous to those that have taken place among the peoples of all countries to achieve equal consideration, and which have given rise to magna chartas, revolutions, etc.

Furthermore, it was proposed that the jurisdiction of the courts should extend only to disputes such as would

never be the subject of a war: namely, those that the contestants would voluntarily submit to the court, for the nations were already arbitrating such cases, without a permanent court.

Little progress was made in the cause of international arbitration during the following eight or nine years, as the subject was looked upon as academic and utopian; but, from the spring of 1914, many practical men have interested themselves in it and not a few of the very ablest are in favor of the Isolation Plan.

New York, July, 1917.

THE ISOLATION*

(or non-intercourse)

PLAN

CLAIMS

The following claims are made for this plan;

1. It would be adaptable to all classes of cases.

2. It would not derogate from the sovereignty of any nation.

3. It would present the least possible opportunity for domination by any nation.

4. It would lend no encouragement to alliances between nations.

5. It would afford an absolute equality between large and small nations in matters of right.

6. The mode of constituting the (arbitral) courts is the most complete device to assure impartiality.

7. It would permit of the employment in the court of the most eminent minds of the day.

8. It would permit any number of arbitrations to proceed at one time, thereby obviating delays in reaching a cause on a calender.

9. It would be wholly scientific in that it would combine the essential features, and none but such.

10. The sanction would be the most drastic; and yet, not armed force.

11. The application of the sanction would not be directed toward the support of any side of the contention.

*The word Isolation was latterly adopted by the writer instead of "non-intercourse," as the latter does not permit of direct translation.